Cibrarjp of t:he t:heolo0ical ^eminarjp

PRINCETON • NEW JERSEY

Part of
the Addison Alexander Library
which was presented by
Messrs, R.L. and A, Stuart

(y^,l£dJid(ycaU^)^

CXyCL/^tl^m^.

ttf^ l(f^1f.

LECTURES

BIBLICAL CRITICISM,

EXHIBITING A

SYSTEMATIC VIEW OF THAT SCIENCE.

BY SAMUEL "^DAVIDSON, LL.D.

PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE IN THE ROYAL ACADEMICAL
INSTITUTION, BELFAST.

EDINBURGH :
THOMAS CLARK, 38. GEORGE STREET.

LONDON: HAMILTON, ADAMS & CO.— DUBLIN : CURRY & CO.

MDCCCXXXIX.

EDINBURGH :
PRINTED BY J. THOMSON, MILNE SQUARE.

PREFACE.

The following Lectures are presented to the public, in
the hope that they may be found to supply a place in
sacred literature, hitherto unoccupied by any single vo-
lume in the English language. The author originally in-
tended to draw up a mere outline of the prelections de-
livered in his class, for the use of the theological students
that come under his tuition ; but he was afterwards led
to extend his plan, so as to embrace what he considers an
outline of all the subjects naturally belonging to the de-
partment of Biblical Criticism. Enlarging some parts of
the course which he has read in manuscript for a few
sessions, adding a considerable quantity of new matter,
subjoining the description of new topics, and abridging
other places, he determined to give a systematic view of
the whole science, which might be read beyond the circle
of students that attend his prelections. Dissatisfied with
the books to which there is easy access, and not inclined
to point, without admonition, even the more inquiring
students of theology, to German productions that contain
much obnoxious matter, he formed the purpose of
publishing such a course of Lectures as would embrace
all the topics pertaining to Biblical Criticism. The pre-
sent volume is the accomplishment of this purpose ; how
far it may be suited to the inquiring spirit of the times,
it is for the scholar to decide. With regard to the form
of the Lectures, it will be seen, that though they are not
wholly divested of their original costume, yet they are

JV rREFACE.

freed from recapitulations, and other peculiarities usually
pertaining to the didactic discussions of a class-room ;
and, in reference to substance, I have neither aimed at
making them copious nor meagre ; but have endeavour-
ed to steer a middle course, not enlarging upon every
minute point, though at the same time not omitting any
thing important. I have refrained also from turning
aside as little as possible to notice the almost innumerable
opinions that prevail. I thought it unnecessary, and
unsuited to students of theology, to step aside at every
sentence for the purpose of combating some sentiment
advanced by others, or of noticing with approbation some
peculiarity of an author. This would have distracted
attention, and interrupted the progress of the description,
while it would only have served to display an extensive
range of reading, which I am far from wishing to parade
before the world. I have in all cases, however, consider-
ed with attention the opinions of others. I have not
willingly omitted the examination of writings relating to
the same subjects as those discussed in the following
Lectures. I have carefully, and I trust impartially at-
tended to all the information within my reach ; and have
given those views, which appear to myself at least, to be
best supported. Some theories are cursorily noticed,
others passed by without remark, whilst there is often an
entire silence in reference to the objections that have been
urged against the sentiments adopted. I mention these
things, lest it should be supposed by any, that I have not
paid sufficient attention to the opinions of others, and
that I ought to have given the view of this or that
scholar.

In all points I have studied accuracy. Still, however,
it cannot be expected that it has been always attained.
In a volume occupied with so many, and so difficult sub-
jects, I am far from thinking that I have always arrived
at the trutli. But I am quite open to conviction on any

PREFACE.

topic where error may be proved ; and I shall attend to
every suggestion, or friendly animadversion that may be
made, as far as it seems entitled to consideration. I hope
to be always learning.

And here I may state, that I would willingly have dis-
pensed with the discussion of the topics introduced into
the present volume, because they are not altogether suit-
ed to the wants and taste of British theological students.
The Germans, indeed, are accustomed to exalt them to a
primary rank in theology, to the great neglect of He?^-
meneutics ; but in doing so, they show their fondness for
whatever is less valuable and vital. In the externals of
theology, they generally excel all others ; but in the in-
ternal departments of this great science, their perception
is most defective. Gladly, therefore, would I have pass-
ed over the present subjects, and proceeded at once to
inter j)retation. But, in doing so, I would not have dis-
cussed the topics that rightly belong to that department
of theology in which I have been called to labour ; neither
could I have proceeded to hermeneutics with the same
confidence, had not a foundation secure and broad been
previously laid. Besides, in the business of interpreta-
tion, many things would have been necessarily taken for
granted, and many references made to topics, of which the
student must have been in a great measure ignorant.
There was, therefore, no alternative left, but to traverse
the field of biblical criticism, previously to that of inter-
pretation ; although by this procedure we are presenting
the driest and most unattractive objects in the foreground
of the picture. Still it is the foundation on which the
other rests — and although its importance may be unseen
and unvalued, yet it is the true basis on which the beauti-
ful fabric of theology is reared, and without which it
would not present to the eye those majestic and graceful
columns that equally bespeak the power and the wisdom
of the Architect.

VI PREFACE.

But whilst thus in some measure obliged to go over
matters that may be repulsive to many, I am aware that
I have dismissed some of them in a cursory manner. I
have not done them full justice, when compared with the
treatment which they ordinarily receive in the hands of
our continental scholarship. I fear, however, that I may
be even thought by some, to have dwelt too long on mat-
ters whose value none but the accomplished critic can
fully know.

I have used the words genuine and authentic, genuine-
ness and authenticity, synonymously throughout. I am
quite aware that they are not so strictly speaking, and
that I may be blamed for their indiscriminate use. But
there is so great diversity of opinion with regard to their
proper meaning, and they are used by good writers so
diversely, that I thought it might not be amiss to set
them down interchangeably, lest by employing them with
strict philosophical accuracy, such persons as had been
accustomed to meet them in other significations, might be
embarassed and confused. I hold that the term authen-
tic applied to a book, denotes that it is really the produc-
tion of the author whose name it bears ; and that genuine
means that it is substantially the same as when it proceed-
ed from its author. I know that they are used by many
in another way, but I believe that all who do not employ
them in the significations just mentioned, sin against
etymology, no less than against the practice of the best
writers.

The Appendix is intended for those who may wish to
go farther into the topics embraced by the Lectures, than
was consistent with my purpose. It was suggested to
me by my publisher, after part of the Lectures had been
printed, which will explain the appearance of the titles of
several books in the text, that ought to have been in the
Appendix. The student will thus not be obliged to go
out of the book itself for direction ; but will have all the

PREFACE. Vli

aids requisite to conduct him to full satisfaction on every
point. As I did not wish to lengthen it by unnecessary
details, it will be found to contain only the best books on
each topic so far as they were known to me.

In another volume I purpose to treat of hermeneuiics,
or the principles of interpretation, for which the inquirer
will be fully prepared by the present. But the materials
are not yet ready. Time and patience, and lengthened
investigation will be required to prepare such a volume
for the public eye. If Divine providence spare me, I
hope to be able to bring it forth in a somewhat matured
state.

In conclusion, the author of this volume would hope,
that sacred literature may be more zealously cultivated by
candidates for the ministerial office. Its claims have been
too long overlooked. It is still lamentably neglected. Its
value is quite unknown, and its important bearings on
every part of dogmatic theology unperceived by the many.
But it is the duty of all who are interested in the intel-
lectual advancement of mankind, to countenance, and to
promote every effort to diffuse a taste for such studies.
Bigotry may frown upon them — men of narrow and con-
tracted understandings may affect to sneer at them ; but
they prove hereby that they are under the bondage of
ignorance and of prejudice, and that their minds have not
been liberalized by the spirit of intellectual progression
that characterises the present age. The broad sun-light
of truth has not shone upon their understandings. They
are well fitted to denounce those who differ from them
upon any point however trivial, compensating for the
want of thorough inquiry, by the arrogant tone they as-
sume, and by the liberal use of all the opprobrious epi-
thets which religionists have been too eager to fling at
their opponents. They are afraid of the advances of
knowledge, as though a fundamental study of the Bible
would weaken those opinions which they received with-

Vlll PREFACE.

out hesitation, from the lips of a teachei*, or adopted from
the dogmas of a creed, without candid and prayerful ex-
amination. With the friends of such timid policy in
spiritual inquiries we have no unanimity of feeling. The
Scriptures court investigation ; and we would reverently
come to their perusal, availing ourselves of all the helps
that can be advantageously employed.

Belfast College,
August 1st 1839.

CONTENTS.

LECTURE I.

Importance of the Study of Biblical Criticism — too much neglected — some
of the advantages to be derived from its pursuit — ^two senses in which the
term Biblical Criticism has been employed — the mode in which it is em-
ployed in the Lectures — Criticism must precede interpretation — the object
of the former — three sources from which it is derived — MSS., ancient trans-
lations, quotations of early writers — a fourth has been added by some —
great skill and caution necessary in the use of these som^ces — ^time and
training requisite to make a good biblical scholar — the influences of the Holy
Spirit to be sought and implored, ... - pp. 1 — 9

LECTURE IL

A copious description of MSS. not given — the reason of this — not convenient
to omit the topic altogether — the MSS. of the Hebrew Bible briefly noticed —
Jewish MSS. di\-ided into synagogue rolls or sacred copies and private or
common ones — contents of the former — how the parchment is prepared and
divided — rules for making sacred copies enjoined in the Talmud — private
MSS., in what character written — their form — several particulars respect-
ing them stated — several persons usually employed on their different parts
— these copies were never made by Christians but either by Jews or proselytes
— the age of Hebrew jNISS. not always easily ascertained — the causes of
this — varieties of the character in which they are written — the Tam letter
— Velshe letter — Spanish, German, French and Italian character — no
Hebrew MS. older than the 12th century — the ages of a few of the most
ancient — private MSS. written in the Rabbinical character comparatively
modern — of no critical value — the MSS. of the Chinese Jews — the Indian
Pentateuch described by Mr. Yeates — eight exemplars celebrated for then*
correctness — their names — the MSS. of the Greek Testament — theu' mate-
rials— how long written in uncial letters — when the cursive character came
into use — most ancient copies written without any division or mark — how
transcribers generally divided the New Testament — the gospels alone con-
tained in most MSS — the causes of this — why few copies contain the Apo-
calypse— MSS. have frequent chasms — some observations respecting the
umyvuffits or lectionaria — why they are not so much valued as copies of
whole books — evangelistaria— ar^alaTaj-TaXo/ — codices Grseeo-Latini — unjustly

CONTENTS.

accused of Latinizing. — Description of the uncial MSS. of the Greek Tes
tament—A-B-C-D-D-E-E-E-F-F-F-G-G-H-H-H-I-J-K-L-M-N-
0-P-Q-R-S-T-U-V-W-X-Y-Z-r_A_description of codex Montforti-
anus — codex Ravianus — Ottobonianus — mode in which Greek MSS. are
usually arranged by German critics — general observations on ancient MSS.
— their age — accuracy — country — codices critici — how to determine the
genuineness of a reading from MSS — more useful for detecting corruptions
than in restoring the true readings, . . . pp. 10 — 31

LECTURE in.

General observations on ancient versions as a source of genuine readings — not
yet fully examined and described — the manner in which they are treated in
these Lectures — some reasons for adopting it — divided into immediate and
mediate — an enumeration of the versions belonging to these two classes —
the Septuagint version — reason of the name — its true history obscure —
mentioned by Aristobulus the Jew — the passage given and explained — ob-
jections to Aristobulus' account not valid — some considerations favourable
to its truth — reasons for believing that all the books of the Old Testament
were translated under Ptolemy Philadelphus — Hody's objections to this not
satisfactory — the testimony of Jesus the son of Sirach quoted and explained
— the account of the Septuagint given by Aristeas — Josephus agrees with
Aristeas — the difference between Philo and Aristeas respecting the origin
of the Septuagint — Justin Martyr's statement — Epiphanius' do. — in sepa-
rating the true from the fabulous in Aristeas' narrative, Hody and others
have rejected too much — the outline of the origin of this translation given
by Hody — ^reasons for not assenting to his view — reasons for assigning dif-
ferent translators to different parts. — The dialect in which it is made — the
degree of merit due to different books—whether the translator of the Pen-
tateuch followed a Hebrew or Samaritan codex — reasons adduced for the
latter opinion not satisfactory — supposition that the Samaritan and Septu-
agint were mutually interpolated — untenable. — Opinion of Jahn and Bauer
inadmissible — hypothesis of Gesenius and Stuart — objections to it — Lee's
conjecture — not probable — opinion of Tychsen respecting the Septuagint —
the foundation on which it rests — objections to it — great reputation of the
Septuagint among the Jews — notice of it in the Talmuds — reason why it
came to be hated by the Jews — alterations introduced into it — why Origen
undertook to revise its text— time spent in travelling and collecting mate-
rials for it — reason of the different appellations of Origen' s work— the or-
der of the columns and names of the different translations employed in his
work — Origen's object in the work — explanation of the marks used in it —
extent of the whole — when it perished — transcription of the Seventy by
Pamphilus and Eusebius — how corrupted — the Hexaplarian text published
by Montfaucon — Lucian's recension of Seventy— Hesychian recension — the
four principal printed editions of the Seventy — merits and defects of this
ancient translation, ..... pp. 31 — 56.

CONTENTS. XI

LECTURE IV.

Aquila's Greek translation — ^the author — why it was undertaken — when exe-
cuted— accused by the fathers and some of the moderns^ how estimated by

the Jews — its use — Symmachus' translation — its author — age — nature — use

Theodotion's version — its author — age — nature — the fifth, sixth, and seventh
versions — made after the three former — Peshito version — name explained—
notice of it by Ephrem the Syrian — its high antiquity favoured by Ephrem's
account — various traditions regarding its origin — reasons for believing the
account given by Jacob of Edessa — translator's creed — treasons for adopting
the opinion that he was a Christian — probably there were several transla-
tors— reasons for believing that it was made from the Hebrew text — its ap-
proximation to the Seventy — to the Chaldee paraphrases — its contents — esti-
mation in which it was held — its different recensions. — The Peshito in the
New Testament not made according to Marsh till after the canon was form-
ed— objections to this — best edition of the Old Testament Peshito — observa-
tions on the text of the Peshito in the New Testament — the chief editions
of it noticed — use and characteristics of this translation — Philoxenian ver-
sion— ^reason why it should be called the Harclean — when first published —
its character, use, and contents — notice of the true Philoxenian — Palestino-
Syriac — when and where discovered — its age, character, language, country,
extent and use. ... • PP- •^^ — 67

LECTURE V.

Grasca-Veneta — its style, author, extent and value — To Xa/ia^i/rixon— The Sa-
maritan version of the Pentateuch — different accounts of its origin — to what
century to be referred — its internal characteristics — ^its value — where prlbt-
ed — general observations on the age of the Arabic versions of the Scrip-
tures— Saadias' version — its author, age, extent, characteristics, and value —
notice of an Arabic translation of Joshua, with fragments of the books of
Kings and Nehemiah — The Arabic version of the Pentateuch by Erpenius
— when printed — its author, age, and value — The Arabic translation of
Saadias Ben Levi Asnekoth — its author, age, and use. — Abu Said's version
of the Samaritan Pentateuch— its age, style, and value — notice of an Arabic
translation of the Psalms preserved in the Bodleian — a similar version of
Genesis in the library at Manheim. — The immediate Arabic versions of the
New Testament — the Arabic of Erpenius— when printed— the gospels only
immediate — three different impressions — discrepancies between them — its
value— notice of an Arabic version of part of the New Testament printed
in the Paris and London Polyglotts— -the Persian version of the Penta-
teuch in the London Polyglott — its age, character, and value — notice of one
of the Persian versions of the gospels contained in the London Polyglott.

pp. 67—74

^^i CONTENTS.

LECTURE VI.

Latin translations — notice oftheVetus Itala — its name, age, character, and
use — where the remaining fragments of it are to be found- -Jerome's revi-
sion of it — his mode of proceeding — his recensions of the Psalter — the other
books how treated by him — how Jerome's revision of the Old Italic was re-
ceived— what parts of it preserved — his reasons for making a new transla-
tion from the Hebrew — time when it was begun and finished — the New
Testament part not a new translation — his procedure in this work — how
and when it was adopted by the Latin chm^ch — causes of its corruption —
how and when corrected by Alcuin — the corrections of the Latin version
by the Paris theologians, Hugo a S. Caro, and the Dominicans — the
Vulgate, the first book ever printed — the chief editions of it — decree of the
council of Trent respecting it — edition of Sixtus V.— of Clement VHL
— how both these were announced by their editors — differences between
them urged against the infallibility of the Pope — the answer of Roman Ca-
tholics to this argument unsatisfactory — constituents of the present Vulgate
— value and utility of the version, . . . pp.56 — 81

LECTURE Vn.

General remarks on the Egyptian versions of the Scriptm'es — their origin,
names, and number — Memphitic — its age, text, and value — Sahidic — its an-
tiquity and nature — Bashmuric or Ammonian version — different opinions
respecting it — its age — vEthiopic version — its author, age, and characteris-
tics— needs to be correctly edited — Georgian version — its age and value —
the best printed edition of it — Slavonic — by whom and when made — its
nature and value — best edition— Gothic translation — its author, age, and
different impressions — how altered since its origin — the codex Argenteus
described — value of the version — Armenian — by whom and when made —
how corrupted and altered — its utility — best edition of it — ^the Targums —
two opinions respecting their origin — Eichhorn's account combated — natm'e
of the language in which they are written — then* present vowel -pointing —
how the Targums were corrupted — their reputation — derivation of the
word — number of Targums, ... .pp. 81 — 90

LECTURE VHL

Onkelos — when he lived — natm-e of his version — how esteemed by the Jews —
its utility — where printed — Jonathan Ben Uzziel — notice of him — when he
lived — different opinions concerning the time — proceeded from one indivi-
dual— its extent — its style, utility, and best editions — Pseudo-Jonathan on
the Pentateuch — why it cannot be attributed to Jonathan — reasons for its
being later than the sixth century — want of value — Jerusalem Targum on
Pentateuch — reason of name — its contents and character — the result of

CONTENTS. XIU

recent investigations respecting this version — Targums on the Hagiographa
— that on Psalms, Job, and Proverbs, described and characterised — Tar-
gum on the five Megilloth described in its different parts — three Targums

on Esther, where published — their character — Targum on Chronicles

twice published — of little use — Jerusalem Targum on the Prophets — how
known to us— no Targum of Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah— reason of this
given by the Talmud — true cause — general observations on the utility of
the Targums — Hebrew translation of the Chaldee parts of Daniel and Es-
ra — M'hen published — author, age, and value, . . pp. 90 — 97

LECTURE IX.

Samaritan Pentateuch — origin and history of the Samaritans, as given in the
Bible — destruction and rebuilding of their city and temple — numbers
and present place of abode — notice of various correspondences with the
modern Samaritans — Pliny Fisk's account of them quoted — how the Sama-
ritan Pentateuch was procured, and when published — different opinions re-
specting its antiquity, discussed — the true account given, with the reasons
for holding it — different estimates of its value and authority — view of Ge-
senius in his essay on the Samaritan Pentateuch — abstract of this essay —
the place which ought to be assigned to this copy — ^reason why the Samari-
tan is not to be preferred to the Hebrew though the Septuagint generally
agrees with it where it differs from' the Hebrew — result of an investigation
of this point given — Samaritan reading in Exodus xii. 40, not to be preferred
to the Hebrew, and why — uses of the Samaritan Pentateuch, pp. 97 — 111

LECTURE X.

General observations on ancient versions — how they should be applied in cri-
ticism— first ascertain their age — their character — comparative value of the
literal and paraphrastic — circumstances which lessen their value— to be cau-
tiously applied — some of the most valuable specified — how to estimate the
comparative value of versions among themselves in particular cases — how to
proceed when they agree in readings with MSS., and when they differ from
MSS. — reason why so great a collection of various readings is derived from
versions, ...... pp. Ill — 118

LECTURE XL

Quotations of ancient writers — ^general observations on the^ quotations made
by the fathers from the Scriptures — the Greek Fathers more useful than
the Latin, and why — the sources from which they quoted — the quotations
of Clement of Alexandria— of Irenseus — of Origen — Chrysostom — Cjr'il of
Jerusalem— Jerome— Augustine--- Cyril of Alexandria — Isidore of Peliisi-
um — Theodoret — of Theophylact — authors quoting from the HebrcM-
Bible — the Talmud — commentaries of the Rabbins — how to estimate
the quotations in the Talmud of little life, and why — quotations of the

Xiv CONTENTS.

Rabbins usually agree with the Masoretic text— how to apply quota-
tions from the Scriptures to critical purposes — treason why great cau-
tion is necessary — what kind of treatises furnish the most useful quota-
tions— reason why this source of criticism has furnished so many readings
—reason whv it should not be wholly disregarded, . pp. 118— 126

LECTURE XII.

Critical conjecture — opinions respecting its application — useful in ancient
classical authors, but not in the Scriptiu'e? — reason of this — some observa-
tions shewing that it should be wholly discarded — critical and theological
conjecture — evil consequences of adopting conjectures — in what respect con-
jecture is allowable — not admissible in the Old Testament, even when re-
jected from the Old— reason of this, . . pp. 126— 130

LECTURE XIIL

Disputed portions of the New Testament — 1 John v. 7 — the passage as it
stands in the Clementine Vulgate — its form in the Complutensian Polyglott—
reasons why it was translated from the Vulgate — external evidence
against the authenticity of the passage — the external evidence in its
favour with observations on its different parts — internal evidence for
its authenticity, with remarks upon it — causes assigned by its advocates
which might have occasioned its omission in many copies, with observations

thereon the controversy summed up — the passage spurious — ^if genuine, it

would not be an appropriate argument for the Trinity — ^reason of this,

pp. 129—149

LECTURE XIV.

1 Tim. iii. 16 its three different forms — external evidence for hot — internal

evidence external evidence for «V — internal evidence for same — external

evidence for o — internal for ?— the amount of evidence for each summed
up, and fitit declared authentic— two principal objections brought forward
against this reading, by Sir I.Newton, examined and disproved — some obser-
vations on the right division and interpretation of the passage — the bearing
of the place on the Arian hypothesis— use of the passage in polemic theology,

pp. 149—161

LECTURE XV.

John vii. 52— viii. 11— external evidence against its authenticity, with obser-
vations on its different parts, embodying the external evidence in its favour
—internal arguments urged against it, with answers to each— opinion on the
whole case- pronounced to be genuine, and why, » . pp. 161—174

CONTENTS. XV

LECTURE XVI.

Acts XX. 28 — its six forms — external evidence for rol hav — external evidence
for rou xvglav — external evidence for nZ xv^lov ku) h»u — external do. for
xv^ieu 6iov or rev itev — external do. for ho~j xa) xv^'iev — external evidence in favour
of X^iffTou — the external evidence summed up and compared — internal evi-
dence— T#y Kv^iou the probable reading — remarks relative to the right inter- ^
pretation of the passage, and disproving several Unitarian modes of transla- |
tion — Matthew vi. 13 — external evidence for doxology— internal for do. — J
external authorities against its authenticity — internal arguments against do.
— observations on the conflicting testimony — reasons which favour the opin-
ion that the passage is spurious — probable origination of the doxology,

pp. 174—185

LECTURE XVIL

Matthew 1st and 2d chapters, and Luke 1st and 2d chapter."^ — reason why
some have rejected these portions of Scripture— uncritical procedure of
such as do so — overwhelming evidence in favour of their genuineness —
Mark xvi. 9 — 20 — sum of Granville Penn's arguments against this passage
— circumstances which go to prove its authenticity — other objections to its
genuineness, with observations thereon — the portion undoubtedly authentic
— Lukexxii. 43, 44 — ^brief view of the external evidence in favour of the au-
thenticity of these verses, with answers to objections — view of the inter-
nal evidence urged against them, by G. Penn, with answer to do — John v.
3, 4 — Bishop Marsh's observations on this place, quoted — different readings
of it — evidence for and against each form— evidence on the whole declared
to be in favour of its genuineness — Bloomfield's remarks on the evidence
scarcely accurate, ..... pp. 185 — 194

LECTURE XVm.

Causes of various readings in the Old and New Testaments — all traceable to
accident and design — similarity in the forms of letters — examples of mis-
takes arising from this — interchange of the ancient forms of the letters
caused errors — examples — similarity in the sounds of letters originated er-
rors— examples — other sources of alterations specified and enumerated with
illustrative examples — alterations from design — scholia introduced — differ-
ent kinds of scholia — erroneous examples of scholia from Gen. xiii. 18, and
xiv. 14 — a real example — midrashim — liturgical phrases — omission or inser-
tion of the matres lectionis — designed alterations not introduced under the
idea that they were corruptions — reasons for exculpating the Jews from wilful
corruptions — Psalm xxii. 17, supposed by some to be an instance of intention-
al falsification on the part of the Jews — a word in Psalm xvi. 10, thought to
be a similar instance, but improperly — various causes of changes in the New

XVI CONTENTS.

Testament enumerated — unintentional mistakes, with examples— designed
alterations enumerated and explained, with various examples, pp. 194—211

LECTURE XIX.

History of the Old Testament text_lst period, or that preceding the close of

the canon neological views of this period — the Samaritan recension of the

Pentateuch— its uncritical character—its agreement with the Seventy— re-
cension followed by the Seventy — mode in which the Palestine Jews watched
over the sacred text—three leading opinions respecting the time when the
canon was completed — period from the canon to the completion of the Tal-
mud in the 6th century — dm-ing this time are the Targumists, Onkelos, and
Jonathan, with the translations of A.quila, Symmachus, and Theodotion—
Origen's Hexapla agrees with the Masoretic text — Jerome— critical correc-
tions in the Talmud enumerated, and examples given — ^practice of number-
ing the letters known to the Talmudists— third period of the history of the
Old Testament text, reaches from completion of Talmud to invention of
printing — the Masorah— its origin— divided into two parts — explanation of
these— Keris, the most important part of Masorah— different kinds of Ke-
ris with examples— source whence the Masoretes derived them — from
MSS. and tradition— partly the offspring of conjecture— examples of exe-
getical, grammatical, and orthographical difficulties and unusual expres-
sions noted by the Masoretes— besides Keris, the Masora contains the criti-
cal remarks of the Talmud in an expanded form— reason why the applica-
tion of the Masora to the Old Testament is difficult— where printed— na-
tvire of Ben Chayim's oriental and western readings— their sources and value
—various readings of Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali— M'here printed— to
what they relate — ^the time when MSS. with points and accents came into
universal use— use of the Masora— various opinions respecting it— history
of the printed text of the Old Testament— the three early editions from
which the others have flowed— Buxtorfs edition— the chief editions, with
various readings described — Kennicott's edition — its contents and value —
De Rossi's labours— edition of Doederlein and Meisner— Jahn's do —
Hahn's stereotype edition of Van der Hooght's text— number of collated
MSS. of the Old Testament— few contain the whole of the Old Testament
—utility of so many editions of the Hebrew Scriptm-es, . pp. 21 1—226

LECTURE XX.

History of the New Testament text— some remarks on different books, whose
genuineness was doubted for some time— all the books of the New Testa-
ment acknowledged as divine in the third century— revisions of the MSS.
of New Testament by Hesychius and Lucian— not generally approved-
places where each was current— Origen did not make a formal revision of
the text— reasons for this opinion— similarity in characteristic readings-
perceived by different critics- -different names given to these different forms

CONTENTS. XVii

of the text — mode in which Griesbach determined the country and age of
each recension — Griesbach's system of recensions briefly described — Hug's
system — Scholz's system- -Rink's system — observations on Griesbach's sys-
tem— observations on Hug's system — remarks on Scholz's system — reasons
for believing that no such system can rest on a sufficient foundation — opin-
ion of Professor Lee and Mr. Penn — general opinion of the whole subject-
history of the printed text of New Testament — chi.ef editions described —
Mill's edition commenced a new era — Wetstein's edition described — Gries-
bach's first edition — chief editions published between Griesbach's first and
second editions — Griesbach's second edition — third edition of the first vo-
lume by Schulz — Dr. Scholz's edition — its merits and defects — Lachraann's
edition — his peculiar system — the effects produced by the labours of critics
on the Old and New Testament texts — quotation from Mr. Norton on this
bject, . . . . pp. 226—252

su

LECTURE XXL

Different divisions of the Hebrew text enumerated and described — lai'ge divi-
sions— text originally without vowel points, diacritical marks and accents —
when division into words orginated — use of points in the text — reasons for
believing in the antiquity of this interpunction — Hebrew accents — pesukim
— cola and commata (rnx'i — marking of the verses with nimibers — ^the mo-
dern division into chapters — two opinions of its origin — ^mode of quoting
before the introduction of chapters — sedarim — simanim — capitula — para-
shoth and haphtaroth — origin of reading sections from the prophets in the

( synagogue on the Sabbath — ^two opinions — different divisions of the Greek
Testament — largest division — Euthalius' separation into cti^oi or lines —
stichometry — <rr/;^;a/ afterwards divided by points — ptifAara — how a system of
regular punctuation originated — iota subscript — Ki(pakaia — rirXot — Xoy<«, their
nature and number — ^i^iKO'rai or utayiuiTfLu.Ta^ nature and number of them—

ffuva^d^iev—fAuvoXoyiov — txXoydha — ivayytXiffTu^iu — ^^a^avoo'Tokei — origin of the

present division into verses — present chapters — titles and subscriptions of

pp. 252—259

LECTURE XXn.

Nature of the Hebrew language — its antiquity — limited in forms — reasons of
this — how the primitives are augmented and modified — stems — branches
from the stems — roots originally monosyllabic — became triliteral and qua-
driliteral— how the triliteral arose from the biliteral — explanation of the
reason why biliterals were augmented in different ways — comparison of
the Hebrew language in this respect with the Aramaean — how the con-
jugation-system moulded the original idea of the stem — comparison of the
Hebrew with the Aramean — Hebrew purer in a grammatical respect —
Hebrew in this respect compared with the Arabic — diction of the Hebrew —
its etymological character — in what the fundamental idea of the word is
essentially inherent — the fundamental idea not contained in one simple

b

XVin CONTENTS.

sound, but in two— a third sound was generally added— connexion be-
tween the fundamental idea of a word and the phonetic external form it
assumes— remarks on the copiousness of the language— synomymes not suf-
ficiently distinguished by lexicographers— the poetic diction of the He-
brew language— characteristics of Hebrew poetry — ^how the poetic dic-
tion is separated from prosaic— dialects of the Hebrew language — considera-
tions favourable to the existence of dialectic pecularities — some examples —
Egyptian words in the Hebrew language— examples — Persian words — Greek
words not found in biblical Hebrew — historic sketch of the Hebrew
language — peculiarities of the language of the Pentateuch- --peculiarities of
grammatical formation — of syntax— unusual and antique terms and applica-
tions of terms— language of the post-mosaic period— lingual characteris-
tics of Joshua— peculiarities of the book of Job — Hebrew language in the
time of David — Hebrew poetry in the writings of Solomon — analogies of
diction between Proverbs, Canticles, and Ecelesiastes- -remarks on the
language of Ecelesiastes — gromid taken by German writers — reasons for at-
tributing the book to Solomon-style of Judges, Samuel, and Ruth — general
observations on the ancient prophetic literature — diction of Hosea, Jonah,
and Amos — language of Joel, Isaiah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk and
Obadiah — why the latter part of Isaiah has been assigned to a much
later period than the former by German writers — reason for reject-
ing such an opinion — silver age of the Plebrew — how characterised — its
peculiarities illustrated by examples — Kings and Chronicles compared in
point of diction— style of Zephaniah — of Jeremiah — comparison of his
style with that of earlier writers — diction of inspired writers during
the Babylonish captivity — lingual peculiarities of Ezekiel — language of
Daniel— writings subsequent to the captivity — observations on the Chal-
dee portions of the Old Testament— dialect of Haggai, Zechariah, and

Malachi ^remarks on the opinion that the author of Chronicles was ignorant

of the pure Hebrew consistency of the imitative principle with the strictest

views of inspiration — authors referred to who treat of the chai'act eristics of
the Hebrew language at different periods— remarks on their mode of hand-
ling the subject— when Hebrew ceased to be a living language— two leading
opinions— reasons for supposing that it became extinct during the captivity
—objections answered— Nehemiah xiii. 24, and viii. 8, explained,

pp. 259—298

LECTURE XXIII.

The Hebrew characters— connexion between written characters and pro-
gress of a nation— general remarks on tachygraphy and calligraphy

characters on Asmonaean coins — their form and age— Hebrew and

Samaritan letters then similar— testimony of Julius Africanus, Origen and
Jerome— old Hebrew chai'acter compared with the Phenician — the Baby-
lonian bricks— Aramaean memorials of the Hebrew alphabet— the older and
the younger— characteristics of the older — peculiarities of the later Aramaean
— Pahnyrene inscriptions — their age — the characters older than the time when

CONTENTS. XIX

the inscriptions were made — origin of the square mode of writing — prior to
the time of Christ — influences to which it is chiefly to be attributed — table
illustrating the different changes of the Hebrew letters — recapitulation of
the chief points in the preceding sketch — ^notice of the question whether the
Asmonaean character be the daughter or sister of the Phenician — Jewish
tradition that Ezra wrote out the Hebrew Scriptures in the Chaldee cha-
racter— reasons for rejecting it — probable solution of the mode in which
such a tradition originated — Hebrew vowels — ^most ancient system — com-
parison of it with the ^Ethopic, Arabic, and Syriac — vowel-system exhi-
bited by the Septuagint — its peculiarities — intermediate between the original
simple system and the Masoretic — erroneous opinion of its nature — voca-
lization indicated by the Hexapla of Origen — ^vowel system of Jerome — ^its
natm'e — vocalization of the Talmud — ^it presupposes a definite vowel- sys-
tem— no written vowels at the time of the Talmudists — arguments in favour
of this opinion — origin of the present vowel system — it proceeded from the
Masoretes — a faithful exhibition of the traditional system — a gradual work
—complete in the eleventh centm-y — observations on the accents — value of
the Jewish punctuation— the name Hebrew— two opinions as to its deriva-
tion— reasons for deriving it from Heber — some objections to this answered
—time when the language was fii'st called the Hebrew, pp. 299 — 318

LECTURE XXIV.

Language of the New Testament— its three constituent parts explained and
described — the common or Hellenic language — the Jewish element— the
ecclesiastical element — different appellations given to the New Testament
diction — vestiges of all the ancient dialects in the Greek Testament except
the iEolic — reason of this — examples of words belonging to the several dia-
lects— new forms of words belonging to the common language in the Greek
Testament — examples — other peculiarities of the later Greek observable in
the New Testament — notice of the syntax of the New Testament diction —
Hebrew modifications in the Greek of the New Testament — cause of this —
perfect and imperfect Hebraisms-^ examples of both — contest formerly car-
ried on respecting the nature of the New Testament diction — Greek words
employed by the sacred writers in new senses — new words framed — cause
of this — examples — Latin words in the New Testament — cause of this —
Cilicisms in Paul's writings — examples usually adduced — a different expla-
nation of them given — argument derived from the nature of the New Tes-
tament language in favour of the authenticity of the books—opinion of the
Piu-ists destructive to such an argument, . . pp. 318 — 331

LECTURE XXV.

Greek ai'ticle — great importance attached to it — it has called forth much
learning— subject not yet fully settled— labom's of several writers before
Bishop Middleton— character of Middleton's investigations— objectors to

XX CONTENTS.

his doctrine enumerated — Stuart's essay — its object — some observations on
this writer — probable effects of his treatise — strictures on it — first rule re-
specting the Greek article — convertible propositions explained— Origen's
comment on John i. 1, considered — Stuart's observations on the first canon
— strictures on them — second canon explained — Stuart's observations on do.
— strictures on them — reason for believing in Middleton's doctrine, with ob-
servations on Stuart, . . pp. 331 — 351

LECTURE XXVI.

Original language of the gospel by Matthew — ancient testimonies in favour of
the Hebrew original — Papias— Irenaeus — Origen — Eusebius — Jerome — ob-
servations on these — mode in which the ancient tradition is to be explained
— Credner's explanation of Papias' language — account of Pantaenus given
by Eusebius — Jerome's similar to it — various arguments for a Hebrew ori-
ginal discussed and refuted — probabilities in favour of the Greek original —
hypothesis of two originals — by whom favoured— its improbability — other
considerations against a Hebrew original — strictures on Mr. Norton's note
respecting Matthew — observations on Dr. Bloomfield's note respecting the
original language of Matthew's gospel — language of the Epistle to the
Hebrews — opinion of the Greek fathers — arguments in favour of its being
originally written in Greek — hypothesis of two originals untenable,

pp. 351- -369

SUPPLEMENT.

Additional observations on John vii. 53 — viii. 11 — on the first two chapters of
Matthew's gospel— Mark xvi. 9 — 20 — Luke xxii. 23, 24 — on John v. 3, 4,

pp. 369—380

APPENDIX.
Containing notices of books relating to Biblical criticism, pp. 381—411

The reader is requested to correct a few errata, such as Biblisher (or BMi&chei, RosenmuJ/er [oi
RosenmUller, Lciziy for Leipzig, &c. &c.

LECTURES

BIBLICAL CRITICISM.

LECTURE L

Before entering on the direct discussion of the various subjects
that lie before us, we shall advert to Biblical Criticism in gene-
ral, and thus introduce it to your notice in a short preliminary
Lecture. This science is of comparatively recent origin, or
rather it has attracted so much attention in late times, and is now
so extensively cultivated, that it may be said to owe all its ad-
vancement to the last century and to the present. It originated
partly from necessity. In consequence of the controversies in
which they were involved, men were obliged to appeal to the
sacred fountain of truth itself. The records of religion had been
corrupted by the injudicious or the schismatic, and they needed
to be restored. Thus the originals of the Scriptures themselves
were consulted as the highest authority in matters of doctrine and
of discipline ; and men were naturally inclined either to retain or
to mutilate a passage, as it seemed to favour their own sect, or
to corroborate their own opinions. The fountain-head of divine
truth was often muddied by irreverent approaches. Whatever
was not relished became liable to alteration or omission. Such
expedients, however, belong rather to modern times than to the
primitive age of Christianity. Not that similar practices were
unknown in the earliest period of the gospel dispensation, but we
have not now the means of easily detecting the alterations then
made, the purposes for which they were attempted, and the per-
sons to whom such supposed emendations owe their origin.

In every ancient book which has descended to our own times
through a number of centuries, various readings unavoidably ex-

2 INTRODUCTORY LECTURE. LECT. I.

ist. It is utterly impossible for human caution and diligence to
guard against the slightest deviation from the original words of
an author. We must therefore judge between various readings,
and weigh the evidence by which they are supported, as well as
the claims they have on our consideration. The genuine read-
ing must be determined by authorities, in deciding upon the
weight and respective merit of which, certain rules are wont to
be followed. This holds good in the ancient classics. MSS.
have been examined and compared by scholars who have been at
great pains to procure as correct and pure a text as the existing
materials enabled them to obtain. Hence various editions have
been published. The same is the case with the Bible. Provi-
dence has left its words to the same casualties as befal the writ-
ings of uninspired men, while the great doctrines and duties in-
culcated have been preserved and guarded so as to be plainly
taught. God has not interposed by a miracle to prevent the
least variation from occurring in the great number of MSS.
which have been made ; for while he has exercised a general su-
perintendence over the revelation of his own will, its language
has experienced the lot of other writings, in not being exempted
from corruption and alteration. Now if it be a laudable thing to
attempt to restore the unvitiated text of a heathen author, surely
it ought to be much more so in regard to that of the Bible.
The great Author from whom it proceeds, the consequent im-
portance of its contents, and the design of its bestowment on
man, conspire to place it infinitely above the emanations of the
highest and brightest intellects. All our attention should there-
fore be directed, in the first place, to the ascertainment of the
true and proper reading of the original. When this is accom-
plished, we may proceed with confidence to interpret and to ex-
plain it. We must first judge whether an alteration has been
made in a passage, so that the condition in which it originally
came from the hands of its author does not appear. The incor-
ruptness of the text must be considered ; the changes which it
may have undergone are to be discovered ; and those readings
must be restored into whose place others have intruded. This is
followed by interpretation. The science embracing these two
departments of knowledge has not been cultivated in these coun-
tries with the zeal and ardour which it has awakened in modern
times on the continent of Europe. The learning it demands has
been abortive. But we begin to see the tokens of better things,

LECT. I. INTIIODUCTOUY LECTURK. 3

and we rejoice that the day is appearing in which we shall not
be behind our continental brethren. Still it is true, that while
improvements are made in every other department of literature,
■while knowledge is rapidly spreading among all classes of society,
a higher and more substantial knowledge is by many comparative-
ly neglected. We behold the mathematician engaged in far
more abstruse and abstract inquiries, pursuing them with an in-
tensity of mind truly absorbing, while the languages in which
the book of life is written are considered as matters of minor
moment. The antiquarian explores the ruins of splendid cities
and desolate temples, w'here the living voice once resounded, and
the light step trod, and he digs deep for the rem-ains of former
times, and the curiosities of ancient days. The geologist de-
scends to nature's recesses to bring up thence a knowledge of
strata, and deposits, and fossils of ages long gone by. Thus by
the busy activity of man new discoveries spring into existence,
and social life is both improved and embellished. But whilst so
great research is exhibited in relation to the volume of nature
which God has spread out before his creatures ; whilst we behold
new proofs of his existence, his wisdom, and his goodness, fur-
nished by the minutest parts of creation, we have reason to re-
gret that the languages in which the sacred volume is written,
attract less attention. Some students of the Bible sit down quite
satisfied with a superficial knowledge of revelation derived from
our received version, or if they wish to inspect the originals now
and again, they trust to the guidance of some common lexicon,
while they are all the while, unable to judge, whether it lead
them into the right meaning of a phrase. Even this, however, is
not generally done. For the unravelling of a difficulty, or the
settling of a point, they are seldom disposed to look farther than
to the English commentators. Whether the authorized translation
be right, or whether it be erroneous ; whether ten ancient ver-
sions be against the vulgar reading, and only one in its favour ;
whether it be found in one MS. of little authority, at the same
time that others of high antiquity and value want it, is just
the same to these indolent and unlettered expositors. Sacred
criticism, therefore, has not assumed that primary rank in theolo-
gy to which it is deservedly entitled. It ought to be a subject of
lasting and continued interest. Among the studies of the divine
it should occupy a distinguished place. The men who cast it aside
as dry, insipid, and unprofitable, know nothing of its nature and

4 INTRODUCTORY LECTURE. LECT. T.

use. The time, we trust, has for ever gone by, when learning
was esteemed a superfluous appendage to the minister of the
everlasting gospel. Human authorities have lost much of their
imposing power in matters of religion, and the Scriptures them-
selves are regarded as the sole and ultimate standard in the de-
termination of doctrines and the settlement of controversies.
Hence those high attainments, which constitute not merely the
ornament but the defence of the pastor, ought not to be rejected
as valueless. They are a true safeguard against infidelity on the
one hand and enthusiasm on the other. In every age of the
church there have been men fond of setting forth novel and
strange doctrines. Perhaps there never was a time in which
such a taste prevailed more than at the present day. Let Ger-
many, America, and even England, bear testimony to the truth
of this statement. In these countries, long-exploded doctrines
have been revived under new names and in other garbs. But he
who is wont to read and reflect, will at once discover that such
opinions were long since maintained, defended, and refuted ; and
if he be versed in that department of knowledge of which we
now speak, he will be able to expose the false criticism that
would wrest from the words of Scripture another sense than that
which they naturally bear. Again, the flimsy speculations of
infidels, disguised under the name of Christians, will never bear
the strong and searching beams of an enlightened exegesis. In
the atmosphere of a learned theology they soon die. They are
like the transient feelings of the enthusiast, which pass away with-
out leaving a solid or permanent impression. True piety must
be based and built on sound knowledge, such as is not to be re-
ceived from the lips of a teacher or the words of a creed, unless
the precepts of the one, and the contents of the other, be consonant
with the lively oracles of God. But the question must first be de-
termined, what are the oracles ? what is the genuine text, so far
at least as it is in our power to ascertain it ? what are the read-
ings of the Bible which we regard as constituting the true basis
of theological knowledge, by proceeding from the inspired authors
themselves. This is the proper province of Biblical literature —
a science which exempts us from the necessity of seeing with
others eyes, and from believing on the authority of others, in-
ducing such a conviction as is an essential qualification for preach-
ing the Gospel. We know that the Apostle Paul speaks of some
who were ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge

LECT. 1, INTRODUCrOllY LECTURE. 5

of the truth ; and such characters were not confined to the age in
which he lived. There is a humility of mind — a modesty of spi-
rit— a purity of motive — without which the truth of our state-
ments, and the strength of our positions, may be extremely doubt-
ful and remarkably feeble. It is not surprising that the man who
is destitute of these characteristics of mind never arrives at satis-
factory conclusions, but is tossed about by every wind of doc-
trine. Sacred literature, however, when accompanied by right
motives and moral principles, tends to fix and consolidate the
erratic opinions that float about in the mind of the half-taught
theologian, by giving them consistency, clearness, and stability,
as far as they agree with the revealed will of God. It is possible,
notwithstanding, to be acquainted with the languages in which
the Bible was written — with the manners and customs of the
people brought before us in this ancient book — with the laws
and institutions prescribed by Heaven — and yet, after all, to be
indiiFerent interpreters. With the most costly and splendid ap-
paratus of knowledge, we may be deficient in sound judgment,
and in the talent of accurate discrimination. It is possible to be
familiar with the rules laid down by interpreters, and yet to be
bad expositors. But if we be saved from the dangerous errors
into which rash and ignorant men are apt to fall by essaying what
is beyond their reach, we gain no small advantage. If we be ca-
pable of distinguishing between true and false readings^ of per-
ceiving the worthlessness of empty conjectures, and of rejecting
the claims of those portions which men have improperly intro-
duced into Scripture, and which time has so much sanctioned
that any attempt to correct and expunge them is deprecated by
the ignorant as an insult to the Holy Spirit, w^e shall be amply
compensated for our labour of examination. We are aware that
many never aspire to eminence in the walks of sacred literature,
and that but few masters in criticism appear in a century. But
in the present day, with all the learning which the Bible has
called forth — with the results of so many researches within our
reach — with the erudition of the greatest men that have been em-
ployed in unfolding the deep things of the Divine Word at our
command — it were criminal to sit down and fold our hands in in-
dolence, as if we were not at all concerned to learn and know
more of the mind of God. Those who incur the charge of such
criminality, will be unfit instruments in the hand of the Almighty
for the accomplishment of his lofty purposes towards men. We

6 INTRODUCTORY LECTURE. LECT. I.

are far from maintaining that there can be no true piety without
learning. The simple-minded peasant, who knows not that there
is any other than the received version, which he regards as im-
mediately written by the finger of Jehovah, is perhaps in a bet-
ter frame of mind for receiving the truth in love, than the critic
that always doubts and stumbles at difficulties. The wisdom of
the Almighty is seen in this, that the Scriptures are suited to the
capacities of all, that from tliem every being of the human race
may derive abundant instruction, consolation, and hope. But
this warrants not the conclusion drawn by many, that learning is
of no use to the student of the Bible. On the contrary, it has
been of essential service to the cause of truth. That it often be-
gets pride we know, — that it is often conjoined with a spirit the
most opposite to the tenor of the Gospel, we see every day ex-
emplified ; but this only proves that every talent is injurious to
the possessor, when undirected by the power of divine grace. To
be puffed up with self-exaltation and pride is not the wonted fail-
ing of the learned divine, but merely of him who fancies himself
to be so. Humility is the offspring of that learning which has for
its object the right knowledge of God and man. The more an
individual searches, the more will he find to excite his admira-
tion, to call forth his gratitude, to awaken the consciousness of
his ignorance, and to awe him into reverence before the Supreme
Being. The more extensive the scholarship and the profounder
the erudition, the greater veneration for the Holy Scriptures will
be felt and acknowledged. Whilst, therefore, a practical ac-
quaintance with the truth as it is in Jesus is quite independent of
theological learning, it is equally matter of fact that, to the pro-
fessed theologian, who guides the religious belief of the great
mass of the community, and is commanded to be always ready to
give a reason of the hope within him, learning is of mighty im-
portance. It fits the true interpreter for the work in which he is
engaged : it enables him to tread with firm step on the ground
where he stands, and to walk securely over the wide field of an
extended science. Enthusiasm is averse to literature, because it
dreads the light of evidence by which it would be rejected. It
is only a creature of darkness, engendered in the night, and
nurswl in the fondling arms of folly. But the man who has
learned to value revelation as proceeding from God, — who has
explored the authority by which its claims are supported, and the
arguments by which it is sustained, — walks abroad in the light,

4>

LECT. I. INTRODUCTORY LECTURE.

and is eaoer to obtain farther and clearer views of the interior
proportions of that spacious edifice in which the hand of Omnipo-
tence is recognised. He lingers not in the outer court of the
temple, wherein Jehovah is but dimly manifested ; but he enters
the sanctuary with its hallowed recesses, and is there favoured
with visions of the glory of the Lord, and with prelibations of
everlasting bliss. Our opinions therefore should be drawn fresh
from the living spring which has gushed forth to refresh and to
gladden the earth. We must come to the fountain head of all
that is perfect in religion and pure in morality, from whose clear
spring we receive the living waters that bear fertility on their
bosom. It is our duty to approach that inexhaustible mine
of divine wisdom, which has furnished precious materials to
the profoundest and most contemplative minds. We must learn
to judge for ourselves of the meaning of those records that
jjre written in languages difficult of acquisition. We should em-
ploy ourselves in handling weapons drawn from the armoury of
heaven, with which w^e shall not be afraid to go forth and meet
the opponent of revelation. The Bible, in our received version,
is not the standard to which all controversies should be referred,
— it is not entitled to that infallibility which belongs to the JVord
of God. No version, however excellent, however faithful, can be
set up as the judge and arbiter of controversies. The sacred ori-
ginal itself must be studied. The text must be examined. The
dross must be separated from the gold. The spurious must be
severed from the genuine. Those adventitious excrescences,
sometimes attached to the commonly received text, must be cut
off with unsparing hand, as the additions of fallible and ignorant
men. Those stones in the sacred edifice of divine revelation, in-
serted by men, with the like extraneous materials, must be de-
tected and cast aside, as tending to mar the beauty and to ob-
scure the goodly proportions of the divine architecture. Then
shall we be enabled to gaze on the fair and wondrous temple
of the Lord, and to fall down on our knees in lowly adoration be-
fore Him, whose loving-kindness and tender mercy are there so
richly exhibited in the face of Christ Jesus.

The term Biblical criticism is employed in two senses. In the
one, it embraces not only the restoration of the text of the Scrip-
tures to its original state, but also the principles of interpretation.
In the other, it is confined to the former of these two branches.
We intend to use it in its strict and proper sense, as compris-

8 INTUODUCTORY LECTURE. LECT. I.

ing tlie sum and substance of that knowledge, which enables us
to ascertain the genuineness of a disputed reading, to remove a
spurious one from the text of the Holy Scriptures, and to ob-
tain, as nearly as possible, the original words written by the in-
spired authors. Now, it is obvious that the operations of criti-
cism must precede those of interpretation. The former is intro-
ductory to the latter, and serves as its basis. We should procure
the most correct text of an author, before we try to ascertain his
meaning. The true reading of a passage must be known previous-
ly to the determination of its true sense ; and the nearer we come
to the very words of the author the nearer will we be to the correct
interpretation of them. It is necessary to attend to the distinct
and separate operation of these two departments, viz., the criticism
and the interpretation of the Bible, since they have been frequent-
ly mixed up together to the detriment of both. It is true, that
the one is of little practical utility without the other, but this
furnishes no reason why they should be confounded. None,
however, can object to their connexion. It is right and proper
that the one should be followed up by the other in close combi-
nation; but it is wrong to amalgamate them, so that the distinct-
ness of their features may not be at once recognised. Where
this is the case we need not expect clear and sound exposition,
or look for that cautious and careful interpretation of Scripture,
which recommends itself to the inquiring mind by its simplicity
and power. Our present object, therefore, is not the interpreta-
tion of the Bible. We do not purpose, now, to discuss either
Hermeneutics or exegesis. Neither the general principles of inter-
pretation, nor their application to particular passages, lie at pre-
sent before us. Sacred criticism must first be described and
known, before we proceed to the higher province of interpreta-
tion. The former of these two divisions of Biblical literature
has for its object the genuineness and purity of the original text.
It judges whether an alteration has taken place in a passage, so
that it is not in the same condition in which it came from the
hand of its author. And when it discovers the changes that
have been made, it labours to restore the primitive readings into
whose place others have come. Thus the purity or corruption
of the text is the legitimate object of Biblical criticism.

There are tJirec sources from which criticism derives all its aid,
both in ascertaining the changes that have been made in the
original text, and in restoring the genuine readings excluded.

LECT. I. INTRODUCTORY LECTURE. \)

The Jirst is a comparison of the various MSS. or written copies
of the Sacred Scriptures.

The second source is the various ancient translations of them
into foreign languages.

The third consists of the writings and remains of the early ec-
clesiastical icriters who have quoted parts of Scripture.

To these a fourth has been added by some, viz., critical conjec-
ture^ whose authority we do not acknowledge.

The materials furnished by these three sources are ample and
generally satisfactory ; and criticism employs them all in the
procurement of a text as correct as possible. It is self-evident
that great skill is necessary in the use of such sources. It is not
every tyro that is able to manage them with acuteness, discrimi-
nation, and dexterity. Difficult cases frequently arise from con-
flicting testimonies, in the adjustment of which the most patient
investigation is required. General rules are easily mastered,
and their application for the most part distinctly seen, and readi-
ly made, whilst particular cases occasionally occur to call forth
the caution and mature judgment of the experienced critic. We
do not profess, however, to make you good critics at once. Con-
siderable training is requisite to the production of an accomplish-
ed Biblical scholar. A long course of instruction and of study
must go before high attainments in this, as well as other depart-
ments of knowledge. You should particularly attend to the
manner in which men of acknowledged eminence have proceeded,
before you attempt criticism yourselves. It is a dangerous
weapon in the hands of the unskilful and the ignorant ; and we
would not have you expose yourselves to the imputation of rash-
ness, or the charge of presumption. Above all, seek to have a
right spirit within, a spirit created by the Holy Ghost, and nur-
tured in its holy tendency by his hallowing influences. God
has given you his word to be a lamp unto your feet and a light
unto your path ; pray that this lamp may shine into your souls
to scatter their darkness and their ignorance, by imparting the
hght of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ
Jesus.

In our next Lecture we shall proceed to the examination of
the three sources of criticism that have been mentioned, beginning
with ancient MSS.

LECTURE II.

ON ANCIENT MSS.

The MSS. of the Hebrew Bible, and those of the Greek Testa-
ment, require to be spoken of separately. The dissimilarity of
their character demands a distinct description, I do not think it
desirable, however, in the present state of your studies, to give a
copious description of all the MSS. that have been examined and
collated. By enumerating the few particulars known respecting
each of these ancient documents, I should be occupying your time
to little purpose. However curious and interesting to the anti-
quarian such knowledge may be, it presents little to improve the
understanding, or to enliven the affections. I cannot, in truth,
conceive of a study more secular in its nature than that of MSS. ;
neither can I distinguish it from the calculations of the mathema-
tician, or the researches of the historian, by the greater sacredness,
or the more improving influence of its character. I am far from
undervaluing the labours of those who have travelled in search of
MSS. of the Scriptures, and examined their readings with minute
diligence to add to the rich stock of materials already existing. I
would not depreciate the laudable toils of those enterprising indi-
viduals, who have spent years and months in this department, and
bequeathed to posterity the fruit of those literary labours, which
the world is slow to appreciate, because it is inadequate to per-
ceive their utility. Far be it from me to throw any discredit on
the illustrious men who have lived unseen, amid the dim and dusty
documents of antiquity, straining their eyes, and wasting their
health in reading letters and characters difficult to be deciphered.
But I mean to say, that my time would be unprofitably spent in
composing a description oi all the MSS. that have been collated,
and that yours would be no less uselessly occupied, in listening
to the dry and tedious details which would thus be brought be-
fore you. Of what advantage it would be to you in after life I
know not, unless you were designed for librarians, or critical
editors of the Scriptures. In the great universities of England,
it would be scarcely tolerated to proceed in the systematic and mi-
nute manner to which I refer ; for the future studies of those whom

LECT. II. ON ANCIENT MSS. H

we address should never be lost sight of by theological lecturers.
And if it would be preposterous in England, where learning is
more ardently and extensively pursued than in this country, to
deliver to a theological class a full description of ancient MSS.,
it would be much more irrelevant in the place where I now am,
and surrounded by such an audience, as that to which our prelec-
tions are usually delivered. I do not think it right, however, to
omit this great division of the subject. This were the opposite
extreme to that of which I have just been speaking. You must
know something of the MSS. of the Scriptures, at the present day.
Total ignorance of this topic will not be allowed in any well edu-
cated pastor. While you need not be Griesbachs or Kennicotts,
you must not be found absolutely deficient in such knowledge.
It is sufficient for our present purpose, to introduce you to a gen-
eral acquaintance with the subject, by noticing the MSS. of the
Hebrew Bible, and describing the most important ones of the
Greek Testament. In the former case, we shall be more brief —
in the latter, those written in uncial letters will alone be described.
In this way you will be initiated into a knowledge of the MSS. of
the Bible, and be prepared for entering more fully into tlie sub-
ject, should you be desirous to prosecute it in after life.

We proceed accordingly, in the first place ^ to speak of the MSS.
of the Hebrew Bible. Jewish MSS. are divided into synagogue
rollSf or sacred copies, and private or common ones, to each of which
we shall now turn your attentien. The synagogue rolls contain
the Pentateuch, the sections of the prophets appointed to be read,
or the book of Esther, which last is only used at the feast of Pu-
rim. The three are never put together, but written on separate
rolls. They are in the Chaldee, or square Hebrew character,
without vowels and accents, with the extraordinary paints, (puncta
extraordinaria), and the unusual figures of certain consonants.
The parchment is prepared in a particular manner, by the hands
of Jews only, and made from the hides of clean animals, which,
when duly prepared, are joined together by thongs made of the
same material. They are then divided into columns, the breadth
of which must never exceed half their length. These columns,
the number of which is prescribed, must be of equal length and
breadth among themselves, and contain a certain number of lines,
every line having no more than three words. The Talmud con-
tains strict rules concerning the material, the colour, the ink, the
letters, divisions, writing-instrument, &c., which are closely fol-

12 ON ANCIENT MSS. LECT. II.

lowed, especially in the Pentateuch. The minuteness of these
laws renders it a most irksome task for the sopher, or scribe, to
write out a synagogue roll. The ink, for instance, must be made
according to prescription, of soot, charcoal, and honey mixed up
together into a kind of paste, and allowed to harden. Before
being used, it must be dissolved in water with an infusion of
galls. When about to transcribe the incommunicable name
(Jehovah), the scribe must purify himself, and wash his whole
body. Besides, his pen must not be dipped in the ink imme-
diately before writing the sacred name, but the ink is to be taken
into it when he transcribes the word that precedes, and even if a
king should happen to address him when writing this appellation,
he must take no notice of him till he have done. The revision of
the Thora, as the synagogue roll is often called, must be undertak-
en within thirty days after its transcription, else it is unfit for use.
Three mistakes on one side or skin are allowable, but should
there be four, or if there be an error in the open and close sections
of the law, or in the position of the songs in Exodus,^5th chapter,
and in Deuteronomy 32d chapter, which are the only places writ-
ten in poetical lines, then the whole copy is worthless. Whether
mistakes in writing the sacred name render the entire roll unfit
for the synagogue, is a matter of dispute among the Jews them-
selves. The great beauty of the penmanship in these synagogue
copies has always been admired. They are taken from authentic
exemplars, from which, the slightest deviation or correction is
not allowed. The text exhibited by all the synagogue rolls is the
same, proving that it was originally characterised by great uni-
formity. These MSS. seldom fall into the hands of Christians,
since, as soon as they cease to be employed in the synagogue, they
are either buried, or carefully laid aside, lest they should be pro-
faned by coming into the possession of Gentiles.

Private MSS. are written partly in the Chaldee or square
character, and partly in the Rabbinical. They are held in much
less esteem than the synagogue rolls, and are wont to be deno-
minated (pesulim) profane. Their form is entirely arbitrary, be-
ing left to the will of the transcribers, or of those for whom they
were written. Hence they are in folio, quarto, octavo, and duo-
decimo. Of those written in the square character, the greater
number are on parchment, some on cotton-paper, a few on the
common kind. The ink is always black ; but the points are ge-
nerally written with ink of a different colour from that of the con-

LECT. II. ON ANCIENT MSS. 13

sonants. Initial words and letters are frequently decorated with
gold and silver colours. The prose parts are arranged in co-
lumns, and the poetic in parallel members ; but some copies are
without columns. The lines and margin are carefully and accu-
rately separated. The columns are not always occupied by the
Hebrew text alone ; for a version is frequently added, which is
either written in the text after the manner of verses, or in a co-
lumn by itself, or in the margin in a smaller character. The
number of lines is purely accidental. The upper and lower mar-
gin are filled with the great Masora, and sometimes with a Rab-
binical commentary, as also with prayers, psalms, and the like.
The external margin is for corrections, scholia, and variations,
for notices of the liaphtaroth, (sections from the prophets,) and
parashoth, (sections of the law,) for the commentaries of the
Rabbins, &c. The inner margin, or that between the columns,
is occupied with the little Masora. The single books of the Old
Testament are separated from each other by spaces, except the
books of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, which
are written continuously ; and the sections from the law and pro-
phets are generally marked. In the MSS. of different countries,
the arrangement of books is different. The copies of which we
now speak have generally passed through several hands before
they were finished. The consonants proceeded from the sopher or
scribe. The writer of the vowel points, although often identi-
cal with the scribe, never made the consonants and vowels at the
same time. The former were finished before any of the latter
were appended. Other individuals were often employed in mak-
ing MS. copies, such as the writer of the Masora^ the person who
added the scholia, the reviser of the whole, and the freshener, or
he that retouched with ink passages that had faded. It is not to
be supposed, however, that all of these were employed on each
copy before it was completed. The same individual frequently
united in himself several of the duties ; and the sopher especially,
not unfrequently appended the vowels, as well as the Masora.
But because a separate person was sometimes occupied in each of
these ways, we have mentioned the various employments sepa-
rately. The Keris in the margin uniformly proceeded from the
punctuator. Occasionally critical remarks are found in the mar-
gin, correcting the work of the sopher and punctuator as also the
scholia or notes.

It has been made a subject of inquiry, whether these copies

14 ON ANCIENT MS.S. LECT. II.

were ever made by Christians ; and a diversity of opinion has
prevailed among critics respecting- the point. But the question
must be answered in the negative, for there is no proof that
Christians or monks copied any of them. They seem to have
been made, in every case, either by Jews or proselytes.

With regard to the age of Hebrew MSS., it is not, generally
speaking, easily ascertained. It is true that they contain sub-
scriptions, giving an account of the time when they were written,
and the name of the scribe or of the possessor. But these no-
tices are not infrequently wanting, sometimes ambiguous, and
occasionally incorrect. When copies have been dismembered,
the subscriptions have been generally lost, and sometimes they
have been concealed. Some have supposed that the character of
the writing is useful for ascertaining the antiquity of the docu-
ments, but from it little assistance can be derived. Besides, the
absence of the Masora, of the unusual letters, the vowel points,
&c., are uncertain marks of age. Although the square character is
employed in all the private MSS. of which we have spoken, yet
there are varieties of it. In the synagogue rolls, the Jews
themselves distinguish, 1. The Tarn letter (probably so named
from Tam, grandson of Rashi) with sharp corners and perpendi-
cular coronulae, used among the German and Polish Jews ; 2d,
The VeUhe letter, more modern than the 7«m, and rounder,
with coronulae, used particularly in the sacred copies of the Spa-
nish and Oriental Jews. Some late critics speak of a Spanish
character regular and quadrangular ; of a German character
sharp-cornered and leaning ; and of a French and Italian charac-
ter, intermediate between both. No MS. at present known
reaches beyond the 12th century. The oldest belongs to a. d.
1 106 (No. 154. of Kennicott) ; its country is Spain. Only five or
six belong to the twelfth century ; about fifty to the thirteenth ;
to the fourteenth eighty ; and to the fifteenth one hundred and ten.

We come now to speak of private MSS., written in the Rab-
binical character. These are much younger than the preceding,
— none of them older than five hundred years. They are written
on cotton or linen paper, in a cursive character, without vowel
points or the Masora, and with many abbreviations. Hence it
is obvious that they are of no critical value.

The MSS. found among the Chinese Jews are partly syna-
gogue rolls, partly private copies, but the text does not differ
from the Masoretic.

LECT. II. ON ANCIENT MSS. 15

The Pentateuch of the Malabar Jews, brought from India to
England by Dr. Buchanan, and described by Mr. Yeates, (Cam-
bridge, 1812), resembles, on the whole, the usual synagogue rolls
of the Jews, except that it is written on red skins. The text is
the Masoretic, with a few slight variations.

Among the Jews are mentioned, as having been celebrated for
their correctness, eight exemplars which exercised great influence
on other copies. They are now lost, but extracts from them are
still preserved. From the writings of the Jews, and the margin
of some MSS. still extant, where they are referred to, we learn
that they were highly prized for their singular accuracy, and
that they formed the basis of subsequent copies. They are,

1. The MS. of HilkL 2. The Babylonian codex, supposed to
contain the recension made by Rabbi Ben Naphtali, president
of the academy at Babylon. 8. The MS. of Israel, supposed to
exhibit the recension of R. Ben Asher in Palestine, and to be
the same as the MS. of Jerusalem. 4. An Egyptian codex. 5.
Sinai, a MS. of the Pentateuch. 6. The Pentateuch of Jericho,
7. Codex Sanbuki, 8. The book Taygin, mentioned by R. Jacob
Ben Chayim, in the preface to his edition of the Bible.

It is unnecessary to give a more particular description of any
of the Hebrew MSS. The general remarks already made are
sufficient for our present purpose.

We proceed to the MSS. of the Greek Testament. Those that
have come down to our times are either on vellum or paper. The
oldest material was the Egyptian papyrus ; but even so early as
the fourth century, the New Testament was written on the skins
of animals. Those on thin vellum have been preferred to others.
This writing material lasted till the eleventh century, when paper
began to be used, made of cotton, wool, and linen. Till the
tenth century they were usually written in capital, or, as they
were called in the time of Jerome, uncial letters ; but the cursive
character then came into general use. The earliest MS. we meet
with in the latter writing belongs to the year 890 ; but even sub-
sequently to this date the old characters were sometimes conti-
nued, on account of their beautiful regularity. The most ancient
copies have no divisions of words, being written in one continued
series of lines. Accents, spirits and iota subscript, are also wanting.
The whole of the New Testament is contained in very few MSS.
Transcribers generally divided the entire into three parts, — the
first, containing the four Gospels ; the second, the Epistles and

16 ON ANCIENT MS9. LECT. II.

Acts of the Apostles ; and the third, the Apocalypse of St. John.
The greatest number of MSS. are those which have the four
Gospels, because they were most frequently read in the churches.
Those that contain the Epistles and Acts together, or both in ad-
dition to the Gospels, are also numerous. But such as have the
book of Revelation alone are extremely few, because it was seldom
read in public. It is also to be remarked, that MSS. are not
often complete in all their parts. They have many chasms, to
which it is necessary to attend, lest a copy be quoted as evidence
for or against a particular reading where it is deficient. There
are also several that contain merely detached portions of the New
Testament, or sections appointed to be read on certain days in the
churches. Hence they are called avay\(J}(iiig or ava/i/wcr/xara in
Greek, from avayiv(Si6xca, to read ; and in Latin, lectionaria. Such
lectionaries have frequently at their commencement phrases simi-
lar to " Jesus spake," prefixed to the speeches of Christ ; adiX<poly
brethren^ prefixed to letters addressed to churches ; and in those
written to Timothy, rkvov Tiidki, son Timothy. These expressions,
though merely introductory, and designed for the oflficiating mi-
nister, were often transferred from lectionaries into the MS.
copies of entire books, where they have produced various read-
ings, though evidently spurious. Critics do not attribute the
same value to these codices as to those of whole books of the
same age, because they are thought to have been more exposed
to alteration. Those MSS. that contain lessons from the four
gospels, are called evangelistaria^ while such as were taken from
the Acts and Epistles were denominated a'rtkrhyjjc^ or more correct-
ly cTPaJa-ocrroXo/. It is also to be observed, that several MSS. are
accompanied with a Latin version, either interlined or in a parallel
column. Such copies are called codices hilingues or Graeco-Latini,
Greek-Latin MSS. The circumstance of their being furnished
with a Latin translation throughout, gave rise to a charge for-
merly made against them, especially by Richard Simon. But
it has been generally believed, since the time of Griesbach and
Woide, that the accusation is unfounded, and that there is no
more cause for stigmatising them as Latinising MSS. than those
possessed of the Greek text alone.

After these general observations, I shall now advert to the
most ancient and important MSS. of the Greek Testament, as
also to a few of those which are usually quoted in the examina-
tion of some important controverted readings. The description

I

LECT. If. ON ANCIENT MSS. 17

of them will be brief, but comprehending the essential facts
connected with them. They are marked with the letters of the
alphabet, A, B, C, &c. not according to their age or internal
value. It is more probable that it was done at first arbitrarily,
and that it came to be universally adopted as a convenient abbre-
viation.

1. The MS. marked A in Wetstein, Griesbach, and Scholz's
critical editions, is called the Alexandrine. It was presented by
Cyrillus Lucar, patriarch of Alexandria and afterwards of Con-
stantinople, to Charles the First, a. d. 1628, and is now in the
British Museum. The probability is that it was written at
Alexandria, whence it was certainly brought, and to which it
owes its name. As far as can be ascertained, it is to be referred
to the fifth century. It contains the whole Bible ; the Old Tes-
tament, or Septuagint version, in three folios, and the New
in one. In the New Testament, it is defective from the com-
mencement of Matthew's gospel to the 25th chapter and 6th
verse, where it begins; and, with the exception of John vi. 50 —
viii. 52, and 2 Cor. iv. 13 — xii. 2, it is perfect to the end. A
facsimile of the New Testament part was published at London
1786 in a folio volume, by Dr. Woide, to which he prefixed
learned prolegomena. The Old Testament division has also
been executed in the same manner, under the superintendence of
Mr. Baber, in 4 vols, folio, London 1819, to which after the ex-
ample of Woide, he prefixed a Latin preface.

2. Codex B. This is called the Vatican MS. (marked 1209,)
because it belongs to the Vatican library at Rome. Like the
preceding, it contains the Old and New Testaments, the former
of which was printed from it in 1587 by order of Sixtus the Fifth;
besides the portion wanting in the Old Testament it is defec-
tive in the Epistle to the Hebrews, from ix. 14 to the end, and in
the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, Philemon, together with the
Apocalypse. The latter part of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and
the Book of Revelation were supplied by a modern hand. It has
been a subject of dispute among learned men, to which of these
two celebrated MSS. the preference ought to be given, both in
point of antiquity and internal excellence. It is now generally
agreed that the latter is the more ancient, for Hug has proved
that it belongs to the middle of the fourth century They are
dissimilar in their characteristic readings, both in the Old and
New Testaments. In respect to goodness also, as well as anti-

c

18 ON ANCIENT MSS. LECT. II.

quity, the Vatican probably deserves to be placed above the
Alexandrine. Hence B may be fairly put at the head of all
MSS. of the Greek Testament that have been yet collated, or
are at present known. It has not, like the Alexandrian, been
executed in fac- simile. But the want even of a facsimile is now
in a great measure compensated by the publication of a late work,
entitled, " The Book of the Neiv Covenant of our Lord and Savi-
our Jesus Christ" by Granville Penn, Esq., in which, with a
few trifling exceptions, specified in an accompanying volume of
" Annotations," the text of this MS. is followed absolutely.
Still the scholar desiderates a facsimile of the Codex in its ori-
ginal form, though the collations of it by Birch and Woide are
very valuable.

3. C. codex Regius or Ephraemi. It is written on vellum in
folio, and is of high antiquity, probably of the 6th century, but
certainly as old as the 7th. It is a codex rescriptiis, that is, writ-
ten over again, the more ancient writing having been erased to
make room for the Greek works of Ephrem the Syrian. The origi-
nal writing is not entirely obliterated, for whole sentences of it may
be easily read. This appears to have been the Septuagint version,
portions of which still remain. The chasms in the New Testament
are numerous, and have been pointed out by Wetstein, Griesbach,
and Scholz. It is to be regretted that this MS. is so much
faded as in many places to be illegible, and that means have not
been taken for preserving it in a permanent form, by fac-simile. It
has many marginal notes, written apparently by the same hand
as the text. It is called Regius, from the royal library at Paris,
where it is preserved, and is now marked 9, formerly 1905. Pro-
bably it was written in Egypt, as several forms of words seem to
indicate.

4. D. codex Cantahrigiensis or Bezae, This copy was presented
in 1581 to the university of Cambridge, by Beza, who procured it
from the monastery of St. Irenaeus at Lyons, where it had long
lain neglected. It is a Greek and Latin MS. of the four gospels
and the Acts of the Apostles, written on parchment in folio. Its
age is probably the seventh century, though the majority of cri-
tics have assigned it to the fifth. It would appear from internal^
evidence to have been written by a Latin, for the nature of the
accompanying version favours this opinion. Kipling, Hug, and
Sehulz think that it was written in Egypt, but Scholz has given
some reasons for assigning it to the South of France that are not

LECT. II. ON ANCIENT MSS. IQ

destitute of weight. Credner assents to the latter opinion as
far as the MS. is concerned, whilst he thinks that the text is of
Jewish-Christian origin, and attributes it to Palestine. With
regard to the quality of its readings much has been said, and
great diversity of opinion has prevailed. The text is neither so
corrupt as Matthaei would induce us to believe, nor so excellent
as others would persuade us to think. The late Bishop Middle-
ton published a dissertation on this MS. at the end of his work
on the Greek article, in which he exhibits an undue tendency to
depreciate it as of little critical value. In this he was probably in-
fluenced by Matthaei, whose edition of the Greek Testament he
admired, and lauded far more than its merits justified. A splen-
did fac-simile of this codex was published by Dr. Kipling at
Cambridge, 1793, 2 volumes folio. On the whole, we are dis-
posed to place considerable value on the readings of this copy,
although it has been corrected by different hands. Instead of
the Greek having been accommodated to the Latin, the Latin
has often been forcibly adapted to the Greek, which gives it an
insipid character.

5. D. codex Claromontanus or the Clermont MS., said to have
been procured by Beza from Clermont in France. It is a Greek-
Latin copy of Paul's Epistles, and cannot be confounded with the
preceding, though marked with the same letter of the alphabet,
since they contain different portions of the New Testament.
Dr. Mill contended that this was the second part of the codex
Cantabrigiensis, but the contrary was satisfactorily proved by
Wetstein. It is at present in the royal library at Paris, entire,
for certain sheets cut out of it by some literary thief in the be-
ginning of the eighteenth century, and sold in England, were
sent back by Lord Oxford in 1729. The beginning of the Epis-
tle to the Romans, is wanting, 1 Cor. xiv. 13 — 22, and the
Epistle to the Hebrews have been supplied by other hands. The
ancient text has several corrections by subsequent individuals.
It may be referred to the 7th or 8th century.

Such are the principal MSS. of the Greek Testament, being
the most ancient and the most highly valued. The rest of those
in uncial characters shall be more briefly noticed.

6. E. or codex Basileensis, the Basil MS. preserved in the
library of that place. It contains the gospels, is defective in se-
veral places, and supplied in others by a later hand. It belongs
to the 9th century, or according to Hug to the 8th.

20 ON ANCIENT MSS. LECT. II'

7. E. Laudianus 3. so called, because presented by Archbp.
Laud to the University of Oxford. It belongs to the Bodleian
Library, This MS. appears to have been written in Sardinia,
in the seventh or eighth century. It contains the Acts of the
Apostles, with a Latin version, and is defective from Chap. xxvi.
29, to xxviii. 26. The text belongs to the Alexandrine recen-
sion. In the year 1715 it was printed by Thomas Hearne, at
Oxford.

8. E. codex Sanrjermanensis a MS. of Paul's Epistles, so ctdled
from having formerly belonged to the abbey of St. Germain in
Paris. It is merely a transcript of the Clermont, and may be
referred to the eleventh century. It has accents and marks of
aspiration a prima manu, and has been assigned by some to the
7th century, which, however, is too high a date.

9. F. codex Boreeli, so called from having formerly belonged to
John Boreel, Dutch ambassador at the court of London in the time
of James 1st. It contains the four gospels with several large chasms.
It is not known where it is at present, and the text belongs to
the Constantinopolitan family,

10. F. Coislinianus, so called from Coislin, Bishop of Metz, to
whom a number of MSS. were bequeathed by the celebrated
Chancellor Seguier, who died in 16/2. This MS. contains a
part of the Old Testament, and does not, properly speaking, be-
long to the New, because it has merely a single passage of the lat-
ter, viz., Acts ix. 24, 25, written in the margin. It belongs to the
seventh century.

11. F. codex Augiensis,2iGv?ieco-\^'di\n MS. of St. Paul's Epistles,
so called from Augia major at Reichenau, abenedictine monastery
in Germany. It is now deposited in the library of Trinity Col-
lege, Cambridge. It is without accents, and has been attributed
to the 10th century. The text belongs to the Alexandrine family.

12. G. or codex Harleianus^ (No. 5684), formerly in the pos-
session of Erasmus Seidelius, who brought it from the East, and
now preserved in the British Museum. It contains the gospels
with many chasms. Its text generally agrees with the Constan-
tinopolitan family, and it is thought to belong to the 1 1th century.

13. G. codex Boernerianus^ so called, from having belonged to
Prof. Boerner of Leipsic. It contains the Epistles of Paul, with
an old interlinear Latin version in use before the time of Jerome.
The Greek characters are uncial but peculiar. Bishop Marsh
says that it appears to have been written in an age when the
transition from the uncial to the small character was being made.

LECT. II. ON ANCIENT MSS. 21

The transcriber seems to have been exceedingly ignorant and
careless. It lias been referred by Scliolz to the 9th century, and
is supposed by him to have been written in Britain, as it has some
Anglo-Saxon characters. The text was certainly copied from an
Alexandrine exemplar. This codex is now in the Electoral lib-
rary at Dresden.

14. H. or Wolfii B., formerly belonged to Seidel, who brought
it from the East. It contains the four gospels with several chasms.
It has been referred to the eleventh century. The text follows
the Constantinopolitan family, though it has many readings cha-
racteristic of the Alexandrine recension.

15. H. (Paul. 179), a MS. containing the Acts of the Apostles,
written in the ninth century. In two places where it is mutilat-
ed, the chasms have been filled up by later hands. The text be-
longs to the Constantinopolitan family. It was first collated by
Scholz.

16. H CoisUnianusy a MS. brought from Mount Athos. It
contains fragments of Paul's Epistles, which are specified by
Scholz, by whom it is referred to the seventh century. Its text
belonofs to the Alexandrine recension.

17. I. or codex Cottonianus, that is, in the Cotton library,
(marked C. 15.) This MS. has but four fragments of the gos-
pels by Matthew and John. It is written on Egyptian paper of
a purple colour, and is supposed to belong to the seventh or eighth
century.

18. J. (Act. G), a MS. belonging to the Augustine monks at
Rome. It has the Acts of the Apostles from the 8th chap. 11 v.
(in which it is marked G) and the Epistles of Paul, but it is mu-
tilated at the end of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The text agrees
with the Constantinopolitan family.

19. K. codex Cyprius or Colbertinus, (5149), now in the Royal
library at Paris, (marked 6S.) It was brought from the island of
Cyprus, in 1637. It contains the gospels, and has been reckon-
ed as old as the ninth century. Considerable value has been
justly attached to the readings of this ancient codex.

20. L. a MS, in the royal library at Paris, (now marked 62,
formerly 2861), containing the gospels, with several chasms. It
belongs to the ninth century, and agrees in its readings with the
Alexandrine recension. The orthography shews that it was writ-
ten in Egypt. In the opinion of Michaelis, it is one of our most
valuable MSS., though it abounds in orthographical errors, and
ridiculous mistakes

22 ON ANCIENT MSS. LECT. II.

21. M. or Regius 48, formerly 2243, a MS. formerly belong-
ing to the Abbe des Camps. It contains the four gospels, with
accents and interpunction, and belongs to the tenth century.
The text generally exhibits the Alexandrine family, though it
sometimes agrees with the Constantinopolitan.

22. N. codex Vindohonensis 2, that is, marked 2 in the Impe-
rial library at Vienna. In addition to fragments of the book of
Genesis, it contains only Luke xxiv. 13 — 21, and 39 — 49. It
has been assigned to the seventh century.

23. O. A fragment of a larger codex, containing no more
than Luke xviii. called codex Bandurii, because given to Mont-
faucon by Anselmo Banduri.

24. P. or codex Guelpherhytanus A. This is a codex rescriptus
belonging to the sixth century, containing fragments of the gospels.

25. Q. Guelpherhytanus B. This is also a codex rescriptus^ con-
taining fragments of Luke and John, and belonging to the sixth
century.

26. R. a Tubingen fragment, consisting of a single quarto
leaf of vellum, written on both sides, having John's gospel i. 38
— 50. It has been assigned to the seventh century.

27. S. Codex Vaticanus 354, written in the year 949, and con-
taining the gospels. Its text adheres to the Byzantine family.

28. T. Borgiae 1, so called, because it was sent to Stephen
Borgia, secretary to the society de propaganda Jide. It is merely
a fragment of 13 leaves, with portions of 'John's gospel, supposed
to be as old as the fifth century.

29. U. a MS. belonging to St. Mark's library at Venice, con-
taining the gospels, and belonging to the tenth century. It fol-
lows the Constantinopolitan recension.

30. V. a codex of the four gospels, in the library at Moscow.
The first part has been referred to the eighth century, but from
John vii. 39, it is written in cursive letters, and belongs to the
thirteenth. Scholz says that it exhibits the Constantinopolitan
recension.

31. W. a fragment in the royal library at Paris, consisting of
two leaves only, and containing parts of Luke's gospel. Scholz
refers it to the eighth century, and the text to the Alexandrine
family.

32. X. a MS. in the public library at Landshut. It has the
gospels with numerous chasms, and is referred to the tenth cen-
tury. The text adheres to the Alexandrine family.

33. Y. a codex in the library of Cardinal Barberini, at Rome.

LECT. II. ON ANCIENT MSS. 23

It is a mere fragment, containing a small part of John's gospel,
supposed to have been written in the ninth century. The text
is the Alexandrine.

34. Z. a codex rescriptus in the library of Trinity College,
Dublin. It contains the gospel of Matthew, with many chasms,
according to the Alexandrine recension. Dr. Barret published
a fac-simile of it, A.D. 1801. The MS. is thought to belong to
the sixth century.

35. r, a codex in the Vatican library, containing fragments of
St. Matthew's gospel. The text agrees with the Alexandrine
family, and the MS. is said to belong to the seventh century.

36. A, a codex in the library at St. Gallen, containing the
gospels, with an interlinear Latin version. It is thought to have
been written in the ninth century, and the text belongs to the
Alexandrine recension.

These are all the MSS. of any part of the Greek Testament,
in uncial letters, that have been yet examined. Our knowledge
of some of them is extremely limited, for they have not been
carefully collated. Many of them indeed are mere fragments,
scarcely deserving of mention, unless from their antiquity.

The later editors of the Scriptures have been most successful
in this department. In exploring libraries in different and dis-
tant countries, they have employed the greatest diligence and
care. Still much remains to be done. Though the places where
MSS. were written, their age, goodness, and value, have been
determined with considerable accuracy, yet future labourers will
doubtless correct and extend the observations of their predecessors.
In the mean time, we must rely on the judgment of those best
conversant with these documents, and safely trust to it as suffi-
ciently accurate. While they have cheerfully engaged in under-
takings liable to deter ordinary men, by their magnitude and ex-
pense, we may be assured that they have not rashly proceeded,
or willingly erred. We are put in possession of materials, from
which we are able of ourselves to draw conclusions relative to
MSS., with tolerable accuracy. This we owe to the indefatiga-
ble perseverance of such collators.

There are three other MSS. deserving of mention, though not
written in uncial characters, from their connection with the much
disputed passage, 1 John v. 7, which they are usually quoted as
containing. They are written in cursive letters, a circumstance
that determines them not to be older than the tenth century.

24 ON ANCIENT MSS. LECT. II.

The first of these is the codex Montfortianus or Montfortii,
sometimes called Duhlinensis. This MS. is preserved in the li-
brary of Trinity College, Dublin, to which it was presented by
Archbishop Usher. Hence it is denominated Dublinensis^ and
from its having belonged to Dr. Montfort, a Cambridge divine,
in the seventeenth century, Montfortianus, It contains the
whole of the New Testament, and is quoted by Erasmus, under
the name of codex Britanniciis, who, on its authority alone, insert-
ed the disputed passage in his third edition of the Greek Testa-
ment, after he had omitted it in his first and second. In a con-
troversy with Stunica he had promised to insert it, if any Greek
MS. containing it should be discovered. Hence, the suspicion
arose that it was written for this very purpose, a suspicion enter-
tained by Professor Porson, and which the circumstances attend-
ing its first appearance were sufficient to create. The probabili-
ty, however, is against its forgery, though the MS. is certainly
singular in its character. Dr. A. Clarke thinks it " the work of
an unknown bold critic, who formed a text from one or more
MSS. in conjunction with the Vulgate, and was by no means
sparing of his own conjectural emendations, for it contains many
readings which exist in no MS. yet discovered." It is written
on paper in duodecimo size, and could not have been made ear-
lier than the fifteenth century. Dr. A. Clarke assigns it to the
thirteenth, but in this he was mistaken. It is divided accord-
ing to the Latin arrangement, into chapters, introduced by Car-
dinal Hugo in the thirteenth century. Now this is not found in
any Greek MS. written before the fifteenth century, when the
Greeks fled into the west of Europe, after the taking of Constan-
tinople. It follows the Vulgate very closely, not only in the in-
sertion of the much disputed verse, but also in other passages of
a remarkable character. In the sixth verse of the same chapter
it has with the Vulgate X^iarog (X^iffrog knv yi dXrj^sia) an evident
translation of Christus est Veritas, though all other Greek MSS.
have cri/sD/xa. In verse 7, 'raTr.o, y.oyog, %ai 'jtvivfia dym, by the omis-
sion of the article, correspond in every respect to pater, Jilius,
et spiritus sanctus, and ovroi seems to have originated from hi. In
the eighth verse, it omits the final clause, which is found in
all other Greek MSS., and which was not omitted, even in the
Latin, before the thirteenth century. In this it servilely copies
the Vulgate which wants the clause, because the Lateran coun-
cil held in 1215, rejected it through polemical motives.

LECT. II. ON ANCIENT MSS. 25

The next of the MSS. referred to is the codex Ravianvs, Ravii,
or Berolinensis, so called because it was brought from the East
by Professor Rave of Upsal, and afterwards deposited in Berlin.
This codex contains the whole of the New Testament, and has
1 John V. 7. It is, however, generally supposed to be a forgery,
copied, in the greater part, from the Greek text in theCompluten-
sian Polyglott, and the third edition of Stephens. It has even their
errors of the press, from which we naturally infer that the tran-
scriber had a very limited knowledge of Greek. This MS. could
not have been one of those used by the Complutensian editors, be-
cause Stunica, with whom Erasmus had a controversy, would
have appealed to it when challenged by his opponent to produce
a Greek MS. containing 1 John v. 7, had he known of its exis-
tence. It was, therefore, written in the 16th century, and ought
never to be quoted in support of the disputed passage, as it has
no critical existence.

The codex Ottobonianus^ (298), preserved in the Vatican, is
also mentioned in the controversy concerning 1 John v. 7. This
MS. contains the Acts and Epistles, with a Latin version. Scholz
ascribes it to the 15th century. It has no critical value, because it
has been altered in many places to correspond with the Vulgate.
In it the disputed place is found in a different form from the
common reading. Instead of b ruJ ov^avui it has a-xo rou ov^avovjrom
heaven, and instead of iv rfi yfj, u^6 rrig yrtg from the earth.

In the preceding account of the MSS. of the Greek Testament,
I have adopted the division into uncial and cursive, or those
written in capital and srnall letters. The modern critics of Ger-
many, however, arrange them thus; 1st, Such as preceded the
practice of stichometry, a mode of dividing the text which shall
be explained afterwards. 2d. The stichometrical. 3d, Such as
were written after stichometry had become extinct. This is the
division of Hug and De Wette in their introductions to the
New Testament. ^

In examining MSS., and comparing their characteristic read-
ings, it is no easy matter to ascertain, in every case, the true
reading. So many circumstances are to be taken into account,
and so many cautions to be observed, that the task often becomes
tedious because of the uncertainty that prevails. We cannot
therefore be sufficiently grateful for the advantages we enjoy
in having the readings of so many MSS. put within our reach
by those indefatigable men who have directed their attention to

26 ON ANCIENT MSS. LECT II.

tlie subject, repulsive as is its aspect. The comparison of MS.
copies is useful, in the first instance, in pointing out the various
readings that have taken place in the original text. By their aid
it is much easier to detect interpolated passages than to restore
the true reading. When they all agree, we cannot suppose that
there has been any alteration or corruption ; but when their exhi-
bition of the same passage is observed to differ, we naturally infer
that some change has been made. Wherever, therefore, an in-
terpolation or omission has occurred in the authentic text, a col-
lation of MSS. will at once exhibit the fact. If many of them
differ in their readings of a passage, the genuine text must have
been altered in one or more ; but, when they all harmonize, or,
in other words, contain no diversity, we are not justified in sus-
pecting the incorruptness of the place. In correcting passages
rightly thought to have been altered either by interpolation or
omission, MSS. are to be used with much judgment and caution.
In this respect they are not so useful as we might be apt to sup-
pose. The uncertainty that often attaches to their age contri-
butes to increase this deficiency of utility. It has been properly
laid down that the reading of an older MS. is preferable to that
of a more modern one, unless other circumstances outweigh its
antiquity. The nearer a document approaches the age of the
original, it is natural to infer that it has been subject to fewer
alterations. Frequency of transcription has operated less in de-
teriorating its text than in those of a later date. The fewer
hands it has passed through, the fewer changes we suppose it to
have undergone. This reasoning, however, presupposes that
we are acquainted with the relative ages of certain MSS.
We assume an acquaintance with their dates, from which we
reason as though it were liable to no well-founded objection. It
is true that there are circumstances by means of which we may
usually determine the age of a MS. with tolerable accuracy.
M'^e may not, indeed, in all cases, fix upon the precise century,
but we mny approximate it. The mode of writing, the abbrevia-
tions, and the divisions adopted, serve to indicate the age of the
MS. Even these things, however, are not always sufficient to
enable us to decide with certainty. They are sometimes liable
to ambiguity. In fixing upon the age of the document, the most
accurate may be occasionally deceived, though they follow testi-
mony, and neglect not internal marks. The form of the letters,
the division of words, the nature of the lines, the presence or ab-

LECT. II. ON ANCIENT MSS. 27

sence of accents, are indeed valuable data for determining the
date ; but copyists were not always observant of the mode of
writing that prevailed in their day. Often, to enhance the value
of their MSS., they imitated the old writing, and thus gave a
sort of fac-simile rather than a copy of the document before them.
Thus the form of the letters is not always a sure criterion by which
to judge of the age of a transcript. The most ancient MS. at present
known cannot be placed higher than the fourth century. It is,
therefore, possible that in the time intervening between the auto-
graphs and its production, numerous alterations may have taken
place, either from the unintentional errors of copyists or from
design. It is not probable that a MS. could be transmitted
through several centuries without undergoing some change.
That the age alone of a MS. is not sufficient, in all cases, to
warrant the genuineness of its readings, will be manifest from the
follov/ing considerations. The copyist may have been guilty of
inattention and negligence in the discharge of his duty. We
must, therefore, endeavour to ascertain the fact, whether a do-
cument of this kind have been written carelessly, or whether the
transcriber was actuated by a laudable zeal to render his tran-
script as accurate as possible. In proportion to the care or ne-
gligence exhibited, will the authority of the MS. be greater or
less. Thus after we have ascertained the antiquity of a MS.
with as much certainty as possible, our business is next to dis-
cover whether there be any circumstances tending materially to
lessen the authority which it derives from age. And here it
will be necessary to examine the degree of accuracy with which
it was written. But there is an exception to the rule that the
authority of a MS. is in proportion to its antiquity, viz. a docu-
ment which has been certainly copied from one very ancient will
have greater authority than an earlier, which has been taken from
another of no great antiquity. Thus a MS. of the eighth century
may have been directly copied from one of the fifth, and'conse-
quently the former will be entitled to greater estimation than
one belonging to the 7th century, transcribed from one of the
sixth. The MS. of the fifth century, from which that of the
eighth was derived, may have lain undiscovered till the time when
it was brought forth from its obscurity and copied. In such a
case the MS. of the eighth century may be regarded as of higher
antiquity than our oldest of the sixth, because it was made im-
mediately from a more ancient and valuable exemplar. In esti-

28 ON ANCIENT MSS. LECT. II.

mating the value of a MS. it is not unusual to refer to the coun-
try where it was written, as influencing our judgment of its au-
thority. But the country is not always easily discovered. In
the case of the New Testament copies, the opinions of critics
with regard to some of them are very dissimilar, and as to what
weight ought to be attached to country they are no less divided.
Griesbach and others, prefer the African, ceteris paribus, while
Scholz, Lachmann, Rink, &c. favour the Asiatic, Many argu-
ments of inconsiderable force have been adduced on both sides,
with some plausibility. With respect to Hebrew MSS., it is admit-
ted by all, that the Spanish are the best. The Italian again are su-
perior in goodness to the German. In connection with this point,
it is to be observed that the acquaintance of a copyist with the
language of his MS. is not always to be regarded as an excellence
in his transcript. His knowledge of the language would natu-
rally lead him to alter, in some places, with the design of im-
proving. This is a point, indeed, that cannot always be ascer-
tained, and which, therefore, throws some uncertainty over passa-
ges found in MSS. of a particular kind. But those documents
have very great authority in favour of readings which could not
have been introduced without a knowledge of the language. If
there be such orthographical mistakes in a copy as shew that
the transcriber was ignorant of the language of his MS., we have
a strong presumption in the circumstance for the truth of readings
which require and presuppose a knowledge of the language in
the person introducing them into the text.

The authority of such codices as have been called critici is not
so great as that of others bearing the same age. Having been com-
piled from several MSS., instead of being faithful transcripts of
single copies, they cannot be reckoned of equal value with those
that owe their existence to one parent. Such eclectic copies may
contain ancient and good readings, but afford no criterion by
which we might judge of the state or condition of the individual
MSS. from which they have been taken, because no one source
has been uniformly followed.

The genuineness of a reading, then, is not determined by the
mere antiquity of a MS. in which it is found. Its antiquity is
doubtless valuable, as affording a presumption in favour of its pu-
rity ; but there are modifying circumstances to be attended to,
which may lessen the authority that would otherwise belong to
naked antiquity. In determining the authenticity of a reading,

LECT. II. ON ANCIENT MSS. 29

we must likewise take into account tlie number of the copies in
which it is contained. This is an obvious and natural canon.
The reading of the greater number of MSS. is preferable to that
of a less number. The rule, however, requires limitation. The
mere majority of MSS. is not a safe and certain criterion of the
correctness of a reading. Several may have been copied from one
and the same codex ; and thus they are all to be regarded as one^
and entitled to no more than one voice. They only prove that the
reading which all of them present was found in the particular MS.
from which they were copied. Hence criticism has laid down the
rule, that the majority of MSS. which have arisen from different
independent sources, or, in other words, a majority of those be-
longing to different recensions, can alone decide in favour of a
disputed reading. This subject is confessedly one of great diffi-
culty, and it may be doubted whether it be as yet firmly settled.
It is not easy in some cases to determine the recension to which
a codex belonors. The most eminent scholars differ on this diffi-
cult topic, some proposing four different families of MSS., some
three, others two. It is also to be noted that the same MS. may
incline to a different family in different parts, — to one recension,
for instance, in the Gospels, and to another in the Epistles ; while
in some the characteristic readings of two or three recensions are
commingled, rendering it difficult to decide which family prepon-
derates, or to which the text of the codex is to be assigned.
When any of these things happens, it will be necessary to inquire
whether the MS. have received alterations from later hands, or
whether several ancient documents may not have contributed to
its formation. This habitual circumspection may be extended to
all MSS. ; for it has not unfrequently happened that recent hands
have supplied defects in the original copy, or retouched faded
letters, giving them perhaps a different shape from that which
they had at first. We must therefore look in all cases whether
a codex have been altered in its progress from remote times, or if
marginal glosses have been taken into the text ; and if it be as-
certained that such liberties have been taken with it, we must
mark with precision the particular passages supplied or altered
by later hands. As long as the editor of a critical edition of the
Greek Testament does not fully establish the truth of that system
of recensions by which he estimates the value of MSS., so long
will his judgment relative to particular readings be liable to doubt.
These remarks respecting recensions do not apply to the Hebrew

30 ON ANCIENT MSS. LECT. II.

codices, all of which belong to one and the same family. It is
true that some have distinguished them into Masoretic and Ante-
masoreticy but the existence of the latter is a mere fiction. One
great family alone can be distinctly traced, viz. the Masoretic, to
which all that have been yet collated may be referred.

These general observations may serve to show that various cir-
cumstances must be taken into account by such as examine MSS.
with a view to the revision of the sacred text. They may enable
us to perceive that the means afforded by codices of restoring the
purity of the originals are not so definite or valuable as we wish ;
and that other helps are required to aid us in ascertaining the
ipsissima verba of the inspired writers. In detecting corruptions
and alterations they are of vast importance and utility ; but in re-
moving alterations that have been introduced into the sacred
writings, and in replacing the true readings, they do not afford us
all the assistance we need. In the one part of criticism they are
so ample as to leave little difficulty — in the other they do not sa-
tisfy the expectation. Still it is unquestionable that they consti-
tute the most valuable and important source of criticism — the most
credible witness for the express words of the original writers. To
them therefore must all editors of the Scriptures principally look,
as the basis of that text which they would designate by the name
oithe Word of God

eioY'^^rcoeNi-pA

YMcA^HTOYcnoAACOK^

^HceocoYAOri2'e^A>

K A TAXApl N AA A AK ATA
^S>€IAHMA

Jo , 15,14, l^CLmse.

Y.Co(LTaZ,n.l209.

u

TTefiJLeTHCHMe

T^ceKeiNHCHayfxcavAB\cx>LsJe

ovA^oarrexooieNc\iN^

ovceiMhofrFif

MarlcoiiiS'Z Cod ^^.

m

rrepiABTHCHMepi^ceKeiNH c
K a,iTHca)f ^co\^eicx>iAeN
^VAeoixrreAoie Nrcoovf ^ncx)

o V^eOVTOCeiNHOTT ^THP

LECTURE III.

ANCIENT VERSIONS.

Next to MSS. ancient versions are usually regarded as a source
of obtaining a pure text. That such translations of the Scrip-
tures are of great importance, not only in ascertaining the ge-
nuine reading, but also the right interpretation, is unquestionably
true. At present we are merely concerned with them as sources
of information with regard to the original text of the Bible.
Many of them are of high antiquity, being derived from very an-
cient MSS., and made in so literal a style, that they furnish va-
luable data for discovering the state of the text at the time they
were written. They reach to a more remote period than any co-
dices that have come down to us, and are therefore justly regarded
as important witnesses to the early condition of the original text.
Even those which do not claim much value from their compara-
tively recent date, are of advantage in showing the substantially
uncorrupted sources from which they were made. Rich and in-
valuable is the treasure of testimony which they bear to the ge-
neral integrity of the Bible. It is true that they have not escaped
the deteriorations of time, or the unavoidable accidents that befal
ancient memorials in their transmission through many centuries,
but the judgment, learning, and research of Christians, have been
elicited in restoring them to their original state. They present
a wide field of industry to the laborious, on which they may be
employed as a preparative to the great work of educing the ge-
nuine readings of the Bible. They increase the critical appara-
tus which our own age has enriched with valuable contributions.
In the present state of our limited literature, we are not prepared,
perhaps, to pronounce with sufficient confidence on the compara-
tive value of these versions. When the apparatus shall be com-
pleted, by the accumulating materials it receives from various and
independent investigators, and when the whole may be surveyed
together by the eye of the higher criticism, then shall the scholar
be better able to decide on the merit of the readings furnished by
ancient translations, and their preference to other sources of
emendation. Posterity may yet discover in this department of

3'2 ANCIENT VERSIONS. LECT. III.

sacred literature, special rules by which they shall at once form a
judgment in reference to the adoption or rejection of the readings
supplied by the various versions. At present we are scarcely ar-
rived at that era in which we may expect to reap the full advan-
tage of the laborious and lengthened investigations of individual
versions undertaken by many. It would be premature to pro-
nounce on the authority and value of their characteristic readings,
until the science of sacred criticism shall have farther advanced.
The time, however, is not remote when such a decision may be
uttered without presumption or rashness. Ancient translations
shall then be brought into the respective positions they ought to
occupy, and the peculiar readings of each shall be set by the side
of those of its companions, whether junior or more ancient, to be
calmly weighed in the balances of an enlightened judgment.
Meantime a more minute inspection of each version is required
for hastening forward the grand result of so many and long-conti-
nued efforts. They must be known and described, not merely as
furnishing an aggregate collection of valuable readings — not only
must an opinion be passed on the general merits of each transla-
tion as a whole, but the eye must be brought to survey the dif-
ferent parts and proportions of individual versions with their re-
spective readings. This has not yet been done in the majority of
such as have been described. They still desiderate the hand of
patient and erudite research. Nor is the task to be accomplished
by a single man. However varied may be the intellectual ac-
quirements of an individual — however favourable his opportuni-
ties— however free his access to rare and valuable libraries — how-
ever extensive may be his own collection — however lengthened
and persevering his biblical travels — still the grasp of the mind is
too narrow, and human life too short, to expect so vast a work
from the most indefatigable of the sons of men. Constituted,
too, as man is, such a thing were by no means desirable. Divi-
sion of labour ensures the greatest success.

Having said thus much of ancient versions generally, it re-
mains for me to advert, in a few words, to the manner in which I
propose to treat of ihem. I deem it necessary to mention this,
that I may not lie under the imputation of injudiciousness in the
mode of discussing this department of criticism. There are two
extremes into which we may run — that of great superficiality or
of profound investigation. The status of those who enter the
theological class in this seminary would seem to recommend the

LECT. III. ANCIENT VERSIONS. 33

former. But I have learned enough of the evils resultiiKJ- from
such procedure, either to approve of it in others, or to adopt it
myself. It is better to set before you a tolerably extensive de-
tail, that you may be stimulated to prosecute the subject for
yourselves. It is improbable that much g-ood could be effected by
presenting you with a meagre view. It is apt to beget a feelino*
of contentment with small things, and to induce habits of super-
ficial reading, productive of serious detriment to the studious
mind. There is indeed something to recommend a brief survey
of the present division, as well as of all others that lie before us,
in the native indolence of the human mind, and its proneness to
dislike whatever does not pass before it arrayed in the garb of
fiction or the familiar costume of popular discourse. But some-
thing higher is to be desired by him who would investigate p-ojono
marte the literature of the Bible. And though I may possibly
fatigue the perfunctory student by an enumeration to which he is
unaccustomed even by name, and by the discussion of Biblical
subjects of unwonted aspect, yet it is better to subject myself to
the imputation of over-rating the attainments, and exceeding the
wants of such as hear me, by bringing systematically before them
the present part of our prelections. Those accustomed to low at-
tainments are habitually inimical to the execution of elevated pur-
poses. The injury done to their minds, however gradually and
insensibly it may be produced, will be quite perceptible after a
season. If we vv'ould aspire to knowledge truly valuable — if we
would rise to eminence and outstrip our fellows — we must look
higher and farther than the ordinary routine of education.
Should a few be encouraged and excited to enter upon the exa-
mination of the subjects I propose to discuss, the time and labour
expended in giving a more extended survey than the sources to
which they have access can afford, will not be thrown away. We
would willingly anticipate the desires of the most eager, leading
them into regions where there is sufficient scope for literary cu-
riosity, pious admiration, and sincere gratitude to the Father of
gifts. We are encouraged, too, by other considerations, to pur-
sue the proposed plan. In some of the English universities a
wider circuit is taken. And though Dissenters, generally speak-
ing, cannot vie with members of the Establishment of England in
learning or theological acquirements, yet, looking at the theolo-
gical education afforded by some seminaries belonging to other
denominations, it appears to be in advance of us. All classes of

D

34 ANCIENT VERSIONS. LECT. m.

Christians professing to employ learning as a handmaid to the
successful preaching of the gospel, afford a precedent for the sys-
tematic discussion of sacred topics. There is therefore no impru-
dence or impropriety in following their footsteps. There is no-
thing in our position as a church to deter us from imitating the
laudable proceedings of other religious denominations. What-
ever improvements in the mode of training up candidates for the
ministry they make, should be considered worthy of our adoption.
We should be stimulated to commence with them a generous ri-
valry in all that is good, honourable, and useful.

In describing ancient versions of the Scriptures, they might be
divided in various ways. They might be distinguished according
to their country, their language, and their internal character.
But all of these divisions are attended with considerable difficulty,
and incapable of adoption by such as love simplicity of plan. It
is most convenient to divide them according to their sources, into
immediate and mediate. The former were made directly from the
originals of the Scriptures, — the latter owe their origin to other
translations. To the former class belong, 1. The Seventy in-
terpreters. 2. Aquila. 3. Symmachus. 4. Theodotion in part.
5, 6, 7. The three anonymous Greek versions, or, in other
words, the 5th, 6th, and 7th szdoff/g. 8. The Greek translation in
St. Mark's library at Venice. 9. To ^a/xa^ar/Kov, the Sama-
ritan in part. 10. The Samaritan translation of the Penta-
teuch. 11. The several Chaldee paraphrases. 12. The Peshito.
13. Some books of the Arabic in the Polyglotts. 14. The Arabic
that follows the Samaritan Pentateuch. 15. The Arabic of
Erpenius on the Five Books of Moses. 16. A modern Arabic
translation by Saadias Ben Levi Asnekoth. 17. A Hebrew
version of the Chaldee sections in Daniel and Ezra. 18. The
Gothic version in New Testament. 19. Georgian New Testa-
ment. 20. Slavonian New Testament. 21. Arabic of Erpenius
on the Gospels. 22. An Arabic version of Acts of Apostles,
Pauline Epistles, and Apocalypse, printed in the Paris and
London Polyglotts. 23. Armenian New Testament. 24. Mem-
phitic in the New Testament. 25. Thebaic New Testament.
26. ^thiopic New Testament. 27. Palestino-Syriac. 28. Phi-
loxenian. 29. A Persian translation of the Pentateuch, printed
in the sixth volume of the London Polyglott.

The mediate versions have been made partly from the Scp-
tuagint, partly the Syriac Peshito, partly the Coptic version.

LECT. III. ANCIENT VERSIONS. 35

partly Jerome's own Latin translation, and partly the Vul-
gate. The Seventy are the basis of the following : 1. Theodotion
in part. 2. The Arabic translation printed in the Polyglotts in
most of the books. 3. An unprinted Arabic version of the Pen-
tateuch in the Medicean library. 4. The iEthiopic in the Old
Testament. 5. Thebaic in the Old Testament. 6. The Arme-
nian in the Old Testament. 7. Memphitic in the Old Testament.
8. Georgian in the Old Testament. 9. Gothic in the Old Testa-
ment. 10. The Vetus Itala and Jerome's revision of it. 11. The
Anglo-Saxon through the Antehieronymian. 12. Numerous
Syrian versions, among which are the following : (a J The Hexa-
plaric-Syrian, made by Paul Bishop of Telia (a. d. 616); (h)
the versio Jigurafa or Jifpirative version ; (c) that of Mar Abba ;
(d) perhaps also the Philoxenian ; (e) that of Jacob of Edessa ;
( f ) that of Thomas of Heraclea ; (g) that of Simeon, Abbot of
the monastery of St. Licinius ; (h) the Karkaphensian version.
From the Syrian Peshito are derived, 1. I'he Arabic version of the
Psalms, printed in a monastery on Mount Lebanon, a. d. 1610.
2. The Arabic translation of several books printed in the Poly-
glotts. 3. An Arabic Psalter in the British museum. 4. The
Pentateuch by Abulfaradsh Abdallah Ben Attayeb. 5. The Chal-
dee version of Solomon's Proverbs. 6. The Peshito in the New
Testament is the mother of the Arabic translation of the Acts,
Pauline Epistles, James, 1st Peter, 1st John, in the Arabic New
Testament, published by Erpenius; and, 7. Of the Persian trans-
lation of the Gospels in the London Polyglott: — all these are
daughters of the Syrian Peshito. From the Coptic several trans-
lations of the Bible were made into Arabic, which are known
only by fragments. The Vulgate has been several times trans-
lated into the Arabic and Persian languages; and the Anglo-
Saxon in the Old Testament is derived from it. 'O 2u^o? (the
Syrian) seems to have been made out of Jerome's Latin transla-
tion of the Hebrew text.

To the most important of these versions we propose to direct
your attention, omitting the second class altogether.

