of the daemon, whom the native of Palestine drives out, anoκρίνεται ̔Ελληνίζων ἢ βαρβαρίζων, he answers in both languages of Palestine, in the language of the country Baoßagišov, and in the Greek Envisov. Accordingly, a Hellenist was well explained by the Scholiast to be "a Jew by extraction who speaks Greek ;"75 and if John Chrysostom, as it seems to me, inferred this signification from the formation of the word only, still he was too good a Grecian for us on this account to dispute his assertion. If we consult one of the older Greek grammarians, we obtain from him the information, that from "Elly comes Elληνίζω, thence Ελληνιστί, as from Δωρίζω, Δωριστί, Διολίζω, Aioliori. He is here decidedly speaking of language and dialect." Hellenists then are distinguished by their language, in consequence of which they are opposed to Jews speaking Hebrew or Aramaean; they are men who speak Greek.

Still, (and here I principally complain of Bertholdt,) a too great importance is placed upon the circumstance of Jesus being introduced as speaking Hebrew, Mark 5: 41 tahivà xovμi, 7:34 ¿qqavά, and Matthew 27: 46. Mark 15: 34. It might be replied, that the Hebrew words in these passages are quoted by the Evangelists as something remarkable, which would not have been the case, if Jesus had generally spoken Hebrew; and what could well be urged against this answer? Yet we will not dismiss the matter so abruptly. Our Lord may well have spoken to the Jewish multitude in Hebrew, because they were predisposed to listen to it. But how did he speak to a mixed assembly, collected from different parts and different cities? How did he speak to proselytes and heathens; how at Gadaris? Matt. 8: 28. Mark 5: 1. Luke 8: 26. How in the districts of Tyre and Sidon, Mark 7: 24, where the Syrophenician Greek woman, γυνὴ ̔Ελληνὶς Συροφοινίκισσα, entered into conversation with him? How in Decapolis, which consisted of Greek cities, such as Philadelphia, Gerasa, Gadara, Hippos, Pella?

75 Schol. in Act. Apost. VI. 1. edit. N. T. Frid. Matthæi, 'Ellŋνιστῶν τῶν ̔Ελληνιστὶ φθεγγομένων, καίτοι Εβραίων ὄντων τῷ γένει.

76 J. Chrys. Commentar. in Act. VI. 1, 9. Enviotas de oiμai καλεῖν τοὺς ̔Ελληνιστὶ φθεγγομένους, οὗτοι γὰρ Ελληνιστί διελέγοντο ̔Εβραίοι ὄντες. Tom. ΙΧ. p. 111.

77 Apollonius Alexandrin. in Imman. Bekkeri Anecdotis Graecis, Vol. II. p. 572.

Finally, even if Jesus more frequently spoke Hebrew, in what manner does that affect Matthew, who had not to speak to detached parties, which went to and fro, sometimes to Hebrews and sometimes to Hellenists, and who could not accordingly change his language; who must have conceived to himself a fixed class of men, and chosen his language according to them; among whom, the present and a future generation, to which perhaps the Hebrew might become less familiar, were included?

Let us now collect the observations which we have made, into one point of view.

1. Asia was, through the dominion of the Macedonians, filled far and wide with Greek cities. In hither Asia many were erected by the dynasty of the Ptolemies, and principally of the Seleucidae. More ancient cities, such as Tyre and Sidon, changed their language in consequence of this influence.

2. The Syrian, Phenician, and Jewish coast throughout, to the very frontier of Egypt, was occupied by cities either wholly or half Greek. The Israelitish East, from the Arnon upwards, Gilead, Bashan, Haouran, Trachonitis including Abilene, was towards the north Greek, and towards the south mostly in possession of the Greeks. In Judea and Galilee were several cities, wholly or at least half peopled by Greeks.

3. Herod the Great made an enormous expenditure to convert his Jews into Greeks.

4. The Roman dominion rather promoted than opposed this progress to Hellenism.

5. The religious rulers also of the Jews threw so few obstacles in its way, that until the later periods of the state they shewed respect to the Greek language; they acknowledged it as the language of their literary works, and as admissible in legal transactions.

6. Being thus favoured on all sides, this language was spread by means of traffic and intercourse through all classes, so that the people (though with many exceptions) considered generally, understood it, although they adhered more to their own language.

7. In the holy city itself whole congregations of Jews who spoke Greek, were established. From these, and from Greek proselytes, the Christian school at Jerusalem was partly derived.

I. Let us imagine Matthew placed in these circumstances; if he wrote Greek, the mass of the people understood him. But for that part of the people, who perhaps only spoke the language of the country, he was compensated by those cities which the Greeks had taken from the Jews, or which, through the favour of the Herods, they possessed as occupants and coinhabitants, on the borders, or in the interior of the country; then also by the Hellenistic communities in the holy city, and by the Hellenists in the Christian school, to whom he could not make himself understood in any other way. If he wrote Hebrew, he renounced the great, and perhaps the nobler part the readers, whom we have just mentioned.

of

II. If he regarded Auranitis, Trachonitis, or the remaining eastern territories, formerly the inheritance of the tribes of Israel, but now belonging mostly to the cities of Decapolis, he had a preponderating motive to employ the Greek language.

