express themselves imperfectly in them, (for this may be shewn even from Josephus and the Talmudists,) still, we have scruples as to the propriety of adopting the common opinion above mentioned in regard to the Hellenists. The grounds of our scruples are the following.*

1. The opinion in question grounds itself solely on the name Hellenists, which was borne by a certain party of the Jews at Jerusalem, Acts 6: 1. 9:29. But it by no means follows from this appellation, that their distinguishing characteristic is to be sought in the Greek language, as being their vernacular tongue. For (1) if the Jews who spoke Greek bore this name, how does it happen, that the Jews in Asia Minor, Egypt, Greece, and other lands, where Greek was the prevailing language, are never called Hellenists in the book of Acts? and that Paul who was born at Tarsus, a Greek city, never calls himself a Hellenist, but always a Hebrew or Jew? (2) It was the Jewish custom to divide all the nations of the earth, in respect to religion, into Jews and Greeks or Hellenes ; Ιουδαίους καὶ "Ελληνες. This last name they gave to all who were not Jews, because at the time when the appellation first arose, the neighbouring heathen nations with whom the Jews were best acquainted, as the Syrians and Egyptians, were under the dominion of Greek sovereigns, and were therefore called Greeks. According to this custom, even those nations which spoke Aramaean, as Syrians and Syrophenicians,† were called Greeks, although they did not speak Greek. If now we derive the word Hellenist from this signification among the Jews, then the Hellenistic Jews can be no other than proselytes or the descendants of proselytes. These were always regarded with some degree of slight by the Jews who belonged to the twelve tribes, or by the Hebrews in the stricter sense, and in respect to their heathen origin were called

* The subject of the Hellenists is fully discussed by Hug in the article so often referred to, and with particular reference to the opinions here advanced. ED.

+ In Mark 7: 26 the yuvy Evoagoiviniooa, who consequently spoke Aramaean, is called Envis; and Josephus (B. J. II. 13. 7. coll. 14. 4.) uses the words "Enves and Zvoor as synonymous. Even the Peshito sometimes limits the term "En solely to the Aramaeans, e. g. Acts 16: 1. 19: 10, and substitutes for it at once Laboil.

Hellenists. According to this view of the subject, the Aramaean proselytes and their posterity were just as much Hellenists as the Greek and Roman. These last however could assuredly not be very numerous in Palestine; because those proselytes who were admitted in foreign countries by the Jews who spoke Greek, could have no special occasion to forsake their own country and establish themselves in Palestine.

2. But if there actually were among these Hellenists many Jews who spoke Greek, still it is very improbable that they were so entirely unacquainted with the language of Palestine, as is generally assumed. The Jews who sojourned in the Greek cities of Asia Minor, in Egypt, in Greece Proper, and in other regions where the Greek language was prevalent, constituted every where a sort of independent colonies, which were entirely isolated by their religion, manners, and customs, and sedulously avoided all connexion and intermixture with the natives of these countries. Such colonies are always accustomed to retain their mother tongue for a long period even in foreign countries; and it is sufficient for carrying on intercourse and commerce with the other inhabitants, when only a few among them understand the language of the country. Must we not therefore regard it as probable, that all the Jews who dwelt among the Greeks long `retained their Asiatic-Aramaean language,* and troubled themselves about the language of the countries in which they lived, only so far as it was necessary in order to make themselves intelligible to the inhabitants? This seems at least to have been the case in all the large and numerous colonies of the Jews, as in Egypt,† and even in the smaller ones also, which had not

* Judaei fere omnes-olim erant bilingues. Praeter originariam, quae ab antiquo Hebraea erat, et qua sua sacra celebrabant, vernaculam locorum, in quibus nascebantur, ediscebant. Salmasius de Hellenistica Comm. L. B. 1643. Ep. dedic. p. 29. It is here obvious that Salmasius does not distinguish between the ancient and later Hebrew; for of the Jews who lived after the exile it cannot be affirmed, that the ancient Hebrew was their mother tongue, as is here assumed. In all Jewish colonies founded after the exile, to which are probably to be reckoned all the colonies of Jews planted in countries where Greek was spoken, no other language than the Aramaean can be considered as domesticated.