On the Septuagint Version. — The oldest version of any
part of the Scriptures in any language, is the Greek translation
of the Old Testament, usually called the Septuagint^ either from the
supposed circumstance of its having been approved by the Jewish
Sanhedrim consisting of seventy-two persons, or from the Jewish

36 ANCIENT VERSIONS. LECT. III.

account of seventy-two individuals having been employed in mak-
ing it. Among all tlie translations of the Old Testament, this
has the first claim on our attention, not only on account of its
great antiquity, but from its very general reception among Jews
and Christians. It is also supposed to be oftener quoted in the
New Testament than the original Hebrew, showing that it was
in general use in the synagogues and churches, and regarded, on
the whole, as a faithful translation. Its history is veiled in ob-
scurity. Few historical notices of its origin are extant, and even
such as have come down to us are suspected as spurious. In the
absence of sure data, writers have had recourse to various hypo-
theses in many points contradictory to each other, and all of them
resting on slender and unsatisfactory grounds. It is not to be
expected that we should enumerate all the varying accounts that
have been given. Such a task would be attended with little be-
nefit. We shall chiefly confine ourselves to that one which ap-
pears to us most plausible and best supported by ancient testi-
mony, without entering into the formal refutation of others that
scarcely admit of or deserve so much regard. The oldest writer
who makes mention of the Septuagint is Aristobulus the Jew, of
whom both Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius speak. In a
passage, where he wishes to prove that the ancient Greek philo-
sophers, such as Plato and Pythagoras, were acquainted with the
divine law, he asserts, that before the time of Ptolemy Philadel-
phus and Demetrius Phalereus, there existed a Greek translation
of the Pentateuch, from which these philosophers drew the great-
est part of their writings ; and then he adds — 'H d' o7.7j ko/xrivs'"- ruv
dia rou vo/mov TavrMv, s-rri rov 'TreoGayo^evdsvTog (piXadsX(poii (SacrAsMg — Ari/xri'
r^ia TO\j (i>aXri^sug 'Tr^uyfiarsvffcc/xsvov rcc -^rggi rovroov. " The entire inter-
pretation of the law was made in the time of a king sirnamed
Philadelphus — Demetrius Phalereus being actively employed
about it." From this passage it appears, that in the time of
Aristobulus, (i. e. at the commencement of the second century be-
fore Christ,) this translation was considered to have been made
when Demetrius Phalereus lived, and also in the reign of Ptolemy
Philadelphus. The former appears to have been the promoter of
the work (^-Trpay/xa.rivoa/xsvou tu tt^I tovtuv). Some authors, particu-
larly Hody, have endeavoured to show that this account contra-
dicts the voice of history, and that therefore no credit is to be at-
tached to it. But when closely examined, it will be found to ac-
cord with unquestionable history, and to recommend itself to our

LECT. III. ANCIENT VERSIONS. o7

belief by its simplicity and unity. It has been objected that it
makes Demetrius l^lialereus live in the reign of Ptolemy Phi-
ladelphus. This however is founded on a mistaken apprehension
of the passage we have quoted. We know that Demetrius lived
under Ptolemy Lagi, and died soon after him. But the account
merely states that Demetrius was the person who took the first
active part in it, or, in other words, who set it on foot ; and that
the whole vf2i?> finished in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus. It is
related by Plutarch (Apophthegm. Reg.), that Demetrius advised
Lagi to purchase and read books relating to royalty and dominion
(ja moi /Sr/c/As/a; 'Aot,i rr/i!J^oviag /3//3x/a, &c.) ; and we know from another
source that he took an important part in the laws introduced by
Ptolemy (^lian, Var. Hist. iii. 17). It is certain also that this
king was favourably disposed towards the Jews, numbers of who
spontaneously forsook their native land to reside in Egypt, under
the sway of a monarch so kind to their nation. Even Hecatseus,
in his work relating to Egypt, speaks so favourably of the Jews,
as to show the time when he lived, and the influences to which he
was subject. He appears to have had some acquaintance with
Jewish writings. According to this very ancient testimony of
Aristobulus relative to the mode in which the Septuagint ver-
sion originated, we must attribute its existence to a literary mo-
tive. The object of Demetrius in advising the king to procure a
copy of the Jewish laws, was to obtain information respecting the
best method of governing a nation, and of forming laws for its re-
gulation and economic well-being. It has been a subject of no
small controversy, whether Aristobulus' words imply that all
the books of the Old Testament were translated into Greek
under Ptolemy Philadelphus, or merely the Pentateuch. Hody
contends for the latter opinion ; Valckenaer for the former.
On this difficult point we coincide with Valckenaer, believing
that Aristobulus speaks of the whole of the Old Testament.
The words twv ha, -oZ voixou, on which Hody chiefly rests, are
not decisive in favour of his opinion. The word vo/o-oc must
be understood in the sense attached to it by the Alexandrine
Jews, who regarded the other books of the Old Testament as a
sort of Appendix to those of Moses, and spoke of the whole un-
der one appellation i/o>oj. The law they preferred far above all
other parts of the sacred writings. Besides, the context shows
that this opinion is the more correct, for it is presupposed that
the Pentateuch had baea translated mu^h sooner. The writer

J38 ANCIENT VERSIONS. LECT. III.

says, in the first place, that there was an ancient version of cer-
tain books, viz. of those of Moses, and then " that the entire
interpretation of all the books in the law was executed in the
reign of Philadelphus." There is a manifest contrast between
the Pentateuch and the rest of Scripture : hence the expression

ruv Trdv-uv, In addition to these considerations it may be

stated, that Aristobulus could not, with any degree of probabili-
ty, be interpreted as saying that the version of the Pentateuch
alone required such a length of time as he speaks of; it must
therefore be assumed that he mentions a work of larger compass.
Objections derived from the internal character of the version have
been also brought forward to impugn the genuineness of Aristo-
bulus' narrative. It has been affirmed that the translation was
made by degrees, an assertion which is doubtless true, although
the general opinion that assigns to its production a long period,
must be regarded as improbable. The space of time which it
occupied was proportionably short, for although it has been
thought by many that it was not completed till after Ptolemy
Philadelphus, because the subscription to the book of Esther as-
signs the portion to which it is appended to the time of Ptolemy
Philometor, yet this subscription refers to the apocryphal addi-
tions to the book of Esther, which are certainly of later origin
than the genuine portions. It is unnecessary to allude to the
other grounds on which Hody rests. They do not prove that a
later origin must be assigned to some books than the time of
Philadelphus, and therefore they do not invalidate Aristobulus'
account. The judicious inquirer may easily dispose of such ar-
guments as Hody adduces against the truth of Aristobulus' testi-
mony.

The next historical testimony respecting the Septuagint, is
the prologue of Jesus the Son of Sirach, a document particularly
interesting, because it contains the judgment of a Palestinian
Jew respecting this ancient version. He requests the reader's in-
dulgence on behalf of his own translation, and adds ou ilwuv o\ my-

ar/.^ccv iyji rriv diaipooav h euvrcTc, >.syo/xsm. " And not only these
things, but the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the
books, have no small difference when they are spoken in their
own language." From this it appears that the law, the prophets,
and the rest of the books, were at that time (liiO u. r.) translated
into Greek. The author states, that during his abode in Egypt

LKCT. III. ANCIENT VERSIONS. 39

he perceived several important variations between the Egyptian
Jews and those of his own country respecting their modes of
handling scripture and their expository treatment of it.

We come now to the account given by Aristeas, an author
who pretends to be a Gentile, and prefect of the body-guards of
the King of Egypt. In a letter addressed to his brother Philo-
crates, he relates that Ptolemy Philadelphus, when founding a
library at great expense, applied by direction of Demetrius Pha-
lereus the librarian, to Eleazar the High Priest of the Jews, for
a copy of the book containing the laws of the Jewish nation, in
order to complete the collection of the laws of all countries.
Having previously ransomed 20,000 Jewish captives, he sent am-
bassadors bearing magnificent presents to Jerusalem, with a re-
quest that the High Priest would send him the sacred books,
and suitable persons to translate them into the language of the
country. In compliance with the request of the King, and by
advice of the Sanhedrim, a copy of the law was sent, written in
golden letters on many skins artificially joined together ; toge-
ther with 7*2 interpreters chosen out of the twelve tribes. 1 he
King assigned them an abode in the palace of the isle of Pharos,
where, after mutual consultation, they finished the translation in
7*2 days. It was then publicly read in presence of the assembled
Jews and all the chief men of Alexandria, by whom it was uni-
versally approved. Imprecations were uttered against any one
who would presume to alter it in the least particular, and it was
deposited in the royal library, where it was kept with the great-
est care. The elders were sent home loaded with presents and
with honour. The King then permitted the chiefs of the syna-
gogues to write out copies for their use, and the version soon
became general through all the countries where the Greek lan-
guage was spoken, and synagogues or churches were established.
According to Usher whom Walton follows, this took place in
the year 277 b. c. Although many of the ancients supposed
that a Greek version at least of the law of Moses existed before
this, yet the present would rather seem to have been the first ever
made. If there had been another, it is not probable that Demetrius
W'Ould have been ignorant of it, or that Ptolemy, whilst search-
ing the world for Greek books, would have been at so great ex-
pense to procure a new version. Josephus agrees with the nar-
rative of Aristeas, because he took the whole story from him ;
but Philo dissents in many particulars. The latter passes over

40 ANCIENT VERSIONS. LECT. III.

in silence a multitude of things that are reckoned of great im-
portance in Aristeas' narrative, while he adds new circumstances.
According to him, Ptolemy King of Egypt sent messengers to
Jerusalem to bring Jewish interpreters of the Pentateuch to
Egypt. These learned men having arrived at Alexandria, re-
paired to the isle of Pharos, that they might not be disturbed by
the tumult and din of the city. There they made distinct versions,
which on comparison were found to agree in every word, although
there had been no communication between the translators.
It appears thus that they were directed by the Holy Spirit in
the choice of every word they wrote. Philo adds, that in me-
mory of the miracle, both the Egyptian and Grecian Jews
repaired yearly to the island, and kept a festival on the shore.
From this abstract of Philo's account, it is evident that he omits
many things detailed by Aristeas. He makes no mention of the
ransom of the Jewish captives, — of the presents sent by the
King, — of the MS. wTitten in golden letters, or of the number
72. But he relates what Aristeas does not mention, that all the
interpreters were inspired, so that each produced a version agree-
ing verbatim with those of his brethren. Justin Martyr, who
lived in the second century, endeavoured to harmonize these two
accounts. For the seventy-two interpreters he built the same
number of cells, in which they had no consultation with one
another, and where they made seventy-two distinct versions
miraculously agreeing in every particular. From this extraordi-
nary circumstance the King concluded that they were divinely
inspired, and sent them back, with presents, to their own coun-
try. He even says that the ruins of these cells were visible in
his time, and that he had seen them himself at Alexandria !
Epiphanius, again, makes thirty -six cells, in each of which two
interpreters were shut up, and where they produced tliirty-six
versions exactly agreeing in all their words. He furnishes, more-
over, each cell with a short-hand writer, to whom the versions
weie dictated. Such is the account given by Aristeas, afterwards
exaggerated by the oral traditions of Philo, Justin, and Epipha-
nius, and which was universally received by the Fathers and
others down to the latter half of the seventeenth century. It evi-
dently proceeded from a Palestine Jew, for the purpose of exalt-
ing this ancient version; and, as it was known to Josephus, it
must have been composed at an early period. But although it
ig now justly regarded as fabulous and repugnant to historical

LECT. III. ANCIENT VERSIONS. 41

truth, we ought not to reject it as entirely fictitious. Some
truth may probably lie at the foundation, though subsequently
encrusted with a multitude of absurd traditions. In separating
the true from the fabulous in the narrative, there is some danger
of rejecting too much, and thus running to the opposite extreme
of the credulity that sanctioned so long the miraculous account
of the version. This appears to be the fault of Hody and the
majority of learned men by whom he has been followed. In
giving the following outline of the origin of the translation, they
have rejected too much.

The Jews, say they, who were carried into Egypt by Ptolemy
Lagus, 320 b. c, together with such as voluntarily accompanied
them, having learned the Greek language, a version of the sa-
cred books, and especially of the Pentateuch, soon became ne-
cessary. It was accordingly undertaken by one or more Jews at-
tached to the synagogue. Now the ancients place the transla-
tion of the Pentateuch sometimes in the reign of Ptolemy La-
gus, and sometimes of Ptolemy Philadelphus. It is therefore
customary to unite both opinions by fixing upon the period in
which they reigned conjointly, viz. 286 or 285 b. c. We are not
to suppose that it was made by order of Ptolemy or of Demetrius
Phalereus, with the view of its being deposited in the royal li-
brary, but that it was undertaken by the Jews for their own use.
Retaining their attachment to the religion of their fathers in the
country to which they were transported, and losing their ac-
quaintance with Hebrew, in a place where Greek was com-
monly spoken, they naturally wished for a version of their law
in the language best understood, that, when it was read on the
sabbath day in the synagogue, the people might know the divine
will. That the interpreters, whatever may have been their num-
ber, were Alexandrian not Palestine Jews, is evident from the
character of the version itself. It is written in the Alexandrine
dialect, and contains words purely Coptic. Thus o/^/, an Egyp-
tian measure, is used for the Hebrew ephah : the creation of the
world is not termed xr/c/s but y'^vicic^ the term used by the
Egyptian philosophers; the Urim and Thummim of the high
priest is translated aXridiia, the term inscribed in the sapphire-
collar worn about the neck of the chief priest among the Egypt-
ians. These, and many other words adduced by Hody, show
that the translator of the Pentateuch was an Alexandrian Jew
familiar with the phraseology of Egypt. That the Pentateuch

42 ANCIENT VERSIONS. LECT. IJI.

alone was first translated, is testified by Aristeas, Joseplms, Phi-
lo, and Jerome, all of whom speak of the laio only. The other
books were subsequently translated at different times and on dif-
ferent occasions. That various Jewish wTiters were employed
on the version, plainly appears from the variations in the ortho-
graphy of proper names, from the difference in the mode of
translating Hebrew terms expressive of plants, trees, and ani-
mals, and from tlie degree of learning, varying as it does almost
in every book. It is not easy, however, to ascertain at what
particular time the different books were translated. In the ab-
sence of historical data, we can only conjecture. We know, how-
ever, that the other parts of the Old Testament, as well as the
Pentateuch, must have been translated by Egyptian Jews, since
the occurrence of Egyptian words is not confined to the five
books of Moses. It has been generally supposed that the pro-
phets were translated after Ptolemy Philometor. Antiochus
Epipbanes, who persecuted the Jews, forbade the reading of the
law in their synagogues. Hence they had recourse to the pro-
phets, a section of which was publicly read each sabbath day.
But after the death of this cruel tyrant they returned to the read-
ing of the law, retaining the use of the prophets. Now Antio-
chus began to reign in Syria about the fifth year of Ptolemy
Philometor, and died in the 17th year of the latter's reign. It
may also be considered probable that the Alexandrian Jews
thought it right to follow the example of their brethren at Jeru-
salem, and that they also turned to the prophets. Hence we may
see the reason why the Pentateuch only was translated at first.
In the time of the Ptolemies, the Jews were accustomed to read
no more than the books of Moses, and it was not till after the
edict of Antiochus was issued that they thought of selecting
sections from the prophets for public use. Thus the necessity
of a version of the law was felt much sooner than a trans-
lation of the prophets. The book of Esther was translated un-
der Ptolemy Philometor, as we learn from the subscription. It
is generally supposed that Joshua was not rendered into Greek
till after the death of Lagus, because the Gallic word yaiGoc, sig-
nifying ?i javelin occurs in it ; and the Gauls did not make an ir-
ruption into Greece and the East till after Lagus' death. This
shows that the book was not translated at the same time as the
Pentateuch, since we are informed by Pausanias that the Gauls,

L!:CT. HI. ANCIENT VERSIONS. 43

to the number of 4000, first invaded Egypt under Ptolemy Phi-
ladelj3hus, 265 b. c.

Such are the sentiments of Hody and others respecting the
manner in which this translation originated. It will be evident,
however, from what was said before, that we abide by the testi-
mony of Aristobulus, which is not rashly to be rejected with-
out sufficient grounds. In opposition to Hody, we hold that
the translation did not owe its existence to the feelings of the
Egyptian Jews, when they had lost their knowledge of the sacred
originals. It proceeded from Demetrius Phalereus, by w^hose
advice Lagi was influenced and guided. That it was intended
by its translators for ecclesiastical purposes cannot be admitted,
because the Alexandrine Jews were always solicitous to remain
in ecclesiastical connection with Palestine, and not to disunite
themselves from their brethren there. To have taken such a step
of themselves^ would have been contrary to their feelings of re-
spect for their Palestine brethren, to whom they w^ere w^ont to
look as their superiors in knowledge, piety, and learning. Be-
sides, we know so little of the establishment of synagogues in
Egypt, that any hypothesis which assumes their existence at
a particular period before Christ, is extremely uncertain. We
must believe also, in opposition to the common statement, that
the whole version was made in far less time than what is assign-
ed. It is generally supposed that the Pentateuch was translated
a considerable time before the prophets ; but this is contrary to
the words of Aristobulus, as also to the language of Justin, Cle-
ment of Alexandria, Tertullian, Epiphanius, and Hilary of Poi-
tou. It is admitted that Aristeas, Josephus, Philo, and the Tal-
mudists, as also Jerome (on Ezek. v.) speak only of the laic.
Still there is some uncertainty respecting the meaning they assign-
ed to this term, because it was sometimes taken to comprehend
more than the five books of Moses. We cannot admit, then, that
the prophets were not translated till after Ptolemy Philometor had
begun to reign. But there is another reason for concluding that
the prophets were translated very soon after the law. Those
w^ho take the opposite view, chiefly found it on the truth of the
supposition, that the Jews first resorted to the reading of the
prophets, when Antiochus Epiphanes forbade the use of the law.
It is, however, quite improbable that the edict issued by this
cruel king allowed of the reading of any part of the Old Testa-
ment. The conjecture that he prevented the reading of the

44 ANCIENT VERSIONS. LECT. IH.

Pentateuch alone seems first to have proceeded from Elias Levita,
but it is opposed to 1 Maccabees i. 41, &c., and Josephus' Antiq.
xii. 5. 4. Thus the ground of the supposition that the prophets
were not translated till after Ptolemy Philometor, being removed,
it remains probable, in the absence of contrary evidence, that
there was little interval between the rendering of the law and the
prophets. That the version of Esther, too, was made under
this iving is supported by no good argument. Although it is said,
in a note at the end, that it was translated under Philometor,
yet we have seen that this refers to the apocryplial additions,
rather than to the book itself. To attempt to ascertain the
period in which each book was translated is altogether arbitrary,
because it supposes that a considerable space of time elapsed be-
tween the diiferent parts of the entire version ; a hypothesis ex-
tremely improbable. All we can now know is, that it was begun
under Ptolemy Lagi, and finished under Philadelphus. This is
the testimony of Aristobulus to which we adhere.

It is manifest that there were different translators, from the
different rendering of the same Hebrew words in different books.
Thus the Hebrew term translated Philistines in English, is in the
Pentateuch and Joshua, represented by (p-jXicmiiJ., but in the other
parts of the Old Testament by aX7.6(p\jkoi. The Hebrew word for
passouer, is rendered in the Chronicles by <paffsK, but elsewhere by
•zdffx^a. Judges, Ruth, Samuel, and Kings are distinguished by
a singular error of expression, the use of g/w i//x/ for lyw. Thus
in Judges v. 3, accz/xa/ sy(Jj hijji roj Kxj^lu), I will sing to the Lord.
Urim is expressed in the Pentateuch, Samuel, and Kings, by
drjAuff/g or dn'/Jj't', but in Esra and Nehemiah by ^wr/^oi/rrg and ^wr/^wv.
Thummim, in the Pentateuch is rendered aXn^iia, but in Ezra ii.
63, t'Oaioi.

Since then this version is the work of at least five or six indi-
viduals, its value must vary in different books. All of them em-
ployed the Hellenistic dialect, or the Greek language with a strong
Hebrew colouring ; and all of them are occasionally verbose — a
fault which no version publicly used in churches should have.
Some books are much more literally translated than others, even
to such a degree as to present an awkv/ard baldness that ought to
have been avoided. Thus the translators of Ecclesiastes and
Judges, express the sign of the accusative case riK hy (S-jv, in
which they were afterwards followed by Aquila. The most skil-

LECT. III. ANCIENT VERSIONS. 45

ful interpreter was undoubtedly the translator of the Pentateuch.
His version far surpasses that of the other books in fidelity and
accuracy. The next to this, is the translation of the Book of
Proverbs, the very errors of which, says Jahn, exhibit genius.
The translator of Job was familiar with the Greek poets, and he
is therefore more studious of elegance than accuracy ; but his
knowledge of Hebrew was very limited and imperfect, for he has
fallen into many errors. Numerous additions have been made
to those parts of the book that are written in prose, whilst the
poetical portions are often defective. Hence Origen was obliged
to supply them from Theodotion. Jerome, in his preface to Job,
has observed that seven or eight hundred members of sentences
have been omitted. With regard to the Psalms and Prophets in
general, it is to be regretted that they were not translated by
men competent to the task. The same observation applies to
most of the historical books. In these portions the interpreters
were neither skilled in the languages on which they were em-
ployed, nor accurate in adhering to the text before them. Jere-
miah is the best executed among the prophets. Amos and Eze-
kiel deserve the next place ; and the lowest must be assigned to
the evangelical Isaiah. The version of Ecclesiastes is exceed-
ingly literal ; but that of Daniel was so very erroneous, that it
has been universally rejected by the Christian church, and Tlieo-
dotion's substituted in its stead. For a long time it was supposed
to be lost, till it was found at Rome, and published in 177*2.
With respect to this version, it has been made a subject of en-
quiry, whether the translator of the Pentateuch followed a Hebrew
or Samaritan codex. It is well known that the Septuagint and
Samaritan Pentateuch harmonise in more than a thousand places,
where they differ from the Hebrew. To account for such agree-
ment, it has been supposed by many that the Alexandrine version
was made from the Samaritan, and not from the Hebrew copy.
The testimony of Origen and Jerome has been adduced in sup-
port of this opinion, who affirm that in the copies of the Septua-
gint in their day, the sacred name Jehovah was not written in the
common Hebrew letters, but in others very ancient. Again, it is
alleged that consonants are frequently confounded, which resemble
one another in shape in the Samaritan alphabet, but not in the
Hebrew\ It has been found that in the 32d chapter alone of
Deuteronomy, the Septuagint and Samaritan agree in twenty-
four places where the Hebrew is always different. But, although

46 ANCIENT VERSIONS. LECT. HI.

this hypothesis has been adopted and defended by many learned
men, such as de Dieu, Selden, Whiston, Hottinger, Hassen-
camp, and Eichhorn, yet the irreconcileable enmity subsisting
between the Samaritans and Jews strongly militates against it.
The unanimous consent of antiquity refers this version to Jewish
authors ; and it is altogether probable that the Jews would have
rejected a version either taken from a Samaritan copy, or even
made by the Samaritans from a Jewish original. We know from
Josephus, that there was as much enmity between the Jews and
Samaritans in Egypt, as there was in Palestine ; for he tells us
that they disputed violently in presence of one of the Ptolemies,
and that the Samaritans, overcome in argument, were put to
death by the king's order.

Another hypothesis, which has been proposed to account for
the agreement of the Samaritan with the Septuagint is, that the
one was interpolated from the other. But it cannot be considered
as probable that the Jews would have consented to alter their
Greek version according to the Samaritan text ; nor, on the other
hand, that the Samaritans would have been contented to adopt
the same method of correction. The enmity of the two people
must have effectually prevented this mutual interpolation of their
Scriptures. Jahn and Bauer suppose that the Hebrew MS. used
by the Egyptian Jews agreed much more closely at that time
with the Samaritan, both in its text and the forms of its letters.
In this way they conceive that the agreement between the Alex-
andrine version and the Samaritan copy may be explained. But
it requires too great an extent of conjecture. Were the instances
of agreement fewer, we might be inclined to adopt such a hypo-
thesis in the present difficulty ; but that, in the majority of a thou-
sand places, we can suppose they were once harmonious, is a sup-
position which the great care of the Jews in watching over their
sacred books utterly repudiates. This hypothesis then will not
account for the harmony now existing between the Samaritan and
the Septuagint.

Another supposition has been made by Gesenius, more plau-
sible than any of the preceding, viz. that both the Samaritan and
Septuagint flowed from a common recension of the Hebrew Scrips
tures, one older than either, and differing in many places from
the recension of the Masoretes now in common use. '' This
supposition," says Prof. Stuart, of Andover, by whom it is
adopted, " will account for the differences and for the agreements

LECT. III. ANCIENT VERSIONS. 4?

of the Septuagint and Samaritan. On the supposition that two
different recensions had long been in circulation among the Jews,
the one of which was substantially what the Samaritan now is,
w^ith the exception of a few more recent and designed alterations
of the text, and the other substantially what our Masoretic
codex now is ; then the Seventy using the former, would of course
accord, in a multitude of cases, with the peculiar readings of it,
as they now have done. If we suppose now that the ancient
copy from which the present Samaritan is descended, and that
from which the Septuagint was translated, were of the same
genus, so to speak, or the same class, and yet were of different
species under that genus, and had early been divided off, and
subjected to alterations in transcribing; then we may have a
plausible reason, why the Septuagint, agreeing with the Sama-
ritan in so many places, should differ from it in so many others.
Add to this, that the Samaritan and Septuagint, each in the course
of being transcribed for several centuries, wou'd receive ' more
or less changes, that might increase the discrepancies between
them."

1 have great respect for these eminent scholars, but I cannot
see that their hypothesis is more probable than any of the others
previously advanced, though it is certainly more ingenious
and refined. We object to it on the following grounds.

1st. It supposes that before the whole of the Old Testament
was written, there was a recension or revision of several books.
This is an arbitrary hypothesis which is often put forward by the
objectionable critics of Germany. They suppose that much more
extensive alterations took place in the text of the sacred books
than are consistent with the great watchfulness of the Jews
over their holy records, and their extraordinary care in writing
out copies. But we are reluctant to proceed on such untenable
ground without some good reason. All our conceptions are a-
gainst such sentiments. And until it be proved that such a re-
vision of portions of the Old Testament was actually made, we
must keep aloof from the opinion as one of questionable tenden-
cy and lax theology. There is no record or tradition in favour
of the idea that inspired men applied a correcting hand in such a
manner till the close of the canon, and to say that others did so,
is not in unison with right notions of the inspiration of the scrip-
tures ; unless it be affirmed at the same time, that they farther
corrupted, under the idea oi correcting the holy books.

48 ANCIENT VLRSIONS. LIXT. III.

2cl. But not only does this mode of accounting for the harmony
between the Septuagint and Samaritan imply that there was a
recension or revision of several books before the whole of the
Old Testament was written, but it also involves the belief, that
such took place at a comparatively early period, before other
books appeared in addition to the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges,
and the writings of David and Solomon. If then it be improba-
ble that any recension existed before the completion of the can-
on, it is surely much more improbable that a revision was made
when few books were written.

3d. It supposes that an older revision was still in use after
Ezra had revised the whole collection, and closed the canon un-
der the divine guidance. It appears to me very improbable,
that in making the Septuagint version, the Jews, who were most
probably the translators, would follow a far inferior recension
in preference to the sacred books as corrected by Ezra. If this
high-priest and reformer were inspired to relate the principal
events in which he was engaged, and if he was concerned in re-
vising and arranging the books of scripture, as Jewish tradition
uniformly testifies, then there is no good reason against the sup-
position that he was equally inspired and directed in the latter
case as the former. Can it be supposed then, that even after
his authoritative revision, the Jews would make^ or receive a ver-
sion from an old copy, which had suffered partly from the errors
of transcribers, and perhaps also from the national calamities of
the people with whom it was deposited and by whom it was cir-
culated. Such are some of the reasons why we cannot assent to
the theory of Gesenius, however plausible it may appear. It
will be seen, that we have assumed, what the majority of the
German critics deny, that the remains of the ten tribes retained
a copy or more of the Pentateuch, when the Gentiles from the
neighbouring parts of Syria associated with them. We shall
show hereafter that this is the only tenable ground. It may be
also observed, that we have proceeded on the supposition that
Ezra closed the canon of the Old Testament, an opinion which,
although harmonising with, and founded on the tradition of the
Jews, has been generally abandoned by the critics of Germany
in modern times. Some of them, however, of no mean qualifi-
cations for judging in such matters, still adhere to the older view,
and we may hoj)e that more will embrace it, when they examine
the whole subject.

LECT. HI. ANCIENT VERSIONS. 49

Professor Lee accounts for the harmony between the Samari-
tan Pentateuch and the Septuagint, in another way. He con-
jectures that the early Christians interspersed their copies witii
Samaritan glosses, which incautious and unskilful transcribers
afterwards inserted in the text. But he lias not shown that
Christians in general were acquainted with the Samaritan Pen-
tateuch, and its additions to the Hebrew copy; neither has he
taken into account the reverence which the early Christians
entertained for the sacred books. We cannot, therefore, attribute
the least probability to this hypothesis of Dr. Lee. For our-
selves, we cannot see any rational mode of accounting for the
agreement between the Samaritan and Septuagint. None of
those hitherto proposed is unobjectionable, and it is extremely
difficult to devise a better. Some lucky conjecturer may per-
haps light upon a more plausible and probable h3'^pothesis than
any yet framed : but this is all that can be expected on such a
question. To arrive at certainty^ is almost hopeless. With these
remarks we close this part of our inquiry, having pursued it to
greater length than may be reckoned proportionate to other Bib-
lical investigations of more moment.

Another inquiry respecting this version has also been institut-
ed, viz. from what kind of MSS. did the translators execute it?
Professor Tychsen of Rostock contended that they did not
translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, but that they trans-
cribed them into Hebrew-Greek characters, from which trans-
cript the version was afterwards made. This was done, as he
says, to gratify the king, who was unable to read Hebrew in its
proper character, but competent to understand Hebrew writings,
as soon as they were presented in characters with which he was
acquainted, and adapted to the vulgar pronunciation. This hy-
pothesis of transcription into Hebrew-Greek characters, is found-
ed on some ambiguous expressions in the work of the Pseudo-
Aristeas, which might, when taken by themselves, denote a
mere copying of the Hebrew text with Greek letters. But in
the same Epistle, expressions are employed that cannot be taken
without violence in any other acceptation than as denoting a
real translation. The doubtful phrases should, therefore, be ex-
plained and limited by such as are more plain and unequivocal.
It may be also asked, with great propriety, by whom could such
a transcript have been read, at the time when it is said to have
been made ? It could not have been understood by the Ptole-

£

50 ANCIENT VERSIONS. LECT. III.

mies ; for although they were acquainted with the Greek lan-
guage, yet we are quite safe in affirming that they were ignorant
of Hebrew. Neither would it have been intelligible to the Jews
in Egypt ; and it would have even rendered the reading of the
Scriptures much more difficult. If they were unable to read the
Hebrew Scriptures in their proper character, much more incom-
petent would they have been to understand them when dressed out
in Greek costume. To suppose that the Alexandrine version was
made from such a Hebrew-Greek copy is utterly incredible. The
examples adduced to prove it fail in establishing the truth of what
they are brought forward to support. The peculiar readings, on
which Tychsen builds his hypothesis, may be explained by mis-
takes in hearing., without having recourse to such a supposition as
is contradicted by all history. It is unnecessary to enter farther
into the refutation of this singular notion, especially as it never
obtained general currency. It was examined and refuted by
Dathe, Michaelis, and Hassencamp ; and though it was intro-
duced into this country by Mr. Hamilton in his " Introduction
to the Study of the Hebrew Scriptures," yet it was probably con-
fined to himself.

The Alexandrine version soon acquired great celebrity among
all the Jews who understood the Greek language. Both Philo
and Josephus, the former an Egyptian, the latter a native of
Palestine, had recourse in their writings, not only to the original
itself, but also to this translation. The former has followed it in
his allegorical expositions of the Mosaic law ; the latter, in the
history of his countrymen. The writers of the New Testament
appear to have quoted it, and it was universally received by the
early Christians. Even the authors of the Talmud make ho-
nourable mention of its origin; and speak of the Hellenistic sy-
nagogue at Ceesarea where it was publicly read. In both Tal-
muds the fable respecting the inspiration of the translators is re-
peated ; and we are led to believe, that it was publicly used by
the Jews as a church-version. The Fathers indeed declare that
this actually took place. When therefore it is said that the Tal-
mud speaks of its being an abomination to the Jews in Palestine,
we must not understand this to refer to the period immediately be-
fore and after the birth <f Christ, but to the commencement of the
second century and subsequently, when frequent controversies
were carried on between the Jews and Christians. The latter
were wont to appeal to it as containing remarkable prophecies re-

LECT. III. ANCIENT VERSIONS. 51

lating to the Messiah. When the Jews, therefore, were worsted
by arguments derived from a version which they themselves had
adopted, they betook themselves to the study of Hebrew, and
made versions into the Chaldee language. To deprive the Chris-
tians of any advantage derived from the Septuagint, their oppo-
nents began to deny that it agreed with the Hebrew texts, and
their hatred of it soon became as great as their veneration had
formerly been excessive. So odious did it become to them, that
they are said to have proclaimed a fast on the 8th day of the
month Thebet^ corresponding to our December, for the purpose
of execrating the day on which the version was made, and of per-
petuating the remembrance of so inauspicious an event. After
thus abandoning the Septuagint, they had recourse to the version
of Aquila, who is supposed by many to have undertaken his work
in opposition to the Christians, and that the Seventy might be
superseded by a new translation more conformable to the He-
brew. According to Lightfoot, the authors of the Talmud some-
times quote this version, but never the Seventy. In consequence
of the general reception of this translation, copies were multiplied,
and mistakes made in their transcription. Even in Philo and
Josephus we find passages quoted in which there are evident
errors. Alterations, insertions, and omissions, continued to be
made at the pleasure of those who were so adventurous as to
meddle with the text. From the writings of Justin Martyr, we
learn that there were readings in his time that cannot now be dis-
covered in any MS. or edition, but which often harmonize with
the Hebrew original. The Jews, in their controversies with the
Christians, were able to detect the differences existing ; and when
the latter adduced quotations against their opponents, they were
frequently met with the reply — Such are not in the original. This
affirmation was generally sufficient to silence the Christians, who
could not pretend to follow their more critical antagonists into
the original of the Old Testament. In order to remove this diffi-
culty, and to rectify the text of the Seventy so shamefully disfi-
gured, Origen undertook to revise it, by comparing it both with
the original and the other Greek versions then existing. He is
said to have travelled over the whole of the East collecting ma-
terials for his work, and to have spent twenty-eight years in pre-
paring it. When we consider indeed the magnitude of the task,
and the labour it necessarily demanded, we will not be surprised
at his receivinor from the ancients the sirname Adamantius. His^

52 ANCIENT VERSIONS. LECT. III.

hardness and patience in enduring such toil, well entitle him to
the appellation. In the course of his travels he was so fortunate
as to meet with six Greek translations of the Old Testament,
viz. those of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, together with
three anonymous versions. The last Greek translation he disco-
vered in the year 228, a. d. From this till the year 231 he tra-
velled about, in consequence of the persecution raised by Decius ;
and then he appears to have sojourned for a long time at Csesarea.
Here, according to some authors, he began to arrange his col-
lected materials, and to compose at least apart of his great work,
which was finished a considerable time afterwards, most probably
at Tyre. But we are of opinion that the work must have been
begun earlier, probably at Alexandria ; and with this De Wette
agrees. (See his article in the Allg. Encyclop. 2 sect. 7 Thl.) It
contained the whole of the Old Testament divided into columns,
like our Polyglott Bibles. He seems to have first published his
Tetrapla, containing, in four columns, the versions of Aquila,
Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. Hence the name
Tetrapla, i. e. fourfold, from the four columns into which it was
divided. But this was mevQlj preparatory to his projected emen-
dation of the Seventy, for in a more enlarged edition he added the
Hebrew text both in Hebrew and Greek letters ; and as the work
then consisted of six columns, he gave it the name Hexapla. In
some books he used two other Greek translations, whose authors
are unknown, in which case it was called Octapla, and occasion-
ally a third anonymous version, from which the work was styled
Enneapla. Thus the different names refer merely to the number
of columns. The following is the order of the columns when they
were all used : 1st, The Hebrew text in Hebrew letters ; 2d, The
same in Greek letters; 3d, Aquila; 4th, Symmachus; 5th, Sep-
tuagint ; 6th, Theodotion ; 7th, 8th, and 9th, The three anony-
mous Greek versions, called the fifth, sixth, and seventh versions
in relation to the other four.

v»

1

s .is

©

Ui

k:

*o

8

-o

i

>J

«

►Ui

^s-

VJ>

bsj*

^o

:s

o

5

O

<o

^3

-UJ

«13

\o

-o

6

<^

1

g

i

!<J

X

^

^

<

o

^

3

JH

8

P'^

JJC,

•«

fc.

'to'

_^

^

'Uj

-sr

y'\

VJ»

bv_P

<

o

'1

-<^

8

^

W

X

^

;3

g

<1

«

.^

X

i?

S

<

u-(

:i

<

?i

o

m

<J

g:

CO

§

eg;

§

2

2

w

<

^

o

^ g

s «

8

>t n z.
rr X ^

12. G n

54 ANCIENT VERSIONS. LECT. III.

The great object of Origen in this laborious work, was not to
correct the Septuagint from MS. copies of itself, but to collate it
with the Hebrew, and to restore it as nearly as possible to that ori-
ginal. He did not alter the version itself by erasing a word or
words, but he allowed it to remain just as he found it, accompa-
nied however with such marks as served to show the alterations
it ought in his opinion to receive. When he discovered a word
in the Hebrew, and in the Greek versions, which was not in
the Septuagint, he inserted it out of Theodotion, because in his
mode of translation he came nearest the Seventy. If Theodotion
had not the supplement, the deficiency was made up from Aquila,
and sometimes from Symmachus. In every case he put the
name of the translation from which the supplied word was taken,
with an asterisk (*) at the commencement, and two dots (:) at
the end like a colon, to shew how far the supplement extended.
Again, where he perceived an'addition in the Seventy, that ought
not, according to the Hebrew text, and perhaps also the other
translators, to be there, he did not entirely erase it from the
Septuagint, but prefixed an obelus (Si) to denote that it was
wanting, putting also two dots at the end, to shew how far the
obelus was meant to extend. We find also lemnisks and hypolem-
7iisks, (-1-, -^), the signification of which is not clear. In this
manner he furnished Jews and Christians with a common stan-
dard of appeal, by pointing out what the Hebrew text did or did
not contain. He hoped to benefit the Christians in their pole-
mics with the Jews. Origen's recension of the Septuagint
is called the Hexaplarian text, to distinguish it from the text as
it existed before, called the Tioivri or common and sometimes the
ante-hexaplarian. The work, consisting of nearly 50 volumes,
does not appear to have been copied, probably in consequence of
its magnitude and the great expense necessarily attending a
transcript. It is thought to have perished along with the famous
library of Pamphilus, when Csesarea was taken and plundered by
the Saracens in the year 658. a. d. Such was the fate of the
vast literary work of the immortal Origen, on which he had spent
the greatest part of his life : and which, considering the period
when it was undertaken, and the state of sacred criticism at the
time, may justly excite the admiration of posterity.

But althouo'h we regret the loss of a work so valuable in the
criticism and interpretation of the Old Testament, yet we are not
wholly deprived of its aid. In the beginning of the fourth century
Pamphilus and Eusebius transcribed the column containing the
text of the Seventy, with the critical marks used by Origen. This

LECT. III. ANCIENT VERSIONS. 55

copy, however, being frequently written, was soon corrupted,
partly by the omissions and interchanges of the marks, so that
it became impossible to distinguish the original text of the trans-
lators from the additions of Origen. Marginal glosses and ex-
tracts from other Greek versions, were also inserted. Jerome
informs us that this recension was received by the churches in
Palestine. The Hexaplarian text of the Septuagint, with all the
fragments of the other versions that could be collected, was pub-
lished by Montfaucon at Paris 1714, 2 vols, folio, under the
title Origenis quae super sunt, reprinted by Bahrdt in an abridg-
ment Leipsic, 1769-70; but, as it comes through this transcript,
corrupted as it was in the multiplication of its copies, we cannot
affirm that it is in the same state as that in which it proceeded
from Origen himself.

Other labourers in the same department appeared, though not
on so extended a scale. Lucian, a presbyter of Antioch, in the com-
mencement of the fourth century, (312), amended the text of the
Seventy after the Hebrew original only, without the use of other
translations. This was undertaken quite independently of Origen,
and was called the editlo vulgata or Lukianos, This recension
was adopted in the churches from Antioch to Constantinople.
Another was undertaken, about the same time, by Hesychius,
an Egyptian bishop. According to Jerome, it was generally
used in the churches of Egypt. From these three recensions all the
MSS., and through them the printed editions have been derived,
though it is not easy to determine the particular recension which
each MS. followed, because they have, in some measure, flowed
together. In the two principal MSS. of the Septuagint, viz.
the Vatican and the Alexandrine, the basis of the former is the
mivrii or earlier common text ; whilst the latter exhibits more of
the readings and interpolations of Origen's Hexapla. Both texts,
however, have been frequently mixed together, so that it is ut-
terly Impossible to distinguish them at present.

All our printed editions of the Seventy may be reduced to four
principal ones, viz. the Complutensian, the Aldine, the Roman,
and the Grabian. The first appeared in the Complutensian
Polyglott 1515. This comes nearer to the Hebrew text than
any other. The second or Aldine edition, was published in 1518.
The text is said to be interpolated, particularly from Theodo-
tion. The third, or the Roman, was published 1587, the basis
of which is the celebrated Vatican MS, Fourth, the edition pub-
lished by Grabe, at Oxford, 1707-20, from the Alexandrine MS.

>>

56 ANCIENT VERSION'S. LECT. lH

The latest, and by far the most splendid critical edition is
that begun by Dr. Holmes, 1798, Oxford, and finished by Mr.
Parsons (1827), in five volumes folio. It contains the text of
the Roman edition, with the various readings of all known MSS.
The editors also consulted the writings of the Fathers, and several
ancient versions, from which quotations and readings have
been extracted. This is the only edition executed on an ex-
tensive plan, similar to Kennicott's Hebrew Bible, and to the
Greek Testament as edited by Griesbach and Scholz. It is cer-
tainly the most accurate and important of all editions that have
been as yet published. Its various readings shew that it is
scarcely possible to restore the original text by means of the
helps in our power. They serve to confirm the opinion generally
entertained before the appearance of the edition, that the text of
this version is in a w^orse state than that of any other, with the
• exception perhaps of the Vulgate.

1 he merits of the Seventy have been generally acknowledged, and
its critical use recognised by all scholars. Among all the ancient
translations of the Old Testament, it bears the highest reputa-
tion, whether we consider its antiquity or internal value. It is
much older than any Hebrew MSS. we now possess, and its au-
thors must have had better opportunities of knowing the Hebrew
language, in proportion as they lived nearer the time when it was
a living tongue. It shews us, not only the state of the text
at the time when it was made, but also the sense attached to it.
But no one competent to judge will deny that it has many errors
and imperfections, shewing that its real value is by no means
commensurate with its high reputation. Most, if not all, of the
translators were not competent to the task they undertook. They
were not sufficiently acquainted with the two languages, nor did
they exhibit a due regard to etymology, grammar, or orthogra-
phy. The whole version is rather free than literal ; figures and
metaphors are resolved, and later Jewish dogmas are frequently
referred to. (See Gesenius on Isaiah). With all the deductions,
however, that must be made, and all the mistakes into which we
may suppose the translators to have fallen, it is an important help
in the emendation of the Hebrew text, as also in its interpreta-
tion. It has even indirectly contributed to the interpretation of
the New Testament, being written in the same language, and ex-
hibiting the same idioms.* Few will deny that it should be read
and studied by every Biblical scholar, as furnishing essential ser-
vice in the right understanding of those Scriptures which were
given for the enlightenment and salvation of men.

LECTURE IV.

ANCIENT VERSIONS CONTINUED.

The Greek translation of Aquila. Aquila ^vas a Jew, born at
Sinope in Pontus, at the commencement of the second century,
who translated the books of the Old Testament into the Greek
language, for the purpose of assisting the Hellenistic Jews in their
disputes with the Christians. Epiphanius has given a brief ac-
count of his life, but as he is the only writer who has done so, his
general character does not lead us to give much credit to his nar-
rative. He lived in the time of the emperor Adrian, and exe-
cuted his version before 160 a. d. This is inferred from the cir-
cumstance, that Justin Martyr who wrote about 160 a. d., and
Irenaeus about 176, have quoted passages from his translation.
He has been accused by the Fathers of perverting some prophe-
cies relating to the Messiah, but much weight is not to be attach-
ed to their accusations, since they were generally ignorant of the
Hebrew original. The most they could do was to compare
Aquila with the Seventy, and to observe the agreement or discre-
pancy ; but this was not sufficient to indicate to them that he had
perverted the original text. Jerome objects to his doctrinal pre-
possessions, and polemical tendencies, though at the same time
he pronounces him " a most diligent explorer of Hebrew words."
Dr. Kennicott, in modern times, has repeated the same charge
against Aquila, and there is certainly some ground for it. It
would appear from Jerome that he made two editions. The rea-
son of this was, his anxiety to render his version as literal as he
could ; for he found that in the first edition, though generally
adhering to the Hebrew words, some expressions were used which
he afterwards thought too paraphrastic. The second edition was
therefore more literal than the first. Whether this latter edition
extended to the whole of the Old Testament, it is now impossible
to determine. We know, however, that it embraced Jeremiah,
Ezekiel, and Daniel.

This version was publicly read by the Jews in their syna-
gogues, and so highly esteemed, that they were accustomed to call

58 ANCIENT VERSIONS. LECT. IV.

it the Heh^ew verity. From its extreme literality it is of great
critical value. By means of it we are frequently able to show,
that certain readings of the Masoretic text, apparently condemn-
ed by other translators, are of great antiquity, and that they are
preferable to such as probably originated in a paraphrastic mode
of translation.

Syminaclius is said to have been a Samaritan by birth, and one
of those reckoned loise men among them. The account of him,
however, given by Epiphanius, is contradicted by Eusebius and
Jerome, who testify that he was an Ebionite, or, in other words,
a semi-Christian. The time when he made his version of the
Old Testament cannot be accurately fixed. It is certain that it
appeared after Theodotion's, for Irenaeus, (a. d. 177), quotes
Aquila and Theodotion, but makes no mention of Symmachus,
which he would most probably have done, had his version been
then published. Its general structure is different from Aquila's.
The translator does not adhere to the Hebrew text so closely as
to render it verbatim into Greek, but he rather endeavours to ex-
press the sense in perspicuous, pure, and elegant language.
Hence his translation is celebrated by the ancients as jmspicuous^
clear, plain, and worthy of admiration. It appears from Jerome,
that he bestowed upon it the care of a revision ; but it cannot be
determined whether the second edition extended to all the books
of the Old Testament. Criticism, if it proceed with caution and
care, may derive some benefit from this elegant translation, al-
though it is not so literal as that of Aquila.

Theodotion was a native of Ephesus, according to Irenaeus, and
is said both by Eusebius and Jerome to have been an Ebionite,
or semi-Christian. His version appeared during the first half of
the second century, for it is cited by Justin Martyr, 160 a. d.,
and by Irenaeus, 177. The mode of translation adopted by him,
holds a middle place between the scrupulous literality of Aquila
and the free interpretation of Symmachus. He follows the Alex-
andrine version very closely, so that his object seems to have been,
to add what was deficient in it, to take away what was super-
fluous, and to correct inaccurate renderings. From the frag-
ments of his work remaining, it appears that he was not accu-
rately skilled in Hebrew ; hence he fell into many errors. He
has often retained Hebrew words not the most difficult or obscure,
expressing them in Greek letters, from ignorance of their signi-
fication. Such is the opinion of Eichhorii, though Jahn thinks

LECT. IV. ANCIENT VERSIONS. 59

that those Hebrew words were used among the Ebionites, and
therefore retained by Theodotion. His translation of Daniel was
reckoned much better than that of the Septuagint, and was in-
troduced in place of it, into the Christian churches in the second
century, or the beginning of the third.

When Origen travelled into Eastern countries, collecting ma-
terials for his Polyglott, he discovered three other Greek versions,
not containing the entire of the Old Testament, but some books
only. These are usually denominated five^ six, and seven, from
the numbers of tlie columns they occupied in the Hexapla. The
fifth version comprehended the Pentateuch, Psalms7*Song of So-
lomon, and the twelve minor prophets, besides the books of Kings.
Jerome says that the author was a Jew.

The sixth version contained the same books as the fifth, except
those of Kings. 1'he author appears to have been a Christian at
the time he made it ; but Jerome says that he was a Jew, meaning
that he was a Jewish Christian, like the author of the fifth. His
interpretation of Habakkuk iii. 13, which he renders s^iJAhg rov
ff^ffui rov Xa,6v aou hia ^Irisov tov Xoiffrov cov favours the idea of his being;
a Christian.

The seventh version contained the Psalms, and minor pro-
phets. It is doubtful whether the author was a Jew or a Chris-
tian, but, from his rendering of the passage in Habakkuk already
quoted, it may be conjectured that he was a Jew. These three
versions were made after those of iVquila, Symmachus, and Theo-
dotion ; and as far as we can judge from the few fragments that
remain, they do not appear to have been literal.

On the Peshito Version.

The name Peshito signifies simple, or single, i. e. adhering to the
sense of words, in opposition to allegorical translations and interpre-
tations. This signification is warranted by the Chaldaic and Rab-
binic usus loquendi. Much obscurity hangs over the antiquity of
this version, but there are several considerations that favour its
early origin. The first writer who refers to it is Ephrem the Sy-
rian, in the fourth century (378). The translation was commonly
received and used in the Syrian church at the time when this author
lived, and therefore he usually refers to it by the name of our ver-
sion. This circumstance shows that it reached far beyond the time
of Ephrem the Syrian ; for it is otherwise improbable that a late

CO ANCIENT VEKSIONS. LECT. IV.

version could have obtained so much celebrity, and have been so
generally adopted and approved. If we consider, besides, the mode
in which this Father makes use of it, we shall be led to the same
conclusion. Many phrases and expressions in it were obscure to
him, and appeared to require explanation. Accordingly we find
that he has o-iven interpretations of several terms for the benefit of
his contemporaries, some of which are erroneous. The traditional
records of the Syrians themselves, coincide with the belief of its
hio-h antiquity, to which Ephrem's works naturally lead. The
first testimony to our purpose is that oi Jacob of Edessa, in a no-
table passage communicated by Gregory Bar Hebrseus. In it he
speaks of " those translators who were sent to Palestine by the
apostle Thaddeus, and by Abgarus king of Edessa." Another
tradition makes a part of the Old Testament to have been trans-
lated in Solomon's time, at the request of Hiram king of Tyre ;
and the remainder of the Jewish Scriptures, together with the
New Testament, to have been rendered into Syriac at the time
referred to by Jacob of Edessa. Both of these traditions are re-
peated by Bar Hebrseus, and enlarged by the addition of a third,
viz. that the version was made at the time when Asa the priest
arrived among the Samaritans. It is evident that some of these
traditions savour strongly of national pride and self-complacency.
But Eichhorn and others reject them entirely, without sufficient
reason. Though partly invested with the fabulous, some truth
may lie at the foundation. When we consider the high antiquity
of a Syrian church at Edessa, and the early origin of a Syrian li-
terature at the same place, we are inclined to believe that the ac-
count given by Jacob of Edessa is entitled to reception. Whether
the translator was a Jew or a Christian has been much disputed.
The latter is undoubtedly the more correct opinion, for its inter-
nal character goes to prove that it must have proceeded from
Christian hands. ISIo use is made of the Targums, which the Jews
must have known, and would probably have consulted in making
it. The mode of paraphrasing also adopted in these Chaldee ver-
sions, is different from that followed in the Peshito. Figures and
anthropomorphisms are not here resolved. Besides, the air of
neoligence apparent in the translation of the Levitical law, par-
ticularly in the sections concerning clean and unclean animals,
would scarcely have proceeded from a Jew. But what is most
decisive in favour of a Christian authorship, is the interpretation
given of passages relating to the Messiah, such as Isaiah vii. 14 ;

LECT. IV. ANCIENT VERSIONS. 61

lii. 15 ; Zech. xii. 10; Psalm ii. 12. These considerations show
that the opinion of Richard Simon, that the author was a Jew,
cannot be maintained. Possibly he may have been a Jewish
Christian, as Dathe formerly conjectured, especially since the
version exhibits a Jewish influence in its mode of expression.
Whether there were more individuals than one employed in mak-
ing it cannot be determined with certainty. Eichhorn endea-
voured to show from internal grounds that there was a plurality
of authors, but his arguments are scarcely satisfactory. But ac-
cording to the uniform voice of tradition there were several trans-
lators of the Old Testament ; and with this agrees the opinion of
Ephrem.

According to the express affirmation of Gregory Bar Hebreeus,
the Old Testament Peshito was made from the Hebrew text ;
and internal evidence confirms the truth of the declaration.
Peculiar readings of the consonants and vowels are frequently
met with ; and mistakes occur, which can only be accounted for
on the supposition that the original text alone was employed in
its formation. It adheres closely to the original, rendering it
hoth faithfully and literally. In point of fidelity, indeed, it is the
best of all the ancient versions. Its renderings are generally
happy, free from paraphrastic circumlocutions on the one hand,
and from bald literality on the other. It has been thought, how-
ever, by many, that the Greek translation was sometimes con-
sulted ; and that the Peshito was fashioned and moulded after it. Or,
if the Seventy were not employed when the Syriac was first made,
it is thought, at least, to have been consulted afterwards, for the
purpose of revising the Peshito. It cannot be denied that the
latter conjecture is favoured by several circumstances, which it is
unnecessary to specify in this place. It is true that it fails to be
entitled to the authority of a well-established opinion, although
there are some probabilities in its favour. In the present state
of our critical knowledge, it cannot be affirmed with certainty
whether this leaning to the Greek version, proceeded from the
translators themselves, or whether the Peshito was subsequently
revised so as to approximate the text of the Seventy. It is more
probable that in the greater number of instances in which this ver-
sion agrees with the Seventy, it has lost its original form. It is
impossible, however, to tell how far its primitive readings may
have resembled the text of the Greek version, and how far it has
been altered to correspond with it. We do not possess sufficient
data to enable us to institute any inquiry that would probably

62 ANCIENT VERSIONS. I.ECT. IV.

lead to a satisfactory result. The materials for comparing it with
the Seventy, and for tracing the changes which the Syriac ver-
sion underwent in the lapse of time from external influences, are
extremely meagre and scanty.

If then it be true that the passages in which this version har-
monises with the Septuagint afford evidence of interpolations from
the latter and not of the original use of the Seventy, as we are
inclined to believe — it is no less probable that the approximation
to the Chaldee paraphrases which it frequently exhibits, is not so
great as to warrant us in assuming their actual use. In the time
of Josephus, Syria and Mesopotamia were filled with Jews ; and
it is not surprising, therefore, that the version itself manifests its
exposal to Jewish influence. Traces of the current exegetical
tradition may be observed both in it and in the Seventy.

With regard to its contents, all the canonical books of the Old
Testament are contained in it. The Apocrypha was not includ-
ed. The printed Syriac translation of the Apochryphal books
was made from the Seventy.

When the Syrian church was divided into different sections,
the version underwent various recensions. It is well known that
it was held in great estimation by all the Syrian churches, both
Eastern and W^estern, by Nestorians and Monophysites, and that
it was adopted as their authorized translation. The Westerns,
however, used in their churches in addition to it, a version derived
from the Seventy. But although it vras highly valued by all the
churches, it was not so esteemed by all their individual members.
Gregory Bar Hebrseus, for example, speaks of it very unfavour-
ably, but this was owing to his excessive veneration for the Sep-
tuagint. Historical criticism, says Eichhorn, had not, in his time,
cleansed the account of the origin of the Seventy from the common
fables so long received ; and the superstitious belief in its inspira-
tion was fostered by the circumstance, that the New Testament
makes so great use of the Seventy in the way of quotation. The re-
cension of the Nestorians is well known from the scholia of Bar
Hebraeus. Mention is also made of the Karkaphensian recension,
the origin of which name is obscure. Some, as Assemani, sup-
pose it to mean mountainous^ whilst others, as Lee, would de-
rive it from a place in Mesopotamia. Bar Hebraeus also speaks
oi oriental and occidental MSS. which appear to refer to the two
ecclesiastical sects that adopted the two recensions just men-
tioned.

LECT. IV. ANCIENT VERSIONS. 63

The Peshito in the Old Testament, and in the New, form two
parts of one and the same version, and were probably made at the
same time, viz., in the first century of the Christian era. It has
been argued, indeed, by Marsh, that the New Testament part at
least, was not made till after the canon was formed. It is not pro-
bable, in his opinion, that the version would have been undertaken
until the scattered books had been collected into a single volume.
Now, it has been satisfactorily shown by Semler and Gries-
bach, that the canon was not formed before the middle of the se-
cond century, and therefore we cannot reasonably look for this
version before that period, or indeed before the first half of the
third century. Such is the view of the learned Marsh, when at-
tempting to turn aside the force of the arguments advanced by
Michaelis in favour of the first century, as the date of the Pes-
hito. But from the fact of its wanting those books which were
not at once received by Christians, viz. the second Epistle of Peter,
second and third John, Jude, and the Apocalypse, it would ap-
pear to claim a higher antiquity than that assigned to it by this
eminent prelate. It is not probable that these books would have
been wanting had the version been made in the latter part of the
third century. We assign it therefore to the Jirst century of the
Christian era, in which the Old Testament part was also made.

The edition of the Old Testament Peshito published by Prof.
Lee in 1823, in one volume quarto, for the use of the British and
Foreign Bible Society, is the best.

In the New Testament, this version has been found most fre-
quently to agree with the Western family of MSS., though it al-
so contains many Alexandrine readings, and frequently such as
are peculiar to itself. Sometimes it harmonizes with D. Canta-
brigiensis, sometimes with the old Italic; but there is no proof
that these coincidences were created by mutual alteration. It is
to be observed that it wants the story of the adulteress in the 8tli
chapter of John's Gospel, as also 1st John v. 7. The version
was first made known in Europe by Moses of Mardin, who was
sent in 1552 to Pope Julius III., to acknowledge in the name of
the Syrian church the supremacy of the Roman pontiff, and to
cause the Syriac New Testament to be printed in Europe. It
was first published at Vienna 1555 by Albert Widmanstadt,
Chancellor of Austria, under Ferdinand 1st. L. de Dieu after-
wards published the Apocalypse from an ancient MS., and Po-
cocke, the four epistles wanting in it, viz. 2d Peter, 2d and .3d John,

64 ANCIENT VERSIONS. LECT. IV.

and Jude. All these parts were collected and printed in the
Paris Polyglott, along with the Old Testament division. Ga-
briel Sionita, who superintended the Syriac part of this great
work, assures us, that his MS. was very imperfect, and that he
supplied its deficiencies by his own translations from the Latin
Vulgate. This text was repeated in the London Polyglott, but
with corrections and additions from four MSS. The story of the
adulteress was taken from a MS. copy of the Philoxenian, or rather
the Harclean Syriac version belonging to Archbishop Usher, and
the Apocalypse, with the four Catholic epistles, was printed after
de Dieu and Pococke. The best edition of the New Testament
is generally thought to be Schaaf's, 1709, and second edition,
1717, but that prepared by Professor Lee, London, 1816, may
be considered superior in correctness and beauty. The late Mr.
Rich brought some valuable Syrian MSS. from the East, which
are now in the British Museum; but their readings are stated by
Scholz to differ very little from the text of the printed edition.

The great antiquity of this version renders it valuable in as-
certaining the original text of the Bible; and recommends it as a
rich source of good readings to the critic. We need not be sur-
prised that it differs from the Hebrew and Greek MSS. of the
Old and New Testaments, since it must have been made much
earlier than the oldest now extant. The style is generally pure,
the original language well rendered, and the idioms transferred
into another tongue with vigour, ease, and propriety ; so that it
is as far superior to the Philoxenian in the character of its diction,
as it is inferior in servile literality. Although, therefore, it is of
very great utility, both in the criticism and interpretation of the
Scriptures, yet it may be affirmed, with truth, that its services
are more valuable in the latter than in the former department.

Of the Harclean and Philoxenian Versions.

The version usually called the Philoxenian or neio Syriac,
published by Prof. White, is not that which was made under the
sanction of Philoxenus or Xenayas, bishop of Hierapolis (Mabug)
in Syria, by his rural bishop Poly carp, in the year of the Chris-
tian era 508. It ought to be denominated the Harclean, be-
cause it proceeded from Thomas of Harclea, a. d. 616. It was
based on the Philoxenian ; and it appears also that the Peshito or

i

LECT. IV. ANCIENT VERSIONS. 65

Old Syrlac was employed by him. The text is said by Scholz
to agree with the Constantinopolitan family, but this is erroneous,
for it exhibits the Alexandrine. This version was unexamined
till the middle of the 18th century, when Dr. Ridley received
three MSS. of it from Amida, of which he afterwards gave some
account. It was published at Oxford, at different times, by Pro-
fessor White. Its character is punctilious literality. It appears
to have been the desire and endeavour of the translator that not a
syllable of the original should be lost ; and therefore he has often
sacrificed the Syriac idiom to a rigid adherence to the original
text. The style is much inferior to that of the Old Syriac. This
version would be of great use for critical purposes if we had reason
to believe that it was originally made from Greek MSS., with-
out the adoption of words and phrases from versions previously
existing. But as this is not the case, we must assign to it a low
place in contributing to restore the genuine readings of the Greek
text. It contains all the books of the New Testament except the
Apocalypse ; and in the present state of our knowledge, it is im-
possible to determine whether or not this book was originally
wanting. Gregory Bar Hebrseus, who quotes and criticises this
version, has no citation from the Revelation; a circumstance
which favours the opinion that the book did not originally belong
to it. It is worthy of observation, that the narrative of the wo-
man taken in adultery, is wanting in the genuine copies of this
version, though it was added in a marginal note. It is now im-
possible to determine whether it extended to the Old Testament.

The true Philoxenian is as yet known to the world only in
fragments, constituting the marginal annotations of a Vatican
MS. examined by Wiseman. It is once alluded to by Bar He-
brseus in the preface of his " horreum mysteriorum^' but in the
course of his commentary he never refers to it, from which it has
been concluded that in his day it had been almost supplanted by
the text of Thomas. The first welcome light that will be thrown
on this version will be by the publication of Rich's MSS., depo-
sited in the British Museum, six of which, at least, belong to it.
It is said, however, that the greater number contain only the
Gospels, or fragments of them.

The Palestino-SyriaCi or Syriac Translation of Jerusalem. —
This version was discovered by Prof. Adler, about the middle of
the 18th century, in a MS. belonging to the Vatican Library,
(No. 19), of whose text he gave a lengthened specimen. The

F

66 ANCIENT VERSIONS. LECT. IV.

MS. appears from the subscription to have been written in a mo-
nastery, at Antioch, in the year 1030. The character and lan-
guage differ from the common Syriac, and approach very near the
Chaldean dialect^ or that spoken at Jerusalem. From internal
evidence, it is supposed to have been made in some part of
Syria, subject at the time to the Romans ; and to have been de-
rived from the Greek text. It probably belongs to the fifth cen-
tury ; and the text generally agrees with the Western family.
We have not the entire version of the New Testament, but only
a lectionary, consisting of lessons from the four Gospels, for all the
Sundays and festivals in the year. Prof. Scholz, in his late edi-
tion of the Greek Testament, has given readings from it. It is
entitled to considerable authority in criticism, because of its an-
tiquity. It is worthy of remark, that the story of the adulteress,
though wanting in the Peshito and Harclean, is found in this ver-
sion almost in the same form as that in which it appears in co-
dex D.

\

LECTURE V.

ANCIENT VERSIONS CONTINUED.

A Greek Translation of some Books of the Old Testament in St.
Mark's Library at Venice^ usually called the Graeca Veneta, —
Our description of this version must necessarily be brief, because
it is comparatively of little use in criticism, and because the ac-
counts of such as have personally examined it yet are meagre.
That it was made directly from the Hebrew is proved by its in-
ternal character. It is more literal than any other ancient ver-
sion, even than that of Aquila, adhering with rigid scrupulosity
to the original Hebrew words. In the Chaldaic portions of
Daniel, the Attic dialect is changed for the Doric. Whether the
translator were a Jew or a Christian, he was much intent on ele-
gancies of language, and has therefore produced a version full of
peculiarities. We meet with Attic elegancies along with gross
barbarisms, high-sounding words used by the best Greek writers,
by the side of others quite new and contrary to the genius of the
language. The whole is pervaded by a slavish llterality. We
know neither the age nor the author of this version, but its ori-
gin must be placed after the ninth century. It has been disputed
whether the author was a Jew or a Christian, but this is a point
of little importance. The probability is, on the whole, in favour
of the former ; and it is thought to have been made at Byzan-
tium, for private use. The version contains the following books :
Pentateuch, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Ruth, Canticles, Lamenta-
tions, and Daniel. Part of it was published by Villoison, at
Strasburgh 1784, and part by Ammonat Erlangen 1790-91. Its
value cannot be reckoned greater than that of the Oldest Hebrew
MS. extant. Its readings seldom differ from the Masoretic re-
cension. Extracts from it are inserted in Holmes' edition of the
Septuagint.

To 2a^a^£/r/xoi'. This appellation has been given to certain
Greek fragments found, not merely in ancient MSS., but re-
ferred to by the fathers of the third, fourth, and subsequent cen-
turies. It is not certain whether they are the remains of a Greek
version, or glosses made upon theSeventyby Origen. It is most pro-

68 ANCIENT VERSIONS. LECT, Y.

bablethat they are the real remams of a Greek version of their Pen-
tateuch, made for the use of the Samaritans. When numerous
Greek translations of the Okl Testament were made in the second
century, there appears to have been a desire for similar versions
among the Samaritans. The Septuagint having come into dis-
repute, the author of this version undertook a correction of it
which he executed accordingly. Hence the fragments generally
agree with the Septuagint. They are not of much use in the
criticism of the Old Testament.

The Samaritan version of the Pentateuch. — The author and date
of the Samaritan translation of the five books of Moses have been
eagerly sought, but with little success. There are no historical
documents on which we might build with certainty in such a
question as this ; and it is therefore useless to form hypothesis
after hypothesis. Its origin is referred by some to the time
when Esarhaddon sent a priest to the Samaritans to instruct them
in the divine law ; but others bring it down much later, to some
time after the building of the Samaritan temple. Eichhorn and
others affirm that it was certainly composed after Onkelos, be-
cause his Chaldee version has been extensively used in it ; but
there is no good ground for such an assertion. We are inclined
to believe that it was made at a time when the Samaritans wished
for a version in their own tongue, and, consequently, before the
Arabic had come into general use among them. We are thus
carried back to a period prior to the time when Abu Said finished
his Arabic translation. Jahn thinks that it belongs to the third
or fourth century, but it ought rather to be placed in the second.
It follows the Hebraeo-Samaritan text word for word, furnishing*
the same readings and enlargements compared with the Hebrew
text, as its parent exhibits. Sometimes it renders tropical ex-
pressions by their coYve^ponding proper ones, softening the appa-
rent harshness of anthropomorphic and anthropopathic phrases.
Like all other translations that owe their origin to the Samaritan
Pentalcuch, it frequently changes the names of God, Jehovah and
Elohim into tlie arujelof God, corresponding to the memra ofjah of
the Chaldee paraphrases. The changes of the gutturals are not va-
rious readings, but errors of transcription, arising from the cir-
cumstance that the Samaritans could not pronounce those letters.
Its agreement with Onkelos merits attention. Some have ex-
plained this harmony by the kindred nature of the Samaritan and
Hebrew languages, but this is not always sufficient to account

LECT. V. ANCIENT VERSONS. 69

for the remarkable coincidences. We must therefore adopt the
opinion that it was subsequently interpolated from Onkelos. It
appears indeed to have passed through several hands, and to
have received numerous additions. Hence we find two different
readings of a single passage, and glosses transferred from the
margin into the text by ignorant transcribers. The critical
value of such a version cannot be great apart from the Samaritan
text. It can only have one voice in connexion with its parent.
In the few places where it obviously deviates from the Samaritan
Pentateuch, it may be used to correct it; but in other respects,
it is not entitled to much authority. It is printed in the Paris
and London Polyglotts ; and Winer has written a dissertation on
it. (Leipsic, 1817.)

On the Arabic versions of the Scriptures, — All versions of the
Scriptures in the Arabic language are generally supposed to be
later than the Mohammedan era, when, after the conquests of
the Saracens, Arabic became the vernacular tongue of Christian
countries, and translations were consequently required. Those
who argue for the existence of such versions before the time of
Mohammed are not supported by historical proof, and, therefore,
we are not warranted to conclude that any are older than the
seventh century, though the Christian religion was early preached
in Arabia, and worshipping societies formed, who professed to
believe its divine authority. The first translation of any part of
the Bible was made by Warka, the son of Naufel, who died three
years after Mohammed set forth his claim to prophecy. He
translated the gospels (or rather the Bible) into Arabic, which
accounts for Mohammed's deep acquaintance with it, as proved by
the Koran. The passage which records that he translated the
gospels into Arabic is found in a commentary on the life of the
Prophet by Ibrahim of Haleb, published at Cairo 1833. The
passage literally translated is this — *« Warka, the son of Nau-
fel, the cousin of Khadija, had become a Christian at the time of
ignorance [i. e. before Mohammed) and translated the gospels
from Hebrew into Arabic." (See the Oriental Christian Spec-
tator for March 1838, p. 88, where, however, the Arabic is very
incorrectly printed.) It is evident that the Bible must here be
understood by the gospels.

The following Arabic versions have been made from the Hebrew
text.

1. A translation made by Saadias, sirnamed Gaon or Har/-

70 ANCIENT VERSIONS. I.ECT. V.

gaon, i. e. the excellent or illustrious^ a native of Phithom, a town
in Fayum, a province of Egypt. In the year 927, he removed
to Babylonia, and became rector of its famous academy. But he
was soon obliged to fly and remain in concealment till the death
of David, son of Zachai in 942. It has been disputed whether
his translation extended to the whole of the Old Testament, or
merely to those parts that have been discovered. This is a mat-
ter which cannot be determined with certainty, though it is pro-
bable that he translated all the books. At present we know of the
Pentateuch, Isaiah, Job, and Hosea, and we are informed by
Abulfaragius that Saadias also translated the Psalms. It is
therefore most probable that all the books of the Old Testament
were rendered into the same language at the same time, accord-
ing to the opinion formerly expressed by Erpeniusand Pococke.
The Pentateuch stands in the Paris and London Polyglotts.
Isaiah was edited at Jena by Paulus, 1790-91, and the transla-
tion of Job is preserved in MS. in the Bodleian Library. The
whole version is very paraphrastical. Far from expressing the
energetic brevity of the original, it employs a multiplicity of
words, to represent one or two Hebrew terms. But although it
must have proceeded from the author in a free paraphrastic form,
yet it is scarcely allowable to conclude from the present printed
text, that its original condition was the same. Transcribers have
taken great liberties with it ; and were several copies discovered,
some of them would be seen to correspond more nearly with the
Hebrew text. It is certain also that it has been interpolated,
since we can distinctly trace a systematic alteration. Of these
insertions the basis is a Samaritan- Arabic version. Those who
conjecture that the Septuagint has furnished contributions to the
text of this version, can scarcely prove the truth of their suppo-
sition by satisfactory examples. In consequence of its adherence
to the Masoretic text, and its having been interpolated, its value
in criticism cannot be great.

2. The Arabic translation of Joshua and of 1st Kings xii. —
2d Kings xii. 16 ; Nehemiah i. — ix. 27. The fragment of
the books of the Kings proceeded, according to Roediger, from a
Jew in the eleventh century. The translation of Nehemiah is
also attributed by him to a Jew ; but it was subsequently altered
by Christian hands after the Peshito.

3. The Arabic version of the Pentateuch edited by Erpenius.
This version was printed in Hebrew characters at Leyden 1622,

LECT. V. ANCIENT VEKSrONS. 71

from a MS. in the library of that place. It appears to have been
made by an African Jew, and in modern times, if we are to judge
of its age by its character. It follows the Masoretic text so
closely, that Erpenius judged it unnecessary to give a Latin
translation. Gesenius, Jahn, and others, assign it to the thir-
teenth century. It cannot be of much critical value.

4. A translation of Genesis, Psalms, and Daniel, by Saadias
Ben Levi Asnekoth. This translation is of still less account
than the preceding. The author was a learned Jew of Morocco
in the first half of the seventeenth century. It exists in MS.
in the British Museum (No. 5503.) As might be expected, it
seldom deviates from the Masoretic text, and gives the Rabbini-
cal significations of words. Criticism therefore can derive no aid
from it.

5. The Arabic version of the Samaritan Pentateuch by Abu
Said. After the Samaritans had lost their ancient language, and
adopted in common life that of their Arabian conquerors, they
must have felt the want of an Arabic version of their sacred
books. For a time they were obliged to use the translation made
by the Jew Saadias, into the Arabic, until Abu Said undertook
to produce a new version for the benefit of his brethren. At what
time he lived is unknown. We may place him between the
middle of the tenth and the commencement of the thirteenth cen-
turies. This follows from his having been acquainted with and
made use of the version of Saadias, who died in 942 ; and from
the notices of time found in several MSS., which suppose it to
have existed before the year 1227. Bauer fixes him in the year
1070, on what authority it is impossible to discover, for he may
as well have belonged to the twelfth as to the eleventh century. Of
this version, several MSS. exist in libraries, but the whole has
not been printed. It is quite evident that it follows the Samari-
tan Pentateuch, because it agrees with it where there is a varia-
tion in the Hebrew. It is plain also that the translator had the
version of Saadias before him, and that he made considerable use
of it. It is very literal, often giving exactly the same number
of words as are contained in the Samaritan text. Owing to its
extreme closeness, it is written in impure, and sometimes unin-
telligible Arabic. In preparing a critical edition of the Samari-
tan Pentateuch, it may be of use ; but in other respects, it yields
no assistance to the critic. It is considered of great value in the
history of the Samaritan Pentateuch, because there are compara-

1-2 ANCIENT VERSIONS. LECT. V.

lively few sources existing for the emendation of this ancient
copy.

6. An anonymous translation of the Psalms. In the Bodleian
Library (No. 289 of Pococke's MSS.) is preserved an Arabic
version of the Psalms, of which Schnurrer has published Psalms
16, 40, and 110, in Hebrew characters. Criticism need not ex-
pect much from this version.

7. There is also in the library at Manheim an Arabic transla-
tion of the First Book of Moses, with a Malayan interlineary
version, which, judging from the specimen given by Rink in
Eichhorn's Allgemeine Bibliothek (Universal Library) is of no
importance in a critical view\

Such are the immediate Arabic versions of the Old Testament.
With regard to the New Testament, there are only two editions
of it in this language that can be applied to critical purposes.

1. The Arabic of Erpenius, so called, because published by
him at Ley den in 1616, from a MS. of Upper Egypt belonging
to the fourteenth century. In the gospels it is taken from the
original Greek, which it follows very closely, especially in the
arrangement of the words ; but the other parts are not from the
original. In the Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline and the Ca-
tholic epistles, it was made from the Peshito, and in the Apoca-
lypse, from the Coptic. It is with the gospels only that we are
here concerned. They were printed before in this same version,
at Rome 1591 and 1619, from the last of which editions they
were transferred to the Paris and London Polyglotts. There
are in fact three diiFerent impressions of the same version of the
gospels taken from different MSS., viz. the Roman edition, the
Erpenian, and the Karshuni New Testament printed at Rome
1703, folio. The discrepancies between these three must be at-
tributed, either to the transcribers of the MSS. whose texts are
printed, or to the editors, or probably to both. In the Roman
edition especially, though the gospels bear the marks of the
Constantinopolitan MSS. from which the version was made, yet
there is good reason for suspecting that many places were altered
after the Syriac, Coptic, and Latin ; and the other editions are
scarcely free from the same charge. This circumstance detracts
from its value as a source of emendation, since we have not the
means of separating the additions from the (jcnuine version itself.

2. Another Arabic version, of the Acts of the Apostles, the
Pauline and Catholic epistles, and the Apocalypse, printed in the

LECT. V. ANCIENT VERSIONS.

Paris and London Polyglotts, proceeded from a different indivi-
dual, who probably belonged to Cyrene in Africa. But his ver-
sion is of little use in criticism, because it has been interpolated.
The text is the Constantinopolitan.

Of Persian Versions. — The Scriptures seem to have been early
translated into the Persian language. Chrysostom and Theo-
doret speak of a Persian version, and according to Maimonides,
the Pentateuch existed in Persia long before Mohammed. The
translation of the Pentateuch printed in the London Polyglott,
is of later origin than the appearance of the false prophet. This
is clear from Babel (Genesis x. 10) being rendered Bagdad. It
must therefore have been later than the eighth century. Like
Aquila it follows the Hebrew very closely. According to the
inscription in the Constantinopolitan edition (1546) it w-as made
by a Jew called Jacob the son of Joseph Taw^us ; but the mean-
ing of Tawus is obscure. RosenmuUer thinks it denotes belong-
ing to Tus, a city of Persia; whilst Lorsbach declares it to be a
proper name, signifying in Persian, peacock. Its age is quite
undetermined. RosenmuUer places it in the ninth century;
Lorsbach in the sixteenth. It is not of much use in criticism.

Not long ago Hassler discovered an immediate version of Solo-
mon's writings in a Parisian codex, but I believe it has not been
published.

One of the Persian versions of the gospels in the London
Polyglott, though made from two Greek MSS. is of no critical
value, because the other Persian translation in the same Poly-
glott, a daughter of the Pesbito, was employed by the translator
or translators in making it.

LECTURE VI.

ANCIENT VERSIONS CONTINUED.

Latin Translations.

We come now to speak of the Latin versions^ in the examination
of which we propose to adopt the following arrangement. \st.
Speak of the old Latin version. 2c/. Of Jerome's new transla-
tion made from the Hebrew. 3<rZ. Of our present Vulgate.

Several I^atin versions of the Scriptures, taken in the Old Tes-
tament from the Septuagint, and in the New from the original
Greek, appear to have existed in the time of Augustine. Among
them one held a distinguished place, called versio Itala^ the Italic
version^ a name which has given rise to many conjectures, but
which should not be altered into ilia or usitata. Jerome names it
vulgata and communis, the common, and sometimes vetus, the old
translation. Some have controverted the opinion that a number
of Latin versions existed so early, but without success. It seems
quite probable, however, that only one of them had come into
public use, whilst the rest were merely private copies and the
productions of private individuals. These translations were soon
corrupted and altered in various ways, so that Jerome says,
" every one has at pleasure added or omitted according to his
own judgment." The age of the Italic cannot be accurately as-
certained. The first certain traces of it are found at the close of
the second century. TertuUian, a. d. 220, quotes this Latin
version, and as some time must have elapsed from its origin till
it came into general repute, it may be placed in the last half of
the second century. History is silent respecting its country, but
the name Italic naturally points to Italy. The African fathers
gave it this apppellation, because it was used by the Italians as
their church version. The circumstances adduced by Eichhorn
in favour of its African origin are of no weight. The character
of the version seems to have been a literal adherence to the texts
of the Septuagint and Greek Testament. We find in it also all
the mistakes that disfigured the Seventy before Origen's recension,
because it was made from the xoivri or Antehexaplaric text. Hence
it may be usefully applied to the emendation of the Septuagint,
for the revision of the immortal Origen has been so grossly cor-

LECT. VI. LATIN TRANSLATIONS. 75

rupted, that it is now necessary to restore the text to the same
condition as that in which it came from the hands of this learned
father. All the fragments of the Old Italic that could be disco-
vered were collected and published by Sabatier in his work Bibli-
orum sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquae. Rheims, 1743, 3 vols,
folio. In order to remedy the confusion introduced by a multi-
plicity of versions, Jerome undertook to revise and amend the
Italic, after the Hexaplaric text in the Old Testament, and in
the New Testament by the original itself. In the latter it would
appear that he resorted to Greek MSS. only where a passage
was remarkably misconstrued, and that he occasionally consulted
Origen's MSS. He proceeded, however, very cautiously, lest
the difference between his emendations and the text which he
laboured to correct, might appear too striking. During his stay
at Rome about 383, after finishing the New Testament, and
probably at the request of the Romish Bishop Damasus, he re-
vised the Psalter, but only in a hasty manner, (cursim) as he him-
self says. Yet this recension attained to public church-authority at
Rome, and is thence cdW^dipsalterium liomanum. Between the years
384 and 390, or 91, while staying at Bethlehem, he made a new
recension of the Psalter more accurate and critical than the for-
mer, according to the Hexaplarian text, with the obelisks and as-
terisks used by Origen. This latter revision has been called the
Galilean psalter, having been introduced into the churches in
Gaul. In the same manner he proceeded with all the books of
the Old Testament, correcting them by the hexaplaric text ; but
those only were published to which his double prefaces are pre-
fixed, viz., Chronicles, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Job, and Pro-
verbs. The copy of the rest was lost, as he himself writes to
Augustine, by the treachery of an individual to whom he had en-
trusted it. This revision of the old Latin version contributed not
a little to the reputation of Jerome. At Rome, and in Gaul, the
psalter, as prepared by him, obtained public authority in the
churches ; and Augustine commented on his improved edition of
Job. But the envy of some was excited against him, especially
of Rufin Bishop of Aquileia, who censured him for making the
hexaplaric instead of the ante-hexaplaric text the basis of his
emendations. Of this correction of the Italic version by means
of the Septuagint, only two books have come down to our times,
viz., the Psalms and Job. The translation of the Psalms was
embodied in the Romish missal, and from thence transferred to

76 ANCIENT VERSIONS. LECT. VI.

the prayer-book of the Church of England. Before he had com-
pleted his correction of the Vetus Itala, he began to make a new
translation from the Hebrew, for the purpose of assisting Chris-
tians in their controversies with the Jews. Such was his osten-
sible motive for engaging in the work, which, after the example
of Origen, he held forth against the prejudices of his contempo-
raries, who looked upon such undertakings with suspicion. The
treachery of his friend had not crushed his literary ardour. It
served only to stimulate him to new and nobler exertions in the
cause of sacred criticism. He resolved to be no longer contented
with revising the translation of a translation, for such in reality
was the Latin version of the Bible, but to undertake the more
difficult task of a translation of the Old Testament immediately
from the Hebrew. Encouraged also by the counsel of private
friends, he engaged in the work which has rendered his name so
celebrated in the literary history of the Bible. About the year
S85 he commenced with the Books of Samuel and the Kings,
and completed the work in .392 or S, with Jeremiah. But though
the whole was finished about 393 a. d., yet the greater part was
not published till some time after. In making this translation,
the basis of which is the exegetical tradition of the Rabbins un-
der whom he studied, he appears to have consulted all the Greek
translations extant, and frequently to have adopted their words,
lest he should give offence by departing too widely from the es-
tablished interpretations. Hence in his commentaries he some-
times corrects his own translation. The vetus Jtala, as already
revised by him, formed the New Testament part of this transla-
tion, because he did not think it necessary to make an entirely
new version in this division of the Scriptures. But notwithstand-
ing his cautious and timid procedure, the production raised up a
host of enemies, who complained loudly of his departures from
the Seventy. Even Augustine joined partially with his accusers.
It was reserved for the more correct judgment of posterity to per-
ceive and to appreciate the merits of the work. It was adopted
in the Latin Church gradually, and by tacit consent, rather than
by the sanction of public authority. In 604 Pope Gregory the
Great explained Job from its text, quoting only occasionally from
the old Latin version.

From this time it was received into all the Latin churches, and
soon entirely displaced the Italic.

hi consequence of the universal adoption of this version by the

LECT. VI. LATIN TRANSLATIONS. 77

Western Church, numerous copies were required, and many er-
rors committed in their transcription. Some who used the Old
Italic in connexion with Jerome's translation, corrected the latter
by the former. Interpolations were also inserted from liturgi-
cal books, and even from Josephus. These and many other in-
tentional alterations we owe to the officious and uncritical zeal of
half-learned monks. At the command of Charlemagne it was
corrected by Alcuin, a. d. 802, " from the most ancient sources,"
an expression whose meaning has been disputed. According to
Hody, it means the Hebrew in the Old Testament, and the Greek
in thelSew, whereas Porson maintains that it was ancient MSS.
of the Vulgate. Not long after, another correction was thought
necessary. Accordingly Lanfranc, Archpb. of Canterbury, who
died 1089, undertook this task. In the year 1150, Cardinal Ni-
colaus found " quot codices, tot exemplaria," as many copies as
MSS., and endeavoured to make a new emendation. About the
same time the Paris theologians began a sort of Masora on the
Latin version, under the title epanortltofcB or correctoria Biblica,
consisting of corrections from the original language, and the
oldest MSS., with all kinds of critical remarks. This was follow-
ed by the correctorium of Hugo a S. Caro, and was continued by
the Dominicans from 1*240. Many of these corrections were con-
demned by Roger Bacon in his letters to Clement IVth. He
looked upon the prevailing evil with the true spirit of a philoso-
pher. Only one correctorium, however, has been printed, viz., at
Cologne, 1508, 4to. From such critical works it is evident that
the old MSS. had far more variations than are now to be found in
editions of the Vulgate — that many of the readings now current
were formerly thought to be spurious, and that it is scarcely to
be expected that we can ever bring the text of this version to the
state ol purity in which it proceeded from its learned author. The
Vulgate was the first book ever printed. The first edition is
without date or place ; the first with a date was printed at May-
ence 1462.

In 1 528, and succeeding years, Robt. Stephens printed critical
editions of the Vulgate. But they were disapproved and prohi-
bited by the Papists, on account of dangerous errors with which
they charged the editor. A new and more correct edition was
subsequently prepared by John Hentenius, and other Louvain
divines, published in 1547, folio, and several times reprinted.
In 1573, their third and chief edition was published at Ant-

78 ANCIKNT VERSIONS. LECT. VI.

weip, having been corrected from MSS. and other sources.
But this edition, though extremely valuable from its critical
apparatus, was never publicly adopted by the Latin Church,
because of its having various readings; for Sixtus Vth for-
bade the collecting of such materials in future, lest the authen-
ticity of the version should be undermined. In 1 546 the Coun-
cil of Trent pronounced the Vulgate authejitic, by which no more
perhaps was meant than that it should be used as the Church
version of Roman Catholics. The Council also commanded that
it should be printed as correctly as possible. Such an edition,
begun by Pius I Vth in 1564, and continued by Pius Vth, was com-
pleted by Sixtus Vth, who announced it by a bull, dated 1st
March 1589. But in consequence of its being found to abound
with errors, his successor, Gregory XI Vth, made arrangements for
a new edition, which was published by his successor, Clement
Vlllth, 1592. It may be observed, that most of the corrections
were derived from the Louvain edition. In the preface to that
put forth by Sixtus Vth, his edition is declared to be the authentic
Vulgate, which was the object sought after by the Council of
Trent ; and in the plenitude of apostolic power, he threatens from
St. Peter's chair with all the pains of excommunication, any one
who should dare or presume to alter the text in the least parti-
cular. But Clement Vlllth was of a different opinion, for he pre-
sumed to publish in less than three years after another edition,
differing in several thousand places from the preceding, and even
contradicting it in many. This second edition was also pro-
nounced authentic by the same infallible authority ; and was pre-
faced with similar threats of excommunication against all who
should dare to change it in the most trifling particular. In the
preface to the Clementine edition, it is said that Sixtus discover-
ed so many errors of the press in his Bible when it was published,
that he resolved to recal it and publish anew one. This is always
urged by Roman Catholic writers in reply to the arguments
against the infallibility of the Popes. It is well known, however,
that this transference of the blame to the printer was an expedient
proposed by Bellarmine, in an awkward dilemma ; for it was he
that wrote the preface to the Clementine edition. That this is
admitted by learned Roman Catholics themselves, is evident from
the following words of Hug, in his introduction to the New Tes-
tament. " There was, however, a great difficulty to surmount.
Was it expedient to depreciate the Sixtine edition by declaring it

LECT. VI. LATIN TRANSLATIONS. . 79

faulty ? Both the new work and the papal authority would cer-
tainly gain nothing by this in public estimation. Should it be
pronounced correct ? Why then prepare another ? In this di-
lemma, Bellarmine is said to have found out a middle course, and
to have proposed that all the blame should be laid upon the prin-
ter, so as to vindicate the reputation of Sixtus, and his succes-
sors Bellarmine was the author of the preface, and it is said

to have been the cause of his canonization.'' (See Hug, p. 281, as
translated by Fosdick.) When it is said, therefore, by Romanists
that Clement merely fulfilled the intention of Sixtus by sending
forth into the world a more correct edition, they allege what they
cannot prove. From an examination of both prefaces, together with
the texts themselves, it may be shown that Sixtus never intended
a second edition ; and that Clement's, so far from being a second,
is a totally different impression. Sixtus never thought of a se-
cond, because, after the work was printed, he corrected many er-
rors of the press, either roughly, with his pen, or by passing small
bits of paper over them, or by erasing them altogether. Now, if
he had designed to cancel his edition, and to send forth a new one,
he would never have been at such pains to correct an impression
which was to be totally superseded by a new. They differ in
many places where there could be no error of the press ; and
clauses found in the one are omitted in the other. On the whole,
Clement's edition differs more than any other from that of Sixtus,
and resembles more nearly the Louvain impression. These im-
portant differences between two popes, both claiming infallibility,
have not been unnoticed by Protestant writers, as furnishing a
powerful and unanswerable argument against the pretended powers
of that corrupt church. The discrepancies were industriously col-
lected by Dr. James, librarian to the Bodleian, and published in
a treatise entitled, " Bellum Papale, sive concordia discors Sixti
Quinti et Clementis octavi, &c." London, 1600. In conse-
quence of this impregnable argument against the infallibility of
the Popes, Baldwin the Jesuit, affirmed that Sixtus' edition was
never published. It is certainly extremely scarce, probably be-
cause it was suppressed and destroyed as much as possible. In
the following year, (1 593), Clement VIII. published a new edition,
altered in many places from the first. This is that which is now
universally adopted by Roman Catholics.

The present Vulgate is composed of the following parts. It is
not all Jerome's, but is made up of portions belonging to the old

BO ANCIENT vi:rsions. LECT. VI.

Italic, the Hexaplaric-Latin version improved by Jerome, and his
own Latin translation, made directly from the original in the Old
Testament.

To the Vetus Itala, belong Baruch, the Wisdom of Solomon,
Sirach, and the 1st and 2d Books of Maccabees.

To the Vetus Itala corrected by Jerome from the Hexaplar
text of the Seventy, belongs the Gallican Psalter, without the
obelisks and asterisks.

The other books of the Old Testament are taken from Je-
rome's new translation, but their text, as we now have it, must
have been greatly changed.

The New Testament is Jerome's revision of the old Italic.

It is also to be observed that Judith and Toblt, the only apo-
cryphal books translated by Jerome, are expressly stated by him
not to have been reckoned canonical by the Jews.

This version has been unduly commended by Roman Catholics,
and sometimes unjustly depreciated by Protestants. That its va-
lue is great, few competent judges will hesitate to admit. It de-
serves to be studied by all as a very ancient witness to the read-
ings that prevailed at an early period, and also to the manner in
which they were understood. Unfortunately, however, it has
come down to us more corrupted than any other ancient transla-
tion. The hands through which it has passed have defiled it with
the impurity of their touch, so that to restore it now, to its pris-
tine form, is utterly beyond the reach of the highest criticism.
The time has come in which a new revision should be made.
The version ought to be examined and corrected from all the
sources which are at present within our reach. The interdict of
its papal editor need not be dreaded even by Romanists. It is
perfectly innocuous. And it w ere much better that the learned
of the Romish communion should undertake so necessary an
emendation, than that Protestants should meddle with it ; for thus
the new edition might be used as the standard Bible of the La-
tin Church. It is of vast importance to separate as far as we
may, Jerome s oivn, from the incrustations it has received in its
transmission to us. It is not to be supposed that many interpre-
tations which now pass current among Romanists, could have
proceeded from him.

The Vulgate has exercised some influence on all the western
translations. It is well known that Luther made great use of it

LECT. VI. LATIN TRANSLATIONS. 81

in his celebrated German translation of the Bible, and that he
could not have produced so noble and excellent a version without
its assistance. Luther's, again, has had an influence on the ma-
jority of English translations, and among others, on our own au-
thorized version.

This version may sometimes lead to the discovery of the read-
ings of very ancient Greek MSS. in the New Testament, and of
Hebrew ones in the Old. It must be used, how^ever, with great
caution ; and care must be taken to ascertain that it clearly indi-
cate such readings as originally existed. In some places Kenni-
cott's collations have confirmed it; and the most ancient MSS.
of the Greek Testament, especially the Egyptian, have been
frequently found to agree with it in their characteristic readings.
This indeed may be partly owing to the fact, that Jerome some-
times consulted Origen's MSS. I need scarcely say that it has
several manifest mistranslations which were not made by
Jerome; and whose object is to support the peculiar dogmata of
the Romish church. Whoever therefore is engaged in contro-
versy with Roman Catholics, should be thoroughly acquainted
with the Vulgate. He should study its phrases and peculiarities
in all their bearings, before he undertake to refute his opponents
out of their favourite Bible.

LECTURE VII.

ANCIENT VERSIONS CONTINUED.

Egyptian Versions. — After the death of Alexander the Great,
the Greeks multiplied in Egypt, and obtained important places
of trust near the throne of the Ptolemies. Hence the Greek
language began to diffuse itself from the Court among the peo-
ple ; and the Egyptian was either excluded or forced to adapt
itself to the Greek, both in construction and in the adoption of new
words. In this way arose the Coptic, compounded of the old
Egyptian and the Greek — so called from Coptos, the principal
city in Upper Egypt. When the race of the Ptolemies became
extinct this language acquired greater reputation and authority.
The Greek, so much recommended by foreigners, gradually dis-
appeared with the declining influence of those by whom it was
spoken. It appears that the Coptic established itself in Lower
Egypt sooner, and more extensively, than in the upper division
of the country, not only because the Greeks were much more
numerous at Alexandria, but because of the commerce extensive-
ly carried on by its inhabitants with other nations speaking the
Greek language. Hence the necessity of versions of the Scrip-
tures in the new tongue, as soon as the disuse of the Greek be-
came so general as to create a demand for the Bible in the
current language of the country. But at what particular period
these versions were made, it is impossible to determine with
certainty. It is highly probable that the Memplntic, or transla-
tion of Lower Egypt, was made before the Sa/iidic, or that of
Upper Egypt, because, from the circumstances just mentioned,
the necessity of a version would be sooner felt in the one place
than in the other. Hence the Memphitic may be dated earlier
than the Thebaic or Sahidic. At the same time they are inde-
pendent versions, and may both be quoted as separate evidence
for a reading. This appears, says Bishop Marsh, from the dif-
ference of their texts, and from the ci:cumstance that additions
in the one, are omitted in the other. At present the Arabic lan-
guage is used throughout Egypt, having been introduced by the

LFCT. Vn. ANCIENT VERSIONS. 83

Suracen conqiiorors ; but Michaelis says that the Coptic is still
used in the service of the Egyptian church, though understood
by none of the audience.

The dialect of Lower Egypt is usually but inaptly called
Coptic. With greater propriety has it been denominated the
Memphilic. Several books of the Old Testament translated into
this language have been published at different times, and in dif-
ferent places, by oriental scholars. The ichole of the Old Testa-
ment, however, has not been published, neither has it been dis-
covered, though it is probably concealed somewhere in Egyptian
cloisters. But there is little doubt that all the books were trans-
lated, though some have not yet been found. Different libraries
must be explored before they be brought to light. Our plan
forbids us to speak farther of this version in the Old Testament,
since it was translated from the Septuagint. The New was pub-
lished by Wilkins, Oxford 1716, with a Latin version. It is at-
tributed by Scholz to the 3d century, though Hug is perhaps
more correct in assigning it to the 4th. Its readings, as may
be concluded from the country, coincide with the Alexandrine
recension, and deserve to be attended to by all whose object is to
form a pure and correct text. It is to be wished that it were
revised and edited correctly from all the MSS. of it at present
known. Thus would its use in criticism be much enhanced.
It wants the disputed passage, 1 John v. 7. The dialect of
Upper Egypt has been called Sahidic, from the Arabic name of
the country (Al Said), but it may be better denominated the
Thebaic. This version was also made from the Greek both in
the Old and New Testaments, probably in the 3d century. Its
readings generally, though not regularly, agree with the Alex-
andrine family. Not a few are peculiar, and some harmonize
with the Latin versions. For the publication of the New Tes-
tament in this version, we are principally indebted to Woide and
Ford, who endeavoured to give it complete as far as they could.
But there are still chasms in the parts which they published
that might now be supplied from known MSS. Only some
fraoments of it in the Old Testament have been printed.

We have also to speak of the Bashtnuric or Ammonian version.
This dialect has been denominated from Bashmur a province of
the Delta, and from the Am.monian oasis. It differs from the
preceding two, and has given rise to much variety of opinion
concerning its locality. Some claim for it the rank of a particu-

84 ANCIENT VERSIONS. LECT. VII.

lar dialect, as Georgi, and Engelbreth ; while Mlinter, and
Champollion the younger, perceived no necessity for distinguish-
ing it in such a manner. It seems to have been a kind of inter-
mediate dialect between those of Upper and Low^er Egypt, and
to have been spoken in the province of Faiom. Only some
parts of it have been published; in the New Testament, fragments
of the Gospels, and of the Epistles of St. Paul. The text al-
ways agrees with the Thebaic, so that Hug and de Wette doubt
whether it was a real version made from the original Greek.
They are rather inclined to look upon it as the version of Upper
Egypt transferred into the idiom of the particular place where it
was spoken. Its origin belongs to the 3d or 4th century.

The JEthiopic language is an early branch of the Arabic, and
the version of the Scriptures in it was made throughout from the
Greek. It is thought to be referred to by Chrysostom in his
second homily on John. Frumentius, who introduced the Chris-
tian religion into Ethiopia, is generally supposed to have been
its author. It must therefore be assigned to the fourth century,
and is deserving of great attention from its antiquity, and from
the text it follows. In its different parts it is very unequal. In
the gospels, which are the best executed, the Alexandrine recen-
sion is generally exhibited, though various readings of different
kinds are sometimes combined. Hug thinks that different ver-
sions, rather than Greek MSS. were used in translating the
gospels, though he does not deny that there are proofs of the
latter having been consulted. The New Testament was publish-
ed in the London Polyglott, but from a faulty MS. If the ver-
sion were edited in a more correct form, from a collation of seve-
ral codices, there is little doubt that it would be of great use in
the criticism of the New Testament. Agreeing as it generally
does with the Alexandrine family, and with the quotations of
Origen, it would lead us to see the state of that text at an early
period. An entire copy of the JEthiopic Scriptures was pur-
chased several years ago by the Church Missionary Society,
which, if judiciously edited, would throw much light on this
version. The iEthiopic language is commonly called the
Geez.

Of the Georfjian version. — This version comprehends the
whole Bible, made from the Septuagint in the Old Testament,
and in the New from Greek MSS. of the Constantinopolitan
family. It belongs to the sixth century. The edition publish-

LECT. VII. ANCIENT VERSIONS. 85

ed at Moscow, 1743, was interpolated from the Slavonian ver-
sion, by the Georgian princes Arcil and Wakuset. This fact
greatly detracts from its authority and value, since it is now im-
possible to separate the more ancient from the interpolated
readings.

Of the Slavonic version. — This translation, comprehending
the entire Bible, was made by Cyril of Thessalonica and his
brother Methodius, who, in the ninth century preached the gos-
pel to the Bulgarians and Moravians, and invented the Slavonic
alphabet. In the Old Testament part the Septuagint was fol-
lowed, and in the New, the original. The translation is very
literal, frequently violating the idiom of the Slavonian for the
sake of retaining the Greek construction. Its text generally
agrees with the most ancient MSS., and exhibits in the main
the Constantinopolitan famil3^ Of the readings adopted by
Griesbach this version has at least three-fourths. On the whole,
it is of great value in the criticism of the Greek Testament, in
consequence of its excellent readings. It has been disputed
whether it was subsequently altered from the Latin. Several
editions have been published at different times, but that of 1581
(Ostrog in Russia) is the basis of ail succeeding ones.

Gothic Version. — The Maeso- Goths were a German tribe
that settled on the borders of the Greek empire, and their lan-
guage is essentially a German dialect. Their version of the
Bible was made by Ulphilas in the fifth century, from Constan-
tinopolitan MSS. in the New Testament, and from the Seventy
in the Old. The author is generally ranked among the Arians ;
but his peculiar opinions seem to have had no influence on his
translation of the Bible. Unfortunately it has not been pre-
served entire. In 1808, Zahn published the four gospels, and a
few fragments of the Epistle of Paul to the Romans. But con-
siderable portions have been since discovered of the Pauline
letters except the Epistle to the Hebrews, and two fragments of
Matthew, which were printed in 1819 and 1829, under the edi-
torial care of Maio and Castillionaeus. This version has been
altered from the Vulgate, but it is easy to disjoin the additions
from the more ancient and genuine text. The most distinguish-
ed MS. of it is the codex Argenteus, preserved in the library of
the University at Upsal, containing the four gospels with consi-
derable chasms. It received its name from its silver letters. The
initials are golden, and the letters uncial. Critics are not agreed

$G ANCIENT VERSIONS. LECT. VII.

respecting its antiquity, though it cannot, as some maintain, be
the very copy which Ulphilas wrote with his own hand. This is
proved by its having marginal readings, indicating the existence
of several transcripts at the time it was copied. The part con-
tained in it has been four times printed ; but the impressions are
said to be full of errors, owing to the difficulty of decyphering the
letters, and to the fading of the colours in many places. The ver-
sion is highly valued by critics, both from its undoubted antiqui-
ty, and from the goodness of its readings, which follow the ori-
ginal text with rigid imitation.

The Armenian Version, — Armenian literature begins with Mies-
rob the inventor of the alphabet, in the beginning of the fifth cen-
tury. Before him, the Armenians used Syriac letters. After in-
venting a new alphabet, he immediately set about a translation
of the Bible into this language, assisted by two of his pupils,
which he completed in the year 410 ad. In the Old Testa-
ment it was made from the Alexandrine Greek; in the New
from the original, and not from the Old Syriac, as many have
contended, for it contains the books wanting in the Syriac ver-
sion. But it is pretty certain that the Peshito was consulted
in the making of the translation, and that it afterwards contri-
buted to modify and change it. Haitho or Hethom, who reigned
over the Lesser Armenia and Cilicia from 1'2*24 to 1'270, is also
said to have corrupted it from the Vulgate, to which as a Roman
Catholic he was much attached. It was probably by him that
1 John V. 7. was inserted from the Latin, since it is not found
in the ancient MSS. It is therefore difficult to discover the origi-
nal state of this translation. The Armenian MSS. generally,
were altered from the Vulgate after the 12th century, and we are
not in possession of more ancient copies by means of which the
later additions might be distinguished. The whole version was
edited by Zohrab at Venice, 1805, from a MS. written in Cilicia
in the 14th century, with the assistance of eight copies of the whole
Bible, and twenty of the New Testament. This edition was
collated for Scholz's Greek Testament. But its utility cannot
be great, since it has come down to us with so many interpola-
tions. If we could ascertain its primitive form, it would doubt-
less contribute much to the advancement of criticism, from the
antiquity of its readings, and their intrinsic value. Scholz thinks
tiiat if we were in possession of the genuine version, we would

LECT. VII. ANCIENT VERSIONS. 87

find it to be compounded of the Constantinopolitan and Alexan-
drian families.

Of the Targums, — Of the origin of the Targums or Chaldee ver-
sions of the Old Testament, two representations have been given,
considerably differing from each other in their main features. Eich-
horn and others have endeavoured to prove that their origin is not
so ancient as has been generally imagined, and that the earliest of
them appeared about the same time as the Talmud, or about the
beginning of the third century. This topic is in some degree con-
nected with another relative to the extinction of the Hebrew as a
living language. Eichhorn supposes that it did not cease to be
spoken at the exile, but that it continued some time after the re-
turn, until it was gradually lost. He conjectures, that about a
century before the birth of Christ, the ancient language of the
Jews was so little known among them, as to prevent the Scrip-
tures from being intelligible when publicly read. At first they
were accompanied by a kind of version or paraphrase in the
Chaldee, given extempore by him whose office it was to read the
law. But these oral comments soon multiplied to such a degree
that it was found necessary to commit them to writing, for the
instruction of the people. Persons were found competent and
willing to undertake literal versions of the law and the prophets
into the Aramaean tongue, when it had entirely supplanted the
ancient Hebrew. We cannot place this necessity earlier than a
century before the birth of Christ, whether we consider the cir-
cumstances of the Jews, the nature of the language in which their
Bible was written, or the only documents remaining of the period
that elapsed between the latest canonical writers, and the coming
of the Redeemer. Every view we can take of all the circumstan-
ces of the case, leads away from the belief that the necessity of
a version into the Chaldee language was felt much sooner than a
century before Christ's appearance in the flesh. Such are the
sentiments of Eichhorn respecting the extinction of the Hebrew
language, and the origin of the Targums, none of which he would
regard as written before the third century after Christ. But it
appears from Nehemiah viii. 8, that the law was publicly read to
the people in Esra's time, with the addition of a Chaldee transla-
tion ; shewing that the language of the Jews was lost during their
captivity at Babylon, so that after their return they could not
understand their Scriptures without a version. Now, if this took
place in the time of Esra, there is every reason to believe that

88 ANCIENT VERSIONS. LECT. VII.

the custom was continued. And when we consider that public
schools were soon after established, and synagogues erected, in
which the interpretation of the law was chiefly attended to, we
are confirmed in the same opinion. Great importance was at-
tached to the office of interpreter or translator of the law, and the
Talmudic canon was then in full force, that as the law was given
by a mediator^ so it could be read and understood only by a me-
diator. The oldest parts of the Talmud contain strict injunctions
respecting public interpretations of the law, as well as the mode
of reading it, and the proper sections to be chosen. The custom
of extempore paraphrase seems to have given rise to palpable
abuses in after times. Hence, definite hermeneutic rules were
laid down, in conformity with which, the interpretation of the law
should be conducted. The license of the paraphrast was curbed
by canons which were gradually narrowed, and at length univer-
sally binding. It is easy to perceive how the value of written
expositions would become apparent, when the freedom of the in-
terpreter was abridged by firmly established regulations. The
nature of the exposition required, called for written interpretations.
In this way oral gave rise to written explanations, the necessity
of the latter becoming still more visible when the liberty taken
by the extempore translator was abridged by rules to which he
must rigidly adhere. It was then readily perceived that the
surest and safest method of giving the meaning, was by having
a version written for the use of the people, so that nothing
more would be required than the bare reading of it in their
presence. External circumstances were also favourable to the
origin of xoritten explanations. The Hellenistic Jews were al-
ready in possession of the law in their own tongue ; and in the
2d century, or rather in the first, the Syrians had begun to trans-
late the holy writings into their language. Greek versions had
also proceeded from the Jews themselves in opposition to the
Alexandrine^ and had obtained great approbation. In the midst
of this general desire to have versions of the Old Testament in
diff'erent languages, it is quite natural to suppose that the Jews
who spoke the Aramaean should also seek to procure a translation
of the Scriptures into their own dialect. In addition to these
considerations, we find several traces to guide us to the existence
of written Targums as early at least as the time of Christ. A
I passage in the Mishnahas been thought not without probability,
■ to speak of the language and written characters of the Targums

LECT. VII. ANCIENT VERSIONS. 89

(Tract. Jadaim 4, § 5.) The Gemara mentions a written Tar-
gum on Job in the middle of the first century, about the time of
Gamaliel (Shabbatli, fol. 115, I.) The chief objection urged
against this early origin of the Chaldee versions is the silence of
the fathers, none of whom makes any mention of them.. Even
Epiphanius and Jerome, from whom we might have expected
some account of them, pass them over in silence. But this cir-
cumstance may be explained by their ignorance of the Chaldee
language, and the little importance attached to such versions in
comparison of the Greek translations. In opposition also to the
late origin assigned to the Targums by Eichhorn and others, it
may be mentioned, that they appear to have been used in the
making of the Peshito version, or at all events they were well
known to Ephrem the Syrian in the fourth century.

The language of the older Targums agrees substantially
with that of the Chaldaic sections in Daniel and Ezra, but
the orthography is somewhat different. The later Targums
abound with foreign words, and depart much farther from the
old orthography, and sometimes from the old grammatical prin-
ciples of the Chaldaic. Their present vowel-pointing is differ-
ent from that of the Chaldee of Daniel and Esra. It is probable
that they were at first written without the vowel points, and that
they were furnished with them only after the whole Bible had
been provided with such an auxiliary to its pronunciation. But
whilst the vowel system of the Hebrew Bible was gradually en-
larged and perfected by the Jewish grammarians, the same at-
tention was not paid to that of the Targums, which remained as
irregular as at first. Subsequently the editors of these para-
phrases endeavoured to bring the pointing of them nearer to that
of Daniel and Esra ; among whom Buxtorf laboured with the
greatest success. These versions have been corrupted in differ-
ent ways. Sometimes the abbreviations so frequently employed
in them were erroneously interpreted, and sometimes their text
was disfigured with interpolations. From these and other causes
they are not now printed in the very same form in which they at
first appeared. They have also suffered some alterations from
the Masoretic text, to which they were rendered conformable
when they chanced to differ from it. Even Buxtorf is supposed
to have changed their text as well as their vowels after the He-
brew which he looked upon in all cases as infallibly genuine.
In consequence of these circumstances it is not surprising that

90 ANCIENT VERSIONS. LECT. VII.

the MSS. editions, and quotations from theTargumsin Rabbini-
cal writers differ considerably from one another; and that we are
sometimes to look into the oldest MSS. and the citations of the
Rabbins, for the true reading of a place.

The reputation of these versions among the Jews has always
been great, probably because they flatter their national pride,
and abound with Rabbinical fables. Some improbable accounts
of their origin have been fabricated in order to heighten their
credit, but such incoherent tales must be rejected by the sober
inquirer.

The word Targiim is derived from a quadriliteral root, targam^
signifying interpretation or version. At present there are eleven
extant, three of which comprehend the five books of Moses, 1st,
The Targum of Onkelos. 2. That of the Pseudo-Jonathan, so
called because falsely ascribed to him. 3. The Jerusalem Tar-
gum. 4. That of Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Prophets. 5.
That of Joseph, the Blind, or one-eyed, on the Hagiographa. 6.
A Targum on the five Megilloth, i. e., the Books of Ruth, Esther,
Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, and Lamentations of Jeremiah.
7. A Targum on 1st and 2d Chronicles. 8, 9, and 10, Three
explanatory of Esther. 11. The Jerusalem Targum on the Pro-
phets. To each of these we shall now direct your attention.

LECTURE Vlir.

ANCIENT VERSIONS CONTINUED.

1. Onkelos. — According to the Babylonian Gemara Onkelos
was a disciple of Hillel, who died sixty years B. c. This Hillel
was the grandfather of Gamaliel, Paul's instructor. No good rea-
son has yet been assigned for setting aside this testimony, though
Eichhorn, disregarding the Jewish tradition, places him much
later. The later Talmudists frequently confound him with
Aquila, the Greek translator, a circumstance which confirms the
high antiquity ascribed to him by the Babylonian Talmud. His
version is incomparably the best of all the Targums. The style
is pure, approaching that of Daniel and Esra. It follows the
original, word for word, except in some cases where figures of
speech are resolved, and anthropomorphitic expressions removed
or changed, lest corporeity should be attributed to God. Occa-
sionally the translator adopts a freer, looser mode of render-
ing, in which instances some have conjectured that his version
has been interpolated from that of the Pseudo-Jonathan. This
work is particularly useful in criticism, because it is very literal,
closely adhering to the original words. Wherever the translator
deviates from the Masoretic text he is almost always supported by
other ancient versions, whence we conclude that he followed the
copy before him in these as well as other cases. The reputation
of Onkelos is great among the Jews. His version was used by
them as a sort of dictionary, giving the significations of Hebrew
words; and they composed a Masora on his Targum like that
on the Hebrew Bible, which they called Masora Hattargum. They
also furnished it with accents. In consequence of its utility it
has been oftenest printed. It is given in the Paris and London
Polyglotts, taken from Buxtorfs edition of 1616.

2. The Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Prophets and His-
torical hooks, — The accounts of Jonathan's life are obscure. He
is generally said to have been the most distinguished of the
eighty disciples of Hillel, and the colleague of Simeon the Just
who took up the infant Christ in his arms. According to this ac-
count he lived a short time before the birth of Christ. The

92 ANCIENT VERSIONS. LECT. VIII.

grounds assigned by Eichhorn and others in favour of a more re-
cent period, are unsatisfactory. This Targum, like that of On-
kelos, is frequently mentioned in the Talmud; and must there-
fore have been well known when the latter was written. From
several places where it closely agrees with Onkelos, some have
supposed that Jonathan made use of Onkelos' version, but the
contrary is rather to be assumed. Prideaux, indeed, has adduced
the circumstance of his rendering the prophets to shew that he
probably found the law already translated by Onkelos; but the
opposite conclusion ought rather to be drawn. It is more pro-
bal3le that the Jews would venture to translate the prophets, in
which freer scope was allowed, than that they would first under-
take the more difficult task of giving a version of the law. Stricter
injunctions were laid on the interpreter of the Pentateuch, and
greater literality was required. According to the Talmud, he is
said to have written down his translation from the mouth of the
prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, amidst miraculous oc-
currences. This circumstance shows the high reputation he had
among the Jews, and seems to favour the idea that his version
was the first of the kind that was made. Some have erroneously
looked upon this Targum as the composition of different authors,
because it is more literal in the historical books than in the pro-
phets. It contains Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jere-
miah, Ezekiel, and the twelve minor prophets. The style is in-
ferior to Onkelos. It contains a number of Greek words, from
which fault, however, the other is not free ; but it has no Latin
terms, as Eichhorn affirms. It exhibits a multitude of arbitrary
explanations, interpolations, and later views, which greatly de-
tract from its value. The style does not agree in the main with
that of Onkelos, as Carpzov and Havernick allege, for it is cer-
tainly less pure, freer and more paraphrastical. There is reason,
however, to believe that it has been interpolated and disfigured
with several additions, which ought to be carefully separated from
the more ancient production. The utility of this Targum chiefly
bears upon the critical history of the Hebrew text. Although
generally harmonizing with the Masoretic recension, yet it dif-
fers from it in several readings of importance, in which it is pre-
ferable. It stands in the Bibles of Bomberg and Buxtorf, and in
the London Polyglott.

