spiritual man, who read the apostle's Greek letter to the Hebrews in their public assemblies, could, without any hesitation read it in the Hebrew language, for the edification of those who did not understand Greek. And with respect to the Jews in the provinces, Greek being the native language of most of them, this epistle was much better calculated for their use, written in the Greek language, than if it had been written in the Hebrew, which few of them understood." Further, "it was proper that all the apostolical epistles should be written in the Greek language; because the different doctrines of the Gospel being delivered and explained in them, the explanation of these doctrines could, with more advantage, be compared so as to be better understood, being expressed in one language, than if, in the different epistles they had been expressed in the language of the churches and persons to whom they were sent. Now, what should that one language be, in which it was proper to write the Christian Revelation, but the Greek, which was then generally understood, and in which there were many books extant, that treated of all kinds of literature, and on that account were likely to be preserved, and by the reading of which Christians, in after ages, would be enabled to understand the Greek of the New Testament? This advantage none of the provincial dialects used in the apostles' days could pretend to. Being limited to particular countries, they were soon to be disused: and few (if any) books being written in them which merited to be preserved, the meaning of such of the apostles' letters as were composed in the provincial languages could not easily have been ascertained."

III. The style of the New Testament has a considerable affinity with that of the Septuagint version, which was executed at Alexandria, although it approaches somewhat nearer to the idiom of the Greek language; but the peculiarities of the Hebrew phraseology are discernible throughout: the language of the New Testament being formed by a mixture of oriental idioms and expressions with those which are properly Greek. Hence it has by some philologers been termed Hebraic-Greek, and (from the Jews having acquired the Greek language, rather by practice than by grammar, among the Greeks, in whose countries they resided in large communities) Hellenistic-Greek. The propriety of this appellation was severely contested towards the close of the seventeenth and in the early part of the eighteenth century and numerous publications were written on both sides of the question, with considerable asperity, which, together with the controversy, are now almost forgotten. The dispute, however interesting, to the philological antiquarian, is after all a mere strife of words;"

1 Dr. Macknight on the Epistles, Pref. to Hebrews, sect. ii. § 3. vol. iv. p. 336. 4to. edit.

2 Michaelis has devoted an entire section to show that the language of the New Testament has a tincture of the Alexandrian idiom. Vol. i. p. 143. et seq.

3 Michaelis ascribes the disputes above noticed either to a want of sufficient knowledge of the Greek, the prejudices of pedantry and school orthodoxy, or the injudicious custom of choosing the Greek Testament as the first book to be read by learners of that language; by which means they are so accustomed to its singular style, that in a more advanced age they are incapable of perceiving its deviation from the language of the classics." (Bp. Marsh's Michaelis, vol. i. p. 211.)

and as the appellation of Hellenistic or Hebraic Greek is sufficiently correct for the purpose of characterising the language of the New Testament, it is now generally adopted.1

Of this Hebraic style, the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark exhibit strong vestiges: the former presents harsher Hebraisms than the latter: and the Gospel of St. Mark abounds with still more striking Hebraisms. "The epistles of St. James and Jude are somewhat better, but even these are full of Hebraisms, and betray in other respects a certain Hebrew tone. St. Luke has, in several passages, written pure and classic Greek, of which the four first verses of his Gospel may be given as an instance: in the sequel, where he describes the actions of Christ, he has very harsh Hebraisms, yet the style is more agreeable than that of St. Matthew or St. Mark. In the Acts of the Apostles he is not free from Hebraisms, which he seems to have never studiously avoided; but his periods are more classically turned, and sometimes possess beauty devoid of art. St. John has numerous, though not uncouth, Hebraisms both in his Gospel and epistles: but he has written in a smooth and flowing language, and surpasses all the Jewish writers in the excellence of narrative. St. Paul again is entirely different from them all: his style is indeed neglected and full of Hebraisms, but he has avoided the concise and verse-like construction of the Hebrew language, and has, upon the whole, a considerable share of the roundness of Grecian composition. It is evident that he was perfectly acquainted with the Greek manner of expression as with the Hebrew; and he has introduced them alternately, as either the one or the other suggested itself the first, or was the best approved."2

This diversity of style and idiom in the sacred writers of the New Testament, affords an intrinsic and irresistible evidence for the authenticity of the books which pass under their names. If their style had been uniformly the same, there would be good reason for suspecting that they had all combined together when they wrote; or, else, that having previously concerted what they should teach, one of them had committed to writing their system of doctrine. In ordinary cases, when there is a difference of style in a work professing to be the production of one author, we have reason to believe that it was written by several persons. In like manner, and for the very same reason, when books, which pass under the names of several authors, are written in differ

1 Schaeferi Institutiones Scripturistice, pars i. pp. 137-141. Prof. Morus has given a long review (too long to admit of abridgment) of the arguments advanced for and against the purity of the language of the New Testament, in his Acroases, (vol. i. pp. 202-233.); in which he has enumerated the principal writers on each side of the question. A similar list has been given by Beck (Monogrammata Hermeneutices Novi Testamenti, part i. pp. 28-32), by Rumpeus (Isagoge ad Lectionem N. T. pp. 33. et seq.) and by Rambach (Instit. Herm. Sacr. pp. 23. 399.) Dr. Campbell has treated the subject very ably in the first of his Preliminary Dissertations, prefixed to his version of the four gospels; and Wetstein (Libelli ad Crisin atque Interpretationem N. T. pp. 48-60.) has given some interesting extracts from Origen, Chrysostom, and other fathers, who were of opinion that the language of the New Testament was not pure Greek. Other writers might be mentioned, who have treated bibliographically on this topic: but the preceding foreign critics only are specified, as their works may be easily procured from the continent.

