every point connected with the history and critical state of the Hebrew and Greek texts The Introduction of Michaelis called forth numerous productions in the same department from the pens of Eichhorn, Jahn, Haenlein Bauer, Augusti, De Wette, Schmidt, Bertholdt and other authors of extensive learning and acknowledged critical acumen: which, though with the exception of Jahn, abounding in neo logical views, and exhibiting a levity of spirit but ill-accordant with the high and solemr claims of the book they are designed to illus trate, nevertheless deserve a place in the li brary of every biblical critic, and will more o less reward the diligence with which they are studied. As it regards patience of investigation, pro fundity and variety of talent, and a peculia happiness of tact in seizing the points at issue between discordant authors, none of the wri ters just enumerated is to be placed on a leve with Dr. Hug, a translation of whose introduc tory work is announced at the head of the pre sent article. The author, who is Roman Catholic Professor in the University of Freyburgh, was induced by Dr. Schnurrer, the learned Chan cellor of the University of Tubingen, to com mence and prosecute a series of crtical inves tigations into the state of the Greek text of the New Testament, the results of which he first published in the year 1811; and in 1821 a second edition appeared, greatly enlarged and improved, in consequence of the more ma tured views of the author, and the fresh light which had in the interim been poured on many of the subjects on which he treats. differing greatly as to their plan, and the merit language, that he may avail himself of the pro which they possess in a critical point of view, found and extensive researches which the con but still calculated, to a certain extent, to facitinental critics have instituted into almos litate the inquiries of studious readers of Scripture. Had the Histoire Critique obtained that general perusal to which, with all its faults, it was entitled, it might have excited attention to numerous subjects of essential critical moment; but the prejudices which existed against the author as a Catholic, and the very unreadable English in which the translation appeared, must have operated to prevent its usefulness. With the publication of the Introduction to the New Testament, by the late J. D. Michaelis, a new epoch in the history of Biblical learning commenced, not only on the Continent, but also in England. A translation of this work appeared in 1761, and was soon followed by Harwood's Introduction, and Percy's Key to the New Testament; and, about twenty years afterwards, by Gray's Key to the Old Testament. In 1801, appeared a new and improved translation of Michaelis's Introduction, accompanied with valuable notes, by the learned Dr. Marsh, which greatly tended to increase the spirit of critical research, that was now becoming more general among biblical students. Since then, we have been favoured with two very important accessions in the works of Horne and Carpenter; but we are free to acknowledge, there still appears to us to be wanted a separate work, in the form of a strictly Critical Introduction to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. While we cannot but regard Carpenter's book as admirably adapted to answer the end specifically proposed by the author, and we feel greatly indebted to Mr. Horne for the quantity of useful matter with which, at great labour and expense, he has furnished us, we cannot rid ourselves of the conviction, that the latter author, by aiming at too much, has crowded together numerous subjects, which ought to have been treated in separate works, and thus precluded the possibility of the New Testament writings; the bility of his entering into the discussion of many points, with that critical minuteness and nicety, which their high importance and the present advanced state of biblical science imperiously demand. While, for instance, upwards of two hundred pages are devoted to the interpretation of Scripture, in which, with much that is excellent, is mixed up no inconsiderable portion of superfluous and heteroge neous matter, the Alexandrian and Vatican MSS., two of the most important biblical documents, are disposed of in ten, which consist almost entirely of mere bibliographical notices, interesting to the curious, but by no means satisfying the demands of critical research. The work is also radically defective in Hebrew criticism-a department indispensably requisite to the successful investigation of the real meaning of the Old Testament Scriptures. These remarks are not made with the The work is divided, in the usual convenien mode, into two parts; the former treating o critical subjects connected with the text gen erally, such as the age, authenticity and credi writing-materials, recensions, loss of auto grapha, collection of the books and canon; the history of the text, and the accidental alter ations which took place in the books; the MSS editions and versions; and the principles o criticism, agreeably to which we ought to pro ceed, in deciding what is the real text. The latter division of the work is entirely devoted to a critical examination of the