3. The Targum of Pseudo- Jonathan on the Pentateuch.— T\\h
version has been falsely ascribed to the same Jonathan who trans-

LECT. VTII. ANCIENT VERSIONS. 93

lated the prophets, and historical books. The lano-uao-e shews
that it did not proceed from him, for it is much more impure,
being mixed with foreign words, such as Persian, Greek, and
Latin. The mode of rendering followed in both is also totally
different. It contains numerous allegories, fables, and dialogues
unlike those of the real Jonathan. The dialect in which it is
written is that of Jerusalem ; and where the author abides by the
Hebrew text, he uniformly follows the Rabbinical interpretation.
The following circumstances prove that it must have been exe-
cuted after the sixth century. 1st, Mention is made of the Mishna.
2d, The word Constantinople occurs, which name the city did
not receive till the fourth century. 3d, The Lombards are men-
tioned. Numbers xxiv. 24, and also the Turks, Gen. x. 2, who
became known a considerable time after the sixth century. These
arguments, taken together, have been adduced to shew that it
was not written before the seventh century, to the latter half of
which it is assigned by Zunz, and consequently that it is utterly
valueless for critical purposes. It appears, indeed, to have been
partly compiled from previous interpretations of the same books
of Scripture.

4. 2'he Jerusalem Targum on the Pentateuch. — This version is
called the Jerusalem Targum^ either because it was made at
Jerusalem, or from its being executed in the dialect of that place.
It merely contains interpretations of select passages, and generally
agrees with the Pseudo-Jonathan. The fables of the spurious
Jonathan are sometimes repeated with additions, and sometimes
the Hebrew words are inserted without any explanation. We
meet with numerous foreign terms, Greek, Latin, and Persian
mixed together, and the language is naturally impure. Whole
chapters are occasionally omitted ; and again a whole series of ex-
planations is attached to a single word.

Late investigations, conducted with great labour and industry,
have fully established the fact, that the Targum on the Penta-
teuch, falsely ascribed to Jonathan, existed much earlier under
the name of the Targum of Palestine, or the Jerusalem Targum,
of which there were several recensions. Thus the Pseudo-Jonathan
is identified with the Targum of Jerusalem. That which now goes
by the name of the Jerusalem Targum is merely another fragmen-
tary recension of the same work as the Pseudo-Jonathan, (see
Zunz.) The object of such post-Talmudic versions was quite
different from that of the earlier ones. They were designed to

94 ANCIENT VERSIONS. Ll.CT. VII.

exhibit a system of allegorical interpretation agreeable to the
rules laid down in the Talmud, and to embody the traditional
expositions which had been long current, consisting of legendary
tales and absurd opinions. Hence these two Targums furnish
no assistance in the criticism or interpretation of the Old Testa-
ment. They are merely useful when viewed as sources of the
mode of interpretation, and as the doctrinal system of the later
Jews. It is also to be observed that they drew their traditions
not only out of the Talmud, but from more ancient and freer
Targums. These two versions are found in the fourth volume of
the London Polyglott.

5. We come now to speak of Targums on the Hagingrnpha ;
and Jirst of that on the three books, Psalms, Job, and Proverbs.
Jewish tradition attributes this paraphrase to one author, but his
name is not certainly known. Joseph the Blind is usually fixed
on, who was rector of the academy at Sora in Babylonia in the
fourth century. The version of the Proverbs adheres very close-
ly to the Hebrew text, never deviating from it except in a few
unimportant departures, such as in chap. x. 20; xi. 4, 15. Its
agreement with the Peshito has led some to suppose that it was
taken from it, and not from the Hebrew ; but the coincidence can
be sufficiently explained by the literal character of both versions,
and by the kindred idioms of the languages in which they are
written. In some places they differ from each other, where we
are compelled to assume the use of the Hebrew. The version of
Psalms and Job is nearly allied to that of the preceding in expres-
sion and style, and therefore the Targum comprising the three
books is justly considered to have proceeded from the same indivi-
dual. Itsutility cannot be great, either in criticism or interpretation.
6. A Targum on the Jive Megilloth, viz. Ruth, Esther, Lamen-
tations, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles. This Targum proceeded
from various unknown authors. The books are paraphrased very
freely, so much so that the Hebrew original is lost in a flood of
Chaldee words and Jewish puerilities. But there is a difference
in the character of the several translations, some books being
better interpreted than others. That of Ruth and Lamentations
is tolerable, — that of Ecclesiastes much more paraphrastic. But
the interpretation of Solomon's Song is, properly speaking, no
version at all. It is rather an encomium on the Jewish people,
filled up with absurdities and superstitions. The anachronisms
of the author betray his gross ignorance of history. Of what

LECT. VI 11. ANCIENT VERSIONS. 95

utility this paraphrase can be to any one in the criticism of the
Scriptures, it is impossible even to conjecture.

7, 8, & 9. Targums on Esther. — The Jews have always been
accustomed to set a high value on the Book of Esther, and to put
it by the side of the Mosaic writings. It is to be expected, there-
fore, that several translations of it should have been madejnto
the Chaldaic tongue. Three Targums of it have been printed :
\st, A short one without digressions in the Antwerp Polyglott ;
2^7, A more verbose one, full of additions, fables, and absurdities,
published by Francis Tayler, called the former Tar gum on Esther
(Targum prius), reprinted in the London Polyglott ; Qd, That
published by the same under the title of Targum posterius^ which
appears to be the work of a Rabbi. This is even more diffuse
than the preceding, abounding in all manner of digressions and
fabulous records. Strictly speaking, these three Targums on
Esther ought only to be regarded as two ; because that printed
in the Antwerp Polyglott is the same, as the Targum prius of
Tayler enlarged with glosses. Several others on the same book
exist in manuscript.

\0. A Targum on Chronicles. — This version was so long un-
known, that it began at length to be doubted whether any had
ever been made of the book. But in 1680-83, it was published
by Beck, from an Erfurdt MS. This edition has many chasms,
all of which were filled up in a later published by Wilkins,
from a Cambridge MS., and accompanied with a Latin version
— Amsterdam, 1715, 4to. This paraphrase is not free from Jew-
ish fables and historical inaccuracies. Its late origin is betrayed
by several circumstances, particularly the use of the Pseudo-
Jonathan, and the Jerusalem Targum on the Pentateuch, both
of which are themselves recent. Criticism therefore need not ex-
pect much aid from such a source. Beck ascribes it to Joseph
the Blind.

\\. A Targum of Jerusalem on the Prophets. — In codex 154
of Kennicott (a MS. written in the year 1 106), we find a passage
of some length quoted in the margin at Zechariah xii. 10 ; but
we know nothing more of it than this fragment. (See Bruns in
Eichhorn's Repertorium, xv. 174.) From this account it will be
seen that, as far as our present knowledge extends, there is no
Chaldee version of Daniel, Esra, and Nehemiah. Hence the as-
sertion of Robinson in his edition of Calmet's Dictionary (Boston,
p. 916), that " there are smaller separate Targums on the books
of Daniel, Esra, and Nehemiah," is incorrect. The reason as-

96 ANXIENT VERSIONS. LECT. VI II.

signed in the Talmud for not translating Daniel into Chaldee is,
because this book reveals the exact time of the advent of Mes-
siah. (Megillah, f. 3. 1). The true cause seems rather to be,
that if these books were translated into Chaldee, the holy text of
the original would be mixed with that of the paraphrase, since
there are Chaldee sections in them ; and the superstition of the
Jews revolted from such supposed profanity. There are indeed
no Chaldee pieces in Nehemiah, but it was taken along with
Esra as one book, and hence no Targum of either was made.

Of the Targums in general, it may be observed, that they are
of considerable use in a critical view. They show the integrity of
the present Masoretic text. It is not denied that they contain
readings different from some now current among the Jews, and that
they appear to have been occasionally altered in order to be made
more conformable to a somewhat altered original. Neither is it
to be concealed that the MSS. vary from one another and from
the printed copies. But although they might be more skilfully
and critically edited from a mutual comparison, it is not probable
that they would essentially differ from their present form. As
to their having been assimilated to the Hebrew, it remains to be
proved that this w^as done to any extent, or that it was uniformly
practised. After all reasonable deductions for probable deterio-
ration, they still afford some amount of testimony in favour of the
general integrity of the Hebrew text. They may be advanta-
geously used in a critical edition of the Bible, as suggesting read-
ings of some importance and of real value. Onkelos and Jonathan
on the Prophets, because of their literality^ will be most serviceable,
for versions manifestly decrease in value in proportion as they
depart from the original. Still more useful are these Chaldee
translations in interpretation ; but this does not belong to our pre-
sent subject.

A Hebrew Translation of tlie Chaldaic portions of Daniel and
Esra. — A Rabbinical version of the Chaldee sections in Daniel
and Esra has been discovered, which Kennicott printed under the
text of both, and which was afterwards separately published by
Schulz, at Halle, 178*2. The author and age are equally un-
known. The nature of the diction, however, discovers its recent
origin. It is exceedingly literal, adhering with rigid scrupulo-
sity to the Masoretic text, and is altogether in the Rabbinical style.
It may be assigned to the twelfth, thirteenth, or fourteenth cen-
tury. Thus its value cannot be greater than that of a modern
Masoretic MS.

LECTURE IX.

OF THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH.

As an appendix to the description of ancient translations, we here
introduce the Samaritan Pentateuch, though it is not a version.
It is the very same law as that contained in our Hebrew Bibles,
written in a different character. The words are the same as those
of the Jewish copy, but the letters composing these words vary
in form from the Hebrew. It matters little in what locality the
account of it stands, whether after MSS., which is perhaps the
best place for its introduction, or after versions, provided the cha-
racter of the codex itself be well understood.

In the Books of Kings we have a history of the Samaritans,
given by inspiration. The ten tribes which revolted from Reho-
boam, the son of Solomon, chose for their king Jeroboam, who
had previously fled into Egypt for fear of Solomon. After his
royal appointment he set up golden calves at Dan and Bethel,
lest the repeated visits of his subjects to Jerusalem, for the pur-
pose of worshipping God, should withdraw their allegiance from
himself. Afterwards Samaria, built by Omri, became the metropo-
lis of the kingdom of Israel; and thus the separation between Ju-
dah and Israel was rendered complete. The people took the
name Samaritans from the capital city. In the ninth year of
Hosea, it was taken by the Assyrians under Shalmaneser, who
carried away the inhabitants into captivity, and introduced new-
colonies into their place, from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and
from Avah, and from Hamath, and from Sepharvaim. (See 2d
Kings xvii. 24.) These new inhabitants introduced their own
idolatrous worship ; and on being infested with lions, which they
believed to be sent by the local deities of the place of whom they
were ignorant, they communicated with Esarhaddon, the King
of Assyria. A priest of the tribe of Levi was accordingly sent,
who came and dwelt in Bethel, and taught the people how they
should fear the Lord. Thus it appears that their religion was of
a mixed character ; for in it the worship of various idols was as-
sociated with that of the one living and true God. But their

H

98 THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. LECT. IX.

apostacy was not universal, for even when apparently most exten-
sive, God had reserved to himself seven thousand men who had
not bowed the knee to Baal. On the return of the Jews from the
Babylonish captivity, the Samaritans wished to join them in re-
building the temple, saying, " Let us build with you : for we
seek your God, as ye do ; and we do sacrifice unto him since the
days of Esarhaddon, King of Assur, which brought us up hi-
ther." Ezra iv. 2. But the Jews declined the proffered assist-
ance ; and from this time the Samaritans threw every obstacle in
their way, and retarded the building as much as possible. Hence
arose that inveterate enmity between the two nations, which af-
terwards increased to such a height as to become proverbial. We
find afterwards, that in the reign of Darius Nothus, Manasses,
son of the Jewish high priest, married the daughter of Sanballat,
the Samaritan governor; and, to avoid the necessity of repudiat-
ing her as the law of Moses required, went over to the Samari-
tans, and became high priest in the temple which his father-in-
law built for him on Mount Gerizim. From this time Samaria
became a refuge for all malcontent Jews ; and the very name of
each people became odious to the other. About the year 109
B. c. John Hyrcanus, high-priest of the Jews, destroyed the city
and temple of the Samaritans ; but twenty-five years b. c. Herod
rebuilt for them a city and temple at great expense. In this new
temple, however, they could not be induced to offer sacrifices ;
but still continued to worship on Gerizim. At the present day
they have dwindled down to a few families. Shechem, now
called Naplos or Nablos, is their place of abode. They still pos-
sess a copy of the Mosaic law.

With this remnant a correspondence has been several times in-
stituted by learned men in Europe, but without leading to any
important result. It was commenced by Joseph Scaliger, in
1559, and again, after a century, by several learned men in Eng-
land, in 1675 ; and by the great Ethiopic scholar Job Ludolf, in
1685. Lately the orientalist De Sacy of Paris, again held cor-
respondence with them. All their letters, and all that is known
respecting them, he published in a work entitled. Correspondence
des Samaritaines^ ^c. Paris 1829. The best account we have
of them, as given by modern travellers, is that of the late
American missionary, Pliny Fisk, dated November 19, 1823.
(See Missionary Herald, p. 810, for 1824.)

'* After taking some refreshment we went to visit the Samari-

LECT. IX, THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. 99

tans, having first sent to the Kohen or priest to know if a visit
would be agreeable. His name is Schalmar Ben Tabiah. His
first name he sometimes pronounces Salomer. I believe it is the
same as Solomon, which the Jews in Jerusalem now pronounce
Shloma. He received us in a neat apartment, and we immediately
entered into conversation. Ten or twelve other members of the
sect soon came in. Our conversation was in Arabic. They re-
present the number of their houses to be twenty or thirty — about
sixty pay the capitation tax. They say there are no other Sa-
maritans in this country, but they are quite disposed to think they
are numerous in other parts of the world. In Paris they suppose
they were very numerous, until, in a time of war between the
French and some other nation, the Samaritans were dispersed.
They say that there are however four still living in Paris. They
inquired whether there are any Samaritans in England, and
seemed not at all gratified when we told them, no. On learning
that I was from America, they inquired if there are Samaritans
there. I told them no ; but they confidently asserted the con-
trary, and that there were also many in India. They maintain
that they are the lineal descendants of Jacob : the Kohen and his
sons, only, of the tribe of Levi ; one family from the tribe of
Benjamin ; four or five from Manasseh, and the rest from Eph-
raim. We asked what they would do for a priest if the Kohen
and his sons should die, and thus the tribe of Levi become ex-
tinct. They replied, (bazah ma beseer), ' this does not happen.'
They all speak Arabic, but their books and public prayers are in
Samaritan. They call their language Hebrew, and that which
we call Hebrew, they call Jewish ; for they say their language is
the true Hebrew in which the law was given. The difference
consists in the use of a different alphabet and different pronuncia-
tion. They go three times a year to Mount Gerizim to worship,
but do not offer sacrifices there now as they did formerly, lest
they should be molested by the Turks. But they offer their sa-
crifices in a more private way, in the city. We understood them
to say that they have no daily sacrifice. We visited their syna-
gogue. It is a small, dark, but neat room, with an altar; but
without seats. We were obliged, before entering, to pull off not
only our over-shoes, but also our slippers, which are not prohi-
bited even in mosques ; and Mr. Jowett was obliged to take off
an outer garment which he wears, that is lined with fur. No
person can approach the altar except the Kohen and his sons.

100 THE SAMARITAN PENTATKUCH. LECT. IX.

They expect a Messiah, who is to be a prophet and king, but a
mere man, to live 120 years, as Moses did, and to reign at Na-
plous, over all the world. I'hose who do not receive him are to
be destroyed with the sword. The promise concerning the wo-
man's seed, does not, they believe refer to the Messiah ; but that
concerning a prophet like unto Moses does refer to him, as does
also that concerning Shiloh, Gen. xlix. 10. 1 hey admit the
sense of this passage as given in our translation, and try to show
that there is still a sceptre somewhere, in the hands of Judah.
The Messiah will come when Israel repent. They say the story
of the separation between Israel and Judah, under Jeroboam and
Rehoboam is a lie of the Jews. The city of Luz, or Bethel, they
say was on Mount Gerizim, Gen. xxviii. 19. Jebus, they say,
was also on this mount, and that Judges xix. 10, as it stands in
our copies, is not true.

" The next day we renewed our visit to the Samaritans. We
had yesterday requested to see their ancient copy of the law. The
Kohen objected, but after much persuading, and indirectly pre-
senting the motive which generally prevails in this country, i. e.
the oft'er of money, he at last consented to show it to us this morn-
ing. In order to do it, he said he must first bathe, and then put
on a particular dress for the occasion. On our arrival at the sy-
nagogue we waited a short time, and he appeared, entered the
synagogue, approached the altar, kneeled and put his face to the
floor, then oi)ened the little closet which contained the holy book,
kneeled and put his face to the floor again, then brought out the
brass case which contained the roll, and opened it so as to show us
the manuscript, but we were not allowed to touch it. It is in the
Samaritan character, and the Kohen says it was written by Abi-
shua, the grandson of Aaron, thirteen years after the death of
Moses, and '6260 years ago. (See 1 Chron. vi. 4.) Another
brass case stood near this, containing an exact copy of the origi-
nal manuscript, said to have been made 800 years ago. On a
shelf, in the synagogue, were a considerable number of copies of
the Samaritan Pentateuch. We saw also the relict of the Poly-
glott Hible mentioned by Maundrell. The Bible of the Samari-
tans contains only the five books of Moses. They have, however,
Joshua and Judges, but in separate books. They say that since
Joshua there has been no prophet. He was the disciple of Moses,
and inferior to him. David was king in Jerusalem, but not a pro>
phet- We inquired whether the Samaritans held it lawful to read

LECT. IX. THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. 101

the books of Christians. They said there was no law against it,
and we left with them one Testament in Arabic, and another in
Hebrew/'

The Samaritan Pentateuch was mentioned by the fathers
Eusebius, Cyril of Alexandria, Procopius of Gaza, Diodorus,
Jerome and others. After it had lain concealed for upw^ards of
a thousand years, its existence began to be doubted, and the
passages referring to it to be explained in a forced and unnatural
sense. At length, Peter a Valle, in 1616, procured a complete
copy, which A. H. de Sancy sent to the library of the priests of
the oratory at Paris in 1623. It was first described by Morin in
the preface to the new edition of the Roman text of the Septua-
gint, Paris 1628 ; and afterw^ards it was printed in the Paris Poly-
glott. About the same time Usher received six copies from the
East, five of wdiich are still in England; but the sixth, which he
sent to L. de Dieu, has disappeared. In 16*21 the Samaritan
codex, now in the Ambrosian library at Milan, was sent to Italy.
Meanwhile Peiresc purchased three MSS. of the Samaritan Pen-
tateuch, two of wdiich are at present in the Royal library at
Paris, the other in the Barberinian at Rome. It was inserted in
the London Polyglott with emendations, having been previously
published in that of Paris.

In respect to the antiquity of the Samaritan Pentateuch, and
the source from which it was received, various opinions have been
entertained; and even now the controversy on these points can
hardly be considered as settled. The various theories may be
reduced to four.

1st. That held by Usher, who maintained that the Samaritan
Pentateuch was the production of an impostor named Dositheus,
the founder of a sect among the Samaritans w4io pretended to
be the Messiah. It is alleged that he compiled this copy of the
Pentateuch from the Hebrew and the Septuagint, adding, ex-
punging, and altering according to his pleasure. In support of
such a hypothesis, Usher appeals to Origen and Photius, whose
testimony however, when examined, affords no evidence of the
truth of his statement. This impostor was too inconsiderable and
of too little authority to have succeeded in procuring universal
currency to a forgery. The Alexandrine Samaritans as is well
known, opposed Dositheus, and would not have received such a
compilation. Besides, if he had corrupted any passages, it is
natural to think that he w^ould have perverted those relating to

102 THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. LECT. IX.

the Messiah, that they might with greater ease be referred to
himself. But all places of this nature in the Samaritan copies
agree with the Hebrew ; and we may be farther assured that the
Jews would not have failed to mention such a fact, as a just
ground of accusation against their enemies the Samaritans.

2d. Le Clerc held that this copy of the law was made by the
Israelitish priest who was sent by the King of Assyria to instruct
the new inhabitants in the religion of the country. All this is
mere hypothesis supported by no historical testimony. It was
not necessary for the priest to compose a new system, but to in-
struct the people out of the Pentateuch as it then existed. And
when the existing copy was sufficient for his purpose, he would
not undertake the labour of preparing' an entirely new work.

3d. The opinion of Hottinger, Prideaux, Fitzgerald and
others, who think that Manasseh transcribed one of Esra's co-
pies, which he took with him from Jerusalem, into the old cha-
racter to which they were accustomed. In proof of this, it has
been affirmed that the variations in the Samaritan copy from the
Hebrew are such as were occasioned in the transcription by mis-
taking letters similar in Hebrew, but unlike in the Samaritan*
This hypothesis is completely set aside by Kopp's treatise on
Shemitish palaeography. This learned philologist has shown in
a most convincing manner, that the present Hebrew square cha-
racter had no existence till long after the time of Esra ; and that,
so far from owing its origin to Chaldea, and having been intro-
duced by Esra, it was merely a gradual work of time, similar to
the changes produced in other alphabets. He has traced it from
the inscriptions on the bricks at Babylon down through the
Phenician, the old Hebrew and Samaritan coin letters, the older
and more recent Palmyrene or Syriac characters, to the modern
Hebrew. Thus at the time when Manasseh fled from Jerusalem,
the Samaritan and Hebrew character must have been substan-
tially identical. It may be observed, that this time has also
been fixed on by Gesenius as the most probable period of the
origination of the Samaritan codex, but such an opinion arises
from the belief that the Jewish Pentateuch did not receive its
present form till the time of the Babylonian captivity. He
thinks also that many peculiar readings of this copy can be best
accounted for on such a ground.

4th. Others are of opinion that copies of the Pentateuch must
have been in the hands of the Israelites, from the time of Reho-

LECT. IX. THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. 103

boam, not less than among the Jews, and that they continued to
be preserved by the former as well as by the latter. This opi-
nion, which was advanced by Morin, has been adopted by Hou-
bigant, Cappellus, Kennicott, Michaelis, Eichhorn, Bauer, Ber-
tholdt, Stuart, and others, and appears to me to be altogether
probable and just. The prophets, who frequently inveigh against
the Israelites for their crimes and idolatries, never accuse them
of wanting the law, or of ignorance of its contents. But it may
be asserted, that when the greater part of the people were car-
ried away captive into Assyria, they took with them all the co-
pies of the law which they had. This is improbable. It is not
likely that the remnant were totally deprived of the copies which
we suppose to have been in their hands, for we find that in the
time of adversity and distress, they remembered the Lord, and
turned to his word. But granting that all the copies of the law
were taken along with the inhabitants into Assyria and the other
countries whither they were carried, we must suppose that the
priest sent by the King of Assyria would take a copy with him,
since his office was to instruct the people out of the law. Thus
we are brought to the conclusion that the Samaritan as well as
the Jewish copies originally flowed from the autograph of Moses.
The two copies constitute in fact two different recensions of the
same work, and thus coalesce in point of antiquity.

If this account of the Samaritan codex be true, it is easy to
see the reason why the Samaritans received nothing more than
the five books of Moses. At the period of the separation of the
tribes, these books were commonly circulated and universally re-
garded as a sacred national collection containing all their laws
and institutions. And though David's Psalms and some of the
writings of Solomon may have been also written at that time,
yet the former were chiefly in the hands of the Levites who re-
gulated the temple-music, and were used for the public service of
Jehovah, rather than as a manual for private instruction ; while
the latter must have been hated by the ten tribes on account of
their author who lived at Jerusalem, and were also rare, from
the non-transcription of copies. The prophets too commissioned
of God to proclaim his will, and to commit their message to writ-
ing, must have been unacceptable to the Israelites, because they
uttered many things against them, affirming that Jehovah could
not be acceptably worshipped in any other place than Jerusalem.

This circumstance was sufficient to prevent them from receiv-

104 THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. LECT. IX.

ing any of the prophetical writings till Esra's time, when their
hatred to him and his associates was so great that they would not
have admitted his collection of the Scriptures. Whatever other
books besides the Pentateuch may have been written in the time
of Rehoboam must have been comparatively unknown to the
body of the people. This fact in connection with political con-
siderations, was quite sufficient to lead the Israelites to reject all
except those of Moses.

Thus it appears that the Samaritan Pentateuch cannot be as-
cribed to a later period than the division of the tribes. All the
arguments lately adduced by Gesenius to refute this opinion are
not able to disprove its truth, or to shake its authority. He has
been well answered by Eichhorn in the 4th edition of his " In-
troduction to the Old Testament," and by Stuart of America.
It is evident also, that the name Samaritans was first given to
that mixed multitude composed of the heathen introduced by
Shalmaneser into the kingdom of Israel and of the lower classes
of the ten tribes whom he had not carried away. Whatever civil
jealousies may have previously existed between them and the
Jews, their religious animosities were first excited when Esra
and his countrymen returning from exile, refused their co-opera-
tion in building the temple. Subsequent events far from allay-
ing their mutual hatred, only roused it to a higher pitch, giving
it that permanent and durable form in which it was continued
through succeeding centuries.

With regard to the value and authority of the Samaritan Pen-
tateuch there has been considerable difference of sentiment.
Some critics have contended for its superiority to the Hebrew
copy, or at least its equal value, while others have regarded it as
far inferior. The most eminent critics in late times are disposed
to attach considerable importance to many of its readings, while
admitting on the whole that it is not equal to the Jewish copy.
But Gesenius has shown that very little value is to be assigned
to the characteristic features of its text. In the course of a very
able investigation, he has proved that no critical reliance can be
placed on it; and that it is altogether unjustifiable to use it as a
mean of correcting the Hebrew. He has divided all the various
readings it exhibits into different classes, under each of which
are adduced numerous examples. By a most copious and mi-
nute investigation of particulars he has shown, that this docu-
ment cannot be employed as a source of emendation in the man-

LECT. IX. THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. 105

ner recommended by Bauer and others. In consequence of this
masterly dissertation, few will be disposed to set much value on
Its characteristic readings, or to employ them as helps for the
establishment of an uncorrupted text. Its credit in the critical
world is now destroyed; and it is to be placed much lower in the
scale of authorities than the position previously assigned to it by
the most eminent scholars. The purity of the Hebrew is not to
be corrupted by additions or corrections from such a document;
neither is it to be reckoned of any weight in the establishment of
the original text of the Old Testament.

In describing the various classes into which Gesenius has di-
vided the peculiarities of the Samaritan codex, I shall follow the
account given by Mr. Stuart, to whom we are indebted for a
very able review of Gesenius' treatise, in which several topics of
great interest are handled with superior talent, learning, and
judgment. The reader may also find an abstract of Gesenius'
treatise, in Professor Lee's prolegomena to Bagster's Polyglott.

1. The first class consists of such readings as exhibit emenda-
tions of a mere grammatical nature. For example, the maires
lectionis are supplied in orthography, the full forms of verbs sub-
stituted for the apocopated forms, and in respect of the pronouns,
the usual forms are substituted for the unusual ones.

The 2d. class consists of glosses received into the text. These
glosses furnish explanations of more difficult words, by such as
appeared plainer and more intelligible.

The 3d class comprehends those readings in which plain modes
of expression are substituted, in place of such as appeared diffi-
cult or obscure in the Hebrew text.

The 4th class consists of those readings in which the Sama-
ritan copy is corrected from parallel passages ; or apparent de-
fects supplied from them.

The 5th class consists of additions or repetitions respecting
things said or done, which are derived from the preceding con-
text, and again recorded, so as to make the readings in question.

6th. Corrections made to remove what was offensive in point
of sentiment, or in other words, which conveyed things improba-
ble in the view of the correctors. Thus, in the antediluvian
genealogy, none according to the Samaritan Pentateuch is
represented as having begotten his first son after he was one
hundred and fifty years old. In the postdiluvian genealogy, on
the contrary, no one is allowed to have begotten a son until after

106 THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. LECT. IX.

he was fifty years old. Hence, in the former case, the Samaritan
usually takes a hundred years from the genealogy, as it is found
in the Hebrew ; whilst in the latter, one hundred years are com»
monly added, at least to all those whom the Hebrew copy makes
to have children under fifty years of age, except to Nahor. Such
changes could not have been accidental, but are evidently the ef-
fects of design, as is apparent from the regularity of the principle
by which they are pervaded.

The 7th class consists of those in which the pure Hebrew idiom
is exchanged for that of the Samaritan. This respects many
cases of orthography, and some of the forms of verbs, for ex-
ample, the second person feminine of the preterite which has a
yod paragogic in the Samaritan, and some other forms.

The 8th class embraces such passages as contain alterations
made to produce conformity to the Samaritan theology, worship,
or mode of interpretation. Thus where the Hebrew has a plural
verb with elohiin, the Samaritan has substituted a verb in the sin-
gular, (Gen. XX. 13; xxxi. 53; xxxv. 7. Exodus xxii. 9), lest
there should be any appearance of infringing the divine unity.
So also they have put voces honestiores in some cases where there
was a fancied immodesty. To this head Gesenius has referred
the notable passage in Deuteronomy xxvii. 4, where the Samari-
tans changed Ebal into Gerizim, to favour their own temple,
which they built on the latter mountain. Some, indeed, have at-
tempted to shew, that this alteration is to be charged on the Jews ;
but they have not been successful in recommending their opinion
to the general acceptance of biblical scholars. The most strenuous
defender of the Samaritans in this passage, is Dr. Kennicott, who
has certainly advanced some ingenious arguments in favour of the
Samaritan reading. But Verschuir, (Dissertationes exegeticae
philologicae 177-3), completely overthrew his reasoning, so that
few acquainted with the answer have since ventured to espouse the
cause of Kennicott. Of all the readings in the Samaritan Pen-
tateuch, only four are considered by Gesenius as preferable to the
Hebrew. These are Gen. iv. 6; xxii. 13; xlix. 14; xiv. 14.
It may be doubted, however, whether even these should be deem-
ed superior to the corresponding passages in the Jewish copy.

On the whole, this codex, used by the Samaritans, cannot for a
moment be put in comparison with the Hebiew, nor used at all as
a source of emendation. Its deviations from the other recension
of the Pentateuch, have so much the appearance of design, that

LECT. IX. THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH, 107

they cannot be allowed to modify or set aside the readings of the
Jewish codex. In general, we can easily trace the object of these
peculiarities, and the motives to which they owe their origin.
Hence they cannot be regarded as of authority or value in the
province of criticism. They may serve to shew the interpretation
given to a place in early times ; but as to their use in restoring
displaced readings and in expunging interpolated phrases or
words, it cannot be made subservient to the criticism of the Bible.
The difference between the two recensions chiefly consists in ad-
ditions to the Samaritan text. Now, an omission may be made
inadvertently, but an insertion evinces design. When, therefore,
we usually meet with words and clauses in the Samaritan that
are not found in the Hebrew, it is much more probable that they
should have been inserted in the one, than that they should have
been purposely omitted in the other.

In placing the Hebrew above the Samaritan in all cases, we do
not proceed on the false supposition of the absolute integrity of
the Masoretic copies. We know that variations exist among the
latter, which must be carefully considered and compared ; and
that other helps must be used for ascertaining the genuine una-
dulterated text. But we cannot prefer the reading of the Sama-
ritan to the Hebrew, when the two are opposite. Other conside-
rations, indeed, may incline us to adopt the particular words of
the Samaritan even when they vary from the Hebrew, as it stands
in our common editions. The preponderance of MSS. and of ancient
versions may induce us to receive the Samaritan reading ; but we
would not admit it into the text in opposition to a number of
Hebrew MSS., on the sole responsibility of such a codex. The
authentic text should not be selected partly from the one and
partly from the other ; but it should be formed from all the mate-
rials we possess. We do not strip the Samaritan recension of all
value, but we attach to it little weight in comparison of the He-
brew.

Having thus stated my opinion as decidedly favourable to the
Hebrew copy, in preference to the Samaritan, and having briefly
alluded to the general grounds of such superiority, I would far-
ther remark by way of corroboration, that the general character
of the two nations strengthens the sentiments advocated. The
wickedness of Israel was much greater than that of Judah, for the
former were more addicted to idolatry. Having less reverence
for Jehovah, it is natural to suppose that they regarded his word

108 THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. LECT. IX.

less ; and scrupled not to reject the other books, of whose exist-
ence numbers among them, though separated from their brethren
of Judah, must have been aware. The Samaritans were less
solicitous about copies of the law than the Jews, and less watch-
ful in their preservation. The latter, we know, were extremely-
careful to guard the purity of their sacred writings, and scrupu-
lous in altering any thing written. From their general character
we cannot attribute to them such designed and systematic addi-
tions as those which the Samaritan codex contains, and the Sa-
maritan disposition does not disallow. Hence, though the Sama-
ritan copy could not have been so frequently transcribed as the
Hebrew codex, and though the carelessness or ignorance of copy-
ists furnished less cause of mistake, yet we cannot attribute their
discrepancies to the depravation of the Jewish.

But it may be said that the Samaritan deserves the preference,
because the Septuagint generally agrees with it w-here it diifers
from the Hebrew. Our Lord, and his apostles, quoted oftenest
from the Seventy, and their testimony might be regarded as de-
cisive of the value to be attached to the Samaritan. Since they
usually preferred the readings of the Alexandrine translation,
with which the Samaritan agrees in opposition to the Hebrew,
does not this show the superiority of the recension with which the
Septuagint coincides ? This argument appears plausible at first
sight, but its force vanishes when closely examined. Though
the Septuagint may generally agree with the Samaritan, yet it
also differs from it. We must therefore inquire into the harmony
between the quotations of the New Testament from the Penta-
teuch, and the Septuagint; and then into the coincidence of the
Samaritan with this translation in the particular passages cited
by the New Testament writers. It is only in case w^e find the
quotations of the New Testament agreeing with the text of the
Seventy, and Samaritan, in opposition to the Hebrew, that we
are warranted to draw an argument from this circumstance, tend-
ing to the disparagement of the Jewish recension. For this pur-
pose I instituted a particular examination of all the quotations
from the Pentateuch that are found in the New Testament. The
result of this inquiry is the following : — In twenty passages there
is no difference between the citation in the Greek Testament and
in the Hebrew, Septuagint and Samaritan. All of them agree
in exhibiting these places in the same form. There is no percep-
tible variation in them as they stand in the four documents just

LECT. IX. THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. 109

mentioned. In two instances only did I find that the New Tes-
tament coincided with the Samaritan and Septuagint, in opposi-
tion to the Hebrew. Nor can any thing be built upon these two
cases in favour of any hypothesis, because the variation in them
is extremely slight. For example, Matthew ix. 4, is taken from
Deuteron. viii. 3. In the Samaritan, Septuagint, and Greek Tes-
tament we have a distinct term signifying word ; " every word
that proceedeth," &c. ; in the original Hebrew there is no such
separate term. But it is easy to perceive that they all amount
to the same thing, for " icord'' is implied in the Hebrew. The
other example occurs in Romans iv. 3, taken from Genesis xv. 6.
In the Samaritan, Septuagint, and New Testament, we find ''it
was counted to him for righteousness,'' but in the Hebrew it reads
" he, (God), counted it to him, (Abraham), for righteousness."
Here also there is in reality no difference, h e verb to ccinit or
impute^ taken actively and passively, does not in the least degree
alter the meaning of the proposition. Such are the only examples
I have found of the New Testament, Samaritan, and Septuagint
agreeing where they differ from the Hebrew Pentateuch ; and the
variation is so slight that it scarcely deserves the name. No ar-
gument for the superiority of the Samaritan to the Hebrew Pen-
tateuch can be drawn from these two instances, since the dif-
ference is almost a nonentity. When we consider farther, that
the New Testament sometimes agrees with the Septuagint where
the Hebrew and Samaritan differ from both, we will see that there
is no ground for the superiority of the Samaritan to the Hebrew
Pentateuch. Thus in 2 Cor. xiii. 1, quoted from Deuteron. xix.
1.5, the Septuagint and Greek Testament coincide, whilst they
differ from the Hebrew and Samaritan, both of which exactly
harmonise. I might also refer to a few other passages where the
same thing is exemplified, but I deem it unnecessary. It is quite
sufficient for my present purpose to have observed, from the fullest
induction, that although there are many places of the Greek Tes-
tament where slight discrepancies exist between the Hebrew and
the Septuagint, when at the same time the latter coincides with
the Greek Testament, yet that the Samaritan Pentateuch oftener
agrees with the Hebrew than with the Septuagint. Hence no-
thing can be inferred in favour of the Samaritan against the He-
brew, from the general coincidence between the Samaritan and
Septuagint, and the well known fact that the latter is more fre-
quently quoted in the Greek Testament than the Hebrew.

110 THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. LECT. IX.

In Exodus xii. 40, the reading of the Samaritan is generally
preferred to that of the Hebrew. " Now the sojourning of the
children of Israel who dwelt in Egypt was 430 years." So it
stands in the Jewish copy, whereas the Samaritan has " the so-
journing of the children of Israel, and of their fathers who dwelt
in Egypt and in the land of Canaan was 430 years. This addi-
tion is reckoned necessary to render the account consistent with
history. The Hebrews abode in Egypt only 215 years, but from
the call of Abraham to the Exodus was just 430. I'o me the
correction seems to have been made by the Samaritans, in or-
der to remove a chronological difficulty. It is true that the Se-
venty have the same supplement ; but it is remarked in the Tal-
mud by the ancient Jews, that the Septuagint translators amend-
ed the text in this place. Thus we perceive that the reading is
not modern. The passage presents no real difficulty even as it
stands in our Hebrew copies. It is not said that the sojourning
of the children of Israel in Egypt was 430 years, as is erroneously
taken for granted by many, but it is merely stated that their so-
journing was 430 years. The clause, icho dwelt in Egypt is inci-
cidentaU not essential to the sentence. Had the words stood thus,
— the sojourning of the children of Israel who dwelt in Egypt was
430 years in that country, then there would indeed have been
a chronological difficulty ; but as the passage at present stands,
there is nothing imperfect or obscure in the sense conveyed. We
know that the sojourning of the children of Israel in various
places, beginning at the time when Abram was called by Je-
hovah, and ending with the departure of his descendants from
Egypt, occupied the space of 430 years, which is precisely point-
ed out in the words before us. I cannot therefore but regard the
Samaritan addition as made with no other design than that of
solving an imaginary difficulty.

But although we discard the Samaritan Pentateuch as a source
of emendation, it is not without utility. Where it agrees with
the Hebrew we have strong testimony that the reading is authen-
tic ; since they must be reckoned independent witnesses. Be-
tween the Jews and Samaritans there could have been no collu-
sion to alter any passage. Such were their jealousies and bitter-
ness towards each other, that we cannot conceive of the possibi-
lity of a covenant between them to corrupt the word of God.
As a witness, therefore, for the general integrity of the Penta-
teuch, this recension is of great weight. Although there are

LECT. IX. THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. Ill

many differences between the two editions, they agree substan-
tially in all the sentiments expressed; and the facts recorded.
Here then we have the independent testimony of two witnesses,
belonging to different places, and having no intercourse for more
than two thousand years, harmonising in all statements, and trans-
mitting the truth in the same words, with the exception of trifling
variations. How can this be accounted for on any other hypo-
thesis than the authenticity and antiquity of the Mosaic records ?
We do not find that the Jews accused the Samaritans of corrupt-
ing the Scriptures, neither does it appear that the Samaritans
brought such a charge against the Jews. Had there been just
ground for the accusation, it is quite probable that it would have
been advanced. Besides, this copy has been of great utility in
dissipating the rigid notions entertained by the Buxtorfs and
others, concerning the letters and vowel points. The disco-
very of this codex put to flight all extravagant opinions respect-
ing the coevality of the letters, points, and accents. It proved
that the two latter were a late invention, devised for the purpose
of keeping up the pronunciation of the Hebrew, when it ceased to
be a living language. This copy of the law may be consulted to
advantage in the interpretation of some passages that have been
disputed. Thus in Genesis iii. 15, it shews that the pronoun is
to be taken in the masculine gender, and should be translated he,
not she, as the Vulgate has it. It is well known to Hebrew scho-
lars that the pronoun here employed is of the common gender in
the Pentateuch, and may be translated in the feminine as far as
itself is concerned. But the Samaritan confirms the masculine
acceptation, as indeed the Jews have always understood it. This
is manifest, from the mode of pointing adopted by the Jews.

In the preceding account of Ancient Versions, I have not given
a description of those called mediate, since they can be of no au-
thority in settling the genuine text of the original. Those only
that have been made immediately from the Hebrew or the Greek,
are to be regarded as witnesses for particular readings. The for-
mer contribute to the establishment of the text of the version from
which they were taken, but farther than this, their influence can-
not be allowed to reach.

LECTURE X.

ANCIENT VERSIONS CONCLUDED.

In applyingany of the ancient versions to the criticism of tlie Bible,
we must first endeavour to procure a correct text of the version it-
self; for, unless this be done, we will be in danger of attributing
to the original, readings which may not be truly warranted by
the translation in which we have found them. It is certainly mat-
ter of regret that these versions have not been critically edited.
Men of learning have frequently published them in an imperfect
state. And yet it is both reasonable and necessary that different
MSS. and various sources of correction should be employed in
their emendation. Editors have often filled up by conjecture such
places as were imperfect in their MSS., giving little attention to
the comparison of several copies of the version on which they
were employed. We should, in the first place, endeavour to ob-
tain as correct an edition as possible of the translation we intend
to apply to criticism. And when we find a particular reading in
a version differing from that which is generally received, we must
examine whether it be a latep'addition. Ancient versions, in their
descent through manv centuries to the present time, have suf-
fered deterioration, as necessarily happens to every record of an-
tiquity. They have been altered, corrupted, modified, and
changed, by such as have undertaken at various times to transcribe
or to amend their texts. They have also been corrected by one
another, so that we are often presented with the commingled read-
ings of two or more versions, with no means of separating the
component parts into their original distinctness. Thus the Vul-
gate has exercised an important influence on many translations,
in their descent to the present time. It has become so incorpo-
rated and blended with others, that they cannot be looked upon
as now existing in their original state. From these, and other
causes, many ancient translations are not in the same condition
as when they first appeared. The Vulgate itself is particularly
liable to this charge, so that it must be used with extreme caution.
After we have been exceedingly scrupulous in implicitly adopting

LECT. X. ANCIENT VERSIONS. 113

a reading merely because it is found in an ancient version, and when
we have satisfied ourselves as far as we may, that the passage
under review has not been altered in the text of the version, we
are next to look to the antiquity of the version itself. The great-
er its antiquity, the more value ceteris paribus is to be attributed
to it. The reason of this is obvious. A translator, in proportion
to his nearness to the times when the autographs of the Scrip-
tures were in circulation, is expected to have had purer and more
correct MSS. than subsequent transcripts. The nearer the stream
is to its source, the clearer are its waters ; whilst the farther we
go from the limpid fountain we observe the waters muddied by
tributary rivulets. So is it with ancient translators, and the
MSS. they possessed. Next to the age, we must endeavour
to ascertain the character of the version itself. And here the first
consideration is unquestionably the degree of liter ality it exhibits.
According to this standard, so will its value in criticism rise or
fall. Some versions are exceedingly paraphrastic. Their authors
studied elegance and perspicuity of expression, by transfusing the
force and spirit of the original into the translations they under-
took to execute. Such works will be useful for interpretation, but
not for criticism. They shew the meaning attached to the origi-
nal words, more clearly than the words themselves which the
translator found in his MS. But when a version is literally exe-
cuted— when its author has endeavoured to give a corresponding
word for each term of the document before him; then we see with
tolerable certainty, the exact text of the original which he fol-
lowed. Literal versions, therefore, such as the Targum of On-
kelos, are most to be relied on, as evidence for the existence of
particular readings. We must also examine whether an inter-
preter was master of the languages on which he was employed.
If he betray an occasional ignorance of words — if he give a
double explanation of the same phrase — if he seem to have de-
viated from his MS., because it was unintelligible to him, by giv-
ing a rendering not appropriate — if he have omitted some terms al-
together, then his authority is unquestionably lessened. Some
translators consulted one or more versions in making their own.
This circumstance deserves to be attended to, because it may lead
us to assign but one voice to two separate witnesses. But, in
most instances, this may be regarded as an enhancement of the
value of a version, provided the others have not been slavishly fol-
lowed through ignorance, or copied when erroneous. I admit

I

114 ANCIENT VERSIONS. LECT. X.

that it is difficult to detect these things, but when we meet with
them in places where there is a certainty of their truth, we ought
to be more w^atchful in such instances as partake of dubiety.

When a version exhibits diversities of style, shewing itself to
be the work of several individuals, we must determine the degree
of merit due to each, according to the character of his own pro-
duction. Thus, in the case of the Septuagint, we assign a gra-
duated scale of merit to different books, because they bear the in-
dubitable marks of having proceeded from unequal translators.
Nor is the country of the translator to be overlooked, when it
may be ascertained, because it may lead to an acquaintance with
the probable character of the MSS. he used. Different families
of MSS. were current among different people ; and we classify
versions along with recensions, not merely according to the charac-
teristic readings they exhibit, but also by the country to which
they belong. Still, the great point to be attended to is the charac-
ter and merit of the version itself. If the translator have intro-
duced other readings than those in the copy before him — if he
have omitted some words as unimportant — if he have altered
the original from ignorance, or paraphrased or glossed over what
he did not well understand, we must make due allowance for
these and other manifestations of deterioration ; and, in all such
instances, carefully abstain from following his authority. It is
not improbable, also, that errors may have arisen in a version,
from the author mistaking similar words or letters, or from the
faded ink of the MS. he used. We are certain that translators
actually fell into such mistakes, because we can point to examples
fully corroborative of our alleged explanation. They may also
lead us to suspect various readings by the erroneous manner in
which they divided the text originally written without any separa-
tion of words.

These considerations may serve to shew, that it is necessary to
use the utmost caution in the application of ancient versions to
the purposes of criticism. Many of them have been so much
altered from other versions, or from the original by later hands,
or from conjecture, that they themselves present various readings.
To separate the authentic text from later additions, and to re-
store it, as far as possible, to the form in which it proceeded from
its author, is a task extremely difficult and frequently impossible.
Treatises on separate versions, (such as those of Winer on On-
kelos, of Roediger on the Arabic translations of the Historical

LECT. X. ANCIENT VERSIONS. 115

Books, and of RosenmuUer on the Persian Pentateuch,) must ap-
pear in greater abundance, before these sources can be successfully-
applied to the emendation and establishment of the originals of the
Holy Scriptures. Their history must be better known, and their
character more accurately described, before they be productive of
all the benefit which we may believe them capable of affording.
Till then we must just take them as they are, with all the im-
perfections that adhere to them in their present printed form, and
exercise our best judgment in employing them with the least
liability to mistake. The Septuagint, the Old Syriac, and the
Targum of Onkelos, may be ranked first in the catalogue of
those to which the greatest value should be attached ; while the
Vulgate and Harclean must not be overlooked as among the best
aids. These five are the chief in utility, though it may be ques-
tioned whether they have not been overrated in criticism. For,
when we come to inspect them with minuteness, and to scrutinize
their readings with care, we meet with much in them that is erro-
neous. We are often compelled to regard them as corrupted, or
to charge mistakes to the account of the translators themselves,
or to impute to both causes the blunders that present themselves
so frequently- They are certainly more valuable in interpreta-
tion than in criticism. They exhibit the meaning attached to
words and phrases in early times, when their authors had better
opportunities of knowing the languages of the Scriptures than we
at present possess.

It will be necessary for those engaged in this department of
study, when consulting the Polyglott Bibles, not to rely on the
Latin translations of the oriental versions there given. It has
been found that they are occasionally erroneous, betraying marks
of haste, negligence, and ignorance.

In estimating the comparative value of versions among them-
selves in individual cases, we must be influenced by the number
and merits of those containing particular readings, as we mark their
agreement with the scope of the passage in which they occur, in
opposition to the evidence of other translations. A version which
is more ancient, literal, and pure, has naturally greater authority
than one with fewer claims to such excellencies. We must also
count the number of those agreeing in the same reading. In
comparing ancient translations with MSS., and judging of their
relative authority, it is more difficult to lay down fixed rules.
There is no doubt that a reading certainly found in a version, is

116 ANCIENT VERSIONS. LECT. X.

entitled to equal consideration with that of a MS. belonging to
the same age. One or more translations may also contain an
authentic reading, though it be wanting in a majority of MSS.
Whenever, therefore, we may be induced, principally by the
authority of the ancient versions, to correct the text of the Bible,
we are not justly liable to the charge of altering or amending
from a copy instead of the oruj'nml; for what are versions but
transcripts into another language of the text of MSS. ? We
should also recollect that several of the versions are older than
any manuscript copies we now possess. Hence their age attaches
to them more importance even than later documents existing in
the original languages of the Bible. Great care, however, should
be taken in deciding between the authority of a reading sanctioned
by a number of versions, and of another recommended by a num-
ber of MSS. Wherever both agree we may be sure that the
reading is authentic ; but when MSS. and versions vary, we must
be guided by considerations of their age, merit, and character, in
connection with the scope of the passage and parallel places. I
would not, however, attach equal value to an equal number of
versions with MSS., unless the latter chanced to be notoriously
corrupt. MSS. must be preferred ceteris paribus, as evidence
for the existence of a reading. It seldom happens that we are
obliged to balance these two sources of criticism against each
other with an almost equality. All the copies of the originals,
and all the versions, generally agree in material readings ; and
thus we have indubitable proof of the authenticity and purity of
the Scriptures. Both harmonize in all cases of essential impor-
tance, and we are seldom at a loss to decide which reading ought
to be adopted. We are not left to one source of emendation, or
to one class of ancient witnesses — we possess several means of
establishing the integrity of the Holy Scriptures, and of bringing
them near that primitive state of purity in which they issued from
the inspired writers.

Having thus seen that the vast collection of various readings,
derived from versions, is highly useful, we come to notice the
question, why does so great a number exist? Why do the ancient
interpreters furnish such a multitude. Could the MSS. from
which they copied have exhibited so great diversity, as to cause
the countless variations that now exist? I am inclined to believe
that a great part of them has arisen from the ignorance, negli-
gence, or hurry of the translators themselves, in addition to other

LECT. X. ANCIENT VERSIONS. . 117

causes obvious to all. Did we certainly know the precise He-
brew or Greek words found in the documents from which they
made their versions, we would see much less diversity. But we
cannot really tell, in many instances, what they read in the MSS.
before them, by reason of a multitude of circumstances, at some
of which I have already hinted. Probably we often set down as
various readings furnished by versions, what are only attributable
to the unskilfulness or haste of the persons by whom they were
made, or to their desire to alter and explain what they may have
found unintelligible, or considered obscure. It would much cur-
tail the present list of various readings gathered from these
ancient witnesses, could we not only separate the later amend-
ments from their genuine texts, but go up to the MSS. them-
selves from which the interpreters translated, and point out the
instances where they have failed to give the correct sense. Thus
erroneous or careless renderings have often attracted the notice of
critical editors, under the garb and name of peculiar readings.
We may not expect, however, to detect the primitive words of
their MSS. ; and we must, meanwhile, be contented with the accu-
mulated variety of versional renderings, to which every day is
adding fresh materials. Above all, when we find that they are
exceedingly trifling, affecting neither the truth nor the integrity
of the Scriptures, let us be thankful to the God of providence,
who has not suffered his word to be corrupted during the lapse of
centuries, and the countless vicissitudes of the people among
whom it has been disseminated, but has so overruled the events
and circumstances of history, as to give us greater assurance of
its general purity than we are permitted to have of any other re-
cord of antiquity.

LECTURE XL

QUOTATIONS OF ANCIENT WKITEKS.

The third source employed by criticism in ascertaining the ge-
nuine readings of the Scriptures, consists of quotations made by
early ecclesiastical writers. We find that many portions of the
word of God have been referred to by them ; and in proportion to
their antiquity so may we attach greater value to their citations.
In the New Testament the fathers are the first persons to
whom our attention is naturally directed. Their writings con-
tain a multitude of literal quotations from the Scriptures, which
are of some value in the criticism of the Greek Testament. Many
of them, too, wrote in the same language as that in which the
New Testament was composed ; a circumstance that gives greater
probability to their evidence for the authenticity of a passage.
They must have had MSS. much more ancient than those we now
possess — MSS. less disfigured by the alterations and glosses of
succeeding transcribers. They lived much nearer the time when the
autographs themselves were in circulation; and they must therefore
have been unacquainted with a great number of the various read-
ings that now encumber and perplex us with their multiplicity.
Those called the Latin Fathers were accustomed to employ a La-
tin version ; but in important passages, it is natural to suppose
that they would have recourse to the original, if indeed they
were acquainted with the Greek language. The testimony of a
Latin father is, however, in general merely an evidence for the
readings of the Latin versions he used, while the Greek fathers
shew what was written in the original itself. In the Old Testa-
ment the Greek fathers ordin^ily cited from the Septuagint.
Hence their writings have been examined in order to procure
readings to determine and fix the text of that ancient translation.
It would appear that only two of them were familiar with the
Hebrew Bible, viz. Origen and Jerome, a circumstance which
renders their quotations from it more valuable than those fathers
who quoted from a version. Of the vast number of writers whose
works contain references to the New Testament, it would be a

LECT. XI. QUOTATIONS OF ANCIENT WRITERS. 119

tedious task to mention the country, age, authority, and
compositions. Many of them are almost worthless in the
department of criticism, since they quote from versions current in
the places where they resided. Thus we find the Vetus Itala^ se-
veral of the Syriac versions, the Vulgate, and others, frequently
cited in their writings. It is quite obvious that such quotations
are principally and directly valuable in determining the texts of
the various versions referred to, whilst they have only an indirect
bearing on the originals of the Bible. I shall only mention a few
of the fathers, whose writings have been most consulted and most
useful in furnishing specimens of the New Testament text, as it
was read in their times.

In the second century after Christ lived Clement of Alexandria,
whose works contain numerous quotations from the New Testa-
ment. But it would appear that he generally quoted from me-
mory, as we find him giving the same passage in different words.
His citations point out the readings of the Alexandrian MSS. in
the second and third centuries.

To the same century belongs Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons in
France. This father saw and conversed with Polycarp, who was
an immediate disciple of John. The only part of his writings
which has come down to us is his work against heresies, originally
written in Greek, but extant only in a Latin translation supposed
to be as old as the second century. A few fragments of the
Greek have been preserved. From a passage in John's gospel,
it has been inferred that this writer used several MSS., and it is
equally apparent that he occasionally quoted from memory. His
citations agree on the whole with the Constantinopolitan family,
though at the same time they often coincide with the Alexan-
drine. These are the chief writers belonging to the second cen-
tury whose works have furnished numerous readings in the criti-
cism of the Greek Testament. To the same age belong Clement
of Rome, Marcion the heretic, and Polycarp bishop of Smyrna, but
such of their works as have come down to us are so meagre in
quotation that they have furnished only a few readings.

Passing to the third century, the name of Origen stands con-
spicuous in the list of Greek fathers. 'J his celebrated writer was
president for a time of the catechetical school at Alexandria ; and
it is well known that he paid more attention to the Scriptures in
their original languages than any of his predecessors or contem-
poraries. His learning was far superior to that of all the fathers.

120 QUOTATIONS OF ANCIENT Vv'IllTEKS. LIXT. XI.

It is matter of regret that few of his works have come down to
us in their original language, except his Treatise against Celsus,
He inspected many MSS., but not with that caution which is re-
quired in weighing their discordant readings. As his writings
and his editions of the Scriptures were used by subsequent au-
thors, we ascertain from them, as well as from his own quotations,
the readings commonly current when he lived.

There is no other Greek father in this century w^hose writings
have been of much utility in the criticism of the Greek Testa-
ment. Cyprian and Tertullian, both of Carthage, were Latin
fathers, and generally used some old Latin version in their quo-
tations.

Descending to the fourth century we meet with Chrysostom
bishop of Constantinople, whose copious commentaries on the
New Testament are a storehouse for the critical editor. But we
cannot attribute to him great accuracy in his citations. Endued
with a warm and lively imagination and with great powers of
oratory, we tind him very careless in quoting passages from the
New Testament. Distracted with the multiplicity of his occu-
pations, he had not sufficient leisure to draw his references to
Scripture fresh from the sacred fountain itself. He trusted too
much to memory, and consequently confounded similar passages.
Sometimes he changes a text though correctly quoted before,
and not unfrequently he follows Origen. These circumstances,
in addition to others that might be mentioned, must be taken in-
to account by all who wish to collate his writings ; and they shew
the necessity of the utmost caution in following his authority.
In short, this writer cannot be said to agree either with the Con-
stantinopolitan or Alexandrine texts, but to exhibit both. With
respect to Cyril of Jerusalem, who lived in the same century, his
works are of little use in criticism, because he quoted almost al-
ways from memory. The chief Latin fathers are Jerome and
Augustine, the former of whose readings agree with the Alexan-
drine text, and the latter with MSS. of ancient Latin versions.

In the fifth century we meet with the names of Cyril of Alex-
andria, Isidore of Pelusium, and Theodorct. The citations of the
first two agree with MSS. of the Alexandrine family, whilst
Theodoret in his commentaries generally coincides with -the re-
ceived text. Sometimes he follows Origen or Chrysostom.

The last of those called the fathers was Theophylact, bishop of
J5ulgaria, in the twelfth century, whose readings usually harmo-

LECT. XI. QUOTATIONS OF ANCIENT WRITERS. 121

liize with the received text, though he has many peculiar to
tlie Alexandrine family.

Such are some of the most distinguished ecclesiastical writers
whose works have been consulted for critical purposes. They
furnish a very small part of the long catalogue of names that
might be given in this division of our subject. But among all
the Greek, Latin, and Syriac writers that belong to the present
department, they are sufficient for our purpose.

In relation to the Hebrew Bible, there are very few ancient
authors that give quotations from it in their works. Philo and
Joseph us are here of little value, because they used the Greek
translation of the Seventy instead of the original. The only
w^orks of this class are the Talmud, and the commentaries of liah-
binical icriters from the eleventh till the fifteenth centuries. The
Talmud contains a great body of doctrine compiled by various
Rabbis, embracing both the canonical and civil law of the Jew^s.
It consists of two parts, the Mishna or text, and Gemara or com-
mentary on that text. The text was collected about the begin-
ning of the third century by R. Jehuda. A commentary was
added to it first at Jerusalem, and afterwards another at Babylon.
The text is sometimes accompanied with the one and sometimes
W'ith the other. Hence we hear of the Jerusalem and Babylo-
nian Talmud according to the commentary attached. As the
authors of the Talmud lived before the text was revised by the
Masorites, and as they frequently cite passages from the sacred
books with great fidelity, we may expect to find many
readings in their works. Their testimony is equivalent to that
of MSS. of the same age. Now the places quoted by them
were taken from manuscript copies between the beginning of the
third and end of the fifth centuries. Hence we may lay it down
as a rule that a reading occurring in this great work is generally
equivalent to a MS. of the fourth century. And wherever such
quotations agree with ancient versions against the Masoretic
text, we set great value upon them; since there is reason to be-
lieve that many places of the Talmud were subsequently altered
after the Masora. In extracting readings from the authors of the
Talmud where they differ from the Masoretic text, care and cau-
tion must be used; for they appear to have frequently given no
more than the sense of a passage, without adherence to the pre-
cise words. Hence every discrepancy from the Masoretic text
is not at once to be considered a various reading.

122 QUOTATIONS OF ANCIENT WRITERS. LECT. XI.

The Talmud was collated for Kennicott's edition of the He-
brew Bible by Dr. Gill, whose reputation as a Rabbinical scholar
was deservedly great. He collected about a thousand readings,
all of which do not properly come under that appellation. In
general they are of little value, trivial and useless in criticism.
The reason why so few discrepancies exist between the Masore-
tic text and the quotations of the Talmudists arises from the cir-
cumstance that only printed copies of the Talmud have been col-
lated, and these have been frequently changed and corrected in
conformity with the text of the Masorites. If therefore a greater
number of readings from this source be desired, manuscript
copies must be sought out and examined ; for although they too
may have been occasionally altered, yet it is natural to suppose
that they have undergone much less correction. We have little
hope, however, that this work will ever yield many important
readings to assist in the restoration of the true text, even though
it be explored with the greatest diligence.

From the eleventh till the fifteenth century flourished a num-
ber of learned Jews, who produced many works connected with
the Hebrew Scriptures. Their writings contain quotations from
MSS. of their own, or of a prior age, and the readings thus ex-
hibited are entitled to the same authority as those MSS. of
which we are now in possession belonging to the same times.
But such citations generally agree with the text as fixed by the
Masoretic doctors, so that we reap little fruit from this source.
Several important variations indeed deserve attention, but their
number is small. And though there be a liability to mistake that
for a various reading which may have arisen merely from the
carelessness or design of the Rabbi, yet minute attention to the
subject may generally preserve the inquirer from such an error.
These are all the ecclesiastical writers connected with the Old
Testament whose works furnish materials for the ascertainment
of the authentic text.

Having thus enumerated and described the three sources of
determining what are the Holy Scriptures, it remains for me to
speak of the manner in which the third contributes to such an
object. I do not say that it is of equal value with the first two,
or that it ought to be held in the same estimation. But in every
case where it may be legitimately applied, it is a useful auxiliary,
though it cannot supersede or set aside the others. In applying
readings derived from the works of the fathers, from ecclesiastical

LECT. XI. QUOTATIONS OF ANCIENT WRITERS. 123

writers, and from the acts of councils, we must proceed with cau-
tion. We have seen that they frequently quoted from memory.
To this practice even the most learned and accurate of them were
addicted. This, then, is the first thing to be attended to. When
we find the same passage variously cited in different places of
their writings, we are apt to suspect that they did not examine
their MSS. before writing down the w-ords in question. The use
of various MSS. indeed may possibly have given rise to such a
discrepancy, but it is generally to be attributed to their habit of
quoting from memory. We must therefore endeavour to arrive
at certainty, that such quotations as come under our notice were
really taken from MS. copies. It w^ould appear also, that the
fathers, like other ecclesiastical writers, have quoted paraplirasti-
cally, giving the general sense rather than the exact words. Some-
times we meet with a mere allusion to a place of Scripture, in
which case little stress is to be laid on our supposed discovery of
the reading found in the MS. It is consequently difficult to tell
what particular reading was contained in their copy, because they
may not have thought it necessary to consult it before giving a
loose comment. Again, it is manifest, that they sometimes omit-
ted certain words, or added others ; whilst even critical conjecture
was resorted to. Some passages they condensed, others they ex-
panded. Thus it becomes a task of extreme difficulty to con-
vince ourselves that such quotations as we meet with are a faithful
representation of ancient MSS. We should recollect also that
very few of the fathers were well versed in the original languages
of the Scriptures, and that in their disputations they rather aimed
like all controversialists, at confounding their opponents than dis-
covering truth. It is not surprising therefore that they some-
times quoted a passage in such a way as to favour their own
sentiments, by distorting it a little from the simplicity of truth.
In short, we are to weigh the manner in which the quotation is
introduced, the context in which it occurs, the formula with
which it may be prefaced, and the nature of the w^ork in which it
is found. If the treatise be exegetical, it will probably furnish a
better harvest of readings than if it be polemical. In homilies and
loose orations, we cannot look for much accuracy in citation.
Hence they are least profitable in this department. But such
authors as have written commentaries where the words are re-
peated and explained, are of the greatest utility in affording nu-
merous readings to the critical inquirer. Every writer has his

124 QUOTATIONS OF A.NCIENT WRITERS. LECT. XI.

own characteristic style. Some are exceedingly careless, trust-
ing for the most part to memory ; others again are accurate and
diligent in transcribing passages. The peculiar manner of each
must be attended to, and such authority attached to his quota-
tions, as his general character for accuracy or negligence may
warrant. With regard to the Latin fathers, they were for the
most part unacquainted with the original Greek of the New
Testament. Much less value is to be attached in consequence to
their citations. Indeed it is not easy to discover with certainty
the readings found in their MSS., because they all used the La-
tin versions current before the time of Jerome, except such as
lived after him, who generally adopted the version prepared by
this father. It is scarcely necessary to observe, that the most
correct edition of every ecclesiastical writer must be had ; for
some of the older editors altered and corrected from Biblical MSS.
the texts of the works they superintended. Thus it becomes a
matter of the highest importance to procure the best edition of
each father.

I have little doubt that the number of various readings derived
from this source has been greatly multiplied from a want of at-
tention to all the cautions and limitations so necessary to be ob-
served. The editions of such ancient works are often so inaccu-
rate, whilst the authors themselves trusted so frequently to their
memories, and altered or omitted what they reckoned non-essen-
tial to their purpose, that the list has been much augmented.
Could we ascertain with certainty the reading which the ecclesi-
astical writer had in his MS., the heap would be much diminish-
ed. Still this source of criticism is not to be disregarded, or
reckoned trifling ; because the undoubted citation of a passage by
an early writer is equal to a MS. of the same age, and may even
be superior to that of any copy now existing from the anti-
tiquity of the writer in whose works it occurs. Such quota-
tions are more useful for detecting interpolations than in aiding
the other purposes of the Biblical inquirer. For when the same
passage is quoted by many of the fathers, without the addition of
a particular phrase, the omission affords strong presumption
against the occurrence of the word or words in MSS. and ver-
sions. When many writers have had occasion to adduce the
same i)lace of Scripture, omitting a disputed clause for whose ex-
istence there is other evidence, we have a strong proof, unless

LECT. XI. QUOTATIONS OF ANCIENT WRITERS. 125

such evidence be overwhelming, that the addition has been made
by a later hand. When a reading rests on the authority of MSS.
in concurrence with that of ancient writers, its authenticity is
confirmed ; but when it rests solely on the credit of the latter, it
must be examined with greater care, and received into the text
only under peculiar circumstances. To admit a reading as
authentic, which is unsupported by any other authority than the
quotation of it in ecclesiastical writers, is generally hazardous.
The authors must have lived prior to the age of any MS. which
has come down to us, else we cannot attach to the reading that
importance which it would undoubtedly have, if found in MSS.
and versions besides.

LECTURE XII.

CRITICAL CONJECTURE

A FOURTH source of readings, for the purpose of emendation, is
said to be critical conjecture. It was formerly the opinion of the
most eminent divines, that conjectures were unwarranted and im-
pious, because they w^ere regarded as an innovation upon the
language of holy writ, and an attempt to mix up man's imagin-
ings with the solemn words of the Almighty, In modern times
theologians have gone to the opposite extreme, while no inconsi-
derable number of them affirm, that conjectures are as allowable
in Scripture as in classical authors. In certain cases, and under
certain restrictions, they think it right to reject the authority of
MSS., versions, and ancient writers, and to admit a reading on
probable supposition, though sanctioned by no advocate. Wherever
there is only one copy of an ancient writing, critical conjec-
ture is indispensable. No document can be ordinarily copied
without mistake; and whatever errors are committed must be
unavoidably propagated in all the transcripts taken from the
copy. Even where they maybe several MSS., all copied from
one and the same, the necessity of critical conjecture still exists,
because they are merely equivalent to a single copy. This holds
good with respect to some heathen authors, where there is an ab-
solute need of conjecture. But the case of the Holy Scriptures is
widely different. In the New Testament especially, we have
many distinct MSS. Wherever one is deficient, its defects may
be supplied from another. In proportion to the number of copies,
the necessity of conjecture decreases. We ought ever to be
grateful to Almighty God that so many copies of his word have
been preserved, by which we are exempted from the dangerous
expedient of obtruding our conjectures on the Holy Scriptures.
There are hundreds of MSS. constituting independent classes,
made in different countries and at different times. Ancient ver-
sions, and writings proceeding from the Fathers, are also within
our reach, from which we collect the text, and in difficult cases
the meaning of the word of God. We possess abundant mate-

LECT. XII. CRITICAL CONJECTURE. 127

rials for exhibiting a correct and unadulterated text. Thus we
are under no temptation to try our own ingenuity, or to set our
own judgment above all legitimate sources of emendation.
Hence we are of opinion that critical conjecture should be en-
tirely rejected, not only because it is dangerous, but needless.
It is possible indeed, that, notwithstanding the number and
variety of transcripts which we possess, the true reading may be
discoverable in none ; but it is by no means probable. Nay, we
would almost regard it as an impeachment of the Divine Provi-
dence to affirm, that by the help of the multitude of versions,
MSS., and extracts which we now have, the genuine word or
phrase of the autographs is not to be found. Surely that God,
by whom they were given for the salvation and enlightenment of
the human race, would not suffer them to descend in this imper-
fect state. He who has watched over and preserved them amid
the fluctuations of time, the desolations of kingdoms, and the op-
position of men, cannot be supposed to have left them, even in a
single word, to be lost. He who numbers the very hairs of our
head, and without whose cognisance a sparrow falls not to the
ground, cannot be unregardful of the minute things of his own
revealed will. To meddle with the sacred writings in this un-
hallowed way, is, in my opinion, an act of high presumption. In
the present day it is totally inexcusable. With all the apparatus
we possess — with all the sources of correction which are now
happily opened up to us — it savours of the pride of reason, not of
the humility of the Christian. I care not whether doctrines and
precepts of importance be not touched, or whether the proposed
alteration have a direct bearing on some essential point of faith
and morals. I affirm that hypothetical innovation is equally to
be avoided. I know, too, that learned men have frequently
hazarded conjectures that have been afterwards confirmed by the
authority of MSS. ; and that they have sometimes happily amend-
ed a passage from their own critical sagacity. But even this
does not warrant the rashness against which I would put you on
your guard. It is better to proceed with caution and safety than
to launch out into the regions of fancy, where each imagines that
he is free to roam uncontrolled like his neighbour. It is abso-
lutely superfluous to have recourse to critical conjecture in the
New Testament, and it is moreover dangerous. We ought al-
ways to bear in mind the solemn and fearful announcement in the
book of Revelation — an announcement which may be aptly ex-

128 CRITICAL CON'JF.CTURi:. LECT. XII.

tended to all the other parts of Scripture ; " If any man shall add
unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are
written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the
words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part
out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the
things which are written in this book."

A distinction has been usually made between critical and theo-
logical conjecture. By the latter is meant the proposed alteration
or emendation of a passage, for the purpose of supporting the
tenets of our own party. This is only the application of the for-
mer in a wider and more extended sense. If adopted, it would
open the door to every species of corruption, and each sect would
speedily have a Bible of its own. If the number of passages sup-
posed to require emendation were so great, as to throw a sus-
picion over many parts of the New Testament, the book would
become an uncertain rule of faith. It could not be appealed to
as a standard of religion, capable of settling all disputes, and of
solving all difficulties. Every man would then believe or dis-
believe, as best suited his own principles. The prejudices of
party would influence our treatment of the sacred records ; and,
according to the complexion of our creeds, would be our emen-
dations. I need not detail the evil consequences that must in-
evitably result from rash and impious conjectures. Wetstein has
not sanctioned them by receiving any into the text ; neither have
any been adopted by Griesbach, in his edition of the Greek Tes-
tament.

But although we ought in no case to alter words from conjec-
ture, we may exercise our judgment in regard to stops. As the
most ancient MSS. were without them, they afford no evidence
respecting their right position. But, in modern MSS., when
their convenience was perceived, they were generally inserted.
In doing so transcribers followed their own judgment. The
same is the case with printed editions, the editors of which
were guided in adding them by the connexion of the passage.
Under points we include accents and marks of aspiration, which
may be altered as our understanding directs. You may find an
instance of erroneous division in the ordinary arrangement of
verses, in the 8th chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, 20th
verse, where st iXmh ought to be closely connected with the suc-
ceeding or/, — " in hope that." These remarks I should not wish
to confine to the New Testament. Many critics, who discard

LKCT. XII. CRITICAL CONJECTURE. 129

conjecture from the New, think that it is safely admissible into
the Old Testament. The reasons assigned for this singular sen-
timent are the numerous causes of error. In transcribing He-
brew MS>5., these causes are liable to produce greater corruptions
than in the Greek. Besides, all the Hebrew copies may be con-
sidered as belonging to one recension, or edition as we would say
in a printed book. The materials, therefore, are considered to
be less ample than those which we possess in the New Testa-
ment. These are some of the reasons assigned for admitting the
propriety of conjectural emendation in the Old Testament, by
those who exclude it from the New. They are not sufficient,
however, to convince me of its utility. The materials in the Old
Testament are ample enough to justify the rejection of conjec-
tural alteration. The truth of this will be obvious, and will ap-
pear far more important to a believer in the verbal inspiration of
the Scriptures. He who admits the inspiration of the words, as
well as of the ideas — of the language equally with the sentiments,
vi\\\ naturally endeavour to ascertain, as far as he is able, the
ipsissima verba of the writers, and will hesitate before he adopt
the desperate remedy of which I have been speaking.

LECTURE XIII.

DISPUTED PORTIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

Having described the various sources of criticism, from which it
derives a pure and correct text, it may not be amiss to allude to
the most remarkable passages in Scripture, whose authenticity-
has been disputed. There are several places which have been
minutely examined by critics, and of which they have entertained
conflictino- opinions. Thus, you will see the mode in which we
apply the three helps already described, and the way in which
their comparative merits are to be adjusted when they vary in
testimony from one another. Besides, by putting you in posses-
sion of all the evidence, you will be able to judge of the genuine
or spurious character of those portions, and to know them not
merely by the report of others, but by actual inspection.

The first to which we shall advert is the celebrated verse, 1
John V. 7, which has been the subject of so many controversies
during the last three centuries, and has been productive of great
benefit to biblical criticism, because, from the conflicting senti-
ments of scholars, Greek MSS. and ancient versions have been
examined with greater accuracy than they would otherwise have
been. I shall state the evidence for and against its authenticity
as concisely as possible, so that you may be put in possession of
all that has been said concerning it.

In the received text, the seventh and eighth verses of the fifth
chapter of John's first Epistle stand thus. "Or/>o£r$ siffiv 6/ f^a^rv-
PovvTii [Ji/ rw ou^avw, 6 IluTrio, o Aoyog, xai to uyiov UviVfia,' xai cZroi 6i
TPsTg h liffi Kat rosT; sioiv 6i /jjU^ru^ou'^ng h rfj yf!'] to crvsD.aa, '/.ai to vdooPf
xa/ TO ai/j^w %a] hi T^iTg lig t'o h hgiv, translated in the printed autho-
rised version, *' For there are three that bear record [in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost ; and these three are
one. And there are three that bear witness on earth,] the spirit,
the water, and the blood ; and these three agree in one." In
the Clementine edition of the Vulgate, the passage is found in

LECT. XIII, DISPUTED PORTIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 181

this form, ver. 7. Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in
coelo : Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus : et hi tres unum sunt.
8. Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra : Spiritus, et aqua,
et sanguis : et hi tres unum sunt. In the Complutensian Poly-
glott, which contains the first printed edition of the Greek Tes-
tament, it appears in Greek and Latin as follows ; 6V/ roiTi um hi
/xcc^T'joovvrsg h 7<Z ouoavCj, 6 <za7r,o^ '/.ai 6 ^^oyog, xa! to dyiov rrnZixa xal oi
rosTg hg to h siffi. xa/ T^iTg siff/v bi /xaDT-joovvTsg, &C. Quoniam tres sunt
qui testimonium dant in celo, pater, verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus,
et hi tres unum sunt, et tres sunt qui, &c. The value of this
early edition depends on the MSS. from which it was printed.
No manuscript authority has been discovered, for the peculiar
complexion of the passage as it appears in it, and hence it has
been inferred that the editors translated it from the MSS. of their
favourite version the Vulgate. In their omission of the final
clause of the 8th verse, they are supported only by the Dublin
MS., and the codex Ottobonianus. The clause xat oZtoi 6i TPsTg ug
TO h sifftv is placed, in all ancient MSS., in the received version,
and in all other editions, at the end of the 8th verse. They have
put it, however, at the conclusion of the 7th, and in this they are
countenanced by the codex Ottobonianus alone. Another reason
for supposing that the Complutensian editors translated the 7th
verse from the Vulgate, is furnished by the fact, that when
Stunica, one of the editors, was challenged by Erasmus to pro-
duce his Greek authority for it, he appealed to no Greek MSS.
He simply replied, that the Greek text was corrupted, and re-
ferred to the authority of the Latin which he affirmed to con-
tain the vert/ truth. This is a proof that the Greek MSS. used by
the editors did not contain the disputed clause. To this may be
added the exact agreement of their Greek of the passage, with
the verse as it stands in their edition of the Vulgate, the latter of
which diifers from the most ancient MSS. of the version, in
omitting the final clause of the 8th verse. The Complutensian
editors have also affixed a marginal note to the Greek text, a cir-
cumstance very unusual with them, as only three instances of it
occur in the entire edition. In this note, the object of which was
to secure themselves from blame for printing the verse, we would
expect their best defence. They do not, however, mention any
various readings in Greek MSS., nor do they even speak of any
codex that contains it. They merely appeal to the testimony of
Thomas Aquinas.

13*2 DISPUTED PORTIONS LECT. XIII.

In the first place, we shall adduce the evidence against its au-
thenticity, and then that in its favour.

\st. No Greek MS., written before the fifteenth century,
contains the passage in question. Of the 187 Greek MSS.
of the Catholic epistles that have been collated, from which
number four are to be subtracted in this case, making 183, not
one contains the words as they stand in the received text. Two
alone have the text, viz. codex Montfortii, (34), and codex Ot-
tobonianus, (162.) The former of these is a Latinising MS. as
Wetstein proved by several examples sufficient to carry convic-
tion to every mind. Besides, the passage is written in it in such
bad Greek, as evidently betrays a translation from the Latin.
This charge was long since advanced against it by Professor Por-
son, and it has never yet been removed. Bishop Burgess, indeed,
has tried to defend the Greek of the MS. from such an accusa-
tion, affirming that Mr. Porson's opinion of the bad Greek of the
Montfort MS. was one of the hasty assertions of the Greek
Professor, but he has failed to corroborate his statement. He
has not succeeded in shewing that Porson's objection to the bad
Greek of this codex is unfounded. The charge of its being a
bungling translation from the Latin, rests on the omission of the
articles usually prefixed to i:cLTr,o, Xoyog, and 'jrnviMa ayiov ; on the
use of Iv r^ 753 for It; r^g yrig'i and on the position of ciytov. The
writer likewise omitted the clause -/mJ ot rPsTg hg rh sV kiaiv at the end
of the 8th verse, which is wanting in many Latin MSS., especi-
ally the modern ones, and which the Lateran council in 1*215 had
rejected through polemical motives. In addition to these, and
other internal proofs of the dependent authority of the MS.,
its late date contributes in no small degree to lessen its value.
Michaelis, Griesbach, Porson, Marsh, and Scholz, refer it to
the i5th or lOth century.

The codex Ottobonianus, the other MS. containing the pas-
sage is ascribed by Scholz who discovered it, to the 15th century.
It has the words in a form somewhat different from the usual one.
Instead of h rw ou^avw, it has a-o rov o'joavoZ ; and instead of sv rfj yjj",
d'?rh rrig yy\g. The absence of the article before the words. Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost, is a proof of its Latin origin ; and Scholz
thinks that it has been altered in many places, to make it har-
monise with the Vulgate. Hence its evidence is of no value.
As to the codex Ravianus, it is now admitted to be a forgery,
copied from the Greek text of the Complutensian edition, and the

LECT. Xlil. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 133

third edition of Stephens. The Neapolitan R. MS. marked 173
by Scholz cannot be quoted as containing the passage, since it
has it 07?/?/ 171 the margin written hy a recent hand. It may be
also observed that the words are wanting in one of the oldest
Irish MSS. extant, viz. the codex Armachanus, described by Sir
William Betham in his " Antiquarian Researches," which he
maintains to have been written by Aidus bishop of Sletty, who
died about 660. And in all the copies that want this passage,
there is no erasure at the place, nor the least indication of any
deficiency.

2. It is wanting in all the ancient versions except the Latin.
It is not found in the two Syriac, the Arabic, Coptic, Sahidic,
iEthiopic, Armenian, Slavonian. And although it be found in
the majority of the MSS. of the Vulgate, yet it is absent from
all the oldest as well as from many of the modern. This circum-
stance completely neutralizes its evidence in favour of the clause.
It would be more correct therefore to say that the Vulgate does
not sanction the authenticity of the passage. Almost all of its
MSS. written before the ninth century that have the verse, ex-
hibit it iDv'itten in a different hand, whilst in many it is found in
the margin ; and of those that have it in the text, some place it
before, others after, the earthly witnesses.

3. The aticient Greek fathers have never quoted the place
even where we w-ould naturally expect them to do so. Neither
is it cited by any of the ancient Latin fathers, where the subject
on which they were writing appeared to require it, and where we
would suppose it to occur at once to their minds. The advocates
of the authenticity of the clause have affirmed notwithstanding
that it is quoted by Cyprian, TertuUian, and others, but in this
they have been successfully met by their opponents, as we will
afterwards see.

4. The best critical editions of the Greek Testament have
omitted it. In Erasmus' first edition published 1516, and in his
second, 1519, both of which were edited from Greek MSS., the
clause is not printed. In his third edition, 1522, he inserted it
according to a promise he had made to Stunica, on the faith of
the codex Britannicus. Of the character of this IMS. he enter-
tained strong suspicions, but he inserted the words to " avoid
calumny." From Erasmus' editions it passed into those of Ste-
phens, and was adopted by Beza and the Elzevir. It is wanting
in the editions of Aldus 1518, Gerbelius 1521, Cephalaeus 1524,
and of Colinaeus 1534. To these maybe added the editions of

134 DISPUTED PORTIONS LFXT. XIII.

Mace, Harwood, Matthaei, Griesbach, Lachmann, and Scholz.
In Knapp's it is enclosed in brackets. Luther did not insert it
in the first edition of his German translation of the Bible, and he
refused to admit it as long as he lived in any of the subsequent
editions. But he had not been long- dead when the passage was
thrust in, contrary to his express request contained in the preface
to the last edition, printed during his life. In the old English
Bibles of Henry VIIL, Edward VI., and Elizabeth, it was printed
in small type, or included in brackets ; but between the years 1566
and 1580, it began to be printed in the form which it has at
present.

We come now in the second place to consider the evidence that
has been adduced in favour of this much-disputed clause.

1st. We have already mentioned the two Greek MSS. that
contain the passage, and have seen that their testimony amounts
to nothing.

2d. It is found in the old Latin version current in Africa be-
fore the Vulgate was made. This version is older than the most
ancient copy of the Vulgate now used, and existed also before
any of our present Greek MSS. It is chiefly preserved in the
writings of the African fathers that have come down to our time.
But we shall soon see that none of the African fathers in reality
quote the passage, and therefore we cannot allow the pertinency
or validity of the argument. It is also found in the Latin version
now called the Vulgate ; but this statement is neutralized by the
fact that it is wanting in the oldest and best copies of this version.

3d. It is quoted by many Latin fathers. But it is remarkable
that there is not the evidence of a single Italian father
for the verse ; for that they were unacquainted with it is evident
from their writings. Even when defending the doctrine of the
Trinity they never quote it, though they cite the words relating
to the earthly witnesses. The only evidence in its favour is the
African authority, which remains now to be considered. And it
is to be particularly noted, that the authority of the Latin fathers
is inferior to that of the Greek, in determining the true readings
of Greek MSS., because they generally used one or more Latin
versions current among them. And even if they had quoted in
express terms all the disputed words, this would prove no more
than that they were in their MSS. of the Vulgate, or whatever
other Latin translation they had. Tertullian in the 3d century,
has been adduced in favour of the verse. The passage referred

LECT. XIII. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 135

to is found in his treatise against Praxeas, and is as follows : —
*' Ita eonnexus patris in Filio, et Filii in Paracleto, tres efficit
cohaerentes, alteram ex altero, qui tres unum sunt^ non unus^ quo-
modo dictum est, ego et pater unum sumus, ad substantiae uni-
tatem, non ad numeri singularitatem." Thus the connexion of
the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, makes
three coherent ones from one another, which three are one {unurrif
not unus^ i. e. one substance, not one person) as it is said, " I and
my Father are one," denoting the unity of substance, not the sin-
gularity of number." From the words qvi tres unum sunt being
found in the Latin version, it has been inferred that Tertullian
borrowed them from it. But he does not produce them as a quo-
tation, and from the succeeding phrase it is manifest that he did
not know of the verse. In proof of the assertion qui tres unum
sunt, he immediately adds, ' quomodo dictum est ego et pater
unum sumus," which is a quotation from John's gospel x. 30. If
he had known a text which asserts the unity of the Trinity, he
would surely have appealed to it, instead of to one that relates only
to the Father and Son. So much for the evidence of Tertul-
lian. Bishop Kaye in his " Ecclesiastical History of the second
and third centuries illustrated from the writings of Tertullian,'*
having examined the present passage, thus observes — *' In my
opinion the passage in Tertullian, far from containing an allusion
to 1st John V. 7, furnishes most decisive proof that he knew no-
thing of the verse."

Again, Cyprian bishop of Carthage, in the same century, has
been produced as a witness in favour of this verse. Two pas-
sages in his writings have been brought forward. The first is
from his epistle to Jubaianus, where he thus writes. " Si bapti-
zari quis apud haereticum potuit, utique et . . . . templum Dei
factus est: quaeso cujus Dei? Si creatoris ; non potuit, qui in
eum non credidit: si Christi ; non hujus potest fieri templum, qui
negat Deum Christum : si Spiritus sancti, cum tres unum sint,
quomodo Spiritus placatus esse ei potest, qui aut Patris aut Filii
inimi^us est ? '' If any one could be baptized by a heretic, and
has also become the temple of God, I ask, of what God ? if of
the Creator, he who has not believed in him cannot be his tem-
ple—if of Christ, he cannot be his temple who denies that Christ
is God — if of the Holy Spirit, since the three are one, how can
the Holy Spirit be reconciled to him who is an enemy either of
the Father or of the Son ?" Here Cyprian does not attempt to

136

DISPUTED PORTION'S LECT. XIII.

prove the unity of the Three persons, but he takes it for grant-
ed, SINCE the three are one. He pre-supposes it as a truth already-
known from the Scriptures. Besides it is worthy of remark that
the words *' cum tres unum sint. ' though inserted in the later
editions of his works, are not found in the edition of Erasmus.
Granting- them to be authentic, they will prove nothing more
than the words of Tertullian, already mentioned, which indeed
Cyprian seems to have had in view. The second passage occurs
in his treatise de Unitate Ecclesiae. " Dicit Dominus ; ego et
Pater unum sumus ; et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto
Scriptum est ; et tres (others read hi tres) unum sunt ; et quisquam
credit, banc unitatem de divina firmitate venientem, sacramentis
coelestibus cohaerentem, scindi in ecclesia posse, et voluntate col-
lidentium divortio separari?" " The Lord says, I and my Father
are one; and again it is written of the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit, dnd the three are one ; and can any one believe that this
unity arising from the divine immutability and cohering (agreeing)
with the heavenly sacraments can be divided in the church, and
separated by the will of such as disagree?" ^Flere the words are
expressly introduced with the formula of citation scriptum est, it
isirritten. There is first a .quotation from John x. 30, " 1 and
my Father are one ;" and Jfeen another is brought forward from 1
John V. 7. This may anKir a strong and impregnable testimony
in favour of the authenticRr of the clause, but when examined it
ceases to be an evidence for what it is adduced to prove. It is
necessary to observe that the final clause of the 7th verse,
and the final clause of the 8th, are the same in the Latin version,
though different in Greek, and in the English translation.
Hence it is impossible to judge from a mere quotation of this
clause in a Latin writer, whether he alludes to the 7th or 8th
verse. It is at least possible that he may refer to the 8th, not to
the 7th. He says, indeed, these words are written of the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Ghost, whereas *' et tres unum sunt," in
the 8th verse, relate only to the spirit, the water, and the blood ;
but the Latin fathers interpreted spiritus, aqua, et sanguis, not
litercdhj^ but mysticaUy ; understanding by them Pater, Filius, et
Spiritus Sanctus. (Aqua for pater. Sanguis for Filius, Spiritus
for Spiritus Sanctus). Of Cyprian's treatise '' de Unitate Eccle-
siae," it may be observed, l.v/. That it abounds with references to
Tertullian's against Praxeas ; and in writing this passage he ap-
pears to have kept his eye on Tertullian. The one so closely

I.r CT. XIII. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 137

follows the other, that they both constitute, in fact, but one
witness. 2d, The spirit, the water, and the blood, are called in
the passage of Cyprian heaven/?/ mysteries. This is quite appro-
priate, if the spirit, the water, and the blood, mystically re-
presented the Trinity in unity. But how can the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Spirit, be called sacramenta ccelestia^ (heaverdy
mysteries) ? 3^, That Cyprian quoted the 8th verse and not the
7th, is attested by Facundus bishop of Hermiana in Africa, in the
middle of the sixth century. Facundus proves the doctrine of the
Trinity by a mystical interpretation of the Stli verse, appealing
to Cyprian, who, he alleges, gives the same exposition. We be-
lieve, therefore, the assertion of Facundus, who lived in the same
country, and used the same version as Cyprian ; and hence we
conclude that Cyprian's words do not contain a quotation from
1 John V. 7, hut a spiritual application of 1 John v. 8. The
defenders of the authenticity of the passage, oppose to this, the
testimony of Fulgentius, bishop of Ruspe in Africa, who lived in the
6th century, and understood Cyprian to quote the 7th verse, in-
stead of giving a mystical interpretation of the Sth. '' Fulgen-
tius," says Dr. Tupton, (Crito Cantabrigiensis) " had in the mar-
gin, or probably in the text of his copy of St. John's epistle this
disputed verse, which he was anxious to retain as a very useful
weapon against the Arians. Knowing that it held its place in
the epistle by a very dubious title, and perhaps believing that it
had some right to be there, he would naturally endeavour to
strengthen its claims as much as he could. This purpose he car-
ried into effect by producing something which looked very like
Cyprian's judgment in its favour. Fulgentius would surely never
have appealed to Cyprian, in confirmation of a point of faith de-
livered in the words of an apostle, as he must have known that it
was of no consequence, whether it was held by Cyprian or not,
if promulgated by an apostle. But, on the supposition that Ful-
gentius was aware of the dubiousness of the quotation from John,
we can readily imagine why he would appeal to Cyprian as a wit-
ness for the genuineness of the verse, which he was aware did
not rest on very certain ground."

Augustine also, another African bishop, who lived a century la-
ter than Cyprian, knew nothing of the 7th verse, for he has never
quoted it, even where he treats of the doctrine of the Trinity.
He labours to deduce this doctrine from an allegorical interpreta-
tion of the 8th verse. Hence Sabatier, one of the most learned

138 DISPUTED PORTIONS LECT. XIII.

advocates of the verse in the Church of Rome, was obliged to say,
that " although Augustine left no stone unturned in order to
prove the divinity of the Holy Ghost from John's first epistle, yet
it is clearer than the noon-day, that this learned father was alto-
gether ignorant of the existence of the seventh verse." Jerome
has also been produced in its favour. In several editions of the
Vulo-ate, a prologue or preface accompanies the Catholic epistles
with his name, but this prologue is now justly reckoned a forgery.
The fabricator boasts of having restored the verse on the autho-
rity of Greek MSS., and complains of the Latin translations for
omitting it. The preface has been rejected by the Benedictine
editors of his works, by Bengel, and by other learned advocates
of the verse. In none of his authentic works, does Jerome make
the Slightest reference to the 7th verse, even when defending the
doctrine of the Trinity.

It has been well asked, if the 7th verse had been known, to
what purpose was the mystical interpretation of the 8th, so pre-
valent among the fathers ? On such a supposition, no rational
explanation of its invention can be given. But, on the contrary,
the mystical application of the 8th verse clearly shows, if it be
allowed to do so, that it was itself the origin of the 7th. The
origin of the interpolated words, has been thus traced by Bishop
Marsh : " At the end of the 4th century, the celebrated Latin
father Augustine, who wrote ten treatises on the first epistle of
St. John, in all of which we seek in vain for the 7th verse of the
5th chapter, was induced in his controversy with Maximin, to
compose a gloss on the 8th verse. Augustine gives it professedly
as a gloss upon the words of the 8th verse, and shows, by his own
reasoning, that the seventh verse did not then exist. The high
character of Augustine in the Latin church soon gave celebrity
to his gloss ; and in a short time it was generally adopted. It
appeared indeed under different forms ; but it was still the gloss
of Augustine, though variously modified. The gloss having once
obtained credit in the Latin church, the possessors of Latin MSS.
began to note it in the margin, by the side of the 8th verse.
Hence the oldest of those Latin MSS. which have the passage
in the margin, have it in a different hand from that of the text.
In later MSS. we find margin and text in the same hand,
for transcribers did not venture immediately to move it into the
body of the text, though in some MSS. it is interlined, but inter-
lined by a later hand. After the 8th century the insertion became

LECT. XIII. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 139

general. For Latin MSS. written after that period, have gener-
alhj^ though not always, the passage in the body of the text.
Further, when the 7th verse made its first appearance in the
Latin MSS. it appeared in as many different forms as there were
forms to the gloss upon the 8th verse. And though it now pre-
cedes the 8th verse, it followed the 8th verse at its first insertion,
as a gloss would naturally follow the text upon which it was
made." To guard against any misapprehension of these words,
it is necessary to observe, that they do not- imply that the gloss
was invented by Augustine, but that he made such use of an in-
terpretation already existing, as to compose a marginal annota-
tion chiefly by its aid.

Another argument, on which the advocates of the verse lay
much stress, is taken from the Confession of Faith, drawn up by
Eugenius at the end of the 5th century (480) ; and presented by
the orthodox bishops of Africa, to Hunerich king of the Vandals
who was a zealous Arian. In this confession is the following
passage, which may be literally translated thus : " That we may
shew it to be clearer than the light, that the deity of the Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost is one ; it is proved by the testimony of
John the evangelist, for he says, " There are three which bear
record in heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and
these three are one^ Here the passage in question is clearly
quoted by these African bishops, who, it may be remarked, suf-
fered severe persecutions for their adherence to orthodoxy. But
this only proves that the passage was contained in the Latin
MSS. then used in Africa. The narrative itself rests on the
authority of Victor Vitensis, a very suspicious writer. The
author of the Confession is not certainly known. It has been
variously ascribed to Victor, Eugenius, and Vigilius. Besides,
it is not said that all the 363 bishops who went to Carthage sub-
scribed it. Victor says nothing about their signing it ; and
even if they had affixed their names, it is not probable that the
majority of them would accurately examine every phrase, and
compare it with the MS. they had been accustomed to use. The
author of the Confession may have had it in his MS. ; but that
all who subscribed the declaration, believed it to be a genuine
part of Scripture, is too much to affirm. Should we allow the
story to be true, the Vandal polemics in the council cannot be
supposed to have been skilled in Scripture manuscripts, and in
the writings of the earlier fathers. They did not strive to over-

140 DISPUTED PORTIONS LECT. XIII.

come their opponents by argument^ but by force of arms. The
orthodox party therefore might produce the verse as Scripture,
with little fear of detection.

Another argument adduced in favour of the passage is, that it
is found in the Confession of Faith, and also in the liturgy of the
Greek church. It has been argued by Dr. Hales, that this church
would never have adopted the clause on the sole authority of the
Latin, because of the lasting schism that existed between them.
Hence he considers the Greek to be a distinct and independent
witness for the authenticity of the verse. But there is great
reason to believe that the confession and liturgies of the Greek
church have not descended to the present age uncorrupted.
It is well known that numbers of the Greek clergy were attach-
ed to the church of Rome ; and it is most probable that the clause
was interpolated by some of them in the 14th or 15th century, or
even sooner, when the ignorance of the great mass of the people
would afford sufficient security against detection. A spurious
clause might then have been easily added to the original docu-
ment. Such is the external evidence in favour of the passage.
We now advert to the internal evidence.

l.s^. It is said that the connexion requires the 7th verse, because
the sense is not complete without it. But those who thus argue
presuppose that the words h rf yfi, in the 8th verse, are genuine,
whereas they are as spurious as h tuj oueccvc^, which are thought
necessary to the antithesis. Although the words in terra, in the
8th verse, exist in some Latin MSS. which want the 7th ; yet
they are not found in the oldest Latin copies ; and, therefore, we
may suppose them to have been inserted as correspondent to in
coelo of the interpolated clause. On the other hand, such as con-
tend for the spuriousness of the passage affirm, that the connexion
is clearer and the sense more complete without it. I believe that
the meaning of the whole passage, so far from being injured by
the omission of the words in question, is really improved ; and
that they are not at all required by the scope of the Apostle's ar-
gument. Porson has shewn that internal evidence coincides
with that of the Greek MSS. in the following manner : " With-
out the interpolation, certainly the mention of the water, blood,
and spirit, in the 6th verse, is, with great propriety, followed by
the repetition of the same terms in the genuine text; which re-
petition is rendered emphatic by the exaltation of the spirit,
water, and blood, into three witnesses." He then takes the in-

LECT. XIII. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 141

terpolated passage. In this case, " if the spirit that witnesses, in
the 6th verse, be the Holy Spirit, which I think cannot be
doubted, * because the spirit is truth ;' why is the epithet (holy),
after being twice omitted, added in the 7th verse, to mark a dis-
tinction without a difference." He then opposes those who hold
that the spirit mentioned in the 8th verse is the human spirit.
" If the word holi/^ which is omitted in some few Latin MSS. be
spurious, why is the human spirit, without any mark or circum-
stance to distinguish it, repeated in the same breath, (in the 8th
verse.)" Lastly, he reasons on the hypothesis, that the spirit
mentioned in the 8th verse is the Holy Spirit. " If the spirit, in
the 8th verse, be the Holy Spirit, what is the sense of the same
spirit witnessing both in heaven and on earth."

The following paraphrase, by Sir Isaac Newton, with the ob-
servations that follow, appears to me so clear, satisfactory, and
convincing, that I cannot refrain from giving it in his own words.

" Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that

BELIEVETH THAT JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD, that SoH

spoken of in the Psalms, where he saith, * Thou art my Son ;
this day have I begotten thee.' This is he that, after the
Jews had long expected him, came, first in a mortal body, by
baptism of water, and then in an immortal one, by shedding his
BLOOD upon the Cross, and rising again from the dead ; not by
water ONLY, BUT BY WATER AND BLOOD; being the Son of
God, as well by his resurrection from the dead, (Acts xiii. 33),
as by his supernatural birth of the virgin, (Luke i. 35.) And it
IS THE Spirit also, that, together with the water and blood,
beareth witness of the truth of his coming; because the
Spirit is truth ; and so a fit and unexceptionable witness.
For there are three that bear record of his coming ;
the Spirit, which he promised to send; and which was since
shed forth upon us in the form of cloven tongues, and in various
gifts ; THE baptism of water, wherein God testified, ' This is
my beloved Son ;' and the shedding of his blood, accompanied
with his resurrection, whereby he became the most faithful mar-
tyr, or witness, of this truth. And thi-se three, the Spirit, the
baptism, and passion of Christ, agree in witnessing one and
the same thing, (namely, that the Son of God is come) ; and,
therefore, their evidence is strong : for the law requires but two
consenting witnesses, and here we have three ; and if we re-
ceive the witness of men, the threefold witness of GOD,

142 DISPUTED PORTIONS LFXT. XIII.

wbich he bare of bis Son, by declaring at bis baptism, * this is
my beloved Son ;' by raising him from the dead, and by pour-
ing out his spirit on us, is greater; and, therefore, ought to be
more readily received."

" This is the sense plain and natural, and the argument full
and strong; but if you insert the testimony of * the three in
heaven,' you interrupt and spoil it. For the whole design of the
Apostle being here to prove to men by witness, the truth of
Christ's coming, I would ask how the testimony of ' the three in
heaven' makes to this purpose ? If their testimony be not given
to men, how does it prove to them the truth of Christ's coming ?
If it be, how is the testimony in heaven distinguished from that
on earth? It is the same Spirit which witnesses in heaven and in
earth. If, in both cases, it witnesses to us men, wherein lies the
difference between its witnessing in heaven and its witnessing in
earth ? If, in the first case, it does not witness to men, to whom
doth it witness? And to what purpose? And how does its
witnessing make to the design of St. John's discourse ? Let
them make good sense of it, who are able. For my part I can
make none." (Newtoni Opera, vol. v. pp. 528, 9, Horsley's
edition.)

2d. It is alleged, that the grammatical structure of the original
Greek requires the insertion of the 7th verse, else the latter part
of the 8th verse must also be rejected. If the 7th verse do not
precede, it is difficult to account for the use of the masculine
gender. We would expect r^ia hm ra /xapru^ovvra, because each
of the witnesses, to which it refers, is in the neuter gender. If
the 7th verse be authentic, the writer might naturally carry on
the same expression r^sTg haiv li /xu^tv^ovvtsc, as the spirit, water, and
blood, attest the same thing with the heavenly witnesses. To
this it may be replied, that the spirit, water, and blood, are per-
sonified in the passage ; and, therefore, the masculine gender is
employed in relation to them. They are introduced as speaking
witnesses for the truth that Jesus is come, and that he has in re-
ality suffered according to prophecy.

Qd- Some learned men have contended, from the existence of
the article rb before sv h<siv, in the final clause of the 8th verse,
that it must refer to the word 'iv in the preceding verse ; and thus
that both verses are so inseparably connected, that they must be
retained or rejected together. This is certainly an ingenious ar-
gument. It is mentioned by Wolfius, in his '* Curae Philologicse,"

LECT. XIH. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 143

and has been ably discussed by Bishop Middleton in his book on
the Greek article. It derives its weight, however, solely from the
supposition, that the three earthly witnesses concur in testifying
the one thing testified by the heavenly witnesses. If 'iv ihat^ in the
7th verse, be expressive of the consuhstantiality of the divine per-
sons, then the rh sV of the 8th verse, cannot be supposed to have
any reference to the word h in the 7th verse. It is only in case
that h Jvai, in the 7th verse, denote consent or unanimity, that this
argument is applicable. Now, it is not certain that the phrase
has such a meaning. Interpreters are not agreed in believing
that the heavenly and earthly witnesses attest the same thing.
Bishop Burgess, the most strenuous defender of the disputed
verse in modern times, thinks that the heavenly witnesses of the
7th verse attest the divine nature of Jesus, and the earthly wit-
nesses of the 8th verse his human nature. Dr. Turton observes
that TO 'i'j may be used as equivalent to rh uuto, just as in Philipp.
(ii. 2), supposing roh (ppovovng in that passage to be the genuine
reading, in which case it is not necessary to refer the article to
any thing preceding.

4. The diction it is said is peculiar to John. The expression,
the ivord, is said to be applied to Christ by no other evangelist or
apostle ; and, in his gospel, he often speaks of the witness of the
Father, and the Holy Spirit. It is difficult to see the force of
this argument. If any expressions identical with those in I John
V. 7, occurred in his other writings, then we might listen to the
observation, but it is not true that any such phraseology is em-
ployed by this apostle.

The advocates of the authenticity of the clause, also assign
some causes which might have occasioned its omission in many
copies.

1. The 7th verse begins and ends in the same manner as the
8th, and therefore transcribers may have overlooked the 7th
verse. This occurrence, technically called o/MoiorsXs-jrov, has been
frequently a source of omissions in the MSS. of the Greek Tes-
tament. But it is not easy to conceive how it could have hap-
pened in all the Greek MSS. of this passage, and in a consider-
able number of the Latin. It would account for its omission in
some, but it will scarcely be thought sufficient to do so in all, un-
less it could be proved that all were copied from one MS., at a
time subsequent to the destruction of the autograph, or that they
belonged to the same recension. But, indeed, it is utterly in-

144 DISPUTED PORTIONS LECT. XIIT.

credible that all the scribes should have erred in the same way,
when copying the same passage. Besides, if the verse had dis-
appeared in consequence of the b'Moiors'kiurov^ the MSS. must have
retained £v r;^ 7/r. But this is not the case. MSS. uniformly
want the words h rfj yfj, and, therefore, we infer, that there has
been no omission arising from this cause.

2d, It is affirmed by some, that the orthodox might have de-
signedly erased it, conceiving that a passage containing the mys-
tery of the Trinity, ought not to be exposed to every reader.
Wliy should not this have been practised in other passages that
speak of the same doctrine ? This argument would go to prove
too much, and is therefore nugatory.

'Sd, The Arians might have intentionally suppressed it as being
inimical to their doctrine. This charge has been brought against
them only by some modern writers, but it is totally improbable,
for how should they expunge the words, when there is the
strongest evidence that they were already wanting, even before
Arius was born ? Besides, it is impossible that they could have
mutilated all the copies in the hands of the orthodox ; or that the
latter were so careless as to permit such an unwarrantable liberty
to be taken with Scripture.

4th, Several of the Fathers may have refrained from quoting
the verse, because they did not consider it applicable to the con-
troversies in which they were engaged. They may have regard-
ed it as furnishing a proof of the unity of the testimony of the
heavenly witnesses, but not of the unity of their nature.

It is needless, however, to argue for the authenticity of the
clause from supposed causes of omission. The point is, whether
it be authentic or not ; and it is illogical to attempt to argue the
question by merely endeavouring to account for the omission of
the passage, on the previous supposition that it is authentic. The
thing to be shewn is, did the epistle of John ever in reality contain
it? and when this shall be determined in the affirmative, then it
will be time enough to devise ingenious conjectures to account
for its omission.

bth, It has been affirmed, that the silence of the early Greek
fathers is not a proof of their ignorance of the passage, because
they have not quoted other places of Scripture which were also
applicable to the doctrine of the Trinity, and with which their
writings shew them to have been familiar. But we can scarcely
conceive of any text which would have more readily occurred to

LECT. Xril. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 145

the memories of the early ecclesiastical writers than the present,
if they were at all engaged in controversy respecting the doctrine
of the Trinity. It has been usually considered one of the most
direct on that subject, and though they may have omitted to men-
tion many other texts in favour of this doctrine, yet so obvious
a passage could hardly have been overlooked.

Such are the chief arguments that have been advanced in this
tedious controversy, both by the advocates of the verse, and bv
the opponents of its authenticity. After maturely weighing them
all, you will probably be satisfied that the passage is spurious.
When it is contained in no Greek MS. except two, quoted by no
Greek father, nor even by any Latin father of the first four cen-
turies, when it is wanting in all the ancient versions, and in the
most ancient MSS. of the Vulgate itself, it will hardly be reckon-
ed authentic from the slender evidence opposed to such a mass
of testimony. It is almost superfluous to add, that many of the
most strenuous defenders of the doctrine of the Trinity have
maintained the verse to be spurious ; and that the great body of
critics is opposed to its authenticity. Other passages oiboly
WTit prove with sufficient clearness this fundamental doctrine.
It is established by the indisputable evidence of numerous places,
w^hose authenticity cannot be questioned. The Scriptures
abound with declarations implying the deity of Christ and of
the Holy Ghost. The doctrine of three persons in one God-
head is supported by a hundred witnesses. I am also of opinion,
that too much stress has been laid on this clause by the orthodox
ingeneral, as if it contained an indubitable proof of the doctrine
in question. Granting its authenticity, I would not place it
beside other texts relating to the same subject. I think it far
from being decisive or even applicable to the point"! It may he
asked, what substantive is to be understood to the numeral ad-
jective one? how is the ellipsis to be supplied ? The noun usual-
ly supposed to be understood is ^a/bv. To this it may be objected,
thatitisnotthe custom of the sacred waiters to employ such an ellip-
sis ; and besides, Ss/bv isa Pagan appellation of God. It is notfound
in the Seventy ; and intheNew Testamentitoccursbutonce, (Acts
xvii. 29) where Paul, addressing the philosophers of Athens, adopts
their own phraseology. Though the New Testament writers and
the Septuagint translators speak of God very frequently, yet they
never call him rh h. They speak of J; ^205, w^hilst the fathers
have used in addition the phrase fiia ?ii6rr,g But I have said, that

146 DISPUTED PORTIONS LECT. XIII.

the text, even if authentic, is not applicable to the doctrine of
the Trinity, because it appears to me that sV ilyaiin the 7th verse
will bear no other sense than consent or unanimity. Some of the
most zealous Trinitarians, among whom was Bishop Horsley,
entertained the same sentiments, taking it to have no reference
to the comiibstantiaUtij of the divine persons. The only legiti-
mate way of ascertaining the meaning of the phrase iv ihai is by
the authority of the New Testament itself. It occurs in 1 Cor.
iii. 8, " he that planteth and he that watereth are one" ei/ hstv
where nothing but unity of purpose is meant. So also John
xvii. 22, where Christ prays to the Father that his disciples may
be one h miv '* as we are one." These two passages are thought
by Bishop Middleton, to decide the import of the expression in
John X. 30, and wherever else it occurs in the New Testa-
ment. This mode of interpretation I cannot allow. To take
two passages where the phrase h ihai occurs, and to assign,
without examination, the meaning it bears in them, to its exist-
ence in two other places, is arbitrary and unwarrantable. It
appears to me, that the phrase in question always hears the same
siynijication, but that the sense is different, according to the posi-
tion in which it stands. Its meaning is no other than to be one ;
but, whether unity of purpose, power, or essence be intended,
must be determined in every case by the vicinity of the phrase
itself. If this view be correct, our mode of proceeding will vary
from that of Middleton. In 1 Cor. iii. 8, and John xvii. 22, he
is right in his interpretation, but he should have consulted the
context of John x. 30, before he affixed to it there also the same
meaning. " I and my Father are one," that is, (me in poiver, for
of this the Saviour had just been speaking. Both the Father
and the Son are omnipotent; and as soon could any one pluck
the sheep out of the hand of the latter, as of the former. In the
passage before us, it seems to be entirely foreign from the design
of the writer and the scope of his argument, to understand the
words h hffiv, supposing them to be authentic, of unity of essence
or nature. Consent or unanimity of purpose, would clearly accord
with the preceding context, but consuhstantiality would mar the
connection and destroy the coherence of the passage.

LECTURE XIV.

DISPUTED PORTIONS CONTINUED.

Another passage of some importance, which has been the subject
of much discussion, is, 1 Timothy iii. 16. There are three differ-
ent readings, viz. &iog hocvso-Jitd'/j, og spavsou)$'/i, and o i^aviPoJdri. Gries-
bach has inserted og in the text in preference to ^sog, and in a
lengthened note has attempted to justify himself for adopting
such an alteration. Scholz, however, has restored ^shg, the read-
ing of the textus receptus.

1st. We will give the external and internal evidence as far as
regards '^•hg.

1. It is supported by 257 MSS. of all countries.

2. The versions that exhibit it are, the Arabic in the Polvarlott
Bible, the Slavonic, and the Georgian. The Philoxenian Sy-
riac, or as it should be called, the Harclean Si/riac also has it, as
Dr. Henderson has proved.

3. It is sanctioned by all the Greek Fathers who have occa-
sion to refer to the passage. It has been supposed with great
probability, that the phraseology of the following ancient writers
was suggested by the reading ^ro;, and that it can only be satis-
factorily accounted for on the hypothesis, that Ssos w^as contain-
ed in the copies they used. Ignatius in his Epistle to the Ephe-
sians, (a. d. 107), speaking of Christ, says, " There is one phy-
sician corporeal and spiritual, born and unborn, becoming God in

jie&liy sv 6a^'A.i yivoijj'ivog ^so'c," and again in another passage, " SsoD
av^ffWT/vw; (paviooixzvo'j" when God ivas manifested as man. Hippo-
lytus a learned bishop, the disciple of Ireneaus, (220), thus writes
in his homily against Noetus, ^shg h cdo/j^aT/ s:puvsou)d7ii substituting
for the word (raozi the synonym cw/xar/. Dionysius of Alexandria,
(260) expressly quotes the words of the Apostle, in his Epistle
against Paul of Samosata, with the reading ^&og, Athanasius,
bishop of Alexandria (326) also cites the passage with hog, but
the treatise in which this occurs, (the oration concerning the in-
carnation) is said by Griesbach and others not to be his. As to
the other passage adduced by some from his 4th Epistle to Sera-
pion, from which it is manifest that he read og, the majority of

148 DISPUTED PORTIONS LECT. XIV.

MSS. omit it altogether, so that it is supposed to have been a
gloss inserted in some copies of his works, but excluded from
the greater number. Little stress, therefore, is to be laid on the
testimony of Athanasius, in consequence of the suspicious cha-
racter of the two passages in his writings so confidently adduced
by some over zealous Trinitarians.