2 Michaelis, vol. i. p. 112,

ent styles, we are authorised to conclude that they were not compos

ed by one person.

Further, If the New Testament had been written with classic purity; if it had presented to us the language of Isocrates, Demosthenes, Xenophon, or Plutarch, there would have been just grounds for suspicion of forgery; and it might with propriety have been objected, that it was impossible for Hebrews, who professed to be men of no learning, to have written in so pure and excellent a style, and consequently that the books which were ascribed to them must have been the invention of some impostor. The diversity of style, therefore, which is observable in them, so far from being any objection to the authenticity of the New Testament, is in reality a strong argument for the truth and sincerity of the sacred writers, and of the authenticity of their writings. "Very many of the Greek words, found in the New Testament, are not such as were adopted by men of education, and the higher and more polished ranks of life, but such as were in use with the common people. Now this shows that the writers became acquainted with the language, in consequence of an actual intercourse with those who spoke it, rather than from any study of books: and that intercourse must have been very much confined to the middling or even lower classes; since the words and phrases, most frequently used by them, passed current only among the vulgar. There are undoubtedly many plain intimations given throughout these books, that their writers were of this lower class, and that their associates were frequently of the same description; but the character of the style is the strongest confirmation possible that their conditions were not higher than what they have ascribed to themselves." 2 In fact, the vulgarisms, foreign idioms, and other disadvantages and defects, which some critics imagine that they have discovered in the Hebraic Greek of the New Testament, "are assigned by the inspired writers as the reasons of God's preference of it, whose thoughts are not our thoughts, nor his ways our ways. Paul argues, that the success of the preachers of the Gospel, in spite of the absence of those accomplishments in language, then so highly valued, was an evidence of the divine power and energy with which their ministry was accompanied. He did not address them, he tells us (1 Cor. i. 17.) with the wisdom of words, with artificial periods and a studied elocution, — lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect;-lest to human eloquence that success should be ascribed, which ought to be attributed to the divinity of the doctrine and the agency of the Spirit, in the miracles wrought in support of it. There is hardly any sentiment which he is at greater pains to enforce.

1 It is obvious to cite such passages, as Mark i. 16. ii. 14. John xxi. 3. 7. where the occupations of the Apostles are plainly and professedly mentioned. It may be more satisfactory to refer to Acts iii. 6. xviii. 3. xx. 34. 2 Cor. viii. & ix. xi. 6. 8, 9. 27. xii. 14, &c. Phil. ii. 25. iv. 10, &c. 1 Thes. ii. 6. 9. 2 Thes. iii. 8. 10. Philem. 11. 18. In these, the attainments, occupations, and associates of the preachers of the Gospel are indirectly mentioned and alluded to; and afford a species of undesigned proof, which seems to repel the imputation of fraud, especially if the circumstance of style be taken into the account.

2 Dr. Maltby's "Illustrations of the Truth of the Christian Religion," pp. 10–12.

He used none of the enticing or persuasive words of man's wisdom. Wherefore? That their faith might not stand in the wisdom of man, but in the power of God.' (1 Cor. ii. 4, 5.) Should I ask, what was the reason why our Lord Jesus Christ chose for the instruments of that most amazing revolution in the religious systems of mankind, men perfectly illiterate and taken out of the lowest class of the people? Your answer to this will serve equally for an answer to that other question, — Why did the Holy Spirit choose to deliver such important truths in the barbarous idiom of a few obscure Galilæans, and not in the politer and more harmonious strains of Grecian eloquence? -I repeat it, the answer to both questions is the same That it might appear, beyond contradiction, that the excellency of the power was of God, and not of man.”l

A large proportion, however, of the phrases and constructions of the New Testament is pure Greek; that is to say, of the same degree of purity as the Greek which was spoken in Macedonia, and that in which Polybius wrote his Roman History. Hence the language of the New Testament will derive considerable illustration from consulting the works of classic writers, and especially from diligently collating the Septuagint version of the Old Testament: the collections also of Raphelius, Palairet, Bos, Abresch, Ernesti, and other writers whose works are noticed in a subsequent page,2 will afford the biblical student very essential assistance in explaining the pure Greek expressions of the New Testament according to the usage of classic authors. It should further be noticed, that there occur in the New Testament, words that express both doctrines and practices which were utterly unknown to the Greeks; and also words bearing widely different interpretation from those which are ordinarily found in Greek writers.