different books separately, with a view to determine their order, authors, dates, contents, and scope. We have not room to enter on the subject o the classification of the MSS. of the New Tes tament, but we must be allowed to say that next to Griesbach, we are not acquainted with any author who has bestowed more attention upon it than Dr. Hug. His hypothesis, which partly coincides with, and partly differs from that of the great critic, is principally contained in the fourth that it was written in Hebrew. Among other arguments employed by the latter is the assumed fact, that the Greek language was not sufficiently known in Palestine, to have rendered it an object of sufficient importance for the Evangelist to compose a gospel in it for the use of his countrymen. This fact Dr. Hug disputes, and shows that the Greeks had gained very considerable ground throughout the East, at the period to which the composition of the Gospel must necessarily be referred. As the following extract will, we doubt not, prove both interesting and instructive to our readers, we need not make any apology for its length; and shall introduce it with the remark, that, in the work before us, every assertion here made is supported by unexceptionable testimonies, given at full in the notes. "By the conquest of the Macedonians the state of Asia, underwent many changes as to opinion, customs, sciences, and language, the history of which, from want of documents, will never be entirely developed. What I say here respecting the language is principally directed to Palestine. "What shall we say (such are the words of an old author) to Greek cities in barbarous countries, and to the Macedonian language among the Indians and among the Persians? For the Macedonians had built Greek cities even in Media. On the Tigris, Seleucia was principally inhabited by Greeks; to the southeast was the magnificent Ctesiphon; and to the north-west was Sittace. "Babylon imitated Macedonia; in its neighbourhood lived Greeks and Macedonians. But, not to enter into details, we refer (in Appian) to a large catalogue of cities in Upper and Lower Syria which were assigned to the Greeks. Tigranes, the Armenian, in his march to Phoenicia, by way of Syria, destroyed no less than twelve Greek cities. Between Syria and Babylonia we meet with the ruins of Palmyra, which are inscribed with fewer Palmyrenean than Greek inscriptions. Even some, written in the Palmyrene character, are, nevertheless, in their language, Greek. In Upper Syria, on the boundaries of Palestine, and in Palestine itself, the Greeks, in consequence of the situation and neighbourhood, made still greater intrusions. The many disturbances which here took place furnished great inducements to them. The Ptolemies and Seleucidæ had a long contest for the possession of these countries; they brought their Greeks with them, and placed them as governors and as inhabitants of the older and more recently built cities, lodging them as garrisons in them. "Antioch, the capital of Upper Syria, bordering on Palestine, was, by its founder, peopled with Macedonians and Greeks, and obtained the reputation of Greek refinement and science. Not only in Antioch, but in several cities of Lower Syria, i тn xaтw Zupia, Macedonians and Greeks, together with Jews, were introduced as inhabitants. "Likewise, Tvre and Sidon, cities vet more minion in these countries, they orde edict which they published at Tyre, t posed in the public places, in two lar viz. the Latin and the Greek, that e might be able to read it. The same m happened at Sidon: for, a Roman ed have been published in the Greek a languages. A general order to the Tyre, Sidon, and Askalon, contains t clause: "This edict shall be expose temples in the Latin and Greek lan In the above-mentioned edicts, the lan the legislators, as well as that of th whom it was incumbent to obey them turally taken into consideration. As itself, a decree of the city (somewh the years 144-47, before our æra) is ed upon a marble, worded in the G guage, by which it pays honour to mander of the body-guard of Ptolemy tor. Askalon is particularly worth notice, being situated in Palestine, several epochs it constituted a part of ish state. It moreover produced me tinguished themselves in Greek le philosophers, historians, and gra Such was the fate of the principal ci "The Jews, indeed, when the under Antiochus Epiphanes became t preserved themselves in the interi country, with arms in their hands, by the bravery of their Asmonean cl the language and the manners of the but many of the cities, which the Sy had torn from the Jewish states ar with other inhabitants, they were regain. "This glory remained for Aristo Alexander, the first Asmoneans, wh royal dignity. At the death of the were all, together with several othe under subjection to the Jews, or where the inhabitants would no Judaism. Yet that was not of long "Pompey, on his return from his against Mithridates, conducting through Syria, took advantage of the among the Jewish princes, to rende dependent on the Romans. On th he recovered from the Jews the c they had taken from the Syrian kin those which had been demolished to and the latter as well as the former t ed to their former