This hocus pocus operation reminds us of the ingenious etymological chain of ὃς, ἢ, ὃ, ἅπερ—διάπες-napkin-pipkin pippin-king Pepin. It is too absurd for refutation. But we cannot help asking one question ; if our Author's native Jew did not know a Greek term for such a common Latin word as expulerunt, is it likely that he should have known the Greek termination αιωσαν, or have used it, rather than-ωσαν οι-ησαν ? Towards the conclusion of the second disquisition our author maintains, that our present Greek copies of the writings. of St. Luke, are re-translations from the Latin. If so, that Evangelist has been more fortunate than St. Mark, in meeting with a much better translator. It is generally understood that Marcion wrote in Greek, and he used a Gospel which has been confounded with that of St. Luke. This, we acknowledge, does not prove much ; but is an argument for a Greek Gospel of St. Luke. But here an obvious difficulty presents: itself. Since, according to our Author's own statements, the different Gospels must have had translators of very different capacities, how comes it, that we find many passages expressed by these different translators in the same words? The writers themselves may have copied from one another, or from common documents, but a translator of one book surely is not likely to copy from a translator of another book. Give the same passage to two or three different men to translate into Greek, and it will be strange indeed if all their versions coincide, when one of them is a good Greek scholar, and another not so well versed in that language; witness the versions of Aquila and Symmachus, and, in the case of the Latin language, the different versions of some books of the New Testament which are still extant; for instance, those of the Gospel of St. John in the Verona and Cambridge MSS. compared by Semler. We will explain our meaning by an instance. Matth. xii. 43. Ὅταν τὸ ἀκάθαρτον πνεῦμα ἐξέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, διέρ χεται δι' ἀνύδρων τόπων, ζητοῦν ἀνάπαυσιν, καὶ οὐχ εὑρίσκει. Τό τε λέγει· ἐπιστρέψω εἰς τὸν οἶκόν μου, ὅθεν ἐξῆλθον. καὶ ἐλθὸν, εύρίσκει σεσαρωμένον καὶ κεκοσμημένον, τότε πορεύεται καὶ παραλαμβάνει μεθ ̓ ἑαυτοῦ ἑπτὰ ἕτερα πνεύματα, πονηρότερα ἑαυτοῦ, καὶ εἰσελθόντα κατοι κεῖ ἐκεῖ· καὶ γίνεται τὰ ἔσχατα τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκείνου χείρονα τῶν πρώτων. Luke xi. 24. "Οταν τὸ ἀκάθαρτον πνεῦμα ἕτερα πνεύματα, πονηρότερα Now what we contend for is, first, that these two passages must have coincided exactly (with the exception of the words μὴ εὑρισκον, τότε, and μεθ' ἑαυτοῦ, in the originals from which our text of the two Gospels is supposed to have been translated; secondly, that two translators, very differently versed in the Greek language, (as it is manifest that the supposed translators of Matthew and Luke were) would never have rendered this long passage in precisely the same words. The translator of St. Matthew did not adopt the translation of St. Luke, because if he had, he would have done so more frequently in other passages; the translator of St. Luke did not follow the translator of St. Matthew, because he himself was a much better Greek scholar, and would have no motive for adopting another translation. Whereas if we suppose the Greek of St. Matthew to be either the original or a very early translation of the Hebrew, and St. Luke to have written originally in Greek, it was very natural for the latter to adopt a version of our Saviour's words which was current when he wrote: but with two different translators the case would not be the same. This part of the subject deserves a more minute discussion than our limits will permit us to bestow upon it. In p. 95. seq. our Author advances, somewhat confusedly, a most extraordinary argument, to prove that the Greek Church might have acquiesced in versions, as imperfect, in point of style, as the vulgate Greek text is shown to be. His reasoning is this. The Greeks were infinitely less qualified than the Romans, to exert a critical superintendence. over versions into their own languages respectively, and why? forsooth because, being "possessed of an indigenous, extensive, and exalted literature, the Greeks in general studied no language but their own, or at least were very imperfectly acquainted with any other.". (Our Author had taken great pains to prove the contrary in his first Disquisition.) Whereas the Romans were a race of translators. Yet the Latin Vulgate is barbarous; therefore the Greek Church may have acquiesced in a barbarous Greek translation. Now according to this statement it appears, that the Greeks who possessed" an indigenous and exalted literature" made as barbarous a version into their own language, as the Latins, whose literature was of “ a servile character." But surely a Greek translator, who was a complete master of his tongue, in rendering a Latin book into Greek, would not be guilty of barbarisms, although he might be at a loss for the sense of some passages. If the Greek Church wanted a translation to be made for their own use, they would surely have taken care that it should have been done by a Greek ; and in that case, according to our Author's statement of Greek literature, the version would have been as good Greek as the other Greek writings of the same age, although it might not have been strictly accurate; whereas in fact, the Greek of the New Testament is far inferior to the Greek of any writer whatever of the first nine or ten centuries. And this is a very important consideration. We have historical testimony to the fact, that there were many Latin translations older than the Vulgate, but there is no tradition of the kind about any different Greek texts. The variations which occur in the Greek MSS. are of a very different kind from those which Jerome found in the different Latin versions. The former may easily be accounted for by the accidental changes which must happen in repeated transcriptions of the same text; not so the latter. Yet if the Gospels had been written in Latin and translated into Greek, is it credible that there should at an early period have been a great variety of Latin texts, and only one Greek? Irenæus, whose veracity is unimpeached, says that he had conversed with an elder who had heard the contemporaries of the