Gregory Nyssene (370) frequently cites the text verbatim
as in the textus recepfus. We might refer to the passages in his
2d, 4th, and 10th orations, which clearly prove the truth of our
remark. Hence we may perceive how little weight is to be at-
tached to the opinion of Griesbach, who, on the strength of a
passage in his treatise against ApoUinaris, would persuade us that
Gregory read k or 6'. This one passage, which is somewhat
indefinite, is not to be put in comparison with, much less above
three others, which are sufficiently explicit and conclusive. Chry-
sostom of Constantinople (398) also quotes and explains the text
in the same manner. To these fathers may be added, Theodoret,
Didvmus, Euthalius, Damascenus, Photius, Oecumenius, Theo-
phylact, and others. The testimony of Cyril of Alexandria, (412)
appears to me to belong to the same side, though this is denied by
Griesbach. After citing the text, God was manifest in the flesh,
$fc., he comments on it thus, " who is he that was manifested in
the flesh ? Is it not plain that it was absolutely and entirely the
word of God the Father, for thus the mystery of godliness will be

great We by no means say that he was a man simply

like ourselves, but God in the fleshy (^zhg sv ffa^zi), and born among
us." This passage is cited by Euthymius Zygabenus, who also
reads &sog in the disputed text. Griesbach, however, contends
that 6=0; is a corrupt reading in the editions of Cyril's works,
instead of 0;, and he refers to his *' Symbolae Criticae," 1785. In
this work we find the following parenthetical remark, which will
scarcely be thought a sufficient warrant for us to conclude that
in the editions of his works that have been published, and where
the reading ^>£og frequently occurs, og has been changed into that
word. " Si &cog legit Cyrillus, addere debebat, qui improprie
tantum, et xara;)^^»5(rr/xws a Paulo ^ik nominatur," that is, *' Had
Cyril read ^thg^ he ought to have added, who by Paul is called
'^ihg improperly, (i. e. figuratively) and by an abuse of the word
(the figure xara-^priffig). This savours of Unitarianism, especially
when taken in conjunction with his giving a place to the conjec-
ture %ov for ^dg in John's gospel i. 1. He is certainly to be

LECT. XIV. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 149

blamed for there admitting into his various readings an unfound-
ed conjecture of the Socinian Crellius.

Among the Latin fathers who quote this reading may be men-
tioned Epiphanius the deacon (787), in his panegyric on the se-
cond council of Nice. But with a very few exceptions they all
read quod for 6', because such is the rendering of the Vulgate.

Having thus very briefly given the external evidence in favour
of ^505, let us now attend to the internal.

1st. The grammatical construction is simple and natural when
we read Ssoj. Nothing in any other part of Scripture is opposed
in sentiment to the meaning of the passage as interpreted with
5:>sog. The second epistle to the Corinthians v. 19th verse, fur-
nishes a parallel exactly in point, viz. ^205 -^v h x^isrOj xoV/xov %araX-
\aQGm ta,vTu). Dr. Samuel Clarke himself allows that the sense is
the same with what John says in the beginning of his gospel, that
the ?J'yog or ^iog (ra^g sysvsro, was madejiesh.

2d. On the supposition that ^so; is authentic, it has been ar-
gued, that we can naturally and easily explain the origin of the
other two readings og and 3. It is not likely that ^=0; originated
from 0?, because transcribers are more liable to omit, than to add.
Assuming that '^ihg is the primitive reading, it is easy to account
for both the others. Accident or decay may have eifaced the
traces of the two horizontal lines, viz., the line above, denoting
contraction, and the line in the centre of the tlieta. Thus O C
would arise from ©T;. This again would soon be changed into
O to agree with the antecedent /xu^r^^p/ov, because of the apparent
ungrammaticality. Such is the internal evidence, on which, how-
ever, I lay no stress, because in reality it amounts to nothing.
In reference to the first observation, the simplicity of a construc-
tion is an unsafe foundation on which to build an argument in
defence of i^sk, else one would doubt the truth and authenticity
of many passages in the wTitings of Paul, where the grammatical
construction is perplexed and entangled. In reference to the
second part of the internal evidence just given, I shall remark
hereafter.

The external evidence comprehends 257 Greek MSB., and the
great majority of the Greek fathers who refer to the passage, to-
gether with the Arabic of the Polyglott, the Harclean, the Sla-
vonian, and Georgian versions.

The second reading proposed is o's, which Griesbach adopted.
Let us see the amount of evidence in its favour.

150 DISPUTED PORTION'S LECT. XIV.

External Evidence. — Is^. It is supported by G. 17, 73, 181, i. e.,
by four MSS. The first is the Codex Boernerianus, belonging
to the ninth century, and to the Alexandrian family. 17, and
73 are of the eleventh or twelfth century, and both belong to the
same family as G, whilst 181 is of the Constantinopolitan recen-
sion. These four MSS. may be reduced to two witnesses, in the
following manner. The first three belong to the same recension,
and have therefore no more than one voice, whilst the last is an
unimportant MS. of the Constantinopolitan family. But G. 17,
and 73, must be merged into the Alexandrine recension, and then
they go for nothing; for all other MSS. of the same family read
^£oj. Hence the testimony of these three is of very little value.
As to codex 181, it is of no account whatever, because the
recension to which it belongs manifestly exhibts ^soj. We
must now allude to A, C, and F, adduced by Griesbach, in addi-
tion to G. 17 and 73, as evidence for 6'$; and carelessly copied
by Scholz into his strange note on this place. In regard to A,
we have good reason to believe that it read 0£og, not h- This is cer-
tified by Young, Junius, Huish, Mill, Wotton, Croyk, Fell,
Grabe, Ridley, Gibson, Hewitt, Pilkington, Berriman, Walton,
Woide, and others. These eminent scholars inspected it, and
they all concur in the same testimony. Most of them saw
it before the transverse lines had disappeared entirely ; and they
are surely credible witnesses. Wetstein, indeed, declared that
he could not see the transverse line in the circle forming the
theta, but his veracity was impeached by Berriman, who accused
him of admitting to a common friend that he saw the transverse
line, which he afterwards denied. And though Wetstein at-
tempted to escape from his concession, yet Woide, the editor of
the MS. has shewn that his attempted explanation cannot be
admitted. If, then, we rely on the testimony of the earlier and
more competent witnesses, for it is now impossible otherwise to
decide the matter, we must conclude that the primitive reading
was ^ihc, not og- It is to be regretted, indeed, that Young re-
touched the cross line in the Tlteta, because it was somewhat
faded. Mill, the editor of the Greek Testament, says, that at
first sight the little crossed line escaped his notice, but that on
closer inspection, he discovered some traces of it, especially at the
left side, where it touched the circle, and that he should have
discovered more, were it not for the modern blot drawn over the
line. Berriman (1741) delares, " I several times examined this

LECT. XIV. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 151

MS., and that accurately, and though I could never with my
naked eyes discover any part of the ancient transverse line, nor
ethers more quick-sighted than myself, yet, with the assistance
of a glass, and having held the book in the sun's rays, I was able
to see a part of the old line on the left hand of the new one, with-
in the circle. And two other friends (Gibson and Ridley) with
me saw the same at that time, one of whom was able to discover
traces of the old line not only on the left hand, but even on the
right." Thus there was once an old line, coinciding in colour of
ink and style of execution with the rest of the MS., parts of
which were discerned subsequently to the time when Young re-
touched it. But notwithstanding all the testimonies to the true
and original reading of this ancient MS., Griesbach still persists
in defending OC. " When I handled," says he, " this docu-
ment, I was greatly grieved that the part of the leaf which con-
tains the disputed reading is so much worn that no mortal can
now decypher its original reading." And yet he says, " never-
theless I dare confidently affirm that their report is true who have
stated o; to be the original reading in this MS." Surely such
reasoning is most unwarrantable and unfair. He evidently prefers
the sole authority of Wetstein to that of all other ancient wit-
nesses, however numerous and credible. It is also worthy of re-
mark that there is another passage in the same work where he
allows the Alexandrine codex to be neutral. Certainly he is charge-
able with inconsistency. In relation again to C. the transverse
line of the Theta has also vanished, but this is not uncommon in
other parts of the same MS. VVoide and Velthusen both testify
that the reading is OC, and the stroke of abbreviation when ex-
amined, plainly appears to have been always there. If OC had
been subsequently changed into "eC, it is not easy to discover any
reason why one of the strokes should have been omitted. Wet-
stein, however, followed by Griesbach, contends that the line
above OC has been added by a later hand, since it is thicker and
more unskilfully drawn than is usual in this MS. But in this
he is contradicted by Woide and Less, who give it as their opin-
ion, that the line of contraction came from the same hand as the
rest of the MS. Thus it is obvious that C cannot be quoted as
evidence for OC. The third MS. mentioned by Griesbach as
containing 05 is F, belonging to the ninth or tenth century.
Here the same uncertainty prevails as in the case of C, because
the transverse stroke of the llieta is effaced, if indeed it ever

152 DISPUTED PORTIONS LECT. XlV.

existed, while the line of contraction above the word is exhibited.
The difficulty then is to determine whether the stroke above was
written by the same individual as he who copied the MS., or
whether it proceeded from a later hand. Matthaei asserts that
Seos is the true reading of the codex. Such are the circumstan-
ces connected with A, C, and F; and surely no enlightened or judi-
cious critic w^ould now think of adducing them as positive wit-
nesses for OC. The highest probability to which we can now
attain goes to shew that the first read ^^k. There is considerable
probability that the second had originally the same word, and of
the third I would conclude nothing.

•2d. The Latin, Harclean, Arabic of Erpenius and that of the
Polyglott, the Slavonic, and Georgian, are decidedly against
OC ; but as to the others they are doubtful, since they may be
regarded as witnesses for O as well as OC« We cannot, there-
fore say with certainty that any of the ancient versions favours
OC. I cannot imagine, therefore, how Dr. Bloomfield can say,
in his Greek Testament, that '• most of the versions favour the
6'^," since the very reverse is the fact.

3d. It is not quoted by any of the Greek fathers ; and of the
Latin, Jerome and Theodore of Mopsuesta alone have qui.
The supposed instances of the quotation of OC, by a few of the
Greek fathers, adduced by Griesbach, are not true quotations of
the passage, but rather paraphrases or explatiations, which cannot
prove what he would wish them to do. Thus, the sole evidence
in favour of k consists of four MSS., which may be reduced to
an almost nonentity ; and we are now prepared to judge of the
truth of Griesbach's assertion, " this reading (og), is supported
b?/ the most ancient witnesses of all classes."

Let us now attend, in the 2d place, to the internal evidence
for og- Three ways of construing the passage have been adopted,
on the supposition that k is authentic. The first was proposed,
(I believe) by Professor Cramer. He makes the clause from
ffTvXog to f^vaTrjiiov a parenthesis, and then SsoD ^uvrog, the living God,
will be the antecedent to og. In this case a strong proof of the
deity of Christ is exhibited by the words of the Apo.'tle. But
there appears to me something far-fetched and unnatural about it,
savouring of an ingenious expedient, rather than plain construc-
tion. I cannot, therefore, feel myself warranted to receive this
way of construing the passage, though Dr. J. Pye Smith, in his

LtCT. XIV. OF THE NEW TL9TAMENT. 153

great theological work, " Scripture Testimony to the Messiah,"
has adopted it.

The second mode of explaining the sentence, is to take og to
refer to fAvcrr^giov as its antecedent. In this case the antecedent is
of the neuter gender, and the relative of the masculine ; and,
therefore, it is often impeached as bad Greek. When the advo-
cate of this construction refers to many instances, where neuter
antecedents are followed by masculine relatives he is met with
the reply, " that in such cases the noun is used in a personal
sense." So Galatians iii. 16; Ephes. i. 13, 14; 1 Cor. iv. 17, &c.
Still there is truth in the observation, that such an anomaly ex-
ists in cases where the antecedent relates to things as well as per-
S071S. Thus, Matthew xxvii. 33; Mark xv. 22; xii. 42; John
i. 39, 42, 43 ; Hebrews vii. 3. These are fair examples of dis-
agreement between the gender of the antecedent and that of the
consequent, even where things axe spoken of, not persons. Simi-
lar anomalies, too, might be adduced from classical writers, espe-
cially from Xenophon. It is not bad Greek, therefore, to refer
0$ to /xuffrriPiov as its atitecedent. It is consistent both with the
idiom of the classical and of the New Testament diction. But
there is a valid objection to such a mode of construing the sen-
tence that completely condemns it, and which is sufficient to^de-
ter any one from its adoption. If /MGrrj^iov be the antecedent to k,
then the sense requires that /nvifTTi^iov denote Christ himself. Some
of the ancients appear to have taken the word in this sense ; but
it is totally opposed to the usus loquendi of the New Testament.
In everyplace where the term occurs, it designates, wo^CAm^'fem-
self^ but some mysterious doctrine, or circumstance connected with his
person or kingdom. Since then Christian doctrine cannot be^said
to be manifested in the flesh, and taken up to glory ; and since the
word [MuCTTiPtov, or the phrase to rrig hffi(3s/ac /xu<yr;j^/ov never signifies
Christ himself, we hold that this method of construing the pas-
sage is altogether inadmissible.

3. There is still another method of translating the words, on
the supposition that OC is authentic. " He icho was manifested
in the flesh was justified in the spirit, &c." This is the usual
rendering of those who hold that 05 is the true reading. It has
been adopted by Benson, the editors of the improved version, and
by Carpenter, with a host of inferior writers belonging to the
Unitarian persuasion. To this construction it is commonly ob-
ected, that it is foreign to the Greek idiom, both classical and

154 DISPUTED PORTIONS LECT. XIV.

Scriptural. It is said that the regular Greek construction would
have required 6 (panoadc'ig. So the learned Dr. Henderson, in his
valuable treatise on this text. The article, with the participle, is
affirmed to be proper, as in Galatians i. 23, 6 a/wxwi/ ;^,aa?, &c. he
that persecuted us. But it is impossible to deny that such
phraseology as og s^avsgw^jj, in the sense of /ze who, is good Greek.
Professor Stuart has shewn, most ably, that it is good Greek.
We may either understand the demonstrative pronoun, ou-og or
fxs/Voc, to be understood ; or, which amounts to the same thing,
we may say that k includes both the demonstrative and relative
pronouns, like asher in Hebrew, and ichat in English. "O; e^aveou)dyi,
then, in the sense of he who was manifested, where the antecedent
or subject is understood, is by no means objectionable; since
there are many similar examples, not only in the New Testament,
but also in classical Greek. So Matthew xiii. 12 ; xx. 15. But
it has been said, that where such an ellipsis, as that before us,
occurs in the nominative, it is not used in the sense of he ivho,
but whosoever ; i. e. it is not employed particularly, or specifically,
hut r/ener ally. Must o's denote the same thing as og sav or og av?
If og, without any antecedent expressed, can only be used in this
generic way, it is quite obvious that there will be no sense in the
passage. IHt be not employed to designate a specijic ohject, or a
specific indiijidual, it is plain that the translation he who must be
abandoned. But the usage of the New Testament abundantly
supports the opinion of those who hold that the signification of
h may be specific. So John xix. 37. Luke vii. 43. John iii.
34,' and numerous other places. Thus it appears, that there is no
valid objection to the rendering " he who was manifested," &c.
It is good Greek, and exhibits a good sense, and cannot be set
aside on any internal ground. I confess, therefore, that I do not
see any internal evidence sufficient |to^ condemn those who thus
translate the relative pronoun.

We come now to consider the arguments for the third reading
0, beginning as before with the external.

1. It is contained in no MS. whatever. Griesbach, indeed,
following Wetstein, quotes D. or the Clermont MS. as containing
it, but it reads Sees: and that such was its primitive form was
maintained by Beza, Woide, Michaelis, Matthaei, and others.

2. The Itala and Vulgate, are the only versions that unequi-
vocally express this reading. The Peshito, Ethiopic, Armenian,
Coptic, Sahidic, and Arabic of Erpenius, have also been quoted

LECT. XIV. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 155

in its support. But the two first are capable of two diiferent In-
terpretations ; the Coptic, Sahidic, and Armenian are equivocal ;
and the Arabs Erpenii clearly shows that the translator read 6ihg,

8. Ail the Latin fathers have qyod, except Jerome on Isaiah
liii. 11, and Theodore of Mopsuesta, in his work on the incarna-
tion, who have " qui manifestatus est ;" and Epiphanius the
deacon, who has chits. The only Greek father in whose writings
0 occurs is Chrysostom, (Homily on the Incarnation), but it is al-
most certain that this work was not written by him. The evi-
dence of the Latin fathers is not to be regarded as independent
of the Latin versions, for, as they quoted from them, their
authority is to be merged into that of the translations they adopt-
ed. Thus the external evidence for o resolves itself into versions.

2d. Internal evidence is decidedly opposed to this reaaing.
If it were authentic, the meaning would be, '* And without con-
troversy great is the mystery of godliness which was manifested
in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached unto
the gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."
It is impossible to understand such language. How could a
mystery be manifested in the flesh, or justified in the spirit, or
received up into glory? The absurdity involved in such a trans-
lation, does not need to be pointed out. But it may be said,
that the translators of the Itala and Vulgate understood by the
mystery that was manifested, the person of Clirist ; and that there
is nothing in the passage itself inconsistent with this acceptation
of the word. But the connexion does not at all favour this
sense ; and the usage of the term wherever it occurs in the New
Testament, is entirely adverse to it. The mystery of godliness
must mean some mysterious doctrine relating to Christ, but cannot
designate Christ himself, as the mysterious person. Thus the
internal evidence is entirely opposed to 6' while the external con-
sists of two ancient versions, perhaps only of one. I say per-
haps only of one version, because it is not certain whether Jerome
revised the whole of the New Testament In the old Italic version,
or merely the gospels. It is perfectly nugatory therefore, to
argue with some, that Jerome's revision of the Vetus Itala in the
New Testament, shews that the Greek MSS. of Origen which
he had used had 6'; because it cannot be proved whether his
emendation extended to the epistles. And even if it could be
satisfactorily shewn that he did revise the whole of the Greek
Testament, as was most probably the case, it is well known that

156 DISPUTED PORTIONS LEG l'. XIV.

he proceeded with much caution in making alterations, and that
he was averse to adopt what widely differed from the Italic.

Having thus triven the evidence external and internal for the
three different readings, it remains for us to decide in favour of
that one which is supported by the best authorities. The ques-
tion chiefly turns on the authority of the Greek MSS., and on
the different versions of the New Testament. The Greek fathers
followed the Greek MSS. ; the Latin, generally speaking, the
versions, especially the Vulgate. But the evidence furnished
by the versions is contradictory and uncertain, whilst that of the
MSS. is overwhelming in favour of kog ; 257 of different families
and countries, and many of them ancient. I cannot therefore
but look upon 6ihg as authentic. The amount of authority in its
favour is to me quite satisfactory. There is no comparison be-
tween its claims and those of the rival readings.

It is now impossible to account for the discrepancy between
the Greek MSS. and the Latin; to tell why the former read
&ihc, and the latter quod. As to the story relative to the corrup-
tion of the Greek MSS. by Macedonius, we will see that it is
entitled to little credit.

In connexion with internal evidence, some lay great stress on
conjectures respecting the greater probability of dihg having given
rise to h than h to Qiog. But this is a point, on which as it ap-
pears to me, we cannot arrive at any definite or satisfactory con-
clusion. One may argue that khg would more readily originate
from og than o; from Ssos ; whilst the subjective views of another
may incline him to the very opposite belief. Plausible means
on both sides may be suggested ; and therefore I cannot lay any
stress on such conjectures. They should not be taken into ac-
count as influencing the judgment in determining the respective
claims of the two readings.

The objections brought forward against the uniform testimony
of the Greek MSS. and fathers, may be reduced to two.

1st. It is said that the text was corrupted by Macedonius
bishop of Constantinople, in the beginning of the 6th century.
This has been urged by Sir Isaac Newton and the Unitarians.
The story rests on the accounts of Liberatus and Hincmar. But
when we come to examine the statements of the two witnesses,
there is a manifest discrepancy between them. Hence their
testimony is lessened in value, and deprived of all weight. Sir
Isaac Newton himself is obliged to eke out his reasoning with

LECT. XIV. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 157

hypothesis and conjecture ; and yet on so weak and uncertain a
basis, he founds the whole of his reasoning. The following con-
siderations may suffice to shew that the story is impossible.

1st. Liberatus says that Macedonius changed og into c«c, where-
as Hincmar relates that he changed it into '^dg. Thus there is
a plain contradiction between them.

2d. They relate that Macedonius was deprived of his bishop-
rick, and expelled from the city for the alteration, as heinq a
Nestorian. This shews the falsehood of the entire narrative.
Had the Nestorians changed 6$ into Saou, they would have com-
pletely overthrown their own doctrine. Their peculiar tenets
were, that God was not incarnate as born of the Virgin Mary —
that it was not God who suffered, died, rose, and ascended into
heaven, but that it was Christ, by the Holy Ghost remaining
upon him. This is so apparent, that, in order to elude its
force. Sir Isaac is obliged to put a forced construction on the
words, affirming that " the enemies of Macedonius accounted
it Nestorianism, though it was not really so."

3d. We have seen that Dionysius of Alexandria and others,
had quoted the passage with ^shg long before Macedonius; and
Cyril of Alexandria who opposed Nestorius, made great use of the
same reading. It could therefore have been no innovation. The
alleged corruption is thus impossible.

4. Suppose the alteration from Zg to ^205 to have been made,
how comes it to pass that all MSB. hitherto collated, with but
four exceptions, have ^sog, not og. Is it possible that Mace-
donius could have falsified all the Greek copies, both those writ-
ten befoie his time, and those since written? If he had been
deposed from his office for substituting S£os> would not care have
been taken by the emperor Anastasius, (who is said to have ex-
pelled him) to have 0; restored. Would not many copies have
been corrected on the supposition of the alleged alteration ? Why
is it also that there is a total silence respecting this " notable cor-
ruption," as the Socinians term it, in ecclesiastical history, except
in the case of two obscure writers ? Had it actually occurred,
we would naturally expect more account of it from other writers.
Nor can we conceive of any temptation that could induce an in-
dividual to corrupt a solitary passage in Scripture, for the pur-
pose of proving a doctrine abundantly evident from numerous
places. These considerations are sufficiently strong to set aside
this most improbable tale, related by two m.embers of the Latin

158 DISPUTED PORTIONS LECT. XIV.

church, whose favourite version reads quod. And yet on this
flimsy foundation, Sir I. Newton builds his whole argument.
The premises, therefore, being wrong, the conclusion must be
false. As far as this tale is concerned, we must pronounce the
reading kog to be authentic.

2d. Another argument of the negative kind brought against
6'coi is, that it is not quoted by any of the Greek fathers for the
four first centuries, nor adduced by them against the Arians.
" ©so?," says Griesbach, " is not supported by any document
older than the end of the 4th century." In answer to this, I may
just refer to the testimonies already adduced, especially to that
of Dionysius of Alexandria, from which the falsehood of this
assertion will be obvious. When Griesbach says also that " all
the Latin fathers read quod,'' it is to be observed, that no Latin
father of the three first centuries quotes the text at all ; and that
it is not remarkable that nearly all of those who cite the passage
read quod, because this word was in the Latin version they used.
With respect to the comments of the Greek fathers, to which
allusion has been sometimes made, as though they sanctioned
the readings h or o. Dr. Burton positively affirms, that in no
single instance do their comments lead to any such conclusion.
That the passage was not used against the Arians with the read-
ing ^ihg will not appear strange, when we reflect that they did
not deny that Christ was called 6'chg in Scripture, for they well
knew that he was, but they explained the term in an iuferior or
subordinate sense. In short, such negative argumentation as this,
would prove too much ; because on the same ground we might
argue against several other important texts, such as Matthew
xxviii. 19, and 1 Cor. xii. 4, whose authenticity has never been
questioned.

We feel little hesitation, therefore, in saying, that Qzh; is the
authentic reading ; and that Griesbach, by admitting og into
the text in the second edition of his Greek Testament, has given
the preference to an inferior reading. As to o, it is certainly
supported by the least authority, having no MS. whatever in its
favour, and resting solely on the Latin version. Dr. Hales,
(Faith in the Holy Trinity), errs in saying that o is better sup-
ported than k,

I am inclined to deviate a little from the strict line of duty at
present, and to make some remarks connected with the interpre-
tation of this important passage. Whilst we hold that ^to; is

LKCT. XIV. or THE NEW TESTAMENT. 159

fairly entitled to general acceptation as the authentic reading",
the Socinian scheme gains nothing by the reading og. If it be
translated he xoho with most Unitarians, they still refer it to
Christ. What mystery then can there be in the manifestation of
a mere man in the flesh ? how could a common man be manifest-
ed otherwise ? The circumstances of a man's appearance in the
flesh, cannot surely be entitled to the appellation of a great my-
stery. Others, however, among the Socinians, deny the refer-
ence to Christ, and thus paraphrase the passage : " Confessedly
important is the gracious dispensation of the gospel, the doctrine
according to godliness, which was revealed to us by a man of
sorrows, and acquainted with grief, which was shewn to be of di-
vine origin by the attestation of the Spirit, which was viewed
with astonishment and delight by those who were authorised to
communicate it to others, which was preached among the Gen-
tiles, was believed on in the world at large ; was gloriously re-
ceived by multitudes, in every region where the sound of the
gospel was heard." CSee Dr. Carpenter's Unitarianism the
Doctrine of the Gospel.) Whoever can explain Scripture in
this way, may certainly extract any meaning out of any passage.
He may safely affix to it v/hatever interpretation his fancy may
suggest or his prejudices propose. He will be in little danger of
being attacked by others, because all sensible and sober-minded
men will look on him with compassion, marvelling at his blind-
ness and perversity of mind. In our received English version
there appears to be something wanting, for which it is difficult to
account. We naturally expect something after the word " truth."
"These things I write unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly ;
but, if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to
behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the
living God, the pillar and ground of the truth ;' here we would
expect some such thing as this, I inform you, I give you these in-
structions, for certainly the and, which begins the 16th verse,
appears awkward. To unite the clause, that thou mayest know,
&c. with the preceding, " These things I write unto thee," does
not seem to me appropriate or correct. We adopt, therefore,
Griesbach's punctuation, and put a stop after ^w!^-o;. " But if
I tarry long, thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave
thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living
God." Then follows the 16th verse, " The pillar and ground of
truth, and confessedly great is the mystery of godliness : God

160 DISPUTED PORTIONS LFXT. XlV.

was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit," &c. &c. Accord-
mg to this translation, the mystery of godliness is said to be the
pillar and ground of the truth, and confessedly great. The
Apostle states that he writes those pastoral instructions contain-
ed in the preceding part of the chapter, hoping to come shortly
unto Timothy. But, says he, if I tarry long, that thou mayest
know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God,
which is the church of the living God, I write further concerning
the incarnation, &c. &c. I am aware that Origen connects " the
pillar and ground of the truth," with " the church of the living God,"
no less than five times in his writings ; but I also know that he
was frequently a loose expositor of Scripture. I can see^ therefore,
no valid objections to this connnection of the words. Dr. Bloom-
field, indeed, in his edition of the Greek Testament, (^d edition),
a work of great industry, learning and research, objects to this
construction, as involving " an anticlimax no where found in
Scripture, and very rarely in any writer of credit ;" but the anti-
climax is merely in his own imagination, and has no actual ex-
istence. With deference to his judgment, I must differ from hira
in this opinion. Some expositors, as Dr. Hales, refer the pillar
and ground of the truth to Timothy himself, but we reject this
interpretation, and adhere to that given in our authorised trans-
lation. The words sdixutdodri b TV£u,aar/ are often explained of the
Holy Spirit, by whom Christ is said to have been justified at his
baptism, or, according to others, at his resurrection. The term
crvsD/xa, however, in this passage, means Christ's divine nature, as
contrasted with aa^^yJ, flesh, preceding. The same contrast be-
tween cvsD/xa and (ra^J, is found in Romans i. 3, 4, and in I Peter
iii. 18. Christ came as a public representative, invested with the
mediatorial office. Now, an office implies responsibility ; and,
when Christ fulfilled all the responsibilities of his office, he was
justified. It was by the clignity of his divine nature that he was
able to atone for sin, and to render entire obedience to all the spi-
ritual commands of God. When he performed all the duties of
the office he assumed, he was jmtified.

In reference to the Arian hypothesis, this place can scarcely
be urged as decisive against it, unless in connection with others.
Arians do not deny, that the title God is given to Jesus Christ
in the New Testament, though they are far from thinking him to
be true or supreme God. His manifestation in the flesh has, ac-
cordingly, been sometimes explained by them of the Word or I.o-

LECT. XIV. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 161

gos^ uniting himself to the man Christ Jesus, and supplying in
him the place of a human soul. If "^iCg be interpreted of a divine
nature simply, as some take it, it is easy, say they, to perceive
how a divine nature was exhibited by Jesus in the precepts he de-
livered, the actions he performed, the pure doctrines he inculcated,
and the patience in suffering he evinced. Such is the way in
which some Arians reason, and to refute them from the present
reading %.6g is difficult. Other considerations must be urged
against them ; for I cannot see that %M is of overwhelming
weight, in opposition to their particular opinions. It is certainly
of use in establishing such as are already convinced of the truth
of the incarnation, and requires some distortion and ingenious
subtilty to turn it aside from its full import and bearing. Still,
too much stress has been laid on it by the orthodox, as if it were
alone sufficient to settle the Unitarian controversy.

M

LECTURE XV.

DISPUTED PORTIONS OF THE NEW TESTAxMENT CONTINUED.

Another passage of a similar kind to the preceding is the nar-
rative of the woman taken in adultery contained in the 8th chap-
ter of John's gospel, from the 1st to the 1 1th verse. The disputed
part begins with the 52d verse of the 7th chapter, and terminates
with the 11th verse of the 8th chapter. By many this portion is
rejected as spurious, while to some it appears of doubtful autho-
rity. Others on the contrary have been anxious to prove its ge-
nuineness, and to defend it against the objections with which it
has been assailed. It is unnecessary for me to give you a list of
the names that are ranged on both sides of the question. There
is no lack of learning and talent either in impugning its autho-
rity or in establishing its integrity. But the controversy is not to
be decided by names however great or eminent. Waiving
therefore all preliminary observations respecting the persons who
have endeavoured to establish its authenticity, or to throw discre-
dit on the truth of the narrative, I shall proceed at once to detail
the arguments advanced both for and against it. These may be
divided into external and internal, to each of which we purpose
to turn your attention.

Firsts The External arguments.

1st. It is alleged that the story is omitted in the best MSS.,
A, B, C, L, T, X, A. In some it is marked with asterisks, in
others with obeli, as suspicious. Some have it at the end of the
gospel, others insert it in the 7th chapter after the 36th verse ;
and in one or two it is placed at the end of the 21st chapter of the
Gospel by Luke. And although the story is found in MSS. D,
G, H, K, M, U, yet these are not so ancient or excellent as
those that want it. D, which is highly esteemed by many as if
it were both ancient and valuable, has frequently apocryphal ad-
ditions. As to the other MSS. in which it is found, though it is
admitted that they are uncial, yet it is said that they belong to
the Constantinopolitan recension, and that they are disfigured
with several junior readings. In answer to this argument from

LECT. XV. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 163

MSS. it may be affirmed, that if we look merely to their number
we will not be at a loss to decide in favour of the authenticity
of the passage. By far the greater number contain the para-
graph in question. Numbers alone, however, are not to be taken
apart from their antiquity, excellence, and value. In reference
to the uncial MSS., which have been quoted as omitting the
section, it may be remarked, that A ought not to be reckoned,
because it is defective from John vi. 50 to viii. 42. Wetstein
indeed endeavoured to compute the number of lines which the
lost leaves would have contained, compared with the number
in the rest, yet this is a very uncertain mode of arriving at any
definite conclusion. It is impossible to ascertain the contents
of the lost leaves — nothing more than a conjecture can be formed
respecting the number of lines they contained. C is mutilated
from John vii. 3 to viii. 34. It is evident therefore that A and C
must be left out of the list of MSS. that omit the narrative.
There remain B, L, T, X, A, which are fairly adduced as omit-
ting the section, and which are ancient and excellent MSS.
Against these we have on the other side D, which is of great
antiquity. Paulus indeed alleges that it contains apocryphal ad-
ditions, yet it has none to be compared in length with the pre-
sent passage. With regard to K and M, it may be observed that
the circumstance of their belonging to the Constantinopolitan
family mentioned by Griesbach in disparagement of them is not
certainly adverse to their goodness, for it is not yet indubitably
established that the Eastern recension is inferior to the Alexan-
drine. Thus we have the consent both of the Western or Afri-
can recension, and of the Asiatic, (which two families comprise
according to Scholz all MSS.) in favour of the authenticity of the
section. The MSS. marked with an obelus cannot be fairly
numbered among those who reject the passage. It is not an
index of omission, but of doubt, denoting that the transcriber
found the place to which he affixed the sign in some MSS., and
not in others. Neither are the MSS. which place the narrative
at the end of the gospel to be numbered with those that wholly
omit it. Of the MSS. which insert it in a different place from
that in which it now stands we are merely to conclude that their
transcribers having found it in the codices from which they
copied either at the end of the gospel, or in the margin, igno-
rantly inserted it in an improper place. And whereas it is found
in four MSS. at the end of the 21st chapter of Luke, it seems to

\

164 DISPUTED PORTIONS LECT. XV,

have been read after this portion of Luke in some churches. The
writers of MSS. that have left here an open space, although it
may be too small to contain the section, shew by this circum-
stance, that they were acquainted with the passage, and found it
in some copies, though they thought fit to reject it.

If we next consider the testimony of ancient versions the mat-
ter cannot be decided by means of their single evidence. Some
very ancient versions have the section, such as the Coptic, ^thi-
opic, and Vetus Itala ; while others, such as the Peshito or old
Syriac, omit it. There are more, however, that have the sec-
tion than omit it, and the authority of versions is, on the whole,
in favour of its authenticity.

Next we have to refer to the testimony of the Fathers, who had
in their hands the most ancient MSS. The greater number of
them omit all mention of it, whilst others speak doubtfully. It
is omitted by Origen, ApoUinaris, Theodore of Mopsuesta,
Cyril of Alexandria, Crysostom, Basil, Cosmas, Nonnus, Theo-
phylact catenae editions and MSS., TertuUian, Cyprian, and
Juvencus. Eutliymius, a writer of the eleventh century, in his
annotations on this place, remarks, that he did not find the pas-
sage in the greater number as well as in the most important of
MSS., and that he looked upon it as very suspicious. In answer
to this argument derived from the testimony of the fathers, it has
been observed, that it is found in Tatian in his work entitled
Harmony of the Four Gospels. In the work called the apostolical
constitutions written by an eastern bishop about the end of the
third century mention is made of the story. It is also noticed by
Ambrose, and by Jerome who thus writes, " In the Gospel ac-
cording to John, the story relating to the adulteress who was ac-
cused before our Lord, is found in many MSS- both Greek and
Latin." Augustine is also quoted in favour of the passage. To
these may be added Sedulius, Leo, Chrysologus, Cassiodorus,
and Gelasius 1st. The notes of the Greek scholiasts also relate
that the paragraph existed in ancient copies. Now it cannot
surely be alleged with the least show of probability, that all of
these ancient writers had in their hands such copies only as were
corrupted by later additions. Who shall assert that the MSS.
which they used, and in which they found the passage in ques-
tion, were without exception adulterated and interpolated copies ?
In reference to the long list of fathers above cited, as making
no mention of the place, we observe that it is unfair to name such

I.FXT. XV. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 165

as were not led in their writings to mention or explain the sec-
tion. No valid argument against its genuineness can be drawn
from their silence, unless the occasion naturally brought the words
before them. Unless it was needful to cite or to refer to it in
their writings, it is unjust to adduce any of the fathers as evidence
for its omission in their copies. By this observation, TertuUian,
Cyprian, Juvencus, and Basil, ought not to be included among
those who either knew nothing of the passage, or rejected it as
spurious. Granville Penn, however, argues " that the passage
was wholly unknown to TertuUian at the end of the second cen-
tury, as is manifest in his book Ule Padlcitia' The bishop of Rome
had issued an edict, granting pardon to the crime of adultery on
repentance. This new assumption of power fired the indignation
of TertuUian, w^ho thus apostrophized him : — " Audio edictum
esse propositum et quidem peremptorium, ' pontifex scilicet
maximus, episcopus episcoporum dicit : Ego et moechiae et form-
cationis delicta, poenitentia functis, dimitto' (c. i.) He then
breaks out in terms of the highest reprobation against that inva-
sion of the divine prerogative ; and (in c. 6) thus challenges —
*' Si ostendas de quibus patrociniis exemphrum praeceptorumque
coelesthtyn, soli moechiae, et in ea fornicationi quoque, januampoe-
nitentiae expandas, ad hancjam litieam dimicabit nostra congres-
sio." — " If thou canst shew me by what authority of heavenly
examples OY precepts, thou openest a door for penitence to adultery
alone, and therein to fornication, our controversy shall be disput-
ed on ^/m^ ^roz^/«(^." And he concludes with asserting, " Quae-
cunque auctoritas, quaecunque ratio, moecho et fornicatori pacem
ecclesiasticam reddit, eadem debebit et homicidae et idolatriae
poenitentibus subvenire. — Whatever authority, whatever consi-
deration restores the peace of the church to the adulterer ?a\di for-
nicator, ought to come to the relief of those who repent of mur-
der or idolatry.'' It is manifest, therefore, that the copies of St.
John with which TertuUian was acquainted did not contain the
" exemplum coeleste — the divine example ^ devised in the story of
the " woman taken in adultery'' — (Annotations to the Book of the
New Covenant, pp. 267-8.) As to Origen, it is weU known that
his commentary on John has descended to us in a very imperfect
and mutilated state ; and if it be argued from his silence that he
rejected the narrative as not genuine, it may with equal force and
truth be affirmed that the fifth, sixth, and seventh chapters of John's
gospel are spurious, because he omits'all mention of them in his

\Q-6 DISPUTED PORTIONS I.ECT. XV.

exposition of the gospel. Neither can it be inferred from the
silence of Chrysostom, that the passage was wanting in the An-
tiochian copies ; for it may be supposed that the religious orator
did not consider it prudent or proper to expound this history to a
people, who, as appears from his sermons, were addicted to adul-
tery. Besides, Chrysostom has omitted other places of John's
gospel in his homilies. The same may be said of Nonnus, who
has not only passed over in silence this section, but other places
also whose genuineness has never been questioned. It is argued
by the opponents of the paragraph that if it was a genuine part
of John's gospel, it was omitted in so many MSS. either by acci-
dent or design. That it was lost by accident is altogether im-
probable. The only reason then why it could have been omitted
was the fear of affording an excuse for the crime of adultery.
But this is contrary to the genius and character of the ancient
writers in general. It is therefore supposed to have been taken
and inserted from some apocryphal gospel. Some have thought
that it was derived from the " gospel according to the Hebrews,"
because it is stated in Eusebius that Papias put forth a story
which is contained in the " Gospel according to the Hebrews,"
of a woman who was accused before the Lord of many sins. It
is doubtful, however, whether the woman, whose history accord-
ing to Papias, was related in the " Gospel according to the He-
brews," be the same with the woman mentioned by John — nay, it
would rather seem that they were different women, from the cir-
cumstance that the one is said to have been accused of many
sins, the other of the sole crime of adultery. In short, as has
been observed by Staeudlin, no probable reason can be assigned
for the introduction of the narrative into the text, while several
causes may be adduced for its omission. The ancient writers
found many inextricable difficulties in the story. 1 hey found in
it something which they could not reconcile with the wisdom of
Jesus. They stumbled especially at the circumstance that Jesus
did not in their opinion condemn the adulteress ; or they were
afraid that others inferring from thence the impunity of the crime
should take occasion to transgress in the same manner. They
were unwilling therefore that it should be read in ecclesiastical
assemblies, and they omitted it in the lectionaries. Owing to the
same cause, the fathers chose to pass it over in silence in their
homilies. Hence it has been inferred that it was not in their
MSS. That the section was omitted for these reasons, is evi-

LECT. XV. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 167

dent from Ambrose's second apology for David, and from Augus-
tine against Faustus. Those who contend that it was taken from
the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or from some other unknown
and apocryphal gospel, ought to assign a reason for its occupying
the place which it now does in most MSS. This they are un-
able to do. It is alleged that the great variety of readings
throws an air of suspicion over the story. But none of the va-
rious readings makes any change in the narrative itself, so as to
add to its credibility. The causes of the variety are as difficult
to be explained by the impugners of the passage, as by the sup-
porters of its authenticity. Some endeavour to account for the
multitude of variations in the text by the circumstance, that the
story was at first written in Hebrew in the Gospel according to
the Hebrews ; and that the greater part of the various readings
arose from the different Greek translations. This, however, is
mere conjecture. Nothing certain can be affirmed on the subject.
It is indubitable, however, that the multitude of various readings
does not prove that the passage itself is spurious.

Such is a brief view of the external arguments for and against
the passage.

We come now to the internal. It is said that the story is im-
probable, 1st, Because it is not easy to see how the pharisees
and lawyers, who had taken counsel to slay Jesus, and had sent
officers to apprehend him, could propose to him so honourable a
question concerning their law — a question which exalted to the
rank of judge, one whom they looked upon as a private person.
When they propose at other times an interrogation to Christ,
they either themselves assume the character of judges, as in Mat-
thew xxi. 23, or they send their disciples, xxii. 16, or one indi-
vidual puts the question, xxii. 35th verse. In answer to this it
may be observed, that those who interrogated Jesus on the pre-
sent occasion were not judges and magistrates, at least they did
not appear as such — neither are they called chief priests and
pharisees as in John vii. 45, but scribes and pharisees. They
were private persons who appeared as w^itnesses and accusers, for
Jesus says, let him who is without fault among you throw the
first stone at her, which was the duty of the witnesses. (Com-
pare Deuteron. xiii. 10; xvii. 7; John vii. 25) As for the
honourable question proposed to our Lord by which they consti-
tuted him a judge, it is manifest that their design was not to honour
but to insult him. They watched for an opportunity of ensnaring

168 DISPUTED PORTION'S LFXT. XV.

Lim, seizing upon the present as one vvliich tliey imagined would
be conducive to their base and sinister purposes. They wanted to
tempt him, that they might find cause of accusation against him.

2d. It appears improbable in the view of some, that the crime
should have been committed at the end of the festival; and that
the pharisees, who were scrupulously observant of ceremony,
should have brought the woman into the court of the temple at
this time. The weakness of this argument is apparent. The
feast, and the number of people brought together for its celebra-
tion, might very naturally furnish occasion to the crime. The
scene and the assembly were both favourable to its commission.
Besides, it does not appear that the process was instituted against
the woman during the feast of tabernacles. From a comparison
of several passages it is inferred that the event took place after
the festival, i,e, on the day succeeding the eighth. (Compare
vii. 37, 53, viii. 1, 2.) If this opinion be correct, it is easy to see
that the accusation of the woman took place the day after the
feast, and not during its continuance. But even though we
should admit that this transaction happened on the eighth day, the
day of holy convocation, it does not follow that the Pharisees
would not have brought the woman into the court of the temple.
Their hatred of Jesus led them to disregard every other conside-
ration, and to overlook circumstances to which on ordinary oc-
casions they would have strictly attended It appears from
Kumbers xv. 34, that it was lawful to apprehend one on the Sab-
bath day.

3d. The interrogation, it is said, proposed to Jesus, was by no
means captious. He had never contradicted the Mosaic law —
he had merely rejected the traditions of the Pharisees, whilst it

as declared by him publicly that the tendency of his doctrine
was not to abrogate the Mosaic law. (Matthew v. 17.) He
might therefore have considered that he came as a teacher, not
to abrogate the Mosaic law, but to establish it. If then he had
approved of the Mosaic law respecting the stoning of the adulter-
ess— if he had said that an adulteress, according to the laws of
Moses should be punished with death, with the concurrence
at the same time of the Roman procurator, (Matthew xxvi. QQ),
hewould have had nothing to fear either from the Romans or the
Jews. To this objection various answers have been given. The
want of captiousness in the question it is much easier to assert than
to prove. We are chiefly to look to the intentions and designs of

LECT, XV. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 169

those who brought the woman before our Lord. Much of the in-
quiry depends on the opinion which they had of the probable an-
swer that Jesus would give. It matters little whether Jesus might
be able to give such an answer as would have subjected him to no
blame or accusation — whether he might have spoken words of
wisdom so as to offend neither the Romans nor the Jews — it mat-
ters little whether we may discover for him an answer by which
he would have evaded the artifices of his enemies, and completely
silenced their cavils ; the turning point of the argument is, whe-
ther the woman's accusers expected that Jesus might probably
give such an answer to the interrogation, as to furnish just
ground for arraigning him before the authorities of the land.
And is it not most reasonable to suppose that the Scribes and
Pharisees, actuated as they were by unceasing animosity against
him, conceived that there was now an opportunity favourable to
the gratification of their malignant passions ? There is no rea-
son to believe that they had, in this single instance, departed
from their usual course — that they had laid aside their malice
toward Christ — that they had renounced all opposition to his
person and preaching, desiring to do him honour. If the ques-
tion was not a captious one, what could have been their object
in proposing it ? It could not have been to get information,
since in bringing the woman before our Lord they stated that
Moses in the law commanded that she should be stoned. They
must have thought that our Saviour's opinion would not in every
respect coincide with the sentence of their law ; or that he, in in-
terfering with the decision of the case, would infringe upon the pre-
rogatives of others. We are not warranted to devise modes in
which Christ might have answered the Pharisees — modes, which
as we conceive would have freed him from all fear of offending
either Jews or Romans, and then infer from them that the ques-
tion was not a captious one. All depends on the expectation of
the Pharisees themselves, on the hope they had respecting the an-
swer of Jesus.

Much has been said about the character of the persons who
appeared as the woman's accusers. It has been debated whether
they were zealots or not, but it is a point, in my opinion, of no
moment. It is altogether a matter of conjecture, not of cer-
tainty.

4. " The Pharisees, (verse 5), appeal to the law of Moses,
and say, that it is written therein, that the adulteress should be

170 DISPUTED PORTIONS LECT. XV.

stoned. This particular precept, however, is not found in the
Mosaic writings. In Levit. xx. 10, Deuteron. xxii. 22, the pun-
ishment of death is ordered, but the specific kind of death is not
mentioned. We are informed by the Mishna, that where the
law did not name the kind of punishment, the Rabbins directed
thdit strangulation ^\\o\x\Ahe u%e^. In Deuteronom. (xxii. 24) in-
deed, the punishment of stoning is denounced against an unfaith-
ful betrothed woman. But here it is not a sponsa but a ivife taken
in adultery. These lawyers therefore, of the sect of the phari-
sees, have spoken what can neither be reconciled with the Mosaic
law, norwMth the Rabbinical interpretation of it." In answer to
this argument, it may be stated that Michaelis has proved, that
in the passages of Leviticus and Deuteronomy quoted above,
stoning is to be understood by the punishment of death. So also
in Exodus xxxi. 14, xxxv. 2, the punishment of death is proclaim-
ed against the breaker of the Siibbath, whereas in Numbers xv.
32, 34, &c. the Sabbath-breaker is commanded to be stoned.
(Compare also Ezekiel xvi. S8, 40.) Besides, the authority of
the Mishna is of little weight in things relating to Jewish
customs anterior to the destruction of Jerusalem. The narrative
itself is of greater authority and age; whether we admit it to
have been written by John himself or not, since it was read by
several fathers of the church before the existence of the Mishna.
Nor is there any necessity for understanding the term yuvn in this
place, of a icije only. The word may mean a betrothed wonian^
against whom Moses in Deuteronomy denounced the punish-
ment of stoning. Mot-^zia too, is not restricted to matrimonial im-
purity, but is of a much more general signification. Hence Philo
calls the infidelity of a betrothed woman, a kind of adultery. Nor
was he peculiar in this opinion, although he says that others
reckoned it a crime intermediate between fornication and adul-
tery.

5th. " Jesus who, on other occasions, readily answered captious
questions, did now write with his finger, (though he was in no
danger, and the answer was easy), which signifies hesitation, and
a desire to take time for consideration." I cannot see the point
of this objection to the authenticity of the words. It is perfect-
ly nugatory to inquire whether Jesus wrote in the dust signifi-
cant characters, or figures devoid of meaning. What matters
such a thing to us ? and how puerile to speculate about it?
Perhaps he wrote nothing significant. It is certain, however.

LECT. XV. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 171

that he did not act thus from fear, or from anxiety to avoid an
answer. How inconsistent is it with all Scriptural sentiments
of his character and person to entertain the idea, that he shunned
an answer from timidity ! It was a custom among the Jews, when
unpleasant matters were brought forward, to which '^hey wanted
to reply neither in the affirmative nor negative, to write some-
thing, as if they were otherwise engaged. Jesus therefore did
not refuse to give an answer to his interrogators from timidity
and hesitation ; but he wished to shew them, that they were not
regarded by him as deserving of a reply ; and moreover, that he
had nothing to do with this civil cause. He would not interfere
as a legislator or judge.

6. " The reply of Christ, (v. 7), " he that is without sin among
you, let him first cast a stone at her," is unsuitable. For it is
not necessary that a witness or an accuser should be free from sin ;
it is sufficient for him to shew by solid arguments, that the crime
of which he accuses another has been actually committed.'* In
answer to this argument, I will not say with many, that the words
of Christ refer to similar sin, viz. to adultery and fornication, but
to freedom from every kind of sin. I understand them to mean
all kinds of transgression. But it is manifest, that Christ did not
design by these words to prescribe a rule to be observed in courts
of justice ; nor did he speak of the duty and office of a legitimate
judge or witness; but he declined to decide in the present mat-
ter with which he had nothing to do; and took occasion as a
teacher of morals to rebuke the Pharisees for their own sins. A
passage in Cicero against Verres, 3d Oration, may he quote 1 as
parallel. " Vis corruptorem aliquem vel adulterum accusare ?
providendum diiigenter ne in tua vita vestigium libidinis ^p-
pareat. Etenim non est ferendus accusator qui quod in altero
vitium reprehendit in eo ipso deprehenditur." " Would you ac-
cuse a seducer or adulterer? you ought carefully to consider
beforehand, whether there be any trace of lust in your own life ;
for the accuser is not to be borne, who is himself found to com-
mit the very crime which he censures in anotaer."

7th. " It is not credible that all m4io had brought the adulteress,
especially that the pharisees of sanctimonious appearance
were adulterers ; and that they went away from a consciousness
of guilt, signifying by their departure that they were not innocent
of the crime." This objection rests on the supposition that when
our Saviour said, " he that is without sin among you, let him

^72 DISPUTED PORTIONS LFXT. XV.

first cast a stone at her," he meant a similar sin, viz. adultery.
This meaning I cannot allow of. It is quite improbable and
unnecessarily confined.

8. " It is not probable that Jesus was left alone with the woman
in the temple, (as we read in the 9th verse), both on account of
the celebrity of the temple, to which multitudes resorted, and
the curiosity of the people." To this it may be replied, that the
words of the 9th ver^e are spoken only of the loomaiCs accusers;
and that it was only in relation to them that Jesus was left alone.
It is not denied that others were present, for instance his dis-
ciples and hearers. It is manifest that Jesus was not left alln-
fjether alone, from the circumstance that the woman was' left
" standing in the midst," i.e. of the people who surrounded our
Lord.

9. '' If the case had been real, both parties would have been
brought for the judgment of our Lord. The law commanded
that both " the adidterer and adulteress shall surely be put to
death," (Lev. xx. 10), yet here, the woman only is accused.
And it cannot be alleged that the man was unknown or had elud-
ed justice, for it is pointedly stated that they * were taken in
the very act, ^ as in Numb. xxv. 8." (Penn's Annotations to the
New Covenant.) In answer to this plausible and ingenious argu-
ment it may be observed, that the intention of the Pharisees in
brino-inp- the case before Christ was most deceitful and insidious.
Their zeal was not for the honour of the law of Moses, or rather
of the law of God ; but they wished to entrap the Saviour either
in his words or deeds. To maintain justice inviolate, and to re-
strain iniquity by the punishment of oifenders, was not the mo-
tive by which they were actuated ; but their cunning was di-
rected against the Redeemer, that they might have cause to ac-
cuse him. They wished to render him obnoxious to the Ro-
mans, if he decided that the woman should be put to death; or
to the Jews, if he decided otherwise. The accusers probably ima-
gined, that he would not condemn the woman — that his de-
cision would differ from that enjoined in the law of Moses.
Why then did they bring only one of the parties before him ?
This resulted from the object they had in view. They were
not actuated by zeal for the honour of their law, else they would
have brought both the culprits ; but they took occasion from the
case to tempt the Saviour, that they might possibly discover
some flaw in his character. They imagined that only one of the

LECT. XV. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 173

parties was sufficient for their purpose, and they chose the wo-
man. We cannot tell why they took the one, rather than the other ;
we can only conjecture the reason. Probably they wished to
bring Christ into collision with the law of Moses; and the de-
tention of the woman under the present circumstances, appeared
to them the best mean of effecting their object. In her case, the
Saviour might have inclined to the side of mercy; and thus they
would have had reason to charge him with opposition to the Mo-
saic law. But the Saviour prevented this by the manner in
which he smote their consciences. We believe therefore, that
the insidious intention of the Jews who presented themselves
as the accusers, is sufficient to account for the circumstance, that
only one of the parties was actually brought before Christ. It
was unnecessary for their purpose to bring both.

10. Those who look upon the paragraph as spurious, appeal to
the diversity of style. John's style, say they, is simple, whereas
this is more ornate. It is difficult, if not impossible, to perceive in
what the ornament of these verses consist ; or how it is greater
than that of some other places in the same gospel, particularly
the introduction.

Such is a summary of the internal arguments on both sides of
the question. It is not pretended to be set forth as containing
all the single objections that have been urged by individuals
against the authenticity of the section. I have given, however,
the principal arguments on both sides, omitting a very few that
do not deserve mention. Indeed many may think that several
others might have been passed over without detriment to the
disquisition, because they are both puerile and weak. This is
admitted ; but when learned men advance such arguments, it is
necessary to follow them with a refutation into all their sinuous
ingenuities. To Kuinoel I have been principally indebted for
the outline, and to him those desirous of more minute informa-
tion may have recourse.

My opinion of the whole case is this, that internal evidence
can never be satisfactorily shewn to decide against the passage.
How is it to be supposed that Papias, who is generally said to
have introduced the passage, could have foisted it into so many
copies ? That it might have been found in a few is probable,
but with what plausibility can it be maintained that by far the
greater number of MSS. should contain it ? In my opinion, the
length of the passage is a strong presumption in favour of its au-

174 DISPUTED PORTIONS, &C- LECT. XV.

thenticity. We can easily conceive it possible or even probable,
that a few words, or a verse, might have been occasionally in-
serted in the sacred text ; but that so long a story could have
been foisted into so many copies, is quite improbable. The
length of the paragraph speaks loudly against its spuriousness.
And we can assign a probable reason for its omission in so many
ancient copies, viz. the unfounded apprehension lest the leniency
of the Saviour to the criminal should be misconstrued, as afford-
ing encouragement to her sin. To this cause, v/e are warranted,
by the authority of Augustine and Ambrose, to attribute the
omission. Jesus, however, distinctly charged her with sin when
he addressed her in the words, " go in peace and sin no more.'*
The great body of external evidence is decidedly in favour of the
authenticity of the verses. According to Scholz they are found
in 295 MSS. and six evangelisteria. In 40 others they are mark-
ed with an obelus, in 15 with an asterisk, and in eight they are
placed at the end of the gospel. Against the passage are 96 MSS.
and 32 evangelisteria. Thus am I justified in asserting that the
external evidence is decidedly in its favour. This follows not
merely from the number of the MSS. but also from the value and
antiquity of at least a part. After weighing, therefore, all the
evidences, I think that the section should be retained as part of
the text. Both Griesbach and Scholz have allowed it to conti-
nue undisturbed, though the former was by no means partial to
the textus receptus.

LECTURE XVL

DISPUTED PORTIONS OF NEW TESTAMENT CONTINUED.

The next disputed text that comes under consideration is Acts
XX. 28, a passage perplexed with variations. The readino-g
amount to six, viz. 1. r^; szxXyiffiav rod ^soD, the church of God. 2.
riv h'/,Xr}6/av rov '/.uoiov, the church of the Lord. 3. rr^v sKxArifflav rou
KVPiov y-ai ^soD, the church of the Lord and God. 4. rriv UxXYiGiav
xv^iou dsov, the church of the Lord God. 5. rriv kxXjjff/ay hov xa}
Tivolov, the church of the God and Lord. 6. rriv sy.-/.Xr}(j!a'j Xpigtov, the
church of Christ.

Let us examine the testimonies in favour of each, beginning-
with the external evidence for rou koZ.

\. It is said to be supported by the Vatican MS. B, a most an-
cient and valuable document; by ten others; and, as far as can be
judged from the silence of such as collated them, by nine besides,
in addition to a lectionary. With respect to B, it has been
much disputed whether it reads "^iou or kvpIov. Griesbach affirm-
ed that it had the latter — Birch, Wagstaffe, and Ford, the form-
er. It is well known, however, that Dr. Birch who collated B,
did not venture to pronounce with certainty on the reading of it
in this place. " Pro certo pronunciare non ausim quid in codice
nostro scriptum reperiatur." (See London edition of Griesbach,
vol. ii. p. 116.) It is quite evident that the codex now reads
Ssoy, but the question is, was this the original writing? It has
been found that there are vestiges of xj^/oy beneath Ssou, and
hence it is inferred that the latter reading has been written
over the former. The probability is thus in favour of Kv^k-j as
the primitive reading of B, though Scholz quotes the MS. with-
out hesitation or remark, for ^soCf.

The evidence from MSS. then, in favour of ro\J hcv, resolves
itself into ten Constantinopolitan copies comparatively recent,
with ten others probably.

'2. Of ancient versions it is supported by the Vulgate, the

176 DISPUTED PORTIONS LECT. XVf.

Harclean Syriac in the text, and a Syriac lectionary in the Vati^
can, of the 1 1th century. The ^thiopic is ambiguous.

3. Among the Fathers, the same reading is sanctioned by Ig-
natius, for he employs the phrase a/fta Osov in his epistle to the
Ephesians. But in another recension of the same epistle it is
X^KTrov. Tertullian has the same phrase, v.s also Joannes Dam-
ascenus, Theophylact, Leon tins, and others, eeou is quoted by
Athanasius, Basil, Epiphanius, Chrysostom three times, Ambrose,
Antiochus, Oecumenius, Ibas, by Pope Celestine (a. d. 422) who
cites the Vulgate, as also Fulgentius (464) and his contemporary
Ferrand. Pope Martin, in a council held at Rome (650) recites
the received reading; the venerable Bede and Etherius have the
same also. We are not certain, however of the testimony of
many of these writers, since in different works, and even in dif-
ferent parts of the same production, they countenance different
readings. Such is the external evidence in favour of rov dsov.

The second reading rov ku^Iov is supported by 17 MSS., four of
which are the most ancient and valuable copies at present known,
viz. A, C, D, E, the rest are more modern.

2d. It is found in the Coptic, Sahidic, Harclean Syriac in the
margin, the Armenian, and the old Italic, as in the Cambridge
MS. and published by Sabatier.

The iEthiopic, as we have already said, is ambiguous, for it
uses the same word whether Tcvoiog or ^iog be in the Greek text.
Griesbach, whose words are copied by Scholz, thinks that it read
'Av^iov, from its affinity to the Armenian and Coptic versions.

3d. It is quoted by the following Fathers : Irenseus, Euse-
bius, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Ammonius, Maximus, Antonius,
Ibas, Lucifer, Jerome, Augustine, Theodoret, Sedulius, Alcimus,
Didymus, and Theophylact. The second council of Carthage
has the same, (but in the Greek it reads ^^oC). The apostolical
constitutions are also favourable to this reading.

Such is the external evidence for rou xvpm.

The third reading rov kvpiov zal Siou is supported by the follow-
ing testimonies :

1. It is found in 96 MSS. and several lectionaries: but only
two of these codices are of considerable antiquity, viz. G, H-

2. The Slavonic version is the only one which favours it.

3. It is supported by none of the fathers before Theophylact.
In his commentaries, however, he reads ^iov. It appears likewise
in the Complutensian and Plantin editions.

LECT. XVI. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 177

The fourth re.icling, viz. z-j^lov dsov or roC ho^, nf the Lord God,
is supported in the former shape, by two junior MSS. and the
Arabic version of the Polyglott — in the latter by the Georgian
version.

The fifth reading ^io\) xal kvpiov is found in one MS.
The sixth reading xpiffrou, of Christy is found in the old Syriac,
the Arabic of Erpenius, in Origen probably^ Athanasius, Theo-
doret, Ignatius, Basil, and in Fulgentius. Most, however, if not
all of these ecclesiastical writers support some of the other read-
ings. Hence they can hardly be regarded as witnesses for the
present one.

From this summary of the external evidence for all the read-
ings in this place, it appears, y?r5^, that as far as regards the tes-
timony of MSS. rou x-j^io-j is decidedly best supported. 2d. With
respect to the versions, they certainly favour most the same read-
ing. The Harclean and Vulgate only, support the Jirst, but
some old MSS. of the latter translation have Lord (xug/oy.)

3^. The testimony of the fathers and other ecclesiastical wri-
ters is so contradictory and uncertain, that it is extremely diffi-
cult to determine on which side the preponderance of their evi-
dence lies. A passage in Athanasius has been quoted as bear-
ing on the present text. Griesbach in his note says, that Atha-
nasius, (contra Apollinarium), denied that the expression 5//xa
^£oD the blood of God, occurs in Scripture. In a note to the
" Improved Version," it is also said that '* the expression the
blood of God, is rejected with'horror by Athanasius, as an inven-
tion of the Arians," and Mr. Belsham, in his Calm Inquiri/,
writes thus, " Our Scriptures, says Athanasius, no where men-
tion the blood of God. Such impudent expressions are only
used by Arians." Belsham gives the original words of Athanasius
in this form, 'Ouda,/xo6 ds a//xa dcou xad' ^/xa; rrapahb'Sjy.aei at ypa(pa/.
Aoiidvm TO. roidixjra ToXiMrjixara, for which he refers to Wetstein.
But instead of taking the words from Wetstein he ought to have
consulted Athanasius himself. Wetstein is here guilty of a gross
perversion of the words of Athanasius ; and he is implicitly fol-
lowed both by Griesbach and Belsham. He inserted jca^' rn^a',
of his own, and left out the important words hr/a. caoyM- The
words of Athanasius are these, -OvdafMov ds aifia, hoO h'lyjt caoxb;
ira^ahhuxaci ai y^a(paiYikh hlyjx ffapxag Tudovra %a) dva^Tavrcc. ' A^ndv-
uv rd ro/aura roX/xTj/Mara. " The Scriptures no where speak of the
blood of God without flesh, (i. e. without adding something which

N

178 DISPUTED POIIT.'ONS LECT. XVI.

implies the incarnation of God), nor of God suffering and rising
again without flesh. Such are the daring expressions of Arians."
The work of Athanasius from which these words are taken was
written against the Apollinarians, who held that God, not as un-
ited to man. hut in Ids own mimixed essential deity, suffered and
died on the cross. Athanasius therefore asserts that the Scrip-
tures never speak of Christ suffering as God, without mention-
ing or implying his human nature; and in the very next sen-
tence he goes on to say, " but the Holy Scriptures speaking of
God in the flesh, and of the flesh of God when he became man,
do mention the blood, and sufferings, and resurrection of the body
of God.'' (See Burton's Testimonies of the Ante-nicene Fathers
to the Divinity of Christ.)

We come, in the next place, to consider the internal evidence.
1^^. It is alleged that the phrase sxTiXyiaiu hoZ is often found in the
New Testament. It occurs in ten places of St. Paul's epistles ;
viz. 1 Cor. i. 2, 1 Cor. x. 32, xi. 16, 22, xv. 9 ; 2 Cor. i. 1 ; Gal.
i. 13 ; 1 Thessal. ii. 14 ; 2 Thessal. i. 4 ; 1 Timothy iii. 5. On the
contrary, the phrase IxxXYicia rov xu^iov occurs no where in the New
Testament. To this, it may be replied in the words of Dr. 01s-
hausen of Koenigsberg, as translated by Dr. J. Pye Smith :
" Transcribers would be likely to prefer the more known expres-
sion, to that which was quite unusual, without reflecting upon
the following word the blood. That this connexion of God
and blood is not in the style of the apostles is very plain ; for
similar expressions are nowhere found in the New Testament."
(Biblischer Comm. N.T. vol. 2, and Scripture Testimony, vol.
3, p. 65.) 2d. Michselis says that *' ^sou is probably the true read-
ing, and all the others are to be considered as corrections or
scholia, because ^toD might easily give occasion to any of these,
whereas none could so easily give occasion to ^iou. If Saint Luke
wrote ^gou, the origin o^y.vpiov and Xptffrou may be explained, either
as corrections of the text, or as marginal notes ; because the
blood of God is a very extraordinary expression : but if he had
written xupiou it is inconceivable how any one should alter it into
^£oD; and on this latter supposition the great number of different
readings is inexplicable. It seems as if different transcribers
had found a difficulty in the passage, and that each corrected ac-
cording to his own judgment." On the other hand, it is not
difficult to point out the method in which OeoD might have arisen
from xvpiou. Transcribers of MSS. were familiar with h-K7,ma

Li:CT. XVi. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 179

rr.o Osc\) from its frequent occurrence in the Now Testament.
Hence tliey might have altered the unusual into the common
expression. But not only can we account for Srou from xv^tov
but also for the other readings. Such as are compound origi-
ginated from the combination of xug/oy and ^soD. Xoisov "was pro-
bably," says Dr. Smith, " a designed explication."

On the whole, I am inclined to adopt tou zv^iov as the probable
reading. It is best supported by external evidence ; and the in-
ternal is at least equally strong with that for tov hov. The most
ancient and valuable MSS. lead us to conclude, that it is the
genuine phrase. ToD '^cc^ is only supported by junior copies,
which is sufficient in Dr. Scholz's judgment to establish its claims
to precedence, provided such documents belong to the Constan-
tinopolitan recension. It is strange, that in this place he should
have rejected zviiov zc/J '^sou, which is evidently the readino- of his
favourite family of MSS. Surely he has departed from his own
princij){es, by retaining rov hou in the text. Griesbach, Lach-
mann, and most of the critical editors appear to me to have right-
ly put ro\j z-jm\j instead of roD ^joj in the text.

We shall now make a few remarks on the interpretation of this
passage. And, first, we may state that we are unable to perceive
the reason why so many have strenuously contended against the
second reading, as if it favoured Unitarian opinions. The whole
meaning of the passage does not turn on the mere word ^ioZ or
xvokv, but on dtcc rou /d/'ov al/iarog. This is manifest from the Ra-
covian Catechism, where the force of the adjective 7diov is con-
cealed, because the strength of the argument lies especially in it.
Mr. Wakefield advocates rouOsov, and calls Griesbach's testimony
respecting the ^thiopic version, infamoiidy false. Dr. Hales,
therefore, has been unnecessarily solicitous to establish roi> Qio^i,
as if this reading alone could rescue the passage out of Unitarian
hands. We are not surprised to find the words hia rov Ihlo-j
aiixo(.TQg translated by Unitarians differently from our received ver-
sion. But on turning to Penn's " Book of the New Covenant, '
we were not a little astonished to read the translation there given
'* to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with the
blood of his own Sow." (p. 252.) In his note to this passage, he
says that the Vatican, and all the most ancient MSS., the
Coptic version, and Irenaeus, read biu -oD aj;xaroc, rov Jd/ou with
the blood of his oicn, not as the later copies have changed
the order, diurovlo/ou a'i/j.arc; with his own blood. " As it is St.

180 DISPUTED PORTIONS LECT. XVI.

Paul that is speaking, " continues he, " we have no difficulty in
supplying the noun emphatically implied by roD Jdiov. In his
epistle to the Romans viii. 32, he says, " He who spared not his
own Son but delivered him up for us all,'' that is, purchased or ac-
quired us by the blood of his own Son ; and so here, in his address
to the Ephesian disciples." Both Griesbach and Scholz have
adopted into their texts the reading advocated in this note, and
we believe that it is best supported by authority. But so far
from its having a different signification from the junior Greek
reading, it is identical with it in meaning. The two phrases per-
fectly correspond. When the adjective in immediate concord
with the substantive is placed after it, both have the article.
But w^hen the adjective is -pxxi first, it is necessary to prefix the
article to it alone. This rule is always followed in the Greek
Testament, and generally in the Septuagint. But Mr. Penn,
ignorant of such usage, or disregarding it entirely, affirms, that
the meaning of the two phrases is entirely different. The New-
Testament contradicts this statement. To aytov cri/su//a and rh
'TTvivixa rh ciyiov, equally signify the Holy Spirit; nor is any differ-
ence betw^een the meaning of the two phrases at all discernible.
On the contrary, they are equivalent. The passage quoted from
the epistle to the Romans contains the same sentiment, but the
•phraseology is different. Neither can any instance be produced
from the New Testament of so harsh and unusual an ellipsis as
u/ou, in such a position. It is just as absurd to supply such an
ellipsis in this phrase, as to interpret a/;aaroj son with Mr. Wake-
field. Both are contrary to the language of Scripture, and un-
warranted by the usus loqucndi. Surely Mr. Penn ought to have
known that the interpretation of the two phrases represented by
him as the respective readings of the more ancient and later ma-
nuscripts, is in reality the very same. The passage furnishes a
o'lorious attestation of the real sacrifice of Christ, which the op-
posers of his divinity have in vain endeavoured to corrupt and to
pervert. It stands forth, however, prominent to view in the sa-
cred volume, unshaken by the efforts directed against it.

The next p{;^ssage to which we purpose to direct your attention
is the last clause of the 13th verse of the 6th chapter of Mat-
thew's gospel, containing the Doxology of the Lord's Prayer,
OTi 60V sffT/v i] (SaffiXila xa! rj biiva/uc y.al tj do'^a h; rod; aicovac an.r,\i^ trans-
lated in the received version, " for thine is the kingdom, and the
power, and the glory ; for ever. Amen." The authenticity of

LECT. XVI. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. \8 1

these words has been much contested. By some they have been
discarded ; by others advocated with much ingenuity. Many
have been so long accustomed to regard them as a real part of
our Lord's Prayer, that they deem it impious to disturb them,
or to call in question their divine authority ; whilst others scruple
not to set them aside on the ground of substantial evidence.
Many have been influenced to retain the words, because they have
been lisped by them in infancy, under the fond teachings of a
mother, and repeated in their hours of prayer, with all the fervour
of holy feeling inspired by faith in Jesus. Hence they have be-
come so much associated with the communings of the soul, as well
as with the perusal of the word of God, that it is like the tearing
away of a limb to discard them without ceremony from the text
of the New Testament. But in this and all similar cases, we
must be guided simply by evidence ; and according as w^e find it
to preponderate, so must our decisions be. Preconceived opin-
ions and early associations must give way before the weight of
testimony ; for w^e must not allow them to bias our judgments in
matters of important truth. I shall give first, the external evi-
dence ; second, the internal.

In favour of the disputed clause, we find the following autho-
rities : —

1st. It is found in all the Greek MSS. yet examined, except
eight.

2d. It is contained in both the Syriac versions, as also the
Jerusalem-Syriac, the Arabic of Erpenius, the Persian in the
London Polyglott, the iEthiopic, Armenian, Georgian, Gothic,
Slavonic, in a very few MSS. of the Coptic in the margin, and
in some MSS. of the Latin version. The apostolical constitu-
tions have it once in the usual form, once in a different manner.

3d. Of the Fathers, it is quoted by Isidore of Pelusium,
Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius, Pseudo-Ambrose, who
indeed can scarcely be adduced as a witness either in favour of
or against the doxology, because be has it in a much more co-
pious form than we find it in the received text, and because in
other places he repeats the Lord's Prayer without it ; and by
German, patriarch of Constantinople, in the seventh century.
Such is the amount of external evidence in favour of the words.

The internal evidence may be easily summed up in the words
of Calvin — " tam apte quadrat. Neque enim idco solum addita
est, ut corda nostra ad expetendam Dei gloriam accendat, et ad-

]82 DISPUTED PORTIONS I.KCT. XVI.

moneat quisnam esse debeat votorum nostrorum scopus, sed etiam
ut doceat, preces nostras, quae hie nobis dictatue sunt, non alibi,
quam in Deo solo fundatas esse, ne propriis meritis nitamur."
" The clause is so exactly suitable. For it was added not only
for the purpose of inflaming our hearts to seek the glory of God,
and of remindii)g us of the proper object of our prayers, but like-
wise to teach us that our prayers which are here dictated to us
are built on no other foundation than God alone, lest we should
lean on our own merits." Thus the words express the ground of
hope on which the petitions of the suppliant rest, shewing that
they are built on God alone, apart from the merits of the peti-
tioner.

We proceed to enumerate the authorities against its authen-
ticity.

1st. It is omitted in the MSS. B. D. Z., and five others of
later date. A is here imperfect, but if we are to judge of it by
the quotations of Origen, and by the Coptic translation, we infer
that the doxology was not originally contained in this codex. It
would appear from the remarks of ancient scholiasts^ that the
words were omitted in many MSS., and in others that they were
written with red ink, or put in the margin.

2d. It is omitted by the Arabic translator of the four gospels
published at Rome, and consequently in the Arabic of the Poly-
glotts, as having been borrowed from the Roman edition ; in an
Arabic version in m.anuscript in the Medicean library, in the
Persian published by Wheloc, 1652, in the old Italic with the
exception of two MSS., the Anglo-Saxon and the Vulgate,
which, however, has generally amen, though this word is not
found in several MSS. of it.

3d. The Greek Fathers, even when they explain at length the
Lord's Prayer and its several parts, omit the doxology ; as
Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Maximus the Confessor, and Gre-
gory of Nyssa. Caesarius adduces the clause twice as part of a
liturgy, but not as Scripture. We find also that Euthymius
brings it as a charge against the Bogomiles, that they rejected
the epipJionema of the Lord's Prayer, icJiich had been added hi/ the
fathers of the church, quoting it at the same time in the form in
which it is found in two MSS., (for thine is the kingdom and
the glory of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost). Thus it ap-
pears that the great body of the Greek fathers are against its au-
thenticity. With regard to the Latin fathers, it is omitted by

LECT. XVI. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 183

them all. Neiiher Tertullian, nor Cypn-du, nor Jerome, nor Au-
gustine, reads it. To these we may add J ii venous, Chromatins,
Ambrose, Sedulius, Fulgentius. Jerome appears not to have
found it even in the gospel of the Nazarenes, and Tertullian ex-
pressly calls the sixth petition the clausula of the prayer.

The only internal arguments which I have met with against
the doxology are two ; the one formerly advanced by Bengelius,
the other by Tholuck. The words of Bengelius are these —
" Celebramus eum (patrem coelestem) tali fere modo quo pere-
grinantes et railitantes contenti esse debemus. Ubi ad metam
pervenerit universitas filiorum Dei, mera fiet in coelo doxologia ;
venit regnum ejus, facta est voluntas ejus, remisit nobis peccata
etc. ; praesertim tempori illi, quo Dominus banc formulam disci-
pulis praescripsit, convenientior erat rogatio quam hymnus. le-
sus nondum erat glorificatus, etc." '' In some such w^ay we ce-
lebrate him, with w^hich whilst w^e are sojourners and soldiers we
ought to be content. When all the sons of God shall have ar-
rived at the goal, there will be nothing but doxology in heaven ;
his kingdom has come, his will has then been done, he has forgiven
our sins, &c., but petition was more suitable to the time when
our Lord prescribed this formula of prayer to his disciples than
praise. Jesus was not yet glorified, &c."

The other circumstance alluded to is this, that the arrange-
ment of the three predicates, ^aciXs/a, dvm/j.ig, and ^^'ga, kirigdom,
power, and glory, w^ould better correspond with the tw^o triads of
petitions, if the h-jvciiug stood before the /3a(r/?.?ta. (See Tholuck
on the Sermon upon the Mount.)

To these we may add, that there is no doxology in Luke
where the same prayer is recorded ; nor do any of the MSS. of
his gospel contain a conclusion similar to that found in Matthew.
This is certainly a corroboration of the opinion which pronounces
the words in question spurious. But it has been said by Mat-
thaei, that it was struck out of the text in so many cases to ren-
der Matthew conformable to Luke. This supposition, however,
is by no means probable. The veneration of the early Chris-
tians for the sacred writings must have been exceedingly small,
if they struck this passage out of the Greek text. That so many
would have allowed the omission of a part of the New Testament
text ; and especially of a part that must have been so well known,
and so often repeated, cannot be entertained by any who are ac-
quainted with the great care taken of the sacred Scriptures. It

184 DISPUTED PORTIONS LECT. XVI.

would have been marvellous, if a few daring transcribers or com-
mentators had omitted the doxology ; and if so many writers of
undoubted repute and piety could have joined in the omission of
a most beautiful and appropriate conclusion to the model of
prayer taught by our Lord. We cannot, therefore, receive the
explanation given by Matthaei, nor can we at all admit the pro-
bability of his conjecture, that the corruption is to be traced to
Oriofen.

In weighing the conflicting testimonies thus briefly brought
forward, and in coming to a decision upon them, it is not very
difficult to draw our conclusion. The greater number of MSS.
is certainly in favour of the received reading ; but the antiquity
and value of those opposed to it, are more than sufficient to
counterbalance the number of junior copies. With regard to
versions, the evidence seems to favour the genuineness of the
doxology. The majority of them, perhaps the most important,
contain the disputed words. The only witness of consequence
on the other side is the Vulgate, which is unquestionably of great
value. Still the Peshito is opposed to it ; but this version, with
all its merits, is not beyond the suspicion of some interpolations.
The quotations of the fathers are indubitably favourable to the
spuriousness of the clause. I'he most ancient as well as the
most learned of them, knew nothing of it as a part of sacred
Scripture. Putting together, therefore, the preponderating tes-
timony of MSS. and ancient fathers, and setting it over against
that of the versions, 1 am inclined to decide against the authen-
ticity of the words. At the same time I do so with some hesita-
tion, though the testimonies are not equally balanced, because of
the great majority of codices in its favour. I trust I have not
been hasty in forming my opinion on this point, and that I have
given it all the attention necessary to enable me to make up my
mind with regard to it. I may be indeed mistaken, and I would
not be dogmatic. But still I cannot avoid coming to the conclu-
sion which I have just announced. Judging simply from the evi-
dence before me, my best discernment leads me to depart from
the reading of the textiis receptus. And I know, too, that the
greater number of learned men who have examined the point, and
are competent to judge of it, as also the best editors of the Greek
Testament, have been of the same opinion as that which I now
hold. When I reflect upon the circumstance that the Complu-
tensian editors, Erasmus, Camerarius, Grotius, Mill, Bengelius,

LECT. XVI. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 185

Wetstein, Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, Penn, and others, con-
cur in regarding the doxology as spurious, 1 need not be afraid
to give expression to my sentiments. Many of the older divines
might be mentioned as belonging to the same side of the ques-
tion. Zwingli, Oecolampadius, Pellican, Bucer, Melancthon,
Drusius, Walton, Grabe, and Pfaff, together with the illustrious
Luther, did not regard it as authentic. It is unnecessary to
speak of the moderns, since they almost wholly agree in rejecting
the passage. It seems to me a circumstance of no small weight,
that its interpolation can be accounted for in a natural and satis-
factory manner. It is supposed to have been transferred from li-
turgical forms into the text of the New Testament. The custom
of responding to prayers passed from the Jewish to the Christian
church, the people sometimes pronouncing the single word
a^a^jv, and sometimes a doxology consisting of several terms.
Hence we can also assign a probable reason for the different
modes in which it appears in different MSS., and for the reten-
tion of the term a,a^i/ in several copies which have not the pre-
ceding words. We believe, therefore, that the doxology origi-
nated in the ancient liturgies. It was borrowed from them, and
inserted in its present place. Thus it appears to me to have been
added to rather than omitted from many MSS.

LECTURE XVII.

DISPUTED PORTIONS OF THE NEV/ TESTAMENT CONCLUDED.

We reckon it unnecessary to examine the first two chapters of
the gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke. They do not properly
fall within our present design, because there are no MSS. or
versions that would go to prove their spuriousness. And yet it
is well known that doubts have been cast on them, as if they did
not form a part of inspired Scripture. This is passing strange.
Such an outrage against all the genuine principles of criticism is
remarkable. What can be the reason that from the 1 7th verse
of the first chapter of Matthew's gospel to the end of the second
chapter ; and from the fifth verse of the first chapter of Luke, to
the termination of the second chapter, many have thought the
narratives to be fictitious? We answer that Unitarians have
thrown suspicion on these portions, because they contain an ac-
count of the miraculous conception of Christ. That this is the
true cause of their ejectment, Unitarians themselves admit ; and
whoever consults the note in the " Improved version" of the
New Testament will see that it is not concealed. It is there
boldly affirmed that " the account of the miraculous conception of
Jesus was probably the fiction of some early Gentile convert."
The miraculous conception of our Lord is a doctrine which they
cannot reconcile with their ideas of his mere humanity, and hence
it must be discarded. But it must be discarded at the expense
of the authenticity of these large portions of the New Testament.
The editors of the Improved version candidly admit that they are
to be found in all the MSS. and versions which are extant, but
they affirm in regard to the portion attributed to Matthew, that
from the testimony of Epiphanius and Jerome, " they were want-
ing in the copies used by the Nazarenes and Ebionites." Sup-
posing the truth of this statement, it would certainly be most
unwarrantable to regard these portions as of doubtful authority

LECT. XVII. DISPUTED PORTIONS, &C. 187

on such grounds. Nothing but the overwhelming evidence of
MSS., versions, and quotations of ecclesiastical writers, would be
sufficient to justify the editors in stigmatising these chapters.
Such a shadow of testimony against them is truly contemptible,
when weighed in the balance against the itnanimons voice oi MSS.
versions, and fathers. Treatment of Scripture like the present
must always be reprobated as dangerous, irreverent, profane, un-
critical. It violates the established rules of criticism, in order to
support a pre-conceived notion. It sets aside the authority of
the word of God, because, forsooth, human reason thinks that it
reveals what is erroneous. Criticism has here nothing to do but
to receive with implicit faith these portions as genuine, because
they are unquestionably sanctioned by the sources on which it
relies for the establishment of a pure text. I might easily shew
that an assertion is attributed by the editors of the Improved ver-
sion to Jerome, which he never made. On the contrary he asserts
the very reverse. The passage in Epiphanius, too, on which the
editors partly found their statement, proves much more than what
is here represented. The first two chapters of Luke's gospel are
also said to have been wanting in the copies used by Marcion.
Such is the argument for unceremoniously rejecting them, though
they are found in all MSS. and versions. Truly on so slender
data we might set aside the greater part of the New Testament.
Some heretics have rejected this part, others that ; some neo-
logists one place, others a different one, until we have little
of the divine record remaining. When will men learn to reve-
rence the word of God, and to bow with submission to its dictates ?
When will they exhibit sobriety in judgment, seriousness in in-
vestigation, and caution in theorising ? When infidelity ceases
to vitiate the mind and to destroy the soul — then, but not till
then, may we look for these qualifications in all who treat of
Ijiblical subjects.

Another portion of the New Testament which has sometimes
been rejected as spurious, is in Mark's Gospel xvi. 9 — 20. In
this instance as in the former, criticism hesitates not respecting
the authenticity of the verses. The weight of evidence in their
favour is so overwhelming, that there is good reason for suspect-
ing the judgment of him who, knowing the testimony by which
they are supported, refuses to regard them as real parts of in-
spired Scripture. And yet Granville Penn, in his «' Annotations
to the book of the New Covenant," has at once pronounced them

188 DISPUTED PORTIONS LECT, XVII.

apocryphal. Hear the sum of his arguments. After quoting
some testimonies, he says — " These testimonies are sufficient to
prove that the paragraph in question is at least apocryphal^ and
ought not to be blended with those Scriptures whose genuineness
is unquestionable ; and that to receive it with the same reverence
as those other Scriptures would be to render assent to Scripture a
mere conventional form, and to follow the example of the Romish
church, which receives the apocryphal books of the Old Testa-
ment, as equally genuine ^nd canonical with the rest. Our
learned reformers detected the disparity of these last^ and dissolved
their union ; but the apocryphal passages of the New were not
yet known to them ; and it is only since the discovery and exa-
mination of the surviving MSS. have been accomplished, that the
true quality of these passages has been brought to light; and it
behoves us at the present day to deal with them as our fathers
dealt with the others, Scholz, however, who defends almost all
the insertions and interpolations which characterize his Constanti-
nopolitan texts, contends vigorously in vindication of this apocry-
phal appendage to St. Mark's gospel ; but the most active and
laborious collectors in all sciences are not necessarily the best
judges of the articles which they collect; especially if they collect
them with prejudication, which has manifestly been the case with
this learned editor." The paragraph is rejected by him because it
is not found in the Vatican MS., nor comprehended in Euse-
bius' canons of the gospel. The scholia of many codices also tes-
tify that it was formerly wanting in the majority of copies. In
answer to the highly objectionable statements of Penn, it may be
observed, that we cannot allow the authority of the Vatican MS.
alone to set aside the authority of all other Greek MSS. which
contain the passage in question : of all the versions except one
in which it is found, and of almost the entire body of the fathers
who acknowledge it. We know of few places for which the ex-
ternal evidence is more overwhelming. Mill, Kuinoel, Gries-
bach, Lachmann, and Scholz, are decidedly of opinion that it
belongs to the genuine text ; and the great majority of critics
entertain the same sentiments. Even some of the most innovat-
ing Germans have declared their opinion favourable to its ge-
nuineness. It is most probable that the paragraph was omitted
by some on account of the difficulties connected with it; for the
ninth verse was thought by many to contradict Matthew xxviii.
1. Indeed, Jerome expressly says that it was thought to be irre-

LECT. XVII. OF THE NEW TtSTAMENT. 189

concileable with the other accounts of our Lord's resurrection.
According to him, the Latins could not reconcile the discordant
expressions of Matthew and Mark, vesptre Sahhati^ and mane
Sabhati. Hence they endeavoured to get rid of the difficulty by
rejecting this portion of Mark. But the opposition is only ima-
ginary. That a large addition to Mark's own gospel could have
passed current at a very early period, and that it could have
found its way into all Greek MSS., except the Vatican codex
alone, is almost incredible. The length of the paragraph speaks
loudly against its spuriousness. The chief objection to the verses
is that Gregory of Nyssa, in his second homily on the resurrec-
tion, says, that in the more accurate manuscripts, the Gospel of
Mark ended with sf!oj3ovvro ydo^ and Jerome affirms that almost all
the Greek MSS. wanted them. (Omnibus Graeciae Libris pene
hoc capitulum in fine non habentibus. Quaest. ad Hedib. Quaest.
3.) That little weight is to be attached to the testimony of Je-
rome in this case will be manifest to such as refer to another
part of his writings (Dial. 2, ad versus Pelagianos, c. 15,), in
which he himself maintains the opposite opinion. It is strange,
indeed, that he should have admitted the portion as authentic, if he
had believed that it was not found in almost all the Greek MSS.
The numerous writers of the greatest antiquity who evidently
referred it to Mark, overpower the assertion of Gregory Nys-
sene. Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus,
Irenaeus, Celsus, &c. &c., are evidences in favour of the passage
in question. With regard to the canons of Eusebius, in which
Mark's Gospel terminated with the words, " for they were afraid,"
it has been well observed by Hug, that these canones do not give
us any information as to the condition of the MSS., but only as
to the Harmony of Ammonius, for they were merely an expedient
made use of by Eusebius to designate the sections of the Har-
mony in the common MSS. of the gospels. Now the reason
that the canones end at this point is simply that the Harmony of
Ammonius did not contain the passage, and therefore no refe-
rence could be made to it. (Fosdick's Translation, p. 48 L) Mr.
Penn remarks that there is '* no relation of correspondence be-
tween verses 8th and 9th of the received text ; no dove-tailing of
connexion ; but the latter lies next to it in simple unadhesive
juxta-position, proving to unprejudiced observation that they are
totally alien to each other." But there is no more abruptness in
introducing new matter in the 9th verse than what we find in

190 DISPUTED PORTIONS l.ECT. XVJI.

other passages of Mark's gospel; and if the gospel terminate at
the 8th verse, there is an abruptness for which no parallel can be
found in any other. A suddenness of transition from one subject
to another may be allowed before the termination of a gospel,
which would appear awkward and unnatural at its termination.
And though there be a rapid transition in this place, yet it no
more disproves the genuineness of the latter portion than the
abrupt change of subject at the tenth and eleventh verses of the
28th chapter of Matthew's gospel, proves that the paragraph
commencing with the eleventh is apocryphal. Well has Gries-
bach called the conclusion s(po(3ouvro yu^, " clausula abruptissima,"
a " most abrupt clause," and his remark is perfectly just, " it
should have appeared incredible to all that Mark finished his brief
commentary in this manner," &c.

Thus criticism has no difficulty in pronouncing this portion
authentic. Internal and external evidence combine to establish
its authority ; and in our view it is as certainly to be
received, as any other part of the gospel to which it belongs.
We cannot therefore but look upon Mr. Penn's Note as a speci-
men of most unsatisfactory reasoning and adventurous logic, from
which we ought by all means to abstain. It deserves the repre-
hension of every sober and serious Biblical critic.

In the same cursory way I must allude to another passage in
the New Testament, viz. Luke xxii. 43, 44. " And there ap-
peared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. And
being in an agony, he prayed more earnestly : and his sweat
was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground" —
because the evidence regarding it is not so contradictory as to
cause us much delay in deciding upon it. It is rejected however
by the Editors of the Improved Version, if its being put in Ita-
lics is to be considered a mark of absolute rejection. Granville
Penn has also considered it apocryphal. But we have no sympathy
with such summary modes of arriving at conclusions, as the Im-
proved Version and Mr. Penn have exhibited in this and in other
places of Scripture ; neither do we look upon their rashness with
any other feeling than pity. We shall briefly advert to the ver-
ses. They are found in all MSS. and versions, and acknow-
ledged by all the early ecclesiastical writers, who have had oc-
casion to refer to them, with the following exceptions : The
Vatican and Alexandrine MSS., both certainly of great value
and antiquity, with two others of inferior quality, omit them.

LECT, XVir. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 191

In three uncial MSS. (E. S. V.)and five others, they are mark-
ed with asterisks, in two with obeli. Several copies, and the
evang-elistaria generally, place them after Matthew xxvi. 39.
Epiphanius, Hilary, and Jerome assert that they were formerly
omitted in some Greek and Latin copies. They are wanting in
one version, the Sahidic, and in one MS. of the old Italic. Such
is the amount of testimony to be subtracted from the combined
weight of MSS., versions, and ancient writers. Every one sees
that the great body of the external evidence is decidedly in favour
of their genuineness, so that Griesbach has not marked them as
even probably to be omitted. On the contrary, he considers them
a part of the original text. So Kuinoel " Plurimi et praestan-
tissimi codices hos versus tuentur." They are recognised by fa-
thers who lived before the oldest MSS. in which they are omitted
were written, and we must therefore record our dissent from such
as pronounce them spurious. None of the critical editors has
ventured to expunge them. They are retained by Griesbach,
Lachmann, and Scholz. But there is internal evidence accord-
ing to Mr. Penn, which speaks decidedly in favour of their spuri-
ousness. He says that it was not in the power of an angel to
supply strength to Christ's spiritual nature, though his human
nature received food from the hands of angels after his tempta-
tion. This takes for granted that the angel who appeared gave
strength to his divine nature. Now, so far from holding this
opinion, we are disposed to maintain the very reverse. His human
nature suffered at this time ; the agony was not in the divine.
The temptation in the wilderness throws light on the present
passage. It shews that angels attended upon the Messiah ; and
that an angel might naturally appear in the case before us, to
animate, to strengthen, and to comfort. Even good Matthew
Henry says, " The influence of the divine nature withdrew for
the present ; and then, as to his human nature^ he was for a little
while lower than the angels, and was capable of receiving help
from them." Mr. Penn quotes Jerome, who only says of the
passage " in quibusdam exemplaribus tam Graecis quam Latinis,
invenitur, Apparuit iUi angelus de coelo confortans eum." But
he does not allude to Epiphanius who preceded Jerome, and who
appeals to this place when answering an objection of the Arians,
that Christ could not be God, because he needed the assistance
of angels. Epiphanius makes no mention of any alteration in
the copies. Mr. Penn states that the Saviour's prayer for the

192 DISPUTED PORTIONS LECT. XVII.

removal of his cup was rejected ; and that the words are in con-
tradiction to this. We take an opposite view. We believe that
there was not a prayer he uttered that was not heard, that there
was not a cry he sent forth from the depths of his distress, which
was not fully responded to by the Almighty Father. "We think
that the cup does not mean either death or entire abandonment^ but
that it denotes the mental anguish or suffering, which in those
moments did almost dissolve the union of the two natures. In
this view, the prayer was answered by the appearance of an an-
gel from heaven. This opinion is confirmed by the record of
John, in his gospel xii. 27, '' Now is my soul troubled, and what
shall I say ? Father, save me from this hour ? nay, for this cause
came I unto this hour." He was a man, and of the same feel-
ings with man, if we except such as are sinful and irregular.
The idea of his future sufferings was painfully acute and almost
oppressive. The thoughts of his approaching agony became
tremendous and overwhelming as the struggle drew nigh.
But on praying to the Father he was strengthened and comforted.
When Penn says, that " our Lord is not stated to have testified
the fact himself; and as those who alone could have witnessed
it were sunk in sleep, on what original testimony is it supposed
to rest ? for it is not corroborated by either of the apostolical
evangelists," he forgets the inspiration of Luke, which renders
his testimony as certain and infallible as that of Matthew or of
John. He forgets the superintendence exercised by the Holy
Spirit over the minds of the writers, so that they could not err.
If holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy
Ghost, it is useless to ask how they obtained their knowledge of
circumstances of which they were not eye-watnesses. It matters
not to us how they obtained it, if they were moved by the Spi-
rit to leave it on record. Such a neologian remark as Mr. Penn
here makes, we strongly condemn. It savours too much of the
liberal theology of a Paulus, a VVegscheider, or a De W^ette.
The reason assigned by some for the rejection of the passage is
not at all improbable ; viz. that it appeared in the opinion of
many orthodox but ill-judging pietists, to favour the doctrine of
the Arians, who believed that Christ had not the same impassible
nature with the Father.

We come now to John v. 3, 4 : " In these lay a great multi-
tude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, [waiting for the
moving of the water : for an angel went down at a certain season

LECT. XVII. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 193

into the pool and troubled the water ; whosoever then first, after
the troubling of the water stepped in, was made whole of whatso-
ever disease he had.] And a certain man was there,'' &c.

On this passage Bishop Marsh observes : " As this verse is
totally omitted in the Cod. Bezae and the Cod. Vaticanus, which
are the two most ancient MSS. now extant ; is likewise omitted
in the text of the Cod. Eplirem., (which is somewhat inferior in
age to the Cod. Bezae), but written in the margin as a scholion ;
is written in more modern MSS. in the text itself; but marked
with an asterisk or obelus as suspicious : and in MSS. still
more modern is written without any mark ; we see the various
gradations by which it has acquired its place in our present text ;
and have proof positive, that this verse was originally nothing
more than a marginal scholion, and of course spurious: Other
passages likewise in the Greek testament, owe their present exist-
ence to the same cause." There is considerable variation in the
readings of this place. According to some MSS. and versions, the
spurious words begin with Ixdc-^o/ih^v ivaitiiig in the third verse,
and end with voGrnMan disease in the 4th ; whilst according to
other authorities, the ungenulne portion begins with ayyiXog in
the 4th verse. Four codices, two of which are uncial (b. c),
2 versions (Coptic and Sahidic), and Nonnus exhibit the former.
Two MSS., one of them uncial (d.), have the place in the lat-
ter form, thirteen mark it with asterisks, two with obeli. Of
the fathers, Chrysostom, Cyril, Euthymius, Theophylact, Ter-
tuUian, and Ambrose have it ; whilst none can be quoted as
omitting it. Such is the evidence against the authenticity of the
verse. In our view it is not sufficient to counterbalance the
great number of MSS., versions, and fathers, that are decidedly
favourable to its authenticity. Numbers are manifestly on its
side ; and among them many documents of great value and anti-
quity. We cannot therefore subscribe to the sentiments of the
learned Kuinoel : " Diversarum ergo recension um codices anti-
quissimi et praestantissimi hunc locum omittunt. Debet ergo
haud dubie hoc omne additamentum originem suam iis qui quae
V. 7, aguntur explicare vellent." " The most ancient and the best
MSS. of different recensions omit this passage. Unquestionably
therefore it owes its origin to those persons who wished to ex-
plain the seventh verse." Even Griesbach has not expunged it
from the text ; Scholz and Lachmann retain it. The internal
evidence is certainly not against its authenticity. We know

o

194 DISPUTED PORTIONS LECT. XVII.

that the Jews were accustomed to refer events which they could
not explain to the agency of angels either good or bad; but
their opinion may have been occasionally founded on facts. Be-
cause they explained too many events in this way, we are not to
imagine that it was never the true mode of accounting for any
phenomena. Dr. Bloomfield is not accurate when he says that
for cancelling it, *' There is only the authority of two MSS.,
two very inferior versions and Konnus. Besides, the MSS. are
such as abound with all sorts of liberties taken with the text."
There are more than two MSS. that omit the passage ; and what
this writer affirms of the two to which he refers, is not true of
both. On the contrary, the text of the codex B. has not under-
gone great corruptions. A masterly reviewer of B. in the
Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung for 1789 says, that it is " almost
entirely free from those undeniable interpolations and arbitrary
corrections, which are very frequently found in C. D. L.; and
in the Latin, Coptic, and Ethiopic versions. It may be applied
therefore as a mean not only of confirming their genuine
readings, but of detecting and correcting those that are
spurious." (See Marsh's Notes to Michaelis, vol. ii. p, 808.)

LECTURE XVIII.

ON THE CAUSES OF VARIOUS READINGS IN THE OLD AND NEW
TESTAMENTS.

We come to speak of the causes that operated before the inven-
tion of printing-, in producing alterations in Hebrew MSS. The
various readings of the Hebrew Bible have arisen from accident,
and from desifjn. Letters, syllables, and words have been omitted,
added, transposed, and interchanged, just as in printed books,
which are scarcely free from errata, with all the care that can be
used in revising the sheets as they pass through the press. When
a transcriber wrote from a copy before him, the similarity of many
of the Hebrew letters readily caused one to be mistaken for ano-
ther. Thus, Beth and Caph, Gimel and Nun, Daleth and Resh,
He and Cheth, are nearly alike in form. It is not surprising,
therefore, that they were frequently exchanged for one another,
from the minuteness of the marks and strokes by which they are
usually distinguished. Examples of this most fruitful source of
false readings may be found in abundance in Kennicott's Bible.
Again, when transcribers wrote from the dictation of another, im-
perfect hearing gave rise to mistakes. When he who repeated,
pronounced, or read badly, the transcriber would be easily misled.
Even a good reader of the Hebrew text might not be able to ar-
ticulate certain letters so nicely, as to make them readily distin-
guishable by the ear of the copyist. Some of the gutturals must
have been sounded very nearly alike, even when the language
was vernacular, though we are perhaps liable to exaggerate this
fact, because ice can now make little distinction between them.
Letters sounded by the same organs, as the palatals, dentals. Un-
guals, and labials, are also so similar in enunciation, as to oc-
casion mistakes. These two causes of error, viz. similarity in
the forms and in the sounds of letters, must have operated to a
much greater extent in the Hebrew than in the Greek, though

1S6 ON THE CAUSES OF VARIOUS READINGS LECT. XVIII.

they certainly existed in the latter also. One or two examples
of each may serve to give a clear idea of the changes produced
by them. Of the former we have an instance in Ezekiel xxv. 7,

where gimel occurs for zayin, y^}? (lebag) for tH^ (lebaz) a prey ;
and in Proverbs xxi. 29, where beth has been changed into caph,
|0* (yacin) for |^^' (yabin), understands or considers. So also
vau is exchanged with yod in Genesis xxxvi. 23, and 1 Chron. i.
40. In the former we have ^7^ (alvan), in the latter \OV
(alyan.) Many errors in numbers are to be rectified by the ap-
plication of this fact, since it is well ascertained that numbers
were formerly expressed by letters. Hence some of the immense
numbers, in the historical books, which have been the occasion of
stumbling to many, might be lessened. Thus in 2 Chron. xxii.
2, '2'2 --? i^^s been changed into '^.'O 42, as is apparent from 2
Kings viii. 26. In reference to this source it may be remarked,
that although we hold the Samaritan to be the ancient Hebrew
character, from which the present square form gradually arose,
yet the principle of accounting for various readings from the simi-
larity of the present letter is not wholly precluded. We are in-
deed limited to the period subsequent to that in which the square
character came into use ; but it would be preposterous to deny,
that since that time changes have arisen from this cause. At
whatever period the Chaldee square character first arose, we are
able by the help of this principle, to account for many changes
that may have been subsequently made. In regard to the more
ancient forms of the letters, we cannot proceed with the same cer-
tainty, and to the same extent in carrying out the principle, be-
cause we are but imperfectly acquainted with them. Hence the
Phenician, Palmyrene, and Samaritan alphabets, which are mere-
ly modifications of one and the same alphabet, cannot aiford us
that assistance which they would do, if we were as well acquaint-
ed with the figures of their letters, as we are with the present
square characters universally used in our printed Bibles. By
means of the more ancient form of the letters we can account for
the interchange of )>i^ and 7lJ^ in 1 Samuel vi. 18; for that
\y^ is to be read, the context with the Septuagint and Syriac
versions clearly shews. A/3fX, indeed, occurs even in Symmachus,
but this is no proof of its correctness. The letters lamed awiX nun
were very much alike in the Samaritan alphabet, a circumstance
that easily accounts for their interchange. To this we may refer

LECT. XVIII. IN THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. 197

the instance given above from 2 Chron. xxii. 2, for the modern
mem and caph are not so much alike as the old forms. (See
Kennicott's Second Dissertation, pp. 212, 1;3.) We have now to
give a few examples of changes arising from an error in hearino-.

There are seventeen commutations of H/ with 17, noted in the

margin of our Bibles, that seem to have arisen from this cause.

So also aleph is exchanged for he in 2 Chron. xxii. 5, compared

ith 2 Kings viii. 28. D'D'in and D'^"1^^ (the Syrians.) In

1 Sam. xxii. 18, we find jl^'i'n (Doeg), where the Keri is ;tN*11.

In Isaiah xxxvii. 9, we find ^y, but in '2 Kings xix. 9 ^^. The
latter is the correct word.

Another source of alteration is to be found in the custom of
reading one Hebrew word for another, or of substituting a differ-
ent term for that written in the text. Thus the word Yelwvah
was pronounced adonai, for which reason we find it uniformly-
translated in the Septuagint by y.-jpio;, and not Sso;. Before a
written adonai, Yehovah was pronounced elohim, to prevent the
concurrence of the two words pronounced alike. Another cause
of corruption is to be discovered in an improper division of words.
Although the most ancient Hebrew MSS. now extant have spaces
between the words, and though the synagogue rolls exhibit the
same division, yet it is probable that the scriptio continua was also
employed. There is some reason for supposing it to have been em-
ployed in the MSS. used by the Seventy. When, therefore, it was
thought convenient and advisable to separate the words from one
another, it can hardly be believed that the division would in every
case be correctly made. Besides, even after spaces had been left
between the words, or points had been used for the same purpose,
it might happen that they would be neglected or overlooked by
transcribers through haste or carelessness. Thus one word was im-
properly separated into two, or two combined into one. We have

an example of this in Psalm xlviii. 15, where DIO"^^ (al-muth)

unto deaths occurs instead o{^\^'d^V (olemoth) for ever. The latter
reading is preserved in a great number of MSS. and editions, as
also in the Seventy, the Vulgate and the Chaldee paraphrast.
On the contrary, in Psalm Iv. 1 C, ni/t^'ti"^' (yeshimoth) desolations,
should be divided, according to the Keri, into rilS^ ^^^ (yashshi

V T •

maveth) let death seize. This is confirmed by the Septuagint,
Aquila, Symmachus, Jerome, and the Peshito.

198 ON IHE CAUSES OF VARIOUS READINGS LECT. XVIII.

The next source of alterations consists in the misunderstanding
of abbreviations. Such abbreviations were usually made by writ-
ing the two or three first letters of a word with a small horizon-
tal line placed over them to indicate the omission of some letters ;
or by leaving out the middle letters of a word, retaining the first
and last. Hence the omission was sometimes erroneously sup-
plied, or on the the other hand, the abbreviated word was consi-
dered entire and complete in itself. Thus nlH* (yehovah) was

T

frequently shortened into '% an abbreviation also used in the Tar-
gums. In Isaiah xlii. 19, Symmachus has translated I^VD

plin* (ceebed yehovah) as the Lord's servant^ by o hoZ'/.o^ [xo-o, shewing

that he read in his copy, "^ HllW ^ contraction for niH* "1!2W'
So also in Jeremiah vi. 11, *n^n (chamathi), an abbreviation of
nin^ D/tDn (chamath yehovah), is translated by Su/^o!/ //.oy in the
Septuagint, i. e. my icrath^ whereas it ought to be according to
the Hebrew, the fury of the Lord. In Psalm xxxi. 7, ^Hi^^ii^

(sanethi) / liate^ appears to have been understood by all the an-
cient interpreters as an abbreviation of HlH^ DK^S!^ (sanetha

T : r •• T

yehovah) thou hatest, O Lord.

Another cause of erroneous readings is that which has been
technically denominated 6/xoiotsXsutov. When a person dictating
or writing met with the same word occurring after a short inter-
val, he might easily fall into the mistake of omitting the inter-
vening words. We have an example in the xxxvii. Psalm, 28th
verse, where the first half of the verse, which should begin with
V thus, ^l^t^^ D^^^V has been omitted immediately after dS1V7

^IDtl^^ because of their similarity. " The humble are preserved,

but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off." The omitted words
are preserved by the Alexandrine translators, as also in the Vul-
gate, Arabic, and Symmachus. A remarkable example occurs
at Joshua xv. 59, where there appears to have been a verse at
least left out. We find eleven cities mentioned in the Septuagint
at this place, which are omitted in the Hebrew ; and among them
Ephratah the birth-place of Christ. The omission does not seem
to have arisen from the malice of the Jews, but by the same word
?nnVm (vehatsrehen) and their villaycs, occuring immediately

before, and at the end of the omitted words. Thus, letters,
words, and seutenc-es were omitted from 6/io/r)TeXsuTov.

LECT. XVIII. IN THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. 199

Another cause of alteration in the text arose from the practice
of the Hebrews in not dividing a word between two lines. They
did not put some consonants of a word in one line, reserving the
remainder for the next, as we do both in writing and printing.
When there was a vacant space at the conclusion of a line too
small to contain the next word, they added letters to fill it up.
These supernumerary letters were generally the initials of the
following word, though it was also written entire in the next
line. Ignorant transcribers, however, sometimes took them into
the text. Thus in Isaiah xxxv. 1, the common reading
*)!n*TD D^Ci^^^ (yesusum midbar) the wilderness, S^c. shall he glad

for them, arose from 1110 W?t^' (yesusu midbar) by joining

the superfluous mem to the end of the verb. De Wette however
is of opinion that it is rather the suffix plural. On the other
hand, transcribers sometimes suspected the existence of these
supernumerary letters technically termed custodes linearum, keep-
ers of the lines, or preservers of the lines, when they did not in
reality occur ;-^nd by so doing left out part of the genuine text.
So Exodus xxxi. 8 the word 7'i^ (col) all appears to hare been
omitted because of the following V^3 (celaiv). The Septuagint,

Syriac, Arabic, and Samaritan, with one MS. of the Chaldee
paraphrase, retain the omitted word.

Other false readings arose from negligent transpositions.
Letters, words, and sentences were sometimes transposed through
the negligence of transcribers. Thus we find in Ezra ii. 46,
W^'^ (samlai) for ^JD^SJ^ salmai, as it occurs in Nehemiah vii.

48. In 2 Samuel xxi. 19, D^-31N (oregim)occurs after nV* (y^are)
having been transferred from the line below. So also Psalm
xviii. 46, ^:iini (vayyachregu), but in 2 Sam. xxii. 11^11*1

(vayyachgeru). Comparing 2 Sam. vi. 2 with 1 Chron. xiii. 6
we find a transposition of words. So also in Esra ii. 70 compa-
red with Nehemiah vii. 73. We find likewise transpositions of
verses in Lamentations chaps, ii. iii. and iv. in the letters oyin
and pe. Important and lengthened transpositions occur in Jere-
miah, for which it is not easy to account in a satisfactory manner.
Such are the chief accidental causes of various readings in the
Hebrew text.

But there are also many designed alterations, whose origin we

200 ON THE CAUSES OF VARIOUS READINGS LECT. XVIII.

are able to trace. Among these are to be reckoned scholia which
were very early written in the margin of MSS , and afterwards
removed into the text itself. Different kinds of marginal anno-
tations were thus introduced into the genuine text. When the
name of a city mentioned in the Scriptures had been afterwards
changed, the new name was written in the margin by way of
identifying the one with the other. On the other hand, when
the ancient and original appellation was still retained, a note was
put in the margin, shewing that it was so called till that day.
In this way some valuable observations relating to chronology,
history, and geography, were afterwards taken into the text by
ignorant transcribers. Examples occur in the Pentateuch parti-
cularly, and it is important to attend to them, because they have
been seized on by the enemies of revelation as matters that tend
to invalidate the authenticity of the books in which they are
found. But had the opponents of the Bible been careful to sepa-
rate them from the genuine context in which they occur, they
would not have charged them as errors or blemishes on the ori-
ginal writer, since they did not proceed from him ; but they
would have acquainted themselves with their true origin, and
ceased to build upon them any argument hostile to revelation.
Marginal annotations that afterwards found their way into the
text, must not be regarded as portions of the pure inspired
Scripture.

Another kind of scholia consisted of explanations of difficult
passages by easier ones of a parallel nature, and especially was a
longer passage appended in the margin of MSS. to a shorter
one, when it referred to the same subject and supplied addition-
al circumstances for illustration.* Examples of this are some-
times taken from Genesis xiii. 18 and xiv. 14. In regard to the
former passage, it has been said that the place did not obtain the
name of Hebron till it came into the possession of Caleb several
years after the death of Moses. It must therefore have been
added to the Pentateuch by later writers to make it more intelli-
gible to the men of their times. It is doubtful whether this ex-
planation be admissible. A more natural mode of solving the

• Thus •^•^^ ^-t; (oz laino) in Psalm xxviii. 8 is changed in some MSS. into

T

'\Q'y^ ri; (oz leammo) from Psalm xxix. 11.

LECT. XVIII. IN THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. 201

apparent diflficulty may be given. Haverniek supposes that the
city had three names, viz. Hebron, Mamre, and Kirjath-Arba,
all of which it bore at different times. It may be doubted,
however whether it was ever called Mamre. Following Euse-
bius and Jerome he has here fallen into error. (See Winer's Bi-
blisher Realworterbuch, ^d edition, article, Mamre). We learn
from Genesis xiii. 18 and xviii. 1, that there was a place called the
Oaks of Mamre, or simply Mamre, xxiii. 17, 19, xxxv. 27, deriv-
ing its name from Mamre the Amorite. It was an oak-grove
near Hebron. Havernick however supposes from xxiii. 19 that
it was the same city as Hebron, and that Mamre the Amorite had
given it his name. But the words in this place mean " the same,
i. e. Mamre, is the locality where Hebron the city stood." The
reason why it was designated Kirjath-Arba is given in Joshua
xiv. 15. It was the town of Arba the son of Anak. We infer
that it was so called in Moses' time, because the spies whom he
sent into Canaan found the grandson of Arba in possession of the
place. Numbers xiii. 22. We do not find that Arba built it, but
that he gave it his name. Thus there is nothing against the
supposition that Kirjath-Arba was its usual appellation in the
time of Moses. With regard to Hebron, it does not appear that
this name was given to the city by Caleb. It was so called by
the Israelites before. The Canaanitish name was Kirjath-Arba,
the Israelitish Hebron. At the time of Caleb the Canaanitish
name naturally gave place to the other which the Israelites con-
tinued to give it. Thus the appellation Hebron was the Penta-
teuchal one as far as we can judge from the account. The case of
Jerusalem has sometimes been adduced as parallel to this. It
was for a time called ^lia Capitolina until in the beginning of
the fourth century after Constantine had embraced Christianity,
the name Jerusalem was again restored. In this way argues
Kanne after Lilienthal, Jahn and Fritzsche, with whom agrees
Havernick in his Einleitung (introduction) erster Theil, zweite
abtheilung, p. 306, &c.