+ Philo, an Alexandrine Jew, understood also Aramaean; for he rightly explains words which are not Hebrew, and belong only to the Aramaean; e. g. Loonvos (8) by diganεvins, Philo

been long separated from their mother country. Besides, the frequent journies to Jerusalem, which the Jews scattered in foreign countries were obliged to make in obedience to their religious precepts, and the intercourse which they maintained with the inhabitants of Palestine (Acts 18: 21), must have had no little influence upon the continuance of the Aramaean language among them. And although their mother tongue might become somewhat corrupted in a foreign land, yet it could not be difficult for them to understand the Palestine Jews; and the public services in Aramaean of the synagogues in Palestine could not be so unintelligible to them, as to render it necessary that they should have Greek synagogues of their own. There is therefore no ground for supposing, that the synagogues of the Libertines, (i. e. of Jews who had been made slaves by the Romans and afterwards set free,) of the Cyrenians, Alexandrians, etc. mentioned in Acts 6: 9, were at all distinguished from the other synagogues at Jerusalem by the use of the Greek language.

3. The assertion, that there were synagogues in Palestine in which the version of the Seventy was publicly read instead of

de Vita contemplat. init. The passage where he relates (Lib. in Flacc. p. 970. ed. Frft.) that the common people at Alexandria named king Agrippa in derision Maoiv (7), and then proceeds thus: Οὕτως δέ φασιν τὸν Κύριον ὀνομάζεσθαι παρὰ Σύροις, cannot be brought as proof of the contrary; for Philo might very well know what signified in general, without at the same time knowing that it was employed as an honorary title of the king, tou Kupiov. [This solution however is evidently lame; and the more general opinion is that Philo was unacquainted with Hebrew or Aramaean. ED.]

The Egyptian Jews also frequently made pilgrimages to Jerusalem, in order to offer sacrifices and prayers. Philo himself was once sent thither, in order to offer sacrifices in the temple in the name of his brethren in Egypt; Opp. Tom. II. p. 646. ed. Mangey. Even the common Jews of Egypt must also have gone in troops to the high festivals at Jerusalem; for among the multitude of foreign Jews, who had assembled to celebrate the passover at Jerusalem, and were compelled to remain through the investment of the city by Titus, there were not a few from Alexandria, who distinguished themselves by their brave defence against besiegers; Joseph. B. J. V. 6. 6. It would seem therefore, that the EgyptianJewish temple at Leontopolis, either never obtained any high degree of consideration, or at least did not long maintain it.

No. II.

46

the Hebrew text, must simply on this account be regarded as improbable, because the supporters of this opinion have not as yet sufficiently proved, what seems so easy to be proved, that it was generally the custom even in the synagogues of the Jews who lived out of Palestine and among the Greeks, to use the Septuagint in their public religious services. Justin,* whose testimony is quoted for this purpose, says nothing more than that the Jews preserved copies of the Septuagint in the libraries of their celebrated synagogues. From this circumstance we can draw no conclusion as to the public use of them in the synagogues; for the Jews had in like manner in these librariest translations of some of the historical books of the New Testament. Tertullian, who is also adduced as a witness, expresses himself so ambiguously, that his words may just as well be understood of the Hebrew text.-The Talmud nowhere speaks of the use of the Old Testament in the synagogues in the Greek language. The only passage which is supposed to allude to it, simply treats, as both Lightfoot and Hody have already remarked, of the audible recitation of the form of prayer, which is taken from Deut. 6: 4-9. 9: 13-21. Num. 15: 37 -41, and was well known among all Jews, because it stood upon the Tephillin; see Buxtorf. Lex. Rab. Chald. Talm. sub voce. If now the stricter Rabbins were dissatisfied, when in Cesarea, a city inhabited by Jews, Syrians, and Greeks, this form of prayer, which according to an ancient prescript|| might be recited in any language, was thus repeated aloud in the Greek language; much more may we suppose that they would have been displeased, had the text of the Old Testament been publicly read in Greek.-Finally, from the praises which Philo and Josephus bestow upon the Alexandrine version, and the use which both of them make of it in their writings, there follows

Dialog. cum Tryph. p. 298, and in other passages quoted in H. Hody de Bibliorum textibus origin. Lib. IV. Oxon. 1704. p. 224. + Epiphanii Opp. ed. Petav. Tom. II. p. 127. Comp. p. 342 above. Apolog. c. 18.