Apostles and disciples of our Lord. He had therefore sufficient opportunities of ascertaining, whether the Greek Gospels, which were used by the Church in his own time, had been used in it since the time of the Apostles. That he actually did make the inquiry, appears, from his stating very positively that the Gospel according to Matthew was written for the Jews, in their own dialect. And therefore our Author's remark, in the 5th Disquisition, that the Gospels were neglected by Greek writers till the end of the second century, is of no weight whatever; since Papias, a hearer of St. John, mentions the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, and, Irenæus sixty years afterwards expressly cites them. Is it credible, that during that interval the original text of all the Gospels should have been lost, and no tradition of it left? In order to escape this difficulty, our author supposes that Irenæus wrote in Latin, but that our present Latin copy of him is a retrans lation from the Greek. But this conjecture we cannot admit, till it shall be substantiated by better arguments than those which he has adduced. We shall probably revert to it hereafter. Irenæus was a Greek, and had been a hearer of Polycarp, at Smyrna, who was also a Greek; the names of Irenæus and his predecessor Pothinus are Greek; and Caligula instituted at Lyons "certamen Græcæ Latinæque facundiæ;" and although it certainly appears that the common people spoke Latin; yet the Epistle from the Church of Vienne and Lyons, quoted by Eusebius, was clearly written in Greek; most probably by Irenæus himself. Our Saviour says, in John viii. 31. "If ye continue in my word-the truth shall make you free." The Jews reply, "We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, ye shall be made free?" (or subερo viσεstε). Our Author observes, that "it is difficult to discern, in the Greek text, what connection the being Abraham's seed has with the sentiment. But let us read the answer in the Latin Vulgate, and we shall see the force of the passage. Responderunt ei, SEMEN ABRAHE sumus, et NEMINI SERVIMUS unquam quomodo tu dicis LIBERI eritis? The term LIBEROS has the twofold meaning of CHILDREN and of FREE. Our Lord's hearers therefore affirm that his expression, will make you LIBEROS, was quite improper, in either sense of the word. If he meant by LIBEROS children they could not &c." Bating the excessive absurdity of this speculation upon other grounds, it is sufficient to remark, that our Author actually supposes our Lord to have talked Latin to the Jews at Jerusalem, and to have used the very word LIBEROS; although the first sentence of his book is this, "Our Saviour was born in Judea, chose Jews as his disciples, and preached in a dialect of the Hebrew language.' Leaving our Disquisitor to explain away this inconsistency, we take our leave of him for the present. We wish to add to our former observations respecting the knowledge of Greek in the neighbourhood of Pontus, the testimony of Dio Chrysostom, who says that the citizens of Borysthenes in other respects were not very good Grecians, (τἆλλα οὐκέτι σαφῶς ἑλληνίζουσι owing to their living amidst barbarians; but that they all knew the Iliad by heart. (Or. xxxvi. p. 430.) (To be continued.) ART. II. A Letter to Francis Jeffrey, Esq. the reputed Editor of the Edinburgh Review, on an Article entitled "Durham Case-Clerical Abuses." By Rev. H. Phillpotts, D.D. Rector of Stanhope. 8vo. 40 pp. Hatchard and Son. 1823. THE Libel upon the Durham Clergy has proved "the fruitful mother of a thousand more." The trials of Hone and Carlile were made the occasion and the excuse for additional VOL. XIX. FEBRUARY, 1823. K blasphemies-and the trial of Williams has called up one lawyer to abuse the Clergy, and another to review them. From both instances short-sighted men infer that the prosecutions ought not to have been instituted. From both instances the correct reasoner draws an opposite conclusion, and contends that if all legal proceedings had been forborne, the calumnies which they seem to have produced would have found some other vent. What reason is there to believe that men who get their bread by blasphemy, would have given up their lucrative trade without the interposition of the law? Their temporary virulence may have been increased by prosecution, but their hostility to religion was not created by the Attorney General. If he had never interfered, it would have manifested itself as plainly to the world without the risque of encountering an effectual check. T His The same thing is true with respect to the calumniators of the Church. Who believes that they would have surrendered their present and their prospective profits, if Williams had been permitted to go on libelling with impunity? His defence has called forth all their vigor and venom. punishment will not fail to excite their fury and their malice. But the effect will be to make them traduce with more falsehood and less prudence, and to excite greater curiosity respecting the answers they may receive. Let the Clergy of England," said an able writer twenty years ago, "be warned by the example of the Clergy of France. The French Priests suffered themselves to be written down before they put pen to paper. I have always been astonished at their unaccountable indolence, which let the public mind be wholly prepossessed against them without a single effort to do away the prejudice till it was too late." It is good policy in the defenders of existing institutions to make an opponent speak out. As long as danger can be dissembled or denied, there will be men in every camp to dissemble and deny it. The careless from indolence, the timid from cowardice, the lukewarm from indifference. Let the enemy be provoked to an open declaration of war, and then even the careless, the timid, and the lukewarm may be persuaded to buckle on their armour. The vulgar infidelity of the present age was not generally known, or systematically resisted until its extent and its spirit were proved in the courts of law. The abuse of the Gospel has been succeeded by the abuse of the Clergy, and that also will be discountenanced, will be loathed, and may be despised as soon as it has been forced to exhibit itself in its true colours. Hitherto it has been concealed by cunning, brazened out |