III. At the same time, if he had the adjacent western regions in his view; if he looked on Antioch, the capital of Syria, where the believers were first called Christians, Acts 11: 26, or on the neighbouring Syrian churches, Acts 15: 23, 41; if he thought on Tyre where a Christian school already flourished, Acts 21: 3, 4; on Sidon, Acts 27: 3; and on other cities along the Phenician coast; (for they all fall within the compass of the view, which he may have taken in the composition of his work; they all had an evident acquaintance with Palestine and its inhabitants ;) he could no longer be undecided, to which language he should give the preference; he could choose none but the Greek.

IV. If his whole thoughts were fixed on those latter times of the people, in which he wrote his book, believing the predictions of his Lord, which caused him to expect an approaching dissolution of the Jewish state, of the prelude to which he was himself already an eye-witness; and if he wished to produce an effect, even when this should be completed; if he wished to be still understood, when the remnant of the Jews, without a temple and without public worship, wandering about and destitute of homes in their own native land, should have yielded up their possessions to others; if he were desirous of writing not merely for a few years or a few months; then he could never have written in the language of this people, who in a short time would cease to exist as a people.

ART. VI. LEXICOGRAPHY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

A CRITIQUE ON THE LEXICONS OF WAHL AND BRETSCHNEIDER.

By Augustus Tholuck, Professor of Theology in the University of Halle. Translated from the German by the Editor.

PRELIMINARY REMARKS.

IT does not strictly fall within the plan of this work to give reviews of books; although in special cases, articles of this kind will by no means be excluded. In the present instance, it is thought that the criticisms of a man of great learning and piety, upon two works which have a most important bearing upon the study of the New Testament, cannot but be acceptable to the Christian public among us; and that the parallel which is drawn between the two, and the remarks that are every where interspersed respecting the proper sources and the most judicious plan of treating the New Testament lexicography, cannot fail to afford useful information to the student of sacred literature.

There is also a particular reason in the case, which induces the Editor to lay the following article before his readers. It was written in consequence of a suggestion and request of his own. In the course of one of the many very pleasant walks, which it was his privilege to take with Prof. Tholuck, during the last year of his residence in Halle, the conversation turned upon the subject of the lexicography of the New Testament, and was so full on the part of the Professor, and so rich in suggestion and remark, that the writer requested him to put down on paper the heads and leading thoughts at least of the conversation, with a view to the advantage to be derived from them in a future edition of the Lexicon of the New Testament, formerly published by the Editor. To this Professor Tholuck consented; but afterwards preferred to make of it an essay, which might first appear in the Literarische Anzeiger, a periodical work which he had then just established. The article assumed the shape of a review, probably, because it was easier to make remarks on works already in existence, than to lay down mere abstract principles. In its present form, it does not embrace all the topics touched upon in the conversation alluded to; but those which are taken up, are treated with more fullness and particularity.

The Editor takes this opportunity of announcing his intention of proceeding speedily to the preparation and publication of a new edition of his Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament. The former edition was, what it purported to be, principally a translation of the first edition of Wahl's Clavis philologica; which, however, was subjected to a thorough revision; and some of the most important articles were written anew. At that time, the works of Bretschneider, Riemer, Passow, and others, were not generally known in this country, and were not accessible to the Editor. It is obvious, therefore, that a new edition of the lexicon will require much revision and very considerable changes and additions, in order to bring it up to the highest standard of New Testament lexicography at the present time. In the interval since its publication, there have appeared new editions of the works of Wahl and Bretschneider; (the same that are reviewed in the following article ;) and also two successive editions of the lexicon of Passow; to say nothing, either of the persevering and successful labours of Winer in the grammar of the New Testament, or of the recent commentaries of Tholuck, Flatt, Fritzsche, Bleek, Rheinwald, Pelt, and others abroad, and of the no less learned and to us still more important works of Professor Stuart at home.

In the new edition it will be the object of the Editor to draw from all the new sources which are thus opened; as well as to give the results of his own investigations. The former edition will, of course, remain the basis of the work; and there are very many articles which will require no change whatever. It is, however, his intention to incorporate both into the plan and body of the work, every thing in which the lexicon of Bretschneider may seem to have the preference over that of Wahl; while the excrescences and errours of both, (of which the following critique points out not a few), will be carefully avoided. One change from the former edition may in particular be expected; viz. the host of references to classical authorities will be very much diminished. Of what possible consequence can it be to shew, that the most common words in the language were used in the same manner by classic writers? that ayando for instance is also used by Xenophon in the sense of to love? Such references can only be required, where there is some infrequency or doubt in regard to the use of a word; and even then, one or two passages cited at length are better No. III.

70