§ R. Levi ivit Caesaream, audiensque eos recitantes to Hellenistice, voluit eos impedire. Talm. Hieros. Sota c. 7. See Buxtorf. Lex. Chald. p. 104.

|| Lingua quacunque proferri possunt sectio de muliere adulterii suspecta, confessio decimorum, lectio audi ( np), etc. Sota. Mischnae c. 7. p. 656. ed. Wagenseil.

nothing more, than that they both considered it as a faithful version, and worthy to be recommended to those who were not Jews, although it was only a private version.

4. That the version of the Seventy was of any public authority in the synagogues of Palestine, is nothing more than a hypothesis occasioned by the ambiguous word Hellenist; but which is founded on no one authentic historical fact, that may not be explained without this hypothesis. And it is so much the less to be regarded, because it is sufficiently refuted, partly by the grounds which may be adduced to shew the general use of the Targums among the Palestine Jews (p. 336 above); and partly by the express testimony of Epiphanius, who was familiar both with the Hebrew and Aramaean languages, and with the usages of the Jews of Palestine.

*

18

ART. V. INTERPRETATION OF Rom. VIII. 1825.

By M. Stuart, Prof. of Sac. Lit. in the Theol. Sem. Andover.

Λογίζομαι γὰρ, ὅτι οὐκ ἄξια τὰ παθήματα τοῦ νῦν και ροῦ πρὸς τὴν μέλλουσαν δόξαν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι εἰς ἡμᾶς. 19 Η γὰρ ἀποκαραδοκία τῆς κτίσεως τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν τῶν 20 υἱῶν τοῦ θεοῦ ἀπεκδέχεται. Τῇ γὰρ ματαιότητι ἡ κτίσις 21 ὑπετάγη, (οὐχ ἑκοῦσα, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸν ὑποτάξαντα,) ἐπ ̓ ἐλπίδι, ὅτι καὶ αὐτὴ ἡ κτίσις ἐλευθερωθήσεται ἀπὸ τῆς δου λείας τῆς φθορᾶς εἰς τὴν ἐλευθερίαν τῆς δόξης τῶν τέκνων 22 τοῦ Θεοῦ. Οἴδαμεν γὰρ, ὅτι πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις συστενάζει καὶ 23 συνωδίνει ἄχρι τοῦ νῦν. Οὐ μόνον δὲ, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτοὶ τὴν ἀπαρχὴν τοῦ πνεύματος ἔχοντες, καὶ ἡμεῖς αὐτοὶ ἐν ἑαυ τοῖς στενάζομεν, υἱοθεσίαν ἀπεκδεχόμενοι, τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν 24 τοῦ σώματος ἡμῶν. Τῇ γὰρ ἐλπίδι ἐσώθημεν. ̓Ελπὶς δὲ

Opp. ed. Petav. T. I. p. 122. ̔Εβραϊκὴν δὲ διάλεκτον ἀκρι βῶς εἰσὶν ἠσκήμενοι (sc. Nazareni), παρ' αὐτοῖς γὰρ πᾶς ὁ νόμος, καὶ οἱ προφῆται, καὶ τὰ γραφεῖα λεγόμενα—Εβραϊκῶς ἀναγι νώσκεται, ὥσπερ αμέλει καὶ παρὰ ̓Ιουδαίοις. The Nazarenes are accurately skilled in the Hebrew dialect; for with them the whole law and the prophets and hagiographia-are publicly read in Hebrew, just as also among the Jews."