The other example taken from Gen. xiv. 14, has also been
erroneously applied. The city here mentioned is said not to have
been called Dan till long after Moses' time, (see Judges xviii. 29.)
When Moses wrote, it was named Laish. The Scripture leads
us to believe that there were two places called Dan. The one
mentioned in Genesis was not the Laish called Dan by the

202 ON THE CAUSES OF VAIUOUS READINGS LECT. XVIII.

Danites. It was situated at the sources of the Jordan. Josephus
says, that " Abraham fell upon the Assyrians at Dan, for so is
the other fountain of the Jordan called." There was a town
here named Dan, according to Josephus ; and, by the account of
Eusebius, it lay four miles westward from Paneas. But this
is different from the Dan belonging to the tribe of Naphtali.
The expression, " from Dan to Beersheba," cannot refer to the
Dan belonging to the tribe of Naphtali, but to the older town
situated at the springs of the Jordan. This is deducible from
Judges xviii. 28, where we are informed that Laish lay near
Rehob, belonging to the tribe of Asher. (See more in Haver-
nick, and in Eichhorn's Einleitung, vol. iii. p. 1G7.)

These two passages then, cannot be brought forward as in-
stances of later glosses having been transferred from the margin
into the text, nor can they be regarded with Prideaux and
others, as the additions of Esra, when he revised the whole
Scriptures and completed the canon. There is every probabi-
lity that they proceeded from Moses himself.

A real example of a marginal gloss explanatory of something
in the text having been put into it, may be found, perhaps, in
Gen. xii. 6. " And the Canaanite was then in the land." The
words seem to imply, that at the time of the writer, the Ca-
naanites had been expelled out of the country. We may there-
fore suppose them to have originally stood as a gloss in the mar-
gin. Eichhorn suggests another translation of the Hebrew word
T^? (az) viz. already^ which would save us from having recourse

to any such supposition. *' At that time the Canaanites were
already in the land." The Canaanites did not dwell originally
at the Mediterranean sea, but they came from the Persian Gulf
to the place which they afterwards occupied. So early, then, as
the time of Moses the Canaanites were then in the land. These
marginal scholia also contained midrasJdm or allegorical explana-
tions in which the Jews frequently indulged. They were gene-
rally taken from the Targums, and sometimes from Jewish com-
mentaries. We have also reason to believe that liturgical phrases
in the margin were taken into the text ; for instance halleluyah.
All of these marginal annotations were occasionally transferred
to the text by transcribers ignorant of their real character, and
supposing that they had been originally placed in the margin for
the very purpose of being put into their proper position in the

LECT. XVIir. IN THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. 203

te^t by future copyists. But the most fruitful source of various
readings was the arbitrary use of the matres lectioiiis vau and yod,
which transcribers omitted or inserted at pleasure. Hence MSS.
differ so much in regard to them, that the half of Kennicott's
collection consists of the insertion or omission of these letters.
In many cases they are not essential to the words in which they
are written, but are to be regarded as mere fulo^a or orthographic
props of the vowels. When they are inserted, the vowels are
technically said to be fuUi/ ivritten, when omitted, defectively
icritten. In some cases, however, errors were introduced by
means of this arbitrary use of the matres lectionis ; for it was not
always a matter of indifference whether they were written or not.
It is chiefly owing to this cause that the list of various readings
in the Old Testament has been so great. But it may be ques-
tioned whether they be truly entitled to the name, since they are
nothing more than mere differences of orthography in writing
the same word. Thus, if an author were to write the word
honour, occasionally without the u ; honor could not with pro-
priety be reckoned a different reading. Having referred to the
chief causes of designed alterations, I would remark, that they
were not introduced by such as thought them to be corruptions.
The veneration of the Jews for their sacred books was too great
to allow them to make alterations, knowing them to be wrong.
They thought that the changes they made were probably right.
They did not mean to falsify or corrupt the scriptures, when they
corrected what they thought to be erroneous, or supplied a sup-
posed deficiency. I am aware that the Jews have been frequently
charged with wilful corruptions ; but the charge has not been
substantiated. The early Christians brought such an accusation
against them, but it is not probable that they were unbiassed
witnesses or righteous accusers. When the Jews quoted from the
Hebrew Bible passages differing from the Greek version, the
fathers often said that the Jews had there corrupted the Scrip-
tures. But this was all the reply they were able to advance
against their opponents, because they were themselves ignorant
of the Hebrew Bible. Jerome, who was acquainted with Hebrew,
was not of opinion that they had knowingly deteriorated the text ;
and he was glad to have their assistance in qualifying himself for
the task of translation. The following quotation from his com-
mentary on Isaiah, chap, vi., will shew his opinion of the Jews
as preservers of the Bible. " Quod si aliquis dixerit, Hebraeos

204 ON THE CAUSES OF VARIOUS READINGS LECT. XVIII.

libros postea a Judaeis esse falsatos, audiat Origenem, quid in
octavo volumine Explanationum Esaiae huic respondeat quaes-
tiunculse : quod nunquam Dominus et Apostoli, qui csetera cri-
mina arguunt in Scribis et Pharisaeis, de hoc erimine, quod erat
maximum, reticuissent. Sin autem dixerint post adventum Do-
mini Salvatoris et praedicationem Apostolorum libros Hebraeos
fuisse falsatos, cachinnum tenere non potero, ut ISalvator et Evan-
gelistae et Apostoli ita testimonia protulerint, ut Judaei postea
falsaturi erant." " But if any one shall say that the Hebrew
books were afterwards falsified by the Jews, let him hear what
answer Origen gives to this question in the 8th volume of his
expositions of Isaiah, viz. tha^t our Lord and his Apostles, who
accuse the scribes and Pharisees of other things, say nothing of
this, which was the greatest crime. But if it should be said that
the Hebrew books were corrupted after the coming of our Lord
and the preaching of the Apostles, I cannot refrain from laughter
at the thought that the Saviour and Evangelists, and Apostles,
produced their testimonies in such a way that the Jews were
afterwards likely to falsify them." If the Jews did not corrupt
the Scriptures after the origin of Christianity, as the history of
the text shews, it will hardly be maintained by any that they
falsified them before. Whilst thus believing in the general fide-
lity of the Jews, in guarding and preserving incorrupted their
holy writings, I would not assert that in every case they are to
be considered as blameless and praise-worthy. That some cor-
ruptions may have been attempted, by individuals among them,
I will not deny. The following passage has been regarded by
some as an instance of this intentional falsification. In Psalm
xxii. 17, they appear to have written >'^^^^ (caari) instead of

IIJ^D or '!\'~\^ (caaru or caru). The Jews, and a few Christians

— ; T T

as Paulus and Ewald, translate HKD os a lion, to which Rosen-

mliller, Jahn, De Wette, Winer, and Hengstenberg, justly ob~
jeet. It is, according to them, an irregular plural for D^KD

(caarim) from the verb lO (cur) to bore throur/h or to pierce.
Gesenius does not deny that it may be taken as the participle
Kal formed after the Chaldean manner and in the plural, though
he thinks that the two grammatical forms of remarkably rare
occurrence in the one word are unusual. He renders it, as lions,
contrary to all the ancient interpreters ; and explains it contrary

LFXT. XVIII. IN THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. 205

to the New Testament, of David pressed by the soldiers of Saul.
His article on the phrase, in his Manual Lexicon, (p. 470), is a
specimen of neologian interpretation to be read with caution, and
not by any means to be followed as correct. The Arabic concave

verb \^, in the second conjugation r (Kawwara) is to be com-
pared with the present term ; for, with the accusative of the
person, it signifies to bore throucjh. (See Hengstenberg's Chris-
tology, Vol. i. p. 178, &c.) The Septuagint, Syriac, and Vul-
gate confirm the reading, they have -pierced. This word the
Jews are supposed to have altered, lest the passage should be
thought to have a reference to the death of Christ. With
regard to the word ^jn'OH (chasideka) in Psalm xvi. 10, which

many of the Jews, and some Christians read in the plural, mean-
ing thy holy ones (without any reference to Christ), it cannot
with propriety be urged against the former as a corruption which
they introduced ; for it was read in the singular by all the an-
cient Jews, though the moderns have laid hold of the plural
form for polemical purposes. The Masoretic reading is unques-
tionably the singular number, as the vowel points and the mar-
ginal note prove. " With the Queri or marginal reading,"
says Professor Stuart, *' to which the vowel points are adapted
2. e. the singular number, agree Peter, Paul, and the Seventy, all
of whom have rhv oaiov gov, the Chaldee, Syriac, Vulgate, Arabic,
.S^thiopic, Jerome, Talmud of Babylon, the ancient Rabbins,
also 156 codd. of Kennicott and 85 of De Rossi, and 44 editions
of the Hebrew scriptures." ( Andover Bibl. Repos. vol. i. p.
100.) Some critics have laid down the rule that the reading
which is less orthodox in the Jewish sense, is preferable to the
orthodox ; to which there can be no good objection. But we
do not stand in need of its aid, since these two passages are the
only ones in which there is the least appearance of designed cor-
ruption on the part of the Jews.

Having thus enumerated the chief sources of designed as well
as accidental alterations, we come next to enumerate the various
causes of changes in the New Testament.

During the 1400 years that elapsed between the age of
the apostles and the invention of printing, the MSS. of the
Greek Testament were exposed to the mistakes of transcribers.
It is not to be supposed that any copy could be made perfectly
free from all error, for imperfection necessarily attaches to every

206 ON THE CAUSES OF VARIOUS READINGS LECT. XVIII.

thing human. Whatever mistakes therefore happened to be in a
copy, were liable to be propagated in all the transcripts made
from it.

The various readings in the MSS. of the New Testament
originated either through vnintentional error or desigii. We will
attend to each in order.

\st. Of unintentional mistakes. — These happened from various'
causes. In the first place, they arose from defective sight, which
occasioned the exchanging of letters for each other, the transpo-
sition of words, the omission of terms and clauses by what is
technically called bfj,oiors}.rjrov ; and the repetition of words. All
of these mistakes are referable to sight. We shall give one ex-
ample of each. When the MS. was lying before the copyist,
his eye might mistake a letter similar in form to another. To
judge properly of this, it will be necessary to consider the fi-
gures of the capital letters in which the ancient MSS. were writ-
ten. The small letters are too modern to have occasioned many
errors, though they may probably have given rise to some. The
letters A, A, and A — O and 0 — OC and ©c are examples of simi-
larity in shape. In Mark v. 14 we find anr/ynKav for a'Trnyyu'kav,
they told. Words were exchanged for one another, as in Romans
xii. 13, iJ^vziaic for x^^icitg, to the memories^ instead oi to tlie necessi-
ties. Words were also transposed, as in Romans i. 13 xa^-roi/ nva
for riva '/,ao<7rov, some fruit. The omission of words and sentences
by o/xoioTsXivrov was not uncommon. When a word after a short
interval occurred a second time in a passage, the transcriber ha-
ving written it once at the beginning, looked again at his MS.,
and his eye happened to catch the same word at the end of the
passage. Hence he wrote what succeeded, omitting the inter-
vening words. The same remark applies to words having the
final syllable alike. We find an example in Matthew x. 23, as
written in some MSS. (psvysrs hg tyjv ciXXriV instead of puysrs hg rr/i/
kr's^av, zuv Iz rocvTrig biuj/iuffiv i//xag, (ps-jyere sig rriv ci'KX'/jv. Fritzsche,
however, and Scholz, contend that the former is the true reading.
Again, a letter, syllable, or word may be written twice instead of
once, thus furnishing a various reading. So for y^an^vaoufM h
Matthew xi. 23 several copies have za-rg^moO/x /xi^, which reverses
the meaning intended.

2d. Under unintentional mistakes we also class those arising
from imperfect hearing. Copyists frequently wrote from the dic-
tation of others to facilitate their work. Hence they might be

LECT. XVIII. IN THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. 207

readily misled by different words similarly pronounced, or by dif-
ferent letters similarly sounded. Thus 1 John iv. 2, //voicxsra/
for yi\(^<j%i7i ye shall know. Itacism, by which is meant a similar
pronunciation of certain letters which ought to be differently
enunciated, frequently contributed to the mistakes of copyists
who wrote from the dictation of others. The exchange of /
and yj is said to constitute the proper itacism, but the term has
been extended to embrace all exchanges of vowels and dipthongs.
(See Penn's Annotations, p. 61 pref.) Thus in 1 Peter ii. 3, we
have yjiGTog instead of yjriffTog; in Romans ii. 17, 7o3 instead of ii
di ; in Acts xvii. 31, I/xou/asi'tji' instead of o/xoy/Agfjjv.

Sd. Errors of memory also belong to this general head which
are exemplified in the transposition of words, and the exchange
of such as are synonymous. The copyist reading over several
words might readily invert their order, or substitute a term of
similar signification for one in the original, before he began to
write down what he had fixed in his memory. Thus Matthew
XX. 10, dvd dri'jdpiov xa/ dvroi instead of ?ca/ d-jro'i dvd dr,'^dpiov : Mat-
thew ix. 8, ho^ridTjdav instead of Idav/J^affav.

4th. Errors of the judgment may also be regarded as belonging
to the present division. These are discoverable in the wrong se-
paration of words. The most ancient MSS. were written in one
continued series of lines, without intervening spaces. Hence
copyists sometimes divided them erroneously. Thus, I Cor. xv.
10, 6ux svi for 6v xivri. Philippians i. 1, 6vvs'?rtff}t6'7roig instead of gvv
gV/(rxoVo/c. As abbreviations also were employed in MSS., and
often to a great extent, they were sometimes misunderstood. So
in 1 Timothy iii. 16, instead of 0C many copies read OC. By
an error also in the judgment, glosses and parallel passages were
taken into the text. When a transcriber perceived glosses in
the margin, consisting of explanations of words by their syno-
nymes, he imagined that they were parts of the original text, and
that therefore they ought to be taken into it. As an example of
this may be adduced the Acts of the Apostles i. 12, where one
MS. reads after aal3;3drov syov ohov, the words togoZto^j Iv to hidsruMoi.
offov hwarh 'loudaTov 'Kioi'7taTr,6ai h ffajSiSdruj. In the gospels the same
occurrence is often recorded more fully by one of the sacred wri-
ters than by another, a circumstance that shows the absence of a
designed combination among them. Hence improving transcri-
bers imagined that the shorter account is imperfect, and ought to
be supplied from the longer. Thus the greater part of the 35th

208 ON THE CAUSES OF VARIOUS READINGS LECT. XVIII.

verse of the 27th chapter of the gospel by Matthew, is supplied
from the parallel place in John xix. 24, and does not properly
belong to the former gospel. Fritzsche (Comment, on Matthew),
rightly remarks : " Verba ha 'jrAriou^fj to ^rjdsv v'tto tou '7rpo(pyirov o/s-
fj^iPidavTO ra iiMarid ^ov eavroTc, xa/ st/ rbv i/jjuriff/jjov /xov i(3(XAov TcXriPoVy
quae in nonnuUis subsidiis post voce. jSdXXovreg kXtjpov adduntur,
plerorumque Cdc auctoritate recte induxerunt (subduxerunt?)
Matthmiis et Griesbachhis, tanquam ex Joh. xix. 24, male hue
derivata," p. 813. '' The words, that it might be fulfilled ichich
was spoken hy the prophet, they parted my garments among them, and
upon my vesture did they cast lots, which are added in some copies
after casting lots, have been rightly removed by Matthaei and
Griesbach, (as also Scholz), on the authority of the greater num-
ber of codices, as having been erroneously put into Matthew's
text from John xix. 24."

Such are the chief accidental causes of the alterations that have
been made in the text of the Greek Testament. We call them
accidental, because they were not made with the intention of de-
ceiving others, or of corrupting the sacred records of divine truth.
They are to be attributed for the most part to the haste or care-
lessness of transcribers, who did not possess sufficient knowledge,
or exhibit sufficient accuracy in copying MSS. But though many
errors were thus produced through the unskilfulness or negligence
of copyists, yet we have good reason to believe that some arose
from design. Involuntary mistakes were frequent ; but intention-
al alterations were not few likewise.

1. Under this latter head we place such changes as were made
for the purpose of correcting the language of the original.
Transcribers supposed that they could improve the MSS. they
undertook to copy. In this respect they undertook to do more
than what they were generally qualified to perform, or warranted
to attempt. We can easily imagine that a Greek, accustomed
to the pure style and diction of the writers that flourished in his
native country, might look upon the Hebraistic language of the
New Testament as harsh in many of its idioms, and therefore
requiring correction. Though the diction is precisely such as
might a priori be expected from Greek writers born in Judsea,
yet it might appear strange to native Greeks, accustomed to
judge of other languages by their own. Hence some transcribers
corrected what needed no correction, endeavouring to soften
har-,h idioms, and to remove apparent inelegancies of expression.

LECT. XVIII. IN THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. 209

In the same way a difficult and obscure reading was sometimes
changed into one clearer and more obvious. Hence the rule laid
down by many critics, that, where two different readings occur,
one of which seems obscure and perplexed — the other easy and
obvious to the most ordinary capacity, the latter is suspicious.
The following are instances of the truth of these remarks. The
terminations belonging to the Alexandrian dialect were removed
in the forms s/Vav, ^Xdav, szimv and the usual endings substituted.
John i. 14, we find in D. tXtipy] instead of crX'/j5>jg ; and in Luke
viii. 31, 'rraosKd'Aii instead of 'zapsx.dXcuv in many MSS. In the
quotations made by the New Testament writers, either from the
Septuagint translation or immediately from the Hebrew, copyists
did not refrain from their emendations. When such citations
differed from the copy of the Seventy used by the transcriber,
he thought them erroneous and corrected accordingly. This,
indeed, has been denied by some learned men, but we are in-
clined to give our assent to it, though it is highly probable that
it occurred but seldom.

2. Sometimes historical, geographical, archaeological, and doc-
trinal difficulties, which occasioned perplexity, were taken away
from the text, and other expressions introduced. So Mark ii.
26, certain words were either entirely left out, or Abiathar altered
into Abimelech. In John i. 28, instead of Bethany was put
Bethabara. In Mark xiii. 32, 6-jds 6 vihg was omitted by some.
Thus wilful corruptions were introduced into the text for the
purpose of supporting a favourite dogma. The waitings of the
fathers abound with invectives aofainst the heretics for their fal-
sification of many passages in the New Testament in order to
weaken the force of their opponents' arguments, or to give ad-
ditional weight to their own. But these accusations are not
always well-foundedj since their enthusiasm often led them to
regard as corruptions all deviations from their own copies.
They were not capable of that calm and philosophical in-
quiry which is necessary to distinguish between true and
false readings. And not only have the heterodox, or those
branded as heretics by the dominant church, been guilty of
this corruption, but even the orthodox themselves are not free
from the charge.

3. Additions from liturgies were also introduced. Thus
6 'irjffovg was frequently interpolated, as in Matthew iv. 12.

p

210 ON THE CAUSES OF VARIOUS READINGS. LECT. XVIII.

The doxology of the Lord's Prayer, Matt. vi. 13, is supposed
to have been taken from a similar source; as also the word
CC/A7JV at the end of severul books.

In addition to liU that has been said on the subject of various
readings, it ought to be remarked, that the manuscript itself,
from which a transcriber copied, was sometimes effaced in a few
of its letters or words, or partially faded. In this case, the fault
was not attributable to the transcriber but to the copy which he
used.

LECTURE XIX.

HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

Having enumerated the majority of the sources of designed as
well as accidental alterations, we come, in the next place, to exa-
mine and to describe the history of the Hebrew and Greek texts
of the Old and New Testaments, beginning with the unprinted
state of both.

The first period into which the history of the Hebrew text
may be divided is that which preceded the close of the canon.
We know nothing of this except what is contained in Scripture
itself; and we are not at liberty to speculate on the subject with
unlicensed and arbitrary suppositions. How the separate books,
after having been written by inspired prophets and historians,
were preserved in respect of the state of their texts : how fre-
quently they were transcribed, and with what degree of correct-
ness, it is utterly beyond our reach to divine. May we not con-
jecture, however, that much care was bestowed on them ; and
that however grievously the Jews, at times, departed from their
God, they still retained some veneration for their sacred books.
It is not probable that the Hebrew text met with so unfavourable
treatment, as is supposed by many of the German critics. A
comparison of the parallel sections of the Old Testament does
not, by any means, prove that it was subjected to the carelessness
and arbitrary procedure of transcribers and officious critics.
That it suffered great alteration and corruption is merely assum-
ed. The differences between the parallel sections shew rather
the genuineness and integrity of the books in which they occur.
Had the same words been found in them ; or had they exactly
harmonised, we might have suspected design or collusion; but
their variations discover the artlessness of the writers. We disa-
gree, therefore, with Eichhorn, Bauer, Gesenius, De Wette, and
others, who have given lists of parallel passages in some books

212 HISTORY OF THE TEXT LECT. XIX.

of the Old Testament, in order to shew that the text was early
exposed to arbitrary and unfavourable treatment. We are of
opinion that their conclusion does not follow from the premises.
The most important phenomenon in this part of the history is
the Samaritan recension of the Pentateuch, concerning which we
have already spoken at length. The character of this edition of
the Pentateuch is uncritical, shewing the arbitrary treatment to
which the books of Moses were early exposed. Additions, al-
terations, and transpositions, are quite apparent, indicating the
manner in which men attempted to change and correct the sacred
word of the Most High. A close alliance between the Samari-
tan and the text which lies at the basis of the Septuagint has
always been noticed. Hence many think that they flowed from
a common recension. One thing is certain, that the Seventy
agree with the Samaritan in about 2000 places against the Jewish
text, however we may strive to account for the reason of so re-
markable a harmony. The peculiarities of the Samaritan codex
and of the Septuagint seem to prove, that critics, having no right
ideas of the nature of their employment, took great liberties with
the text of the Bible. But their officious and arbitrary zeal can-
not be too strongly condemned. In other books of the Old Tes-
tament besides the five books of Moses, the Seventy follow a re-
cension of the text considerably different from the Jewish. In
Jeremiah and Daniel, deviations from the Hebrew similar to
those in the Pentateuch occur, for we find a different arrange-
ment of sections, as well as a diversity in single passages,
and in the entire form of the text. The books of Job and
Proverbs also present the same kind of disarrangement and
alteration, all of which are rather to be put to the account of
the Septuagint translators. Far different was the conduct of the
Palestine Jews in the treatment of their sacred books. Every
circumstance leads us to believe that they were very scrupulous in
guarding the text from innovations, and that they watched over
it with a religious anxiety that cannot be too much lauded.
Happy would it have been for them, if they had attended to the
spirit equally with the letter. Some have supposed that from
tlie copy preserved in the temple other MSS. were corrected as
they became corrupt ; but this is mere conjecture. We cannot
contradict the unanimous testimony of history by Jiffirming that
the Jews were negligent of their holy records, for they have al-
ways l)cen remarkably vigilant in i)rcsorving them free from

LECT. XIX. OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. '213

fabulous additions and human corruptions. It is quite sufficient
for us, however, to know, that whatever errors and mistakes had
crept into different copies were rendered apparent at the
time the canon was formed. It is impossible, indeed, to as-
certain, with accuracy, the time when the canon was completed,
but this does not affect our sentiments. History does not in-
dubitably guide us to the discovery of this important epoch in
sacred literature. But, by taking into account a variety of cir-
cumstances well ascertained, we can arrive with tolerable cer-
tainty at a period laithin which it must have been completed.
The three leading opinions which alone deserve attention are,
that the canon was closed by Malachi, the last of the Jewish
prophets, as Kennicott supposes. Others, again, believe that
this was done by Simon the Just, about 150 years after Malachi,
as Prideaux maintains. But we are inclined to believe with the
learned Havernick, that " Esra, in unison with other distinguish-
ed men of his time, was the person who completed the collection of
the sacred writings." And we have every reason to believe that
he was divinely inspired in revising the various books that had
been previously written ; so that whatever corrections he made
are to be received as the infallible words of Almighty God. All
the inaccuracies that may have unintentionally crept into the
numerous copies transcribed before his time, were rectified by
this inspired man. Hence the text of the Old Testament scrip-
tures, as revised by him, was perfectly free from error. If this ac-
count be true, as we have reason to believe, (though De Wette,
excellent in stating objections to every thing, says that it scarcely
deserves examination), then we are not much concerned about
the previous period of the history of the Old Testament text.
Even if we w^ere able to trace the corruptions that it may have
undergone in the progress of time, it would be without advantage
or utility; because a correct and genuine copy was furnished
under the sanction and superintendance of Heaven, by Ezra.
We pass, therefore, to the period commencing with the esta-
blishment of the Old Testament canon, and closing with the
completion of the Talmud about the commencement of the sixth
century after Christ.

The Targumists, Onkelos, and Jonathan, adhere closely to
the Masoretic text. In the second century w^e have the Greek
translations of Aquila, Symmachus, and Thedotion, which deviate
from it much less than the Seventy. In the Hebrew column of

214

HISTORY or THE TEXT LECT. XIX.

Origen's Hexapla, we find also a text allied to the Masoretic recen-
sion, and almost always agreeing with the Masora, where the later
MSS. depart from it. In the 4th century, Jerome, when making
his translation from the Hebrew original, employed Jewish teach-
ers and MSS. Hence we are able to account for the remarka-
ble conformity of his version to the Jewish recension, which we
now possess. But we may assume, as highly probable, that the
Jewish text at an earlier period, of which there is no remaining
memorials, was pretty nearly in the same condition. In the two
Gemaras, viz. the Jerusalem and Babylonian, belonging to the
fourth and sixth centuries respectively, we discern many traces
of a critical skill, which was well applied to the preservation of a
pure text. Precepts are laid down respecting biblical calligraphy,
different readings in MSS. are mentioned, and the true ones are
restored. But the most important fact with which we meet, is
the adducing of certain kinds of critical corrections which were
begun at a much earlier period, and were said to be originally
derived from Moses. These are not to be regarded with some as
the results of formal recensions, but rather as fragments or traces
of revisions previously made. They are 1st DHSlD ^"^t^y (ittur

sopherim) ablatio scribarum^ the removal of the prefix van, erron-
eously put before several words in the passages. Genesis xviii. 5 ;
xxiv. 55. Numbers xii. 14. Psalm Ixviii. 26; xxxvi. 7. 2d,
Dn£)lD pp^n (tikkun sopherim) correctio scribarum, the correc-
tion of sixteen or eighteen passages, by removing interpolated or-
thographical mistakes. Among these are Genesis xviii. 22. 1 Sa-
muel iii. 13. 3d, Piincta cxtraor dinar ia^ marks of rejection over

fifteen words, for example X7I7, Psalm xxvii. 13. 'iSt^J^, Numbers

xxi. 30. H-t^ipSj Gen. xix. '6Z. Gesenius has found that points

over single letters and words, in Samaritan MSS., denote their
spnriousness. Yet they appear sometimes to have had another
meaning over Hebrew letters, as in the word just quoted from
Genesis xix. 33, for we find in the tract. Nasir, f. 23, c. I, this
explanation, '* Wherefore is there a point over the letter vau in
the word beJmmah, relating to the first-born ? To point out, that
when she lay down he did not know, and when she arose that he
did know." 4. l^flD N/l Hp (keri velo cethib), readings

which do not stand in the text, but yet should be there ; in which

LECT. XIX. OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 215

case the Masora puts the vowel points in the text, and the con-
sonants in the margin. Seven or eight passages of this sort are
enumerated, for example, 2 Samuel viii. 3 ; xvi. 23. It is wor-
thy of remark, that the marginal notes in these places, as well as
the vacant spaces and points in the text, are later than the Tal-
mud. 5. np t^^l l^nS (cethib velo keri), readings which stand

in the text, but should be removed ; words which the Masora
does not punctuate. This occurs in five places, for example, 2
Kings V. 18, ^*^ It is evident both kinds of readings are mere-
ly to be considered as glosses. 6. The Talmud also mentions
different readings which the Masoretes call yn^) Hp (keri

ucethib), for example, on Job xiii. 15. Haggai i. 8.

The custom of numbering the letters, with which the Masoretes
appear to have fruitlessly occupied themselves, was also known
to the Talmudists. (See Kiddushin, f. 30, c. 1.) The unusual
letters which were probably used at first as the symbols of critical
annotations, though afterwards mystically interpreted, belong to
this period, and shew that minute attention was given to the text.
The exchanging of words looked upon as unseemly or immodest,
for voces honestiores, the latter of which are put by the Masoretic
doctors among the Keris, is likewise mentioned in the Talmud.

The third period of the history of the Old Testament text
reaches from the completion of the Talmud to the invention of
printing. The learned Jews, especially at Tiberias, where there
was a famous school till the 1 1th century, continued to cultivate
the Hebrew language, and the criticism of the Old Testament
with which it is intimately connected. They enlarged the ob-
servations of their predecessors and teachers by new remarks, and
turned their attention to the vowel-system, the origin of which
cannot be placed earlier than the 6th century. To this gram-
matico-historical tradition the name Masorah was usually applied.
Much of what it contains has been already described, as found
also in the Talmud. The name certainly points to an early ori-
gin. Part of it is older than the Talmud, though not reduced
to its present form till a period much later. The Jews and some
of the old Christian divines were accustomed to refer it back to
Esra, or even to Moses, an opinion extravagant and improbable.
But although this great work must have been very ancient,
gradually increasing in magnitude as it descended, yet it is usual
to limit the term Masorah to the criticism of the present period,

216 HISTORY OF THE TEXT LECT. XIX.

and to call such as were thus employed Masoretes. The various
observations were finally collected together just as those compre-
hended in the Talmud liad formerly been. They were written in
separate books, of which there are MSS. extant. Afterwards
they were put in the margin of the MSS. of the Old Testament
text. Regarding the work as the " hedge of the law," or the
preserver of the purity of the text, the Jews seemed desirous to
express the signification of the name by the position and form they
gave to it, whilst they enclosed the text with it in all the curious
shapes it is found to present.

The Masora, (derived from the Hebrew word "jD^ to hand

T

doitm, traditio tradition), has been divided into two parts, the great
and little Masora. The latter, which in MSS. and Rabbinical
Bibles is usually inserted between the Hebrew text and the
Chaldee paraphrases, and which also accompanies our ordinary
printed editions, contains only a few critical remarks, the most
important of which are the announcement of the Keris. The great
Masora contains an abundant harvest of observations which are
not in themselves of high value. When we speak of the Maso-
retic recension of the text, we do not mean that the Masoretes
gave a certain form to the text itself, or that they undertook and
executed a new revision of it. But they made the textus receptus
the basis of their critical remarks, and gave in many places their
sentiments regarding it. If the text were altered in every ease
where they recommend, if it were made conformable to their ideas
of what it should be, it would be allowable and appropriate to de-
nominate it the Masoj^etic recension, but the phrase though not
strictly applicable is customary. Had the remodelling recommend-
ed by the learned Jews been carried out into execution, we might
speak with precision and accuracy of the Masoretic revision. By
far the most important part of the Masora consists of the margi-
nal readings or Keris, which the Masoretes always looked upon
as preferable to the textual ; and which the later Jews have al-
ways adopted. It is well known that a word for which a Keri
stands in the margin has not its own vowels but those of the
Keri. The most frequent example of a Keri, is the word Je-
hovahi which has the vowels of adonai, though this is not accom-
panied l)y a mark in the margin. In such a case we must either
read the Keri or the textual with its proper vowels. Ihus when
Nin occurs in the text, we must either read Hi according to

LtCT. XIX. OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 217

the Keri, or Hu after the Cetib, but to say Hiv would be bar-
barous.

The Keris are critical, grammatical, orthographical, explana-
tory, and euphemistical, of each of which we will give a few
examples. The critical Keris consist, 1st, in different divisions
of words as in Psalm Iv. 16. where the Ketib is ^\^i2''^\ but the
Keri ni/!3 *t^* 2d, in the transposition of consonants, as in 1

VT • ~

Kings vii. 45, Ketib ^nKll, Keri hSkH. 3d, in alterations of
the consonants, as in Ezekiel xxv. 7, Ketib J)27j Keri t^^. 4th,
in the restoration or removal of a consonant, as in Amos viil. 8,
cetib 'np^:^, Keri r\Vp\^'^- Joshua viii. 12, Ketib -)»yS, Keri »y^
The grammatical Keris are such as Jeremiah xlii. 6, cetib

^:^^, Keri ^:n^^.

The orthographical are such as the following, 2 Chron. viii. 18,
Ketib nV:iK, Keri nV}^;

The explanatory keris or glosses may be exemplified by Pro-
verbs XX. 20, cetib -^^H |W*K3, keri rpU "jV^J^^.

Euphemistical keris are such as Deuteron. xxviii. 30, cetib

^:b:!t^^ keri nn^fis^^

It has been a subject of dispute among scholars from what
source the Masoretes derived the keris. It is highly probable
that the opinion of those who maintain that they were generally
taken from MSS. and from tradition is nearest the truth, though
it may not be improbable, also, that they were in part the off-
spring of conjecture. It is natural to suppose that the Masoretes
sometimes gave the results of their own judgment, especially in
the notices of some difficult words, as in Exodus iv. 19, where
it is remarked on the words Dn^^'lS 2t^ "^S (lek shiib mitsrayim)

go, return to Egypt T^r^'^^"^^ ^n^IlD 'H- The word sehirin
here employed points out terms that ought to be read otherwise,
conjectures that terms should be otherwise read. It is thought or
conjectured that He local should belong to the word D^^^'^ (mits-
rayim) Egijpt. The Masoretes also noted exegetical, grammati-
cal, and orthographical diflficulties and unusual expressions. As
an example of such exegetical singularities, we may adduce the
following remark; <« The verb J/^tt^^ (nishba) joined with

218 HISTORY OF THE TEXT LECT. XIX.

D*n^K2 (belohim) signifying, to sicear hy God, occurs four

times, 1 Samuel xxx. 15; Gen. xxi. 23 ; Joshua ii. 12; 1 Samuel
xxiv. 21." On Psalm xxii. 17, it is observed that there are two
words with kametz in different significations, meaning that
HND is here used in a different signification from what it bears

in Isaiah xxxviii. 13. Instances of grammatical remarks are
such as when it is observed on Gen. i. 22, on the word D^^*;^

that there are three letters dageshed, i. e. with patach under
beth followed by dagesh. On Genesis xvi. 13, it is remarked on
*K1, there is no other place where the same word has chateph

kamets. The orthographical usually refer to the vowels written
fully or defectively.

But although we deem it probable that these keris and marginal
annotations of the Masoretes were partly the offspring of conjec-
ture, as well as the result of an ancient recension of Hebrew
MSS., yet it is right to state that the presumption in favour of
the former is not strong. Whatever be the actual fact, it is
surely a matter of thankfulness to Divine Providence that the
Masoretic doctors did not at once foist their remarks into the
text, but that they were contented to put them in the margin.
With respect to the number of the keris, it varies in different
MSS. and editions. It is also to be observed that MS. copies
sometimes put the keri and sometimes the ketib into the text.
In addition to the keris, the Masora contains the critical remarks
of the Talmud enlarged and augmented. Besides all this,
the verses, words, and consonants of tlie different books are
counted, a task which, though certainly unparalleled in point
oi minute labour, is of little use except in shewing the extreme
diligence employed in guarding the very letter of the text.

The application of the Masora in the criticism of the Old Tes-
tament is somewhat difficult and embarassing, because its text
has fallen into great disorder, both from the irregular manner in
which it has been transcribed, and from the custom of putting
the text of the original along with it. It was printed for the
first time in the first Rabbinical Bible of Bomberg, (Venice
]oiS), superintended by Felix Pratensis, who did little for the
correction of the Masora. But in the second Rabbinical Bible of
Bomberg, (Venice 1526), edited by R. Jacob Ben Chayim,
more care was bestowed on it. The editor, however, made nu-

LECT. XIX. OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 219

merous mistakes, many of which were afterwards corrected by
Buxtorf, in his Rabbinical Bible, (Basel 1618), though this learn-
ed man also fell into errors. Jacob Ben Chayim divided the
Masora into the textual and final Masora, the latter consisting
of an alphabetical collection of Masoretical remarks not contained
in the margin. At the end of the second Rabbinical Bible of
Bomberg, is a collection of oriental and western readings, or in
other words, Babylonian and Palestinian^ communicated by the
editor Jacob Ben Chayim, and the result of an ancient revision
of the text. Their number is about 216, andis given by Walton
in the 6th vol. of the London Polyglott. They contain the
deviations occurring in the Babylonian and Palestinian texts
of all the books of the Old Testament except the Pentateuch,
which was probably more carefully copied than the rest of the
Scriptures. These readings refer only to the consonants, if we
except two relating to He mappik ; and are concerned partly with
the orthography and forms of words, partly with the keri and
cetib. We are entirely ignorant of the sources from which the
collection was procured. Judging, however, by the contents,
the collection must be older than many of the observations of the
Masoretes. It may be probably referred to a period anterior to
the introduction of the vowel system, since it contains no allu-
sion to the vowels. It is certainly of considerable value, and
proves that the oriental no less than the western Jews, had always
attended with some degree of care to the state of the text.

In addition to this list of various readings, we meet with an-
other in the Rabbinical Bibles of Bomberg and Buxtorf, and in
the last volume of the London Polyglott, which belongs to the llth
century. It is said to owe its origin to the labours of Ben Asher
and Ben Naphtali, the respective presidents of Jewish academies
in Palestine and Babylon. These readings refer merely to the
vowels and accents with one exception, viz. Canticles viii. 6,
where Ben Naphtali remarks on the word T\T\'2T\)lll} that it

T V V ; -

ought to be divided thus, fl^ D'J.'Pht^ the fire of Jehovah. From

the nature of this collection it has been inferred that the vowel
system and accentuation of the Old Testament were completed
at the time it was made. The old unpointed MSS. had gone out

of use, and the vocalisation of the present day was current.

Here the history of the unprinted text may be said to close.

The old unvowelled copies perished, and new ones furnished

2*20 HISTORY OF THE TEXT LECT. XIX.

with points and accents came into use. Hence all our Hebrew
MSS. are so modern, that none of them is older than 800 years.
But although the ancient copies are now irrecoverably lost, yet
there is no reason for supposing, that their preservation to the
present time would have had any essential influence in altering
the form of the text. It is almost certain that the later copies
contain the same text as the more ancient, and that no important
changes have passed upon the words of holy writ. We have
reason to believe that MS. copies were not altered according to
the Masora, since there are many ante-Masoretic readings still
extant. From the time of Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali, it can
scarcely be affirmed with truth, that the MSS. were gradually
made more and more conformable to the Masora, since the text
appears to have been established and settled when the punctua-
tion system was completed. Nor can it be believed with good
reason, that the Targums exerted an influence on the text of
MSS., especially after the time when the study of Hebrew
grammar was zealously prosecuted by the Jewish literati. The
desire of innovation, if it ever existed among the Jews, was repress-
ed by the Masora, and their reverence for the words of the Holy
Books was too great to allow them to make alterations in their
text from Chaldee paraphrases. When therefore Eichhorn says,
that many a MS. was altered according to the Targums, he
makes an assertion which cannot be proved. Rather might
we affirm with Kennicott, that the Targums were sometimes al-
tered in compliment to the copies of the Hebrew text. We can-
not be too grateful to the God of providence for his watchful care
over the Old Testament Scriptures, and for the instrumentality
of the Jews, his own people, which he employed in preserving in-
violate the Holy Books containing his revealed will. The reve-
rential attention which this nation gave to the Hebrew text, and
the jealousy with which they guarded it from corruption, we
look upon as a part of the wise arrangements of the most High,
who raises up individuals for the performance of certain duties,
and puts it into their hearts to engage in works tending to pro-
mote his glory. We think that there cannot be much difference
of opinion at the present day among Biblical scholars, relative to
the utility of the Masorah. Few will venture to deny that it has
in some measure secured the Hebrew text from corruption ; though
there may be a diversity of sentiment regarding the decree in
which its influence has been thus exerted. Many parts of it are

LECT. XIX. OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 221

highly useful, others trifling and puerile. Even the calculations
of the letters in different books though a loss of time in one sense,
must have operated in no small degree towards the preservation
of the words. On the whole, we cannot but believe, that the la-
bours of the Masoretic doctors have been of essential use in main-
taining for so long a period the genuineness and integrity of the
Hebrew text, though we are willing to concede that it is not now
infallible in all minute particulars. Some few errors crept in
which the Masora cannot remove.

We come now to the history of the printed text. Having
enumerated the majority of the sources of designed as well as of
accidental alterations, and having described the treatment of the
unprinted text, we proceed to examine the various attempts that
have been made to restore the text to its original purity. After
the invention of printing, it became the desire of many to publish
corrected editions of the Holy Scriptures, though it is matter of
regret that they seldom gave a systematic description of the ma-
terials they used. The history of the printed text is important
as shewing us the manner in which our present copies of the He-
brew Bible were edited, and the sources opened up for obtain-
ing the genuine words of the original. The first editions are
now equivalent to MSS., and may be looked upon as memorials
of the state of the text at the time they were printed. There
are three early editions from which all others have flowed, and
with which it is especially necessary to be acquainted, viz.

\st. That published at Soncino 1488, the first entire copy of
the Hebrew Scriptures that was printed, though detached books
had been previously published, such as the Psalms. The text of
this edition contains the points and accents. We do not know
what MSS. were used in the preparation of it. Judging, how-
ever, from the general state of learning at the time, and particu-
larly from the character of its sacred literature^ it is not probable
that the best codices were selected as the basis of its text. Ken-
nicott states that this very ancient edition differs from Van der
Hooght's in 11,000 words. From it was taken the Brescia edi-
tion, published in 1494, 4to., used by Luther in making his
German translation of the Bible. The very copy which he had
is still preserved in the Royal library at Berlin, and is deservedly
an object of great curiosity to all Protestants.

The second great edition which served as the basis of others

222 HISTORY or the text LECT. XIX.

was that in the Complutensian Polyglott 1514-17, taken from
seven MSS.

The third was the second Rabbinical Bible of Bomberg pub-
lished by R. Jacob Ben Chayim at Venice 1525, 6, folio. The
text is principally formed after the Masora, but Spanish MSS.
were employed in making it. Almost all our modern printed
copies have been taken from this edition. The Antwerp Poly-
glott 1569-72 folio has a text compounded of those adopted in
the 2d and 3d editions. So says Le Long by Masch, vol. i. p.
347. " Quatuor prioris operis Regii volumina continent. V. T.
insertis suis locis libris apocryphis, et quidem contextum Hebrai-
cum ex Complutensi editione cum editione Veneta Bombergi col-
latum." " The first four volumes of this royal work contain the
Old Testament with the apocryphal books inserted in their pro-
per places; the Hebrew text being made from that in the Com-
plutensian edition collated with the Venice edition of Bomberg."
Among the editions furnished with a critical apparatus that of
Buxtorf published at Basel 1619 occupies a high place. It con-
tains the commentaries of the Jewish Rabbins Jarchi, Abenesra,
Kimchi, Levi Ben Gerson, and Saadias Haggaon. The appen-
dix is occupied with the Jerusalem Targum, the Great Masora
corrected and amended in many places, and the various readings
of Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali. The Chaldee paraphrase was
pointed by the learned editor after the analogy of the Chaldee in
Daniel and Ezra.

The chief editions with various readings are those of Sebas-
tian Munster, Jablonski, Van der Hooght, J. H. Michaelis, C.
F. Houbigant, and Benjamin Kennicott. Munster's edition was
published in 1536, 2 vols. 4to, Basel, and contains parts of the
Masora with critical annotations. The text is supposed to be
founded upon that of Brescia 1494, for the editor has not told us
what codices he used. The edition of Dan. Ern. Jablonski also
deserves to be mentioned. It was published at Berlin 1699, 8vo.
and again at the same place in 1712, 12mo., but not so correctly.
The text was chiefly taken from Leusden*s second edition (1667.)
But the editor consulted all the cardinal editions then published,
besides several MSS., from which sources he gave a text remark-
ably accurate, and a selection of the most important readings.
The points and accentuation were minutely attended to, so that
next to the edition of Michaelis, Prof. Stuart pronounces this the
most accurate. Van der Hooghf s appeared at Amsterdam 1705,

LECT, XIX. OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 223

celebrated for its beauty and convenience. The text is taken
from the edition of Athias published in 1661, and also in 1667.
The Masoretic readings are given in the margin, and at the end
are collected the various readings of the editions of Bomberg,
Plantin, Athias, and others. The edition published by John
Henry Michaelis in 1720, is accompanied with the readings of
24 editions, which the editor examined, besides five MSS. in the
library at Erfurt. His collations however were hasty, and are
not to be depended on as strictly accurate. Prof. Stuart charac-
terises the text of this edition as the most accurate in all re-
spects ; but perhaps Van dor Hooght's by Hahn may now rival
it. In 1753 C. F. Houbigant published a new edition of the
Hebrew Bible in folio, which he had previously announced by
prolegomena in 1746. The text of this splendidly printed work
is that of Van der Hooght without the points. In the margin of
the Pentateuch the Samaritan readings are added. He coUatedfor
it tw^elve Hebrew MSS., but not with sufficient accuracy, for he
has only noted a few^ of their select readings. Indeed he did not
attach much importance to them as sources of emendation, whilst
he manifested an undue partiality for versions and for the Sama-
ritan Pentateuch. For his excessive use of conjectural emenda-
tion he has been justly condemned. Controlled by no authority
and guided by no rules, he has shewn himself a most daring and
wanton critic. He impiously treated the Bible as men are wont
to meddle with the productions of profane authors, curtailing,
and correcting it as he thought fit.

We come now to speak of the edition of Dr. Kennicott, the most
important of all that have yet been published. Having directed
public attention to the subject by the publication of his two disser-
tations on the state of the Hebrew text, and having even calledforth
the liberality of the British nation to bear the expense of such an
edition as he proposed, he gave to the world the first volume in
1776, Oxford. The second volume appeared in 1780 also in folio.
The number of MSS. collated by himself and his associates in the
undertaking, of whom the chief was Prof. Bruns of Helmstadt,
amounted to 694. Besides these a number of printed editions was
examined, and various readings selected from them. The text is
Van der Hooght's without the points, from which all the variations
in his authorities were marked as different readings. In addition
to his collation of MSS. and printed editions, he followed the ex-
ample of the principal editors of the Greek Testament in having

224 HISTORY OF THE TEXT LECT. XIX.

recourse to Rabbinical writings, the chief of which is the Tal-
mud. He has given quotations from the most distinguished
Jewish writers where they cite the Hebrew Scriptures. In the
general dissertation annexed to the second volume, he gives a full
account of the MSS. that were collated, and of all the authori-
ties consulted in the preparation of the work. The great expec-
tations that were formed respecting this edition of the Hebrew
Bible were somewhat disappointed on its appearance. Perhaps
hov/ever they had been unreasonably high. Amid the immense
mass of various readings which he had collected with so great
labour, few were found to be of any value in the emendation of the
text. The majority were at once seen to be the mere lapsus of
transcribers. For this he was unjustly censured, as if he could
have given more and better readings than those which he found
in his MSS. But we think that he was rightly blamed for not
laying down certain fixed rules in comparing and judging of
Hebrew MSS. ; and for failing to employ that accuracy in ex-
tracting readings which is so very desirable. He had not suffi-
cient ability to apply those copious materials which he had the
merit of amassing, in the way that Griesbach proceeded in the
New Testament. Although therefore he has brought together a
great apparatus, he does not seem to have exercised himself
much in weighing varying evidence. In short, he was not a
consummate critic, though well entitled to all the praise of a
laborious editor. His edition enabled men to see that the
Hebrew text has undergone no remarkable alteration or corrup-
tion ; and that the MSS. have been preserved in a surprising
state of uniformity by the influence of the Masora. Apart from
the effects of Masoretic labour on the text, this sumptuous edi-
tion would have exhibited greater and more important diversities
in its critical apparatus. All the readings may be said to belong
to one recension^ which was made at an early period by the learn-
ed Jews of Tiberias. And from all we know of the veneration
of the Jews for the Holy Scriptures — a veneration in many cases
approaching to superstition, — we are led to believe that the Ma-
soretic text is on the whole a correct one. We cannot suppose
that the Masoretes corrupted the materials which they had in
their hands — this were in the face of all analogy and of every
probability — we must rather maintain that they employed them
in a conscientious and faithful manner, knowing that they con-
tained the words of God to their fathers and themselves. We

LECT. XIX. OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 2:25

may remark that Kennicott's edition is defective injudicious ex-
tracts from ancient versions. Indeed tliis source of emendation
has not been sufficiently consulted and applied. In the years
1784-88, John Bernard de Rossi published at Parma in four vo-
lumes 4to an important supplement to Kennicott's Hebrew Bible.
These variations were taken from 88 MSS. used by Kennicott,
and collated anew by De Rossi, from 479 in his own possession
and 110 in other hands,/rom many editions and Samaritan MSS.
and also from ancient versions. This immense collection was
made with marvellous industry and singular care by one who
displayed a better judgment than Kennicott in such matters.
The prolegomena prefixed to the work contain a history of the
Old Testament text filled with hypotheses, a theory of criticism
not grounded on the best principles, and a list of the MSS. and
editions collated. These additional readings are of the same
character generally speaking with those of Kennicott. In 1793
an edition was published at Leipzig intended to supply in some
degree the want of the expensive collations of Kennicott and De
Rossi. This work was edited by Doederlein and Meisner, and
contains a selection of the most important readings. The edi-
tion of Jahn in four volumes (Vienna 1806) is^preferable to the
preceding in the selection which it presents. It also [gives the
books of Kings and Chronicles in a kind of harmony, and has the
Psalms divided into CTt-^oi according to the parallelism.

The text of Van der Hooght may be now regarded as the
textus receptus^ since it has been followed by almost all later edi-
tors. Simonis, Rosenmiiiler, Judah d'Allemand, and Haas^have
preferred this text to any other. The cheapest and in all re-
spects the most accurate edition of the Hebrew Bible is that of
Hahn, who has simply corrected the mistakes of Van der
Hooght's text. It is stereotyped. (Editio stereotypa denuo re-
cognita et emendata, Leipsic. 1832.)

Thus it appears that nearly 1300 MSS. of the Old Testament
Scriptures have been collated. We are not to suppose however
that they all contain the entire of the Old Testament. Few in
fact embrace all the books as the MS. of Dresden (Codex Dres-
densis) and the MS. of Nprimberg I. Some have the Penta-
teuch, either by itself, or with the Megilloth and Haphtaroth —
others have the Prophets — others again the Hagiographa. Some
have only one book, such as the Psalms, or Esther, or Canticles.
A few possess merely the Haphtaroth.

226 HISTORY OF THE TEXT, &C. LFCT. XIX.

The labour expended on such critical editions as we have men-
tioned is not to be regarded as thrown away, because they exhi-
bit so few essential variations in the text. A knowledge of the
agreement of all known MSS. and versions is perhaps sufficient
to compensate for all the toil and expense that have been em-
ployed. The Masoretic text appears to be in general so correct,
that we need not expect the future appearance of many important
deviations from it. It has been found that the older the versions
of the Old Testament are, and the purer their state, the nearer
they come to the Jewish text. Still we believe that there are
passages requiring emendation though they cannot be numerous.
In the mean time, we must wait for other undertakings in He-
brew criticism similar to Kennicott's. The criticism of the
Greek Testament is still before that of the Hebrew Bible, having
been earlier begun and more vigorously prosecuted.

LECTURE XX.

HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

We have already pointed out the causes of various readings in
the New Testament. Following then the same order which we
have just observed with respect to the Old, we will give a brief
history of the New Testament text imprinted and printed.

The criticism of the New Testament is rich in materials,
especially in ancient MSS. In this respect it is much superior
to the Old Testament, having been more extensively cultivated.
But although the history of the criticism of the New Testament
records the industrious collection of a large amount of materials,
on which learned men have expended the best energies of their
lives, yet it is not equally abundant in well accredited facts, such
as might be of essential benefit in enabling us to judge of the
changes and alterations which the text may have undergone. In
relation to the period when the two parts of the New Testament,
viz. the i-jayyiXm and cL^Uro\ocy or in other words, the four gos-
pels, and the Pauline and other epistles, were put together, so as
to form one whole, history is silent. About the beginning of the
third century, it is certain that all the books of the New Testa-
ment which we now have were acknowledged as divine ; and re-
ceived as canonical in diiFerent countries and among Christians
in general. Irenseus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian,
agree in recognising the four gospels, the Acts of the Apostles,
thirteen epistles of Paul, the first epistle of Peter and of John, and
the Apocalypse. The epistle to Philemon, though not quoted
by Irenseus and Clement, was probably known to them. The
epistle to the Hebrews is quoted by Clement. The second epis-
tle of John appears to have been known to Clement, (Stromata,
i.e. Miscellanies Lib. III. Paedag. III.) and to Tertullian, (De
hab. mulier. c. 3.) The epistle of Jude is cited by Clement and
Tertullian. With regard to the third Epistle of John, Diony-
sius of Alexandria was acquainted with it, and classes it with the

228 HISTORY OF THi: TEXT LICT. XX.

second Epistle among the ^£^o>£va, i. e. writings alleged to he ge-
nuine. Clement of Rome appears to have been acquainted with
the epistle of James, for in his first letter to the church at Co-
rinth, he exhibits striking resemblances to the Apostle in parti-
cular positions and arguments, and in respect to phraseology.
(See Hug's Introduction by Fosdick, p. 621.) Irenseus appears
expressly to quote 2 Peter ; and Origen speaks of it, though he
says it was disputed.

About the middle of the third century Hesychius and Lucian,
who had been employed on the text of the Seventy, undertook
to amend the MSS. of the New Testament. Jerome speaks of
the MSS. which they are said to have revised, but he does not
seem to have had a favourable opinion of the results of their cri-
tical labours in the New Testament department. Owing to se-
veral causes, the MSS. which they undertook to revise did not
obtain extensive circulation or general approval ; and we are
even informed that Pope Gelasius issued a decree against *' the
gospels which Lucian and Hesychius falsified." The recension
of the Seventy made by Hesychius obtained repute in Alexan-
dria and Egypt generally; whilst that of Lucian was chiefly cur-
rent at Antioch and Constantinople. If therefore we might ha-
zard a conjecture relative to their recensions of the New Testa-
ment, we would-be inclined to say, that they were circulated re-
spectively in ^the same localities. One thing is pretty certain,
viz. that they were not the authors of recensions which came in-
to such repute as to be widely circulated and generally adopted.
Semler indeed and Hug have sanctioned the supposition that
they were^current to a great extent; but their opinion is not
supported by ancient testimony. Jerome does not attach to
them the importance which these scholars would lead us to be-
lieve they had attained, for he says that they had few adherents.
Some are of opinion that Origen, besides his great work the
Hexapla, made a revision of the text of the New Testament ;
especially because Jerome mentions the Origenian MSS of the
gospels and epistles. But Eusebius knew nothing of such a
work, and surely he would not have passed it over in silence.
We may well suppose, also, that he had little inclination or
strength to undertake such a task after the completion of the
Hexapla. The probability therefore is, that when Jerome speaks
of the MfeS. of Origen as he does in his Commentary on Mat-
thew xxiv. 36, and on the Epistle to the Galatians iii. 1, he

LECT. XX. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 229

merely refers to such codices as Origen had made use of; and
which, from their accuracy and the celebrity of the individual to
whom they belonjred, were highly valued.

The only sure data from which we can draw conclusions re-
specting the fate of the text in early times consist of those docu-
ments in which it is contained, viz. MSS., versions, and quota-
tions of the fathers. Apart from these we are left to conjecture
alone, since history is so defective in important and credible
facts relating to the subject. At a period comparatively recent,
when criticism began to assume that interesting aspect which it
afterwards presented, and when men surveyed the mass of accu-
mulating materials with philosophic eye, certain internal marks
were observed to belong to several documents containing the
same text. A relationship or similarity in characteristic read-
ings was noticed. Bengel appears to have been the first to whom
the idea suggested itself of dividing the materials according to
the peculiarities which he faintly perceived. It was afterwards
taken up by Semler. But Griesbach endeavoured to give preci-
sion and fixedness to the vague notions entertained on the sub-
ject by investigating it with great acuteness and critical tact.
The different forms of the text which Semler and Griesbach ob-
served, they called recensions, a name which has been more gene-
rally adopted than any other. Perhaps however the appellation
o{ family h more appropriate and less liable to misconception.
Strictly speaking, the term does not apply to the Occidental and
Constantinopolitan families, even according to the sentiments of
Griesbach himself. The Alexandrian indeed is said to rest on
an actual revision of the New Testament, which was undertaken
at the time when the zuayyiXiov and a'KOGro'kog were put together in-
to one volume, but he reckons the Occidental to have been gra-
dually formed in the progress of time, by the propagation of the
old unrevised MSS. In like manner he believes the Constan-
tinopolitan recension to have originated from the transcribers of
MSS. mingling together the other two recensions, rather than
from the labour of a critic undertaking to revise the original text.
The mere name however is comparatively unimportant, provided
it be remembered that it simply denotes the agreement of certain
documents containing the text of the New Testament, in their
characteristic readings. The mode in which Griesbach determined
the country and age of each recension, was by means of charac-
teristic readings in the quotations of the fathers, and in ancient

230 HISTORY OF THE TEXT LECT. XX.

versions. According to the peculiar readings contained in these
sources, so did he form his conclusions relative to the locality in
which the recension was current, and to its antiquity. The fol-
lovvino" is the system framed by Griesbach. 1st, The Alexan-
drine recension exhibited by the church-fathers, Clement of Alex-
andria, Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, Isi-
dore of Pelusium, &c., and in the 8th century by John of Damas-
cus. The versions belonging to it are the Memphitic and Har-
clean wholly, and the ^thiopic and Armenian in part. The
uncial MSS. B, C, L, in the gospels, and in the Epistles A, B,

C, also contain it. Its general characteristic is grammatical
purity and accuracy.

2nd. The Occidental recension. This appears in the Latin
translation of Irenaeus, in Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Au-
gustine, and others; among the Latin versions, in the Vetus
Itala in particular, in the Sahidic and Jerusalem-Syriac The
Greek-Latin MSS. generally exhibit it ; D in the gospels, and

D, E, F, G in the Pauline epistles. 1 he peculiarity of this
recension is, that it is exegetical^ containing glosses, circumlocu-
tions, and more Hebraisms than the former.

3d- The Constantinopolitan recension, which appears in the wri-
tings of the fathers that lived from the end of the 4th till the 6th
century in Greece, Asia Minor, and the neighbouring provinces.
It appears also in the Gothic and Slavonic versions, in the uncial
MSS. A, E, F, G, H, S, of the gospels, and in the Moscow
codices of Paul's epistles. This recension is compounded of the
other two, and exhibits more Graecisms than the Alexandrian.
In addition to these three, Griesbach thought that the Peshito
contained a mixed text, which could not with propriety be classed
under any of the preceding, and, therefore, he believed that it
was repeatedly interpolated from different Greek MSS. The
text of the gospels also as exhibited in the writings of Chrysos-
tom resembles the old Syriac in its being a compound of different
recensions. Such an amalgamation of the other recensions was
exalted by some into a fourth^ called by Hanlein t\n} younger Con-
stantinopolitan, (See his Einleitung, 2d part, p. 120), exhibited by
the MSS. P, Q, T, and several others. The Ethiopic, Arme-
nian, Sahidic, and Jerusalem versions are said to contain interpo-
lations characteristic of this recension, whilst the writings of Theo-
phylact and Oecumenius exhibit a more extensive incorporation
of different families.

LECT. XX. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 231

A majority of recensions not of individual MSS., was regarded
by Griesbach as decisive of a reading. After the individual MSS.,
versions, and quotations have been examined, for the purpose of
discovering to what family they belong, the recensions are allowed
to determine the value of a reading. Hence, if any reading be-
long to two recensions and not to the third, it is justly entitled to
a place in the text, even though the number of single MSS. be-
longing to the third recension in which it does not appear, should
far exceed the number of the individual MSS. belonging to the
other two.

We will now give Hug's system of recensions, contained in his
introduction to the New Testament.

]sL In the MSS. of the gospels D, 1, 13, 69, 124, and of the
epistles, D, E, F, G, as also in the old Latin translations and
the Sahidic version, he finds a text substantially the same as the
Occidental recension of Griesbach. To this unrevised and faulty
text, he gives the name y.or^yi 'iTidoaig. Until the middle of the 3d
century he believes that the text of the New Testament was ex-
posed to the arbitrary innovations of transcribers ; and that it
was disfigured by a great number of additions, glosses, andjn-
terpolations. This )ioiv7j h.doff/g was multiplied by the Alexandrine
copyists, and circulated through the countries of the West, where
it was in common use long after. But whilst the Occidental re-
cension of Griesbach agrees in the main with the Mivn r^iboaig of
Hug, the latter differs from the former in reckoning the Pes-
hito together with the quotations of Origen and Clement of Alex-
andria, as belonging to the unrevised text. In reference to the
old Syriac, Griesbach afterwards assented in a great degree to the
opinion of Hug. About the year 250, several recensions of this
xoivr\ sxdoff/i were undertaken by different individuals, by Hesychius
in Egypt, Lucian in Syria, and Origen in Palestine.

2d. The revised text of Hesychius became current in Egypt.
According to him, B, C, L, of the gospels, A, B, C, of the epis-
tles, the Memphitic version, Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria and
others, exhibit the Hesychian recension.

The third form of the text he finds in the recension of Lucian
just referred to, calling it the Constantinopolitan recension, ex-
hibited by the MSS. E, F, G, H, S, V, of the gospels, G of
Paul's epistles, and by almost all the Moscow MSS. used by
Matthaei. To it also belong the Slavonian and Gothic versions.

The fourth form of the text he attributes to the revision of Ori-
gen as found in the codices A, K, M, all of the gospels, in the Phil-

232 HISTORY OF THE TEXT LECT. XX.

oxenian or rather Harclean Syriac, and in the writings of Chry-
sostom and Theodoret. Such is a brief representation of the sys-
tem of Hug, a system characterised by great ingenuity and
acuteness.

Another system lately proposed is that of Scholz in the pro-
legomena to his edition of the New Testament, published in 1830.
This celebrated editor maintains the existence of only two great
classes or families of MSS. ; viz. the Asiatic or Constantinopoli-
tan and the Alexandrine or African. The Western, which we
find as a distinct class in other systems, coincides in his opinion
with the Alexandrine. In opposition to Griesbach he prefers
the Asiatic to the Alexandrine. The chief reason which appears
to have induced him to reduce all the materials of criticism to two
classes, is the remarkable agreement of the various documents be-
longing to the Constantinopolitan recension with each other, and
the great variations between all that do not belong to this family.
To the Asiatic belong all the MSS. which were written in the
eight last centuries ; to the Alexandrian, the great majority of the
uncial MSS. that are still extant, and a few of the more recent.
The reason why he gives the preference to the junior codices is,
because in his opinion the Asiatic were directly derived from the
autographs of the authors themselves, or from transcripts of them
carefully made and religiously preserved. Hence, he argues that
this family contains the original text in a high degree of purity.
Besides, he alleges that at Alexandria, where the allegorical mode
of interpretation prevailed, transcribers were not so scrupulous in
copying with accuracy the words before them ; but that they fill-
ed the margin with alterations and glosses that were afterwards
received into the text itself. At Constantinople the same liberties
were not taken by grammarians. There the sacred documents
were preserved with much greater care. He believes that the
greater number of the variations exhibited by the Constantinopo-
litan family was caused partly by the intrusion of Alexandrine
readings, and partly by the unintentional mistakes of copyists ;
but it continued in much purity from the 4th century downwards,
when the veneration of Christians for the sacred books was great-
est, and when they were appealed to in the religious controversies
which as:itated the ancient churches.

Such is a condensed view of Scholz's system.

Rink agrees substantially with Scholz in assuming only two
classes of MSS., the Occidental (A, B, C, D, E, F, G); and the

LECT. XX. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 233

Oriental^ embracing those written in the cursive character. The
former he divides into the two families of the African (A, B,
C) ; and the Latin MSS., (D, E, F, G.) The African he re-
gards as the result of the arbitrary corrections of the gramma-
rians, of ignorance, and of carelessness. ( See his Lucubratio Critica
in acta Apost. epp. cath. et Paulin. &c. &c. Basel 1830, ^co,)

Having thus given some account of the leading systems of re-
censions that have been proposed, it remains for me to make a
few observations on them.

Of Griesbach's it may be said that it is certainly ingenious
and plausible. But when examined it can hardly recommend
itself to the adoption of the critic. It was acutely objected to by
Eichhornin his Introduction to the New Testament, and still more
so by Dr. Laurence, late archbishop of Cashel, who assailed it with
no less vehemence than success, though unhappily with a degree
of unbecoming asperity. The observations of Laurence were
certainly such as to shake it to the foundation. Lideed Gries-
bach's system has been the subject of frequent animadversion ;
and many well-founded objections have been made to it. It has
been exposed to the severest attacks and assailed by the weightiest
arguments. In fact, all critics who have proposed different theo-
ries of recensions have animadverted on Griesbach's arrangement.
Michaelis, Matthaei, Nolan, Eichhorn, Hug, Scholz, and others
whom it is unnecessary to name, have stated objections to it. In
America, Mr. Norton has finally come forth and so demolish-
ed it, that it can hardly be revived by any admirer of Griesbach,
however ardently he may love the system, or however ably he
may set himself to defend it against the attacks to which, since
its first appearance, it has been exposed. (See Norton's Genuine-
ness of the Gospels, additional Notes, p. 4, section 2.) Its cre-
dit has been completely ruined by Mr. Norton, if it was not so
already by Dr. Laurence. The former has shewn the self-
contradictions of Griesbach, his fluctuating opinions, his modifi-
cations of the system, and his almost abandonment of it in the
last work he lived to publish. I have seldom read so able or con-
vincing an argument to disprove the truth of any theory. It has
been well observed by Dr. Laurence that the existence of three
classes of MSS- has never yet been proved by induction — that
the number has not been definitely settled. There is in truth no
line of distinction between the Alexandrian and Western classes
that can be clearly defined. Even Origen and Clement of Alex-

234 HISTORY OF THE TEXT LECT. XX.

andria, the principal authorities for the Alexandrian text, coin-
cide in a great measure with the Western recension, so that it is
not too much to say that the separating boundary of these two
families is an imaginary line resembling the circles on a globe
which have no actual existence.

With regard to Hug's system, it may be observed, that it is
not free from imperfection and error. Griesbach himself made
some valid objections to it, and succeeding scholars have increas-
ed their number.

It may b« remarked in the first place^ that the Peshito, which he
places among the memorials of the koivyi 'Ubosig, does not altoge-
ther correspond with it, though Griesbach has admitted that it is
nearer to it than to the other states of the text. Origen and Cle-
ment are classed by Hug with the original confused text as it ex-
isted before the middle of the third century. The former, how-
ever, did not use the ^oivri, at least exclusively, but the Alexan-
drine recension. It is only in his commentary on Matthew that
he employs an Occidental MS. ; for in his commentary on Mark
he uniformly quotes an Alexandrine MS., and his usual text
agrees with the Alexandrine recension. Clement again frequent-
ly agrees with the Alexandrine in opposition to the Western re-
cension, and therefore he cannot be properly reckoned as belong-
ing to the latter.

2. The Hescychian revision, agreeing in the main with the
Alexandrine of Griesbach, does not rest on a firm historical basis.
It appears to have had a very limited circulation, even in the
country were it was made. Jerome says, " praetermitto eos co-
dices, quos a Luciano et Hesychio nuncupatos paucorum homin-
um asserit perversa conventio, &c." " I pass over those MSS.
named after Lucian and Hesychius, which are perversely con-
tended for by a few individuals, &e.," and Pope Gelasius says,
" evangelia quae falsavit Lucianus et Hesychius apocrypha."
" The apocryphal gospels which Lucian and Hesychius have fal-
sified." Besides, that form of the text ascribed to Hesychius ap-
pears in reality to be older, since Origen, and even Clement of
Alexandria, exhibit the Alexandrian recension. Hesychius did,
therefore, probably nothing more than revise it.

3. The historical foundation on which Lucian's recension rests is
also insecure. Besides the passage already quoted from Jerome,
proving that both the revised texts of Hesychius and Lucian were
confined to a narrow circle of usage, and that neither exerted that

LECT. XX. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 235

general influence which Hug would assign to it, we may further

refer to the following words of the same father, '* Lucianus

tantum in scripturarum studio laboravit, ut usque nunc quaedam
exemplaria scripturarum Lucianea nuncupentur." (Hieron. de
viris Illustr. c. 77.)

4. It is extremely doubtful, and even improbable, that Origen
undertook a revision of the xoir/i h.hocig. The passage on which
Hug founds this opinion, occurs in Jerome on Matthew xxiv. t*36,
*' quum in Graecis et maxime Adamantii et Pierii exemplaribus,
hoc non habeatur adscriptum," — " whereas in the Greek copies,
especially those of Origen and Pierius, this clause is not written.''
The MSS. of Origen and Pierius rather mean here, such as had
been used and sanctioned by these individuals, and were therefore
valuable. Origen himself, when speaking of his critical edition
of the Septuagint, asserts, — " In exemplaribus autem N.T. hoc
ipsum me posse facere sine periculo non putavi." — " I did not think
that I could do this (correct the MSS. of the New Testament)
in the copies of the New Testament without danger." In short,
this fourth form of the text ascribed to Origen is not sufficiently
distinct from the others to form a separate recension.

From these remarks, which have been made by others before
us, it may be seen that the system of Hug is not of sufficient
authority or weight to commend itself to general approbation.
It rests for the most part on slight and slender grounds, such as
history refuses to sanction. Positive facts frequently oppose them-
selves to it. Some of the ablest critics in Germany have objected
to it, among whom, besides Griesbach, are De Wette, Schott, and
Rink. The last named in particular has completely overturned
it. Mr. Norton has also opposed it with his wonted ability.

We come now to speak of Scholz's system. We cannot but
think that this scholar's attempted proofs of the purity of the
Constantinopolitan recension, its being directly derived from the
autographs of the apostles, and its unchanged character from the
very earliest period, are meagre and unsatisfactory. Ecclesiasti-
cal history, to which he appeals, furnishes no real proofs of the
soundness of his positions. We believe tliat it affords very few
materials towards a history of the text of the Greek Testament.
Wherever Scholz has resorted to it, which he seems desirous of
doing, the judicious and acute inquirer will perceive that it does
not bear him out in his statements. We could have wished for
more discrimination, less haste in coming to conclusions, and a

236 HISTORY OF THE TEXT LECT. XX.

soberer judgment. We fear that the numher of MSS. has in-
fluenced him in a great measure to prefer the Constantinopolitan
to the Alexandrine family. We imagine that few critics will be
convinced by his attempted arguments to establish the great
corruption of the Alexandrine codices. Eusebius has related a
fact which would go to prove the very opposite. At the request
of Constantine he made out 50 copies of the New Testament for
the use of the churches at Constantinople ; and as we know that
he gave a decided preference to the Alexandrine copies, it cannot
well be doubted that he would follow those sanctioned by Origen.
Eusebius therefore had no such opinion of the vast superiority of
the Asiatic to the Alexandrine codices as our modern scholar. It
may naturally occur to the mind of the reflecting student, if the
most ancient MSS. belong to the Alexandrine recension, and the
modern to the Constantinopolitan, why is the former regarded as
inferior to the latter ? Surely the most ancient documents ought
to be reckoned of greater value, and as more probably containing
the authentic text. I am quite aware that this is liable to ex-
ception however rational and probable it may seem. It does not
necessarily follow that the text of the older MSS. is also the older
and less adulterated text. The original text may be preserved in
the junior MSS., and is doubtless presented by them in many
instances. The mere circumstance of antiquity in codices, is not
sufficient of itself to warrant their possession of the primitive
original text. But unless there be some evidence counter-
balancing the antiquity of MSS. I would be inclined to prefer
them to junior ones. Believing, therefore, that Scholz has not
satisfactorily proved the corruption of the Alexandrine docu-
ments, I cannot agree with him in preferring the cursive to the
uncial MSS. The acknowledged antiquity of the latter has not
lost much of its value, notwithstanding all that Scholz has said.
In grouping together the Alexandrine and Occidental into one
class or family, he has adopted a division for which the public
mind was pretty well prepared, and in which we imagine that he
was right. It certainly depends much on the precise notions en-
tertained of the extent of a recension or family, whether the num-
ber be limited to two, or whether it be increased to more. Some
may reckon as a sort of sub-class what others would at once ex-
alt into a proper recension. Thus, though Griesbach and Hug
differ in the number of recensions, their systems are substantially
the same. The general division of all the materials into two

LECT. XX, OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 237

great families is simple and easily apprehended. It does not
aim at excessive refinement, neither does it tax our power of dis-
cernment to the utmost. It draws a line of distinction broad
enough to be seen. The subject is in itself subtle and unexact.
Its nature abhors demonstration. It cannot perhaps be so bound-
ed and fixed as to preclude a latitude of opinion in many of its de-
tails. We would not, therefore, be dogmatic. Still there ap-
pears to be an over-refined minuteness in maintaining the ex-
istence of more than the two families, which cannot be clearly
followed by a sober judgment. It requires a very delicate acu-
men to perceive more than two great classes ; and after all, a
good deal is left to the imagination. We are willing, therefore,
to subscribe to the theory of Scholz, in as far as it makes only
two families of MSS., versions, and fathers. But the great ques-
tion is, whether the Constantinopolitan be preferable to the
A lexandrine. Griesbach gave the decided preference to the latter .
Scholz's opinion is directly the reverse. The former is in our
view more correct. Dr. Scholz adduces the great uniformity of
the Constantinopolitan or junior codices as a proof of their supe-
riority to the Alexandrine, whilst he notices and dwells on the
many diversities existing within the Alexandrine itself as an evi-
dence of its having been extensively altered and corrupted. Yet
in this consideration there may not be much weight. Uniformity
does not necessarily argue purity. Much of the diversity alleg-
ed to exist in the Alexandrine family itself, is owing to the fact
of its containing very ancient memorials. Frequency of trans-
cription, and the unavoidable alterations that befall all such do-
cuments, together with their wide circulation in diflferent and
distant places, may serve in a good degree to account for the
greater variations in the Alexandrine class. When it is farther
recollected that many able and acute men have thought it indu-
bitable that an older form of the text, originating at an uncri-
tical period, and prevalent throughout an uncritical region, may
be clearly distinguished from a different condition of the same
text, as modelled by the critical age of the Greek Church, we
need not be surprised that both, grouped together in one class,
should present diversities. I am not, therefore, inclined to sub-
scribe to the system of recensions proposed by Scholz. After
reading his prolegomena with great attention, I cannot see that
he has proved what he wished to establish. He indulges in too
many hypotheses and bold assertions to recommend his peculiar

238 HISTORY OF THE TEXT LECT. XX.

principles to the general acceptation of the candid and cautious
inquirer. The accounts of this new theory given in English
books are far from being accurate, and are even calculated to
leave an erroneous impression on the minds of those who trust to
them, without perusing the words of the learned editor himself.
It is said, for instance, that Scholz has nearly, if not altogether
set at rest the question of recensions by the simple and satisfac-
tory theory which he has laid down with so much learning, and
supported with so much historical research. But I am far from
thinking that the subject is exhausted, or that it has been placed
on a firm or solid basis. It is still open for discussion. They
who suppose that the system of Dr. Scholz is liable to no well-
founded objection are certainly unacquainted with its nature, and
with the foundation on which it rests. In short, none of the sys-
tems yet proposed is free from serious objections. The efforts
made by the various authors to establish them are failures. Hence
we implicitly follow none of the critical editions of the New Tes-
tament,

We are inclined to believe that there are scarcely sufficient
historical facts to furnish ground for any system of recensions
properly so called. Conjectures have been put forth too liberally
respecting revisions of the text in early times, and respecting the
texts of ancient MSS.; but the data for any well-supported theory
to rest on are extremely slight. The subject therefore may fur-
nish endless scope for the speculations of the German critics. It
is just of that vague and undefined nature which excites the curio-
sity of men without gratifying it. I fear, therefore, that no well
defined historically-sustained system of classification can be pro-
posed in the present scanty state of our knowledge with regard
to the early treatment of the text. I fear that no palpable,
plain, and well founded theory will be brought forward at least
for a long time. Arbitrary conjectures, vague surmises, histori-
cal data light as air have been frequently resorted to; and if in
future, some able, acute, and learned man give us some secure
ground to stand on, I shall look upon him as a great benefactor
to sacred literature. Whoever will clear away the doubts and
difficulties that belong to the subject, and give it an aspect of
soundness and of security will gain to himself great reputation.
Such an individual has not yet appeared, and I have some ap-
prehension that he never will. I do not feel myself justified at
present to reject, as several learned men have done, the whole

LECT. XX. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 239

system of classification as visionary and fanciful. It is useful
thus to arrange the materials of criticism. The existence of cer-
tain characteristic readings belonging to the various memorials
of the text may be perceived, however much we may speculate
on their causes. Yet it is quite true that it is very difficult in
some cases to distinguish the family to which a particular read-
ing belongs, because the characteristics of its text may be equally
divided between two classes. Or they may be so slightly-
marked, that it is almost impossible to detect the family with which
it should be associated. The marks of its relationship may be so
obscurely defined as to make it a very nice and subtile question to
determine its appropriate recension. It is also true that no one
MS., or version, or father, exhibits a recension in a pure state ;
but that each form of the text appears more or less corrupted. It
is manifest, moreover, to every scholar, that the doctrines of the
classifiers have been incautiously applied. Still we are scarcely
prepared as yet to set aside the whole matter as one of ingenuity
rather than of truth. And yet the various attempts to erect such
systems have been hitherto so unsatisfactory and unsuccessful, that
we need not be surprised if men generally be inclined, at no
great distance of time, to look upon these fine-spun and gossa-
mer webs as quite airy and unsubstantial. We would not much
marvel, if the prevailing sentiments on this subject be in a few
years those now entertained by Dr. Lee and Mr. Penn, who
have spoken of it as one of speculation or rather of nihility. Its
intricacy and obscurity may afterwards lead the majority of critics
to cast it aside as unworthy of their sober regard. The classes
are so much blended, that it becomes a matter of difficulty to
disentangle them in particular instances. Hence its subtiity and
minuteness may lead scholars to view it as utterly futile. There
is a presumption in favour of such a result. Posterity may be
amused with the ingenious speculations of their predecessors
respecting the various readings of the New Testament. I am
not prepared, however, at present, to go so far as Dr. Lee or Mr.
Penn. Their language is too strong. The former says, " In-
geniosae illae familiarum fabricae, uti mihi videtur, in unum tan-
tummodo finem feliciter extructae sunt; utsc. rem in seipsa baud
valde obscuram, tenebris ^Egyptiacis obscuriorem reddant ; Edi-
toresque eos, qui se omnia rem acu tetigisse putent supra morta-
lium labendi statum, nescio quantum, evehere." (Prolegomena
to B?igster's Polyglott, p. 61.) The latter thus speaks, ''The

240 HISTORY OF THE TEXT LECT. XX.

diversities resulting from all these causes, gradually but continu-
ally multiplying through several ages of transcription, in diffe-
rent and distant countries, produced, at length, texts characteris-
tically differing from each other, and from the most ancient sur-
viving text ; and the innate propensity of the mind, to clear its
notions by endeavouring to reduce its confused ideas to systema-
tical arrangement, prompted some late learned critics to persuade
themselves that they had discovered, in the chaos of various read-
ings, certain fixed marks or tokens, by which they could be re-
duced into true classes or orders." (Annotations to the Book of
the New Covenant, preface, p. 37). I cannot relish this language
in all its force. In so important an undertaking as the establish-
ment of a pure text, it facilitates much the labour of an editor to
classify and arrange MSS., versions, and quotations, so as to be
able to decide without much hesitation on the claims of a parti-
cular reading. In the formation of a standard text, it is useful to
lay some such foundation. At present, I abide by the twofold
division of Scholz, without placing any reliance on his historical
proofs of the superiority of the Constantinopolitan to the Alex-
andrine family. I prefer the latter, ceteris paribus. It is more
ancient, more valuable, less adulterated — at least so it seems to
me. At the same time, 1 believe, that the data for classifying the
documents, containing the text of the New Testament, are quite
insufficient to establish any system; and that, therefore, we are
to regard the subject, though so much canvassed, as still unsettled
and likely to be so.

Having thus given a brief account of the text of the New Tes-
tament in its unprinted state, we pass to the history of the printed
text and the critical treatment it has received.

The New Testament was not printed so early as the Hebrew
Bible and the Vulgate, because the influence of the papacy
was unfavourable to the circulation of the original text. The
irhole of the New Testament (for different portions had been
published before), was first printed in the Complutensian Poly-
glott 1514, though it was not published till 1517. Germany has
the merit of having issued the first Greek Testament printed in
1516 at Basel, under the superintendence of Erasmus. These
two editions were published independently of each other. They
constitute the basis of the received text, and the source of all sub-
sequent impressions. It is to be regretted that the best critical
materials were not applied in their preparation; but we are to

LECT. XX. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 241

remember the state of sacred learning at the time, and the scanty-
sources of criticism accessible to the Biblical scholar. The edi-
tors, indeed, of the Complutensian Polyglott, in their preface,
boast of their having made use of MSS. in the Vatican library,
but they give no description of them; and the probability is that
they were modern, because the Complutensian text so often op-
poses the testimony of the older and more valuable documents.
The editors have been accused, not without reason, of having
altered many places agreeably to the Vulgate. Indeed, it is al-
most certain, that they borrowed 1 John v. 7 from their favourite
version. We know, too, from actual collation, that the codex
Vaticanus, i. e. B, was not in the number of those used by the
editors, a circumstance that casts suspicion on the boast that they
had received very ancient and valuable codices from Rome.
Erasmus again, used as the basis of his edition, four Greek MSS.
not older than the 12th century, and two of them Latinisinrj ones.
In the Apocalypse he had one more ancient than any of those
from which he edited the other parts of the Greek Testament.
But he did not confine himself wholly to these materials in pre-
paring the text; for he occasionally altered from the Vulgate,
and from critical conjecture. In the year 1519 appeared his
second edition, in 1522 the third, in 1527 the fourth, and in
1535 the fifth. The text was altered in all of these subsequent
impressions. The passage, 1 John v. 7, was first admitted into
the third edition, on the authority of the codex Montfortii, and is
consequently wanting in the early editions of Luther's trans-
lation, which followed the second of Erasmus. In the last
two editions, Erasmus made great use of the Complutensian
Polyglott, especially in the book of Revelation. These are the
two impressions whose influence has been very great in all sub-
sequently published. Their text was repeated, with alterations
by several editors whom it is unnecessary to mention. The
third place among the early editors of the Greek Testament has
been assigned to the celebrated Robert Stephens, whose first
edition was printed at Paris 1546, 16mo, chiefly taken from the
Complutensian, and usually designated the mirifica edition from
the commencement of the preface. The second edition was pub-
lished in 1549. In the third, 1550, in folio, called the regia or
royal edition, he followed the 5th of Erasmus, with which he com-
pared fifteen MSS. and the Complutensian Polyglott, marking the
variations in the margin. In 1551 appeared another edition, ac-

R

242 HISTORY OF THE TEXT LECT. XX.

companied by the Vulgate, and the translation of Erasmus, and re_
markable as being the first into which the division of verses was
introduced. The next person who contributed to the criticism of
the Greek Testament was Theodore Beza, who had fled from
France to Switzerland on account of his religion, where he be-
came the disciple and successor of the famous Calvin. The text
of his first edition, 15G5, folio, was the same as that in the third
of Stephens, altered in about fifty places, accompanied with the
Vulgate, a Latin translation of his own, and exegetical remarks.
In his second edition, 1582, he had the advantage of the Syriac
version and two ancient MSS., viz. codd. Claromontanus and
Cantabrigiensis. A third impression appeared in 1589, and a
fourth in 1598. All of these differ from each other, and contri-
buted more than any other editions to the settlement of a re-
ceived text. The Elzevir editions contain partly the text of the
third of Stephens and partly that of Beza The first appeared at
Leyden 1624. The editor's name is still unknown, and there-
fore the impression goes by the name of the printer. The second
edition of 1633 proclaims its text to be the textus receptus, which it
afterwards became. Subsequently, three other editions issued
from the same press. The editor does not appear to have con-
sulted any Greek MSS., for his readings are to be found either
in Beza or Stephens. This edition was soon reprinted and cir-
culated through different countries with little variation. Thus
was the common text, regarded though it be by many as almost
inspired in all its words, prepared from very few materials,
and these not the most ancient or valuable. Critical con-
jecture contributed its share to its formation ; and arbitrary
alterations, originating in the minds of the early editors or adopt-
ed from the corrupt Vulgate, were unscrupulously introduced.
And yet a text so faulty and defective in accuracy as it must ne-
cessarily be from the circumstances of the times, and the conduct
of the editors, continued for a long time to gather around it that
sanctity which ignorance at first attached to it, and which even
the learned had subsequently joined in not refusing. In progress
of time, however, the want of a better and more correct edition
was felt, when the critical apparatus had accumulated by the la-
bours and researches of subsequent editors, and when they ven-
tured at length to apply a reforming hand to the text that had
long possessed so great authority.

Brian Walton, celebrated as the editor of the London Poly-

LECT. XX. OF THE NEW TESTEMENT. 243

glott, gave a more copious collection of various readings than had
before appeared. This was farther enlarged by John Fell, in his
edition, published at Oxford, 1675, and reprinted by Gregory in
1703. Here it has been said that the infancy of the criticism of
the Greek Testament ends, and the period of its manhood com-
mences.

Dr. John Mill, encouraged and supported by Bishop Fell, gave
to the world a new edition in 1705, Oxford, in folio. The text
is that of Stephens' third edition. In it the editor gave from
. Gregory's MSS. a much greater number of readings than is to
be found in any former edition. The extracts that had been
made from ancient versions he revised and increased, selecting
with his own hand very many from the oriental translations in
the London Polyglott. Nor did he neglect quotations from the
ancient fathers. To his work he prefixed learned prolegomena.
It is said that it contains not less than 30,000 various readings, a
circumstance which exposed him to many attacks, as though his
work had a tendency to undermine the authority of the Chris-
tian religion. Ludolph Kuster reprinted Mill's Greek Testament
at Amsterdam in 1710, enriching it with the readings of twelve
additional MSS. The first attempt to amend the textus receptus
was made by John Albert Bengel abbot of Alpirspach, in Wir-
temburg. His edition appeared at Tiibingen, in quarto, 1734,
to which was prefixed his " Introductio in crisin Novi Testa-
menti," containing his system of recensions. Subjoined to it is
an apparatus cr Ulcus ^ containing his collection of various readings,
which was chiefly taken from Mill, with important additions, in
the text he imposed upon himself the singular law not to give any
thing that had not been already printed. In the Apocalypse,
however, he sometimes took the liberty of inserting readings that
had not been printed before.

John James Wetstein also contributed in no small degree to
the advancement of sacred criticism, by his large and celebrated
edition of the Greek Testament, published at Amsterdam in
1751-52, 2 vols, folio. In 1730 he had published prolegomena.
Though it was his wish to give a new and corrected text, yet va-
rious circumstances compelled him to give the textus receptus.
But he noted partly in the text itself by a particular mark, shew-
ing a proposed omission, and partly in the inner margin, imme-
diately below the text, such readings as he preferred. His col-
lection of various readings, with their respective authorities, ex-

244 HISTORY OF THE TEXT LECT. XX.

ceeds all former works of the same kind in copiousness and value.
He corrected and enlarged the extracts given by Mill, adding to
them those of Bengel ; collated anew many MSS. that had been
superficially examined ; gave extracts from many others for the
first time, and made use of the Harclean version, hitherto uncol-
lated. He marked the uncial MSS. with the letters of the alpha-
bet for convenience, and the cursive with numerical letters, in
which he has been followed by almost all subsequent editors.
His exegetical notes have justly subjected him to the charge of
partiality. They consist principally of extracts from Greek, La-
tin, and Jewish writers, quoted for the purpose of throwing light
on the meaning of the text. They are often useless and inap-
propriate, having little reference to the passage for whose eluci-
dation they are adduced, and contributing nothing to its right
interpretation. This edition of the Greek Testament is indis-
pensable to all who are conversant with sacred criticism ; and will
always remain a lasting and marvellous monument of indomitable
energy and unwearied diligence, united to an extent of philolo-
gical learning rarely surpassed by any single man. The editor
does not seem to have taken up the idea of Bengel respecting re-
censions^ ov families. This has been supposed by many to detract
from the high value of the work. The prolegomena contain a
treasure of critical learning that will always be prized by the bib-
lical scholar. They were republished by Semler, and furnished
with valuable notes by the editor. As a theologian, Wetstein is
accused of having entertained Socinian sentiments ; from which
charge his notes show that he is not free. His peculiar creed,
however, does not appear to have influenced his statement of the
evidence for a particular reading. As a critic, his judgment is
generally unbiassed, and his decisions sound. In 1763 Mr.
Bowyer, a printer in London, published the Greek Testament
in two volumes 12mo, containing a text such as Wetstein re-
commended.

We come now to speak of a scholar who is pre-eminently dis-
tinguished in the history of the New Testament criticism, Dr.
John James Griesbach. He enlarged and enriched the store of
materials collected by Wetstein, with new and important addi-
tions, by collating MSS., versions, and early ecclesiastical wri-
ters especially Origen, with great industry and labour. The
idea oi families or recensions in the materials of the New Testa-
ment, recommended by Bengel and Semler, he adopted and car-

LECT. XX. OF THE NEW TESTAMKNT. 245

ried out with much acuteness, nice discrimination, and consider-
able success. Flis first edition appeared at Halle, 1774-75, in
two volumes. The three first gospels were synoptical ly arrang-
ed ; but afterwards in 1777 he published them in their natural and
usual order. The common text is altered according to the judg-
ment of the editor, founded on a comparison of the documents
which he possessed. Nothing has been changed from conjec-
ture, and nothing adopted into the text on the sole authority of
versions and quotations in ancient writers, without the sanction
of MSS. A select number of various readings is placed beneath
the text. In his symholce criticcB, Halle, 1785-93, 2 vols, he gave
an account of his critical labours, and the collations of new autho-
rities he had made. Such was the commencement of Griesbach's
researches — the first fruits of those literary labours which consti-
tute the most important aera in the history of Scripture criticism.
Between the years 1782 — 88, Christian Frederick Matthaei,
Professor at Moscow, published a new edition of the Greek
Testament, in 12 vols. 8vo. His text comes very near the
received, and was chiefly founded on the collation of more than
a hundred Moscow MSS., which he was the first to examine.
It is accompanied with the Vulgate, with scholia, and excursus.
The editor avowed himself the enemy of the recension system ;
the despiser of the ancient MSS., especially the cod. Cantab., and
of the quotations of the fathers. He exhibited an undue predi-
lection for the junior Moscow documents ; and spoke in an un-
warrantable tone of severity of Griesbach and others. His merits
consist solely in his having collated many new MSS. with great
care, and having thus augmented the materials that might serve in
other hands the important purpose of producing a correct and
pure text. Before the completion of his edition appeared that
of Alter in 1 786-87 ; 2 vols. The text is that of the Vienna
MS., with which he collated 22 others in the Imperial library,
noting their various readings. To these he added readings from
the Coptic, Slavonian, and Latin versions. The objection to
this edition is that it contains the text of a single MS. of incon-
siderable value. In 1 788, Professor Birch of Copenhagen far-
ther enlarged the province of sacred criticism by his splendid
edition of the four gospels in folio and quarto. The text is
merely a reprint of the third edition of Stephens ; but the ma-
terials with which the edition is furnished are peculiarly valuable.
They consist of extracts taken by himself and Moldenhauer, in

246 HISTORY OF THE TEXT LECT. XX.

their critical travels, from numerous MSS. which had not been
examined by Wetstein ; and of Adler*s selections from the Jeru-
salem-Syriac version, discovered in the Vatican library. Birch
was the first who carefully collated the celebrated codex Vatica-
mis, or B, a circumstance that chiefly added to the great value
of his edition. The publication of the second volume was pre-
vented by a great fire at Copenhagen that destroyed many of
the materials and put a stop to the work. But, in 1798, he gave
to the world his collection of various readings on the remaining
parts of the New Testament, except the Apocalypse. In 1800,
he published those relating to this book also, thus completing the
work which he had undertaken. These were the new sources
possessed by Griesbach, in addition to such as he had formerly
examined. Such was the copious collection of critical materials
existing, when he began to prepare his second edition. His ob-
ject was not to supersede the labours of Wetstein, nor to exhibit
all the readings contained in that expensive and now rare edition;
but he wished to furnish students with a convenient and portable
edition of the Greek Testament, provided with such a critical
apparatus as would be adequate to give them a correct idea of
the state of the text. He selected, therefore, the most important
readings. For the new edition he made extracts from the Arme-
nian, Slavonic, Latin, Sahidic, Coptic, and other translations,
and from early ecclesiastical writers ; besides incorporating into
his collection the results of the labours of Matthaei, Alter, and
Birch, already described. In 1796 appeared the first volume,
containing the four gospels'; and, in 1806, the second, both
published at Halle. At the end of the second volume he has a
dissertation on 1 John v. 7. The work was reprinted at London
1809, and again in 1818. The very valuable prolegomena pre-
fixed to it may be well styled a storehouse of information respect-
ing the history of the text, and the principal materials that must
be employed in correcting it. The work is indispensable to every
critic and sacred interpreter ; and will always form a necessary
part of the library of a learned divine. None can satisfactorily
or thorougly pursue his studies without it.

In the year 1827, many new materials having been procured
since the date of Griesbach's second edition, it was deemed ne-
cessary to publish a third, the superintendence of which was
undertaken by Dr. Schulz. The first volume was published
at Berlin 18*27, containing the prolegomena and gospels. This

LECT. XX. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 247

edition contains various readings from nearly 20 now sources,
many corrections of Griesbach's references and citations, besides
considerable improvements in other respects, which need not be
minutely specified. The second volume never appeared.

Passing over the minor editions of Dr. Knapp of Halle, first
printed in 1797, and several times reprinted, of Schott, Tittman,
and Vater, all of which were chiefly taken from Griesbach,
we proceed to notice the last great critical edition of the
Greek Testament which has appeared, viz. that of Dr. J. Mar-
tin Augustus Scholz, one of the Roman Catholic professors at
Bonn. The first volume was published in 1830, 4to, containing
the gospels; and the second in 1836, completing the work.
This edition is founded on a different system of recensions from
that of Griesbach, which it was doubtless intended to rival and
supersede. In collecting materials for the work, he spent 12
years of incessant labour. He informs us that he visited in per-
son the libraries of Paris, Vienna, Landshut, Munich, Treves,
Berlin, London, Geneva, Turin, Florence, Venice, Parma,
Rome, Naples, the libraries of the Greek monasteries at Jerusa-
lem, of St. Saba, and the isle of Patmos, collating either
wholly or in part all the MSS. of the New Testament in those
libraries, and comparing them with Griesbach's text. He also
examined the ancient versions, and the passages cited by the
fathers and in the acts of councils. The prolegomena prefixed
to the work consisting of 172 quarto pages contain ample infor-
mation respecting all the codices, versions, fathers, and councils,
which have been used as authorities, together with a history of
the text, and an exposition or defence of his peculiar system of
classification. The text is accompanied, in the inner margin,
with the general readings characteristic of the three great fami
lies, whilst the outer margin is similar to that of Griesbach's edi-
tion. The total number of MSS. which he has added to those
previously collated is 606; and though w'e may hesitate to rely
on the accuracy of the extracts which he has given for the first
time, yet he deserves the thanks of every critic for the many in-
teresting documents he has brought to light.

His researches have restored several readings which Griesbach
had expunged from the text ; and have raised the textus receptus
higher in reputation than Griesbach's labours placed it. In con-
sequence of his preference of the Constantinopolitan family, he
has given a text which comes much nearer the Elzevir edition

248 HISTORY OF THE TEXT LECT. XX.

than Giiesbach's ; and, in a few important passages, we must say-
that he has exhibited the true reading where his distinguished
predecessor, in opposition to his own testimonies and authorities,
strangely altered the ancient form of a passage. The learned
world is deeply indebted to this laborious editor for the valuable
work which he has published. The materials which he has put
within the reach of those who would investigate for themselves
the vast apparatus with a view of eliciting the genuine and pri-
mitive readings, are abundant. Notwithstanding the great merit
of his predecessor, and the danger to his own reputation of fol -
lowing in the same path, he has gained for himself an imperish-
able name among the promoters of Scripture criticism. Though
we cannot look upon him as equally sagacious, acute, and judi-
cious, with Griesbach — though he may be inferior in all the
qualifications that constitute an accomplished editor of the Greek
Testament, yet we are not insensible to his merits as a laborious
and diligent scholar. He has put us in possession of so many
helps and means of correction, that we need not often be at a
loss to decide upon the authenticity of a phrase, or the spurious-
ness of a word. But his collations appear to have been cursory,
and consequently superficial. They cannot always be depended
on. We know too from his notes that he has sometimes impli-
citly copied Griesbach's words, even when they lead to a result
difi'erent from his own. What influence this edition may exercise
on the public mind it is yet impossible to say. It has been wel-
comed with avidity by many ; and has, we fear, been too highly
extolled by those who have never studied the principles on which
the text is formed, or read with attention some of the collations
he gives. That it will completely supersede Griesbach's I can-
not believe, though in a few important passages I am inclined to
prefer the readings it exhibits. One thing is pretty certain, that
it will never command the confidence of the Protestant critics in
Germany, or be regarded by them as the production of a man in all
respects qualified to undertake so Herculean a task. And should it
supplant Griesbach's edition in our own country, we will probably
find that this will be owing to the partiality of the editor for the
Constantinopolitan text, rather than to its intrinsic merit, or to
the truth of his peculiar system. I cannot believe, however, that
those who are fully capable of giving a calm and unprejudiced
decision, will ever consent to place the Byzantine family on an
pquality with another confessedly more ancient ; or that the in-

LECT. XX. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 249

ternal goodness of one document may not sometimes render it
equivalent to a number of inferior codices which are merely the
repetitions of each other. The few great biblical scholars, who
guide the opinions of the many, will probably scruple to adopt
the entire system of Scholz ; though they may occasionally pre-
fer his text to that of Griesbach, because the authorities of the
latter sometimes lead to a different conclusion from that which he
has himself drawn.

The small edition of C. Lachmann, recently published at Ber-
lin, 1831, 12mo, deserves to be mentioned. The editor says, that
" he has no where followed his own judgment, but the usage of the
Oriental churches. So often as he has found this not to be con-
sistent, he has as far as possible been guided by the agreement of
the Italian and African churches." He has noted the diversities
of the textus receptus from his own at the end of the volume.
Thus the judgment of this scholar coincides in some measure
with that of Scholz, in exalting the Oriental above the Western
recension. Opposed then as he is to Griesbach's system, it is
still a subject of controversy whether the Oriental or Occidental
MSS. be of the highest and best authority. This edition has
met with some success on the continent ; for the author has been
encouraged to undertake a new and large work with a full appa-
ratus. Whether he may be able to establish his opinions as to
the criticism of the text on a sure and immovable basis, we know
not ; but it is certain that in Germany, where there are many
scholars able to decide on such matters, a number have acceded
to his views. De Wette, in particular, in the last edition of his
Einleitung, (introduction) shews a leaning towards the views of
Matthaei, Scholz, Lachmann, and Rink, all of whom agree in
substance in preferring the Oriental MSS. De Wette, however,
seems to me not always deliberate in weighing the opinions of
others. Hence his fluctuating sentiments.

Having thus given a history of the text of the whole Bible,
printed and unprinted, and having shown the attempts made
to restore it to its genuine purity, it remains for me to say a
few words on all that criticism has accomplished. The re-
sult of it has been to establish the genuineness of the Old and
New Testament texts in all matters of any importance. No
new doctrines have been elicited by its aid — no historical facts
have been summoned forth from their obscurity by means of
it. All the doctrines and duties remain unaffected. Of

250 HISTORY OF THE TEXT LECT. XX.

what utility then has it been to the world ? why all the la-
bour and prodigious industry expended ? have all the re-
searches of modern criticism been thrown away ? We believe
they have not. They have proved that there is no material
corruption in the records of inspiration. They have shewn in the
most successful manner, that, during the lapse of so many cen-
turies, the text of the Holy Scriptures has been preserved in a
surprising" degree of purity ; and that it has not been extensively
tampered with by bold and daring hands. We discover that it
is very nearly in the same state as that in which it was found
1700 years ago. The German critics with their immense re-
searches have not been able to shew that the common text varies
in any matter of serious moment from that which they recom-
mend. It is substantially the same as their own proposed texts,
and entitled to as much attention, until they establish to the sa-
tisfaction of the great body of thinking men, the changes which
they wish to make. Thus has criticism built a basis on which
we may securely rest our faith. It has taught us to view the
Scriptures, as we now have them, in the light of the wfalUble
iLord of God. W^e may boldly challenge the opponent of the
Bible to shew that this book has been materially corrupted. Em-
powered and emboldened by the fruits of criticism, we may well
say, that the Holy Scriptures remain essentially the same as they
originally proceeded from the writers. We need not, therefore, be
under any alarm when we hear of the vast collection of various
readings accumulated by the collators of MSS., and by the criti-
cal editors of the Bible. They are in general of a trifling nature,
resembling the differences of orthography, that we find in the
writings of different authors, and the varieties of collocation in
which the varying taste of writers puts the same words. Confi-
dent, therefore, of the general integrity of our religious records,
we can look upon upwards of 100,000 various readings in the
New Testament alone, without alarm, since they are so very un-
important as not to aifect our belief. I thank ray God that I am
thus assured of the immoveable ground of my faith, and that I
am able to walk without apprehension over that sacred field which
he has given me to contemplate and to explore, as his own glorious
and gracious production. My faith in the integrity of his word
is not a blind or superstitious principle, when I perceive, that all
the results of learning incontestably shew, that the Bible, as we
have it at present, may be regarded as the sacred gift of heaven.

LECT. XX. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 251

whose spuriousness no effort of infidelity can expect to demon-
strate. Let the illiterate and plain reader of the Bible also take
comfort to himself when he learns, that the received text to
which he is accustomed, is substantially the same as that which
men of the greatest learning, the most unwearied diligence, and the
severest habits of study, have elicited from a prodigious heap of
documents. Let him go forward with a heart grateful to the
God of salvation, who has put him in possession of the same text
as is possessed by the great biblical editors, whose names are so
well known in the literature of the Scriptures.

" Of the various readings of the New Testament," says Mr.
Norton, and similar remarks hold good of the Old Testament,
" nineteen out of twenty, at least, are to be dismissed at once
from consideration, — not on account of their intrinsic unimpor-
tance,— that is a separate consideration, — but because they are
found in so few authorities, and their origin is so easily explain-
ed, that no critic would regard them as having any claim to be
inserted in the text. Of those which remain, a very great ma-
jority are entirely unimportant. They consist in different modes
of spelling ; in different tenses of the same verb, or different cases
of the same noun, not affecting the essential meaning ; in the
use of the singular for the plural, or the plural for the singular,
where one or the other expression is equally suitable ; in the in-
sertion or omission of particles, such as av and ds, not affecting
the sense, or of the article in cases equally unimportant ; in the
introduction of a proper name, where, if not inserted, the personal
pronoun is to be understood, or of some other word or words ex-
pressive of a sense which would be distinctly implied without
them ; in the addition of " Jesus" to " Christ," or " Christ" to
" Jesus ;" in the substitution of one synonymous or equivalent
term for another ; in the transposition of words, leaving their
signification the same ; in the use of an uncompounded verb, or
of the same verb compounded with a preposition, the latter dif-
fering from the former only in a shade of meaning. Such various
readings, and others equally unimportant, compose far the greater
part of all, concerning which there may be or has been a question,
whether they are to be admitted into the text or not, and it is
therefore obviously of no consequence in which way the question
has been or may be determined." (Genuineness of the Gospels,
additional Notes, pp. 38, 39.)

LECTURE XXI.

THE DIVISIONS AND MARKS OF DISTINCTION IN THE HEBREW
BIBLE AND GREEK TESTAMENT.

The next subject which naturally comes before us is, the divi-
sions and marks of distinction of the Hebrew Bible, and Greek
Testament.

First, we will speak of the Hebrew text. The largest and most
ancient division of the Old Testament, which must have been
contemporaneous with the completion of the canon, is into three
parts, the law, the prophets, and the holy writings, n*l1n torah,

T

D*^?^IIJ nebiim, and D^^^DS cethuhim. These are referred to by

Jesus the Son of Sirach, in the prologue, when he speaks of " the
law, the prophets, and the rest of the books ;" and by our Sa-
viour in Luke xxiv. 44, where by " the Psalms" is meant not
merely the book which bears that name in the Scriptures, but all
books except those included in the lawsLudthe p?'ophets. The law
comprehended the five books of Moses. The prophets were sub-
divided into D^^18i^^?'^ D^NO^ (nebiim rishonim), the former pro-
phets, viz. Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, and D^^IIIlK D^K^H^
(nebiim acharonim) later prophets- The latter again were di-
vided into D^/I^Jl (gedoWm), f/r eater prophets, viz. Isaiah, Jere-
miah, Ezekiel; and D'3iOp (Ketannim), lesser prophets, of which.

there are twelve. T^ie appellation cetuhim was afterwards trans-
lated by y^a^sTa and ayidyia<pa. Among the cetubim were the five
megilloth, (Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Ruth, Samuel, Es-
ther), and the poetical hooks, (Job, Proverbs, and Psalms.) The
rest are Daniel, Esra, Nehemiah, Chronicles. All Christians, how-
ever, have pUiced Daniel among the prophets, as is done in the

LECT. XXI. MARKS OF DISTINCTION, &C. 253

Septuagint translation. In the arrangement of the individual
books, the Seventy, the fathers, and our English translators, dif-
fer from the Jews. Among the Jews themselves there is not
strict uniformity in this particular. The Talmudists and Ma-
soretes, as also the German and Spanish MSS., differ from one
another. The German copies follow the Talmud, the Spanish
the Masora. In the former, the Hagiographa stand in the fol-
lowing order : Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Canticles, Ruth, Lamen-
tations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Esra, Nehemiah, and
Chronicles : but in the Spanish they are differently placed, viz.
Chronicles, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes,
Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Esra, Nehemiah.

It is not to be supposed, however, that all Hebrew MSS. con-
tain even the whole of the division called Hagiographa.

It is now generally admitted that the Old Testament text was
originally without the vowel points, diacritical marks, and accents.
The division into words also was not originally employed, though
it is highly probable that it originated at the time when the
square character came into use. When the single letters were
regularly separated at equal intervals, it is natural to suppose,
that two w^ords were more widely separated than two single let-
ters. On the stone of Carpentras, a monument of the old Ara-
maean writing, we meet with such intervals, as well as in the
most ancient Syriac MSS. In this way, MSS. in the Hebrew
square character, by spacing between the first and last letters of
two successive words, avoided the use of points in the text, to
serve a similar purpose. Yet if we are to judge from the ana-
logy of other languages, it would appear that such an iiiterpunc-
tion preceded the separation of letters into words, which we
suppose to have been first made when the square character be-
came general. The oldest Greek and Latin inscriptions and
MSS. present such interpunction ; and it is probable that it
came from the east. The Phenician inscriptions also contain a
division of words made by points ; and the Samaritan has a like
interpunction. If, therefore, we are to look to the analogy of
the modes of writing practised by other nations who may have
derived them from the east, it cannot but appear probable, that
the ancient Hebrew MSS. had the same method of dividinor
words. The final letters are intimately connected with the
spaces left for dividing words in the text, though they were not
themselves intended to mark such a separation. When room

254 MARKS OF DISTINCTION IN THE LECT. XXI.

was left between two words, scope was afforded for a freer tracing
of the final letter.

The verses and the interpunction are in Hebrew denoted by
the accents. It is highly probable that these marks of accentu-
ation were originally of a rythmical kind ; but as the sense is so
closely connected with the rythm, they came also to mark the in-
terpunction, and to distinguish verses. But it would seem that
the division itself into certain periods, verses, and half verses, is
older than the accents by which it was afterwards pointed out.
Such divisions were probably attended to at first in the public
reading of the Old Testament, and were afterwards fixed by
written signs, so as to lose their previously fluctuating character*
If this account be correct, then the present marked division into
verses, made at the time of the vowel-system by the Masoretes, is
more than a thousand years old.

The verses called D^p^DB pesiikim, mentioned by the Talmud,
are different from those now in use, as we may convince ourselves
by comparing the numbers in the Talmud with those at the end
of the several books in our present editions. Jerome divided the
prophetic and poetical books into cola and commata, i. e. larger
and smaller sections ; and the historical books into cola. This
he did, according to his own words, for the convenience of the
reader and the eliciting of the sense. Perhaps the pesiikim of the
Talmud were similar to these sections made by Jerome. The
poetical books were also written in li?ies i^arr/oi') in the translation
of the Seventy, and the Vetus Itala, just as they appear in some
old MSS. still extant. The marking of the verses with numbers
was a comparatively modern invention. Robert Stephens intro-
duced it into the Vulgate in 1548 ; and in 1557 it appeared, for
the first time, in an edition of the Pentateuch, and afterwards
throughout the whole of Athias' edition, 1661.

The modern division into chapters is of Christian origin, and
first appeared in the edition of the printed text by Daniel Bom-
berg, 1525, from which time it was continued among the Jews.
Like that of the New Testament, it might have been more judi-
ciously made ; but it is needless to complain of what cannot now
be remedied. It is supposed to have proceeded in the thirteenth
century from those scholastic divines who, along with Cardinal
Hugo, were the authors of a concordance. By others it is ascrib-
ed to Stephen Langton, archbishop of Canterbury, about 1220.
Before the introduction of chapters, some inconvenience was felt

LtCT. XXI. HEBREW BIBLE AND GREEK TESTAMENT. 255

in the matter of quotation and reference. A section or paragraph
was alluded to by some principal word in it, or by the chief thing
which it contained. So Philo, de ^-'^^ricultura, p. 208, writes,
/.£/£/ yai (6 M(jij.oi) h raig u^aig. " in the curses." Deuteron. xxvii.
So Aben Esra, on Hosea iv. 18, says, " it is written in Eli;'*
and Rashi, on Hosea ix. 9, " it is Gibeon in the concubine."
Judges xix — xxi. In the New Testament, quotations are some-
times made in this Rabbinical mode. So Mark xii. 26, *' have
ye not read in the book of Moses in the bush," i. e. the section
relating to the bush: see Exodus third chapter. Romans xi. 2,
*' wot ye not what the Scripture saith in Elias," i. e. the part re-
lating to Elias. See 1 Kings xvii — xix.

The Masoretes sometimes divided the text into DmD sedarim
D'^/!D^D and simanim (ffrifj.sTa) but these differ from our present chap-
ters. So also the capitula of Jerome containing paragraphs made
with reference to the sense, like the tituli and breves of the Latin
version.

The lessons appointed to be read in the synagogue on the
Sabbath day have received the name of r)V2i^*^£3 parshioth or
parashoth in the Pentateuch, and DIIDDn haphtaruth in the
prophets. The Pentateuch is divided into 54 larger parashoth,
according to the number of Sabbaths in an intercalary year ; but
they are subdivided into smaller portions for the sake of conveni-
ence, which are usually designated by the same title. Such as
begin a new line are called mmnD pethuchoth, open; while those
that commence in the middle of a line are denominated m^IDD
sethumoth, close. Hence the larger are marked by the letter Pe
thrice repeated, or samech thrice repeated, according as they are
open or closed sections; the smaller with joe or samech. The time of
their introduction cannot be discovered; but it is not probable that
they are as old as the custom of publicly reading the law in the sy-
nagogue. They are mentioned in the Talmud, but Jerome takes
no notice of them. A section from the prophets was usually read
after a. par ash from the law. The origin of reading the prophets in this
public manner is generally attributed to the interdict of Antiochus
Epiphanes who forbad the reading of the law. This account of
the rise and custom is of very questionable credit. It was first
given, as far as we have been able to trace, by Elias Levita. De
Wette justly characterises it as an " unhappy conjecture," (eine
ungliickliche Vermuth ung). With greater probability, Vitringa
conceived that when the Jews had been freed from severe persecu-
tions by means of the Maccabees, they endeavoured to improve the

256

MARKS OF DISTINCTION IN THE LECT. XXI

character of their worship, by adding portions from the prophets to
those of the law. It prevailed in the time of Christ, as we see in
the New Testament, (Acts xiii. 15 ; Luke iv. 16,) but there were
no definite appointed portions at that time assigned to particular
days. The word liaphtarah signifies dismission, because it con-
cluded the Sabbath day's service. It may be remarked that the
hapJitaroth do not embrace the whole of the prophets, as the
parashotli do the books of Moses, but merely selected portions.