inhabitants. Gadara, Hyppos, Scythopolis, Pella maria, Marissa, Azotus, Jamnia, Gaza, Joppa, Dora, and Straton's that time the following were rebuilt Azotus, Scythopolis, Anthedon, Ra Marissa, and Gaza. In all proba were all, if not entirely, at least par bited by Greeks, or by the Syrians Greek. Respecting some of them we ca with certainty. Dora, once a city subsequently disputed with the Jew of citizenship. Claudius decided the tween Galilee and Judæa, and formerly belong- | "Afterwards Herod found means to elevate himself to the throne of the Asmonians through the favour of Anthony, and afterwards through that of Augustus. When he saw himself secured in the possession of it, he, and his sons after him, either built new cities in honour of the Cæsars, or embellished the old ones, and put Greek inhabitants into them. The greatest and most magnificent was Cæsarea, the capital of the country next to Jerusalem, and principally peopled with Greeks. But they became so ungrateful after the death of the king, that they denied to the Jews a share in the city. Nero afterwards declared, against the Jews, that the Greeks were the masters of the city. They fared worse at Tiberias; under the same king, the Jews fell upon their fellow-citizens, the Greeks, and completely overthrew them. Chance has thus far furnished us with testimonials of the history of the Herodian cities: if the catalogue be not very copious, let it be recollected, that I am referred to only one source, namely, Josephus, who only makes mention of the Greeks when a remarkable circumstance requires him to do so. "Respecting other cities, we can only infer from circumstances, or from the testimonies of Numismata. Cæsarea on the Panius, built by Philip, had temples, theatres, a stadium, and coins stamped in the Greek language, under Augustus, Caius Cæsar, &c. The inscriptions of others can be easily sought in Eckhel and Rasche. poc alternately, and as synonymous; as if no farther difference existed here between Greek and Syrian. In "These are the cities which he names. the north-east, Philadelphia, Gerasa, Pella, Gadara, Hippos; farther southward, Scythopolis. Westward, Kedasa; by the sea, Ptolemais, Gaba, Cæsarea, Askalon, Anthedon, Gaza; more inland, Sebaste. "If we also inspect this catalogue, and keep exclusively in view those cities which history particularly or partially points out distinctly as belonging to the Greeks: Antioch and its environs near Palestine, Tyre and Sidon, with their dominions bordering upon each other, and often at variance with Galilee concerning the boundaries; in the country itself, Dora, Gadara, Hippos, Tiberias, Scythopolis, Cæsarea, formerly Straton's Tower: Askalon, Gaza ;we see from thence that Palestine had received into her bosom a second nation, (not reckoning the other swarms of people of various extraction,) and divided herself between two languages, the language of the country and the Greek. "From the time of Pompey, the opposition against the incursion of the Greeks was removed; the barriers were not only broken, but the Greeks were even the favoured party. They became still more so under Herod the first, who did not conceal from the Jews that he gave the preference to the Greeks, and did not stop at this confession, but by costly preparations even manifested that it was his purpose to hellenize the Jews. "He built at Cæsarea a theatre and an amphitheatre; at Jericho, a stadium, amphitheatre, and theatre; a stadium, and an amphitheatre under the walls of the holy city, and at last a theatre even within its circumference. The immense expense of this species of edifices, particularly in the interior of the country, at Jericho, and even in Jerusalem, shows how much he was resolved to accustom the Jews to the Greek drama, and to the sanguinary diversions of the Roman combats. "When the subsequent Roman government, which was conducted by the procurators and the prætors of Syria, under whom they were placed, contributed to the adoption of the Greek language or retarded it, deserves an inquiry, which may be proposed in the following manner: In what language did the prætors of Syria and the administrators of Judæa, Vitellius, Petronius, Pilate, speak when they sat as "Josephus gives us a larger catalogue of ci-judges, and when they addressed the assemties upon which the Jews revenged themselves blies of the people? for the cruel wrongs which they had suffered from the Greeks in Cæsarea. It is natural to suppose that they were Greek cities which were made to expiate the crimes of the Greeks in C Among them are such as we have Formerly it was customary for the Roman governors to speak only in their own language; even in places where they were not understood, as in Greece and Asia. Up to the reign of Tiberius, the ancient custom had so far been quently gave Roman judgments in Greek words. | When Tiberius made an exception in this particular, and refused to admit the testimony of a centurion in the Greek language, the historian observes; that the emperor was not herein consistent,-for, in the same courts, he had taken many depositions in this language, and pronounced many decisions in it. Verses of Homer were often interspersed in the judgments of Claudius, and he