Hebrew, or Syrochaldee gospel, written by St. Matthew for the use of the Jews; and, four other histories in Greek, intended for the Gentile converts. We have an epistle to the Hebrews, which may have been written in their vernacular tongue, if addressed to the Jews of Palestine, or in Greek, if addressed to those of Alexandria, and of the Dispersion; besides which, we have several epistles in Greek addressed to different churches planted in heathen countries. But here the question recurs, why should these have been written in Greek rather than in Latin? We reply, because the persons who wrote them, and the persons for whom they were in tended, understood Greek better than Latin. Our author denies this, and here we join issue. We are prepared to go along with him in many of the arguments, by which he endeavours to prove that the use of the Greek language was not so general as Mr. Falconer, in his Bampton Lectures, states it to have been; but not in all. He infers that the Egyptians did not understand Greek, because in a commotion excited against Faul at Jerusalem (Acts xxi. 37.) as Paul was to be led into the castle, he said unto the chief captain, may I speak unto thee? who said, canst thou speak Greek? Art not thou that Egyptian which before these days madest an uproar? upon which passage our author, after Rossi, remarks, that the question would have been absurd, if a knowledge of Greek was general, or even usual amongst the Egyptians. Now it appears to us, that the utmost which can be inferred with certainty from the interrogation of the chief captain is, that having imagined Paul to be the Egyptian alluded to, he was surprized at hearing him speak Greek with fluency; for this Egyptian, who seduced so many of the Jews by his false prophecies, must have been able, it appears, to speak either Greek or Syrochaldee; and, a knowledge of the latter language would have been much more surprizing in an Egyptian, than an acquaintance with Greek, seeing that Alexandria was more of a Greek than an Egyptian city, and that there were Greek colonies in the interior of Egypt. It is not possible that such an establishment as that of the Serapeum, at Alexandria, could have flourished for so many years, the Greek language being publicly taught by a long series of eminent grammarians, without diffusing some knowledge of that tongue over a considerable part of Egypt. In Alexandria itself, under the Ptole mies, Greek must have been familiar to the people. Theo critus represents a man as ridiculing the broad Doric dialect of some Syracusan women who were present at the festival of Adonis, at Alexandria, where a Greek female sings a Greek song in praise of the hero. The Jews, who settled in that city under the auspices of Alexander the Great, and were afterwards joined by great numbers of their countrymen, by degrees ceased to use the Hebrew or Chaldee as the language of conversation, and adopted the Greek, partly for the sake of convenience, and partly perhaps in order to ingratiate themselves with the Ptolemies. Whether the Alexandrian version of the Old Testament was made in compliance with the command of Ptolemy Philadelphus, or for the convenience of the numerous Jews who resided at Alexandria, it affords a sufficient proof of the prevalence of the Greek language. We say nothing of the Jewish authors who wrote in Greek; the historian of the Maccabees, Eupolemus, Artapanus, Aristeas, the poet Ezechiel, and Aristobulus the great falsary. It is sufficiently clear, that the common people of Alexandria spoke Greek. Dio Chrysostom composed an oration to the inhabitants of that city in the time of Trajan, in which he uses the phrase "you alone of all the Greeks." (p. 378.) And considering the wealth, population and influence of Alexandria, it is reasonable to conclude that Greek was understood, at least, in a great part of Lower Egypt. We are surprised to find our author maintaining that a knowledge of Greek was possessed only by a very few Jews, when the fact, with regard at least to those Jews who lived in foreign countries, is notoriously the reverse. He misapplies an expression of Origen, who merely says, that the Jews did not study Greek writers very critically : où návʊ μèv οὖν Ἰουδαῖοι τὰ Ἑλλήνων φιλολογοῦσι. It is well known that the Septuagint version was used in the synagogues of Alexandria*. Our author contends, that Greek was not understood by the common people in Upper Asia, but he does not say much about the countries of Asia Minor. The learned Jablonsky, in his dissertation de Lingua Lycaonia, has endeavoured to prove that the vernacular languages of the Lycaonians, Phrygians, Pamphylians, Lydians, Carians, Lycians, Bithynians, Mariandynians, Paphlagonians, Galatians, and Cappadocians, were not Greek, but barbarous dialects peculiar to those districts; an opinion which had been briefly stated by Dr. Bentley in his Confutation of Atheism, p. 219, who observes that Ephorus and Strabo *Tertullian, quoted by Scaliger on Eusebius, p. 134, says expressly that the Greek version of the Bible was publicly read by the Jews, in his time, at Alexandria. And it appears that in consequence of this custom, great differences subsisted between the Jews of Jerusalem and those of Alexandria. make almost all the inland nations of Asia Minor to be barbarians. He therefore supposes that St. Paul, who says of himself, I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than you all, addressed the Lycaonians in their own language. That the ordinary languages used by the various people of Asia did actually differ very greatly from one another, appears from Acts ii. 8, 9. But Jablonsky contends, that most, or all of those people understood Greek, although they usually conversed in their own dialects. After the conquest of Asia by Alexander and his successors, not only were a great many Greek words introduced into their barbarous languages, but the Greek language itself became generally known throughout Asia Minor, so that many districts had more than one dialect. Strabo* expressly testifies of the people of Cibyra, that they spoke four languages, those of the Pisidians, Solymans, Greeks, and Lydians, which last was their