Of the different divisions of the Greek Testament. — The largest
division of the New Testament was into the gospels (jh i-jc/.yyiXixhv)^
and the epistles (jh aorotrroX/xov) to which the Acts of the Apost-
les and the Apocalypse were attached. The apostolical epistles
were afterwards subdivided into the Pauline and Catholic epistles.

The text is supposed to have been originally written in one
continued line, without punctuation, and without distinction of
words, sentences, or paragraphs. Accents, spirits, and iota sub-
scribed, were also absent. But the inconveniences of this mode
of writing were easily perceived, and remedies were accordingly
applied to remove, or at least to lessen them. About the year
462 Euthalius, a deacon of Alexandria, divided the text of the
Acts of the Apostles into cnxci or lines, containing just so many
words as were to be read uninterruptedly. Of his procedure in
the gospels we have no account. The reckoning of cnyji is de-
nominated stichometry ; and the copy furnished by Euthalius,
with such a distinction, was called a stichometrical one. This
mode of writinor still exists in the most ancient MSS. of the New
Testament. In order to save the space necessarily lost by
stichometry, the (Jti^oi were afterwards divided by points. This
is observable in K. or codex Cyprius. With regard to the
^TiiMara which we find mentioned, they were perhaps the ari-xot un-
der another name. One thing is certain, that both were some-
times counted at the end of MSS., and that their number is not
very different. The accents are considered to be more ancient
than the criyj)i, but Euthalius first brought them into general use
in his stichometrical edition. From stichometry gradually arose
a system of regular punctuation, such as we find commonly adopt-
ed in the 10th century. Different, however, is our present system,
which was not firmly established till the 16th century. Iota sub-
script was introduced with the cursive writing in the 10th cen-
tury, but it was often written by the side of other letters, even
after that^time. The gospels were anciently divided into x«fa-

(^^

TONMKmirnTONA oroNEnoinzAMEN
UEPIUANTiiNSL^E O 4'IAE
SiNHTSATOlEriTOJEINTE
:EAUIAA^KEmAXPIHLmdKPA£

A?fEAHM^eHENTEIAAMENOT.TOn:AnOETCkLOIE
AIAirNKAriOYDi:J:SEAE:SATQ£A IKSTKi EJ^EJE
RHFYLI.EINTQKi'ANrEArOK.

6^%c-^^t^^^t^>*t-/-z^j/^^ aL^j^^j^yf^f-'f^^'^'^'^,^^^^/^^^^

ify^^u^oci^, .y^Q^A^jr.M M/

O St sys^ii- Tta^ilafii to rtaiSioi^. xai Trp> f^Tjre^ avtiov.^

LECT. XXI. HEBREW BIBLE AND GREEK TESTAMENT. 257

Xa/a and rh'/.oi. The former are smaller sections, and were num-
bered in the margin ; the latter are greater, and were marked on
the upper or lower margin. The gospel of Matthew contains
C8 titXoi and 355 x£pa?.a/a. Sometimes both are designated by
the one appellation xs^aXa/a, as we find Theophylact to have done.
The larger divisions or r/VXo/, were of later origin than the xs^a-
Xa/a ; but their precise date, as well as their author, cannot be
ascertained. Chrysostom knew nothing of them ; in Theophylact
they are generally used. Hence it has been supposed that they
are not older than the sixth century. The smaller or jt£^a?.a/a,
are generally attributed to Eusebius, who, in imitation of the
gospel-harmony of Ammonius, projected a harmonical register
of the four gospels, into which all the sections relating to the
same things were introduced. Ammonius had collected and put
together these corresponding sections, and Eusebius merely reck-
oned them up. Hence they are called the Ammonian-Eusebian
sections. Both divisions are found in most MSS. The Acts of
the Apostles, and the Epistles were also divided into xs^aXa/a,
which many have ascribed to the invention of Euthalius. From
his own language it appears that he merely incorporated them
into his own stichometrical edition of the New Testament. But
he found them already existing, not only in the epistles of Paul,
but also in the Acts of the Apostles, and Catholic epistles. AU
that he appears to have added to them was the summaries of the
contents, which he found already made for the Pauline letters,
but which he himself projected in the Acts, and Catholic epistles.
These divisions or xs^aXa/a, were smaller than our present chap-
ters, since the Acts contained 40, the Epistle to the Romans 19,
and that to the Galatians 12. Andreas of Cappadocia divided
the Apocalypse into xsfaXa/a, of which there were 72 ; and also
into 24 Xoyoi. Besides these distinctions of the New Testament,
we also meet with others which deserve to be mentioned. The
Jews were accustomed to portion out the law and the prophets
into chapters, one of which was to be read every Sabbath day.
In imitation of this practice, the early Christians, in the public
reading of the New Testament, divided the books into lessons,
which were read in their assemblies. These were called moixovai
or amy wJj(S!J.a,r a, i. e. church lessons. The gospels were divided
into 57* of these ; and the Acts and Epistles into the same num-
ber. Thus the whole of the New Testament, except the Apoca-

• Hug says that there were only 56.
S

258 MARKS OF DISTINCTION IN THE LECT. XXI.

lypse, was read through in a year, the four additional pericopes
probably serving for four festivals. We observe in some MSS.,
as in the codex Bezae, the practice of writing these crg^/xo-Tra/
marked by the word avdyvusfMot in the margin with the letter alpha
(aix'n) at the commencement, and tau (riXog) at the conclusion.
Other copies mark them by the number of the Sabbath to which
they belong. The MS. contained at its beginning or end a list
of such church-lessons, which was called ffvm^d^iov ; and when the
day was specified on which each was to be read fjijr,voX6yiov. Sub-
sequently when the old divisions were shortened and lengthened
at pleasure, and when a collection of extracts from the Greek
Testament, served the same purposes as the whole book, in the
estimation of many, particular MSS. were written, containing
nothing but these selections, hence called ixkaydbia^ and in Latin
lectionaria, lectionaries. When they consisted of portions of the
gospels only, they received the name of suayysX/s'ag/a, evangelista-
ria ; and when they were taken from the Acts of the Apostles
and the Epistles, crcaJaTroVoXo/ praxapostoli. The Greeks, how-
ever, adhered to the more ancient divisions till the eighth century,
though the Latins adopted the more modern, even at the end of
the fifth ; probably because the old division did not correspond
to the increasing number of their festival days. The present
division into verses proceeded from Robert Stephens, who in-
troduced it into his edition of 1551. It was made by him, as
his son Henry tells us, inter equitandum, by which is meant, ac-
cording to Michaelis, that when he was weary of riding, he amused
himself with this work at his inn. It is obvious that it admits
of great improvement. The division of chapters now in use is
generally ascribed to Hugo a St. Caro, in the 13th century, who
published a biblia cum postilla. Like the division into verses, it
might be considerably improved, as it often breaks the connexion
of an argument or discourse. With regard to the titles and sub-
scriptions of the separate books of the New Testament, it is cer-
tain that they form no part of the inspired writings. They are to
be regarded as later additions to the authentic text. The titles vary
in diff'erent MSS., for example ro xam Mur^dtov svwyysXiov and luayys-
X/ov xard Marram. The Evangelists may, indeed, have prefixed
the single word hayytX/ov to their gospels, but the phrases xard
MarOdiov, xara Aovxdv, &c. were afterwards added. They were
})refixed to the different gospels and epistles after the canon had
been formed, to distinguish the compositions of the respective

LECT. XXI. HEBREW BIBLE AND GREEK TESTAMENT. 259

writers, and were in use as early as the time of Tertullian, Ire-
naeus, and Clement of Alexandria. The subscriptions were
originally nothing more than repetitions of the titles ; the
place and circumstances in which the individual books were
written were subsequently added from tradition and conjecture.
Their human origin is manifest from their frequent inaccuracies.
The form in which they appear at present is derived from Eutha-
lius of Alexandria, who borrowed them from the synopsis of sacred
scripture attributed to Athanasius, and introduced them into his
stichometrical edition of the Greek Testament,

LECTURE XXII.

NATURE OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE.

In entering upon this subject I might occupy myself with a pre-
liminary inquiry concerning the antiquity of the Hebrew lan-
guage. Whether it was the original language of mankind is a
question that has been frequently discussed at considerable length.
There was a time when " the whole earth was of one language
and of one speech ;" and it is an interesting inquiry to trace the
relation between this universal language and that dialect which
was afterwards spoken by Abraham and his posterity. That there
was an intimate connection between the original language of men
and that afterwards called the Hebrew, is supported by all the
evidence that can be obtained on such a question. From all the
considerations we are able to bring together, we are led to believe
that the dialect of the Israelites was substantially the same with
that of the original parents of mankind. As far as we are able to
judge from historical data, there was only one language spoken
in Western Asia, among the different dialects of which the He-
brew claims the pre-eminence in point of antiquity. It is not my
present design to detail the various presumptions which appear to
establish with tolerable certainty the truth of the opinion just
stated. I pass on to consider the nature of the language itself,
as a written dialect ; and the various aspects which it presented
at different times.

In thus attempting to develop the nature of the Hebrew, we
must compare it with its kindred dialects to perceive the points
of resemblance existing between them. Its features are to be
traced in the alterations it has successively undergone, or as they
still bear the impress of its early origin ; and by contrasting them
with those of the Shemitish languages we will better perceive
the peculiarities of the Hebrew no less than its high claims to
great antiquity. It must be evident to all that this dialect is li-
mited 'infonnsj not only in reference to its grammatical structure

LECT. XXII. NATURE OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. 261

and diction, but also to its entire range. Its forms are not de-
veloped in the greatest perfection. But this deficiency may be
attributed in part to the character of the oriental mind, which re-
garded the substance itself, rather than the form in which it should
be presented. Another consideration should be kept in view as
also influencing the genius of the Hebrew language. The ten-
dency of the Jewish literature was exclusively religious. The
language must therefore have been in a great measure confined to
a particular circle of ideas, to which its modes of expressions were
necessarily adapted. The Hebrews attended rather to the idea
than to its dress — to the essence of that with which the mind was
occupied, more than to the garb in which it was clothed. Hence
the form does not seem to be so ductile or willing to follow the
ideas as in other languages ; neither is the thought so definitely
expressed. But although the cultivation and development of this
dialect was regarded as a matter of minor importance, yet we are
not to suppose that it was destitute of scope for such expansion.
On the contrary, it was possessed of the finest facilities for a full
and copious development. The Arabic shews how such germs
as are contained in the Hebrew might have been nurtured and ex-
panded, so as to exhibit a rich variety of forms, though the latter
never reached that high degree of perfection, for which it was so
well adapted by its internal character. Thef roots or primitives
of the language are augmented and modified in various ways.
When the naked idea contained in the root is coupled in concep-
tion with certain minute modifications, the root assumes a certain
form suited to each of these shades or variations of signification.
Hence arises what is denominated a stem^ consisting of the root
in a state of flexion, as adapted to the delicate distinctions con-
nected with the original simple idea it before implied. In the far-
ther progress of the language the words as they now actually ex-
ist, proceeded as branches from the stems. Originally all roots
were monosyllabic. This was the most ancient mode of writing.
Afterwards they became triliteral. As soon as the language be-
gan to proceed beyond its rudest and simplest elements, its roots
must have been lengthened, and they gradually became tri-
literal. A few have extended to four firm sounds, and even
to five ; but the compass of three sounds was the regular
fixed limit of augmentation. Hence the roots are almost all tri-
literal ; and it is now impossible to trace them up to their mono-
syllabic state. It is the province of grammar to explain the ori-

262 NATURE OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. LECT. XXII.

gin and intrinsic force of forms ; or, in other words, to develop
the principle of formation which predominates in the Hebrew and
other Shemitish dialects. A few of the biliteral roots still re-
main, from which we are able to form some idea of the manner in
which the triliterals were constituted. We find that the latter
arise from the former with the greatest regularity and consistency.
Sometimes the triliterals are furnished with a firm letter, such as
is chiefly calculated to affect the signification, or to develop the
idea of the word with greater fulness and force. The hissing let-
ters Zayin, Tsade, Samech, and Shin, or their blunted sounds D
and T are of this nature. Or, on the other hand, triliterals have
been made from biliteral roots by the addition of a weak letter,
such as was intended to assist the euphony or to promote the
symmetry. When these qualities were regarded rather than the
modifying of the fundamental idea, feeble sounds such as vau, yod,
and the aspirates were employed to increase the stems. As an ex-
ample of the former, we may adduce the unused root SOD to ^^
like, from which comes 7DDj on image, where the letter samek

was joined to the root 7D. In Sci^D> the accessory letter of
kindred sound is affixed to the same root, in a different position.
(Compare in Greek 6/MuXog, in Latin similis). An instance of
the latter is exhibited in 2D^ to ^^ good, from the root ntO by the
prefixing of yod. In both cases the primitive elements of the lan-
guage are apparent ; but especially in the latter, when the feeble
sounds have been preserved apavt from each other. Where they
have remained separate and distinct, we observe the external in-
crement of stems more clearly. On comparing the Hebrew with
the Aramaean in this particular, we perceive that the former has
kept the feeble incremental sounds much more from uniting than
the Aramaean. In the latter, they have been blended and mixed
together. Hence the complete mingling of the forms pe yod, pe
aleph, and pe nun, the two former borrowing from the pe nun, and
vice versa. But in Hebrew, on the contrary, the significations of
verbs pe yod and pe nun are different, as IV* and ^V^. In Syriac,
again, the verbal forms pe yoc? and /?e vau more frequently coalesce
than in the Hebrew, and lamed he, lamed aleph have been incor-
porated into the one form lamed aleph. This increase of stems may
be farther seen in the conjugation-system. Sometimes the internal
modification of the idea is distinguished by the internal vocalisa-
tion which adapts itself to the different shades of conception. The

LECT. XXII. NATURE OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. 263

vowels change with regularity and constancy, to mark the dis-
tinction of the active and passive, transitive and intransitive ideas.
Such a moulding of the original conception of the root is aptly
denominated internal^ because it is made within the verbal stem
itself, without external aid. But this main feature of the He-
brew has been almost obliterated in the Aramaean language.
There the passive is formed by the addition of external letters,
(the syllable eM), contrary to the genius of the Semitic languages.
Hence the passive and reflex forms coincide in outward aspect.
In the Greek language the passive is similarly related to the
middle. But there is also an external modification of the idea con-
tained in the stem, which is marked by an alteration of the con-
sonants. Thus, in the conjugation niphal^ a reflexive turn is
given to that of the root — whilst in pihel, by a reduplication of
one of the radical sounds, the idea of the root is rendered more
intensive. The reason why the reduplication of the second radi-
cal in pihel regularly occurs, is to be found in the principle fol-
lowed in the intensive forms, of making the verbal stem develop
itself by its own intrinsic force. Hence also, when a progressive
development was required by the sense, the verbal stem went far-
ther than is exhibited by pihel. In those verbs called pluriiiterals,
the intension is remarkably strong; but they are of very rare oc-
currence, having been called forth by peculiar circumstances. In
Aramaean, again, a much greater number of intensive forms ap-
pears, without marking the idea with the same precision and dis-
tinctness as in Hebrew. Even the fundamental feature of the
intensive form has there disappeared ; for, instead of doubling a
radical letter, there is a mere prolongation of the pronunciation,
(pael). Proceeding in this manner the Aramaean went farther
than the Hebrew, causing the primitive mode of making inten-
sive stems in a great measure to disappear. It compensated for
the lengthened pronunciation, by the addition of new letters ; and
thus new forms arose.

From these observations it appears that the Hebrew, as con-
trasted with the Aramaean, in a grammatical respect, has greater
purity. The original elements of the Semitic family of languages
are more apparent in the former. It has more stedfastly abided
by its primary essential simplicity. The Aramaean exhibits the
characteristic genius of the Semitic dialects in a state of degene-
racy and decay. It is more impure than the Hebrew, in so far
as it has lost its most ancient elements. If we compare again

264 NATURE or THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. LECT. XXII.

the Hebrew with the Arabic, it exhibits a deficiency in cultiva-
tion and polish, but presents a greater richness in vowels and va-
riety of tones.

Having spoken of the grammatical character of the Hebrew
language, we shall next refer to the diction^ in treating of which
the etymological character of the language comes before us.
The etymology presupposes a phonetic basis, or, in other words,
the idea intended to be conveyed is inherent in the sounds, from
which it extends itself in various ways. Such an etymological
character is especially prominent in the regular triliteral forma-
tion that distinguishes the language. The fundamental idea of
the word is essentially inherent in the two fundamental sounds
which contain and express it by an onomatopoeia. That this is
a true representation, will be evident to those who attentively
examine a number of syllables that are resolvable into the expres-
sion of one common fundamental idea, which all of them appear
to have been originally designed to set forth. These syllables
communicating an idea by onomatopoeia, were afterwards com-
bined in various modes, so as to form words apparently different,
^hough in reality containing the same idea. The syllables
n^» iJl? }/£)> n£)> &c. are of this kind. It is an exceedingly
difficult, if not impossible task, to trace back these syllables so as
to resolve them into single sounds, and to point out the idea con-
tained in the single letters of which the syllables are composed.
This has been indeed attempted, though every one will see the
extreme uncertainty of arriving at any satisfactory result in so
subtle an analysis. It w^ould appear, besides, an erroneous sup-
position, that the fundamental idea of a word is inherent in one
of the simple sounds of which it is composed. It is only in the
combination of two sounds that we consider the idea of the
stem to be found. This is the simplest form into which we
can resolve the stem, in order to educe from it the idea
which it expresses. To attempt, therefore, to find the idea
of a word in one of the sounds, of which it is at present
composed, is not only difficult but impossible ; because it is
inconsistent with the structure and philosophy of the lan-
guage. But when the relation of several ideas to one another
is intended to be expressed, as is done by the fundamental par-
ticles, vau, and the prepositions ^, ^ and 7, one sound is suffi-
cient to connect them. The case is different with regard to the

LECT. XXII. NATURE OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. 265

verb and noun forming the chief constituents of the language
where the radical idea lies in the combination of two sounds, to
which a third was subsequently added. The original character,
then, of the Hebrew language is manifested in the visible connec-
tion between the fundamental idea of a particular word, and the
phonetic external form which it assumes. There is an intimate
union between these two things, which was the result of design.
The great ruling principle was onomatopoeia, according to which
monosyllabic roots were formed, and in accordance with which
they were intended to express particular ideas. The conception
is thus essentially associated with its external form. The latter
was composed of sounds suited to the nature of the former.
Hence the peculiar genius of the language. In consequence of
the numerous forms giving so much variety to one fundamental
idea, the distinguishing feature to which we have alluded is
more easily observed ; for the fundamental idea, and its acces-
sory variations, do not consist of single radical words externally
put together ; but the latter are ranged round the former with such
compactness and unity as to constitute a single word. This cha-
racteristic of the Hebrew language has long since attracted
notice ; and from it arises the fact, that its entire stock of ideas
may be reduced to a few simple radical ones. The number of
roots is inconsiderable, but the variety of ideas they express is
almost inexhaustible. Thus much of the character of the diction.
The copiousness of the language cannot be accurately deter-
mined. So few remains of it have come down to our time, that
it is impossible to tell its resources from the scanty memorials
now existing. Comparing it with the Arabic, it does not appear
to have been so copious, but it was richer than the Syriac. By
looking to the synonymous words which it still contains, our
opinion of its fulness will be raised. Thus it has been remarked,
that there are no less than fourteen words signifying to break — ten,
to seek — and nine to express the act of dying. Fourteen convey
the idea of trust in God — nine, remission of sins, and eight, dark-
ness. Observance of the law of God is denoted by no less than
twenty-five different phrases. These facts certainly lead to the
belief, that the language, in its living state, was abundant and
copious in its words. It is to be regretted, however, that these
modifications of the same idea expressed by different terms, have
not received from Lexicographers that minute attention to which
they invite the philosophic mind. The best Lexicons, such as

266 NATURE OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. LECT. XXII.

those of Gesenius and Winer, are deficient in this department.
They have not been careful to trace the nicer shades of meaning,
and to exhibit them in proper arrangement.

The language exhibits a twofold diction, the poetic and pro-
saic. This distinction may be traced both in the earlier and
later Hebrew. The probability seems to be, that Hebrew
poetry had not the metres of other languages. As far as it can
be now known, the long and short syllables, and the varieties
of verse thence arising, did not belong to it. Its characteristics
are four. 1st, A parallelism between the members of a period in
sentiment or expression. 2d, A certain rythmical conformation
of sentences. 3d, A figurative or parabolic style. 4th, A dic-
tion peculiar to itself. The poetic diction is separated from that
of prose in a very marked manner, both in a lexical and gramma-
tical respect. To the former belongs the use of words of rare oc-
currence, instead of such as were common. So also we find
adjectives supplying the place of definite nouns, for example, the
emphatic use of many abstract nouns, instead of their concretes.
2d, In a grammatical respect new forms of words are employed,
as nlSj^ for D^n'^Kj God; niil for HVIj to be; the plural in
V>— which is an Aramaeism ; the suffix H^ added to nouns in the
absolute state ; the suffixes in i^-, i^^, iOV' IHV' ^Hl, &c.

T

On account, also, of frequent paronomasia, a rare word or form is
employed.

Whether the Hebrew language had dialects, can scarcely be
determined by the scanty remains of it we possess. It is quite
probable, however, that it was so diversified. The northern dis-
tricts of Palestine may have differed from the southern in their
pronunciation, because their inhabitants were subject to different
influences. The dialect of the north must have inclined to the
Aramaean, and been more corrupt and impure than the rest.
Thus, in Judges xii. 6, we find that the Ephraimites pronounced
D^nD, (sibbrdeth), for nSnt^^, (shibboleth). The song of De-
borah has been thought, with some degree of probability, to con-
tain traces and proofs of dialectic diversity. In it there are
manifest Aramaeisms, shewing the influence under which those
who lived northward were placed. So the prefix t^. Judges v. 7,
has been regarded as a peculiarity in the northern dialect. It
does not occur in the Pentateuch, but it is found in the book of

LECT. XXII. NATURE OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. 267

Judges, in the section relating to Gideon. "Nor is it less probable
that the dialect of the people differed from that of books. An
example of this occurs in Exodus xvi. 15. When the children
of Israel saw the manna they said, {i^^n ]Dj (man hii), what is this,

but the author himself gives the word nD> as expressive of the

interrogative, what. In a similar case. Genesis xlvii. 23, {i^n,

(he), appears to be a term belonging to the language of popular
intercourse, in distinction from that of literature. It signifies
here ! behold ! and is to be closely connected with the pronoun
DDS, (lacem).

V T

We must now allude to another topic, in connection with the
Hebrew language, which has not been unnoticed by modern
scholars ; I mean the introduction of foreign words. It is ob-
vious that great caution and discrimination must be applied in
separating between what is essential to the language and what is
merely adventitious. We must distinguish between the remains
of a family of languages, before they assumed distinct and dis-
similar features, and between those forms and words that passed
from other people to the Hebrews, lest we attribute to them a
later historical connection than that which they justly possess.

1st. The country with which the Hebrews had the earliest
intercourse was Egypt. To the influence of its customs and
language they were necessarily exposed. We find, accordingly,
that the Pentateuch contains many expressions originating in
their sojourn there. So ^HJ^ (achii), the reeds growing on the

hanks of the Nile ; "HiJ^* (yeor) a river, particularly the Nile ;

ni^n^ (behemoth) the hippopotamus or river-horse ; ^^ (shesh)

Jine linen, $*c. ; and Egyptian proper names. In the time of
Solomon, and later, a considerable commerce was carried on by
the Hebrews with the same country, which also gave rise to the
transfer of many words. So P|'^ moph, (Hosea ix. 6.), or ftj
noph (Isaiah xix. 13.), Memphis. It is to be remarked that
Egyptian words are accommodated to the Hebrew idiom. So
D33 (cinnam) (Exodus viii. 16), translated lice in the authorised

T •

version. In the later writings of the Old Testament other terms
are substituted. Thus, instead of t^t^ (shesh) vy^. (butz) is
uniformly adopted. The former regularly occurs in the Penta-

268 NATURE OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. LECT. XXII,

teuch. Again, a foreign Aramaean term has sometimes come
into the place of one purely Egyptian for the purpose of making
it better known, as well as to point out the strangeness of the
expression and the custom to which it refers. So ^*11N (abrek)

(Genesis xli. 43.), how the knee,

2d. The Persian words occurring in the Old Testament are
of later introduction than the Egyptian. In the Pentateuch
none whatever are found, for the opinion of some that the words
1^*19 Parnaky Pharnaces (Numbers xxxiv. 25.), and ty^ dath^ a

law (Deuteron. xxxiii. 2.), and several others, are properly Per-
sian, is not well-founded. Even at the time of Solomon's reign
we find no certain indications of the influence of the Persian on
the Hebrew language. It is only in the later writings of the
Old Testament that this is observable. An example occurs in 2
Chron. ii. 7, V\^^^ (argevan) purple, for which t^^l^K (argaman)

T : :- T T ~

elsewhere exists. The exchanging of the vau for mem can only
be explained on the supposition that the word is Persian. During
the time of the Persian dominion many proper names and appel-
latives were adopted.

3d. Greek words are not found in Bibical Hebrew. In the
Chaldee sections of Daniel and Esra the names of several instru-
ments of music have been attributed to Grecian origin, but this
is by no means certain. Rather might probable etymologies be
found for them in the Semitic dialects, as has been done by
Havernick in his commentary on DanieL We are inclined,
therefore, to believe that no Greek words occur in the Old Tes-
tament writings.

We now proceed to give a historic sketch of the Hebrew lan-
guage, briefly noticing the various features which it presented
at difi'erent periods. For general purposes it is sufficient to
speak of it as it existed before and after the captivity ^ thus divid-
ing it into epochs. But it is incumbent on such as would mi-
nutely investigate its nature to dispose of it in another method.
1st. We might consider the Mosaic period, or the state of the
language in the time of Moses, as exhibited by his writings.
2d. The period when David and Solomon lived. 3d. That of
the captivity, reaching to its extinction as a spoken language.
These divisions are justified by its internal character, but their
full discussion is unsuited to my present design. I must there-

LECT. XXII. NATURE OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. 269

fore content myself with a cursory view of the most prominent
features belonging to each of the periods mentioned.

The literature of the nation, properly speaking, begins with
Moses. It is probable indeed that there were written documents
before him, containing records of the history of the nation ; but
to argue that he drew large portions of his writings from these
is arbitary and conjectural. If he was inspired of God, as we
believe that he was, to record events and circumstances of the
highest importance and interest, why need we speculate about
original documents from which he derived a part of the know-
ledge communicated. It can never be proved that he consulted
histories and genealogies preserved among the Israelites; and it
could be of no utility to know the fact, supposing it to be fully
established. But we reject it altogether as a pure imagination
with which we have no concern. We have said that it is pro-
bable there were written documents in the Hebrew tongue be-
fore he lived — what they were, it were idle to inquire and vain
to ask. The regularity of the structure and syntax of the lan-
guage, as it appears in the Pentateuch, would lead us to enter-
tain such an opinion. It is there exhibited in a state of high
culture and development, and it is natural to suppose that it did
not attain to such a state of refinement at once. A considerable
time may have been required for the gradual unfolding of the
language, until it came to be spoken and written with so great
regularity. We are aware, however, that reasoning from ana-
logy in such a case is uncertain, and, therefore, we do not pro-
pound with confidence our sentiments respecting the great length
of time during which the language was written and cultivated
before Moses. It is a probable not a certain affirmation.

1st. Of the language of the Pentateuch. — In order to judge of
the peculiar mode of writing observable in the Pentateuch, we
must not look to the historical portions, because their language
very nearly resembles that of the later histories of Chronicles,
Esra, and Nehemiah. They are, therefore, to be left out of the
account as enabling us to ascertain the peculiar idioms of the
Pentateuchal dialect. It is especially in the poetical parts that
w^e find the characteristic features of the language at the period
when Moses wrote. The style of the laws, in connection with
that of the poetry, exhibits the distinguishing marks by which
we define it, when compared with that of the remaining books of
the Old Testament. The essential element of the poetry is

270 NATURE OF IHE HEBREW LANGUAGE. LECT. XXII.

elevation and vigour of expression. That artificial conformation
so prominent in the poetry of the Bible, is here in a great de-
gree unknown — rythm and parallelism are neglected. The
language employed in recording the laws is marked by definite-
ness and precision, qualities particularly necessary in all legal
compositions.

The pecliarities of language observable in all the books of the
Pentateuch are the following : —

1st. Peculiarities of grammatical formation, — To this belongs
the use of the pronoun K^H (hu), lie or it, in the common gen-
der. In all other parts of the Old Testament the masculine and
feminine are constantly distinguished, by employing J^^H (hi)

for the latter. The ground-form of the demonstrative pronoun
appears in HT^ (lazeh). Gen. xxiv. 65 : xxxviii. 19. The older form
^J^n (hael)for hW (elleh) occurs eight times in the whole of the

Pentateuch, and is repeated from it 1 Chron. xx. 8. The Pen-
tateuch employs the short form only in connection with the
article, whilst the writer of Chronicles rejects the prefixed article.
The pronoun plural of the first person ^^jlj (nachnu) occurs

four times in the Pentateuch, and but twice in all the other
books of the Old Testament. The usual form I^H^K (anachnu)

is more recent, having been made by the addition of aleph pros-
thetic. In relation to the suffixes we find the old uncontracted
form ^n.. (Gen. i. 12.) ; |i— formed from it, afterwards changed
into "i— we find very frequently. In books of later composition
than the Pentateuch the former affix occurs only in poetry, and
even then very rarely, (Kings and Ezekiel). The verbal suffix
yO— occurring once in Exodus xv. 5. appears to be primitive.

The verbal form H^iDV^ (yaamodenah) Gen. xxx. 38, in the

third plural feminine is very ancient. A peculiar abbreviation
of the imperative, resembling the original character of this
future, is presented by the forms \V'0^ (shemaan), Gen.

iv. 23, and ]X1p (kiren), Exodus ii. 20. Since the future

is formed from the imperative, it is quite natural to suppose
that the latter form is an abridgment of the former. T\^ inten-
sive in the future with vau conversive, occurs but four times in
the Pentateuch, but it is frequent in the writings of the succeed-

LECT. XXII. NATURE OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. 271

ing period ; and in those, composed at the time of the exile, it
regularly appears. The full and original form p_, as the ter-
mination of the preterite, third pers. plural, is found in Deuter-
onomy viii. 3, 16, py*l% (yadeun). In other places of the

Bible it does not appear, except once in poetry, Isaiah xxvi. 16.
Some grammarians represent the nun, in this case, as paragogic,
but this appears to be incorrect. The niphal form of verbs pe
aleph^ has uniformly aleph as a guttural, but the original form
has been retained in the Pentateuch and there only, as tnXJ>
(n5chaz), Numbers xxxii. 30. The infinitive construct of
\r\1i (nathan), viz. ]n^, (nethon), exhibits its original regular

form, only in the Pentateuch. The origin of verbs ayin yod,
from those ayin vau, is easily perceived from their use in the
Pentateuch, thus. Gen. vi. 3, \^1\ (yad5n) ; Gen. xxiv. 63,

nWj (siiach) ; Deuteron. xxx. 9, ti^W. The abstract nominal
form, with the external affix D, occurs only in the Pentateuch as
having relation to time, so Exodus xii. 40, Iti^lD, (moshab) the

T

time of the Israelites' abode in Egypt. *^j;^, (naar), occurs in both

genders as signifying a young man or young ivoman. The ter-
mination of the construct state in i is peculiar to the Pentateuch,
and to the prose part of it only. So also the termination ^— , in
the same state, distinguishes the writings of Moses. The form
Dips (yekum), as an abstract noun, signifying existence, occurs

only in Genesis vii. 4, 23, and in Deuteron. xi. 6.

2d. There are also syntactical peculiarities in the books of
Moses. Thus we have a pronoun separable, in an oblique case,
without another pronoun preceding, as in Gen. iv. 26 ; x. 26,

ih^ Nin D4 nt^b (lesheth gam hu yullad), for which the

later form would have been y) (lo). So also the influence of a
suffix on a succeeding substantive is such that it changes its form
without actually giving it the suffix, ex. gr. JIIDTI ^tj^ (ozzi ve-

zimrath) for ^DIDT (zimrathl.) The term HND (meah) a hun-

dred, is always employed in the Pentateuch as a substantive, but
it afterwards lost its peculiar form.

In expressing quantities or numbei's of times, the idea of time in
this sense is expressed in a twofold manner. 1st, Either by the

272 NATURE OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. LECT. XXII.

substantive OVB (paam), plural O^UVB (peamim). 2d, By the

simple numeral word where no ambiguity could exist. But in
the Pentateuch the usus loqvendi in this particular does not appear
to have been fixed ; since besides these methods we find D^^^'l

(regalim) Exodus xxiii. 14; Numbers xxii. 28, &c., and D^^D
(monim) an old word derived from p^ (miin), signifying times^
Gen. xxxi. 7, 41. Such are some of the chief peculiarities re-
lating to the grammar and syntax of the language.

In addition to them we also meet with a number of unusual
and antique terms and applications of words, ex. gr. 7Tlil (gozal)
is used oi young f 00)1^ whereas p (ben), would stand in the later
Hebrew : pfi^*! (reeh) as a particle is used for ]n (hen) or nSH
(hinneh) behold^ and occurs nine times in the Pentateuch. HDD
(missath) sufficiency, Deuteron. xvi. 10, for ^1 (rab) : ^iTO

(gachon) the belly. Gen. iii. 14 ; Levit. xi. 42. |"j{^ (on) in the
signification of sorrow occurs only in Gen. xxxv. 18, and in
Deuteron. xxvi. 14, whereas in the other writings of the Old
Testament it is regularly V\^ (aven) except in Hosea ix. 4, imi-
tated from the Pentateuch. V>J2 (J^in)» ^^'^^ or species, is found

no less than twenty-eight times in the writings of Moses ; but in
the age of David ]T (zan) was employed to express the same

thing, Psalm cxliv. 13. HHp (kabab), Numbers xxiii. 8, in the
metaphorical sense of cursing, was afterwards superseded by
Hpi (nakab). HtS^S (ceseb) occurs fourteen times in the Pen-
tateuch ; but it is never found in the other parts of the Old
Testament. Instead of it we have l^D,3 (cebes). The former is

the more ancient, as far as we can judge from etymology, gj^^*!

(racash), and t^^S*^ (reciish), are -often found in Genesis, as also

in Numbers, signifying goods or substance, as distinguished from
living property, such as cattle and flocks. The same words ap-
pear to have come again into use at a much later period, for we
find them in Chronicles, Ezra, and Daniel. There is this diffe-
rence between the earlier and later usage, that the latter refers
them to cattle, which the former does not. We have thus given

LECT. XXII. NATURE OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. 273

a few examples of words applied in an antique sense, or terms
occurring in the Pentateuch, which were afterwards supplanted
by others.

Of peculiar modes of expression we have now to furnish some
instances. Numbers xiv. 9, their shadow (D^V) (tsillam) is de-
parted from them, is an ancient poetic phrase for '• their help is
taken from them." It occurs no where else in the Old Testa-
ment, though the term '^V (tsel) in the sense oi protection, is fre-
quent in poetry. Again, the expression V^V ^^ ^Di-^J (nee-

saph el ammav) icas added to his people, is also peculiar to the
writings of Moses, for it is not found in the other books of the
Old Testament. Instead of it we usually meet with the phrase
VnllN Oy l^tJ^ (shacab im abdthav) slept loith his fathers. The
term Qy (am) people, is always used in the singular number in

the Pentateuch, to denote the covenant people, or people of God,
and is thus distinguished from '1-1 (goi) which is never used of
Israel. But in the other parts of the Old Testament the two
terms are interchanged. In the plural QJ/ (am) is employed in

an enlarged and more extended signification by the prophets, as
we find particularly from Hosea ix. 1 ; Isaiah xi. 10 ; but, in the
Pentateuch, the plural has a meaning in strict accordance with
its singular signification. It denotes the people who constituted
the collected whole, represented as in covenant with the Supreme
being ; consequently, after the theocracy was established by
Moses, the twelve tribes were designated by the plural term.
But this confined sense is, as I have just observed, foreign to the
other books, though in the Pentateuch it is strictly observed.
There is another word in the writings of Moses of kindred origin
and signification, viz. D^^V (amith) which is constantly employ-
ed to denote fellowship, society, and is not so appropriately ren-
dered neighbours, because it is an abstract noun. nn^^H H^

(reach hannlchoach) a sweet -smelling savour, is found very often
in the Mosaic writings applied to the sacrifices oflfered to God.
But it does not appear in the other books of the Old Testament,
for we find in its stead nPl^D r\T\ (ruach minchah) to smell an

T

offering, I Sam. xxvi. 19 — nlll^ il.O^p (kumah yehovah)
arise, O Lord, was properly an apostrophe to God, when

T

274 NATURE OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. LECT. XXII.

the ark was lifted up and carried, as is proved by Num-
bers X. 35. This historical application was afterwards relin-
quished, and in the Psalms the phrase is frequently employ-
ed in a figurative sense for help or assistance. The phrases

DwVb Y7By*^ (vayyapilli laaloth), Numbers xiv. 44, and

ni^vS l^^nni (vattahlnu laaloth), Deuteron. i. 41, are ancient

and peculiar modes of expression, which can only be properly ex-
plained by the aid of the Arabic language, as Schultens has well
shewn. The former is translated in the received version, thet/
presumed to go up — the latter, ye icere ready to go up^ which is
aside from the true meaning. It means, ye thought it a light mat-
ter to go up, i. e. ye went up rashly and heedlessly — flTIV H^il

(galah ervah) is the usual expression in the Pentateuch for cohabi-
tation; but it is only found besides in Ezekiel xxii. 10, where
there is a manifest verbal allusion to Levit. xx. 11. Its later
usage is different, as may be seen from Isaiah xlvii. 3 — Hi^ HDD

f *1Kn py (cissah eth en haarets), to cover the eye of the earth,

belongs to the Pentateuch alone. It is a highly poetical expres-
sion, in which the earth is personified, and exhibited as a woman
with her face veiled. Such are some of the peculiar modes of
diction employed in the Pentateuch, and to the attentive inquirer
they will appear to savour of high antiquity. The more they
are examined, the more will they be seen in a light diff'erent
from that in which they are viewed by many modern critics in
Germany, who endeavour, by proofs drawn from the language
of the Pentateuch, to bring down its composition to a much
later period than the time of Moses. But in their zeal to dis-
cover marks of recentness in the diction employed, they have
overlooked such antique words and peculiar phrases as those just
quoted. Their arguments will not stand the test of a strict and
impartial scrutiny. Notwithstanding the weight and authority
of the names that have sanctiohed such sentiments, they have not
commanded the assent of all scholars. In Germany itself, men
of great erudition have risen up who have defended the old and
opposite ground with an ability quite refreshing and satisfactory
to the pious student of the Bible. And we hope that, ere long,
some of the authors themselves, who have published such strange
o])inions, will see fit to renounce them on farther investigation.

LECT. XXII. NATURE OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. 275

We come now to the post- Mosaic period. — When the Hebrews
came into the promised land, the circumstances of their new
situation must have exercised considerable influence on the
dialect they spoke. They saw around them many productions of
nature with which they were unacquainted. Hence, their lan-
guage must have been enriched with new words, whilst others
fell into disuse and were forgotten. Terms belonging to natural
history were now added ; whilst their domestic wants, their
modes of life, and their increasing civilization, gave rise to new
appellatives. We find now for the first time an appellation of

the cypress, viz. — Ci^i")^ (berosh), and several names for ser-
pents, such as ytJX (epha), nV£)K (ephah). Moses had ex-
pressed a husbandman by the periphrasis ^D^^^ *7^y (obed ada-
mah), but now the single term "H^K (iccar) was employed. For
t^Dlfl (chermesh) a sickle in the Pentateuch, we find ^^t^
(maggal) ; for r\^Tl (chemeth), a bottle, we have *7^^ (n5d).
The ancient words HIDO (masveh) a veil, and tQ^3 (cumaz) a

necklace, were discontinued. Other expressions were altered in
si^nijication, so as to exhibit with greater definiteness the cha-
racteristic nature of a thing; thus, instead of nS^Drl (hithyalled)
to declare the pedigree, Numbers i. 18, a term which might have
been easily misunderstood, H^O or "lOD (manah, saphar), and

still later, t^WDT] (hithyachesh) were employed. The expres-
sion ti^£3^ n3y (innah nephesh) to afflict or humble the soul was

V V I •

supplanted by Q'lV (tsiim), though the former still continued in
poetry.

It is quite natural that the book of Joshua should be most as-
similated in its language to the Pentateuch, because it was written
immediately after, and records the events which took place sub-
sequently to those narrated in Deuteronomy. Both the single
terms and idioms it employs are similar to those found in the
writings of Moses. Thus \^^ (nal5n) to rebel or murmur, niphal

of pS (lun) ix. 18; l^T (zlnneb) to fall upon the rear, x. 19; ^ti^^^

276 NATURE OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. LECT XXII.

(ishsheh) a sacrifice^ xiii. 14 ; n^VPlD (maeliatsith) the half^ xxi.
25; mn» nnX N*?/!D (imlle achare yehovah) to follow after the
Lord, xiv. 8, 9, 14; ^ti^D^S ^^V^T\ (Inshshamer lenaphsheka)
take heed to yourselves, xxiii. 11; U^'t^^tl} OH?^ (abne shelamim)

whole stones, that is, such as have not been hewed or cut, viii. 31,
and Deuteron. xxvii. 6; " the sand that is upon the lip of the
sea or the sea-shore," xi. 4, the same as in Genesis xxii. 17.
Sometimes an extension was given to the signification of a word.
Thus n1^t!^K (ashedoth) xii. 2, 3, appears to mean the plain, in
opposition to '^T\'r\ (hahar) the momitain, x. 40 ; whilst in the

Pentateuch it was limited to the roots of a mountain. This, how-
ever, is contrary to the opinion of Gesenius, who takes the term
as having the same signification both in Deuteronomy and in
Joshua. The proverb in Exodus xi. 7, no dog shall move his
tongue against Israel, occurs here x. 21, without the word "dog,"
none moved his tongue against Israel. 8uch proverbial sayings are
wont to be shortened in the progress of time, as we see in this
instance exemplified. From these, and other examples that
might be adduced, it appears that the language of the book of
Joshua approaches very near to that of the Pentateuch, by which
indeed it was greatly influenced. The diction is soft, flowing*,
and pure. Some scholars have endeavoured to show that the
language of Joshua belongs to a later period, and that it is much
more corrupt than that of the Pentateuch. We need only men-
tion Maurer, Hirzel, and De Wette. The proofs of their state-
ment they have not been able to recommend to general adoption.
On the contrary, they have been subjected to a severe scrutiny
by several eminent Oriental scholars, who have shown in a very
triumphant manner, that the forms supposed to be recent are
rather to be considered as original and primitive.

Between the time of the composition of the Pentateuch and
David, the book of Job presents an interesting specimen of the
state of the Hebrew language. It is easy to perceive the influ-
ence which it exercised on the subsequent poetry of the Israel-
ites, when we examine the books of Psalms and Proverbs along
with Job. In Psalms a similarity of idea, in Proverbs a simi-
larity of expression, has been often remarked. It would here
be out of place to prove that the book of Job is older than either ;

LECT. XXII. NATURE OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. 277

and that we are not to suppose that the anah)gies between it and
them are to be accounted for on the ground that the former was
written subsequently to the other two. The nature of the lan-
guage employed is of itself sufficient to show that its origin
must be referred to a period antecedent to the composition of
the Psalms. In Job the use of Aram.aelsms is strongly marked,
evidently pointing to a period prior to David, in whose time the
language was purer. Besides, these Aramaeisms differ essentially
from the later ones, exhibiting an ancient and primitive character,
quite distinct from the corrupt and degenerate Aramaeism of a
later age. Thus we find "n^DV (athid) in its originally forcible

signification o^ skilful, experienced, or equipped, Job iii. 8 ; xv.
24 ; whereas, in Aramean, the same term is used in a weaker
sense equivalent to the Greek /xsX/.wv with an infinitive. In like
manner ^^f^ (mlUel) occurs in its original distinctness from 1^"1

(dibber), the former in a bad sense, the latter in a good- Instead
of the more recent form mSt?^3 (beshalvah), suddenly or unex-
pectedly, Dan viii. 25; xi. 21, Job has DlSji^H (bashshalGm) xv.
21. *T*!!1 i^S (lo beyad) without human assistance, by the sole
poioer of God, became afterwards ^> D£)J<3 (beephes yad) Dan-
viii. 25, and ^H'l J^S H (d'l l5 b'ldayin) Dan. ii. 34, 35.

The poetry of David's time has a more polished aspect, and purer
diction. The language is easy and flowing — the parallelism care-
fully observed, and the rythm peculiarly marked. The simple ob-
ject of the inspired writers belonging to this period was to pour forth
the desires of the heart in petitions to God — petitions which na-
turally and regularly assumed a rythmical structure, inseparable
from genuine lyric poetry. Their compositions present the lyric
poetry of the Hebrews in a very high state of cultivation, equally
distinguished by purity of language, and by sublimity and beauty
of conception. Earlier modes of expression had then become un-
usual. Seldom do we observe tendencies and approaches to them.
Thus ^ prefixed, occurs in the cxxii. and cxxiv. Psalms. Pure
Aramaeisms are of very rare occurrence, as in Psalm ii. 1*2, "^^

(bar) son. ^y *^^tl/ (shaphar al) to be delighted with a thing,

(see Dan. iv. 14), instead of the Hebrew '^^^ ItO* (yatab

278 NATURE OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. LECT. XXII.

beene.) 113 Ci^ (shibbeach) to praise^ instead of '^^il (hillel)
Psalm Ixiii. 4 ; cxvii. 1. ^ti^ (azai) then, an old form resem-
bling the Chaldee, t**lK (eda-yin), Psalm cxxiv. 3, 4, 5. pD^
(nasak) for H /V (alah) to ascend. Psalm cxxxix. 8.

In the writings of Solomon, Hebrew poetry is presented in
still higher and more cultivated forms. The want of a temple-
poetry had been admirably filled up by the Psalms of David, and
now other species were introduced. To Solomon is ascribed the
composition of Proverbs and longer poems, 1 Kings iv. 32. The
three books commonly ascribed to him, viz. Proverbs, Canticles,
and Ecclesiastes, bear a very marked and definite character of
style and language. They present, as might be expected, great
similarity with some diversity. It is easy to see that many words
have somewhat different significations from those they bear in the
Pentateuch. Some have thought the analogy of the ususloquendi
between the three books quite remarkable, on account of the dif-
ferent subjects of which they treat, and especially the short com-
pass of the Song of Songs. But the peculiarities of all must be
taken together as characteristic of the writings of Solomon.
Those belonging to one of the books must not be considered
apart from the others. This would be taking a partial view of
the subject, such as could not be justified. The language and
style of the three works, must together constitute the usus lo~
quendi of Solomon's writings. The analogies subsisting between
them cannot have been accidental, not only on account of their
singularity, but their number. The opinion that some of them
were written in a diction designedly imitative of the other, can-
not be allowed by any who read their poetry with a spirit alive
to its sublimity and beauty. We must not, therefore, separate
these different compositions on account of several things peculiar
to each, which they contain. They are distinct works written
on subjects widely different, and we cannot, therefore, expect
complete and constant uniformity in their diction. The object
of the ins})ired writer in the Song of Songs is so uncommon for
a treatise of any length, and the mode in which it is handled is
conducted with so much poetic beauty throughout, that it is not
surprising that the poem should present several expressions and
modes of diction unlike any that are found in Proverbs and Ec-
clesiastes.. But notwithstanding the dissimilarities, there are

LECT. XXII. NATURE OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. 279

still SO many points of resemblance, that we are strongly led to
conclude that they were composed at the same period, and by
the same author. Without stopping to point out their character-
istic differences in a lingual respect, we will shew very briefly,
some of the analogies that exist between them. In the first
place, we shall mention such as appear between Proverbs and
Canticles ; and next we shall shew the similarities of Proverbs
and Ecclesiastes. Proverbs v. 3, HHT ^D^k^ H^fibn DD'^

(nopheth tittophenah siphthe zarah) the lips of a strange woman
drop as an honeycomh^ closely resembles in expression, Canticles
iv. 11, yrS^rs^ii^ nD£)b/n n£)j (nopheth tittophenah siphtho-

thayik) thy lips drop as the honeycomb. The word DSJ (nopheth)

is also found in Proverbs xxiv. 13, and in its full form. Psalms
xix. 11. The term p^^ (shuk) street, Proverbs vii. 8, and Can-
ticles iii. 2, is used in place of llini (rechob.) The union of

the words pJIO^pl DvHt^ I'D (morahalim vekinnamon) myrrh^

aloes, and cinnamon, is found in Prov. vii. 17, and Canticles iv.
14. We may compare also DHH m*! (ravah dodim) to take the

T T

Jill of loves, Prov. vii. 17, with DHT nDt^ (shicru dodim) be

intoxicated with loves, Cant. v. 1 ; I^H (charar), Prov. xxvi. 21,

with its occurrence in Canticles i. 6. Again, Hlp^Si^^ (neshikoth)

kisses. Cant. i. 9, is found in Prov. xxvii. 6. The same figu-
rative use of the term ]*VD (mayan) fountain, is found in Prov.

V. 16, and Cant. iv. 15. *!in (chek) the palate is taken for speech.

Cant. v. 16, and Prov. viii. 7. 2.^\*^ (rahab) is taken in the

— T

same signification in Prov. vi. 3, and in Cant. vi. 5, viz. to urge
or prevail upon. (Graviter institit. Gesen. s. v.). The term ♦'^n

(chali) is found in Prov. xxv. 12, and Cant. vii. 2, signifying a
necklace. The manner in which wine is spoken of. Cant. vii. 10,
DnSJ^'D? "l/in (holek lemesharim) going straightly, and Prov.

xxiii. 31, Dnti^^DS "^ ynn* (yithhallek bemesharim) is worthy
of notice. The use of ^"jn (lion)? the usual expression in the
book of Proverbs for 1 ji^y, (oser) appears also in Canticles viii. 7. In

280 NATURE OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. LECT. XXII.

Canticles viii. 6, we find the expression, 5.?^ me as a seal upon thine
heart, as a seal upon thine arms, wbicli appears also in Prov. iii.
3; vi. 21 ; vii. 3.

These analogies, and others that might be pointed out, serve
to shew that the probability of both works having proceeded from
the same author is quite reasonable and well-founded. In b^c-
clesiastes we find features of language resembling those of Pro-
verbs and Canticles which lead us to believe that it belongs to
the same period. It is true that the whole current of German
theology is opposed to the opinion that Ecclesiastes belongs to
the same period as the acknowledged writings of Solomon.
Eichhorn, Rosenmliller, and others, speak positively on the sub-
ject, and even Havernick places it after the captivity, along with
Chronicles, Esra, Nehemiah, and Esther. The ground of such
a hypothesis is the Aramaean complexion of the book, by which
it is said to be remarkably characterised. We believe, however,
that the number of Aramaeisms has been greatly exaggerated,
and that parallels to many of those Chaldee expressions adduced
to prove that the book belongs to a later age than Solomon,
might be found in the older writings of the Bible. Chaldaisms
are not sufficient to warrant us to attribute a production to a late
period of the Hebrew language, since there is perhaps no part of
the Bible altogether free from expressions of this kind. This
has been ably shewn by Hirzel in his Commentatio de Chaldaismi
Biblici Origine et Auctoritate Critica, Leipsig, 1830. Without
entering into a defence of the old opinion, that the book of Ec-
clesiastes is rightly attributed to Solomon, we shall merely ad-
duce a few expressions which it has in common w^ith the books
of Proverbs and Canticles M^ hy2 (baal canaph) a fowl, Ec-
cles. x. 10, and Prov. i. 17. DH* p^'2^\ (chibbiik yadayim) to

fold the hands, Eccles. iv. 5, and Prov. vi. 10. p']^ (shuk)

street, Eccles. xii. 4, 5. Prov. vii. 8, and Cant. iii. 2. niJliW

\ — . -

(taanugoth) pleasures, delights. Cant. vii. 7. Eccles. ii. 8. We
find the swme paronomasia in Q^ and ^!n^ (shemand shemen) in

Eccles. vii. I, and Cant. i. 3. KQ1/tD 3^ (l«b marpe) or simply
NS1Q a (jcntle spirit, mildness, tranquillity of mind, or modesty of

lam/nac/e, Eccles. x. 4 ; Prov. xiv. 30; xv. 4. It is unnecessary
to adduce a multitude of analogies, as they arc so obvious to

LECT. XXII. NATURE OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. 281

every reader. We cannot allow of the explanation of these simi-
larities given by Havernick, by whom they are attributed to the
imitative character of the book. Neither can we assent to the
conclusion drawn from other words and forms of expression, as if
they characterised the period after the exile, when Ecclesiastes
is supposed to have been written. Several of them are erron-
eously taken for pure Chaldaisms or Syriasms, whilst others oc-
cur not only in the late books, as Esther, Daniel, Nehemiah, and
Chronicles, but also in the earlier. In this way we reduce the
list of Aramaean words and forms given in Gesenius' History of
the Hebrew Language and Literature^ (Geschichte der Hebraischen
sprache undschrift, p. 36), and mYi'dXim^wix^ Lingual Introduction
to the Study of the Old Testament books, (Linguistische einleitung
in das Studium der Biicher des A. T., p. 374.) Like most other
books of the Old Testament, however, it possesses many things
that are peculiar to itself. Thus it has an unusual number of ab-
stract forms ; the frequent use of the substantive verb \^^ (yesh),

denoting the proper essence of a thing, and of its opposite \i^

(en.) The expressions n^*^ D^V^I (reuth ruach) vexation of

spirit, or rather a following of the wind, an empty pursuit, (sectatio
venti, Rosenmiiller), i. 14 ; n^"l ^VVI (rayon ruach) vexation of

spirit, and others, are peculiar. A number of terms are of Ara-
maean origin, as "-jlS (oebar) long since, i. 10; ii. 12, 16, &c.

\T\p2 (cishron) prosperity, ii. 21; iv. 4; v. 10. ^^H^ (yehG)

for ^'<T\'> (see Ewald, by Nicholson, p. 10-3, Note 2.)

Now that we are tracing parallelisms in the usus loquendi of
different books of the Old Testament, we may extend our survey,
so as to take in a wider range. The songs of the inspired Psalmist
agree in many respects with those of his illustrious son and suc-
cessor, whilst the book of Job may not inaptly be included in the
comparison, though earlier written than the Psalms of David.
The writings of David, Solomon, and Job, may be classed to-
gether, as belonging to the same period, and harmonising in
point of language to a degree that can only be perceived by him
who sits down with his Hebrew concordance to trace the same
word in the different books, and to observe the recurrence of the
same expression. We merely stop at present to make the remark.

282 NATURE OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. LECT. XXII.

as we do not intend to adduce examples of the truth of our state-
ment. The matter is worthy of the consideration of all Biblical
scholars, and has been less attended to than it ought, by the
philologist and lexicographer. In the book of Ecclesiastes, the
Aramaean colouring is stronger than in others. In Job it is very
evident also, though quite distinct from the later degenerate
Aramaean ; and it forms a powerful ingredient of the poetic vi-
gour. The Psalms and Proverbs have fewer Aramaeisms than
Canticles, a circumstance which may be ascribed in part, to the
higher poetry of the latter, assimilating it to the book of Job.

To the period of which we have been speaking belong the his-
torical books. Judges, Samuel, and Ruth. The style is simple,
and the diction presents, on the whole, few peculiarities, being
generally devoid of an artificial cast, like the historical records of
higher antiquity. Yet w^e sometimes meet with concise and
energetic peculiarities in the usus loquendi, by which it is made to
resemble the language of poetry, especially of the poetry pro-
duced in the same period. These books contain few Aramaeisms,
for such as have been attributed to Judges and Samuel, should
rather be regarded as older forms of genuine Hebrew words.

We come now to speak of the ancient prophetic literature
which succeeds the writings of David and Solomon. The divi-
sion of the tribes, and the decay of the national religion, exerted
a prejudicial influence on the literature of the Jewish nation. In
all the qualities that are usually thought to constitute the highest
excellence of poetry, the writings of the prophets are not to be com-
pared with those which we have last mentioned. We speak merely
of the general character of both, for there may, perhaps, be found
single passages in the prophets approaching to, or equalling,
some part of Job or Canticles. But we must carefully attend to
the time in which they wrote, because there is a marked diffe-
rence between their prophecies. Only the earlier part of the
prophetic literature belongs to the golden age of the language.
In it we find a correct and classical style, uncorrupted by foreign
idioms. This statement, however, does not apply to the oldest of
the prophets, whose writings have come down to us, for the be-
ginning of a new epoch does not generally afford the best ex-
amples of the language by which it is characterised. Hence
Hosea, Jonah, and Amos, present a diction somewhat harsh, de-
void of smoothness, and apparently without polish. But their
immediate successors furnish specimens of a language pure and

LECT. XXII. NATURE OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. 283

polished, the last memorials of its living independence. We
look upon them as the final examples of the manhood of the He-
brew, after which it began to verge towards the debility of age.

The diction of Hosea bears the evident marks of antiquity, and
presents some unusual constructions and connexions. That of Jo-
nah resembles Hosea's, with some peculiarities of its own. The
same may be said of Amos, whose diction is frequently sublime,
though some have endeavoured to find out pastoral figures and ima-
gery in his writings, on account of his occupation, and the humble
rank in life to which he belonged. But it may be questioned
whether he exhibits more imagery from pastoral life than other
Hebrew poets; and as to his alleged rude and unpolished diction,
it does not appear to us. His style is full of imagery, whilst, at
the same time, it is concise, simple, and perspicuous. Jerome
calls him sermone imperiturrii rude in speech^ but this is thought by
Gesenius to be unjust.

The succeeding prophets, Joel, Isaiah, Micah, Nahura, Ha-
bakkuk, and Obadiah, may be all classed together as possessing
a similar complexion of language. Isaiah and Micah very nearly
coincide. They furnish the finest specimens of writing. Their
language is purely classical, possessing the poetic element in
high perfection, and partaking of the poetic external form.
They abound in beautiful instances of paronomasia, a favourite
figure of rhetoric in all oriental languages, and especially in He-
brew poetry. The language of Isaiah, in particular, is of the
most classic cast, surpassing that of all the other prophets in sub-
limity, energy, and beauty. In these and other excellencies he
stands at the head of all the prophetic poets. In some of the
prophets just mentioned, we find that Aramaeisms have been
avoided, and the purity of genuine Hebrew expression made to
predominate, as in Nahum and Habakkuk ; whilst in others, as
Micah, the Aramaean element appears, though in such a manner
as not to destroy their poetic character. The third chapter of
Habakkuk has been justly regarded as one of the most splendid
portions of the prophetical writings, the language presenting
the highest specimen of lyric poetry. The purity and elegance
of his diction have attracted the notice of all critics. The Ara-
maean complexion of Micah has been transferred to the latter
part of Isaiah by many scholars, as though it appeared there also in
a high degree. Hence the last portion of the book of Isaiah has
been assigned to a much later period than the first portion of the

284 NATURE OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. LECT. XXII.

work, by most of the German critics. Men of the highest re-
putation as Hebrew scholars, have, in some measure, hazarded
their fame by endeavouring- to prove, from the language of Isaiah
in the last 27 chapters, that they should be attributed to a much
more recent date than the time of the prophet himself. We need
only mention the names of Eichhorn, Ilosenmliller, Paulus,
Bauer, Bertholdt, De Wette, Gesenius, and Hitzig, as the chief
impugners of the authenticity of this portion. But it has been
demonstrated, especially by Kleinert, (1829), that the alleged
Chaldaisms, and traces of a later usus loqucndi, are not to be re-
garded as proofs of that which they are brought forward to sup-
port. To him, therefore, we may refer, as shewing that the
words and forms, which are thought to belong to a later period of
the language, when it was subjected to Aramaean influence, do
not furnish sufficient, or satisfactory evidence, of the supposed
fact. The argument has been completely taken out of the hands
of those who regard the latter part of his prophecies as unauthen-
tic. In addition to Kleinert's treatise, we may also refer to
Hengstenberg's Christology, (1829, Berlin), vol. 2d, page 172,
&c. and to Havernick's Introduction to the Old Testament,
(1830, Frlangen), vol. i. page 219, &c.

We have now arrived at the second ov silver age of the Hebrew,
reaching from the captivity down to the time when it ceased to
be a living language. This period, including that which imme-
diately precedes, is marked by the influence of the Chaldee dia-
lect on the Hebrew. In consequence of this Aramaean tendency,
there arose a new literature, strikingly diff'erent from the earlier.
After the death of Josiah, Judah was continually exposed to the
invasions of the Babylonians. The people were harassed by
the frequent attacks of their enemies, and began to lose that
power and independence which they had formerly possessed.
Forgetting their dependence on Jehovah, they were given up as
a prey to be devoured by other warlike nations mightier than
themselves. Thus were they punished by God for their apostacy
and rebellion. In such circumstances it is natural to expect that
their language would lose the purity and independent character
which belonged to it in the flourishing state of the nation. In
the literature of a people we look for modifications corresponding
to the external influences to which they are subjected. Nothing
is more natural than that the language of the conquered should
approximate to that of their conquerors. In addition to this, the

LKCT. XXII. NATURE OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. 285

language itself had began to degenerate, participating in the
national decay. The Hebrew idiom had become more coirupt,
a circumstance which of itself brings the language near to the
Aramaean. The literature of the present period is marked by
the principle of imitation. There is in it a visible resemblance
to the documents that appeared in the older and purer state of
the language. The latter may be said, in some measure, to be
reproduced in another form. Hence many peculiarities of the
ancient poetry appear again, in the diction of this period, with
the venerable garb of archaisms. The same imitative principle
is observable in t!ie poetic compositions belonging to this period,
viz. a part of the Psalms and Lamentations. In the orthography
of this later dialect we perceive the semblance of endeavour after
distinctness. Thus, the scriptio plena of the vowel letters appears
in words of the most frequent occurrence, as D^/Ji^l^S (yerusha-

layim) ; "T^*l1, (David). There is also a tendency to lengthen

■ »

triliteral stems, especially by the insertion of resh as 0^3'^Ci^j
(sharbit), sceptre instead of t02St^> (shebet), in Esther; HQ^/ID?
(sarappah), a tivig^ Ezekiel xxxi. 5; 72l13j (cirbel), instead of
^^^5 (cabal), to put on, Chron. and Daniel. Even proper

names are not free from such an increment, as pJi^llDT^ pti^^^j

Damascus^ (Chron.) Gesenius observes that the Syriac presents
the same feature. Again, n? final of the feminine noun, is cut
oflF, leaving, as in Aramaean, a mereo or ?/, as l^^j (ribbo). The

difference between passive and reflex forms is less apparent than in
the earlier state of the language. The reflex are used for the pas-
sive and vice versa. The use of the future, with van conversiveis
infrequent, and the verbal stem frequently appears in the full form
of the future absolute. The particle riK is no longer distin-
guished as a mark of the accusative and as a preposition. The
Aramaean particle ^ appears in its stead as the sign of the ac-
cusative- In order to see more painly the decay of the language,
it will be necessary to compare the phrases and forms of expres-
sion representing the same ideas in the older and later documents.
The departure of the popular diction from the ancient written
dialect, occasioned in the composition of the writers of the later

286 NATURE OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. LECT. XXII.

period an approximation to the idiom commonly spoken. Thus
it is said in the Pentateuch ^l^t^HD HXy* tJ!/^ ^3 (ci esh yat-

seah mecheshbon) yor a fire goes out of Heshhon ; in Jeremiah

ilD KV* tji^K *3 ; (esh) fire is uniformly feminine in the Penta-

teuch, (Gesenius' Lehrgebaude, p. 546, note). In the Penta-
teuch we find nn*D DHpD Hin^ (lehabah mikkiryath sichon)

a flame from the city of Sihon (Numbers xxi. 28) in Jeremiah
]1n^D V'^.'O mn? (lehabah mibben sichon) Jeremiah xlviii. 45.

In the Pentateuch occurs IKiD ^DKQ fPlDI (umachats paathe

moab) and shall smite or strike the corners of Moab, Num-
bers xxiv. 17. In Jeremiah n^^'^^ DN^) ^DXDI (vattocal peath

Moab) a7id shall devour the corner or region of Aloab, xlviii. 45.
Here the prosaic singular stands for the poetic dual. In the
Pentateuch we findDC2^"^^2"73 ^p'^p'l (vekarkar col bene sheth)

Numbers xxiv. 17, and destroy all the children ofSeth, or rather
the children of tumult, i.e. of the tumltuous din of war. In Jere-
miah X^Ht^ *iS "^P^P"' (vekodkod bene shaon) and the crown of

the head of the children of noise, xlviii. 45. In the same manner we
might contrast several -prophecies in Isaiah and Jeremiah ; such
as Isaiah xv. 16; Jerem. xlviii ; Isaiah xiii. 14 ; Jerem. 1. 51.

A comparison of the books of Kings and Chronicles shews, in
a marked and most instructive manner, the declining state of the
language. Although the date of their composition is scarcely
separated by a century, yet their styles are very different. The
two books of Kings discover the period of their origin only by a
few peculiarities, for the language seems to be modelled after
the more ancient and pure diction; whilst those of the Chronicles
change the older orthography and forms of words. They sub-
stitute new words for old ones, either by altering the ortho-
graphy, or by changing the signification whilst retaining the
proper form. Hence we find in the latter the scriptio plena,
the Aramaean orthography with aleph prosthetic, as ^ti^*^J (ishai)

Jesse ; 1 Chron. ii. 12; the compensating of dagesh forte by a
liquid, as ptS^D^'l for pfi^^*^ * Chron. xv. 27. The older

forms, such as the termination ]1", the pronoun Oit<?, HD/DD

LECT. XXII. NATURB OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. 287

(mamlecah) n^nn (techinnah) fl^lVD (maabeh) passed into the

modern ^', ♦^J^, D'lD /O' p^nn> Oj/- I" like manner we find

older constructions supplanted by modern ones. 1 hus the names
of countries, when employed to designate the inhabitants, are not
construed with the singular feminine of the verb, but with the
plural. (Gesen. Lehrgeb. p. 469). Later expressions are sub-
stituted for earlier ones. Thus for IpQ (pakad) io number or

muster, we find *^P)D (saphar) ; for Dl'^ (carath) to root out.

~ T - T

t^rni (nathash), &c.

The diction of Zephaniah, the contemporary of Josiah, may be
regarded as an approximation to that of the period we are con-
sidering. It marks the Hebrew language in transitu ; possessing
a considerable portion of its purity as seen in the days of David
and Solomon, with much of the degeneracy which had begun to
pass upon it. Although, therefore, his language be pure in re-
lation to the time in which he lived, yet there are many striking
proofs of its corruptness in his prophecies. The later usus loquendi
is not unobservable, and particularly a similarity of the diction
of Jeremiah. Thus the expression VIDS!^" ^V ^<£)p (kapha al
shemarav) i. 12, to be settled on his lees, is found in Jeremiah xlviii.
1 1. Pl^Dn (hesiph) to make an end of, to consume, i. 2, 3, is found

in Jeremiah viii. 13. Still his language has many peculiarities
by which it is distinguished from the other compositions of the
Old Testament. For example, i. 9, \r\^t^T'hv JlSl"! (doleg

al hammiphtan) icho leaps over the threshhold, i. e., who approaches
the Lord without a sacred awe, in an unprepared and unsanctified
state, i. 12 ni"1^5 D^W^I^'DN Si^DnN (achappes eth yerus-

halayim banneroth) / will search Jerusalem with candles.

With regard to Jeremiah, his mode of writing is much more cor-
rupt than that of Zephaniah, and the influence of the Aramaean
upon it much more visible. There are many analogies between
his diction and that of the books of Kings, though the latter is
much more impure. The imitative principle already referred to
is also exemplified in this prophet. Hence when we compare his
language with that of Moses and the earlier prophets, we observe
a similarity between them. In the place of old expressions we

288 NATURE OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. LECT. XXH.

find new ones, which were partly unknown to a former age, and
partly used in a different signification. So HK^ (yaah) a more

recent softening down of ^^^J (naah) to he beautiful, Jeremiah x.

7. In Psalm xciii. 5, we have ^HK- DH^ (catham) in the old

dialect is allied in signification to DnH (chatham) to he stained ox

dejiled, Jerm. xi. •22, just as :i^y (iib) in Aramaean, to veil over,
is softened from Pl^y (uph) Lamentations ii. 1. From the an-
cient W"! and \*yi (ratsats) we find in Jeremiah (v. 17,) the

verb WVi^"\ (rashash) to hreak ; nDH (hamali) became ^/t^H from
which is derived rh^[} (hamuUah) tumtdt, Jerem. xi. 16, and

Ezek. i. 24. We find also in the writings of this period a num-
ber of foreign words added to the language, expressive of objects
with which the Hebrews became first acquainted in their intercourse
with the Babylonians. Thus we find H^H''^ (medlnah) a country
or province, Lamen.i. 1. 1 Kings xx. 1-4, &c. pD (sagan) aprefect
or rider, Jerem. li. 23. nilQ (pechah) a captain, Jerem. li. 23, &c.
1 Kings X. 15, 20. ^"1, (rab), a title of honour, generally in
connection with other words, as D^TOtO I'Hj (i"ab tabbachim),
captain of the guard, 2 Kings xxv. 8. Jerem. xxxix. 9, JlD-ll,

(rab-mag), /??•/« ce of the mafjicians. The older term was, *n^,
(sar). But we see the corruption of the language, particularly
in a grammatical respect. The cultivation and polish observable
in its most flourishing state, have here given way, in part, to its
old original character. Hence we find many archaisms. Nume-
rous forms, deviating from the pure Hebrew approximate to
the Aramaean. Thus the full pronominal forms, >]-)-, ^nj^, O^,

are regularly employed instead of the abbreviations of an earlier
and more polished state of the language. H? the preformative of
the conjugation Hiphil, is frequently changed into ^, thus pro-
ducing a harder form, Tiphil, for example, (Tinrij (techerah),

to act violently, to dispute, Jerem. xii. 1 5 ; xxii. 5, (see Ewald's
Grammar, translated by Nicholson, p. 121.) Verbs with aleph or
he for one of their radicals, make the vau or yod of their ground-

LECT. XXII. NATURE OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. 289

form raore frequently appear, tiiiis, n"TnK% (obidali) future

Hiphil, Jerein. xlvi. 8. H'S^ (nibbetha), for Ht^^Il^S^ preterite

niplial from {<ni> ^o prophecy. So also we find i'2t2 ^or J^^^;^,

(mebl) ; ^DHH for K^iOnnj (hachati), &c. Abstract forms are

employed instead of the concrete formerly in use, as n^"^

(borith,) lye^ Jeremiah ii. 22, for *nl2lj (bor), Isaiah i. 25. The
prefixing of the article to the first noun, in the construct state, is
decidedly anomalous, Jerem. xxxii. 12; xxv. 26. 1 Kings xiv.
24. 2 Kings xxiii. 17. (See Ewald, by Nicholson, p. 324, §
514, 3). The constant interchange of J^J^ the mark of the ac-
cusative and the preposition is a sure sign of the corrupt state of
the language.

Those writers who were commissioned by heaven to deliver di-
vine communications to the people during the Babylonish capti-
vity must be ranked still lower in regard to the purity of their
language. We refer to Ezekiel and Daniel, who belong to the
actual period of the 70 years captivity. The former is said to
exhibit so much negligence of diction, that his prophecies contain
proportionably the greatest number of grammatical anomalies.
We shall adduce a few of the most remarkable examples. Pass-
ing over such as he has in common with Jeremiah, the follow-
ing pronominal forms are partly ancient, partly Aramaean.
KH'- xli. 15. {^- for ri-xxxvi. 5. H^H'- i. H. HDHV

» ¥ T T ... ...

xi. 16. n:i'r\-' xvi. 53. n:D— xxiii. 48. r\*ir\^ xiii. 20, &c.

T : - r V : T .. -

The verbal forms ^r\'2.^ xxxi. 5, Kn"lp xxvii. 31, V^DV fut.

kal of ^"2^ to eat, xlii. 5, are likewise anomalous. The joining

of the infinitive in ri'i— with the plural suffix, vi. 8; xvi. 31, is
also remarkable. Two forms have been put into one in the word
INCS^N^ (neshaar) I was left , ix. 8, (see Gesen. Lex., p. 1080,

4th edit.) Of nominal forms, the plural D^— is peculiar, xlvii.
11 ; so also K^l^ (m5ba) for KlUItD (mabo) xliii. 11, entrance-

(See Lehrgeb. p. 374.) The dual terminations *--- xiii. 18, and

D— xlvi. 19. are also unusual.

The language of Daniel does not contain so remarkable ano-

290 NATURE OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. LECT. XXII.

malies as that of Ezekiel, though it is deeply tinged with the
prevailing Aramaean colouring indicative of the degeneracy of
the Hebrew. Thus the infinitive termination j-)^~- xi. 23, is only
found besides in Ezekiel xxiv. 26. ji^ (bag) food, Daniel i. 5 ;

Ezekiel xxv. 7. IDS (cethab) for ^Qp (sepher), a writing, or

book, Dan. x. 21. Ezek. xiii. 9. In addition to the expres-
sions and forms of this writer, which are also found in Ezekiel, he
exhibits many new Aramaeisms peculiar to himself; for example,
lyiD (moed) for n^ (eth) a definite space of time, especially a

year, with which may be compared the Chaldee ^^^ (iddan),

Dan. xii. 7; Hl^n (ehidah) for HDID (mirmah)/raw6/; viii. 23 ;

nrn (bizzah) for m (baz) booty, xi. 24, 33; the form T\T\'CiVT\

(taamddenah), viii. 22 ; -)p1n l^V ^^^^^ boker) instead of the

ancient expression D^^.'^VH ^^l (ben haarbayim), Exodus xvi.

12, in Greek wyJhiJ^io^^^' Daniel viii. 14.

The writings that appeared soon after the exile, viz. Chroni-
cles, Esra, Nehemiab, and Esther, present features of language
similar to those that characterise the times of the captivity.

The greatest corruption of the language is observable when
the dialect of the common people, or, in other words, the Chaldee,
was adopted by the writers. This, indeed, was called forth by
peculiar circumstances, as Jerem. x. 11. Dan. ii. 4 — vii. 28.
Esra iv. 8— vi. 18, and vii. 12—26. These passages are not to
be looked upon as presenting the pure idiom of Babylon, but
rather as an exemplification of the Aramaean combined with the
Hebrew. The pure Hebrew element has frequently been pre-
scribed in opposition to the influence of the Aramaean idiom,
for example, in the position of the article, the use of the dual
form, the passive conjugation Hophal, and the doubling of the
non-gutturals, &c. But, on the other hand, we find an Aramaean
element distinctly preserved, notwithstanding the existing pre-
valence of the Hebrew. As an example of this we may adduce
the deficiency of vowels in the/c^rms of words, the status emphati-
cus, or emphatic state, the use of the particle ^ as the sign of

the accusative, the formation of passives by prefixing the syllable
r){^j &c. On comparing the Biblical Chaldee with the later dia-

LECT. XXII. NATURE OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. 291

lect of the Targums, we find, that, whilst the former consists, in
the use of the Hebrew and Aramaean elements so combined, as
that their respective features have not been effaced by the oppos-
ing influences they exert on each other, the latter shews the
Hebrew element in greater subjection to the Aramaean, and al-
most overwhelmed by its predominant power.

After the captivity several writers appear to have aimed at a
purer Hebrew dialect than that which characterised their con-
temporaries. The prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi,
have written in a style free from Aramaeisms ; a circumstance
generally explained by their intimate knowledge of the older
Hebrew writings, and their imitation of the purer language.
Zechariah is particularly remarkable for his freedom from what is
Aramaean. Very few traces of the later usus loquendi are to be
found in him, such as the scriptio plena l*n*T% (David), xii. 8, 9,

and the word ^pi^? (alluph), a governor , ix. 7 ; xii. 5. All of

these prophets want concinnity of expression.

But, notwithstanding the great corruption of the Hebrew
language, as manifested chiefly in the Chaldee portions of the
Old Testament, we are not to suppose that the older dialect
ceased to be understood and read by the well educated part of
the Jews, or by such as were employed in expounding the sacred
oracles. It is marvellous to find that such an intimation of
ignorance, in regard to the pure Hebrew writing, has been
directed towards the writer of the books of Chronicles. But
there are men, professing to believe in revelation, who hazard
many conjectures savouring of pure infidelity. This insinuation
must be associated with an anti-christian spirit, though put for-
ward by such eminent scholars as De Wette and Gesenius.
Those who do not believe in the inspiration of the writers, may,
indeed, hold the opinion in perfect consistency with their prin-
ciples, but such as are taught to view the holy Scriptures as
coming from God himself, through the instrumentality of men
specially called and appointed, will abhor the sentiment, though
proceeding from accomplished scholarship. And here it is pro-
per to make a remark upon the mode in which we have spoken
of the Old Testament writers, and of the state of the Hebrew
language, as exhibited in the productions bearing their names.
We thought it unnecessary and inconvenient to refer continually
to the divine superintendence exercised over them in recording

292 NATURE OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. LECT. XXII.

events and predictions. But the fact that they were inspired in
all they uttered, is sufficient to give us the highest confidence in
their sentiments and declarations. If we look no higher than
themselves, we stop short of the great author of all the commu-
nications which they were directed to make known ; and we will
have a lower idea of their authority than consists with a proper
reverence for Scripture. But when we extend our mental vision
to the Almighty author, and view the prophets and writers as
commissioned by hiiVi to utter and to record predictions and ad-
monitions for the benefit of mankind, we take a right view of
the subject, and of the inspired men of whose language we have
spoken. Let it be remembered also, that nothing which we
have advanced is, in our view, inconsistent with the strictest
views of inspiration taken by many Christians. I speak of ver-
bal inspiration in its narrowest sense, for which multitudes con-
tend, and which is undoubtedly the safest theory that can be
adopted. We do not think that this kind of inspiration is opposed
to diversity of style. It leaves different writers at liberty to
adopt a characteristic diction by which they are distinguished
from others. The cultivation of a language also, and the various
stages of advancement and corruption through which it passes,
may be spoken of in accordance with verbal inspiration. When
the Holy Ghost puts words into the minds and mouths of men,
he does it in such a way as corresponds to their habits and situa-
tion. The cast of language they employ, under his suggestion,
is such as the influence of the various external circumstances to
which they are exposed, would lead us to expect. It varies with
the human instrument employed, and with the people addressed.
The Spirit inclines those under his influence to write his instruc-
tions in such language as will be most intelligible to those for
whom it is designed. As the genius of a language varies, from
the numberless influences to which it is exposed, so will the in-
spired diction in like manner vary, to accord with the common
dialect as spoken and written. The Holy Ghost leaves the
peculiar mental habits of the individuals selected to be seen
through the messages they convey. Even their situation in life
may be perceived in the images they employ, though they are all
the while directed and influenced in the use of such figures by
the Spirit. Nor is the imitation of another inspired writer at all
inconsistent with this view of the subject. The language and
forms of expression, formerly used by another writer, may be

LECT. XXII. NATURE OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. 293

partly adopted and modified by a succeeding one, without neces-
sarily implying that the language of the latter was not, strictly
speaking, inspired. Such was the opinion, too, of the late Rev.
Robert Hall of illustrious memory. " Nahum was a great pro-
phet and a great poet. Isaiah was greatly indebted to him.'' (See
Gardiner's Music and Friends.) We do not attempt to explain
the mode in which these things can be reconciled to the satisfac-
tion of all. We are not called upon to do so. It is enough for
us to know the fact that they are so, without puzzling ourselves
with vain questions and subtle inquiries that minister no profit.
We have alluded to them here, lest it should be thought by some
tliat our manner of speaking places the sacred writers in circum-
stances too similar to those of ordinary authors. Although, in
tracing the history and progress of the Hebrew language, it was
most convenient to avoid constant allusions to the office of the
Holy Spirit ; and though it was in a great degree necessary and
unavoidable to employ such language as we did, yet we must not
forget that there is no inconsistency between it and the strictest
view of inspiration which has been taken. The Bible was in-
tended for the use of men, and it was written by men in such
diversity of style and diction as was suited to the feelings and
wants of those to whom it is addressed. Thus it was, in a great
degree, characteristic of the times and individuals when and by
whom it was produced.

I have thus given a very brief sketch of the Hebrew language,
noticing its prominent features at different periods. The nature
of the present work prevented me from entering into the subject
with minuteness, though it j^resents a wide and interesting field
of investigation to the biblical critic. Should any complain of
the brevity with which I have treated this part of my proposed
course, let them recollect that it would legitimately demand a
separate volume, and that I have endeavoured to proportion my
treatment of it, in this place, to the degree of copiousness with
which other subjects are discussed. In the mean time, I may
refer to those authors who have written upon it in detail. These
are Geseniusinhis " Geschichte der Hebraischen spracheund schrift^''
( History of the Hebrew language and literature) ; Hartmann in
his " Linguistiche Einleitung in das studium der Biicher des alten
Testaments^'' (Lingual introduction to the study of the Old Tes-
tament books) ; Bottcher in his " Proben alttestamentlicher Schrift-
erkldrung nach wissenschaftlich. Sprachforschung,' (Specimens

294 NATURE OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. LECT. XXIS,

of explanation of the Old Testament writing according to the
principles of Scientific Philology) ; Havernick in his " Handbuch
der historisch-kritischen Einldtung in das alie Testament^'' (Manual
of historico-critical introduction to the Old Testament), and to
Hirzel in his " Commentatio de Clialdaismi hihiici origine et aitcto-
ritate critical' (Essay on the origin and critical authority of Bibli-
cal Chaldaism.) In addition to these, separate works on parti-
cular books may be consulted, as Hengstenberg on the Authen-
ticity of the Pentateuch, Maurer on Joshua, Hitzig on Isaiah
and on the Psalms, Kleinert on the Genuineness of the entire
Prophecies contained in the book of Isaiah, Knobel on Jeremiah
(Jeremias Chaldaizans) and on Ecclesiastes, Movers on Chro-
nicles, &c. All of these books, however, except one or two,
are shut out from the greater number of students, being written
in a language which few study to acquire, and' which fewer still
master. But this ffict is scarcely to be regretted in the present
case, because the treatises just referred to are highly objectionable.
They contain rash and dangerous speculations, against the influ-
ence of which it is necessary to warn you. The inspiration of
the books of scripture is never referred to in them,— the language
is regarded merely as that of fallible and erring men. Hence the ad-
venturings of such writers into the wide regions of speculation are
presumptuous and daring. The only exceptions we make are
the w^orks of Kleinert, Havernick, and Hengstenberg, though
even these are occasionally liable to censure. The influences of
the Holy Spirit are at all times needed to preserve us from error,
but especially are they necessary to guard his people from reli-
gious error of a subtle and insinuating nature. Still it is of high
importance to know what has been advanced even by the objec-
tionable critics of Germany, that we may be fitted to do justice
to the historical literature of the Bible. Some excellent remarks
may be found in books tinctured with neologism ; and if we be
competent to separate the chaff from the wheat, the precious
from the vile, we may be even instructed and benefited by the
perusal of productions generally unsound.

The question now remains to be answered, how long did the
Hebrew continue to be a living language. Of the different re-
plies that have been given, we must select that one which ap-
pears, on examination, to be best founded. The older Jewish
grammarians uniformly held that it became altogether a dead
language during the Babylonish exile; and the majority of

LECT. XXII. MATURE OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. 295

Christian divines have assented. But in modern times, a different
opinion has been entertained and advanced by several illustrious
scholars, among whom Gesenius and De Wette are the most
conspicuous. They suppose that the language was not wholly
lost at that time, but that it was spoken and cultivated in a good
degree after the exile, until it gradually died away. It has
been thought by them marvellous and improbable that the Jews,
in so short a space, should forget their native tongue and adopt a
strange dialect, especially as many of those born before the cap-
tivity returned to their own country, Esra iii. 1 2. But unless we
fix upon the captivity as the epoch of the death of the language,
we will in vain look for any time to which so important an event
can be probably referred. It is quite arbitrary to suppose that
the taking of Palestine by Ptolemy Lagus exercised so great an
influence on the inhabitants as to cause them to forget the dia-
lect they spoke. If, therefore, we do not place the extinction of the
language in the time of the captivity, where shall we find a more
appropriate period for it ? Besides, if the Hebrew had not been
almost wholly superseded during the captivity, every attempt] to
restore its use would have been made. Had it been but partially
extinguished, it is contrary to all historical analogy to suppose
that a conquered race would afterwards adopt the language of
their conquerors when freed from the yoke of their oppres-
sion. The Jews were not a people who were likely to lay aside
their own language for that of a foreign enemy. Their love of
their own nation and hatred towards others, especially that re-
verence with which they uniformly regarded their sacred national
records, — a reverence not confined to their internal character but
to all their externalities, combined to keep away a language
different from their own. We are thus led unavoidably to the
conclusion that the ancient dialect of the Jews was irrecoverably
overwhelmed by Aramaean influence during their exile in Baby-
lon. No attempt to restore it after their release from bondage
could have succeeded, else there is every reason to believe that
it would have been tried. The national genius is a sure warrant
for adherence to every thing old and venerable, especially for the
preservation of the language in which the holy books were written.
Nor is it remarkable, that during a comparatively short exile, the
language should cease entirely to be spoken. For we know that
prior to that time, the Chaldee had begun to exercise a consider-
able influence upon it. It had received the Aramaean colouring

29o NATURE OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGK. LECT. XXII,

even before. When the Jews, therefore, came into close and
actual contact with the Babylonians, it is by no means surprising
that the process which had already commenced should be con-
summated ; or, in other words, that the Aramaean element should
completely overwhelm and suppress the genuine Hebrew idiom.
It is not inconsistent with these sentiments to believe that the
Jews read their sacred books and continued in some degree to
cultivate the older language in which they were written. The
regard they had for the divine records, and the care with which
they preserved them, forbid us to suppose that Hebrew ceased
to be understood by the well educated among the people. At-
tached to their own customs, and viewing all other nations with
abhorrence, they were kept from amalgamating with them in
manners, language, and friendship. But necessity obliged them to
adopt the language of their conquerors, because it was that of com-
mon life. The circumstances in which they were placed tended to
the extinction of their own. Their tenacity to their national re-
ligion and language preserved them indeed from a speedy aban-
donment of these distinctive peculiarities ; but the predominant
influence of external events, and daily intercourse with the Ba-
bylonians during seventy years, sufficed to extinguish the dialect
they had previously spoken, and which had been gradually verg-
ing towards the Aramaean, before it was completely superseded.
It is clear, from a passage in Jeremiah, that the Aramaean had
been adopted by the people during their abode at Babylon, for
it is written there, " thus shall you say unto them," implying,
that the Chaldee words which follow were to be spoken in their
hearing. But it has been alleged, as an objection to the opinion
we have advanced, that several authors wrote after the exile in
the Hebrew dialect for the benefit and instruction of the people ;
which would not have happened had it become to a great extent
unintelligible. The priests and prophets, however, who explain-
ed the older writings to the people, would also explain these at
the same time. Besides, we carefully distinguish between icritten
and spoken language. We deny not that the knowledge of
Hebrew would be retained longer as the language of books, than
that of conversation, and for a greater period among the better
educated. Many who had ceased to speak Hebrew were able to
read it ; and hence, several inspired authors wrote in substan-
tially the same dialect as their predecessors. On the other hand,
it is inexplicable, on the supposition that the genuine Hebrew

LECT. XXII. NATURE OF THE HEBRLW LANGUAGE. 297

was not extinguished during the captivity, how the Chaldee por-
tions of Daniel and Esra could benefit the people if they were
not acquainted with that dialect. Had the Hebrew continued
to be spoken, these Chaldee sections, and not the ancient writ-
ings, would have required an interpreter. Appeal has been made
to Nehemiah xiii. 24, to prove that Hebrew was generally spoken
after the return from the captivity. " And their children spake
half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews'
language, but according to the language of each people." In
this passage it is related, that the children of those Jews who had
taken wives from among the Philistines, Ammonites, and Moa-
bites, could not speak the Jewish tongue. By the Jews' lan-
guage is understood, according to Gesenius, the Hebrew language.
The term riHin^ (yehudlth) is a relative one, and simply de-
notes, in this place, the language which the Jews usually spoke
at that time. Hence, it must mean the Aramaean in opposition
to the different dialects of the Philistines, Ammonites, and Moa-
bites. The Hebrew word Jl^DIS^ (aramith) could not have been

adopted, because the other dialects were Aramaean ; and thus
nmn* alone could form a proper and suitable contrast. In 2

Kings xviii. 26. the same term is employed, in a different sense,
to denote the Hebrew language, because it stands there distin-
guished from the Aramaean. This explanation is favoured by
the usus loquendi of the New Testament. The phrases z^^cliG-i and
rfi s(3^didi dia^szTuj signify, the dialect then spoken in Palestine, viz.
the Aramaean. Reference has also been made to Nehemiah viii.
8, in order to prove that the Hebrew language was still spoken
by the people. " So they read in the book, in the law of God
distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand
the reading." On the right interpretation of this verse depends
the truth or unsoundness of the argument built upon it. The
word ti^'lD^ (mephorasli) rendered in the authorised version dis-

T

tinctlg, is explained by Gesenius literally or faithfully. But this
is contrary to the use of the word ^^^ (parash) in the Penta-
teuch, where it signifies to explain. Levit. xxiv. 12. Numb. xv.
o4. It must therefore mean adding the explanation of it. What
such explanation was we infer from the passage itself. It could

2D8 NATURE OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. LECT. XXII.

not have been comments, or short expositions of difficult passages,
for the purpose of rendering them clearer and more intelligible,
because this idea is expressed by the words that follow, " they
gave the sense and caused them to understand the reading."
The explanation alluded to must therefore have been the trans-
latino- of the text, which they read into the usual dialect spoken
by the people. In the same way t^'lSD (mepharash), Ezra iv.

18, is used to express the translating of Aramaean into Persian.
So also the word targum stands both for inteiyreting and translat-
ing. In the time of the Talmudists "^V^ (parash) was restricted

to explanation, and targiim to translation. In the time of Esra,
the word targum had not received this special signification. Thus
it is plain that, when Nehemiah lived and wrote, the Hebrew
language was unknown to the people, and that a translation of
the text of their sacred books into the Aramaean was required to
make it intelligible. The inscriptions on the Maccabean coins
do not prove that Hebrew was spoken in the time of the Macca-
bees, because, though there are a few phrases stamped upon
them in the ancient dialect, yet they have also Aramaean words.
Hence we infer that Hebrew had partly ceased, even as a written
language, since in these monuments the Chaldee accompanies
it.

LECTURE XXIIL

ON THE HEBREW CHARACTERS.

The changes which pass upon the written characters of a lan-
guage in the lapse of time, must be viewed in connection with
the people who use it, and with the country they inhabit. Their
peculiar modes of thought, and the external influences to which
they are subject, no less than the aspect of the writing itself,
must be attended to by him who would successfully push his in-
quiries into this department of knowledge. The language, even
when viewed in relation to its written characters, is necessarily
modified by the wants and habits of the nation. Thus a people
advanced to a high degree of cultivation and intellectual refine-
ment, are more careful of their writing and more desirous of im-
proving it, whilst such as are not habituated to reflection or de-
voted to literature, contemplating only corporeal and sensible
objects, possess a written language of a very stationary nature. If
also a convenient material be abundant, a facility and frequency
of writing will characterise a people accustomed to mental inqui-
ries. Hence arises a cursive form of letters, by which the former
figures of alphabetical characters will be effaced or corrupted in
proportion to the extent of the usage and the desires of the
people. Thus the historical circumstances of a nation, its habits,
peculiarities, and desires, and its advancement in civilization,
give origin to tachygraphy. Wherever certain national charac-
teristics are found, we are warranted to look for its existence and

300 ON THE HEBREW CHARACTERS. LECT. XXIII.

influence. It arises in fact out of them. It is easy to know
tachygraphy by its peculiar aspect. A superficial delineation of
letters without attention to their minute parts — the linking of
them together — the prolongation or bending of the final ones, to
allow a readier and freer transition to those that follow ; such are
the chief lineaments by which it is distinguished. In contrast
with this form of a written language stands calligraphy^ which
generally appears after the former, and betokens a higher na-
tional taste. When a people have advanced to a great degree of
refinement, they have leisure and desire for beautifying their
writing. The Hebrews especially had an elevated motive for
adopting improvements in the external form of their language.
Their literature consisted of the record containing the will of
Jehovah, by which their civil and ecclesiastical polity was regu-
lated. Their writings thus possessed a sacred character. Hence
the desire for a more regular, beautiful, and artificial me-
thod, of exhibiting to the eye those records which they were
taught to reverence as coming from the Almighty himself. This
improvement, characteristic of the taste and habits of the people
among whom it appears, is obviously the accompaniment, and,
in some measure, the result of high mental culture. Like tachy-
graphy it is easily recognised in its general features. It goes back
to the forms that existed before the cursive writing changed and
modified them — aiming at regularity and symmetry. The letters
that had been linked together before, it separates, attaching to
them new ornaments and decorations. In this way the taste of
a nation is manifested. The artificial formation of the letters,
and their equal separations, indicate the refinement of the na-
tional mind.

These general remarks may be of some utility to us in our en-
deavour to develop the Hebrew writing. They are taken for
granted as true in all palaeographical investigations, and we will
find them exemplified and confirmed in the case of the Hebrew,
no less than other Oriental languages.

That we may trace the successive and gradual changes which
the written Hebrew characters underwent, it is necessary to go
back to the oldest monuments extant, to compare them with the
younger, and to form our judgment accordingly. In this way we
may be able to observe the progress of the characters in which the
remains of the ancient Hebrew are presented to us, with their

LECT. XXIII. ON THE HEBREW CHARACTERS. 301

approximation to the original shapes which they had in the most
ancient times. The oldest memorials of Hebrew writing reach
no farther back than the middle of the second century before
Christ ; and consist of the coins stamped under the Asmonaean
princes, which are now admitted to be genuine. The characters
inscribed on these monuments nearly resemble the Samaritan,
which were preserved and retained by this people with great
fidelity. The greater number of the Maccabean coins have on
one side an urn with manna, and the inscription ^i^'^^i ^pt^,
the shekel cf Israel, on the other, Aaron's rod, with the words
nSi^*Tpn 07t^11% Jerusalem the holy city. According to these
inscriptions, which consist of consonants alone, without vowel-
marks, the coins must have proceeded from the Jews, and not the
Samaritans, although the characters resemble in shape the letters
of the Samaritan Pentateuch. The alphabet of these coins too,
must have been the usual one at that time among the Jews, for it
cannot be regarded as at all probable that the Maccabees borrow-
ed the Samaritan letters to put on their coins, or that they imi-
tated an older writing then obsolete. There are sufficient grounds
for believing that the alphabet of the Asmonaean coins was that
employed, 140 b. c, in copying the MSS. of the Bible, and in
the general business of life. Thus in the second and third cen-
turies before Christ, the Jews wrote in a character agreeing in
form with the Samaritan, and essentially differing from the later
Hebrew. As far as we can judge from the coins of the Macca-
bees, the Hebrew and Samaritan letters were then similar. This
fact is confirmed by express historical testimony. Julius African-
us, Origen, and Jerome have left in their writings a i^vf notices
confirmatory of its truth. Origen speaks of the letter tau having
in the old alphabet of the Jews the form of a cross, and of the
word Jehovah having been written in the old Hebrew letters.
The letter tau, therefore, widely different as it now is from the
same letter among the Samaritans, must have been originally
identical with it in form. Hence we infer that both alphabets
were originally identical, consisting of the same letters. Tal-
mudic tradition is favourable to the same truth, viz. that the Sa-
maritan and Hebrew letters were once alike in form. If we com-
pare now, this old Hebrew character with the most ancient ex-
isting monuments of the Phenicians that reach back to the
second and third centuries before Christ, we find so great a

302 ON THE HEBREW CHARACTERS. LECT. XXllI.

resemblance as to shew that the Phenician and old Hebrew
characters were originally the same. The difference between
them consists merely in the greater angularity of the latter. In-
stead of the round heads which some characters in the Phenician
have, they are sharper and more angular in the ancient Hebrew
writing. This peculiarity distinguishes several of the letters
used by the two nations, whilst in the case of others there is an
exact coincidence. The comparison of the two alphabets presents
us, moreover, with this important palaeographical fact, that so
early as the second century before Christ, the Hebrew mode of
writing had received an approximation to the cursive character,
as far as it had departed in form from the old Phenician, with
which it was at one time identical. This cursive character would
have been probably more apparent if the writing were known to
us through any other medium than that of stamped coins. It is
natural to attribute greater stiffness to coin letters, and to sup-
pose that they were more carefully formed, than such as are to be
found in the ordinary writing of a people. And if we examine
with minute attention the Phenician alphabet, it is observable
that it presents a cursive character also, even in its existing me-
morials, though as in the case of the Hebrew, the peculiarity must
have been more obvious in the style of writing adopted in com-
mon life. Thus our inquiries into the Hebrew alphabet, and the
changes it underwent, begin with the Asmonaean coins, as form-
ing the oldest existing monument of its condition. We might,
indeed, go back with Kopp to the Babylonian bricks, which he
has minutely examined and analysed, and which must be referred
to the sixth century before Christ. But such an inquiry would
only shew that the Babylonian and Phenician characters were
substantially the same. The former are ruder and more unshape-
ly than the latter, indicating by contrast the traces of art and im-
provement which the Phenician character underwent. Follow-
ing the stream of time, we come down to the Aramaean memorials
of the old Hebrew alphabet, exhibiting the gradual progress of
the writing. These consist of the older and more recent — the older
including the stone of Carpentras, and some coins belonging to
the same place — and the younger, the Palmyrene inscriptions
belonging to the first three centuries of the Christian aera. The
cursive character that had already appeared in its incipient state
is here much more apparent. The older Aramaean writing shews

LECT. XXIII. ON THE HEBREW CHARACTERS. 303

a dividing of the heads of the letters that are closed in the Phen-
ician; and the junior Aramaean exhibits the same characteristic
in so advanced a state that even a trace of the final letters ap-
pears in the mode in which nun is formed. In this stage of the
progress of the alphabet, the principles of calligraphy are strong-
ly marked. The younger Aramaean writing is particularly sym-
metrical, and many letters are furnished with spiral flourishes.
The Aramaean writing may be looked upon as an intermediate
condition of the alphabet between the old Hebrew and the square
character in common use. It marks the character in transitu,
partly resembling the ancient Hebrew as found on the coins
stamped under the Maccabees, and partly the modern. The
square mode of writing presents the alphabet advanced to a con-
siderable degree of cultivation, if we may so speak. It shews it
not only in the aspect of an alphabet consisting of cursive writing
with strokes of union and enlargement of final letters, but also as
the fruit of calligraphical skill and beauty, w'ith its uniformity, its
regular divisions, the closed tops of letters, and the apices.
Let us now investigate^ the age of these Aramaean documents.
Here there is much difficulty and great uncertainty. Nothing
positive can be ascertained as to their exact antiquity. The Pal-
myrene inscriptions belong to the first three centuries after Christ,
but the Palmyrene writing may be dated before Christ. It has
been justly observed by Eichhorn, that the age of the inscription
is not at the same time the age of the writing which it exhibits.
We may antedate the inscription by a century at least. This is
quite probable, though we cannot substantiate it by an appeal to
memorials so early existing. The only historical testimonies that
bear on the present inquiry are those of Origen, Julius African-
us, and Jerome, to which we have already referred. Jerome in
particular describes the letters by name in such a way that their
identity of form with our present square character cannot be
doubted. The Gemara and Mishna have been also adduced as
corroborative of the same thing. A passage in Matthew's gos-
pel also indicates that yod was then the least letter of the alpha-
bet, and the expression /^/a xs^a/a (one tittle), shews that even
then the letters of the alphabet were furnished with apices, such
as are peculiar to the square character, Matthew v. 18. From
these historical data it follows as a consequence, that the change
of the old Hebrew into the'square character must be referred to

304 ON THE HEBREW CHARA.CTERS. LKCT. XXIII.

a period prior to the advent of Christ. This period coincides
with the time when the Aramaeans exercised an influence over
the Jews — when the language and manners of the latter strongly
approximated toward what was Aramaean. When the Jews lived
in exile in Babylon, their language had been already modified by
that of their conquerors. Subsequent events tended to increase
and to perpetuate the influence previously exercised over them.
Hence the forms of their letters continued to be moulded in the
same direction, and changed for such as were more beautiful. We
know that the Jews lived in close connection with the Aramaeans,
from the time when Seleucus Nicator planted colonies of them in
Antioch. After the canon was completed by Ezra and other dis-
tinguished men of his time, the Jews were eager to multiply co-
pies of their sacred books. But the origin of the synagogues,
established for the reading and explanation of the law, contribut-
ed to improve and to fix the mode of writing that was just coming
into use. The present character was adopted as the ecclesiastical
one ; and the demand for copies of the holy writings served to
establish its authority, and to recommend it to general use. The
Mishna gives strict rules concerning the manner in which the
synagogue-rolls were to be prepared and written upon, a circum-
stance that presupposes care and attention to the copying of the
law. Thus did the scribes endeavour to make the writing regu-
lar and beautiful, when the people were generally awakened to
the interest and importance of their national records. In the
period subsequent to the institution of the synagogue service, the
written characters were being fashioned and framed with skill and
beauty under the hands of many copyists, who laboured to make
them more regular and uniform, until they assumed such forms as
have remained essentially the same for more than eighteen hun-
dred years. The circumstances in which the people were placed,
and the various influences to which they were exposed, insensibly
contributed to produce a peculiar mode of writing that bears in
itself internal evidence of calligraphical art.

The following table will make the truth of these remarks
more obvious :—

^^

^/n<?r^yiycc/

X- K

r

^

-VJci

J

3

^

^

J/

^^

7

't

;l

««
X

Q

<\

<?

T

y

^ ^

1

^v

T

-A

?!

ri

%

Y

f

1

\ 1

1

\

<.

I I

V

H

^

v\

^

V^

SiK

n

0

6

T5

7)

/t^

^

A

^ D

1

y

V

H

3 5.

:3

I

4

L

Z

L

^ *>

i

y

"H

:y

^

t5 Ji

p

1

^

)

J

^

J S

3

^

T

V?

^

t>

o

0

o

v^

"^

y

a

-)> 3

51

\^

V

44^

V

Y

^

•D

?

r

X5

P

S

^

s

1

^ ^

1

^

^

w

V

V

^

t)

y^

X

h

<:r

^

LECT. XXlir. ON THE HEBREW CHARACTERS. 305

From this sketch of the progress of the Jewish writing it is
evident, that the changes and modifications which the alphabet
underwent, were the gradual work of time and of art. There was
no sudden alteration of one character for another under the in-
fluence of one individual ; but the alphabet was insensibly chang-
ed, till it assumed the forms which it has borne for many cen-
turies. The circumstances in which the Jews were placed must
he taken into account as influencing their language. Their ex-
ile, their return, their erection of synagogues, and multiplication
of copies of the holy books, are all to be regarded in the descrip-
tion of their written language. It is true that there are very few
monuments to guide us in our details of the gradual changes that
passed upon the language, but those that do remain confirm and
justify the opinions that have been advanced. We begin with
the old Hebrew characters found on the coins stamped under the
Maccabees, which are substantially the same as the oldest Pheni-
cian writing at present known. We find that even in the second
century before Christ, the letters of the alphabet had become
cursive, having partly lost the rude and irregular forms which
they had in prior times. In the Aramaean monuments we ob-
serve the marks of art and cultivation still farther developed.
The influences of calligraphy are clearly marked there. This is
so obvious in the Palmyrene inscriptions, that no one can pos-
sibly mistake the fact. The present square character succeeded
the Aramaean forms, and is the result of continuing and in-
creasing calligraphy. It was common in the time of our Saviour,
and seems to have been principally formed by the Jewish scribes,
who, after the erection of the synagogue, strove to beautify and
to bring to perfection the characters in which copies of their
scriptures were written. Each of them would naturally contri-
bute something to the regularity of the alphabet, until it was so
much changed and refined, that no traces of resemblance could
be observed between its original and modern forms. The autho-
rity and influence of the Masoretes, in succeeding times, appear
to have arrested and unchangeably fixed its mutable character.
It is also to be remarked, that the old Hebrew and the Samaritan
character are identical. The Samaritans retained the forms
which they had received from their ancestors. They were not
subject to external influences like the inhabitants of Judah, — in-
fluences which the latter could not withstand. This firm ad-

* f

306 ON THE HEBREW CHARACTE|IS. LECT. XXIII.

herence to their ancient manner of writing, formerly exhibited
by the Samaritans, has continued to mark their character as a
people down to the present time. Many consonants of their pre-
sent alphabet have a close similarity to the figures which the
old Hebrew stamped on the Asmonaean coins bears, proving that
in the second and third centuries before Christ the mode of
writing, common among both, was substantially the same. If
the account given of the Hebrew letters be correct, it also follows,
that in the time of the Septuagint translators, the square charac-
ter had not come into use. At that period the old Hebrew
character was still common. Some other method, therefore, of
accounting for the departures from the Hebrew text in that ver-
sion, so far as they relate to the letters, than that which explains
them on the ground that the square character was then used,
must be adopted, because such a supposition is contrary to matter
of fact, to actually existing monuments. The square character
had no existence then, although it must have originated, as we
have seen, prior to the coming of Christ.

In the preceding sketch I have not attempted to decide the
question, whether the character found on the Asmonaean coins
be the daughter or sister of the Phenician. This depends on the
opinion entertained respecting the people among whom letters
originated, whether the Babylonians or Phenicians. The subject
cannot be treated on positive data, though we might arrive at
probability in our conclusions, by taking into account all the his-
torical circumstances and analogies that are known to antiqua-
rians and philologists. We are inclined to believe that Babylonia
was the country that gave origin to letters, and that the Pheni-
cian is consequently a modified and altered form of the Babylo-
nian alphabet. I would be far from speaking with confidence
on this point, when learned men are so divided in their senti-
ments concerning it. In one thing, however, they are all agreed,
viz. in looking to Hither Asia as the country where letters were
invented, to which historical accounts manifestly point the eye
of the inquirer. The particular people to whom the honour be-
longs cannot be discovered with any certainty.

It remains for us to consider the well-known tradition that
Ezra, after the return of the Jews from captivity, wrote out the
Old Testament scriptures in the Chaldee character. In what-
ever way we explain such a legend, its truth cannot be maintain-

LECT. XXIII. ON THE HEBREW VOWELS. 307

ed. The posterity of the captives of Babylon used the old He-
brew characters upon coins several centuries after the return of
their fathers ; and at the time they were thus inscribed there is
every mark of their having been the usual written symbols of
ordinary life. The introduction of the square character by Ezra,
instead of the Samaritan, must have been a conjecture of the
Jews to account for a phenomenon which they w^ere unable satis-
factorily to explain. The conjecture soon passed into a current
tradition, obtaining, in the progress of time, all the authority of
a historical fact. Even in the time of Origen, we find that this
tradition existed. What is related by him as a common saying
among the Jews, is mentioned by Jerome as though it were an
undoubted truth. The later Jews attributed too much to Ezra,
regarding him as the author of all the external alterations which
the text of the Old Testament underwent ; and their successors
were not disposed to question the truth of those obscure traditions
which were handed down to them in so great abundance. It is
highly probable that the word sopher, applied to Ezra in the
sacred writings, was misinterpreted by the early Jews. Looking
for an explanation of the difficulties which presented themselves
in regard to their alphabet, they remembered that this terra was
applied to Ezra. They saw the square character used in all
Biblical MSS. after Christ, and they could neither harmonise it
with the old Hebrew letters found on the Asmonaean coins, nor
with various accounts respecting their ancient forms. Thus
they knew by tradition that tau had the figure of a cross ; and
they could not account for the total alteration of its shape. In
this dilemma they did not resort to history for an explanation of
the changes which their alphabetical characters had undergone.
But they recollected the term applied to Ezra, and abiding
closely by its etymological signification of writer or scribe, they
conjectured that he had received this honourable appellation be-
cause he had written out their sacred books in a new character so
different from the ancient. The true meaning of sopher, viz. a
person learned or skilled in the law, was thus entirely overlooked,
whilst a close adherence to etymology misled its admirers. Such
is the most probable explanation of the origin of the mistake.

In treating of the Hebrew vowels, I do not intend either to re-
cord all the controversies to which they have given rise, or to dis-
cuss the subject in a polemical manner. It is better, in my

308 ON THE HEBREW VOVViLS. LECT. XXHI.

opinion, to avoid such a representation as is calculated to distract
the mind with a multiplicity of views, and to dissipate correct
ideas. The most ancient mode of writing probably consisted of
consonants only, a peculiarity which could be tolerated in a
language while yet in its simplest elements, and consequently
characterised by a poverty in flexion. When, however, the He-
brew language was more developed and enlarged, it is difficult to
imagine how the alphabet could consist of mere consonants. As
vowel sounds were intimately united with the consonants, it can-
not be supposed that an improving language could leave them
long unexpressed by particular letters. Although, therefore, we
may admit, that the language, in its simplest rudimental form,
had no vowel characters, yet we are inclined to believe, that as
soon as it began to extend and to enlarge itself beyond its imperfect
rudeness, it adopted them as indispensable to its improved form.
Hence arose the custom of writing the vowels in places where
they were required by distinctness, when the progress of time
gave birth to various efforts to render the language more com-
plete. For this purpose consonants already existing were em-
ployed as vowels, without any new additions to the former cha-
racters. And such representatives of vowels were selected, as
exhibited sounds in accordance with the vowel. Thus ynd and
vau were employed to express the vowel sounds i and u, and also
the mixed sounds e and 6. In like manner the letter aleph,
which is a guttural, was used to express the vowel sound a. To
this simple, original vowel-system, observable in the Hebrew
language, the structure of other dialects presents an analogy.
The JEthiopic, Arabic, and Syriac, exhibit a similar feature
in regard to their vowel sounds. It cannot be looked upon
as a regular vocalisation, for it was but sparingly used. The
improvement in the mode of writing did not keep pace with the
progress of the language itself, and thus there was an ambiguity
in the former which could only be compensated by the definite-
ness of the living language. In the later books of the Old Tes-
tament there is manifestly a greater distinctness, frequency, and
regularity in the use of the vowel representatives. The scriptio
plena is much more extensively employed. Thus the mode of
writing exhibits an approach to greater plainness and distinctness.
The Samaritan Pentateuch may be referred to as evidence bear-
ing on the point in question. In this document the vocalisation

LECT XXIir. ON THE HEBREW VOWELS. 309

of which we speak is found with a very considerable degree of
regularity. The Asmonaean coins may also be noticed as ex-
hibiting the same vowel system, though it is natural to expect a
very sparing use of it in such monuments. According to this
account, the ancient Hebrew alphabet, though consisting essen-
tially of consonants only, employed some of its signs as vowel
representatives, when the necessity for distinctness, and the im-
proving state of the language, called for some expedient mode of
expressing vowel sounds. But they were only used occasionally
in this capacity. They were not regularly or systematically
made to serve such a purpose. A comparison of other dialects,
with this vocalisation of the Hebrews, will show that, simple
and inadequate as it may appear, it was sufficient to accom-
plish the object which it was intended to serve. Though it
afterwards increased to a cumbrous and complicated system,
unlike that of the Syrians or Arabians, yet we find that it was at
first analogous to them in point of simplicity and of poverty. We
infer, therefore, that it was the method originally employed for
representing the principal vowel sounds; though to such as are
accustomed to the present minute and comprehensive system, it
may seem very imperfect and even insufficient for the purpose
for which we have affirmed it to have been chosen.