frequently met with annoyances through the forwardness of the Greeks. When Nero first appeared on public business, he spoke in favour of the affairs of the Bononians, and for those of the Rhodians and the Ilienses, before the consul, for the first in Latin, and for the others in Greek. "Since the emperors in Rome itself administered justice to the provincials in the Greek language; since the affairs of the Greeks, which their ambassadors brought forward, were discussed in the senate and brought before the consuls in the Greek language-we must infer that such was the manner of proceeding by the Romans in Greece and Asia. "We are not destitute of examples on this point. Cicero, at Syracuse, spoke in the Greek | senate in the Greek language,, with which Verres reproached him; he, however, was not very likely to do any thing in his professional capacity which he was not able to justify by precedents. P. Crassus, who, as proconsul, was commissioned to wage war with Aristonicus in Asia, carried it so far that he answered and issued his commands to each of the Greek tribes in its own dialect, accordingly as he was addressed; to the Ionians in Ionic, to the Colians in Eolic. Augustus, as conqueror and Autocrat, addressed the people of Alexandria in the Greek language. Through Greek eloquence Mucius persuaded the people of Antioch to declare for Vespasian. The Greek language even appears to have been the courtlanguage of the proconsuls of Asia and Syria. "But, once more: of what language did the procurators of Palestine, Pilate, Porcius, Festus, make use, when they presided as judges? or the prætors of Syria, Petronius, Vitellius, when they, as was frequently the case, addressed the people?-That the Romans in Syria and Phoenicia made use of the Greek language, we know from the preceding proofs; but that they made use of an interpreter in Palestine, is no where hinted at, either in Josephus or in the sacred books. "With respect to the people, the superior orders could scarcely do without this language, on account of the new circumstances of society: but with respect to the multitude, it was decided by that, which was adventitious, the sphere in which each moved and his business. Few of my countrymen,' says Josephus at the end of his Archæologia, 'would have been able to compose this book in the Greek language, on account of their deficiency in the grammatical knowledge of it, in which I can boast myself superior to others; although I do not speak it well myself, on account of the established manners of my country. For with us the know tics if they were inclined. We onl erudite acquisitions to those who are ed with the laws, and are able to ex sacred books.' "A knowledge of the more ancient and of the religious documents was com ly an object of the higher sort of Je cation. Even for the existing langua people, for the Aramaic, there were of tuition. In the same manner was t language neglected; the Jews unde but not grammatically, and learned nexion and intercourse, in which was communicated to the lower or if instruction had been offered, were situation to receive it. "The religious authorities were s posed to the diffusion of the Greek that they esteemed and honoured it ry other language. Works written reckoned among the books of Hebrew and even in legal cases which came with religion the use of it was admitt are we informed by the oldest, and t be relied on, of the Talmudic recor Mishnah, for I do not intend to not later dreams of the Jews. "The Jews are not permitted t books in all languages; it shall only ted them to write books in the GRE is a declaration of Rabbi Simeon, Gamaliel, which was acknowledge tute. "A bill of divorce might be writter or HEBREW, or, if it were wished, guages, and might also be signed nesses in GREEK or HEBREW; in guage, and with either subscription lid. Yet had the Jews many scrupl to this business, and allowed to a court of justice no voice whateve acknowledged no one as a sufficien such cases, unless it were one of people. So indulgent had the Jew a legal process which innovated gious and Mosaic casuistry. "The first prohibition against th curs in the latter days of the J when Titus threatened Jerusalem. of Vespasian the wreath of the brid the hand-drums were abolished b der; but in the war of Titus the brides' wreaths was also interdic fathers were commanded hencefor vent their sons from learning Gre "From this prohibition we mig it were necessary, why Josephus by Titus to persuade the besieged perate measures, spoke to them in language, iv Targi groom and if Jud. L. v. c. 9. n. 2.; L. vi. c. 2. n. if this prohibition had not been existed in the old ancestorial sou like extraction and of like intere of the native land, and on that ad sessed an inducement to confiden was considered by Titus; how c ever look upon it as a proof of the humble, they requested a conference with Titus. He had never before appeared in negotiations. He approached, ordered the Romans to cease hostilities, had an interpreter at his side, (ing in Texμngion Tou nearer, as Josephus adds,) and began the conference himself. Here he spoke by means of an interpreter: could this person have been present for the purpose of translating the words of Titus