native tongue. Jerome says that the Galatians, "besides the Greek language, which is used by all the East, had their own dialect, which was nearly the same as that of the Treviri." But our author calls this "an exaggerated phrase." Jablonsky proceeds to say, that the Lystrans heard the Apostles preach in Greek, and understood them, but uttered the exclamation recorded in Acts xiv. 11. in their national dialect. That the Apostles did not address them in that dialect, as Bentley supposes, seems very evident; for if they had, why should St. Luke have mentioned, as a circumstance worthy of remark, that the people answered them in the same; when the remarkable circumstance would rather have been that St. Paul spoke Lycaonian? Yet the supposition that he spoke Greek cannot be admitted, unless we suppose that the inhabitants of Lystra understood Greek †; and if they did, it was very natural for them to be struck with the eloquence of Paul in a language, which was universally considered as worthy of being the language of gods. We cannot help thinking, that the Lystrans, who seemed to have worshipped the gods of Greece, with Grecian rites, would have expected those gods, if they made their appearance upon earth, to address them in the Greek language. We take this opportunity of observing, that the cases which our author has more than once put, of the employment of modern lan • P. 936. Upless indeed we suppose St. Paul to have spoken in Greek, his ordinary language, and the Lystrans to have understood him as though he were speaking Lycaonian; but there are strong objections to explaining the gift of tongues, in this manner, guages, for instance, that of a letter written in French to the inhabitants of Birmingham or Manchester, are nothing to the purpose. There is scarcely any resemblance between the state of the civilized world at the present time, with regard to the use of languages, and that in which it was in the time of the Apostles. Whatever conclusion we may come to, as to the popular use of Greek in those days, it was unquestionably the universal language of literature. Very few works of merit had been then written in Latin, and of them the knowledge was confined to Italy. The Hebrew, or Chaldee language, was understood but by one small nation; whereas the Greek poets, historians, orators, and grammarians, were read every where. Large collections of their works had been formed at Alexandria and at Pergamus, from which copies had been multiplied. Schools of rhetoric subsisted in various parts of Asia Minor; and with the exception of Latin, which was scarcely known out of Italy, Greek was the only language which was taught grammatically. $ * 66 a We have also to remark one fact, concerning the dialects of Asia Minor, which is, that most of the words which are cited by grammarians and others, as Carian, Phrygian, &c. have a Greek form; as the reader will perceive, upon consulting the lists given by Jablonsky, and some of them are sheer Greek; as Eevav, a guest's chamber;" Oupios, a surname of Jove; DiέTaipis, the name of a plant; Kãs, sheep." To this we may add the very obvious question, why should the Greek lexicographers have cited words, as peculiar to the Phrygian, Carian, &c. dialects, if these dialects had no connection with the Greek language? A person who wished to compile a universal dictionary of Italian, would insert many words peculiar to the Venetians, Neapolitans, &c. as distinguished from the pure Tuscan; but he would never think of inserting English or Scotch words. Strabo says expressly that the Carians spoke bad Greek. (xiv. 28.) He quotes Philippus, a writer on Carian affairs, who says that the Carian tongue had a great many Greek words mixed with it. Lucian says of a barbarian from Pontus, in the time of Nero, that he was uλnv. This person told Nero that he lived in the neighbourhood of barbarous tribes, speaking different languages, and that it was not easy to find an interpreter for them all. If the story be true, which is by no means certain, we must conclude that a knowledge of Greek was not common in the northern parts of Asia Minor. Yet we have Greek coins of Mithradates and Pharnaces. That there is no absurdity in the supposition of cer tain tribes speaking two languages, appears, not only from the instance mentioned by Strabo, but from that of the inhabitants of Magna Græcia, who, in the time of Ennius, spoke both Greek and Latin *. Thucydides speaks of some barbarous tribes as being diyλwoool, (iv. 109.) And that Greek was actually spoken by the common people in the parts about Pontus, although in a very corrupt form, appears from the express testimony of Ovid; from which also we learn, that in the same province, Greek was better understood than Latin "In paucis remanent Graiæ vestigia linguæ, Нæс quoque jam Getico barbara facta sono. And again, "Barbarus hîc ego sum; quia non intelligor ulli : He calls the language of the Getæ, "a Greek language, spoiled or overpowered by a Getic pronunciation"— "Nesciaque est vocis quod barbara lingua Latinæ, Yet Dionysius of Halicarnasus, says that the Achæan colonists in Pontus were in his time the rudest of all the barbarians. If then their Greek was very barbarous, that of the other tribes in Asia Minor was less so. Why should the Ilienses have struck coins with Greek, rather than with Latin inscriptions, when they were a Roman colony, unless the Greek language was familiar to them? And the same question may be asked of many other cities in Asia Minor, whose coins and marbles still testify the prevalence of the Greek tongue. The Rhodian ambassadors in Livy are made to say to the Roman senate, Non quæ in solo modo antiquo sunt, Græcæ magis urbes sunt quam Colonia earum illinc quondam profecta in Asiam | Josephus speaks of the Greeks and Macedonians inhabiting Mesopotamia ¶. Tacitus says, At Tiridates, volentibus Parthis Nicephorium et Anthimusiada, ceterasque urbes, quæ Macedonibus sita Græca vocabula usurpant, Italumque et Artemitam, Parthica oppida, recepit. And the Arsacidæ affected the title of Diλéλanves, by way of flattering the Asiatic Greeks of * See Schol. in Horat. i. s. x. 30. + Ibid. x. 37. + V. Trist. viii. 51. |