By an attentive survey of the Septuagint translation, we observe,
that the system exhibited in it is built on the ancient mode of re-
presenting the vowels to which w^e have just adverted. It is im-
portant to mark the vocalisation adopted in this version, because it
serves to show that the later enlarged system is only a continuation
of that which was current at the time of the Seventy, but with
great extension. Whilst based on the most ancient and simplest
mode of representing the pure vowel sounds, it is evidently the
progression and improvement of its predecessor. In the transla-
tion of the Seventy, the contraction of the dipthongs ai and au
into i and 6 appears incomplete. Thus 'AiXuim (D7*V), Qciiixav

(]D*n)) rauXwv (]^"i;i), NajSay (I^J)* The same thing is manifest

in the kindred dialects. So also the Seventy transform yod
without a vowel in the beginning of a word into a pure vowel
sound, as pn^*I* i^to llovro-ovy which is also found in the Syriac

language. In place of chirek, which the Masoretes have adopted

310 ON THE HEBREW VOWELS. I.ECT. XXIII.

with great uniformity as an auxiliary vowel, they exhibit the
original full sound a, in the manner of the Semitic dialects, as

Madiuv (|nD) Sa/xvi/wp (]WDt^)' It is very seldom that the same

vowel-representative chirek has passed into any other than the a
sound, though there are such exceptions as KsS^wv, (]1*Tlp). In

segolate forms the original a frequently appears in their transla-
tion, though in Hebrew it is only exhibited in pause, such as
Al3iX, Aa/x£%, la(pi&. Sheva vocal appears also in the character of
a rapid and fleeting vowel sound according to its original
usage. Thus vje find 2a,aou>3?., Za(3o-jX(*iv, &c. as in Arabic. It is
also to be remarked, that the assimilation of vowels in general is
much more common and comprehensive than in the later system.
The principle is more extensively adopted than the Masoretic
practice would seem to warrant. Examples of this are presented
in the words lodofjba, 2oXo/j.uv, ro/xog^a. The inclination of the gut-
turals to the a sound, to which they are the nearest, and with which
they most easily accord, is not much observable, and therefore we
find patach furtive expressed by a simple e. Such are the chief
peculiarities in the vowel system of the Seventy, showing that in
some cases there is a visible approach to the modern vocalisation
of the Masoretes, whilst in others there is a marked distinctness.
Standing as it does between the original simple system, and that
which was subsequently formed, features of its resemblance to
both may be easily recognised. It is to be regarded as the tra-
ditionary and current pronunciation of the time in which the
version appeared, and will always remain a proof of the later ori-
gin of the present system. Many have erroneously represented
it as destitute of unity, or as the exhibition of an irregular, un-
settled, and inconsistent pronunciation. This mistake seems to
have arisen from comparing it with our present system with its mi-
nute distinctness and divisions of sounds, and from transferring our
ideas formed upon it to the vocalisation presented by the Seventy.
Every thing leads to the supposition that it is di faithful exhibition
of the customary pronunciation of the period. So far, therefore,
it is complete in itself. The same mode of pronunciation is
found also in the Hexapla of Origcn, though an approximation
to the later system is much more visible. The e sound, for in-
stance, instead of the a frequently occurs as an auxiliary vowel,

LECT. .\XIII. ON THE HEBREW VOWELS. 311

as nVD1> ^^/-^a ; ^ISilj yi'iSSoj^. This sound forms an intermediate

link between a and i, into the latter of which it afterwards passed
in many words.

Following the chronological order of the subject, we come
to Jerome and the Talmud as witnesses of the vocalisation
prevalent at a period subsequent to the coming of our Lord,
and to Origen. The writings of Jerome present a marked
approximation to the Masoretic system. The ancient voca-
lisation appears in an improved and definite state, extended
and considerably enlarged by the addition of other signs ex-
pressive of several relations and distinctions of sounds. The
segolate forms, comprehending a large class of w^ords, are con-
stantly written by Jerome according to the present vowel point-
ing, for example cleber, reseph, whereas they are represented in
the earlier vocalisation with their ground-forms, such as xaov for
pp. We find, too, that wherever this father undertakes to give

the exact vocalisation of the text, in cases where the translations
quoted by him deviate from his own, he follows the mode of pro-
nunciation that accords with the Masoretic. Thus, when he
says that £j^^ might either be read mii/am or mayim ; nunK*
arbe and aruhah ; D**nyj^> searim and seoriin ; in these instances,
and in others, the interpretation which he gives shews that the
vowel-system, with which it accords, coincides with that after-
wards developed. Now we know that Jerome had learned Jews
for his instructors, from whom he received his knowledge of the
language, and that he exhibits substantially their views of the
text. Thus it appears that they were in possession of a pro-
nunciation essentially agreeing with that vowel-system which
we now follow. At that period Rabbinical tradition had
sanctioned it by its authority, so that Jerome adheres closely to it,
even in particular instances where others had followed a difi*erent
reading. From an examination of the works of this father, it is
also inferred, that the letters vau and yod were regarded as
vowels. In relation to ayin and aleph^ he speaks of them also as
vowel-letters, (vocales literae), but the expression is identical
with aspirations, and shews that these letters were thought to
have feeble sounds resembling each other. This circumstance is
confirmed by the fact that they were frequently interchanged.
In short, it is certain, from his writings, that he was unacquainted

312 ON THE HEBKEW VOWELS. LECT. XXIII.

\vith the present vowel marks, or with any diacritical si^ns in-
vented for the purpose of reading the text. He makes no ex-
press mention of them in all his works, and wherever he has
occasion to describe words, his description has regard to the con-
sonants only. The usual terms employed are scripfmn, scribitur,
whereas he speaks of the vowels in such terms as lectum, legitur.
The contrast thus implied between the pronunciation of a word
and the letters composing it shews, that whilst the consonants
were written, the vowels were supplied from traditional usage.
His decisions respecting the vowels are the result of a compa-
rison of the text, the translations of Aquila, Symmachus, and
Theodotion, and Rabbinical tradition. By the last he was par-
ticularly guided in his judgments, seldom departing from its
authority or contradicting its testimony. The circumstances,
indeed, in which he was placed, and the manner in which his
knowledge of the Hebrew language had been acquired, tended
to establish him in the curri^nt opinions of the Palestine Jews.
The word accentus which he sometimes uses, is erroneously taken
in the sense of a sign for regulating the reading. According to
the usage of the Greek and Latin grammarians, it means either
the mode of pronouncing the vowels and some of the consonants,
or written marks, and, according to the tenor of Jerome's writ-
ings, it must be taken in the former signification. Again, if we
have recourse to the Talmud, we shall find that it makes no ex-
press mention of vowel points and accents. We find, however,
in it a pre-supposed traditional pronunciation, not of a mutable
and uncertain kind, but firmly established, partaking of all the
characteristics of a settled consistent whole. The vocalisation of
the Talmudists, applied to the text, renders the sense simpler and
more literal, and it was therefore enjoined, not to mar the sim-
plicity of the received canonical text, by departing from such a
system. But, although the Talmudists profess a firm adherence
to this text, yet they subject it to many alterations, from the Vd-
riety of interpretations which they affix to it. Without condemn-
ing it they take great liberties with its structure. There are two
modes of altering the text which bear upon the vocalisation,
shewing the views of the Rabbins in regard to the vowels.
One is, where a passage of Scripture is intended to be quoted
but is not appropriate according to its right reading. In
this case, the punctuation is generally altered. The second
is, where an actual quotation is intended to be given, in which

LECT. XXIII. ON THE HEBREW VOWELS. 313

case the reading of the text is sometimes altered after the vowels.
It is evident from both, that the Talmud pre-supposes a definite
vowel-system, on which it founds its argumentation, and to which
it appeals. But it is no less true, that the opposition between
the mikra and the masoreth, recorded in it, demonstrates that
icritten vowel marks were then unknown. Some Rabbins de-
cided in favour of the textual reading or mikra^ others for the
altered reading or mnsoreth. This latitude could only have
proceeded from an unvowelled text, affording scope for such in-
terpretations as deviated from the established method of pointing,
and implied the absence of written vowel characters. Nor does
the Talmud contain even the incipient lineaments of a written
vowel system. The passages to which some have referred, as
showing the vowel points mentioned in the Talmud, do not es-
tablish the fact. They speak of signs of dividing words according
to the sense, but not o^ icritten vowel points. Thus we are led to
seek for the origin of the present written vowel system in a period
subsequent to the composition of the Talmud, when the Jews
became more desirous to elucidate the sacred text, and to render
the understanding of it easier and more certain. The flourishing
seminaries existing before the writing of the Talmud preserved in
a great measure the pronunciation of the text, but the insufficiency
of this traditionary preservation became more and more apparent
in proportion to the time since the language had ceased to be
spoken. When these seminaries were broken up, and the Jews
widily dispersed, they saw the necessity of adding in writing to
the text, whatever was necessary to the preservation of the definite
character which it had maintained under the watchful care of
their predecessors. This new measure would certainly have been
looked upon in earlier times as a thing forbidden, but the influ-
ence of various circumstances obliged them to adopt the expe-
dient of marking by written signs the pronunciation of single words.
What is attributed to tradition in the Talmud was superadded to
the text itself in the form of signs and points, by which the tra-
dition was limited and fixed. The Masoretes did not depart from
the ancient tradition, but they abided by it, and endeavoured to
note it down even in its minutest parts. They did not proceed ar-
bitrarily in their labours upon the text of the Old Testament, but
they followed with great strictness the prevailing opinion re-
garding the pronunciation, which had been handed down to them,
endeavouring to present to the eye its nicer shades by means of

314 ON THE HEBREW VOWELS. LECT. XXIII.

external signs. Hence these marks for reading ?iXQ intimately con-
nected with the marginal glosses or masora. The ancient text or
ceiih was for a long time continued without any additions for as-
sisting the reading, and even after a more extended vowel-system
became current, there were no written signs, though there were
some variations between the Rabbins in their mode of pronounc-
ing and interpreting many words. When signs were resorted to
for the purpose of marking the minuter distinctions of sounds,
they were accommodated and appended to the marginal reading.
The points must have been constantly pronounced with the mar-
ginal reading. Thus a written vowel-system could not have been
invented before the Keri^ or that which was to be read instead of
the text. These additions to the text or signs for reading were in-
troduced only into MSS- for private use, because they were a
modern appendage which did not originally belong to the text.
Into the rolls of the synagogue, as being sacred and designed for
the public reading of the church, they could not be introduced,
because the pattern, after which the rolls was to be written, was
already laid down in the Talmud with unalterable precision.
The most probable origin of the written vowel-system is to be
traced to the Syrians and Arabians, with whom the Jews came
into contact in the current of external circumstances to which they
were exposed. Among these people a similar system prevailed,
which was farther developed and applied with greater regularity
by the Hebrew punctuators. It is historically ascertained, that
the Syrians and Arabians were possessed of a vowel-system in
the seventh century. At that time the schools of Babylon were
distinguished by a number of learned Rabbins, and especially at
Tiberias, a place where the Hebrew language was best pro-
nounced, their studies were directed under Syrian influence to
the grammar and to the text of the Old Testament- If these
observations have any truth, the vowel -system of the Hebrews
cannot possibly be regarded as the work of one man or of one
century. External circumstances gave to it origin and impulse,
but its development must be attributed to the labours of the
Masoretes themselves. Comparison with kindred languages pos-
sessed of a similar vocalisation shows, that they exerted an in-
fluence on its formation.

To distinguish, by signs, the finest shades of pronunciation,
and to mark them with the severest accuracy, was a task exceed-
ingly difficult, if not impossible. Such a field, when once opened

LECT. XXIII. ON THE HEBREW ACCENTS. 315

up to observation, presented a boundless subject to the Jews, and
continued to be cultivated by them in successive centuries, until
there arose a cumbrous system of marks and points, adapted to
the great variety of tones and sounds in the pronunciation. The
testimony of Jewish grammarians proves the gradual formation
of the present system, for they are accustomed to trace back all
the vowels to three fundamental ones, viz the three Arabic
vowels, a, 6, i. In the Jewish book Cosri they have even the
Arabic names, viz. fatha^ dhamma, kesre, shewing the external
origin of the system. The time when the present vocalisation
was completed cannot be definitely fixed. All known MSS. have
it, but none of them is older than the eleventh century. Among
them we observe some furnished with fewer of the marks than
others ; but this is no proof that they were written before the
system was developed in its present fulness. The circumstance
is rather to be attributed to the copyists, who, weary of the im-
mense number of little signs, endeavoured to lighten their task
by omitting many of the least necessary. The various readings
of Ben Asher and Ben Napthali, in the eleventh century, exclu-
sively regard the vowels and accents, shewing that they had ex-
isted for some time previous. It is, therefore, most probable that
we ought to fix the development of the present vowel-system in
the centuries between the seventh and teidh. We regard it as a
gradual work, begun and completed under the care of the Maso-
retes. The absence of historical data prevents us from ascertain-
ing, with greater accuracy, the time when it began to be written,
and when, in consequence of its supposed completeness, it ceased
to receive farther additions or corrections.

With regard to the system of accents, it is closely connected
with the present state of the vowel-points. It is merely an en-
largement of the vowel system in so far as it regulates the tone
and pronunciation of a word. In the public reading of their
Scriptures, the Jews, guided by the accents, have been accus-
tomed to cautillate them. In this respect, also, the Rabbins ap-
pear to have imitated the Syrian grammarians ; but they carried
the system to an extreme degree of minuteness, and fixed it with
the utmost precision as it was delivered to them by tradition.

From this brief account of the Jewish punctuation, its value
may be easily estimated. Although nothing more than the re-
presentation and expansion of a tradition, yet we ought to re-

31(5 ON THE NAME HEBREW, LECT. XXIII.

collect the antiquity of that tradition. It shews us what were
the opinions entertained by the Jews at a very early period re-
specting the text. It serves as a commentary, pointing out the
sense in which dark and difficult passages were understood by
those from whose hands we have received the Old Testament.
In this respect alone the vowel-points are of great utility. They
have transmitted to us, with fidelity, the meaning early attached
by the Jews to the words of Scripture. Thus they are a help to
us in our interpretation of the divine oracles. The pronuncia-
tion exhibited by them is likewise infinitely preferable to any
other that has been proposed, for it is founded on the ancient
mode of pronunciation used by the Jews. It is, in fact, its enlarge-
ment. Though not coeval with the composition of the Hebrew
Scriptures, nor yet infallible, we look upon it as a system that
cannot be rejected without great and manifest disadvantages, —
disadvantages not to be compensated by any other scheme, how-
ever ingenious, that may be substituted in its place. We are not,
indeed to follow it implicitly where there is good reason for its
abandonment ; neither are we to look upon it with the same re-
verence as the Jews have uniformly done. We are well aware
that it is complicated and cumbrous, still inadequate to mark all
the delicate distinctions of a living pronunciation. But this
cannot possibly be attained in a dead language ; and, in the pre-
sent instance, we must be satisfied with that approximation which
Masoretic skill has effected.

Of the name Hebrew, in connection tcit/i the language. — The
appellation Hebrew^ according to some, was first given to Abra-
liam by the people of Canaan, among whom he dwelt. It is
supposed to have been applied to him because he came from be-
yond the Euphrates, IIV (eber) meaning omr or beyond^ so
that n^iy signifies one who cameyVow beyond the river. Hence
the Seventy in Genesis xiv. 13, render niVH (haibri) 6 Tsgarrjc.

This derivation principally rests on the fact that the first names
of nations as well as individuals were appeUatives, But the ap-
pellation is differently traced by others, who regard it as a patro-
nymicderived from the name of Heber the great-grandson of Shem.
According to the latter view, the first mention of the word Hebrew
or Hebrews isioMii^ in Genesis x. 21, where it is written, " Unto
Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, even to him

LECT. XXIIl. . ON THE NAME HEBREW. 817

were children born." According to this passage, Shem is pointed
out as the progenitor of a race which was continued through Eber.
The intermediate links are recorded in the same chapter of Gen-
esis, 24th verse, Shem, Arphaxad, Selah, Eber, which genealo-
gy is afterwards resumed and brought down to Abraham. The
reason why Eber is selected as an important person in the line of
descent, is found in the circumstance mentioned in Genesis x. 25,
viz. that in the days of his son Peleg, the earth was divided.
Eber accordingly was the last of the patriarchs descended from
Shem, until the dividing of the people, as also the commence-
ment of a particular race which was selected and continued a dis-
tinct people among the multitudinous branches into which the
general mass of mankind was divided. When, therefore, we thus
regard Eber as standing between the patriarchs descended from
Shem, and the particular family from which God's peculiar peo-
ple lineally sprung, and to which, at the time when the ancient
inhabitants of the earth were dispersed far and wide the sacred
history is restricted, we are not surprised that he was thought to
be a person of so much importance as to give a name to his whole
posterity. For this reason, Abraham is called a descendant of
Eber in Gen. xiv. 13, " Abram the Hebrew." The posterity of
Abram called themselves Hebrew^s, (Gen. xl. 15), and were so
denominated by others. Gen. xxxix. 14, 17 : xli. 12.

When the people were divided into twelve tribes, they were
naturally named after Jacob or Israel, which is to be regarded as
the theocratic appellation, or that closely connected with their re-
ligion. It is the covenant designation of the people, whilst the
other is the political and ethnographical. This distinction be-
tween the two names is strictly observed in the Pentateuch, and
in the oldest historical books. The derivation which refers
the origin of the appellation to Abraham, must be rejected,
though sanctioned by the Seventy and Aquila, together with
many of the Fathers and Rabbins in ancient times, and by such
eminent scholars as Walton, Gesenius, De Wette, and Winer, in
modern days. It does not well suit the passage Gen. xiv. 13, to
take the word in the sense of Abram the passer over or the stran-
ger, (advena), because there is a contrast between Abram theHehreio
and Mamre the Amorite, which would be lost on the supposition
that niVn is not a patronymic. The passage in Numbers xxiv.

318 ON THE NAME HEBREW. LECT. XXIII.

24, is also adverse to this view. " They shall afflict Asshur, and
shall afflict Eber, and he also shall perish for ever." The Assy-
rians are here called Asshur, from Ashur their progenitor; and
the Hebrews, Eber, from Eber their progenitor. Walton in ad-
vocating the other derivation, affirms that the translation of Gen.
X. 21, ought rather to be, that " Shem was the father of all that
dwelt beyond the river," but it is very doubtful whether a paral-
lel to this mode of translation could be found in the whole of the
Scriptures. In the inspired language of the Bible the Israelites
are called the sons or children of Israel, but it is quite unusual
to speak of the sons of the other side of a river. It has also been
asked, why should Abraham, who was the sixth in generation
from Heber, take his name from this patriarch rather than from
any other of his ancestors ? Why not rather from Shem for ex-
ample, who is styled by Moses, the father of all the children of
Heber ? To these questions an answer may be found in what
we have before advanced. Heber was the last person in whose
days the first language was originally spoken. The line of the
pious also seems in this age of degeneracy to have been chiefly
confined to the family of Eber. Abraham, therefore, might well
receive an appellation from him, rather than from any other of
the patriarchs, for it is obvious that he was an important person-
age. The inspired account speaks of a certain family descended
from Eber which abode in Chaldea, and constituted there the
house of Abraham, whilst the rest of the posterity of Heber were
dispersed. Thus was he a notable ancestor of Israel. Other ob-
jections might be urged against this opinion, but the subject is
scarcely of sufficient moment to demand a minute investigation.

The name Hebrew, applied to the language, does not occur in
the Old Testament. In one passage it is poetically termed the
language of Canaan, Isaiah xix. 18, where Canaan, the holy land,
is opposed to Egypt, the profane. The later appellation, the
Jewish language, properly means the dialect of the kingdom of
Judah, but was afterwards employed in a more extended signi-
fication to designate that of the entire people. The language
was first called Hebrew after the return from the captivity, when
the use of the Greek language became prevalent among a certain
class of the Jews.

LECTURE XXIV.

LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

The reason why the New Testament was written in the Greek
language must have been, because it was the language best un-
derstood by those to whom the instruction it contains was address-
ed. At the time of our Lord's appearance in the flesh this dia-
lect was current in Palestine, and diffused through many coun-
tries into which Christianity was introduced by the Apostles.
It was, therefore, chosen by the Deity as the fittest medium of
communicating a knowledge of his will, because of its prevalent
use. The sacred writers composed their inspired records in a
language widely extended, and more readily apprehended than
any other.

In considering the nature of the New Testament diction, it
will be obvious at once to every student, that it is different from
the pure and classic language of Greece, as exhibited in its best
writers. It presents a marked contrast to the flowing style of the
celebrated Grecian authors, in the days of the prosperity and
freedom of their native land. We must, therefore, examine with
minuteness its characteristic features, that we may be prepared
to enter upon its study with pleasure and advantage. Its con-
stituent parts may be regarded as three. 1st. The dialect or
language called the xoivvj or 'EXXjjwx^, i- e. the common or Hellenic,
especially as spoken by the people, including some peculiarities of
the Macedonic- Alexandrian dialect as commonly spoken. The
2d constituent is the Jewish element, arising from the vernacular
tongue of the writers. 3d. The Christian or ecclesiastical element,
owing to the subjects to which the Greek language was neces-
sarily applied by the New Testament writers. Of these several
elements we must speak in order. 1st. Of the xo/v^ or common
language. The Greek language had its various dialects, all of

320 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. LECT. XXIV.

which have been traced back to two principal ones, the Doj-ic and
the Icmic, The former prevailed in the whole interior of
Greece, in Lower Italy, and in Sicily. It was somewhat harsh,
and abounded in the use of lon^ a. The JEoIic was a branch
of it cultivated in the ^Eolic colonies of Asia Minor and
the neighbouring islands. The Ionic was originally spoken
in Attica. But the colonies sent out thence to the coasts
of Asia Minor, soon took the lead of the mother tribe in improve-
ment; and afterwards the name of Ionic came to be exclusively
applied to their dialect. It is the softest of all, inconsequence of
its numerous vowels. The Attic was cultivated by such of the
lonians as remained in Attica after the colonies emio^rated to Asia
Minor. This last soon surpassed all the other dialects in refine-
ment, holding a middle place between the harshness of the Doric
and the softness of the Io7iic. Until freedom departed from
Greece by the influence of Philip of Macedon, each writer em-
ployed the dialect in which he had been educated, or for which
he entertained a predilection. But, about the time of Alexander
the Great, the Attic became more general, attaining a complete-
ness and comprehensiveness far beyond those of othfr dialects.
Among the dialects of the different tribes it took the lead of all
others. It began, indeed, to be exclusively employed. When dif-
ferent writers thus adopted the Attic, they mingled with it much that
was derived from the dialect of their own country. Hence it was
changed and modified. The departures from Attic purity thus
introduced into the language by tribes hitherto using distinct
dialects, contributed to its gradual decay. As now modified and
altered it was called koivtj the common, or 'EK?.yivtKrj the Hellenic ;
and the writers of this latter period were denominated ot xomi or
oi"E}J.v}vsi in opposition to the genuine Attics. Still it continued
to be substantially the Attic; for notwithstanding the various
modifications introduced into it, its principal characteristics re-
mained. This y.oivn hidXiTiTog is the usual standard of grammars
and lexicons ; all departures from it being specified under the
name of particular dialects.

When Greece was deprived of its liberty by the Macedonians,
it was an unavoidable consequence that those tribes who were
before distinct in manners, and independent, in some measure, of
one another, should thus come to use one uniform language un-
der the dominion of a foreign people. The loss of their freedom

LECT. XXIV. LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 321

was the great cause of the intermingling of their dialects, and of
their consequent corruption. The amalgamation, indeed, had
commenced by previous intercourse among the several republics
of Greece; but under the reigns of Philip and Alexander it
was greatly promoted, so that the dialectic and distinct pecu-
liarities of the language no longer appeared. In this confusion
of dialects, that of Macedonia came to have a certain predomi-
nance, from its being spoken by those who had obtained the
sovereignty. The language of the conquerors being diffused
among the subject tribes, prevailed to a considerable extent. Thus
after the Macedonian dominion there was an intermingling of
dialects throughout all the Grecian provinces. In the colonies
also, established by Alexander and his successors, when the
Greek inhabitants, collected from every people, had lost their
own dialects, the same common language obtained. In Egypt
especially, where the successors of Alexander cultivated literature
with much zeal, the influence of the Macedonian conquests ^vas
felt. At Alexandria, the chief seat of such influence, the com-
mon language w^as developed and modified by the circumstances
of the inhabitants, and the places from which many of them had
come together. From this brief account it may be seen that the
common or Hellenic language employed after the times of Alex-
ander, had the Attic dialect for its basis. Still the purity and
elegance of the Attic were in a great measure lost. It had be-
gun to degenerate even before the subjugation of Greece, when
difi'erent authors conformed to it, because it was reckoned the
most polished. Others were thus absorbed into it ; for each
tribe, in adopting it, naturally introduced many of its own idioms.
Still the Attic elements were predominant. Hence the common
language may be called substantially Attic, with a sprinkling of
various dialects. And when we consider the conquests of the
Macedonians, it is natural to suppose that their language would
have a great influence in modifying the later diction which had
arisen from the confluence of tribes and the amalgamation of
their dialects. This predominance was most observable at
Alexandria.

The second constituent of the New Testament diction is the
Jewish element. The writers were Jews, familiar with the He-
brew Scriptures, and with the idioms of the language in which
they were written. They were accustomed to speak the Aram-
aean or Sgro-Chaldaic, which was current among them in Pales-

Y

322 LANGUAGE OF TPIE NEW TESTAMENT, LECT. XXIV.

tine. Hence words, phrases, and constructions, were borrowed
from their vernacular tongue, when they came to write a lan-
guage which they had learned from intercourse, and partly per-
haps from books. When a foreigner, for instance a Hebrew,
learns another language, he is apt to think in his own, so that
his conceptions are still Jewish, though clothed in the costume
of the language he has acquired. Now the dress of such thoughts
is necessarily influenced by their peculiar nature. The forms, as
well as the proper construction and connection of words, are
considerably modified. The diction thus partakes of a Hebrew
colouring, arising from the fact, that the writers were Hebrews,
accustomed to speak the Hebrew language, or rather the later
Aramaean, and familiar also with the ancient language of the
Scriptures. The vernacular tongue influenced their mode of
exhibiting their conceptions, as is the case with every foreigner
who has acquired a strange language, and undertakes to give
expression to his sentiments in it.

3d. The Chrisiiaih or Ecclesiastical element, is next to be consi-
dered. This lies in the subjects to which the Greek language
was necessarily applied. We must remember, that the vocabu-
lary of that tongue had no terms to express many ideas which
the sacred writers were led to communicate. No native Greek
had ever written on Christianity. They were the first indivi-
duals authorised to make known to mankind a revelation of
mercy and of peace. The doctrines of the Christian religion had
not yet been divulged in their full import. When, therefore,
native Hebrews were directed to write of Christianity in the
Greek tongue, they had many ideas for which it afforded no
appropriate terms. The subjects were new — they had never
before been opened up in their vast and varied compass. It was
therefore necessary, either to employ words already existing in
new senses, or to make entirely new terms. Accordingly we
find, that both expedients were resorted to by the Jewish teach-
ers of the new religion. Thus the Clu'istian element of the New
Testament diction arose from the subjects on which that diction
was employed, and the ideas that were to be expressed. We
need not therefore be surprised that the Greek language received
many turns and modifications from the exigency of the case.
New subjects were to be discussed, in treating of which, they
were obliged to apply existing terms in new meanings, or to
coin new ones. The theological element, therefore, is to be

LECT. XXIV. LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 323

taken, in connection with the vernacular tongue of the writers,
and their foreign modes of thought, as materially influencing the
later Greek, which had then become current in so many countries.

Such are the three causes which moulded the style of the New
Testament, and tended to exhibit a diction differing from that of
the purer ages of the Greek language, and even from the common,
as it appears in the writings of those Greek authors who lived
at the commencement of the Christian era. They constitute
the essential features by which it is characterised, and to which
the student must attend, that he may be thoroughly prepared for
the interpretation of the New Testament. If the representation
given be correct, it will be seen that there are various sources
whence an accurate knowledge of the New Testament diction
may be derived. First, there are the writers called the 6/ -/.oi^hu
among whom are Aristotle, Polybius, Diodorus Siculus, and
others. Much advantage, however, is not to be gained from the
consultation of the style of these writers for illustrating the cha-
racter of the Jewish Greek in the New Testament.

In regard to the second element of this idiom, it is necessary
to consult the Alexandrine version, and the Apocryphal books of
the Old and New Testaments. The former was written under
many of the circumstances, to the influence of which the writers
of the New Testament were exposed. The Jews at Alexan-
dria had to acquire the Greek language, current in that city.
Into this they translated the Scriptures of the Old Testament ;
and thus their version exhibits an imperfect knowledge of a
foreign language, pervaded by a Hebrew influence. Accustomed
to the Hebrew Scriptures, and having the Aramaean for their
vernacular tongue, the words and phrases of the Greek, which
they had chiefly learned from conversation, exhibited, in a high
degree, Jewish idioms and peculiarities. The translators were
often reduced to the necessity of either coining new words, or of
using those already existing in new significations, because the
subjects of which the Old Testament treats were, in a great
measure, unknown to the Greeks. Many ideas required cor-
responding and appropriate terms for their expression, which the
compass of the Greek tongue did not furnish. Thus, the Septu-
agint exhibits the same idioms as the New Testament. The
only difference seems to be this, that, in the former, the Hebra-
isms are more strongly marked, because the translation was made
from a Hebrew original. The Jewish, or as it is also called the

324 LAN(5UAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. LeCT. XXIV.

Hellenistic Greek, is employed in both ; for the writers were, in
both instances, Jews, whose vernacular dialect was Aramaean.
The Apocryphal writings of the Old and New Testaments also
afford illustrations of the New Testament diction. The former
were written by Jews on Jewish affairs ; the latter were frequently
imitations of the canonical books. In reo:ard to the works of
Josephus and Philo, they afford less illustration of the idiom
employed in the New Testament and Septuagint ; because,
though nearly contemporary with the Apostles, they were able to
overcome the influence of their vernacular tongue, and to write
in a style nearer that of the later Greek than is exhibited in the
Septuagint or New Testament. Their language is much more
remote from the colloquial dialect of the common people than
that of the New Testament, for the latter appears to be unques-
tionably adapted to the diction of ordinary intercourse, rather
than to that of books. Still the Hebrew idiom is apparent in
these two authors, though in a far less degree than is exhibited
by the sacred writers.

We must now speak of the name of the New Testament dic-
tion. It has been called the Hellenistic^ the Jewish-Greek, or
Hebrew-Greek. But its appellation is of little importance, pro-
vided its genius be properly ascertained. The first name was
given to it by the younger Scaliger, because the Jews who spoke
Greek are called in the New Testament Hellenists, (Acts vi. 1.
ix. 29), but it is inappropriate. The designation Hebrew-Greek
or Jeicish-Greek, i. e. Greek with a strong colouring of Hebrew, is
much more suitable ; and it is applicable both to the Septuagint
and New Testament, exhibiting substantially the same diction.
As to the appellation Alexandrine dialect, it is to be entirely re-
jected, not only as applied to the New Testament, but also to
the Seventy, because it seems merely to denote the peculiarities
of the Greek language at Alexandria. At all events, the term
dialect, in its usual sense, is not appropriate, because it ought to
refer to the idioms of a language exhibited in a particular place
as distinguished from those of the same language, spoken by the
same race. Hence, individuals of Jewish origin, adopting the
Greek language, and transfusing into it Aramaean idioms, can-
not be said to have made for themselves a dialect from the com-
jnon or later Greek.

We are now prepared to enter upon other points connected
with the Hebrew-Greek style of the New Testament.

LP:CT. XXIV. LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 325

We are prepared, in the first place, to look for the occurrence
of words belonging to all the dialects, from the circumstance that
the xo/i/^, or later Greek, was amalgamated from all the dialects
of Greece. Thus, to the Doric dialect belong, in orthography,
md^c) for TT/s^w, to take^ John vii. 30 ; ytan,ix\ju for ■/.arait.ltf)^ to close,
Matthew xiii. 15; '/.XijSavog for x.^i(3avog, an oven, Matthew vi. 30.
In the flexion of verbs, upsoivrui for dpiTvrai, are forgiven, Matthew
ix. 5 ; 1 John ii. 12, which some, however, refer to the Attic.
yj-u for S5TUJ, let it be, 1 Cor. xvi. 22. In regard to gender v y./fj^og,
famine, Luke xv. 14 ; Acts xi. 28, for which the other Greeks
used. 6 X//XOJ. New forms of words, belonging to this dialect, are
7} ht7.ohoiJ.rj, a building, Matthew xxiv. 1 ; Romans xiv. 19, for
which, according to Phrynichus, the older Attic writers employed
li'Mhoi/ia. and oiTtoU'^riiMa. To the Ionic are referred, in ortho-
graphy, (3a0/j!,6c, a step of dignity, 1 Timothy iii. 13, for ^asij^og',
i'zi:pa-joo, to enlighten, Ephes. v. 14, for z-::t(pdca. In regard to gen-
der To-oi deff/j^c-jc, instead of ru dsff>xd of the Attics, bonds, Philip-
pians i. 13. New forms of words also appear in the same dialect,
such as ^upuoj for gyfiw, to shave. Acts xxi. 24 ; 1 Cor. xi. 5.
^r)ff6M, to break, for 'orr/vu,ixi, Mark ii. 22. Atticisms, as might be
expected, are frequent, ex, gr. in orthography, uaXoc, chrgstal.
Rev. xxi. 18 ; ^idXri, Rev. v. 8, phial, for viXog, (pisXrj, dirog, an
eagle, Matthew xxiv. 28, for duTog. In the flexion of nouns, w^e
find Tov AcroXXw, of Apollos, 1 Cor. i. 12, from the nominative
'AcroXXw?. In the flexion of verbs, according to Attic usage, the
sacred writers give a double augment to /SouXo/xa/, 66va//,a/, ,u,s}J.oj.
In respect of gender, the use of 6 ay.orog, in the masculine, was
peculiar to the same dialect. To the Macedonic dialect we assign
xopuffm, maiden, Matthew ix. 24; zoXXulSiGTrig, a moneij-changer,
Matthew xxi. 12; 'Traoifj.iSoXr,, camp. Acts xxi. 34, and pjij^yi, street,
Matthew vi. 2. Thus we have found vestiges of all the ancient
dialects in the Greek Testament except the ^olic, because the
later Greek, then current, arose from the intermingling of all the
peculiarities of the dialects. The ^olic had probably fallen in-
to disuse before any of the others, as the language of ordinary
Ufe.

We come now to speak of new forms of words belonging to the
common language, which cannot be traced up to any of the an-
cient dialects, but must be considered as of later origin. They
are, in general, prolonged or lengthened, rather than abbreviated.
Thus, in nouns, we find Tta-jyj^aig boasting, frequently used by St,

326 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. LECT. XXIV.

Paul, Romans iii. 27 ; xv. 17, &c. and once by James iv. 16, for
xav'XYifjja \ aitoarciGia, apostacy for airodTadK;^ Acts ii. 21 ; fMroixefficc
migration, Matthew i. 11, for (j^iTohzatg (Plato) or {uroiTna
(^schylus) ; (3i^Xa^idm a small roll or volume for (Si^Xd^iov or
(Si^Xidiov. Especial attention is due to a class of nouns ending in
f/.a, which frequently occur in the ^ew Testament, instead of
which, forms with feminine terminations were used in the an-
cient language in the same signification. So avTa'7r6do,aa retribu-
tion, both in a good and bad sense. In the former, it occurs in
Luke XV. 2 ; in the latter, Romans xi. 9 ; airrji^a a request, Luke
xxiii. 24, Philippians iv. 6; airX^/^a a bucket, John iv. 11;
xardKvfj.a, an inn, Luke ii. 7 ; 8dTri(rfMa, baptism, Matthew iii. 7,
&c. &c. New forms of adjectives were also made ending in
ivog, Such as xaQruMz^mg, daily. Acts vi. 1 ; ho^^mg, of the morning,
Rev. xxii. 16. Other forms arose by composition, as d'A.ard<xa\j(STog
unceasing, 2 Peter ii. 14, for ci'Travdrog (Thucydides) ; d^nyswrirog
newly born, 1 Peter ii. 2, for d^r/ysv/jg. Verbs in cw, to which the
Greeks of the later age seem to have had a particular propensity,
and which have been explained by the influence of the Macedo-
nian dialect, also occur ; as dmxaivou to reneic, 2 Cor. iv. 16 ;
d(p\)'7rvow to fall into a deep or prolonged sleep, Luke viii. 23; dsxarou
Heb. vii. 6, 9, to receive or pay tithe ; s^ovdivou to despise, Mark
ix. 12. The termination /^w was also employed in verbs, as
iKfivxrr,^ii^M to scojff at, Luke xvi. 14; buyij^ccri^w to make an example
of, Coloss. ii. 15 ; o^&^fC^o) to rise early in the morning, Luke xxi.
38. New forms of adverbs also appear, as JJacr/i/a suddenly, Mark
ix. 8, for s^wTTi'vyig; 'rdvroTi always, Matthew xxvi. 11, for kxdcroTs ;
'Travor/J with all the household. Acts xvi. 34, instead of <7rav6txia or
'Travor/.rjffia ; xc/Jug as, for xaOd, Matthew xxi. 6, &c. Many words
entirely new were used in the later language, so dXkor^m'TriGxoTrog
a busy-body^ 1 Peter iv. 15 ; dv^^Mrrd^sgxog a man-pleaser, Ephes.
vi. 6 ; doy^KSwdyo^yog ruler of the synagogue, Luke viii. 41 ; d^jn-
Xuivrig chief of the publicans, Luke xix. 2, and many others formed
by composition, which it is unnecessary to enumerate. Of these
new terms, some do not occur in any profane Greek writer, and
are therefore with probability to be assigned to the language of
common life, as distinguished from that of books.

Other peculiarities of the later Greek are, the want of the
dual number, hvo in the genitive indeclinable, vot instead of vui,
&c. ; abbreviations such as ' A^Tii^ag from ' A^rsfiidu^og, ArjfjLcig from
j\7ifir,7Diog or AriiJ.a^x'^g. So also the interchange of the termina-

LECT. XXIV. LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 327

tions of tlie first aorist with those of the second, such as eJduv^
£UPav, tj/Jars, gVstra, avsy^av. We find also h/vuxav for iyvdjpcaffi, sdoXi'
oijffav for idoXiovv, Hav/uffai for xa-j;^a, dMr, for 60/^, -^/xs^a for rj/Msv,
Several tenses of verbs, never found in the ancient writers, were
used in the common language^ and in the New Testament. Thus
axoiycw, Matthew xii. 14, 13, for dxoucro/xa/ in the Attic writers.
yiXdcu^ Luke vi. 31, ioT yiXdcoiMai. — scra/^e(rw, I Cor. xi. 23, for
i-aivzaoijjai — <S7rovdd<rc/j, 2 Peter i. 15, for CTrr/jdaaoixai — a/^agr^jcrw, Mat-
thew xviii. 21, for a/xa^r^tfo/xa/ — '/J.aOau, Luke vi. 55, for KXccvao/xat
— xX5-v|/w, Matthew xix. 18, for '^cXs^/o/xa/ — ^sucm, John vii. 38, for
^svffo/xat — '/caXsctU, Luke i. 13, for ;taXS/>c.a/ — xs^drjtfoj, 1 Cor. ix. 19,
for xi^duvu.

New^ and different meanings are given to words, as Ta^azaXsTv
to ask or beseech, Romans xii. 1. Pure writers use it in the
sense of exhorting, rraidsunv to punish, Hebrews xii. 6, instead of
to educate. t'^Xov the living tree, Luke xxiii. 31. vspcpugig in a
passive signification, death, 2 Cor. iv. 10. The rare use of the
optative mood, the construction of iva with the present, the use
of ha, in the formulas ^sXw ha, &c. (instead of the infini-
tive), and prepositions combined with adverbs, are peculi-
arities of the later Greek observable in the New Testament.
Such are the chief characteristics of the later Greek found in the
New Testament, to which it is necessary to attend in order to
discern the peculiar character of the Jewish-Greek. Most of
them also occur in the Alexandrine version, as might be expected
from the time at which it was made, and the circumstances of
the place where it appeared.

The syntax of the New Testament diction is substantially the
same with that of the earlier and purer Greek. In the amalga-
mation of dialects, and the corruption of the genuine character of
the language, its syntactical principles were not altered. The
xoir/i didXsKTog retained the same laws of syntax as the earlier
Greek ; and the New Testament naturally exhibits none other.
It is not therefore in the syntax that the later Greek diff"ered
from the earlier. It was rather in the forms of words, and the
use of peculiar tenses. We have noticed, however, several peculi-
arities in the syntax of the New Testament diction remote from
the genius of the Attic. Some of them have been already men-
tioned, to w4iich it is unnecessary to add others.

We are also prepared in the second place to look for Hebrew
modifications in the Greek of the New Testament, because the
Hebrew language, or more properly the Aramaean, was the ver-

328 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. LECT. XXIV.

nacular tongue of the writers. Professor Winer divides Hebra-
isms into two classes, perfect and imperfect. The former include
such words, phrases, and constructions, as have no parallel in the
Greek language, and are therefore derived from the Hebrew.
The latter consist of words, phrases, and constructions, that have
some parallel in Greek, but appear to belong rather to the He-
brew or Aramean. Examples oi perfect Hebraism are, the words,
6zXayyniiZ^o!J.ai to have compassion, from e'TrXdyyva bowels, related in
the same way as D^DH*! and DHl' Greek words are also used

in significations belonging to their correspondent Hebrew terms,
as ii^Yjvri prosperity or happiness like the Hebrew Dl^tii^; f^/-^" «

T

thing, like "n^l. The phrases 'tt^ogmvov Xa/xjSdvsiv to accept ones
person, i. e. to show favour or partiality, is a translation of the
Hebrew Q^jQ ^^J ; rb rr^ocfurov GTr}P/%siv to set the face steadfastly,

like D^^Q DW ; Z^nntv rriv -^vx^v, to seek after the life ; Hebrew

ti/pyr\^ t^"p3 ; %%£(T^tt/ oT/Vw to follow after-, Hebrew ^^HN ^^H?

a/Ma^rdvuv ivuj-Tnov to sin before ; Hebrew OiD^ KtDH- So also

o<psiX^u,ccra a^/sm/ to forgive sins ; ofxoXoysTv h rtvi to acknowledge a
person; a noun with the preposition l/g before it, after the sub-
stantive verb, instead of the nominative case after the substan-
tive verb; b\j 'Kag for ovdsig. Imperfect Hebraisms are, the use of
sT; one for 'x^uirog first \ ciyia dytuv holy of holies for the superlative
most holy ; dTs^/xa offspring, from the Hebrew V*1T '■> dvdynri trouble^

from *T^^; hg wrravr-ftGiv to meet, Hebrew n?^*1p/ j '^sf"''" '"^ni yns
the extremities of the earth, Hebrew ^*^X ^DQJ^; X^>-os shore,
Hebrew n£)C^' Though these expressions have probably paral-
lels in Greek, yet they appear rather to be derived from the
Hebrew, since they occur but seldom in the former language.

The contest once carried on respecting the character of the
New Testament diction, is now regarded with astonishment.
Many writers laboured to prove that it possessed all the purity
of the Attic language of Greece. These were called Purists, who
strove with ill-judged zeal to shew, that no Hebraisms were to be
found in the New Testament, but that it exhibits the genuine
Attic idiom in its unadulterated state. Conceiving that all de-
partures from this standard were blemishes or imperfections in the
sacred text, they endeavoured to banish Hebrew idioms and

LECT. XXIV. LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 329

phrases entirely from the New Testament, as if the language
would be disfigured and barbarised by them. Pfochen was the
first who undertook to shew that all the expressions found in the
New Testament, occur likewise in classic Greek authors ; and
he was followed by a number of authors on the same side of the
question. On the other hand, many undertook to prove that the
diction, so far from exhibiting the purity of the Attic language
of Greece, every where abounded in Hebraisms. This party ulti-
mately triumphed, though they pushed their opinion too far, de-
nominating many idioms and expressions Hebraisms, which were
not so in reality. The truth lies between the two parties. It is
now universally acknowledged that the thoughts are Hebrew,
whilst the costume is Greek. The conceptions are such as Jews
under the peculiar influence of the Spirit would employ ; whilst
the dress in which they are clothed, is the Greek language cur-
rent in Palestine at the time of the Apostles. There is thus a
Hebrew colouring that cannot be mistaken, though Hebraisms
are not so abundant as the Hellenists, in their controversies with
the Purists, frequently supposed.

We are prepared by the third element of the Jewish-Greek, to
find words already existing in the vocabulary of the Greeks em-
ployed in a new sense, or new words framed to express ideas for
which no corresponding terms existed in the Greek language.
Thus T/Vr/g, s^ya, dr/ccciovadaif sxXsysffdcci, dtxaioavvrj, '!r^offMToXr}"^ia, partial-
it?/, dvriXvToov, ransom, or/.odo/xsrj, to edify. Since the Greek lan-
guage had not been employed on many subjects to which the New
Testament writers applied it, especially religious topics, it is quite
natural to assume that they were reduced to the necessity of ap-
plying those already existing in a sense foreign to their classic
usage, or of making ones entirely new.

When we consider for a moment the state of Judea at the time
in which our Saviour sojourned on earth, we are not surprised to
find Latin words and phrases in the Greek language then spoken.
The Jews were subject to the Romans ; and the language of the
conquerors had an influence on that of the conquered. Hence we
meet with the words x,svrv^iujv (centurio), ;coAwv/a (colonia), xo'jffrcjdia,
(custodia), y.odpdvTrjg (quadrans), x^i^co; (census ;) and the Latin
phrases, rb ixavw Xafj^jSdveiv, r/.avov 'xoirifsaiy c-j/x(3o{j}jov Xa(3i7'v, 'iyj /xg '::(X'

According to Jerome, (ad Algasiam), there are also Cilicisms
in Paul's epistles, that is, peculiarities belonging to the language

330 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. LECT. XXIV.

of Cilicia, which was the Apostle's birth-place. So uto dvOou-iv/jg
f]/xspa;, 1 Cor. iv. 3, bi/ maris judgment ; dvOsuj-rmv Xsyw, Romans
vi. 19, I speak after manner of men ; hu xaTsvdpKrjffa u/xag, 2 Cor. xii.
13, I ivas not burdensome to you ; [j^rihtg v/j^ag xaTa(3pc([3ivs-oh Colos-
sians ii. 18, let no one defraud you. It is questionable whether
these expressions are to be regarded as idioms transferred from
the Cilician dialect, notwithstanding the affirmation of Jerome.
They are rather terms and phrases of unusual occurrence belong-
ing to the later Greek.

Such is the nature of the Greek Testament diction, into which
I do not design to, enter more fully. It is sufficient for me to
bring before you its general features, but the minutiae must be
left to yourselves. Of late it has been systematised and arranged.
Several grammars of it have appeared ; and lexicons designed to
illustrate it have multiplied. I refer you particularly to the ex-
cellent grammars of Winer and Stuart, and the invaluable Lexi-
con of Robinson, edited by Negris and Duncan. If these
books were put into the hands of our youth at school, along with
classic authors — if they were taught to observe the variations of
style in the Greek Testament, and the native writers of Greece,
they would come to this, and similar places of the higher educa-
tion, prepared to read the ISew Testament with pleasure, and to
attend to those nice distinctions of language, which are not merely
useful in themselves, but which sharpen the mind in prosecuting
the varied studies to which it is directed.

In concluding the present account of the general characteristics
of the New Testament diction, I may just allude to an argument
derived from it in favour of the authenticity of the books. The
style is such as is quite natural in the circumstances under which
it was written. The writers were Hebrews, having the Ara-
maean for their vernacular tongue ; and therefore we find He-
braisms. Having learned the Greek language by intercourse with
foreigners, they gave it many turns and modifications peculiar to
their native dialect. Hence the costume of their thoughts par-
took of a Hebrew colouring. If, therefore, the Purists had suc-
ceeded in proving that the style is pure Attic, they would have
deprived the friends of Christianity of a most convincing argu-
ment derived from the nature of the diction. The Hebrew idioms
are just such as we would have expected from persons situated as
the sacred writers, and exposed to similar influences.

LECTURE XXV.

THE GREEK ARTICLE.

By way of appendix to our account of the language of the New
Testament, it may not be amiss to allude at some length to the
Greek article, although in so doing we must principally refer to
it as connected with interpretation. Several interesting and use-
ful inquiries have been instituted concerning it, which it is highly
desirable to know, else you will be unacquainted with all the mo-
dern researches in which criticism has been advantageously em-
ployed. This part of speech has assumed such importance as to
deserve a separate discussion. In late times particularly, it has
called forth the most extensive efforts of learning. Books of con-
siderable size, and of immense erudition, have been written con-
cerning it, and the most metaphysical speculations as to its
nature have been ingeniously devised. It has claimed, in fact,
so important a rank in the criticism of the Greek Testament,
that it has been made the hinge of controversies affecting the
essential doctrines of religion. New arguments for the deity
of Christ have been derived from its use and peculiar allocation;
the opponents of orthodoxy have been successfully plied with it,
for they have felt the force of the principles generally supposed
to be established respecting it. It is necessary, therefore, that
every student of theology should be well acquainted with the
use of the Greek article, with the mode of employing it for the
defence of truth, and with the substance of all that has been ad-
vanced concerning it by learned inquirers. Such vast labour
has been expended on it, that we may naturally expect results
in some degree proportionate. Where so many have entered
into the same investigation, it is reasonable to look for abun-
dant fruit rewarding their researches. The light of learning has
been brought to bear on it with concentrated beams ; it has at-
tracted to itself the converging intellects of the greatest masters
in Grecian literature ; and it is not strange that others should
look towards the illuminated spot, expecting no obscurity there.
In this, however, some disappointment will be experienced. Sur-

332 THB GREEK ARTICLE. LECT. XXV.

veying Professor Stuart's recent essay entitled " Hints and Cautions
respecting" the Greek Article," we must exclaim, " Grammatici
certant et adhuc sub judice lis est." Something had been done
before the late Bishop Middleton undertook the arduous task of
a new and extended investigation, in which he displayed all the
powers of an original and subtle mind. Dr. Royaards, a German
professor, had discovered one very important canon of the article,
which Mr. Sharp endeavoured more fully to develop and illus-
trate. The Reverend Dr. Wordsworth subsequently produced
a supplementary book on the same subject. These, however,
were merely contributions to the separate materials existing for
a comprehensive and full elucidation of the entire subject, rather
than treatises complete and satisfactory in themselves, as em-
bracing the whole doctrine of the article. They helped to pre-
pare the way for a thorough and masterly development of the
principles that regulate the usage and influence the collocation
of this part of speech. Bishop Middleton succeeded them, shew-
ing such learning and skill in the discussion of the subject,
that he proved himself in the general estimation of English
scholarship to be eminently fitted for the task. The magnitude
of the research which he had necessarily to undergo, he cheer-
fully took upon him, that he might produce a work worthy of
the cause in which he was engaged. And he did execute what
he had projected. His investigations pre-eminently surpassed
all that preceded. They claimed for him, from succeeding
scholars, the merit of having rendered essential service to philo-
logy in general, and especially to that department of it which
is concerned with the Greek Testament. He produced a speci-
men of philosophical criticism, which has been admired by all
who are capable of appreciating precision in language, or close-
ness in reasoning. That some of his positions are more ingenious
than solid, may well be admitted, — that he has sometimes theo-
rised, is assuredly true ; but the body and substance of his posi-
tions have not been overthrown ; nor has he yet been dislodged
from the massy fortification within which he entrenched himself.
His reasoning and doctrines have, indeed, been suspected of un-
soundness ; and doubts have been repeatedly suggested in con-
versation respecting them by several scholars ; but none, with
the exception of an anonymous writer in the Monthly Revieio for
1810, and of Mr. Stuart, has ventured to come forth openly,
and to attack the main strength of the fundamental principles

LKCT. XXV. THE GREEK ARTICLE. 333

which, in our opinion, he has laid down with caution and built
upon with success. The Letters oi Gregory BUmf, Esq., published
in 1803, and Winstanley's Vhtdlcation of certain Passages of the
Comrrion Version, &c. 1807, were not directed against Bishop
Middleton, for his book was not then published, but chiefly
against Mr. Sharp. In reference to the essay lately published
by the eminent scholar of America just mentioned, we think that
it is entitled to attention from the reputation he has acquired,
not only in his own country but also in this. He has endea-
voured to resolve the use of the article in a considerable degree,
into the arbitrary pleasure of the writer. He does not, indeed,
profess to enter into a full examination of the subject. But he
has done as much as possible to destroy the force of this part of
speech in theological controversies, — to shew that undue stress
has been laid upon it, and that it scarcely deserves the amount
of learned efforts that have been made to understand its nature
and use. He has raised objections to the opinions of preceding
writers, and criticised them with strictness, sometimes with un-
due severity. He has tried to pull down the fabric which cost
so many years, and so much erudition in rearing ; but he has not
proposed to build a new one in its stead. It is an easy matter
in this way to find fault with some positions and statements that
preceding writers may have advanced ; it is easy to suggest
doubts and vague conjectures as to the soundness of a principle,
or the truth of an observation ; but it is a totally diverse employ-
ment to construct a better and more durable edifice than that
which we have been at pains to demolish — to advance a sounder
argument than that to which v.-e object — or to propound a theory
less liable to assault than those we have invaded. The latter
requires genius ; a mind inventive and original ; able to trace
out for itself a new and untried path ; while, for the former pur-
pose, little more than industry is needlid. Whilst we are ready
to assign a high place in sacred literature to Mr. Stuart, we
are sometimes inclined to think that he has read too much. This
may appear a strange remark; but it may not, withal, be destitute
of truth. Tlie immense research which some make, frequently
inhabituates their minds to independent modes of thought. So
do we judge of him. The extensiveness of his erudition ap-
pears in every page of his writings; his familiarity with the
German theologians is great ; but these are the very causes why
his mind is somewhat cramped and fettered, though we are

334 THE GREEK ARTICLE. LECT. XXV.

sure that he is quite unconscious of being led by such an influ-
ence. Like David in the armour of Saul, he moves unwieldy
and awkward ; whereas, had he put off such cumbrous habili-
ments, he would doubtless have produced works in some respects
superior to what he has published. He is not deficient in sound
sense, in powers of discrimination, and in comprehension of
mind ; but, despite his very wish to be impartial, he has
occasionally cast himself into the trammels of the conti-
nental theology, unwisely refusing the light and aid of
our English divines. From the veil of uncertainty he has
thrown over the subject, and the manner in which he speaks
of the observations of his predecessors, especially of the labours
of Middleton, his essay is entitled to examination. We confess
that we read his remarks with some regret, because, if true, they
would take out of the hands of the orthodox a powerful weapon,
which they had wielded with skill and success for the overthrow
of their opponents. If what he states be correct — if his posi-
tions be well-founded — they will change some arguments derived
from the Greek Testament in support of the divinity of our Sa-
viour into nonentities, and doubtless contribute to the strength-
ening of the Unitarian in his peculiar creed. He will rejoice to
find the unsoundness of one principle on which much had been
built for the destroying of his faith ; and he will almost shake
hands with the man who, in his estimation, has given a blow to
the very party with which he is associated. Truth, however, de-
pends not on such minute points. Admitting the correctness of
all that Mr. Stuart has written, the cause of those who believe
in the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity stands firm and sure. It
is not based on a single word. It is derived from the whole te-
nor and scope of the Bible — it is interwoven with its texture, and
inlaid with its precious materials, to which it gives at once con-
sistence, harmony, and viilue. Even, therefore, should some of
the passages adduced in support of the Deity of Christ from the
peculiar position of the article contained in them, be deprived of
part of their evidence for this cardinal doctrine, the context will
sufficiently shew that it is still inherent in the sentiments ad-
vanced.

In consequence of the appearance of Stuart's Essay a new impe-
tus will be given to inquiry, and the grounds which had been
thought securely established, will be reinvestigated with care.
It would require much more space than we can possibly spare at

LECT. XXV. THE GREEK ARTICLE. 335

present, and perhaps a g-reater apparatus than is in our power,
to explore this difficult subject in all its intricacies. It is our in-
tention principally to examine the Essay of Mr. Stuart, to shew
the mode in which he attempts to demolish the learned labours
of his predecessors, and the incorrectness of the statements he
has reiterated. The field is too wide and extensive for us to
range over at present. It is not our duty to dig down into the
recesses of this mine, which appear to many to lie deeper, and to
, recede farther from the view, the more they are examined by the
penetrating eye of the sagacious inquirer. With the opinions
recently advanced by Professor Stuart we have now to do ; and
to coincide with them or not, according as they are entitled to
our assent or disapproval. The evidence adduced in their support,
and the conclusiveness with which they are proved, are the points
to which we wish to direct your attention. And here we ought
rather to rejoice at the appearance of this essay. Amid the num-
ber of conflicting statements, the truth will be eventually elicit-
ed. Every inquiry will contribute something to the progress of
the whole investigation, till it be clearly proved whether the
Greek article has been employed according to fixed determinate
rules, or whether its collocation was made to depend in a great
measure on the taste, the fancy, or the feelings of the writer. It
will be finally discovered, whether it be so unsettled and illimi-
table, as to be under no guidance but the evanescent conceptions
and the figurative ideas of him who employed it. Those wedded
to particular sentiments, and attached to a different theory, may
feel a passing and transitory regret should a part be subtracted
from that stock of knowledge which they possessed ; but if they
discover it to be commingled with error, they will be glad at the
removal of the unsound portion.

Mr. Stuart begins with giving us the reason of his prefixing
the title *' Hints and Cautions" to his essay. He tells us that his
design is not to write a formal treatise on the article ; and that
if he intended to do so, it would scarcely repay the labour. He
is of opinion that the doctrine of the Greek article has been made
too much of — that too great stress has been laid on it in certain
controversies affecting the fundamentals of Christianity. It is
evident from his remarks on this point, that his object is to lessen
the strength of the materials built on this foundation, and to shew
the nugatoriness of deciding on the meaning of the terms of a
proposition, from the presence or absence of the vocable in ques-

336 THE GREEK ARTICLE. LECT. XXV.

tion. It may be true, that some injudicious theologians have
proceeded too far in their application of the leading canons of
the article — that in the heat of controversy, they have forgotten
the caution necessary to be observed on so nice a subject : but
Mr. Stuart should beware, lest in his zeal to correct mistaken
views, he may go to the opposite extreme. Nothing is more
common than this reaction in theological systems and opinions,
this sudden rebound from one extreme to its opposite, arising
from excessive fear of an imagined error. And we hesitate not.
to affirm that this is exemplified in the case of Mr. Stuart, for
which we hope soon to shew good reasons. After some intro-
ductory observations, he proceeds to canvass the various rules
that have been propounded respecting the usage of the article,
for the purpose of shewing that the exceptions to them are al-
most, if not altogether as numerous, as the examples belonging
to the rules themselves — and that consequently it was generally
inserted or omitted '' pro luhitu scripforis." We shall not attempt
to follow him through the whole of these canons, but merely se-
lect for animadversion those portions of his essay which, if true,
would materially affect the commonly received interpretation of
many passages in the New Testament. We proceed, therefore,
to his remarks on the rule which lays it down that the subject of a
proposition is generally found with the article, and the predicate
without it. Thus John i. 1, ©sog ^v 6 Aoyog. It is well known that
some theologians have inferred from the absence of the article
before koc, that it is used in a subordinate sense ; and hence they
have translated it a God. But in whatever sense koc, is to be
taken, it properly rejects the article, because it is the predicate
of the proposition. The article is omitted by the writer, not be-
cause he wished to shew that 0so$ is to be understood in an infe-
rior sense, but because of this common rule of Greek syntax, viz.,
that the predicate of a proposition commonly wants the article.
In connexion with this important canon may be mentioned those
propositions whose predicate has the article as well as the subject.
Such are generally called convertible or reciprocating. The article
is prefixed to both terms alike, so that neither is the subject more
than the other. Whatever is predicated of the one term of the
proposition, can also be predicated of the other. An instance of
a convertible proposition occurs in the first epistle of John iii. 4,
)i a/xagr/a Iotiv tj uvo/jliu, sin is the transgression of the law^ or, as it
might with equal propriety be translated, the transgression of the

LECT. XXV. THE GREEK ARTICLE. 337

law is sin. Either of the nouns may be taken as the subject.
Whatever is predicated of the one, may be equally predicated of
the other. Whatever is asserted or denied respecting a/xa^r/a, may
be also affirmed or denied of avo/Mia. There is no sin that is not
a transgression of the law of God ; and there is no transgression
of his law that is not sin. Hence the proposition is denominated
convertible or reciprocrating. Let us apply this to the words of
John i. 1. We have seen that some suppose Qihc, to be used here
in an inferior sense, because it wants the article. But, if the
reading were o ©g^g, the proposition would assume the convertible
form, and the meaning would be, that whatever may be affirmed
or denied of God the Father, may also be affirmed or denied of
the Logos. This would ill accord with the Arian or Socinian
hypothesis, while it would be equally opposed to the sentiments
of all Trinitarians. It is therefore wrong to infer, that the word
0gos is here used in a subordinate sense. The writer could not
have said 6 @zhg without error. The absence of the article does
not indicate an inferior or qualified meaning. In many passages
in which Qdg is indisputably applied to the Supreme Being, the
article is not used, as in Matt. xix. 26. Luke xvi. 13. John i. 18.
John ix. 33. John xvi. 30. Romans viii. 8. 1 Cor. i. 3. Gal.
i. I. Ephes. ii. 8. Hebrews ix. 14. In all these places 0«of,
without the article, denotes the Supreme Being, and, therefore,
the mere presence or absence of the article does not distinguish
God the Father, from others to whom the same title is applied in
the Scriptures.

It is usual to refer to Origen's commentary on this verse, in
which, according to Mr. Stuart, he asserts, that the sacred
writer did not say 6 Qiog, because this would designate the Supreme
God. Middleton states, that " it is not easy to perceive what
Origen could mean when he commends the caution of the evan-
gelist in omitting the article before 0£oj, as applied to the Logos."
Many theologians have mistaken the meaning and purport of
Origen's remark on this passage. Among these we must reck-
on both Middleton and Stuart, as well as the entire host of
Unitarian critics. We are persuaded that he never intended to
say that 6 Qchg designates the supreme God, while &zhg denotes a
hun^og Qshg, or inferior deity. He was too good a Greek scholar
to fall into such an error. As far as the article is concerned, we
agree with Origen that o 0£o$ might have been written without
any absurdity. The laws of Greek syntax did not necessarily

338 THE GREEK ARTICLE. LECT. XXV.

require the article to be absent from the predicate, any more than
they require that wherever it is present, the proposition be con-
vertible. But although the article might thus have been found
in the predicate of the proposition, without doing violence to the
propriety of the Greek sentence, yet the meaning of the Evan-
gelist precluded its insertion. The theological sentiments which
John entertained, and the views of the Divine Being he meant
to convey to his readers, constituted the sole cause of the absence
of the article. Had he written 6 0£o$, the terra would of neces-
sity have been restricted to the same signification as is attached
to rh Qshv immediately preceding. The Logos was rr^hg rhv Qdv
with God, i. e the Father ; and yet the Logos was not God the
Father, as would have been intimated by 6 Qihg ; but the Logos
was ©£oj simply, i. e. possessed of a divine nature, or divine. When
Origen mentions with approbation the caution of the Evangelist
in not writing 6 Qzhg because this would designate the Supreme
Being, he merely commends him for not falling into an error in
doctrine. By the Supreme God, Origen meant God the Father,
and he was doubtless right in affirming that if 6 Qzhg had been
written, it would have designated God the Father, because of the
position it necessarily occupied. Closely following <7r^hg rh Qiov, the
undisputed meaning of which is the Father, 6 Qihg must have been
an appellation of exactly the same signification. The situation
of 6 Qshg would have confined it to this very idea. Origen did not
mean to assert that Qshg and 6 Qiog were distinguished, the one
from the other, by denoting an inferior being, and the supreme one
respectively ; he only wished it to be understood, that in this
passage 6 Qdg from its position, would have meant the Father.
We have said that as far as the article is concerned, 6 Qsog might
have stood in the predicate. This in reality amounts to the state-
ment, that 0 &ihg could not have been ivritten in the sentence before
us. The omission or insertion of the article must have depend-
ed on the meaning intended to be conveyed by the author. His
language must have been regulated and dictated by his theological
sentiments.

Let us now attend to what Mr. Stuart says respecting this
canon. He affirms, that " the insertion or omission of the article
in the subject, depends not at all on the mere fact, that a noun is
the subject or predicate as such, but on the simple fact, whether
the writer means to specify or not, in either case. Consequently,
we may expect, that if in any instance he wishes to make a

LECT. XXV. THE GREEK ARTICLE. 339

specific predicate, he attaches the article to it." It is doubtless
true that the predicate of a proposition often takes the article as
well as the subject, but there must be a specific reason for this.
It is not done arbitrarily, according to the mere caprice of the
writer, but he is guided by some definite principle. This circum-
stance, therefore, does not at all militate against the existence
of the rule given above. • We know that the predicate has the
article as well as the subject in many cases, but, when this oc-
curs, the proposition is a difi'erent one from that in which the
predicate has no article. The insertion of the article can be sa-
tisfactorily accounted for. Besides, Professor Stuart is in error
when he says, that it is laid down in most treatises on the article
as a rule, that the subject of a proposition must have the article,
and the predicate omit it. None, as far as we know, had enun-
ciated the rule in this form. The subject has generally the ar-
ticle. No one ever contended for the universality of the article
in the subject. This is a fiction of his own invention. " The
reverse is sometimes true in a certain sense." This is readily
granted to Mr. Stuart, but we aflfirm, that wherever the rule is
violated, there is a reason for departing from it. We can ex-
plain why the article is occasionally added to the predicate.
Does this fact throw any uncertainty on its usage ? We think
not. It shows, on the contrary, that it was not inserted or
omitted merely ad libitum scriptoris. It establishes the fact, that
the writers of the New Testament, as well as those of classic
Greek, were able to write with grammatical propriety and cor-
rectness ; that they did not employ the article improperly, or
insert it gratuitously ; but that they were familiar with the ordi-
nary construction of the language they wrote, and free from
the irregular license of poetry. It appears strange to us
that Mr. Stuart could imagine, that his remarks on this rule
contribute ought to the support of the object with which he
commenced, and which he endeavours to promote generally
throughout the essay. Had he tried to shew that it was a mat-
ter of indijBference in the writer's estimation, whether he attach-
ed the article to the subject or predicate of a proposition, then
he would have been on the ground he wished to occupy ; but by
leaving this ground, and betaking himself to another position,
he so far gives up the point which, from his own statement, he
was anxious to establish and defend. In contending for the fact
that the " insertion or omission of the article depends on the

340 THE GREEK ARTICLE. LECT. XXV.

wish of the writer to specify or not in either case," he lends
his aid to the establishment of the received doctrine respecting
this part of speech. He admits that it is not added or omitted
without a particular reason, but he affirms that when the predi-
cate is intended to be specific, the article is annexed to it.
This is exactly Winer's statement, that the predicate also has the
article, lohen it is thought of as something' definite. In adducing ex-
amples against the universality of the canon, Mr. Stuart follow-
ing Winer, has fallen into great confusion. He puts together as
similar, propositions totally different. To show that the predi-
cate also has the article — a thing which none ever dreamt of de-
nying— he quotes Mark vi. 3, oZroi igrv 6 tUtuv, where the article
indicates a well-known person. This is the usage of it ^ccr s^o^^v,
that is, when it refers to some object of which there are many;
but none of them is so familiar to the mind of the hearer or rea-
der as that which is made the predicate of the article. So o minrrig,
meaning Homer, 6 'zoXs^iog in Thucydides the Peloponnesian war,
yj voffog, the well-known plague. On this principle the article is
inserted before the predicate Tr/.Tuv. The next example which
he gives of the article in the predicate is Mark vii. 15, UsTvd lari
rd mnoZvra. This is an instance of its hypothetical use. In such
a case the article is " the representative of something of which,
whether known or unknown, an assumption is to be made." To
take Middleton's example, -Trovrifov 6 6\)7to(pd)irrig del (Demosthenes
de Corona), a calumniator is ahcays a bad thing. Here 6 cuy-o-
<pdvTr,g must mean every person of whom (Su%o(pdvTYig can be pre-
dicated. Had Vuxo^ai/T'/j$ been recently mentioned, we would
immediately infer that o ov/.o(pdvTri; was the renewed mention of
the same person; but the context shews that this cannot be.
Hence the article denotes the whole genus. The definite article,
in English, is sometimes taken in a similar sense, thus, the ca-
lumniator is a nuisance to society, meaning, as in Greek, everg
calumniator.

Let us apply these observations to the example before us,
UiTm iffTi rd xomu^ra,. The basis of this proposition is, as Mr.
Rose says, that there are things which dejile a man, and the
olject of it is, to identify them with certain things under consider-
ation. The next passage quoted by Prof. Stuart is I Corin-
thians X. A, ri OS 'rrsT^oc h o Xo/ffrhg. Here the frst article arises from
renewed mention, as is manifest from the context ; while the second
denotes the Christ, by way of eminence, — the Christ predicted in
the Old Testament, and symbolically set forth by the rock

LECT. XXV. THE GREEK ARTICLE. 341

whence water flowed to the Israelites. It is surely unnecessary
to examine, in detail, all the passages which he has adduced.
They may be found in Winer's Grammar of the New Testament
diction, who seems not to have had clear ideas on the subject of
the article. You will probably have seen, by this time, that the
canon is not subject to such vagueness as Mr. Stuart supposes.
What he ought to have proved for the support of his main
argument is, that it is a matter of indifference, whether the predi-
cate have the article or not. He ought to have demonstrated
that those propositions whose predicate is accompanied with the
article, are exactly the same in meaning with those whose predi-
cate wants it. This, however, he has not attempted to do, unless
the foUownig remark be regarded as an exception. " In some
instances the very same construction, in respect to definiteness,
exhibits and omits the article, e. g. John viii. 44, on [6 M^oXog'}
-^ihtSTTig IffTi 7.ai 6 'rarrio auroD." Surely when Mr. Stuart wrote this, he
was not aware of the difficulty of the construction, and of the
extreme improbability of the mode in which it is taken in the
received version. The following appears to me to be the right
construction. " When he (z. e. any of you) speaks falsehood, he
speaks after the manner of his kindred, for his father also is a
liar." In this way the force of Mr. Stuart's observation com-
pletely vanishes. The learned Professor has told us what we
knew before, that the rule is not universal — that it is liable to
many exceptions. But, in every instance in which they are
found, they can be satisfactorily accounted for. They afford,
therefore, no ground for supposing, that the article was used
ad libitum scriptoris. On the contrary, it was omitted or inserted
according to fixed laws. He himself gives a reason for its being
found in the predicate, viz. that the predicate is intended to be
specific* But this reason will not always apply, yea it is a most
vague and indefinite reason, signifying nothing. One caution
may be here given to those who are not sufficiently versed in
the subject, that they beware of concluding that a proposition is
convertible, merely because its predicate has the article. This is
by no means the case. In truth, the occurrence of such propo-
sitions is rare, as we might have been led a priori to expect.
Great care and more discrimination are therefore required, to
know the various causes that operate in particular instances in
retaining the article in the predicate ; while convertible propo-
sitions, from their nature, can scarcely be mistaken by the least

342 THE GREEK ARTICLE. LECT. XXV.

discerning. If our reasoning be correct, the evidence which the
article furnishes on behalf of the meaning of a proposition, may-
be admitted ; and especially in connection with other testimonies
and aids, it may be truly convincing to every honest inquirer.

And here we may allude to the disingenuous mode of argu-
mentation, sometimes pursued by Unitarian polemics, in refer-
ence to the point before us, who, when the above rule is quoted
and applied to the Greek Testament, argue strongly in reply,
that the term occurring in the predicate of a proposition may-
have the article as well as the subject. But their opponents de-
ny not that the article is found in the predicate. The orthodox
equally with the Unitarians are ready to allow, that in the pre-
dicate the article often occurs. But they affirm, that there is
always a reason for its insertion there. They can tell where it
ought, and where it ought not to be inserted in the predicate ;
and they hold, that in those instances which Unitarians needlessly
bring forward to impugn the general rule, the article is required
in the predicate. The Unitarians, therefore, fight with a sha-
dow. They oppose what none denies, and then think that they
have completely demolished the system of their adversaries.
When, therefore, they bring forward against us such examples
as this, 1 John v. 20, ourhg sffnv 6 aXyjdivog Qihg %ai ri Z^uri diuiviogy
this is the true God and eternal life, we say, that 6 uX-ri&mg &sog is an
example of a common rule, that " in concord, (where the attri-
bute is assumed of the substance) supposing one article only to
be employed, it must be placed immediately before the adjec-
tive." With respect to j^ ^mti didjmg, there is a variety of read-
ings. Some manuscripts omit v ; others insert a second article be-
fore uidjviog. Bishop Middleton says, that one of these emenda-
tions is necessary. Which of them ought to be preferred, must
depend on the respective evidence by which each is supported.
Mr. Stuart affirms, that if the Apostle John had written in the
beginning of his gospel 6 Qeog, and " if 6 Xoyog were to be taken
as the subject, then the assertion would be, that the Logos is
THE God', an assertion which the writer did not mean to make,
for this would exclude the Father and the Spirit from being
truly Divine, or else make them one and the same in all respects
with the Logos." From this exegesis we may gather somewhat
of his meaning in saying, that the predicate has the article when
the writer intends to specify. Let us apply the same mode of
reasoning to the example before us. This i. e. the Son, is the

LECT. XXV. THE GREEK ARTICLE. 343

true God, which excludes the Father and the Spirit from being
both truly divine, or else makes them one and the same in all
respects with the Son. To such Unitarian argumentation are
we reduced on Mr. Stuart's principles. The true rule, agreeably
to which the article is here inserted, we have already given, and
it is unnecessary to repeat it.

Another canon usually laid down respecting the use of the
article requires minute consideration. When two or more personal
nounSi of the same gender ^ number, and case^ are connected by the con-
junction AND : if the first has the article, and the rest have it not, they
all relate to the same person. This is perhaps the most important
rule concerning this part of speech that has been established, be-
cause it has been most extensively applied to the support of
Christ's deity. We shall give some examples. Ephesians
V. 5, sv rfj ^aatXiia, rov X^iffrou xai Qsou. Here are two personal
nouns connected by a copulative conjunction, before the first
only of which the article is inserted ; it is, therefore, in-
ferred that they relate to the same person. If the rule be true,
this text furnishes decisive proof that the same person is called
in Scripture Christ and God. Our English translation is not
happy when it renders these words " in the kingdom of God and
of Christ.'* The second of should unquestionably be omitted.
The second instance in which we would apply the canon is found
in Titus ii. 13, rov fxsydXov &sov xai ffUTT^oog yjfxojv 'lr}(rov Xoiffrov. Here
it is impossible, according to the principle laid down, to under-
stand &SOV and ffurri^og otherwise than of one person. Mr. Sharp
translates it, " of our Great God and Saviour Jesus Christ,"
which rendering expresses the sense more accurately than the
received version. The next passage to which we refer is 2 Peter
1. 1, TOO Qiov Tj/jjuv 7ia} sojTrj^og 'irjffou Xoiffrou. This is almost the same
with Titus ii. 13, already considered. The only difference is,
that Tj/Mojv is here placed after the^rs^ noun, not after the second.
The position of the pronoun, however, does not affect the sense.
In such cases, strictly speaking, the pronoun ought to be repeat-
ed after every noun. If it be only once inserted, it is of no im-
portance whether it be after the first or last noun ; if it be inserted
after the first, it is understood after the remaining nouns ; if it
be not inserted till after the last, it throws back its influence on
those that go before. The passage affords an undubitable testi-
mony to the truth, that Jesus Christ is our God and Saviour ;
and it ought to be translated as in the margin of the English

344 THE GREEK ARTICLE. LECT. XXV.

Bible, through the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus
Christ." The only other example which we shall give is from
Jude 4th verse, rhv /juovov dsff'Trorriv Qsov x,ai K6^/ov j^/xwi/ 'Itjcovv XoiffTOv.
There is some dispute respecting the right reading of this place,
but at present we take it for granted that the common reading is
the true one. It is plain that dsff-orrig, Qsoc, and Kvp/og relate to
one person Jesus Christ, according to the rule we have laid down.
Had two persons been meant, we should have read, r6v Kv^m rifMu/.
The literal translation is, " denying our only master, God and
Lord, Jesus Christ." The rule of which we have now given
several examples, has, we conceive, been fully established by a
copious induction of passages. We are aware that some have
adduced as instances of its application 2 Thessal. i. 13, and 1
Tim. V. 21 ; but Middleton doubted of their propriety, and ob-
jected to them as proofs for the doctrine of Christ's Godhead, as
far as the article is concerned. The reason of this opinion is,
that the appellation Kuotog is a sort of proper name, and may
therefore dispense with the article, as actual usage compels us to
admit. Kv^iog 'irjcoug Xotffrog again, is a complex title, applied to
the Saviour, and its component parts ought not to be separated
by disjoining the first from the other two. They are commonly
taken together, and constitute a proper name. The late Mr.
Granville Sharp was the first person who called public attention
in these countries to this canon, and hence it has been emphati-
cally styled Sharp's rule. Dr. Wordsworth, with the view of
discovering in what sense the fathers understood the passage
translated by Mr. Sharp in accordance with his rule, instituted
a laborious examination into their writings, and the result was
completely corroborative of the sense he attached to such places.
Mr. Hugh Stuart Boyd has made a few additional remarks, and
collected a number of additional examples out of profane as well
as sacred writers, which may be found in Dr. A. Clarke's Com-
mentary on the New Testament, at the end of the Epistle to the
Ephesians. We may say, therefore, with truth, that it has been
formed from observation of the uniform usage of the best Greek
writers, besides those of the New Testament. All seem to have
been familiar with the principle ; for it is utterly incredible that
their writings would have exhibited an invariable adherence to it,
on the supposition that the insertion or omission of the article
was arbitrary.

Let us now advert to Mr. Stuart's observations on this canon.

LECT. XXV. THE GREEK ARTICLE. 345

In them we think we perceive an apparent wantof candour which
we could hardly have expected. We cannot charge him with
ignorance, for he must have read and consulted most treatises on
the subject, but we are obliged to say that there is unfairness in
his mode of attack. He enunciates the rule in the following
terms : " Several nouns connected by a conjunction, and being
in the same case and of the same gender, usually omit the arti-
cle after it has been once inserted, viz. before the first noun."
He then gives a multitude of examples where the first noun has
the article, and the second wants it. After this, he goes on to
say that the number of cases where the article is inserted before
the second noun, is almost equally great, and he adduces nume-
rous examples of this. After having thus given a host of instances
both on behalf of the rule as expressed by himself, and in op-
position to the rule also, he states the general principle that seems
to predominate through such cases, viz. *' where the several
things enumerated belong to one and the same class or genus,
the article may he omitted after the first noun ; but if they are dis-
tinctly or separately represented, the article is inserted or omit-
ted (as the case may be) before them all." Now he should have
expressed the rule at firsts so as to shew that the article was in-
serted before the first noun, and omitted before the remaining
ones only when the nouns were assumed of the same person or
thing. This would have been exemplified by his first set of ex-
amples. When different persons and things are intended, the ar-
ticle is repeated before every noun. His second series of exam-
ples would have shewn this. The turning point of the canon is,
whether the attributives are assumed of the same or of different
things, and when this is omitted, it is easy to perceive that the
examples will be very dissimilar. We believe, therefore, that
this effort to disarrange and unsettle the canon is a total failure.
It is true, as Stuart says, that the article is often inserted before
the second noun, as well as the first, but there is always a reason
for this. It is not arbitrarily done. It takes place according to a
fixed law, which has not yet been overturned. Mr. Stuart himself
admits that a general principle predominates in these diverse
cases ; and that, too, the very principle in substance for which
his predecessors had contended ; but while he is compelled to bow
in some measure to established opinions, he forthwith states that
this principle " is often, very often neglected." And here we
deem him guilty of some disingenuity in not alluding to the limi-

346 THE GREEK ARTICLE. LECT. XXV.

tations so cautiously laid down by Middleton regarding this canon.
Had the bishop imperiously announced it as of universal applica-
tion— had he never hinted at any exception, then would Mr.
Stuart have been justified in maintaining a total silence regarding
counter instances. But he should have remembered that Middle-
ton had not merely pointed out the cases in which the rule re-
ceived limitations, but that he had also philosophically accounted
for them, in conformity with his theory of the nature of the arti-
cle. Assuredly none should undertake either to write on this
point, or to dispute with an opponent, who is not fully acquainted
with each and every adjunct regarding it, else he will be both
puzzled and confounded when his unguarded statements are as-
sailed. The objects of the rule are styled " assumible attribu-
tives," that is, attributives containing an assumption. By attri-
butives are meant adjectives, participles, and all such nouns as
are significant of character, relation or dignity. All nouns are
excluded from the operation of the rule, except those significant
of character. Let none, therefore, suppose, that the canon is im-
perious in its applicability to all cases that can be imagined, or
discovered. Neither on the contrary let it be taken for granted,
that the converse is equally true, viz. that if these personal nouns
are connected by a copulative and all that have the article, they
relate to different persons. Mr. Valpy, indeed, has said so in
the analysis of Middleton's work, prefixed to his Greek Tes-
tament; but a more rash assertion he could not have hazarded.
Thus, John xx. 28, 6 Khsiog [mov y.al h &sog (lou. Here Jesus is
styled both Lord and God, and as there is no assumption made,
the rule does not necessarily hold good. Mr. Stuart adduces an
instance from Mark xv. 1, [jjira rojv 'Tr^iG^urs^ojv xat y^a/x/^arewv, where
there are two nouns in the same case and gender, connected by
the copulative conjunction, and yet the second has no article,
though they relate to different persons. This he does, without
once hinting at the distinct inquiry instituted by Middleton, re-
garding the applicability of the rule to plurals. Mr. Sharp had
formerly said, that to such it was not always applicable ; the
reason is given by the Bishop. Again, it is obvious that, when
the attributives are in their nature absolutely incompatible, the
rule cannot come into operation. Thus, in Matthew v. 20,
ruv ypafM/j.uTsuv xct) (pa^idatm, every one immediatjely sees, that the
Scribes and Pharisees were the appellations of two sects or
offices distinct from one another. It was not necessary, there-

LECT. XXV. THE GREEK ARTICLE. 347

fore, to prefix the article to the second noun, though placed be-
fore the first. The example given by Mr. Stuart, from Colos-
sians ii. 8, and Philippians ii. 17, are instances of the strict
application of the rule ; and, in Luke xi. 39, the nouns are of
different genders ! In short, we deem Mr. Stuart's observations
most vague and unsatisfactory. In one place he seems inclined
to persuade us, that the article was inserted, or omitted alto-
gether, ad arbitrium scriptoris ; in another, he cautions us against
supposing that it is in all cases a matter of indifference whether
it was so inserted or omitted. He has not, however, informed
us, in what cases it matters little, whether it be inserted or not;
neither has he attempted to prove that it is subject to no rule
whatever. He has asserted that no rule hitherto given is free
from exception, but of this we were as fully aware before his
essay appeared. And we cannot but deprecate the seemingly
reckless spirit in which he sets about his task ; and the almost
contemptuous tone with which he speaks of Middleton's re-
searches. Had he studied his work more minutely, and mastered
his canons, he would have refrained from bringing forward a
number of exceptions to his rules, for the purpose of destroying
our faith in their truth ; when that most acute and philosophi-
cally-minded prelate had expressly guarded his positions, hedging
them round with such cautions and limitations as cannot readily
be mistaken by an impartial reader. We are well convinced,
that there exists in the minds of many a strong prejudice against
the fact of making doctrines depend on forms of speech or rules of
syntax. And, were it true that any great doctrine were supported
by such proofs alone — were we able to present the arguments by
which a cardinal point in theology, such as the divinity of Christ,
is established, only to the learned, to the person acquainted with
the structure and forms of the Greek language, then would the
prejudice against such a mode of supporting our faith be well-
founded. But this is far from the truth. Whilst we can intel-
ligibly bring before the most simple-minded and unlearned
reader of the Bible the grounds of the truths it contains; whilst,
in the general scope and tenor of the words revealed for our in-
struction, there is a clear and certain light to guide the feet of
the inquirer along the path of righteousness ; the scholar dis-
covers a farther confirmation of his faith in the language of in-
spiration itself. We ask how doctrines are learned, unless by
the terms in which they are set forth ? If these be dark and

348 THE GREEK ARTICLE. LECT. XXV.

obscure, our minds will be jDroportionately unable to attain pre-
cise and definite ideas of their nature ; on the other hand, if they
be propounded in terms perspicuous and proper, the grei ter will
be our facility in comprehending them. Now, words arranged,
and put in a particular way, constitute a proposition. It is
necessary that they be marshalled in a certain order, else they
will either convey the meaning of the sentence ambiguously, or
no meaning at all. This must be ^rue of all languages. We
may not be adequate to trace out the laws which the best writers
imposed on themselves ; or the acknowledged forms of the dia-
lect they spoke or wrote, in the case of dead languages; but,
from an extended knowledge of their works, we may become
at least acquainted with the general principles of the lan-
guage they employed. And if we be allowed to judge from
the analogy of our own tongue, while we grant that some
parts of speech might be employed in different positions,
according to the taste of different authors, yet we imagine that
this cannot be admitted with respect to the insertion or omission
of the article. However various may be the opinions regarding
its nature, all are agreed that it was employed in some way to
limit, specify, or define. Thus designed to limit or specify some
idea which an author wished to communicate, it could not be al-
together a matter of taste, whether he would employ the article or
not. While he possessed no other part o( speech precisel?/ identical
in signification, he could not but add or omit this vocable ac-
cording to the modification of meaning he intended to convey.
It is true — and analogy is entirely in favour of the fact — that all
writers were not alike masters of their own language; that the
laws of syntax, and the niceties of diction were not equally known
to all that chose to become authors. On this account we may
find deviations from the established forms and rules used by the
best writers, in others of less ability. Hence we need not be
surprised to see in Homer and Hesiod a usage of the article
somewhat diverse from that of Plato or Thucydides. The dialect
of the former has a considerable dissimilarity to that of the lat-
ter ; and we therefore expect the rules of syntax in some degree
to vary. But when we find general rules observed by the ma-
jority of the best Greek writers in the insertion or omission of
the article, when the same are visible in every page of the New
Testament; when, from a copious induction of particulars, we as-
cend in the true Baconian method of philosophising to general

LECT. XXV. THE GREEK ARTICLE. 349

principles, it is surely egregious folly to censure such inductive
philologists as though they were the discoverers of canons and
the searchers of rules that were never thought of by the Greek
writers themselves. What though there be exceptions — this fact
does not invalidate the truth of the principles themselves, espe-
cially since we can describe the cases in which such seeming ir-
regularities occur ; and when we are even able to predict tvhere
they will be found. Exceptions of such a character cease to
be irregularities, and do themselves partake of all the marks and
tokens that attach to fixed rules. We esteem it no small proof
of the divine origin of Christianity, that it was at first promul-
gated in a language precisely such as that of the New Testament.
Some of the writers were illiterate and humble men when called
by our Lord from their occupations to become his disciples.
And when they were prompted and inspired to write so much of
his will as it pleased him to reveal for the instruction of man-
kind, that their language should partake of the established rules
of syntax and the minuter forms of speech observable in the pu-
rest Greek writers, is altogether remarkable. Perhaps from their
regular and strict usage of the Greek article in conformity with
the practice of such writers as Xenophon and Demosthenes, we
may derive an evidence of verbal inspiration as strong and con-
vincing as any that has yet been adduced. We would call the
attention of such of you as may be occupied with the investiga-
tion of this very difficult subject to the remark now made, en-
treating you to weigh it with that care to which we deem it en-
titled.

But we must return to Mr. Stuart. We are sincerely sorry to
find him, now that he is in the decline of life, eager to throw
aside as many of the opinions and sentiments which he formerly
entertained, as he reckons incompatible, in opposition to the
united testimony of almost all orthodox men with a sound and
scriptural creed. In his essay respecting the Greek article, we
are not aware that he has advanced any new position, or proved
any important principle. He has followed Winer too closely.
He has paid too much homage to the sentiments of the German
grammarians, who are totally unacquainted with the philosophi-
cal principles established by English divines in regard to this im-
portant part of speech. The former have, no doubt, with great
industry, collected a multitude of examples shewing the varied
positions in which the article is added or omitted ; without think-

350 THE GREEK ARTICLE. LECT. XXV.

ino-, however, of deducing general rules, and thus pointing out
an acknowledged usage regarding it They have furnished co-
pious materials for the philosophical grammarian to prepare and
generalise ; but the goodly structure they have not themselves
reared, and its symmetry they have not perceived. Had Bishop
Middleton lived to the present time, their labours might have
spared him much toil and trouble in gathering together single
instances out of a multitude of Greek writers ; but he could have
derived from them no other assistance. He might thus have
given more exemplifications of his rules than he has done ; but
we are persuaded that he would not have altered the canons
themselves. It is to us matter of regret, that Mr. Stuart should
allow his veneration for the Germans to carry him away so far,
as to throw uncertainty over the whole doctrine of the article.
A stranger compound of truth and error, of vague assertions and
judicious remarks than his essay it has seldom been our lot to
peruse. He is too liberal when he would surrender such an ar-
gument as that derivable from the Greek article, in support of the
main pillar of our faith. It is true that the context of the passages
adduced by the orthodox, would lead the candid inquirer to
entertain right sentiments ; but it does not hence follow
that he should renounce every additional mode of ascertain-
ing and defending the same interpretation. We hold that there
must have been invariable rules of Greek syntax ; and on this sup-
position every grammarian proceeds to discover and to elucidate
them. Why then should we deny that the article was subject to
rule — that it was fixed, settled, and definitely employed ? Or
why should we affirm that one writer may have availed himself
of it to express the veri/ same thing, in a different manner from
some other author equally noted for the purity of his diction and
the propriety of his language ? All analogy contradicts such a
supposition ; and however inadequate we of the present day may
be to apprehend the idioms and peculiarities of the Greek lan-
guage, and fully to explore the minutiae of its structure, yet the
united labours of the learned have not been ineffectual in the de-
velopment of its more striking and palpable characteristics ; and
we hesitate not to affirm that the systematic mode in which the
prepositive article is employed is one of these characteristics.
We will not, therefore, omit any arguments derived from the
Greek article at the bidding of Mr. Stuart, however highly we ad-
mire his scholarship. If, as he imagines, the subject be unsettled,

LECT. XXV. THE GREEK ARTICLE. 351

he could not have more effectually laboured to keep it in the
same state. Whether he has written in too great haste, or
whether he has set out with preconceived opinions, or whether
both causes may have operated, we presume not to affirm, but of
his production itself we have not an exceedingly high opinion.
Probably he would charge us with being guided by theological
rather than philological reasons in forming this opinion ; and, as
he has accused the Greek fathers generally of being so biassed,
we need not hope to be exempt from suspicion. Rather would
we be numbered with those who will not surrender one jot or
tittle of the truth through a spurious liberality, and who are re-
luctant to yield a single point of their faith as long as it admits
of a legitimate defence, than with the orthodox men that boast of
their independence of mind, and liberality of heart, while they are
contented to resign questions in debate into the hands of the
enemies of evangelical religion.

LECTURE XXVI.

ON THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE GOSPEL BY MATTHEW.

Connected with the diction of the New Testament is the ques-
tion respecting the language in which the Gospel according to
Matthew was originally written. Whilst some contend that it
was published in Greek, others as strenuously maintain that it
was written in Hebrew. It is unnecessary to furnish you with
a long list of names on both sides of the question. It would
minister no profit but rather savour of the parade of learning.
Passing over, therefore, the numerous individuals who have
espoused opposite sentiments, we proceed at once to the discussion
of the subject itself. Did it not naturally belong to the topic
which we have been considering, I would scarcely reckon it of
sufficient importance to be here discussed, because it is in the
end the same to us whether Matthew wrote his gospel in He-
brew or Greek, provided we abide by its inspiration and its inte-
grity. Interesting, therefore, though it may be to consider the
subject ; we do not regard it as of essential importance. Whatever
opinion be adopted, there is no good reason for accusing those
who hold the opposite of entertaining false and heretical senti-
ments. Both may be safely maintained without impugnment of
the orthodoxy of the disputants.

Such as argue for the Hebrew composition of the Gospel rest
chiefly on the weight of ancient testimony by which their opi-
nion is supported. It will be necessary, therefore, to allude, at
some length, to the writings of those fathers and ecclesiastical
authors that touch upon the point. In the ecclesiastical history
of Eusebius we meet with the following notices. Mar^a/oe (Lh olv
' ElS^didt btaXiKTU) rot, \LyicL cwsy^u-^uro. ' H^fi^vsvffs d' aura, ug ^^duvaro
sxaarog. (iii. .39.) Papias says, " Mathew wrote the oracles in
the Hebrew language, which every one interpreted as well as he

LECT. XXVI. THE GOSPEL BY MATTHEW. 353

could." Paplas was bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, and flou-
rished about the year of our Lord 1 16. Only some fragments of
his work are preserved in Eusebius. Irenaeus is the next who
affirms the same thing. 'O i^iv h^ MarSa/oc h roTg 'EiS^aloi; rfi /dia
avruv diaXsTiruj xai 'y^a<pr,v l^r]viy%iv ihayyiXioxj. (Adv. Haer. III. 1,
Conf. Euseb. h. e. v. 8.) " Matthew published his gospel among
the Jews in their own language." These words of Irenaeus re-
corded in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, have occasioned some
perplexity to Drs. Hales and Bloomfield, the latter of whom \vould
arbitrarily alter them, thinking that they do not yield any tolera-
ble sense. The xa/ before yia.(p7\v we take to signify even, and
y^a(priv suayyiXiov to mean the writing of his gospel, that is, his written
gospel. ** Matthew even published among the Hebrews, in their
own dialect, a written gospel." We are averse to the proposed
alterations of Dr. Bloomfield, because there is no foundation for
them. He need not, surely, expect good or pure Greek at such
a time and from such a writer ; and, therefore, he ought not to
have stumbled at the word y^cKp-hv. It does not mean scripture in
its appropriated and ecclesiastical signification, but simply writing.
We come, in the third place, to Origen. wj h Ta^adoffn /mo^uv m^i
Tuv ri6<jdp<f)v hayyik'im, cl xa/ imovcc uvavrihoTiTO, sen sv rfi 6c6 rbv ov^avov
iTCTiXi^aia, ro[j '^sou. on rr^ojrov /xsv ysy^d'rrai rb Jiara, rov tots TsXuvr,Vf vffre^ov
ds OLTOffToXov I^ffoD XoiffTOJ MuT^uTov, IxdiduxoTa avrh ro7g d'rro lovduifffMov
^i<mv(fa<fi, y^dfifMam 'E^PoiiKoTg Guvrirocyfisvov. (Eusebius h. e. VI. 25).
*' He (Origen) learned by tradition, respecting the four gospels,
which are the only canonical ones in the church of God under
heaven, that the gospel according to Matthew was written first.
He was originally a publican, and afterwards the Apostle of Jesus
Christ, and gave it out, composed in Hebrew letters, to those
Jews who had embraced Christianity." Eusebius himself testi-
fies the same thing. Mar^aTb; /msv ydo rrooTSDov 'EjSpaioi; xriov^ug^
ojg 'ifMiXXi -/.oci i<p ersooug ihcn, <rra,r^iui yXujrrri 'Tra^aboxjg rb %ar avrbv
hayysXiov, rb XsTttov rfi durov 'zoc^ouffia Tovroig d<^ Siv idrVKKiro, did rrig
y^a<pni d'TTi'xXriPov. (H. E. iii. 24). " When Matthew had first
preached to the Hebrews, and was about to go to others, he de-
livered his gospel in his native tongue to those whom he was
leaving, and thus compensated for his own personal presence
among them by his writing." Jerome, also, in his Commentary
on Matthew (preface) says " Matthaeus in Judaea evangelium
hebraeo sermone edidit, ob eorum vel maxime causam, qui in
lesum crediderant ex Judaeis." *' Matthew published, in Judea

2 a

354 ON THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF LECT. XXVI.

a gospel in the Hebrew language, chiefly for the sake of those
Jews who had believed in Jesus/' The same father, in another

place (De viris lUustr. c. 3,) writes, *' Matthaeus primus

in Judaea propter eos qui ex circumcisione crediderant, evange-
lium Christi hebraicis Uteris, verbisque, composuit, quod quis
postea in graecum transtulerit, non satis certum est." " Matthew
was the first who composed a history of Christ in Hebrew letters
and words, for the use of those of the circumcision in Judaea,
who had become believers ; and it is not ascertained by whom it
was afterwards translated into Greek."

These are apparently satisfactory and unequivocal testimonies
in favour of the Hebrew origin of this gospel, by men that lived
not long after its composition, and who might have easily learn-
ed it from a tradition reaching up by a few steps to the Apostle
himself. But there are circumstances that modify and consider-
ably affect the value of the evidence thus presented, to which it
is equally necessary to attend. In regard to Papias, Eusebius
observes that he was of very loeak understanding-, 6(p6h^a gfiix^hg uiV
rh vovv. It is to be remembered, however, that Eusebius is speak-
ing only of his millenarianism, when he applies to him such lan-
guage, for in another part of his writings he characterises him as,
avYj^^ rcL Tccvra Xoyiuizarog %a,i rrig yga^^g s/dyjficjv, " a man in every
respect very learned or intelligent, and well acquainted with the
Scripture." But, in the present instance, Papias has not named
the authorities or grounds on which his testimony is founded, and
we are therefore at liberty to question its accuracy. It is also
to be observed that there is not a word in Eusebius respecting
Papias having seen the Hebrew gospel. He may have got the in-
formation from others. According to Ireaaeus, a disciple of John and
the associate of Polycarp, (not of the Apostle John, but a presbyter
of the same name,) he was a great collector of the sayings and
sentiments of others. Of Irenaeus we have reason to believe?
that he borrowed his account from Papias. Indeed he expressly
refers to him, and says, " This is recorded by Papias, who was
one of John's hearers, a contemporary of Polycarp, one of the
ancients, in the fourth book of his st.yj'/yifflojv Koyiuv xv^/axuvy' " Ex-
planations of the divine sayings." With regard to Origen,
Eusebius, through whom came his sentiments on this point, as-
serts, that Origen came to the knowledge of it by tradition.
Thus we are not to look upon his opinion as the result of critical
research. Eusebius himself, though he has said in one place that

LECT. XXVI. THE GOSPEL BY MATTHEW. 355

the original text of Matthew was Hebrew, appears, in another
place, to declare the opposite. In his Commentary on the Psalms
he says, " Instead of (^^i/fo^aa/ rr^oBXrifLotra ut' d^x^g)f Matthew,
being a Hebrew, used his own translation, sPiu^o/xai xi/tov/x/Msm drrb
7tara(3oXi^g, " I will utter things hid from the foundation of the
world." Matthew, therefore, deserted the Seventy, and render-
ed the passage differently. In order to reconcile these two con-
flicting statements of the same author, it has been observed by
Hug, that the former was delivered in his capacity of historian
and collector, whilst the latter is his conclusion as a philologist.
Jerome, in the passages quoted from his writings, speaks of the
gospel according to Mattheio, which was circulated among the
Nazarenes and Ebionites, and was used by them alone. This
gospel was also called hayys?JOv x.ar droffroXo-jg and svayyzXiov xccd
'E/3|a/ouj, receiving these various appellations, probably, because
it was modified and altered among the various sects that used it.
The reason why it was generally called the gospel according to
Matthew is, because it resembled, in part, the canonical gospel
of Matthew. Hence, it was actually given out by many who
used it as the authentic copy of Matthew. So Jerome testifies,
(on Matt. xii. 13.) In evangelio quo utuntur Nazareniet Ebio-
nitae, et quod vocatur a plerisque Matthaei authenticum.

This father alone professes to have seen the gospel according
to the Hebrews, or the gospel according to Matthew, and even
translated it from Hebrew into Greek and Latin. ** Evangelium
quoque quod appellator secundum Hebraeos, et a me nuper in
Graecum Latinumque sermonem translatum est." (De viris
illustr. c. 2). " The gospel which is called the gospel according
to the Hebrews, and which I lately translated into the Greek and
Latin languages." Judging by the fragments of it that remain,
it must have differed considerably from the genuine gospel of
Matthew, and have been full of silly and fabulous stories. It
appears, therefore, that the opinion of Matthew's having com-
posed his gospel in Hebrew arose from the circumstance, that the
fathers confounded this spurious gospel, used by the Nazarenes
and Ebionites, and frequently called rh xara Mar^ahv hayysXiov^
with the authentic copy of the apostle himself. This might the
more easily be done, because they heard of it merely by report.
None except Jerome had seen it ; and none except he and
Origen was acquainted with Hebrew^ or could have read it.
It has been remarked also, that Jerome speaks somewhat diffe-

J356 ON THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF LECT. XXVI.

rently, at different times, of the dialect in which it was written.
He usually speaks of it as having been written Hebraeo sermone^
but in the year 415, in his treatise against the Pelagians, (iii. 2),
he writes : In evangelio juxta Hebraeos, quod Chaldaico quidem
Syroque sermone, sed Hebraicis Uteris scriptum est, quo utun-
tur usque hodie Nazareni, secundum apostolos, sive, ut plerique
autumant, juxta Matthaeum, &c. *' In the gospel according to
the Hebrews, which was written in the Syriac and Chaldee
language, but with Hebrew letters, which gospel the Nazarenes
use to the present time, called the gospel according to the Apostles,
or, as most think, according ^0 ikffl^Me?^?," &c. According to this
account, it was composed in the Syro-Chaldaic tongue then pre-
valent in Palestine, although the letters were Hebrew. This
we regard as the most accurate, as it is the most minute descrip-
tion of the dialect in which the gospel in question was written.
Such is the document which an early current tradition attributed
to Matthew, although it was essentially different from the cano-
nical gospel. And, from the one having been confounded with
the other, arose the prevalent report, that Matthew's true gospel
was composed in the Hebrew tongue. The fathers erroneously
ascribed the authorship to Matthew, from the title rh -/.ara Mar-
^iaroc hayy'ikm. The reason why it was so denominated is not
clear. Some suppose that it was the original gospel of Matthew,
written, according to them, in the Hebrew dialect, but mutilated
and altered to correspond with the peculiar opinions of the sects
that used it. Others again imagine, that it was the original
Greek gospel of Matthew translated into Hebrew, and either
interpolated or abridged ; whilst others think, that the apocry-
phal gospel was written by another author than Matthew, but
chiefly in imitation of the canonical one that bears the Apostle's
name, and with many extracts from it. It will be obvious, from
the nature of the thing, that none of these suppositions can be
made certain, but that they are mere conjectures.

We have thus disposed of the ancient tradition, on which so
much stress is laid by the supporters of the Hebrew original of
this gospel. We might have referred to Epiphanius, Chrysos-
tom, Augustine, Isidore of Pelusium, Eutbymius Zygabenus,
Theophylact, Hippolytus, Dorotheus, and the author of the
Synopsis of Sacred Scripture in Athanasius, as witnesses for the
same prevailing tradition. But they are all resolvable into a few
of the early testimonies which we have already noticed. Tiie

LECT. XXVI. THE GOSPEL BY MATTHEW. 357

same view prevailed among the Syrians, as we learn from Asse-
mani. But we have seen that the concurrent testimony of suc-
ceeding writers is chiefly, if not wholly, based on the authority
of Papias ; and we suppose that he was misled by the fact, that
the Nazarenes and Ebionites had a gospel sometimes called the
gospel according to Matthew. I conceive this to be a much more
probable mode of accounting for the language of Papias than that
of Credner, (Einleit. p. 91), following Schleiermacher, who
thinks that Matthew wrote something else relative to our Lord's
sayings, to which, and not to his canonical gospel as we now have it,
Papias refers. De VVette's judgment of this interpretation of the
words of Papias is, that it is ingenious, rather than probable.

It has been objected, however, by De Wette and others, that
the account of Pantaenus is independent of the testimony of
Papias. The passage in which Pantaenus is referred to may be

found in Eusebius, (H. E. v. 10), hg'lvMg 'OJzTv Xgysra/ (

UdvTaivog). "Ev&u Xoyog evos/v dvThv rr^o^QdacLV rr^v dvrov 'xaoovaiav to xard
Mar^aTov ha.yy'ikm^ cra^a r/c/i' axjro&t rh ^pi&tov srsyvcayioaiv oJg Bag^oXo
,aa/bi/ TMV d'TTOdroXuv ha Tiri^v^a/^ d-jroTg ds 'E;3|a/wv y^df^fxagi Tr,v tou Mar-
^a/ou xaraXs/'-vj^a/ y^ucpriv, Mg xal tuiC^sc^ai lig rhv driXov/j^svov yojinv,
*' Pantaenus is said to have gone to India, {i. e. according to
Credner, Southern Arabia), where there is a report that he found
the gospel, according to Matthew, among some who had there
learned Christ, to whom Bartholomew, one of the Apostles,
preached, and left the writing of Matthew in Hebrew letters,"
&c. In like manner Jerome, (De viris illustr. c. 36), Pantaenus

ubi (in India), reperit Bartholomaeum de duodecim

Apostolis adventum Domini nostri lesu Christi juxta Matthaei
evangelium praedicasse, quod hebraicis litteris scriptum, rever-
tens Alexandriam secum detulit; " Where (in India), he found
that Bartholomew, one of the twelve Apostles, had preached the
advent of our Lord Jesus Christ, according to the gospel of
Matthew, which, on his return to Alexandria, he brought with
him written in Hebrew." It is observable that Eusebius does
not give this account of Pantaenus as correct, or on his own
authority. He says, there is a report that Pantaenus did so and
so, &c. We are not, therefore, to suppose that Eusebius him-
self believed the report; he only gives it as a tradition com-
monly circulated, but he does not affirm that it is true. On
the whole we are left to tradition on the subject of the Hebrew
original of Matthew's gospel ; and this tradition rests on the tes-
timony of Papias, who was misled by the spurious gospel and its

358 ON THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF LECT. XXVI.

title. Other arguments, adduced by the advocates of the Hebrew
original, are manifestly weak. Thus the exclusive prevalence of
the Hebrew or Aramaean dialect in Palestine, has been advanced
as an argument. But it has been satisfactorily shewn by Hug, that
ihe Greek language was widely circulated there at the time when
Matthew lived. In point of fact, neither the Greek nor the He-
brew language appears to have exclusively prevailed. Both
were current; and although the Syro-Chaldaic might be regard-
ed as the national language, yet the Greek had obtained such a
footing as to place it nearly on an equality with the Hebrew.
Although, therefore, Matthew may be supposed to have written
his gospel for the use of Jewish readers only, as many affirm, yet
it would not follow that he wrote it in the Aramaean tongue, be-
cause the Jewish Christians were well acquainted with the Greek,
But it is highly probable that he did not address it exclusively to
the Hebrew Christians. Internal evidence warrants this affirma-
tion. Among other particulars, the explanation of Hebrew terms
added by him, would seem to be quite unnecessary for Hebrew
readers. Thus Matthew i. 23, " They shall call his name Em-
manuel, which being intevpreted is, God with us.*' xxvii. 33.
" They came to a place called Golgotha, that is to say, a place oj
a sJiull. So also xxvii. 46, Eli, Eli, lama sabacthani, that is to
say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ?" What
need had a native of Judaea of this explanation ? Other ex-
amples of the same kind might be given, which certainly go to
prove that Matthew did not write exclusively for Jewish readers.
The advocates of the Hebrew original also contend for the pro-
bability of their hypothesis, because Matthew has often departed
from the Septuagint, and given a translation of his own in pas-
sages peculiar to himself. So ii. 6, xv. 18, iv. 15, viii. 17, ix.
13, xii. 18 — 21, xiii. 35, xxi. 4, xxvii. 9, 10. But it has been
also urged in favour of the Greek original of the gospel, that he
has quoted from the Septuagint. So i. 23, xxi. 16, xiii. 14,
15. Here he follows exactly the Greek translation. It appears
then that, like the other evangelists, he has sometimes de-
parted from the Septuagint, and sometimes followed it ; and
therefore no stress can be laid on arguments derived from this
source. With regard to the Hebraisms, by which the gospel is
said to be characterised, nothing can be concluded from them in
favour of a Hebrew original, because the dialect of the New
Testament abounds in such. The diction of the Jewish Chris-
tians is naturally tinctured with such idioms ; and Matthew's

LECT. XXVI. THE GOSPEL BY MATTHEW. 359

gospel is not more strongly marked by them than other parts of
the Greek Testament. But there are probable considerations
that speak in favour of a Greek original. If the gospel were
first written in Hebrew, then we have only a version. In one
book of the New Testament, we are merely in possession of a
translation made from the original Syro-Chaldaic. And who
made this version ? what is its character for faithfulness ? has it
been corrupted by unskilful hands ? These, and like questions
must suggest themselves to the mind ; and we are in complete
ignorance as to the important points they imply. We know not
by whom the version was made, by what authority it was issued,
or whether it be faithful to the original. Theophylact indeed says
that John rendered it out of the Hebrew into Greek, but little
credit is to be given to this assertion, when Jerome and Eusebius
profess their ignorance of the translator. Certainly the style dif-
fers widely from that of John, both in his gospel and epistles. It
resembles Mark's most nearly. The author of the Synopsis Sa-
crae Scripturae^ in Athanasius' works, says that it was interpreted
by James, the brother of the Lord, according to the flesh.
Anastasius Sinaita affirms that Luke and Paul translated it
into Greek. From the discordant nature of these accounts, and
the late times in which their authors lived, we are warranted to
infer that the translator was wholly unknown, although it is ma-
nifest that they wished to assign to the Greek gospel as high and
ancient authority as possible. Hence Apostles were selected for
its authors. If Jerome, in the fourth century, did not know who
the translator was, how could ecclesiastical writers that lived
long afterwards, and possessed few facilities for ascertaining the
truth, obtain correct information on the point ? At one time of
his life, this learned father coincided with the current tradition,
but afterwards, towards the close of his life, (a.d. 415), he aban-
doned it. At all events, he speaks of it in a different manner at
different times. Who does not perceive that the supposition of
our having merely a version of St. Matthew's gospel is deroga-
tory to the supreme authority of Scripture, and dishonouring to
the God from whom it proceeded ? According to this hypothesis,
an inspired gospel has been lost, so that no trace of it can be dis-
covered. Is it not strange that the Almighty would inspire Mat-
thew to write a history of our Lord in the Syro-Chaldaic tongue,
and suffer it afterwards to pass into oblivion and to be superseded
by a version ? This is cpntrary to his mode of acting in reference

360 ON THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF LECT. XXVI,

to all Other parts of His revelation ; and we should therefore pause
before we adopt a hypothesis contradicted by all analogy, and fa-
voured by no historical fact. Of the opinion of Guerike (Beitr.
zu hist-krit Einleitung ins. N. T. p. 86, &c.) Schott, Olshausen,
Townson, Whitby, Benson, Hales, Bloomfield, and others, who
suppose Matthew to have written two originals, one in Hebrew
and the other in Greek, it may be remarked, that its origin is
evidently to be attributed to the supposed difficulties on both
sides of the question, which it was invented to reconcile. It long
ao-o suggested itself to Schwarz, and after him to Bengelius, who
conjectured that Matthew may have written both in Hebrew and
in Greek. But it is liable to the objection already urged against
the Hebrew original alone^ for it implies, that something written
by inspiration was immediately lost beyond the possibility of dis-
covery. But the superintendence of that Jehovah who has watch-
ed over all the parts of his revelation with unceasing care is here
forgotten. No portion of Scripture can be regarded as now lost,
without in some sense attributing to God an unnecessary employ-
ment of means. We reject, therefore, this theory, no less than
that which attributes a Hebrew original to this gospel. It is an
awkward and arbitrary mode of uniting two different opinions, one
or other of which must alone be true. It will not suffice thus to
evade the difficulties of the arguments on both sides of the ques-
tion. And it is also uncalled for. We see no insuperable objec-
tion to the Greek original of Matthew* It is, in our mind, the
only hypothesis that can be admitted. It cannot be believed that
we now possess merely a translation of this gospel ; for such a sen-
timent would lessen its authority and detract from the reverence
due to the inspired words of God. Other considerations might
be urged against a Hebrew original. Thus we might allege,
that in the Christian church the authentic Hebrew copy was
never used. If the early Christians really believed that the
Greek was a version from the Hebrew, surely they would not
have preferred it when they had access to the true original The
fact that the Hebrew fell so soon into oblivion, shews, that the
Greek one was reckoned superior to it by the early Christians.
Is it probable then that the whole Christian church exalted the
Greek copy above the Hebrew, believing at the same time that
the former was only a version. We might also adduce the
circumstance, that the old Syriac version was made from the
Greek, as a proof that it was considered authentic rather than

I.ECT. XXVI. THE GOSPEL BY .AIATTHEW. 36 1

the Hebrew. And when we consider, that Jerome expressly
says, that it was written in the Syro-Chaldaic idiom, and not the
Hebrew, we are led to conclude that the Syriac would have been
taken from it, as being written in a similar dialect. But the
arguments advanced above are sufficient to shew, that the notion
of a Hebrew gospel by Matthew originated in a vagjie report,
and that it cannot be supported even by ancient historical testi-
mony.