into Hebrew? For that office he would rather have chosen Josephus; but he, who never forgets himself in the history, was not the person: had it been, he would have mentioned it. Also the interpreter was not present for the purpose of speaking Hebrew, πατριῳ γλωσση, which Josephus would not have omitted to mention. For what purpose, then, one may ask, was the interpreter necessary? The words of the historian explain it, if we be willing to understand them. The emperor spoke ex majestate imperii, that is, LATIN, after the manner of the old Romans: thus much the words signify: ὴν τεκμηριον του κρατων, this was the distinguish ing mark of the sovereign, which has been falsely interpreted by the following passage, primus, quod victoris indicium, dicere instituit. It would have been better to have preserved the translation of Ruffin, who, at least, is nearer the mark; adhibitoque interprete, quo argumento superior ostendebatur. "The interpreter then translated his words into a language more generally understood, but, as we have inferred from the manner of Josephus, not into the Hebrew. What language could it then have been? Besides, it is mentioned, in corroboration, as praiseworthy in Titus that he made use of the Latin language in state affairs; but, in his scientific amusements, of the Greek. "We now return to our subject. It is then no longer doubtful, that, up to the time in which Matthew wrote, the Greek language had firmly rooted itself in Palestine. But what relation existed between the two languages, is not yet, from the connexion of all these facts, quite obvious. One scene in Paul's life promises us some explanation on this head. At Jerusalem, in an insurrection which was raised against him in the temple, he was saved, with difficulty, by means of the guards; he demands permission to address the assembled people; he ascends the steps and addresses them in the Hebrew language: Acts of Apost. xxi. 40. This pleased them, and we see in it the predilection for the language of the country. But this approbation shows at the same time that the people might have been addressed in a different language: the relation of the histo rian even shows that the assembled crowd was already prepared for an address in another language. When he had beckoned to them with his hand, and a profound silence had ensued, he spoke to them in the Hebrew tongue: Men and brethren, hear now the defence which I make to you. When they heard that he made use of Hebrew dialect the silence increased against Paul, and the immediate cause of th insurrection was, that he had introduce Greeks into the temple: Act. Apost. xxi. 2 His accusers were Grecian Jews from Ionia who shortly before had seen Trophimus th Ephesian with him: Act. Apost. xi. 27-3 The accusation against him, and his accusers lead us to expect only a Greek address. Th case is so much the stronger, since it does no concern individuals, but the people, who ar his auditors, and the city which is in commo tion. To judge by this scene, the people ha a predilection for the language of the country but in the mass there might have been many thousands of exceptions; the mass also under stood Greek more from circumstances thar from an inclination to foreign languages and manners. But it was on a festival; a great number of foreigners were present, according to custom, but yet the greater part were na tives who had heard the Greek, and on that account delighted in the Hebrew language. "It may now appear less strange that even in the capital, the central point of Judaism, peculiar religious places of assembly were found, in which Greeks as belonging to the same country assembled and formed respectable congregations, such as the Alexandrians, the Syrians, and the Asiatics, &c. Act. Apost. vi. 9.; ix. 29. "The Christian school of this city also consisted partly of members who spoke Greek, or Hellenists, who were numerous enough to support themselves in a dispute with the Jews Act. Apost. vi. 1."-pp. 33-50. We shall only introduce another extract containing Dr. Hug's sentiments in reference to the famous Hellenistic controversy. Advert ing to certain opinions which some learned men have entertained on this subject, he adds: "In order to get rid of them, we have been referred to an explanation which had already been for a long time abandoned, and which is to the following purport: 'Hellenists are no thing but proselytes, who were always holder in less esteem by the Jews who belonged to the twelve tribes, or by the Hebrews in the more confined sense of the word, and who, in reference to their heathenish extraction, were called Hellenists.' "At all events, however, they spoke Greek and it is probable they did so from the circum stance of having been of heathen extraction or, but lately, heathens themselves. And wh could expect any thing else from the native of Cilicia, and particularly of Cyrene, Alexan dria, and Ionia? Act. Apost. vi. 9. If we would prove, from the example of Philo, that the Alexandrians did also understand something of Hebrew, this could have been but very little and besides this, there were very few as learn ed as he was. "Let us analyze these notions a little. Wha is a Jew? What is a Hebrew? What is a He |