IV. The New Testament contains examples of all the dialects occurring in the Greek language, as the Æolic, Boeotic, Doric, Ionic, and especially of the Attic; which being most generally in use on account of its elegance, pervades every book of the New Testament.3 To these, some have added the poetic dialect, chiefly, it should seem, because there are a few passages cited by St. Paul from the antient Greek poets, in Acts xvii. 28. 1 Cor. xv. 33. and Tit. i. 12.4 But the sacred writers of the New Testament being Jews, were consequently acquainted with the Hebrew idioms, and also with the com

1 Dr. Campbell's Preliminary Dissertations, Diss. i. (vol. i. 3d edit.) p. 50. Bishop Warburton has treated this topic with his usual ability in his " Doctrine of Grace," book i. chapters VIII-X. (Works, vol. viii. pp. 279-302.) See also Mickaelis's Introduction, vol. i. pp. 116–123.

2 See the Appendix to this Volume, No. VI. Sect. VII.

3 Wyssius, in his Dialectologia Sacra, has treated largely on the dialects of the New Testament; but the most useful treatise, perhaps, is that of Leusden, (De Dialectis N. T.) which originally formed Dissertations xi-xv. of his Philologus Græcus, and has twice been separately published by M. Fischer. The best edition is that of Leipsic, 1792, 8vo. Some brief but judicious observations on the dialects of the New Testament, particularly on the Attic, are inserted in the Greek Grammar, (p. 71.) prefixed by Mr. Parkhurst to his Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament.

4J. B. Carpzov. Prime Linea Hermeneutice, p. 16. Pfeiffer Herm. Sacra, e.. vii. § 6. (Op. tom. ii. p. 652.)

mon as well as with the appropriated or acquired senses of the words of that language. Hence, when they used a Greek word, as correspondent to a Hebrew one of like signification, they employed it as the Hebrew word was used, either in a common or appropriated sense, as occasion required. The whole arrangement of their periods "is regulated according to the Hebrew verses (not those in Hebrew poetry, but such as are found in the historical books); which are constructed in a manner directly opposite to the roundness of Grecian language, and for want of variety have an endless repetition of the same particles." These peculiar idioms are termed Hebraisms, and their nature and classes have been treated at considerable length by various writers. Georgi, Pfochenius, Blackwall, and others, have altogether denied the existence of these Hebraisms; while their antagonists have, perhaps unnecessarily, multiplied them. Wyssius, in his Dialectologia Sacra, has divided the Hebraisms of the New Testament into thirteen classes; Vorstius into thirty-one classes; and Viser into eight classes; and Masclef has given an ample collection of the Hebraisms occurring in the sacred writings in the first volume of his excellent Hebrew grammar. The New Testament, however, contains fewer Hebrew grammatical constructions than the Septuagint, except in the book of Revelation; where we often find a nominative, when another case should have been substituted, in imitation of the Hebrew, which is without cases. As the limits necessarily assigned to this section do not permit us to abridge the valuable treatises just noticed, we shall here adduce some instances of the Hebraisms found principally in the New Testament, and shall offer a few canons by which to determine them with precision.

1. Thus, to be called, to arise, and to be found, are the same as to be, with the Hebrews, and this latter is in the Old Testament frequently expressed by the former. Compare Isa. lx. 14. 18. lxi. 3. Ixii. 12. Zech. viii. 3.

Accordingly, in the New Testament, these terms are often employed one for the other, as in Matt. v. 9. They shall be called the children of God and ver. 19. He shall be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven! 1 John iii. 1. That we should be called the sons of God. To be called here and in other places is really to be, and it is so expressed according to the Hebrew way of speaking. There is the like signification of the word arise, as in 2 Sam. xi. 20, if the king's wrath arise.- Esth. iv. 14. Enlargement and deliverance shall arise to the Jews.- Prov. xxiv. 22. their calamity shall arise suddenly. — In all which places the word arise signifies no other than actual being, or existing, according to the Hebrew idiom. And thence it is used in a similar manner in the New Testament, as in Luke xxiv. 38. Why do thoughts arise in your hearts? i. e. why are they there? Matt. xxiv. 24. There shall arise false Christs, i. e. there shall actually be at that time such persons according to my prediction. So, to be found is among the Hebrews of the same im

1 Leusden de Dialectis, p. 20. Michaelis, vol. i. p. 123.

2 In his Philologia Sacra: this work was originally published in 4to. but the best edition is that of M. Fischer, in 8vo. Leipsic, 1778. Vorstius's treatise was abridged by Leusden in his Philologus Græcus; and Leusden's Abridgment was republished by Fischer, with valuable notes and other additions, in 8vo. Leipsic, 1783. 3 In his Hermeneutica Sacra Novi Testamenti, pars ii. vol. ii. pp. 1-62. 4 See particularly pp. 273-290. 304-307. and 333-352. See also Schaefer's Institutiones Scripturistice, pars ii. pp. 194-205.

5 Michaelis, vol. i. p. 125. Glassius has given several instances in his Philologia Sacra, canons xxviii. and xxix. vol. i. pp. 67–72. edit. Dathe.