Since writing the above, the recent work of Mr. Norton on
the Gospels has come into my hands, in one of the notes to
which he advocates the opinion, that the gospel of Matthew was
originally written in Hebrew. Besides referring to the testi-
mony of Christian antiquity which we have already considered,
he says, that the Hebrew original of Matthew's gospel was in
common use (either in a pure or corrupt form) among Jewish
Christians. These Jewish Christians generally were considered,
even in the second century, as heretics, and denominated Ebion-
ites. In the fourth century, Epiphanius divides the Hebrew
Christians into Ebionites and Nazarenes, both of whom, accord-
ing to Mr. Norton, had the original Hebrew gospel of Matthew.

There are, as it appears to me, several errors committed by
Mr. Norton, which I now proceed to point out.

1st.* He believes that the gospel of the Hebrews was the ori-
ginal Hebrew gospel of Matthew himself. This also appears to
have been the belief of most of the fathers, who have had occa-
sion to mention such a document. We are to remember, how-
ever, that none of them actually said it except Jerome, who,
though he shared the prevailing opinion at one time, seems, at a
later period, to have distinguished them as different productions.
Hence he writes, in the year 415, «' evangelium juxta Hebraeos,
sive, utplerique autumant, (not, ut ego autumo) juxta Matthseum."
Now the gospel of the Hebrews, of which Jerome speaks, had
been translated out of the Greek into Aramaean. This is prov-
ed by the mistake ^iJll'l 'I!! (filius magistri eorum), the son of

their master, as a translation of the proper name BaPot^(3ag.
Jerome, on Matthew xxvii. 16, informs us, that this interpreta-
tion was found in the Hebrew gospel. Thus the translator mis-
took the etymology of the word, not knowing that Bu^a^iSag is
simply ^3J^ -)3, son of the father, A Hebrew, writing his na-
tive dialect, could hardly have fallen into such a blunder ; it isj

362 ON THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF LECT. XXVI.

therefore, to be attributed to a translator. Whoever wishes for
full satisfaction on this point may refer to Credner's Beitrdge
zur Einleitung in die hibllschen Schriften, vol. i. pp. 845, 405,
455, &c. If, then, it had been the authentic Hebrew gospel of
Matthew, why should it have been translated out of its original
language into Greek, and then retranslated. On Mr. Norton's
supposition this is altogether inexplicable. We are rather led to
believe, that the gospel of Matthew in Greek had been made the
ground-work of the other, which some person or persons trans-
lated, enlarging and mutilating it according to their theological
notions. The fact of its having been rendered from the Greek
would seem at least to favour this supposition.

2d. It is assumed by Mr. Norton and others, that the quota-
tions given by Epiphanius from the gospel used by the Ebi-
onites, were drawn from the very same document as that men-
tioned by Jerome under the appellation oi the gospel of the Hebrews,
This would seem to be destitute of a solid foundation. It is true
that Epiphanius says, that the Ebionites had a gospel among
them which they called according to Matthew, or according to the
Hebreics, from which he professes to give quotations; but its text
was Greek, not Aramaean. This is evident from the alteration
of dx^idsg, locusts, into lyx^thg, which Epiphanius tells us was in
the copy of the Ebionites. I will not deny that the production
in the hands of the Ebionites may have been originally the same
as that so often mentioned by Jerome, but, in that case, it must
have been greatly changed. It would rather appear that Epi-
phanius derived his quotations from some Ebionitish writing,
perhaps from some document consisting of a collection of differ-
ent passages from the gospels. The text of it, so far as we are
able to judge from the specimens given, was as nearly allied to
Luke's as Matthew's gospel, and it was certainly different from
the text of the gospel referred to by Jerome. Compare the two
passages that follow, quoted by Jerome and Epiphanius, which
we would have expected to coincide, if both had taken them
from the same gospel of the Hebreios. Jerome on Isaiah xi. 1,
quotes these words relating to the baptism of Christ, " Factum
est autem, quum ascendisset Dominus de aqua, descendit fons
omnis spiritus sancti, et requievit super eum, et dixit illi :
Fill mi, in omnibus prophetis expectabam te, ut venires, et re-
quiescerem in te. Tu es enim requies mea, tu es filius mens
primogenitus, qui regnas in sempiternum. ^« And it came to

LECT. XXVI. THE GOSPEL BY MATTHEW. 363

pass when the Lord had gone up out of the water, that every
fountain of the divine spirit descended and rested upon him, and
said to him, my son, in all the prophets I was expecting thee,
that thou mightest come, and that I might rest in thee. For
thou art my rest, thou art my first begotten son, who reignest
for ever." Epiphanius haeres. xxx. § 13, relates that the follow-
ing words were found in the gospel of the Ebionites. Kal ug
dvr,Xdsv d'70 rod udarog, ^jvo/y^ffav 6i ovpuvoi xat sTds rb crvgD/xa rov ^£oD rb
ayiov sv eldsi 'TTi^ierssag 7ia,rsXdovffr}g xa/ nffsXdoucrig sig uvrbv, Kai (puiyi
sysvsro l>c rov bv^avov Xsyovca. ff-j /lov il 6 v/6g 6 dyaTTirbg sv ffol ivdoxvjffoi.
Ka/ <7rdXiv syu a^fjbspov ysysvvTjTca ffs. Ka? ro^vg 'Trs^isXa/x-^s rbv ro'xov (pug fisya,
" Ov id(Jjv, <pr}ffiVi b 'ludvvrjg "Ksysi avruj Gu rig il Kv^ts ; Ka/ craX/v (puvrj sP
ov^avou 'TT^bg dvrov, oOrbg hriv 6 biog /xou 6 dya'Jtrirbgy s<p' ov svdoxrjga. Ka/ rors
(pr}<riv 6 'lMd)ivr}g 'raga'rs(r&/v dvruj sXiyi- dso/xal gov Ku^/g ffv fis (Sd'Trriffov.
'O ds sxujXvsv ccvru), Ksyuv a,<pzg, on ovrug sffr) t^stov 'TrXyjDOjdi^mi rrdvra,
" And when he came up from the water, the heavens were open-
ed, and he saw the holy spirit of God, in the form of a dove, de-
scending and entering into him. And there was a voice from
heaven, saying, thou art my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased.
And again, this day I have begotten thee : and immediately a
great light shone about the place. And when John saw him, he
said to him, who art thou Lord ? and again a voice came to him
from heaven, this is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased.
Then John falling down before him, said, I beseech thee. Lord,
baptise me. But he forbad him, saying, suffer it, for it is
meet that all things should be thus fulfilled." Should it be said
by any one that the Ebionites had a Greek translation of the gos-
pel of the Hebrews, and that they added to it or mutilated it, as
suited their fancy or their prejudice, he may not, perhaps, be far
from the truth.

3d. I must protest against the conclusion of Mr. Norton, viz.
that if the true gospel of Matthew and the gospel of the Hebrews
coincided with each other in far the greater part of their con-
tents, there is no reason for any other inference than that
this gospel was, in its primitive state, the work of Matthew. I
see room for another conclusion, quite as probable, if not much
more so than that of Mr. Norton. Might not the gospel
of the Hebrews have been founded on Matthew's Greek ori-
ginal, and translated from it ? The Hebrew Christians muti-
lated, and corrupted it, but still it bore a considerable resemblance
to Matthew's own work. Mr. Norton makes no distinction be-

364 ON THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF LECT. XXVI.

tween the mode in which Jerome speaks at different times of the
gospel of the Hebrews, a point which appears to me of some im-
portance in the argument. It is quite probable, as I have al-
ready said, that he agreed at one time with the current report ;
but, when he actually inspected and examined the gospel, he saw
reason to change his opinion, and to employ a different phraseo-
logy. It is certain that the gospel of the Hebrews w^as regarded
as spurious (vo^ov) by Origen and Eusebius. See Orig. comm. in
Johann. IV. p. 63, ed. La Rue; Euseb. Hist, Ecc HI. 25.
Now, if it be true that the greater part of it was in the style of
Matthew, as Mr. "Norton, affirms, it is questionable whether it
would have been rejected as spurious by these two writers. " It
is possible," says Mr. Norton, " that other copies, even in the
fourth century, approached much nearer to the text of Matthew."
If this be correct, how could the gospel have been set aside in
this way by any one ? If it had only received a few interpola-
tions, it did not deserve to be branded with such an epithet. It
was yv^gtoi with some additions and mutilations.

4thly, Jerome translated the gospel according to the Hebrews in-
to Greek and Latin. So he himself informs us, (De viris illustr. ch.
2.) About the same time, most probably in the same year, (392),
he writes that the Hebrew original of Matthew's gospel " is still
most carefully preserved until this day in the library of Caesarea,
which was formed by Pamphilus the martyr, and I obtained leave
to transcribe the work, from the Nazarenes of Beroea, in Syria, by
whom it is used," In the same passage Jerome expressly affirms
" that it was uncertain by whom it was translated into Greek."
It had therefore been circulated before in the Greek language,
and had been translated by an unknown hand. Jerome under-
took to translate it into Greek again, as also into Latin. Was
not this a superfluous task in respect to the Greek translation ?
What could have been his motive for rendering it again into
Greek, when he believed that the Hebrew was the authen-
tic copy ? Besides, he adhered to the Greek copy which
was circulated before his time, for he merely revised the La-
tin translation of it already existing, which version agrees with
our present Greek Matthew. In correcting the old Italic,
he made no use of the authentic Hebrew, but simply of the
Greek. Does not this argue that he preferred the present Greek
Matthew to the gospel of the Hebrews, which differed consider-
ably in his day ? How comes it to pass, too, that Jerome, in his

LECT. XXVI. THE GOSPEL BY MATTHEW. 365

Commentary on Matthew, never quotes the authentic Hebrew
text, as tending to explain ambiguous and difficult places ? And
not only did Jerome reject the authority of the gospel of the
Hebrews, but we might also argue that Origen did not look upon
it as Matthew's own. This we infer from his language, as pre-
served in the old Latin translation. '' Scriptum est in evangelio
quodam, quod dicitur secundum Hebraeos, si tamen placet alicui
suscipere illud non ad autoritatem, sed ad manifestationem pro- -
positse qusestionis." The phrase evangelio quodam, leads us to be-
lieve that he did not look upon it as the true gospel of Matthew.
Besides, he does not ask that it should be received as authoritative,
but as illustrative of the question proposed'

The attempt to identify the gospel of the Hebrews with the
original Hebrew gospel of Matthew, appears to me to be utterly
unsuccessful. If most of the fathers believed it by report, why
should we hesitate to reject their opinion when there are good
grounds for doing so ? They knew little or nothing of the gos-
pel of the Hebrews ; and they were not able to read it. How then
could they disprove the pretensions of the Hebrew Christians
who gave it out as the authentic production of Matthew, espe-
cially as it resembled in many respects the Greek one in their
own hands ? I cannot believe that we are only in possession of
a version made by an unknown person. It has none of the
characteristics of a version, but all the marks of an original.
All versions partake of the fallibility of their authors. Unless
they are inspired, how then can there be sufficient confi-
dence in them as Scripture ? If Matthew did not write in
Greek, how do we know that the translator has not fallen into
gross mistakes ? How shall we disprove the bold assertions of
Bolten, Eichhorn, and Bertholdt, respecting the actual errors
which the translator committed ? How shall we demonstrate the
fallacy of the manner in which they have proceeded, when en-
deavouring to point out, with bold and arbitrary assumptions, the
mistakes of the translator ?

Dr. Bloomfield, who affirms that a " Hebrew original is de-
manded by the evidence of antiquity," says, that it *' had become
obsolete before even the earliest of the versions was formed."
It is quite true that all the versions extant, the Latin, Syriac,
Coptic, Armenian, and iEthiopic, follow the Greek, not the sup-
posed Hebrew original. But how can Dr. Bloomfield, on the
evidence of antiquity, hold the belief of a Hebrew original, and

366 ON THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF LECT. XXVI.

the fact of its having become obsolete in the first century, at one
and the same time, when the evidence of antiquity shows, that
the Hebrew original was preserved by the Hebrew Christians ?
The same historical testimony, which goes to prove, that Matthew
wrote a Hebrew gospel, also proves that it was preserved among
the Jewish Christians. It is impossible to separate the two parts
of the testimony borne by early writers respecting the existence
of the Hebrew gospel of Matthew, and its preservation among a
certain sect. If we reject that portion of the evidence which
testifies that Matthew's gospel was preserved by the Jewish
Christians till the fifth century, we ought also to cast away the
other portion of the evidence, which affirms that there was an
authentic Hebrew gospel of the Apostle. I see no reason what-
ever for taking asunder the united testimony of antiquity. If I
believed that Matthew composed a Hebrew gospel, I would also
hold that it was in the hands of the Hebrew Christians, because
both rest on the same historical basis. Mr. Norton is quite con-
sistent in believing both. Dr. Bloomfield is not so. But I con-
ceive that the fathers were mistaken or misled in both. They
trusted, in a great degree, to mere report, that Matthew had
written a Hebrew gospel; and they were deceived by certain
heretics, who gave out that they were in possession of the
original document of the Apostle. They listened to the Naza-
renes, who boasted that they actually had in their hands the
authentic gospel, when it is certain that the Nazarenes were not
worthy of credit; for, according to Epiphanius, they had the
effrontery to substitute apocryphal gospels of James and John in
place of their authentic writings, and to give them out as the real
productions of the Apostles.

Dr. Bloomfield says, that a Hebrew gospel " is in itself very
probable, for a Hebrew gospel must, in the first age of Christi-
anity, (when almost confined to Judaea), have been as requisite
as a Greek one was afterwards." Surely Dr. Bloomfield is not
ignorant of the fact, that both the Greek and Hebrew languages
were current in Palestine at the commencement of Christianity,
and that the former was understood by the Jews, having been
learned by them from daily intercourse with the Greek-speaking
population.

Another part of the New Testament supposed by some to
have been originally written in Hebrew, is the Epistle to the He-
hrews. The majority of the Greek fathers, and some of the

LECT. XXVf. THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 367

Latins, as Jerome and Augustine, were of this opinion. Hence
we find Clement of Alexandria in Eusebius vi. 14, and Eusebius
himself, favourable to this hypothesis. According to the former
Luke translated it into Greek. It has also been adopted by
Michaelis and a few others in modern times. We cannot, how-
ever, assent to it, though recommended by the authority of some
respectable and learned names. It rests on a foundation that
can hardly be supported, viz. that the Hebrews understood the
Syro-Chaldaic only ; and that the style is unlike that of Paul's
acknowledged epistles. We know that Aramaean was the ver-
nacular language of the Palestine Jews ; but it is indisputably
certain that the Greek language was also current there, and un-
derstood by the Jews. From their intercourse with the Greek-
speaking population, they must have learned their language by
conversation. Although, therefore, the epistle was addressed
particularly to the Hebrew Christians in Palestine, yet it would
have been intelligible to them in Greek. In relation to style, it
might be shewn, that there is no room for believing that the
epistle did not proceed from Paul. Different subjects require to
be treated in a different style ; and there is no greater discre-
pancy between the style of this epistle and that of others univer-
sally attributed to him, than between his pastoral and other
epistles. (See Stuart's Notes on Hug). We believe, then, that
there was no exception made in this case with regard to the lan-
guage of the New Testament. Like all other parts of it, this
epistle was originally written in the Greek language, at that
time the best known, and the most widely diffused. There are,
moreover, strong internal proofs for the Greek original of the
epistle, which we need not adduce in this place. There are, 1st.
The purity of the language, which instead of having the air of a
translation, has the flowing character of an original. 2d. The
Septuagint is quoted rather than the Hebrew, even where it de-
viates from the original, as in x. 5, and many other places. It
would appear, indeed, that with the exception of x. 30, all the
citations in the epistle correspond much more nearly with the
Septuagint than the Hebrew. 8d. There are paronomasias
which could not have been accidental, such as v. 8 ; ix. 10; xi.
37, &c. Other arguments which go to establish the same thing
might be mentioned, but I do not design to discuss the question
at length. It has been very ably handled by Professor Stuart in
his Commentary on the Epistle, to which I would refer all that

368 ON THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE, &C. LECT. XXVI.

wish to enter into its literary history. With this they ought to
unite the work of Bleek ( Versuch einer vollstandigen Einleitung
in den Briefe. Berlin 1828,) " A complete introduction to the
Epistle to the Hebrews attempted by F. Bleek," and the part of
Credner's Introduction to the New Testament relating to the
subject, § 188, &c. Nor should the recent work of Mr. Forster,
entitled " The Apostolical authority of the epistle to the Hebrews,
&c.," London 1838, be overlooked, where both the external and
internal proofs of the Pauline origin are adduced with great mi-
nuteness and triumphant success. There appears then to have
been no translator, such as Luke, or Barnabas, or Clement of
Rome. We may also remark, that some have put forth a hypo-
thesis relative to this epistle, similar to that proposed regarding
the original language of Matthew's gospel, viz. that it was writ-
ten by the author both in Greek and Hebrew. This is the view
of Dr. Bloomfield, (Greek Testament, second edition) who thinks
also that the Greek preceded the Hebrew, both, however, being
originals. I deem it superfluous to quote his words, as I pre-
sume that his valuable edition of the Greek Testament is in the
hands of every student. But I would simply observe, that there
are no data to support his conjecture. He makes a gratuitous
assumption for the sake of removing difficulties of imaginary
magnitude. An arbitrary hypothesis has been resorted to for
the purpose of reconciling conflicting testimony. But the ancient
historical testimony in favour of a Hebrew original is scarcely
entitled to any weight. Clement of Alexandria seems first to
have hazarded the conjecture^ that it may have been originally
written in Hebrew, and translated into the Greek by a friend of
the Apostle, perhaps by Luke. In this he was followed without
examination by Eusebius, Theodoret, Euthalius, and other distin-
guished men of the Greek church, until it became the prevailing
opinion of that church. The speculative Origen considered, that
the thoughts proceeded from the apostle, while the words or die-
tion belonged to some other person, to Luke or Clement of Rome.
In our view this is highly improbable. The same objections He
against it as those, already mentioned against Matthew's gospel
with two supposed originals. It would therefore be superfluous
to repeat them here.

SUPPLEMENTARY OBSERVATIONS.

The perusal of Mr. Norton's book on the Gospels, (which ar-
rived after the greater part of the MS. was in the hands of the
printer), has induced me to offer a few additional remarks, sug-
gested by, or in answer to his statements. I shall also take the
present opportunity to refer to one or two other writers, and thus
amplify my discussion of some points which, in the opinion of
some, may have been too hastily dismissed.

JOHN VII. 53. VHI. 11.

I do not think it proper to omit what has been adduced by Dr
Credner as internal evidence against this portion, and therefore
I give the following from his Introduction, (page 230). vii. 59,
Ivo^i-jdr,: the Apostle's expression is dTriXdiv. The latter is found
in many MSS. t6v oJy.ov. John, roc 7dia. So codex 69. Chapter
viii. 1, ds. compare verses 2, 3, ,5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11. This frequent
use of the particle is not in the style of John, s-o^ivdr, hg to opog ;
John dvi^K^sv or dvs^djorjGsv ilgrh ooog, vi. 3, 15. o^og tcov IXaiciv, is a
arag Xiy6(Mivov. viii. 2, oo&oo\). d. X. John 'rr^oot or 'Tsojiag yivo/MsvTjg.
xviii. 28 ; xx. 1 ; xxi. 4. rra^iyivsTo. d. X. John dvs(3y} sJg TO h^ov,
vii. 14, or spyjff&ai sig, iv. 5, 45, 46; vi. 24. Trdg o Xaog, John
6 oyXog yiiX^ro, John rjXdev. nadiffag sdldaffTiiv dvTovg- Neither the first
nor the last of these three words is usual in John. Compare vii.
14, 28 ; viii. 20 ; xviii. 20. viii. 3, 6/ ypa/j.fiaTeTg. d. X. iMor/iia, d, X.
xars/XTj/x.asvjjvisused in a signification foreign to the Apostle's man-
ner. See i. 5; xii.35; viii. 4, li'/Asffo.;. JohnJ/^ro/Astf&i/.xx. 19, 26. auro-
^<*J§({}, d. X. /jtOi^suo/Msvri. d. X. viii. 5, s'JSTsiXaTOf John yiypa-TTTai, 'iyoa-^zvi
>ysy§afifisvov laTt. rj/nTv IviTslXaro ; John puts the the pronoun in such
a case as this after the verb. vi. 32; vii. 19; xiv. 31 ; xv. 17,

2 B

370 SUPPLEMENTARY OBSERVATIONS.

&c. Xi6o(BoXsT6&ai ; John X/^a^g/v, as is here also in many MSS.
viii. 6, gy^apsv, compare ii. 8, 9. This use of the imperfect is
strange to John. viii. 7, s'^rsfMivov h^(^ru\irig, a. X. dm^tMd^rrjrog, a. X.
viii. 9, 6vviidrictg, d. X. d^^diMivoi, pleonastically, no where else in
John. Compare xiii. 15. hxdrojv does not form a proper anti-
thesis to 'TTOiG^urhctiv. 7toLriKii(p&n «• ^' John diplsffdai. h [liffu) zffrojffcc
or ojtfa ; for this John would have said fMsari \<sr. or oucra, compare
i. 26; xix. 18. '^'kr^v^ a. X. John g/ ^jj. xarspt^/i/sv, John uses only
%gintv.

Into the examination of these words and modes of expression
I do not think it necessary to enter with minuteness. Let it be
observed that they are not impeached as bad Greek, but as foreign
to the diction and idiom of the Apostle. What good reason can
be assigned for confining the inspired writer to the same routine
of words ? Did the Holy Spirit thus trammel his mind ? He
did not. Even under the guidance of the Spirit, the author was
at liberty to employ a variety of expressions. I request the
reader to consult the remarks made on the conclusion of Mark's
gospel, which Credner treats in the same way as this portion,
and he will find that the first, second, and third observations ap-
ply with equal force in this case. They need not, therefore, be
twice written.

ON THE FIRST TWO CHAPTERS OF MATTHEW'S GOSPEL.

I am truly grieved, though not astonished, to see that these
chapters are rejected by Norton. I had hoped better things of
this writer, notwithstanding his Unitarianism. It is partly, I
conceive, owing to his theological creed, and partly to his be-
lief in the Hebrew original of Matthew, that he has stigmatised
this portion of the Greek gospel. And yet, to me at least, his
reasons are most unsatisfactory. Most of them are not novel,
though put forward in a new and plausible connexion of argu-
mentation. In the 26th lecture, I have endeavoured to prove,
that the gospel of Matthew was not written originally in Hebrew,
but in Greek ; and if this be correct, Mr. Norton's argument
must at once be abandoned, for he allows that the first two chap-
ters have always made a part of our Greek translation, as he calls
it. If, therefore, the Greek was the original and not a version,
it follows, as a necessary consequence, that the chapters in

SUPPLEMENTARY OBSERVATIONS. 371

question are genuine. Mr. Norton affirms that " a portion of
the copies of Matthew's gospel, used by the Hebrew Christians,
did not contain the chapters in question. This is affirmed by
Epiphanius, and the truth of his statement is established by the
testimony of preceding writers of higher authority, Justin Martyr,
Irenaeus, Origen, and Eusebius, according to whom one part of
the Jewish Christians did not believe the miraculous conception."
I have already stated my belief that the Hebrew Christians did
not possess the genuine gospel of Matthew, but an apocryphal
one. I am glad to find that Mr. Norton does not contend, as
some of his Unitarian brethren in England have done, that the
copy in the hands of the Nazarenes wanted the two chapters.
It is pretty certain that the Nazarene copy contained the sub-
stance at least of these chapters, and that this sect believed in the
miraculous conception of Christ. Bishop Marsh, in his Notes to
Michaelis' Introduction, and Archbishop Laurence, in his Stric-
tures on the Improved Version, have clearly shewn this ; and
Mr. Bevan repeated, with additions, the sum of their arguments.
The Ebionites, to whom alone Mr. Norton refers, took away the
genealogy from Matthew, and, accordingly, began their gospel
with these words. It came to pass in tke days of Herod King of
Judea^ &c. So testifies Epiphanius. But it is evident from what
this father says in another place, that he did not regard this
Jewish sect as possessing the original gospel of Matthew, for he
writes, " In that gospel which they (the Ebionites) have called
the gospel according to St. Matthew, which is not entire and per-
feet, but corrupted and curtailed, and which they call the Hebrew
Gospel, it is written, &c." Thus Epiphanius affirms that it was
an imperfect, spurious, and mutilated copy which the Ebionites
had. Besides, in order to be consistent, if we reject the first
two chapters, because the Ebionites did not receive them, as be-
ing contrary to their disbelief of the miraculous conception, we
ought also to reject the prophetical writings, and almost the whole
of the Old Testament, for the same father asserts, that they ex-
punged from the canon of the Old Testament the greater part of
the books. Is Mr. Norton prepared for this ? We do not believe
that he is.

Mr. Norton then compares the genealogy as given by Mat-
thew with that given by Luke, in order to show that they are
irreconcileable with one another. There is certainly great diffi-
culty in proving that both are completely harmonious. The

372 SUPPLEMENTARY OBSERVATIONS.

various attempts that have been made are of doubtful character.
Even Dr. Barret's mode is liable to serious objections. But it
is impossible to believe that a genealogy could have been forged
and received by so many as true and accurate ; for the enemies of
the Messiah would not have failed to expose the spuriousness of
pretended genealogies. The accuracy of the two genealogical
tables was always admitted by the church from the earliest
period ; and although it was found no easy matter to reconcile
them, yet their truth was never questioned except by a few here-
tics who cared little for the authority of Scripture. Mr. Norton
rejects the genealogy given by Matthew, because in his opinion
it is irreconcileable with that of Luke; but surely the difficulty of
harmonising two portions of Scripture should not be considered
as a sufficient warrant to reject one or other of them. Ought
our ignorance to be thus presuming ? Should we not hesitate
and distrust our judgment ? Should we not pray for farther
knowledge, and patiently wait till light be shed on the subject?
Not so, according to Mr. Norton. Because no explanation hither-
to proposed appears to him satisfactory, he concludes that the
two portions are irreconcileable, and that one of them is spurious.
As to the original source of the account of Luke of which he
speaks, we must say that he is extremely unhappy in his con-
jecture. He traces it to the mother and family of Jesus. Con-
sidering Christ to have been a mere man this is natural ; but we
trace it at once and directly to the Divine Spirit. We believe
in inspiration ; Mr. Norton, as far as we can judge, does not.
Alas that Socinianism should so pervert the mind, as to lead it
to reject the inspired statements of Scripture with the same faci-
lity as the narratives of ordinary men. It is not necessary to
follow this writer in his argumentations, if such they may be
called, when he attempts to show the discrepance between the
account of the nativity, as contained in the two chapters under
review, and the account given by Luke. He simply makes out,
that in the two narratives, as compared with one another, various
circumstances not found in both are related. Mark gives some
particulars not found in Luke, whilst the latter details several
things not mentioned by Matthew. Here there is no contradic-
tion. Expositors are not agreed whether the visit of the Magi
took place before the infant was presented before the Lord in
Jerusalem, or after that event; some, as Storr, maintaining the
former, others, as Kuinoel, the latter, but this does not show that

SUPPLEMENTARY OBSERVATIONS. 373

the two narratives of Matthew and Luke are irreconcileable. I
will not quote Mr. Norton's observations respecting the visit of
the Magi. They are quite offensive to piety. To describe the
story as a strange mixture of astrology and miracle, is sufficiently
adventurous. It is worse than useless to attempt to convince of
his error an individual who thus pronounces upon a part of the
sacred narrative. It is folly to reason with pure neologianism.
Compare the observations of Mr. Norton on this point, with
what Fritzsche advances on his Commentary on Matthew, and
you will see a great similarity. Fritzsche, be it observed, is a
thorough neologist. " Unto their assembly mine honour be not
thou united.'*

But " if we reject the two chapters," continues our authorj
" a difficulty arises ; as the original Hebrew gospel could not
have commenced with the first words of the third chapter ; ' But
in those days.' The difficulty, however, is removed by con-
sidering that these words may have been added as a form of
transition to a new subject, when the two chapters were blended
with the gospel, and that the gospel may originally have begun
with the words that follow : ' John the Baptist came preaching
in the wilderness of Judea ;' that is, in a manner corresponding
to the bommencement of Mark's gospel. Or, the first words
may originally have been : ' In the days of Herod, meaning
Herod the tetrarch of Galilee, which supposition is countenanced
by a story of Epiphanius, that the gospel of the Ebionites began,
— •' In the days of Herod, king of Judea^ — the addition of which
last words, king of Judea ^ seems to have been a blunder of his
own." Such are the straits to which he is reduced, and such the
conjectures to which he resorts, to support a hypothesis resting
on sand.

" But the commencement of the third chapter, — * In those
days,' — presents a more serious difficulty upon the supposition,
that what precedes was written by Matthew. The last events
mentioned at the close of the second chapter are the accession of
Archelaus as ruler of Judea, and Joseph's going to reside at Na-
zareth. But it was not in the time of those events, it was not
* in those days,' on the contrary, it was about thirty years
afterward, that John the Baptist was preaching in the wilder-
ness of Judea."

In this I perceive no " serious difficulty." The expression
referred to means, that time generally, not restricted to any li-

3^4 SUPPLEMENTARY OBSERVATIONS.

mited or short period. About that time, would express the same
idea as the phrase in question. The childhood and youth of the
Saviour are passed over ; and the narrative proceeds to describe
his entrance on his public ministry. The term hiJ^^ni frequently
means time in the New Testament. See particularly Mark xiii.
24, where the same phrase occurs. " In those days," means
about that period of time, without necessarily implying that there
was only the interval of a few days between the event last men-
tioned and the transaction ushered in by the phraseology in ques-
tion. I may add, that it is the manner of Matthew not to mark
time precisely, but to employ vague designations, such as rors and
the present phrase. This is a peculiarity of his diction which no
accurate reader can fail to notice. Credner has specified it with
his wonted minuteness, (Einleit. p. 96.) but he makes such a use
of it as is highly objectionable.

I have thus glanced at the objections urged by Norton against
the commencing chapters of Matthew. When writing the Lec-
ture relating to them, I did not think it at all probable that so
large a portion of the New Testament would be again stigma-
tised in England, or attacked in America. The castigations ad-
ministered to the editors of the Improved Version, together with
Evanson and Pope, by Laurence, Nares, Magee, Bevan, and
others, had induced me to believe, that such a course would be
left to the speculatists of Germany. But it has not so happened.
Mr. Norton has deteriorated his otherwise excellent book on the
Gospels by several unsatisfactory notes, to one of which we have
been adverting. Henceforward let no critic. Unitarian, Neolo-
gian, or Orthodox, venture to impugn these chapters. Let them
remain undisturbed in the rightful possession of the place they
have so long occupied, and which we believe them to have re-
ceived from the Divine Spirit. Let no irreverent scholar rudely
attempt to expunge them from their sacred position, lest haply
he be found to fight against God.

MARK XVI. VERSES 9 20.

Mr. Norton has lately endeavoured to disprove the authenti-
city of this passage ; and it may be worth while to refer briefly to
his arguments, in connection with those of Credner on the same
side of the question. The true state of the evidence, which is

SUP PLEMENTARY OBSERVATIONS,

,175

rather cursorily and imperfectly developed in the 17th Lecture,
is, that the verses are wanting in B, and that in L, after the
eighth verse, it is said, the foUoicing also is extant, which words
precede a short conclusion undoubtedly spurious. Then follow
the words, this also is extant ; after which come the twelve verses
in question. In more than forty other MSS. they are accom-
panied by various remarks, some of which are favourable to their
genuineness, others not so. Two codices have them noted with
an asterisk. In all others they are contained without any re-
mark,

2d. In addition to the Armenian version, in the MSS. of
which they are wanting, they are also absent from the copy of
an Arabic version preserved in the Vatican library.

3d. The most important witnesses against the portion under
review are Eusebius, according to whom almost all the copies of
Mark's gospel, including the most accurate, ended with what is
now the eighth verse; Gregory of Nyssa, and Jerome. The
testimonies of Victor of Antioch, (5th century), Severus of An-
tioch, (6th century), and Euthymius Zigabenus, (1 2th century),
are dependent on those just quoted, and, with the greatest proba-
bility, may be resolved into them. These writers simply repeat
what Eusebius said, without implying their own belief in the
spuriousness of the place. On the contrary, Victor expresses his
belief in its genuineness, saying, that it was found in the greater
number of accurate copies.

Credner and Norton account for the insertion of the passage,
in almost all our MSS., by the following remark of Eusebius,
" Others, not daring to reject anything whatever that is extant,
through any circumstance, in the manuscripts of the gospels, say
that there is here a double reading, as in many other places, and
that both are to be received, because the faithful and pious will
not undertake to decide in favour of one rather than the other.'*
Quaestiones ad Marinum.

This does not go to the root of the matter. It does not ex-
plain why the passage was at first added to the gospel. It
leaves the point untouched, how it came to pass that so long a
portion should be joined to the genuine gospel, even as early as
the time of Irenaeus. The remark may partly explain its reten-
tion in many codices after having been introduced ; but it will
not account for its original insertion in some. Why was a pas-
sage of such length at first added ? When Mr. Norton argues
that the apparent discrepance between the 9th verse, and Matt.

,376 SUPPLEMENTARY OBSERVATIONS.

xxviii. 1, is very trifling and of no consideration whatever, he
argues against the plain testimony of Jerome, who affirms that
many could not reconcile these two verses. Mr. Norton, it is
true, thinks rightly that there is no contradiction, and that it is
a very easy matter to perceive their harmony ; but he should not
transfer his own subjective views to the minds of the early
transcribers. They may not have been so clear-sighted as he
is — indeed, Jerome virtually says that they were not so. Be-
cause Mr. Norton perceives, at a single glance, the mode with
which the two verses are harmonised, it does not follow that all
ancient copyists found no difficulty. It is true that they may
have left in the gospels other passages much more difficult to be
harmonised, but are we to look for consistency in their conduct,
or to suppose that they always saw with our eyes ? I trow not.
The following peculiarities are enumerated by Credner, with
the design of shewing that this passage proceeded from another
author than Mark. Tswr?} aajS^drou or 6a(3(3drMv. 'Acp' rjg s'/i(3s(3Xyixsi
Irrd batixovia, he looks upon as taken from Luke viii. 2. In verses
10, 11, 13, and 20, occurs Jtcs/vtj or Ixihoi, instead of the article, or
no word at all, compare Mark viii. 21, 33. In verses 10 and 12,
occurs 'TrooiuiG^ai, and in 11, 14, ^saty^a/, both of which are not
found elsewhere in Mark. ' A'jrieriTv^ in verse 11; /^srarctDra, h\jGh
Ig auTU]>, (paviPovffdai, stspoc, in verse 12 ; syvjyipfjisvov, the perfect tense,
compare Mark ii. 12; vi. 14, 16 ; xiv. 28 ; xvi. 6, are peculiar ex-
pressions foreign to the Evangelist. In verse 15, y,6a/xov dvavra,
compare viii. 86; xiv. 9; x.r}p6^ars, compare iii. 14; -Tratra xr/V/c,
found only in Paul. In verses 17 and 18 he specifies cra^azo-
Aovdi7v. yXdJaaaig xa/vaig XaXsTv. ofug doztv, 6avdffi/jL0v 'Trm/v. Kokug e'^e/t',
as a-rag "kzyofj^zm, or words and phrases occurring but once.
'Ev rw hv6[j.aTi is different from Mark's usage of Jcr/ rw bvoij^ari ; %£/fa5
sTr/^g/va/ sV/ rtva also varies from Mark's phraseology ; compare
Mark v. 23; vi. 5; vii. 32; viii. 23. In verses 19 and 20 we
are referred to 6 (xh oh xt/^/05, and requested to compare with it
Mark vii. 28 ; ix. 24 ; fravray^oZ. awi^yiTv. ^BJSaioiJv. s-TraxokoudiTv are
d-ju^ \iyblLim. To some persons the above catalogue of peculiar
expressions, foreign, as it is said, to the diction and style of
Mark, may appear a formidable internal argument against the
genuineness of the passage in which they are found. 13ut,
although Credner and others may think them of great weight
and altogether conclusive, yet we do not conceive that they
should be allowed to overturn the powerful external testimony
which is in favour of the section.

SUPPLEMENTARY OBSERVATIONS. 377

Without going into minutiae, I may remark, 1st, that it is im-
possible to account for the particular expressions of an author,
which may have been selected with care, or varied to avoid tau-
tology. It is quite unreasonable to suppose, that a writer must
not employ different words to express the same idea, or that he
should confine himself to the use of the identical expressions
which he may have already appropriated. We would feel it very
unjust to tie down an author to the same modes of expression in
communicating the same ideas, and would naturally conclude
that his style would be monotonous, exhibiting a dull and unin-
teresting sameness. And, shall we refuse to the inspired writers
the same just and reasonable privilege? Shall we affirm that
they ought to have cramped themselves by the employment of
the same words and phrases in different parts of their writings ?
Did the Holy Spirit so direct and influence their minds as to
chain them down to the very terms they had before used, without
deviation ? If so, there w^ould have been no agreeable variety in
their style. It would have presented an uninteresting monotony.
But we know that this is not the fact. There is a diversity in
the diction of the inspired writers. They use the same liberty
as uninspired authors. They vary their phraseology so as not to
be chargeable with unmeaning tautologies. They have not one
circle of phrases which they never change. But, according to the
reasoning of Credner, this portion of Mark's gospel is to be re-
pudiated because it contains terms and phrases that occur in no
other part of his acknowledged work.

2d. The use of a number of the expressions above adduced can
be accounted for on the principle that there is something pecu-
liar in the subject of the passage. Several things are enumerat-
ed which are not even hinted at elsewhere in the same gospel ;
and it is quite natural, that a phraseology different from that be-
fore employed should be exhibited in speaking of these new
points. This observation reduces the number of the words and
modes of expression mentioned as peculiarities.

3d. The arag KeyoiMiva of this portion are brought forward as
witnesses against its genuineness. Words occurring nowhere else
in the undisputed part of the gospel, are mentioned as proofs of
the spurious character of the place in which they are found. Let
the same test be applied to other parts of the gospel. Mark's
gospel presents not a few aVag Xsyo/Asva, such as T^o'Tr^ifivav xiii.
11, ir^oe'KooiljzcQoii x. 35, 6tiX(3siv, ix. 3, ffT0([3dg, xi. 8, &c. These

37 8 SUrPL EMENTARY OBSERVATIONS.

are instances of words found but once in the gospel. Why, then,
should not the portions in which they occur be discarded ? Why
should the verses where they are found be retained as belong-
ing to Mark, when they present quite unusual words. To
be consistent, Credner and others should reject the clauses or
verses where these dTa^ Xsyo/Asva appear. This, however, they do
not. Why then apply a test to the passage under review differ-
ent from that used in other places of the same gospel ?

4th. I observe farther, that although several modes of expres-
sion specified above be not found elsewhere in Mark, yet seve-
ral of them are not foreign to the New Testament. They are
employed by other writers. This is a sufficient proof, even
in the judgment of Credner, that they are not erroneous or inap-
propriate. The head and front of their offending is, that they
are strange in Mark — that they are foreign to his idiom. But I
have already remarked that it is quite unreasonable to deny that
every author, whether writing by inspiration or not, is at full li-
berty to vary his phraseology. Even in a book of considerable
length a term may occur but once, and that term altogether un-
known to the characteristic mode of the writer.

These general observations may serve to shew that the inter-
nal argument against the genuineness of the passage founded on
the peculiar expressions industriously enumerated by Credner is
not conclusive. Mr. Norton also gives a list of words and modes
of expression with the same view as that of the German critic ;
but it is more select and judicious. It is not so numerous as
Credner's, though entirely coinciding with it as far as it goes, ex-
cept in these additional peculiarities, v. 19. 6 zu^to'c, and v. 20, too
xvoiov. " Mark in his own person nowhere else applies this title
to Christ." /SXacrrw, V. 18, is new in Mark.

See Credner's Einleitung, p. 106; Norton on the Gospels, p.
75, (Notes.) Schott's Isagoge, § 30, may be also consulted, and
Fritzsche on Mark, p. 715, both of whom reason against the au-
thenticity of the portion. It is remarkable too, that Griesbach in
his Commentariiis Criticus^ vol. ii. p. 197, &c., seems to argue
against the verses, though in his Greek Testament he has given
us to understand that his opinion was different.

Eichhorn and Paulus, two critics most unceremonious in reject-
ing parts of inspired Scripture as spurious, have defended this
place as genuine, and to their view in the present instance I rea-
dily assent.

SUPPLEMENTARY OBSERVATIONS. 379

LUKE xxii. 23, 24. (additional observations.)

It would have been more accurate to say that Hilary testifies,
'' In very many Greek and Latin MSS. (in Graecis et in Latinis
codicibus complurimis), nothing is to be found concerning the
coming of the angel or the bloody sweat." De Trinitate, Lib. x.
See Norton on the Gospels, (p. 79, Additional Notes).

I take this opportunity of protesting against the observations
of Mr. Norton on the present passage, which he rejects as un-
genuine. His objections to its intrinsic character are drawn
from his religious creed. They presuppose and arise from his re-
jection of inspiration in the New Testament writers, his belief
that the sufferings of Christ were not penal, and his ignorance of
the physiology of the human body. He has in this instance, as
in others, suffered his Socinian prepossessions to influence his
treatment of a question purely critical. This ought not to be.
Criticism establishes a genuine text, independently of theological
creeds.

additional observations on JOHN V. 3, 4.

Mr. Norton, who argues against the genuineness of this place,
says, that " the following words occur, not elsewhere used by
John : — £v3g;^o^a/, bmon^ xar£;)^w, and voVjj/Aa; beside x(i/?;(r/^ and xard
xa;^o!/, the use of which, in this passage alone, may be accounted
for by the nature of its subject." But a-rag Xiyoinvcc are found in
other parts of the same gospel. Thus ^ wr/^w i. 9 ; oorr/vjuj xvi.
13 ; (jy.orog iii. 19 ; TSPivaTiTv h rn Tj/j^hcc, xi. 9, &c. On Mr. Norton's
principle, the verses containing these unusual expressions should
also be pronounced spurious, so far as internal evidence is concern-
ed; audit is sufficiently apparent that he would not be disinclined
to set aside a passage on the strength of internal evidence alone,
without any regard to the external. See his arbitrary treatment
of Matthew's gospel, chapter xxvii. verses 3-10. Mr. Norton far-
ther states, that " for its omission, or the marks of doubt with
which it is inserted, no satisfactory account can be given, sup-
posing it to have been originally written by St. John." On this
I remark, that although we could give no probable reason for its
omission, we are not therefore to go against the evidence fur-

380 SUPPLEMENTARY OBSERVATIONS.

nished in its favour. At this distance of time our ignorance of
the causes which may have induced some copyists to omit it,
ought not to be put in the balance as influencing our judgment.
If it were so, I imagine that we might bring Mr. Norton into
great embarassment by taking him on his own ground. As far
as I am aware, no ancient writer has given any hist orical notice
explanatory of the marks of doubt sometimes attached to the pas-
sage, and I am not disposed to tax my ingenuity in order to de-
vise some plausible solution. I am quite contented to abide by
the preponderating evidence as the safest and surest position.

APPENDIX.

To assist the inquiring student in his researches, I shall now give a list
of books belonging to the different subjects embraced by Biblical cri-
ticism. It does not include all that have been published relating to the
science, but merely a few of the best. It is matter of regret that there
are not more written in the English language to which I can refer.
Most of them are in other languages not so accessible to the general
student. And here I would urge upon every one who aspires to emi-
nence in Biblical criticism, or who would become acquainted with the
whole range of theological literature, to avail himself of the favourable
opportunities which are now happily abundant, of acquiring a know-
ledge of the German language. It is the most important of all the
European tongues. It introduces the student to a vast and varied col-
lection of works in every department of knowledge and of sacred learn-
ing. In works relating to theology especially, the Germans are pro-
fuse. In illustrating the natural history, geography, antiquities, litera-
ture, &c. of the Bible, they are at the head of all other nations. In
ecclesiastical history and Bible-criticism, they stand pre-eminent. But
they have miserably perverted the current of pure theology ; and sad
have been the fruits of their unbridled and daring speculations. The
sceptical sentiments which the leading men among them have, for more
than half a century, entertained, and unhesitatingly advanced, are per-
nicious in the extreme. We are happy, however, to observe that there
is a decided return to the good old path ; and that the spirit of neolo-
gism has received a manifest check. It is now on the decline. May the
Lord hasten the time when it will be utterly abolished.

I shall first give a catalogue of works which embrace a number of the
subjects discussed in the Lectures ; and then specify a few of the best
pertaining to the topics of each Lecture.

Home's Introduction to the Critical Study and Knoivledge of the Holy
Scriptures. 8th editio?i, 4 vols. Svo. London, 1839.

I cannot speak of the last edition of this work ; and, in relation to the

382 APPENDIX.

preceding, I can merely record the impression that has remained on
my mind since its perusal. The author has diligently and laboriously
explored many sources of information, and thus produced a useful and
valuable work. But it was chiefly in consequence of my dissatisfaction
with several parts of it that I formed the design of drawing up a text-
book for the use of students in theology. Mr. Home has, in my
opinion, gone over too many subjects, to do them all full justice. He
cannot, therefore, be said to have written a well-digested, well-reasoned,
ably written book. This could hardly be expected. Hence the nume-
rous quotations which he has given. It may be questioned also, whether
Mr. Home be sufficiently acquainted with the German writers on
Biblical criticism. I fear that his volumes are still behind the most re-
cent investigations and improvements. It may be doubted whether he
be competently familiar with some of the Oriental languages to produce
a masterly treatise on Biblical literature. In fact, the more I read
of this work, the greater dissatisfaction I felt, and the more inaccuracies,
as they appeared to me, did I meet with. Such were the sentiments
which I formerly entertained respecting Mr. Home's Introduction ;
and, as I did not lately look into it, or at all consult it in the composi-
tion of the preceding Lectures, I cannot say how far the last edition may
be improved. I speak candidly of the work, which is, after all, a valu-
able and important one to the student, in directing him to books treating
of every subject in theology. If it does not give satisfaction itself, it
points to the sources from which it may probably be derived. The
opinions of the author, which, indeed, are chiefly taken from others,
from Reviews, Magazines, &c. are by no means to be relied on.
In purchasing books on the faith of the recommendations he attaches to
them, I have been frequently and totally disappointed. However much,
therefore, this Introduction has been held up to to the public as "com-
plete," " invaluable," " unrivalled," &c. &c., it will be unsatisfactory to
the patient inquirer. Thorough and searching examinations will soon
discover the meagre views of the author, and the little reliance to be
put in the statements which he takes from others, I believe in most
cases, without due deliberation. I hope the learned and pious author
will not imagine that this is written in disparagement of his book. He
has my best thanks for what he has done ; and I am quite sure that
many are indebted to him for a large acquaintance with interesting to-
pics pertaining to the Bible. I have only registered the impression
which the perusal of some parts of his work formerly made upon my
mind. To me it was not satisfactory. I found it behind the state of
theological learning. Having access to the latest investigations of Ger-
man authors, I discovered his total silence respecting them. Inaccu-
racies which old writers fell into were not corrected ; and many errors
in discussing subjects were committed.

APPENDIX. 383

It may be worth while to refer to the opinions of one or two German
writers of Mr. Home's book. De Wette, in his Einleitung, (Introduc-
tion), writes, " The English have also begun to do something in this
way," page 6. Havernick, in his Manual (Lehrbuch), speaks in the
following terms : — " Home's Introduction is rather a compilation than
an independent scientific work." p. 16. Credner, in his Einleitung
writes, " that Home's Introduction is the most approved work of this
kind in England ; but to German theologians it is of no consequence."
p. 48.

Lectures on Criticism and Interpretation, By H. Blarsh, D.D.^
Bishop of Peterborough, 8^^c. S^c. I vol. 8vo. London, 1838. Last
edition.

Bishop Marsh's Lectures on the subject of criticism are classical.
They discover an intimate acquaintance with the topics discussed ; and
exhibit the clear views taken by the writer of the various things that
come before him. His name is deservedly placed among the very first
biblical critics of England, and on the Continent it is well known. The
work is occupied for the most part with the history of criticism, which
it details with admirable accuracy and precision. It hardly reaches,
however, to the present time. It cannot be said to extend farther than
to the year 1828, at which time the celebrated author took his leave of
the world as a writer. A few weeks ago, (May 1839), he died, aged
82, leaving a name behind which will not soon perish from the annals
of Biblical literature.

Institutes of Biblical Criticism. By Alexander Gerard, D.D., of
Aberdeen. Svo. Edinburgh, 1808. Second Edition.

This book contains a system which is now considerably antiquated.
There is a considerable number of errors which would require to be
rectified. At the time the treatise was published, it must have been an
excellent compend, and even still it deserves to be consulted by all who
are conversant with Biblical criticism. Its meagreness arises from its
merely giving the heads of Lectures read in King's College, Aberdeen.

The book embraces interpretation, as well as criticism properly so
called.

Prolegomena in Biblia Polyglotta, by Brian Walton, D.D., Bishop
of Chester. London, 1657.

This preface to the London Polyglott is an extensive storehouse of
information concerning the languages and versions presented to us in
that great work. Bishop Walton possessed immense learning, as is

384 APPENDIX.

evident to all that know any thing of his Polyglott. The prolegomena
have been published separately from the expensive and voluminous pro-
duction to which they form a most suitable and able introduction. They
were reprinted at Leipsic, 1777, in one volume octavo, with a brief but
valuable preface by Professor Dathe. They have been again published
under the editorial care of Archdeacon Wrangham, in 2 vols. 8vo.
Cambridge, 1828. Ancient as these prolegomena are, they will always
be valued and consulted. Though a great part of them is superseded
by Dr. Lee's prolegomena, yet the learned world will always have some
desire to see and to know the opinions of such a man as the editor of
the London Polyglott.

Prolegomena in Biblia sacra Polyglotta auctore Samuele Lee,
S. T. B. 8^c. Ato. 1831, London.

Professor Lee is one of the few English scholars who has obtained
immortal honour from his great learning. As a linguist, he is at the
head of all his countrymen, — as a philologist, he has proved himself
able and excellent, — and, as a Hebrew scholar, he is profound. The
prolegomena to Bagster's Polyglott, consisting of 75 quarto pages, con-
tain discussions relating chiefly to the versions presented in that work.
They are a rich treasure, from which we may collect much that is ex-
cellent and valuable. The learned author appears to me to be a little
inclined to entertain novel opinions and strange theories.

The Biblical Companion, or an Introduction to the Reading and Study
of the Holy Scriptures, by Wm, Carpenter. 8ro. London, 1836.

This work was published, I believe, as a companion to Dr. A. Clarke's
Commentary. Not having read it, I can give no opinion of its merits.
From his Popular Lectures on Biblical Criticism, I would infer that it
is very far from being masterly or able.

The Biblical Cabinet ; or Hermeneutical, Exegelical, and Philological
Library. Edinburgh, \^mo. 2^ volumes are now published.

It is now a considerable time since this publication was commenced,
with the laudable intention of elucidating the Scriptures. The idea of
the work was good, and its design excellent. To those who wish to
avail themselves of the labours of the men who have searched deep into
particular portions of the Scriptures, — to those whose anxiety to know
the will of God goes beyond a mere translation, and who aspire to emi-
nence in sacred studies, the series is calculated to be highly useful.
The greater number of the volumes consist of translations from ortho-

APPENDIX. 385

dox German divines, which are generally accompanied with notes by
the editors. The whole series is worthy the attention of all biblical
students. They may find in it much valuable knowledge connected with
the sacred Scriptures, — many topics illustrated with learning and abi-
lity,— and, above all, a habit of analytical investigation exemplified in
practice, which they would do well to imitate.

Passing over the different publications of Richard Simon, which had
a considerable influence on sacred literature when published, I come to
speak of Carpzov.

J. G. Carpzovii Introductio ad libros canonicos Veteris Testamenti.
Leipsic. Sd editiotif 1741. 4to.

Critica Sacra Veteris Testamenti. Leipsic, 1728. Ato,

Carpzov was a learned, judicious, and solid writer; and his works will
amply benefit the reader. He discusses the various subjects he proposes
in the spirit of a true theologian. His works deserve more attention
than what they have received in Germany.

Glassii Philologia sacra, his temporibus accommodata. a Dathe et
Bauer. Leipsic, 1776, 8^c. 3 vols. 8vo.

This work long held a distinguished place among treatises on sacred
literature. Nor was it overrated. Its value v/as certainly great, though
it is now almost superseded by better and more learned works pertain-
ing to the same department. The first volume, edited by Dathe, is
occupied with Grammar and sacred rhetoric. The second volume is
almost wholly by Professor G. L. Bauer, containing the criticism of the
Old Testament, mostly abridged from Eichhorn's Introduction. The
third volume contains " Sacred Hermeneutics" by the same. The
principles laid down, and the interpretations advanced, are in the very
worst style of the Neologian school. Whoever reads it, therefore,
should carefully refrain from adopting its rules.

Introduction to the New Testament, by John David Michaelis, translated
from the fourth edition of the German, with notes by Herbert Marsh,
afterwards Bishop of Peterborough. Qvo. 6 vols. Cambridge, 1793,
and following years.

This was the first introduction to the New Testament on an extended
scale that was published in Germany ; and, like other works of the same
author, indicates great research, industry, learning, and judgment. The
author's theological opinions were lax and unsound, though he did much

2c

38B APPENDIX.

to advance the state of sacred learning in Germany. His work on the
New Testament found a competent translator in Dr. Marsh, who en-
riched it with most valuable notes. Without these annotations, indeed,
it would not have been half so useful or so much read. It is to be re-
gretted that the translator's additions did not extend through the whole.
This introduction is now fast wearing out of repute, not because it is
useless, but because it has been well nigh superseded by later works of
the same kind, suited to the increasing wants of Biblical scholars.

Einleitung in die gottlichen Bilcher des alten Bundes^ by Dr. J, John.
6 parts ^vo. Vienna, 1802-4.

Introduction to the Old Testament, translated from the Latin and Ger-
man works of John Jahn, S^c. by S. H. Turner, D.D., and the Rev.
William R. Whittingham. Svo. New York, 1827.

The late Professor Jahn of Vienna, is well known in this country by
some of his other works which have been translated into English.

The larger introduction, in the German language, is a very able
treatise on the numerous subjects that belong to such a work. It is
characterised by sound judgment, sobriety, and moderation. It is now,
however, beginning to be antiquated, though it still deserves to be read,
as being remarkably free from the lax opinions of the neologian school.

The smaller work is an abridgment of the larger, with some valuable
notes by the translators ; but even the English translation is scarcely
adapted to the present state of the science.

Historisch- Kritische Einleitung in die sdmmtlichen Kanonischen und
Apocryphischen Schriften des Alien und Neuen Testaments, by L.
Bertholdt. 6 vols. 8vo. JErla?igenA8l2-l9.

Bertholdt was rather a collector than an original investigator. His
book contained a systematic view of all that had been done with re-
spect to the literature of the Bible at the time when it was published. It
is characterised by perspicuity, but by very liberal and lax sentiments
in theology. It is now in a great measure superseded.

Handbuch der Einleitung in die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, by
D. H. K, Hdnlein. Second edition, 3 parts, Qvo. Erlangen,
1801-9.

Haenlein was a disciple of Griesbach, and gave the results of the re-
searches which had been made in the Griesbachian school of criticism
with perspicuity and concinnity. His work was never in much repute.

APPENDIX. 387

Bibel. Besonderer abdruck oiler auf dieses Wort in der Allgemeiuen En-
cyclopcBdie der Wissenschaften und Kunste von Ersch und Gruher Bezug
hdbenden Artikel. 8vo. Leipzig, 1823 — " A reprint of all the articles
in Ersch and Gruber's Universal Encyclopcedia, that relate to the word
Bible."

This little volume contains several articles by De Wette and Ge-
senius respecting sacred philology and criticism. It deserves to be con-
sulted by all students as a brief elementary treatise connected with the
literature of the Scriptures. I have read it with considerable advantage,
though it is now behind the progress of the science.

Eirdeitung in das Alte Testament von J. G. Eichhorn, 5 vols. 8vo.
Gottingen^ 1823.

Einleitung in das Neue Testament, by the same. 5 vols. 8vo. Leipsic, 1820-27.
This celebrated critic was Professor of Theology at Gottingen, where
he lectured with great reputation. As a writer, he is well known to
have been deeply tinged with the rationalist opinions, which he advo-
cated with profound erudition, and adorned with all the taste and rhe-
torical ornament which he was capable of throwing around the literature
of the Bible. His writings did immense harm in his own country, for
be was looked up to by many with the highest admiration, inspired by
his splendid abilities. He was the coryphaeus of neology in his day.
The strictly critical parts of his introductions to the Old and New Tes-
taments are very valuable, but the exegetical portions are highly objec-
tionable.

Einleitung in die Schriften des Neue Testament, by J. L. Hug. 3d edition,
2 vols. 8vo, 1826. Tubingen.

Hug belongs to the Roman Catholic church, and is Professor of Theo-
logy at Freyburgh. His Introduction to the New Testament may be
pronounced as on the whole the best that has appeared in Germany.
Gesenius says of him, that " he excels all his predecessors in deep and
fundamental investigations." (See Ersch and Gruber's Encyclopaedia.)
His work has been twice translated, first in England, and then in Ameri-
ca. The British translation by Dr. Wait, in 2 vols. 8vo, 1827, cannot
be commended, because the translator evidently shews that he is not ac-
quainted with the German language. The American translation by D.
Fosdick, jun., 8vo, Andover, 1836, is well executed, and is, moreover,
enriched with valuable notes by Professor Stuart. The annotations of
this learned divine correct Hug's errors, and give other views of many
subjects.

388 APPENDIX.

Isagoge historico-critica in libros novi foederis sacros. Scripsit D. Henr.
Aug. Schott. lenae, 1830, 8uo.

Professor Schott of Jena is an able writer. His present work is a
very valuable manual of New Testament criticism, but especially of
New Testament interpretation. The author exhibits good judgment,
and no small share of erudition, together with some freedom from the
licentiousness of the German school, though he himself is an adherent
of the rationalist party. No advanced theological student should be
without this admirable compend. It ought to be studied by all as a man-
ual of opinions relating to the Greek Testament. The reader need not
subscribe to all the decisions of the author, or to all his interpretations,
for he will see that not a few of them are untenable. But he will learn
from the book the state of criticism and interpretation relative to the New
Testament at the time when it was published.

Lehrhuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in die Bihel alien und neuen
Testamentes von Dr. W. M. L. De Wette. Suo, Ath edition. Berlin^
1833-34.

De Wette is one of the most eminent scholars in Germany, and a man
whose history has been somewhat remarkable. He was removed or
rather banished from Berlin by the King of Prussia, and retired to Basel,
where he has drawn together numbers of students. His introduction is
rather a brief summary of the results that have been obtained, than a
formal discussion of the various topics. It has always been popular in
Germany, from its perspicuity, solidity, and portableness. The last
edition is much improved, and carefully adapted to the latest investiga-
tions. De Wette's opinions are neological. He has been, in fact, one
of the leaders of the rationalists, and his numerous productions have done
much mischief to the cause of true religion in Germany. He is said to
possess a finer taste than any of the great continental scholars, as is
manifest, indeed, from his Commentary on the Psalms.

Handhuch der Historisch-Kritischen Einleitung in das alte Testament von
H. A. Ch. H'dvernick. Svo. Erlangen^ 1836 and 7. Ist part in two di-
visions.

This work proceeds from an orthodox and able man. It is altogether
a very valuable production, containing the results of much study and
of great research. The author has been hasty, perhaps, in some of his
conclusions, and has started back from the positions of the Neological
school with sudden rebound ; but he is manifestly well versed in the
subjects he has undertaken to discuss. The tone in which he occasion-

APPENDIXc 389

ally speaks of Gesenius is not the most respectful, but his opinions are
nevertheless entitled to much attention. I have derived great benefit
from this work. Though I must differ from the learned author in some
things, yet justice requires me to state that he has certainly added to
the excellent helps already published for the understanding of the Old
Testament. The author was favourably known, before its publication,
by a commentary on Daniel. In the present publication, he has, as
yet gone no farther than the Pentateuch.

Einleitung in das Neue Testament von Dr. Karl. August. Credner. &vo.

Halle, 1836.

This theologian belongs to Giessen. Before the publication of the
present volume, he had sent forth to the world Beitrdge zur Einleitung
in die biblischen Schriften, Halle, 1832, discussing the state of the
New Testament text in the second and third centuries, and containing
many new, striking, original, and rash views, but pervaded by great
learning. The spurious gospels and writings that were current in the
early times of Christianity, he has investigated with amazing industry.
The present work is exegetical rather than critical. The writer shews
that he is fitted for original investigations and that he has read exten-
sively. He belongs, however, to the Neological school.

LECTURE II.

JB'ichharrCs Introduction to the Old Testament^ vol. 2d, § 342, gives
a masterly account of the MSS. of the Old Testament, which is abridged
by Baxter in his Critica Sacra. See also Kennicott's " Dissertatio
Generalis" in his Hebrew Bible, where there is a particular account of
individual MSS. Walton s prolegomena. Tychsens tentamen de var,
cod.f &c. J. Bern, de Bossies work entitled, Variae lectiones veteris
Testamenti ex immensa MSS. editorumque codd. congerie haustae,
et ad Sam. textmn, ad vetustissimas versiones, ad accuratiores sacrae
criticae fontes ac leges examinatae. Farm. 1784-88, 4 vols. 4to. See
also his Seholia critica in V. T. libros, sive supplementa ad varias sacri
textus lectiones. Parma. 1798. 4to.

A description of all the codices of the New Testament is given by
Michaelis in his Introduction with Marshes Notes, in Wetstein's prole-
gomena, in the preface to GriesbacKs Greek Testament, but especially
in the prolegomena to Scholz's edition.

390 APPENDIX.

liECTURE III.

For the history, use, and nature of versions, the best introductions to
the Old and New Testaments are to be consulted. It is better, how-
ever, to consult separate treatises on individual versions, where such
have been published ; as they generally enter more minutely and ela-
borately into their merits.

On the Septuagint see Walton's prolegomena IX. Hody de Bihliorum
textihus originalihus, Oxford, folio, 1705. This latter treatise has been
the chief source from which all subsequent accounts of the origin of
the Septuagint were derived. The learned author had the merit of
first pointing out the forgery of Aristeas. In connexion with Hody
should be read Valckenaer's Diatribe de Aristohulo Judaeo. 8vo. Lugd.
1806, in which some of the conclusions of Hody are combated with
much ability and success. Owen's Inquiry into the present state of the
Septuagint version. Oxford, 1769. Lee's prolegomena to Baxter's Poly glott.
Amersfoordt' s dissertatio de variis lectionibus Holmesianis. Lugduni Ba-
tavorum, 1815, 4to. Gesenius' Commentary on Isaiah entitled, der Pro-
phet lesaia^ ubersetzt und mit einem vollst'dndigen philologisch-Kritischen und
historischen Commentar begleitet^ 3 vols. 8vo. Leizig 1821 — 29, p. 60,
&C. Gesenius' geschichte der Hebraischen sprache und schrift. 8vo. Leipsic,
1815. J. L. Hug de Pentateuchi versione Alexundrinu. 4to. Freyburg,
1819. T. E. Toepler de Pentateuchi inter pretationis Alexandrinae indole^
criticaet hermeneutica . 8vo. Halle, 1S30. Holmes' preface to his edition of
the Seventy. For Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, and Origen*s
critical works, the same are to be consulted. See also Eichhorn's
Einleitung and Hdvernick's do.

Tychsen's tentamen de variis codicum Hebraicorum^ V. T. MSS. generihus.
Rostock, 1772. 8vo.

LECTURE IV.

Peshito. Wiseman* s horce Syriacmy\o\.\,S\'o. Vienna, 1827.

This learned work should by all means be consulted by such as wish
to investigate the Syriac versions of the Scriptures. It first threw
light on several dark parts, and was gladly welcomed by Biblical scho-
lars. Ij€€*s prolegomena. Hirzel de Pentateuchi versionis Syriacce
quam vocant Peshito indole. 8vo. Leipsic, 1825. Credner depro-
phetarum minorum versio7iis Syriacce quam Peschito vocant indole. 8vo,
1827. Gottingen. Gesenius' commentary on Isaiah, vol. 1. p. 81, &c.
C. Von Lengerke de Ephraemi Syri arte hermeneutica commentatio cri-
tica, 8vo, Koeningsberg, 1831. Of the Introductions, De Wette and

I APPENDIX. 391

Hdvernick are most to be relied on for the account they give of this
version.

On the Harclean and Philoxenian versions see especially Bernstein's
commentatio de Charklensi novi Testamenti translatione Syriacd, 4to,
Vratislaviae, 1837. Glocester Ridley's dissertatio de syriacarum versi-
onum indole et usu, &c., Oxford, 1761. Adler's biblische Kritische
Reise, (Biblical and Critical Travels.) Respecting the Syriac translation
of Jerusalem, see Adler's " Novi Testamenti versiones Syriacae sim-
plex^ Philoxeniana et Hierosol. denuo examinatae, &c. &c. Hafniae,
(Copenhagen), 4to, 1789.

LECTURE V.

For the Graeco- Veneta, see C. F. Amnion's nova versio Graeca Pen-
tateuchi, &c. Erlangen, 1790-91, 8vo. Bauer's Critica Sacra, p.
286. Geseniui geschichte, p. 103. Pfannkuche in Eichhorn's AUge-
meine Bibliothek, vol. vii. p. 193. For to ^a/jbaPuriTiov, see Eichhorn's and
HdvernicKs Introductions. On the Samaritan version of the Penta-
teuch, see Winer de versionis Pentateuchi Samaritani indole^ 8vo.
Leipsic, 1817. Gesenii commentatio de Pentateuchi Samaritani ori-
ginCf indole et auctoritate, 4to, 1815. Halle.

For the Arabic versions of the Scriptures, consult the Introductions,
as also jE. Roediger de origine et indole arabicae librorum Veteris Tes-
tamenti historicorum interpretationis, libri duo. 4to. 1 829. Halle.

On No. I., p. 69, see Gesenius' geschichte, p. 96, and his commentary
on Isaiah, vol. 1, p. 90. Hitzig' s commentary on the same book. — Carp-
zovs Critica Sacra, p. 646.

No. 2. Roediger de origine, &c., Maurer's commentar uber das Buch
Josua, 8vo, Stuttgard, 1831.

3. See the preface of Erpenius to his edition. Hottinger's thesaurus
philologicus, p. 271, &c.

4. Wolfii bibliotheca Hebraea, 4 vols 4to ; Vol. III., p. 863.

5. Eichhorn's Einleitung, vol. 2. De Sacy in Eichhorn's Bibliothek,
Vol. X., p. 16. Gesenius on the Samaritan Pentateuch.

For the Arabic of Erpenius on the gospels, see Hug's Introduction
and De Wette's. No. 2, p. 72, the same. For the Persian version

392 APPENDIX.

of the Pentateuch, see Rosenmiiller de Pentateuchi versione Persica,
4to, Leipzig, 1813. Lorshach in the Jena AUgemeine Litteratur
Zeitunff, 1816, No. 58. Walton's prolegomena.

LECTURE VI.

See Hodg on the original texts^ Jahn and Hug's Introductions, the
latter of which gives a very good account of the Vulgate, so far as it
relates to the New Testament. Leander Van Ess pragmatische
Kritische Geschichte der Vulgata, Tubingen, 1824, 8vo. Havernick's
Binleitung and De Wette's dittOy Eichhorn's Einieitung, vol. ii. § 319,
&c.

LECTURE Vn.

Hugs Introduction. De Wette's ditto. Quatremere's recherches
critiques historiques sur la langue et la literature de VEgypte. 8vo.
Paris, 1808. Fragmenta Basmurico-coptica Vet. et Novi Testamenti,
by W. F. Engelbreth. 4to, Copenhagen, 1811. Specimen versionum
Danielis copticarum, by F. Miinter. 8vo, Rome, 1786. Catalogus
codicum copticorum qui in Museo Borgiano Velitris adservantur, auctore
Georgia Zoega, fol. Rome, 1810.

On the Georgian version, see Alter iiher georgianische Literatur.
8vo, Vienna, 1798. Eichhorn's Einleitung. EichhorrCs AUgemeine
Bibliothek, I. p. 133, &c.

On the Slavonic consuU Eichhorn's Einleitung in das Alte Testa-
ment. Vol. II. Henderson's Biblical researches and Travels in Russia.
8vo, London, 1826. Dobrowsky in Michaelis' " Neuer Oriental
exegetischer Bibliothek." Tom. VII. p. 158, &c.

For the iEthiopic, see Walton's Prolegomena XV. Ludolf's com-
mentary on the history of Ethiopia. Bruce' s Travels. Hug's Intro-
duction.

For the Gothic, see Michaelis' and Hug's Introductions y but especi-
ally Zahn's edition of the Gospels according to the Codex argenteus,
(Weissenfels, 1808. 4to.) which contains a historico-critical introduc-
tion to Ulphilas' version.

r

For tHe Armenian, see Eichhorn's Einleitung in das A. T., Eich-
horns AUgemeine Bibliotheh, vol. IV. p. 630, where Bredenkamp has

APPENDIX. 393

written on the ikrraenian translation of the Old Testament. Michaelis'
introduction to the New Testament. Holmes' preface to his edition of
the Septuagint.

On the Targums generally, see Prideaux's Connection of the Old
and New Testaments, Walton's Prolegomena XL, Carpzov's Critica
Sacra, Jahns Introduction, but especially Zunz's " die gottesdien-
stliche Vortrage der Juden," together with HavernicKs and de Wette*s
Introductions.

LECTURE VIII.

On Onkelos, see Winers dissertatio de Onkeloso ejusque paraphrasi
chaldaica. 4to, Leipsic, 1820. Gesenius' commentary on Isaiah, I.
p. 66, &c. Philoxenus, sive de Onkelosi Chaldaica Pentateuchi ver-
sione dissertatio hermeneutica critica, &c. &c., by Sam. Dav. Luzzato.
8vo, 1830, Vienna.

2. Gesenius on Isaiah, p. 69, &c. Havernich's Einleitung. Bauer s
Critica Sacra.

3. Winer de Jonathanis in Pentateuchum paraphrasi chaldaica, spec.
I. 4to, Erlangen, 1823. J. H. Petermann de duahus Pentateuchi
paraphrasibus Chaldaicis. P. I. de indole paraphraseos, quae Jona-
thanis esse dicitur. 8vo, Berlin, 1829.

4. Zunz's " die gottesdienstliche Vortrage der Juden.'*

5. Carpzov's Critica Sacra. Walton* s prolegomena. Bauer's Cri-
tica Sacra.

. 6. Do.

7, 8, and 9. Carpzov's Critica Sacra. Bauer's do.

10. Do.

11. See Eichhorn's Einleitung, vol. 2. § 236. b. where the fragment
is given.

For the Hebrew translation of the Chaldee portions of Daniel and
Ezra, see Eichhorns Einleitung. It is right to state that, in the ac-
count given of the versions, I have been obliged in part to follow the

394 APPENDIX.

statements of preceding scholars. The Targuras, the Greek and Latin
translations, as also the Syriac and Arabic, are known to me by per-
sonal inspection and perusal ; but I am unable to read the versions in
other languages, and have therefore depended on the statements of
persons competent to judge of matters lying beyond the reach of ordi-
nary acquirements.

LECTURE IX.

The best dissertation on the Samaritan Pentateuch is that of Gese-
niuSf entitled, " De Pentateuchi Samaritani origine, indole, et aucto-
ritate commentatio philologico-critica. 4to. 1815, Halle. See also
the able review of it by Professor Stuart in the North American Review
for 1826, and in the Andover Biblical Repository, vol. 2. Lee in his
prolegomena has also given a good account of it, chiefly abridged from
Gesenius.

LECTUBE X.

Winer de versionibus Novi Testamenti usu critico caute instituendo.
Erlangen, 1823. Gerard's Institutes of Biblical Criticism. Michaelis'
Introduction by Marsh. Scholz's Prolegomena to his Greek Tes-
tament.

LECTURE XI.

Scholz's prolegomena. Michaelis^ Introduction by Marsh. Gries-
bacKs Opuscula Academica, edidit J. P. Gabler. 2 vols. 8vo. Jena.
1824. Among these there is a dissertation concerning the MSS.
of Origen and their readings. GriesbacKs Commentarius Criticus in
textum Graecum Novi Testamenti. 2 vols. 8vo. Jena. 1811. Nor-
ton on the Genuineness of the Gospels. Vol. 1. 8vo, Boston 1837.
Kennicott^s General Dissertation. EichhorrCs Einleitung ins alte
Testament. Cappelli Critica Sacra. 3 vols. 8vo. 1775 — 86, Halle.
Scharfenberg's edition. Buxtorjii Anticritica seu vindiciae veritatis
Ebraicae adversus Ludovici Capelli criticam quam vocat sacram, &c.
4to, 1623. Basil.

APPENDIX. 395

LECTURE XII.

Michaelis* Introduction to the New Testament, translated by Marsh,
Marshes Lectures. Almost all the German writers are unsound on this
point, because they advocate the propriety and necessity of conjecture.

LECTURE XIII.

Numerous treatises and dissertations have appeared on this disputed
portion of the New Testament. The ablest against its authenticity are
Parsons Letters to Archdeacon Travis. 8vo, 1790. Bishop Marsh's
Letters to the same, Leipzig. 8vo, 1795, " works," says Dr. Pye
Smith, " which, independently of the particular argument, are emi-
nently worthy of being read for the other information which they con-
tain, for their brilliancy of talent, and for their being specimens of the
most masterly processes in criticism." On the same side is the Vin-
dication of Porson, by Crito Cantabrigiensis, (Dean Turton of Cam-
bridge). 8vo, Cambridge, 1827.

On the other side may be read various pamphlets and tracts by the
late Bishop Burgess. Nolans Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, Lon-
don, 1815. 8vo. Travis' Letters to Gibbon, 8vo, 1794, London.
Hales' Faith in the Holy Trinity. 8vo, 2 vols. London, 1818.

For the whole controversy see the Congregational Magazine for
1829, where there are a number of valuable articles, written by the
Rev. W. Orme, late of Camberwell.

LECTURE XIV.

Dr. Henderson's treatise is by far the ablest defence of the received
reading. It is entitled " The great mystery of Godliness incontrovertible.
A critical examination of the various readings in 1 Tim. iii. 16. 8vo.
London, 1830." It was reprinted in the Andover Biblical Repository for
1832, with supplemental observations by Prof. Stuart. These should
be read along with the able disquisition oi Henderson. Sir Isaac Newton^
on the opposite side, may be consulted in his works, 5th vol. as edited
by Bishop Horsley. See also Griesbach'snote, and his Symbolae criticae.

396 APPENDIX.

Scholz reads 6ihg ; see his Greek Testament. The student should
likewise read what is written on this passage by Dr. J. P. Smith, in his
" Scripture Testimony:* 3d edition, 1837, vol. 3, pp. 323 and 354,
&c.

LECTURE XV.

KuinoTs Commentary on the historical hooks of the New Testament.
Wetsiein, Grieshach, and Scholz' s editions of the Greek Testavnent.
Norton on the Gospels. Penns Annotations to the book of the New Co-
venant. Credner's Einleitung. Schotfs Isagoge. TholucKs Commen-
tary on Johns Gospel.

I.ECTURE XVI.

Acts. XX. 28. See Scholz's Greek Testament. Griesbach^s do.
Smith's Scripture Testimony to the Messiah. Burton's Testimonies
of the Ante-nicene fathers to the Divinity of Christ. Penn's Annotations
to the Book of the New Covenant.

For the doxology, consult the large critical editions of the Greek
Testament, together with Tholuck's Commentary on the Sermon on
the Mount translated in the Biblical Cabinet, and Bengelii Apparatus
Criticus.

LECTURE XVri.

On the commencement of Matthew and Luke's gospels, see Smith's
Scripture Testimony, vol. 2d, at the commencement, A Vindica-
tion of the Authenticity of the Narratives contained in the first two
chapters of the Gospels of St. Mattheiv and St. Luke. By a Layman.
8vo, London, 1822. Laurence's Critical Refections upon some im-
portant misrepo^esentations contained in the Unitarian version of the New
Testament." 8vo, Oxford, 181 L Griesbach's Commentarius Criti-
cus in Textum Gr^cum N. T, vol. 2d. Mr. Norton in his " Genuine-
ness of the Gospels" has lately assailed the beginning of Matthew's
Gospel, but he is refuted by Prof Stuart, in the American Biblical
Repository.

On the conclusion of Mark's gospel, see Hug's Introduction, in ad-
dition to the large critical editions of the Greek Testament. Penn's
Annotations. Norton's Genuineness of the Gospels. Credner's Einlei-

APPENDIX. 397

tung. Schotfs Isagoge^ S^c. Luke xxii. 43, 44. Giiesbach's Greek
Testament. Scholz's do. KuinoeVs Commentarius Criticus in Libros
Historicos N. T. 3 vols. 8vo, London, 1828. Norton on the Gos-
pels. Penn^s Annotations.

John V. 3, 4. KuinoeVs Commentarius Criticus^ in addition to the
critical editions of the Greek Testament by Griesbach and Scholz.
PenrCs Annotations. Norton on the Gospels, with Stuarfs Review in
the American Biblical Repository.

LECTURE XVIII.

On the causes of various readings in the Old Testament, see Eichhorn^s
Introduction to the O. T. where however they are unnecessarily and
erroneously multiplied. JdhrHs Introduction translated by Turner and
Wnittinghamf but especially De Wettes Einleitung, last edition.
Bauer in his Critica Sacra follows Eichhorn. Marshes Lectures. For
the New Testament see De Wette's Einleitung. Marshes Lectures.
Michaelis* Introduction to the New Testament. De Wette in Ersch and
Gruber's Encyclopcedia.

LECTURE XIX.

The best and most succinct history of the Old Testament text un-
printed and printed is given in Ersch and Gruher's Encyclopcedia by
De Wette. The same is more fully and better exhibited by him in his
Manual of Historico- critical Introduction to the Canonical Books of the
Old and New Testaments. Kennicott in his second Dissertation, Ox-
ford, 1739, 8vo, gives a history of the Old Testament text, but it is not
to be relied on as altogether accurate. Most of the Introductions to
the Old Testament will be found to contain such a history, as those of
John, Eichhorn, and especially Hdvernick, who gives a very valuable
account of the state of the Old Testament text to the present time.

A book more accessible to the English student is Marsh's Lectures^
where there is an admirable view of this subject by the very learned
writer.

LECTURE XX.

For the history of the New Testament text consult De Wette' s In-
troduction, as also his article in Ersch and Gruber's Encyclopcedia.

398 APPENDIX.

Hug's Introduction. Michaelis do. by Marshy and particularly
Marsh's Lectures. Scholz's Prolegomena to the Greek Testament as
edited by him. Griesbach's do. Norton on the Gospels. Credner's
Beitrdge zur Einleitung in die Biblischen Schriften. Lee's Prolego-
mena. Schulz, in his preface to the third edition of Griesbach. Penns
Annotations to the Book of the New Covenant. Stuart's Notes to Hug.
Matthaei's Greek Testament. Grieslach's Commentarius Criticus.
Laurence's Remarks on the Classification of MSS. adopted by Gries-
bach, 8vo. Oxford, 1814.

LECTURE. XXI.

The divisions of the Old Testament are briefly but admirably describ-
ed by De Wette in Ersch and Gruber's Encyclopaedia ; or better still,
in the last edition of his Introduction. See also Eichhorn's Einleitung.
Jahn's do. Havernick's do. Morinus' Exercitationes Biblicae de He-
braei Graecique textus sinceritate, Svo. 1633. The purport of this
work is to shew that the Hebrew text is in a very imperfect and cor-
rupt state. Buxtorf^s Tiberias, Capelli Critica Sacra, (Vogel's edi-
tion). Capelli Arcanum punctationis revelatum, Leyden, 1624.
Carpzovs Critica Sacra.

For the divisions of the New Testament consult De Wette s Einlei-
tung, Hug's Introduction by Fosdick, Michaelis by Marsh, with the
notes of the translator, Montfaucon's Palceographia Grceca, folio.
Paris, 1708, a book that deserves to be read by all who desire to trace
the progress of the ancient Greek writing, the forms of the letters at
different times, the abbreviations employed, and the internal marks of
age which different modes of writing present. The author has given
numerous specimens illustrative of his remarks.

LECTURE XXII.

In the body of the Lecture I have already pointed out the different
books that treat of the nature of the Hebrew language, so that I need
not here repeat what J have advanced in that place. A good book in
English on the subject is a desideratum — one which would make a feli-
citous use of the abundant materials furnished by the Germans, and de-
lineate the characteristic peculiarities of language found in each of the
Old Testament writers. The greatest Hebraists in Germany have sadly
erred in their estimate of the diction employed by the inspired authors;

APPENDIX. 399

and, therefore, a judicious and able book, proceeding from a profound
Hebrew scholar and an orthodox theologian, would be a very valuable
addition to our Old Testament literature.

At present, the best writer on the subject is Hdvernick, to whom I
have been largely indebted.

It may not be amiss here to point out the best Lexicons and gram-
mars of the Hebrew language, for the use of students.

Passing over Simonis^ as edited by Eichhorn^ and afterwards much
improved by Winer^, with the remark, that although valuable in several
respects, it is superseded by the later labours of Gesenius, I proceed to
notice the following : —

Lexicon Manuals Hehraicum et Chaldaicum, ^c. Latine elaboravit
Guil. Gesenius, Leipsic, 1833. 8vo, last edition.

The Lexicons of Gesenius have justly superseded all preceding ones.
Their value is now too well known to need any thing to be said in their
favour. The fourth edition, containing the results of his latest investi-
gations in the department of lexicography, is decidedly superior to the
former ones. His great Thesaurus of the Hebrew language is progress-
ing very slowly. The first fasciculus was published in 1829, the second
in 1835.

The public are pretty well aware that his sentiments are of the neolo-
gical cast ; and the student will occasionally see a decided leaning to
this even in his lexicons. But it does not affect their excellency to any
considerable extent. I have sometimes observed that he has entirely
missed the philosophical development of the significations of a word,
and that he has unnecessarily multiplied meanings. This, however, is
a fault from which the very best Lexicons are not free, though they are
certainly in this respect immeasurably superior to the older ones. One
of the most important words is J^^^ {para), to which Gesenius assigns

as its primary signification to cut, to hew, to form by cutting, which ap-
pears in pihel, but not in kal. The 2d signification which he gives it
in kal is, to create or produce. 3d, to beget. 4th, to eat or fatten one's
self. In the niphal it means to be created. In pihel, 1st, to cut, 2d, to
form. In hiphil, to make fat. In this account of the different
senses which this verb assumes, according to its various conjugations,
there appears to me to be great perplexity and confusion. There is no
tracing here of what has been called the genealogy of significations.
There is no philosophical linking of one with another. There is no
natural connection between the primary original meaning and the
others subsequently mentioned. The different significations are loosely
thrown together without necessary sequence. We would be led to im-

400 APPENDIX.

agine from such an article, that the Hebrew is one of the most unphilo-
sophical of languages. In this case we desiderate the wonted accuracy,
and admirable arrangement, which distinguish the Lexicons of this
eminent Hebraist above all which preceded.

Verum ubi plura nitent, non ego paucis
Offendar maculis, quas aut incuria fudit,
Aut humana parum cavit natura.

Horai. de Art. Poet, 350.

There are two kindred verbs which, as it appears to me, are in a
great degree confounded in their significations by Gesenius, viz. J»^1S

and TXy^' It is admitted by all that the latter signifies to cut, from

which nn^l? (berith) a covenant^ is derived. From this its original

meaning it signifies to eat, like many Arabic verbs which, with the pri-
mary signification, of cutting or dividing, came to be employed in the
sense of to eat. In the Hebrew Scriptures it also signifies to choose,
implying division and separation. A concordance will furnish instances
where the verb is used in these significations. Such is the verb barah
with He final ; and I may remark that it corresponds exactly with the

Arabic verb !^ defective, in which waw the last radical quiesces in Elif.

Now it appears to me that this word is quite distinct from J^l^ (bara),

although Gesenius gives to both the same radical signification. The pri-
mary' meaning of this latter verb I take to be cy^eate and not to cut or
hew as Gesenius says. I look upon him to be in error when he compares

this verb with the Arabic verb Lj ^o cut, but he is right in noticing the

exact similarity between this Arabic word and the Hebrew H'^^, to cut.

He has not produced any example of i<1^, in kal, signifying to cut.

He refers, however, to the pihel conjugation, in which it does occur
in this sense, and in his Lehrgebaude he says, that the literal sense
often appears in pihel and a secondary one in kal. We pass now
to the consideration of pihel, which may be thought to present an
insuperable obstacle to our view. It is unquestionably true that
there are several passages in which J^*^^ in pihel means to cut down

as with a sword, Ezekiel xxiii. 47, with an axe, Joshua xvii. 13. How
then are we to dispose of these instances, on the supposition that the
original and primary signification is to create. To those acquainted
with the minutiae of Hebrew grammar, it is well known that there is a
close resemblance between the two classes of verbs lamed aleph and

APPENDIX. 401

lamed he. Many instances might be given in wliicli the forms of the
one class are exchanged for those of the other. The two classes in
fact seem to have been tending to coalescence into one form, although
they did not arrive at such a state. In the Chaldee and Syriac they
unite into one class. If then, verbs ending in aleph and in he had so
near a resemblance in Hebrew, as that the proper forms of the one
were often transferred to the other, we need not be surprised that the
significations of the one should also, in some instances, be transferred to
the other. From identity in form, they came in the hands of some to
be identified in signification. To illustrate this more clearly, I shall

give two examples. Psalm Ix. 4, HD*! for J^D") where aleph final is

•»■ : T :

exchanged for he. Again to shew that final he is exchanged for aleph,
see 2 Kings xxv. 29, pihel K^^ (shinna) to change^ for jl^Ji^ (shinnah.)

T • T •

This latter example is exactly in point. Thus we find that the signi-
fication to cut, which has been assigned to this verb in pihel, properly
belongs to the other verb TV^Il' it matters little whether the final he

T T

appears or not, since it may be readily omitted in verbs lamed he, and
especially since the blending together of the two originally distinct forms
will well account for the absence of he final in the two or three instances
in which this conjugation denotes to cut. There are not wanting in-
stances in which the pihel means to form or make, such as Ezekiel xxi,
19, where it is erroneously rendered in the English version to choose.
As to the fourth meaning assigned to the verb J^12l in kal by Gesenius,

viz. to eat or to fatten, he has given no place where it occurs in
this sense, neither can any be found in the whole compass of the He-
brew Bible. We are referred, however, to the hiphil conjugation,
the causative of kal signifying to fatten, which is found in 1 Sam. ii. 29.
This conjugation hiphil I refer to the other verb ni3 ^o cut. Thead-
jective KH^^^j which is said to be a derivative from this meaning as-

signed to kal, I refer also to the same verb. The adjective, indeed,
ends in aleph, which circumstance doubtless influenced him to derive it
from X*1S ; but although derivative words usually retain the final ori-

ginal radical of the verbs that now terminate in lamed he, yet this is
not invariably followed. The aleph final in this adjective I regard as
paragogic, and I might give similar examples of this letter being added
to words where it is merely orthographic. (See some in Stuart's He-
brew Grammar, 2d edition, p. 112). What, then, are the significations
of the verb K*^2l> and what are the conjugations in which it is actually

found in the Bible? I would arrange the whole article thus: — 1st,

2d

402 APPENDIX.

Properly to create, to produce out of nothing. Gen. ii. 3, i. 1. Sd,
To form out of existing materials. Gen. i. 27, &c. 3d, Figuratively
to bring to pass, to effect, to make. Numbers xvi. 30. Jeremiah xxxi.
22. Isaiah Ixv. 8. In the niphal conjugation it means, 1st, To be
created. Gen. ii. 4. 2d, To be born, Ezek. xxi. 30. 3d, To come to
pass. Exod. xxxiv. 10. In pihel to form, to make, same as *^^f^

Ezek. xxi. 19. Such is in my opinion an accurate and philosophical
view of this term. The word *^g, a son, is derived from it, as well as

others which it is needless for me to mention. With H^^ again, we

may compare {^HS fi^f which is manifestly derived from it, together

• »

with the Greek /3ogw, the theme of /3/,/3^wtfxw, from which comes ^oga
food, and the Latin voro.

For a masterly review of Gesenius, written by Prof. Stuart, the
student is referred to the Biblical Repository for 1836. Seldom does
an author meet with so candid and competent a reviewer. This Manual
Lexicon has been translated from the Latin into English, by Prof
Robinson of New York, 1836.

The Thesaurus philologicus criticus linguae Hebrcece, &c. on which
Gesenius has been employed for many years, progresses very slowly.
It is published in quarto, in Hebrew and Latin, with the words etymo-
logically arranged. This is the great work on which it is intended that
the author's fame as a Hebrew scholar shall principally rest. The first
fasciculus was issued in 1829, the second in 1835. No more have yet
come to hand.

HebrdiscJies und Chalddisches Schulworterbuch iiber dasalte Testa-
ment^ mit hinweisung auf die Sprachlehren von Gesenius und lUtvald,
von J. H. R. Biesenthal. Berlin, 1836, 8vo. "A Hebrew and
Chaldee School Lexicon to the Old Testament, with references to the
grammars of Gesenius and Ewald.''

Although this professes to be a school lexicon, yet it will be found
worthy the attention of advanced scholars. The author follows the lexi-
cal principles of Gesenius, and discovers an intimate acquaintance with
the kindred dialects. The work is by far the best dictionary for be-
ginners in the Hebrew language. It details the results of the latest re-
searches in philology, and gives several new views of words that will
be found at once philosophical and correct. Hebrew lexicography will
be promoted by the production of Biesenthal ; for, in some respects, he
has even improved upon the labours of Gesenius. It cannot, indeed be

APPENDIX. 403

too highly recommeiuled to the young student, as an admirable manual
for his instruction, until he have advanced so far as to be able to use,
with advantage, the larger works of Gesenius. Its cheapness is remark-
able, considering the quantity of matter it contains, and the accuracy
with which it is printed. It is ably reviewed by Dr. Isaac Nordheimer,
in the American Biblical Repository ^ Vol. XI. No. 30.

Of the vast number of Hebrew Grammars that have been published
we shall only notice the two best, viz., Gesenius' Lehrgebdude der He-
brdischen Sprache mit Vergliechung der verwandten Dialecte, 8vo.
Leipzig, 1817 ; and Ewald's Grammatik der Hebraischen Sprache des
alien Testaments. 2d edition, 1835, Gottingen, translated into
English by John Nicholson, A. B. Oxon. published at London in 1836.

The former is by far the fullest and most complete grammar that has
appeared. No Hebrew scholar can do well without it, though the
substance has been embodied in Stuart's admirable work of the same
kind. Ewald's is somewhat obscure, but much more profound and phi-
losophical than the former. It is adapted to the highest class of
Hebrew students. The translation by Mr. Nicolson partakes, in some
measure, of the unintelligibility of the original. Of those written in the
English language, the best are Stuarts, Lee*Sy and Nordheimer^s^ the
first and last of which are American productions.

LECTURE XXTII.

The great work which cast more light on the Hebrew letters than all
others is, Kopp's Bilder und Schriften der Vorzeit, 2 vols. {The figures
and writings of antiquity.) This is the production which effected an en-
tire change in the opinions of the learned, with respect to the Hebrew
letters and the changes they have undergone. See also EichKorns Iw
traduction^ 4th edition, vol. I. Excellent on the same subject are H.
Hupfeld's observations in his Exercitattones jEthiopicae. 4to, Leipzig,
1825, and in the Studien und Kritiken, 1830, II. p. 266, &c. Ewald's
Hebrew Grammar. Hdvernick's Introduction. De Wette's Lehrbuch
der hebrdisck-judischen Archaeologie, S^c. 2d edition, 8vo, Leipzig, ] 830.
These are likewise to be read and studied on the Hebrew vocalizationy
especially Hupfeld and after him Havernick. Gesenius' opinions re-
specting the Hebrew letters and punctuation, as given in his Geschichte
der Heb. Sprach. und Schrift, are now materially changed, so as to coin-
cide with those of Kopp and Hupfeld. This will be seen in the 2d
edition of this work, so long announced and expected.

It is to be regretted that Kopp*s work is so expensive as to put it be-

404 APPENDIX.

yond the reach of many, but whoever can read Havernick and Hup^
feld need not be much disappointed.

The reader will obtain some valuable information respecting the an-
cient Hebrew letters from Gesenius* Scripturae linguaeqiie Phoeniciae
7nonnmenta edita et ineditay S^x. 2 vols. 4to, Leipsic, 1837, a work
which has an important bearing on the Hebrew alphabet, since it un-
folds the nature of the Phenician language as far as it can be ascertained
from existing memorials. All, indeed, that is known of the Phenician
is here systematically and accurately delineated. It forms an able sup-
plement to the work of Kopp, and will be found to contain much useful
illustration of Shemitish palaeography.

I may be permitted in this place briefly to allude to some of the ques-
tions once agitated among Christians respecting the Hebrew vowel
points. Such questions are indeed no longer discussed ; but it may not
be quite without instruction to refer to them, now that they are past.
Some maintained that the written vowel points were coeval with the con-
sonants, or at least with the time of Ezra. The great advocates of this
opinion were the two Buxtorfs. The arguments advanced in its favour
are to be found in the elder Buxtorfs Tiberias^ chapters ix. and x, and
in the son's '< Tractatus de punctorum vocalium et accentuum in libris
Veteris Testamenti Hebraicis origine, antiquitate, et auctoritate," Basil,
1648, 4to. On the same side were Wasmuth, Loescher, PfeifFer, and
Carpzov. A summary of their arguments may be seen in Bauer's Cri-
tica sacra, § 13, with a brief but satisfactory refutation. The sentiments
advocated by these scholars are now justly exploded. Buxtorf was op-
posed by Cappellus, Professor of Theology and Hebrew, at the French
protestant University of Saumur, in his famous work entitled " Arcan-
um punctationis revelatum." Afraid to publish it in France at that time,
he sent it in MS. to Buxtorf for his opinion of it, who returned it with
the request that it niight not be printed. He then sent it to Erpenius
at Leyden, who published it in 1624. This work contains nearly all
the arguments against the antiquity of the vowel points that have been
advanced since. All succeeding writers have borrowed from it. In
answer to this work the younger Buxtorf wrote the treatise already
specified. Cappellus maintained that the vowel points and accents were
not coeval with the letters, but a later invention of the Masoretes.
This opinion he defended against the younger Buxtorf, in his " Vindi-
ciae arcani punctationis revelati." His sentiments so ably advocated in
these publications have been held for substance by the greater number
of Hebraists, down to the present time. Cappellus and many others
believed that the letters aleph, vau^ and yod, were anciently used as
rowels by the Hebrews. Some endeavoured to take a middle path.
Not willing to believe in the high antiquity of the present vowel system

APPENDIX.

405

in all its compass, and rejecting the idea that the Hebrews had vowel
letters, they nevertheless admitted that the ancient Jews had vowel signs,
but that they were neither so numerous as the present, nor the same in
form ; and that in the oldest MSS. they were appended to doubtful
words and passages where they were necessarily required. This was
the opinion of Rivetus in his Isagoge, of Hottinger in his Thesaurus
Philologicus, of Marckius, and of Schultens. Taking up this idea, some
later scholars endeavoured to describe more minutely this ancient and
simple vocalisation. They held that there were three original vowel
points in imitation of the Arabic. So Michaelis, Trendelenburg, Eich-
horn, and Bertholdt. Others thought that a diacritic point, or small
line, served the same purpose as the three original vowels, after the
analogy of the Samaritan, and the oldest Syrian writing. This mark
was put sometimes above, and sometimes below the letters, to mark the
vowel sounds A, O, U, E, I. Such was the opinion of Dupuy and Jahn.
In ancient times Morinus, Richard Simon, and others, who held that
our present punctuation system originated since the seventh century,
came nearest the truth. They correctly looked upon it as an imitation
of the Arabic orthography.

It is necessary to notice another modification of the sentiments of
Cappellus, adopted by a few of the moderns. Believing that in his ac-
count of the vowel system its origin was placed too late, they allowed
the existence of written vowel signs in the Talmud, and in Jerome. So
O. G. Tyschsen in Eichhorn's Repertorium, Vol. iii. p. 102, &c., and
Gesenius in his Geschichte der Heb. Sprach. und Schri/t, § 51, 52. That
there were no written vowel marks so early as these scholars suppose,
has been recently demonstrated by Hupfeld in the Tkeol. Studien und
Kritiken, 1830. Hefte 2—4, with whom agrees Havernick in his In-
troduction. I have given substantially the same view in the Lectures.
For an account of the controversies that have been carried on respect-
ing the vowel points, see particularly Bauer's Critica Sacra, p. 128, &c.
and the authors there referred to ; Gesenius' Geschichte der Heb. Sprach.
&c., and Havernick's Einleitung, § 55. Those who wish to study the
doctrine of the accents, should read some of the treatises that have been
expressly written concerning them, especially " Doctrina Accentuationis
Hebraeae^ by Daniel Weimar, Leipsic, 1729 ; and Ouseel's Introductio
in accentuationem Hebraerum prosaicam,'^ Leyden, 1715. Sufficiently
elaborate and more easy of access, are Gesenius' Lehrgebdade, Ewald's
Hebrew Grammar, and Lee's do. One of the most concise, perspicuous
and accurate accounts in the English language, is given by Professor
Stuart, in the appendix to the second edition of his Hebrew Grammar,
Andover, 1823. Unless students wish to push their researches very far
into the subject, the last named treatise will give ample satisfaction.

406 A.PPEND1X.

LECTURE XXIV.

Of the nature of the New Testament diction the reader may find a
good account in the introductory part of Winers Grammar. So also
in Stuarfsy vvhich is chiefly taken from Winer. Dr. Robinson in the
preface to his Lexicon of the Greek Testament has also briefly describ-
ed it.

The first writer that unfolded its true characteristics was the younger
Plancki in his masterl}'^ essay entitled, De vera, naturd atque indole
orationis Graecae Novi Testamenti Commentation Auctore Henrico Planck.
Gotting. 1810, translated in the Biblical Repository/ by Professor Robin-
son, and reprinted in the Edinburgh Biblical Cabinet, vol. 2. Winer
following up the views o^ Planck, has successfully developed the genius
of the New Testament diction. The reader will also find a brief and
judicious account of it in De Weite*s Einleitung in das Neue Testa-
ment^ Zd edition^ Berlin, 1834, at the commencement of the book.

The best Lexicon of the New Testament is the following, A Greek
and English Lexicon of the New Testament by Edieard Robinsouy D.D.
Sfc, a new and imp-oved edition, revised by Alexander Negris, and by
the Rev. J. Duncan, A.M, Edin. 8vo, 1838.

After the publication of the Lexicons of Wdhl and Bretschneidert Dr.
Kobinson undertook to compose a Lexicon, worthy in some measure
to occupy the same rank, with respect to the Greek Testament, as that
of Gesenius does in relation to the Hebrew Bible. Adopting the scien-
tific principles which that illustrious scholar perceived in their full bear-
ing, and followed out with so much success, he has produced a work
which may not be inaptly compared with that of the great German
theologian. A long acquaintance with kindred studies had prepared
him for entering upon his arduous task, whilst his sound judgment
and extensive reading seemed to unite in rendering him peculiarly qua-
lified for the work. Having free access to almost all the libraries in
North America that could aid him in its compilation, he spared not
himself in labouring with incessant industry for a number of years till
he completed the work. It professes to be a concordance as well as a
Lexicon, for at least seven-eighths of the words, while in all the more
difficult terms it serves as a commentary, by giving various interpreta-
tions besides that adopted by the author. It is also geographical and
historical, supplying to a considerable extent the place of those "sacred
geographies" now so common among readers of the Bible. The Gram-
mars of Winer and Buttmann, as also the great work of Passow, have
contributed their share in its formation ; nor have the best German
commentaries on particular books of the New Testament, as those of
Fritzsche, Kuinoel, and Tholuck been neglected. He who would

APPENDIX. 407

compose a good Lexicon must indeed have recourse to such philologi-
cal expositions of separate gospels and epistles, where the terms are
often so admirably illustrated, although the theology may be most er-
roneous and even pernicious. The high expectations formed of this
long-promised Dictionary have been abundantly realised in his own
country, where the reputation of the author has been raised to a high
eminence in sacred literature. It soon found its way into Great Britain,
and its merits were at once perceived by those best capable of judging.
It was accordingly reprinted in London under the superintendence of
Dr. Bloomfield, well known as an editor of the Greek Testament, who,
in revising it, has made some slight improvemenis, while he has often
5'Mmec? statements made by the author, whose correctness admits of
little doubt. The present edition appeared subsequently to the London
reprint, and was superintended by two scholars, one in the Greek de-
partment, and the other principally in the Hebrew. Minute accuracy
is therefore to be expected. Those only who are conversant with such
works are aware of the extreme difficulty of attaining verbal correct-
ness, especially where so many passages are quoted. It may, however,
be asserted with truth, that there are very few, if any, typographical
inaccuracies in the present edition. There are, besides, various im-
provements, consisting of additions in the way of remark or correction.
Some of these are valuable in a theological point of view, especially to
such as believe in the doctrines commonly termed orthodox. Several
words are given in their proper Oriental character, a thing which oc-
curs even in Schleusner, and which tends to the completeness of a book
containing terms belonging to the Shemitish languages. On the
whole, therefore, the present edition may be pronounced as in all re-
spects the best of this invaluable Lexicon of the Greek Testament. It
is almost unnecessary to recommend it to the attention of all who are
interested in the study of the sacred Scriptures. That it is indispen-
sable to the student who would read the New Testament with accuracy
and delight, we are fully convinced ; and we doubt not that it will have
a place in the library of every clergyman who wishes to understand the
record which in these latter days God has given of his Son. In point
of literary ability it does great honour to the American author ; and
in regard to beauty of typography and exterior the Edinburgh edition re-
flects credit on the publisher ; while his entrusting the two individuals,
mentioned in the title page, with its superintendence, is a sufficient
assurance to the public, that no pains have been spared to render
it deserving of a wide and extensive circulation. If there be any
department in which the present volume admits of any improve-
ment as must necessarily result from the nature of such a work,
it is that of the different significations, which in not a few cases
we think too numerous. Dr. Robinson has indeed done much in this

408 APPENDIX.

province, and much improvement has he made on the works of his pre-
decessors, but he might have still farther reduced the number of signifi-
cations attached to some words, and thus greatly simplified several of
his paragraphs. In general, however, he has well distinguished the signi-
fication from the sense of a word, which had been sadly confounded by
Schleusner and others, and which had given rise to a great multipli-
cation of meanings calculated to bewilder the mind. We might also
point out several instances in which the significations are not logically
arranged. These things, however, may be amended in subsequent edi-
tions, should the author's life be spared to revise and extend his pre-
vious researches.

The best Grammar of the New Testament diction is, G. B. Wifier's
Grammatik des neutestamenilichen Sprackidioms ols sichere grmidlage
del' neutestamenilichen Exegese bearbeitet. 8vo, Leipzig, 1886, 4th
edition.

This is altogether the most complete and extensive grammar of the
New Testament dialect ever published. The learned author has been
gradually improving it until it has reached the 4th edition. Whoever
would successfully and critically investigate the Greek Testament can-
not dispense with this work. Immense industry, great research, patient
investigation, and minute inquiry, characterise the production. It is
not, however, so well adapted to English students as the following :

A Grammar of the New Testament dialect by Moses Stuart. Prof. Sac.
Lit. Theol. Sem. Andover. 8vo. 1834.

Of this grammar I cannot but speak in the highest terms. It is a
work of great merit.' The learned author has evidently consulted the
best authorities in compiling it. It is invaluable to the student of the
Greek Testament. It seems to me occasionally to exhibit a want of
philosophical accuracy which it would scarcely be opportune to point
out in this place.

It has been twice* reprinted in Britain, viz., in the Edinburgh Biblical
Cabinet, vol. x., and again by C. J. Sttwart. London, 1838. 12mo. The
former is cheaper, and contains besides a dissertation on the Greek
Article, by the same author.

LECTURE XXV.

On the Greek article consult Middletons doctrme of the Greek article
applied to the criticism a7id illustratio?i of the New J'estament. A new
edition, with prefatory observatio7is and notcs^by Hugh James Rose, B.D.

APPENDIX. 409

8^70, Cambridge, 1833. Skarpes remarks on the uses of the definitive
article in the Greek Text of the New Testament, 12?no., Sd edition,
Durhayn and London, 1803. Dean Wordsworth' s six letters to GranviUe
Sharp, Esq. 8vo. London, 1S02. Six more letters to Granville Sharp,
Esq.y hy Gregory Blunt, Esq. 1803. Winstanlefs Vindication of cer-
tain passages of the common version, 6fc. 1807, directed against Mr.
Sharp's positions. See also a critique on Middleton's treatise in the
Monthly Review for 1810, New series; and an article in the Monthly
Repository, for May 1816, written by Dr. Charles Lloydd. Stuarfs
essay, entitled Hints and cautions respecting the Greek article, in the An-
dover Biblical Repository for 1834, and republished in the 10th volume
of the Biblical Cabinet, along with his Syntax of the New Testament
Greek. It may be worth while also to read what is said about the ar-
ticle in Winer s Grammar of the New Testament, in Stuart's do., and
in Gersdorf's Beitrdge zur Sprach-characteristik der Schriftsteller des
N. T. Th. /., Leipzig, 8vo, 1816. {Contributions towards the Cha^
racteristics of the style of the writers of the New Testament, by Chr. G.
Gersdorf) Mr. Valpy, in the beginning of his edition of the Greek
Testament, gives an abstract of Middleton's doctrine, but owing per-
haps to its brevity, it is scarcely relied on as altogether accurate.

LECTURE XXVI.

On the original language of Matthew, much has been written to little
purpose. By far the best essay on the subject is contained in the Ame'
rican Biblical Repository, vol. xii. No. 31, written by Prof. Stuart.
See also Hug's Introduction, with Stuart's notes relating to the subject.
Credner^s Einleitung ; Die Echtheit der vier Canon. Evangelien, aus
der geshichte der zwei ersten Jahr. erwiesen, 8vo. Koenigsberg, 1823. Von
H. Olshausen." i. e. the " genuineness of the four canonical gospels proved
from the history of the first two centuries, by Dr. H. Olshausen ;"
Schott's Isagoge. Michaelis, in his Introduction to the NewTestament, and
Marsh, in his notes to do., advocate the opinion that Matthew wrote
in Hebrew. Norton on the Gospels takes the same view. De Wetie
in his Introduction, and Eritzsche in his prolegomena to Matthew's
Gospel, contend for a Greek original.

Among writers, since the time of the Reformation, favourable to a
Greek original, may be enumerated, in addition to those already men-
tioned, Erasmus, Cajetan, Oecolampadius, Calvin, Paraeus, Flacius,
Beza, Gerhard, Walther, Walaeus, Heidegger, Chamier, Lightfoot,
Calov, Hottinger, Kortholt, Ittig, Clericus, Cappell, Beausobre, Bas-

410 APPENDIX. , ^

nage, Rumpaeus, Schroeder, Mai, Lardner, Fabricius, Leusden, Pri-
tius, Vogel, C. F. Schmid, Hofman, Boerner, Wetstein, Masch, Schu-
bert, Gabler, Paulus, Gravvitz, Koecher, Semler, V enema, Noesselt,
Jones, Jortin, Hey.

All of these advocated a Greek original. Extracts from their writ-
ings, that bear upon the subject might be easily given, but I do not
think it at all necessary.

Neither is it worth while to quote passages from the following
writers on the opposite side, viz. Baronius, Casaubon, the Jesuit Baile,
Natolis Albert de Verse, (Tombeau du Socinianisme, p. 167), Du
Pin, Simon, Calmet, Mill, Weber, Eisner, Adler, Vossius, Corrodi,
Grotius, Bellarmin, Tillemont, Storr, Hanlein, Schmidt, Walton, Cave,
Williams, Harwood, Owen, Campbell, Bolten, Bertholdt, Eichhorn,
Kuinoel, A. Clarke, &c.

In the Lectures, I have referred to a few writers who have endea-
voured, but without success, to unite both hypotheses. And here I
may remark, that it is not to be inferred, from its having been brought
forward by Schott and Olshausen in modern times, that they are de-
cided advocates of it. It would rather appear that Schott favours the
idea that Matthew's Gospel was written in Greek ; Olshausen, that it
was composed in Hebrew. Both, however, adduce the hypothesis of
Schwarz as a thing not improbable. The language of the former is,
" Certe, si Matthaeus aramaice scripsisse censeatur, vel ipse Matthaeus,
vel vir quidam apostolicus idem evangelium mox graece edidisse ex-
istimandus est." Isagoge^ p. 69. For Olshausen's remarks, consult his
biblischer Commentar uber sammtliche Schr. d. N. T, Koenigsberg,
8vo. 1830, p. 11, &c. Here he appears less positive than formerly in
1823, when he published his ^'genuineness of the gospels" in which
treatise he shewed himself a strong advocate for the Hebrew original
of Matthew. And though he has not renounced his former sentiments,
yet he exhibits a spirit of toleration towards those who adhere to the
idea of a Greek original, and admits, that there may have been a two-
fold original. The conjecture of the learned Orelli, though allied to
the opinion of Bengel and others, is no less singular than groundless.
" Duo Matthaei discipuli, alter Aramaico sermone, alter Graeco, in
usus Christianorum ex Judaeis, traditionem ab illo acceptam literis
videntur consignasse." See his S electa patrum ecclesiae capita. Turici,
1821, p. 10.

0/the language of the epistle to the Hebrews. Clement of Alexandria
conjectured that the epistle was originally written in Hebrew, and
translated into Greek by some friend of the Apostle. This opinion
respecting the original language M'as held by many of the fathers, botfr

APPENDIX. 411

in the Eastern and Western Churches. Eusebius, Theodoret, Eutha-
lius, Cosmas Indikopleustes, Johannes Damascenus, Oecumenius,
Theophylact, Nicephorus, and others, adopted it. In the West it was
no less prevalent, through the influence of Jerome's name, down to the
time of the Reformation. Cajetan, Erasmus, and Calmet, however,
declared themselves unfavourable to such a view. Calvin and Fla-
cius, too, oppose the assumption of a Hebrew original; and, since
their time, almost all Protestants have adhered to the originality of the
Greek text. A few, indeed, dissented, as Hyperius, Zanchius, Tossanus,
Salmasius, Hallet, Sal. Van Til, and Michaelis, but their authority is
of no weight against such names as Semler, Storr, Ziegler, Hanlein,
Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Schulz, Orelli, De Wette, Bbhme, Bleek, Schott,
Stuart, Forster, and others, with the Roman Catholic theologians Hug,
Feilmoser, (Einleitung in die Blicher des neuen Bundes, &c. Von
Andreas Benedict Feilmoser, 2d edition, 8vo, TUbingen 1830), and
Klee.

FINIS.

EDINBURGH :
PRINTED BY J. THOMSON, MILNE SQUARE.

Date Due

«*a^^ri^H}

a

PRINTED

IN U. 8. A.