The Professor proceeds to remark, that if we collect together all the information, which antiquity has left us on these identical topics, we shall be struck with their agreement with the delineations of characters, sentiments, and actions, as related in the New Testament. He illustrates his position by a variety of evidence, drawn from the money then current, from the names of officers and of places, mentioned by the authors of the books of the New Testament, both historical and doctrinal; for which we have not room. Nor is it indeed necessary that we should enlarge on this topic, as it has already been treated with that importance which it deserves (though not so copiously as our author has done), by Bishop Marsh, in the twenty-sixth of his Divinity Lectures, and by Mr. Horne, in the first volume of his Introduction to the Critical Study of the Scriptures. Such are the internal evidences, on which Hug establishes the authenticity of the New Testament: we now pass to the external testimonies. In conducting this important part of his investigation, he refers for details to those laborious writers (Lardner, Schmid, and others), who have treated it at great length, and confines himself to the testimonies furnished by the heretics of the two first centuries,-or to speak more exactly, to those who lived before the death of the profligate Emperor Commodus (A. D. 192.), by one or other of whom the acknowledged genuine books of the New Testament are cited. The consideration of these testimonies is very interesting; but it is too long to be extracted, and it would suffer by abridgement. This discussion is preceded by the following just and important preliminary principles, relative to the manner in which the first ecclesiastical writers cited the New Testament, and which are almost sufficient to answer all the objections which have been brought against those quotations. "1. The ancient Christian writers cite the Old Testament with greater exactness than the New; because the former, being less generally known, required positive quotations rather than vague allusions, and perhaps also evinced more erudition in the person who appealed to its testimony. "2. In passages taken from the historical writers of the Old or New Testament, we seldom meet with the identical words of the author. This, however, does not prevent allusions to circumstances, or to the sense, which very frequently render evident both the origin of the passage, and the design of the author. "3. Quotations from the didactic writings of the Old Testament are, generally, very exact, and accompanied with the name of the author quoted. In this case the name is generally necessary. "4. In like manner, when quotations are made from the epistolary parts of the New Testament, the name of the author cited is ordinarily given by the writer, especially when the quotation is not literal. "5. The fathers often amplify sentences of Scripture to which they allude, in which case they disregard the words, in order to develope the ideas of the Sacred Author. 6. When Irenæus and the fathers, who followed him, relate the actions or discourses of Jesus Christ, they almost always appeal to Him, and not to the Evangelist whom they copy. The Lord has said it-The Lord has done it—are their expressions, even on occasions where the conformity of their writings with the original authors is not sufficiently striking, to exclude all uncertainty respecting the source, whence they drew the facts or sayings related by them." This remark, Cellérier observes, is particularly worthy of attention because, of all the ancient fathers, Irenæus is he, who has rendered the strongest and most explicit testimony to the authenticity of our four Gospels, from which he has drawn the facts and discourses mentioned or alluded to in his writings. "7. Lastly, it must on no account be forgotten, that the quotations of the fathers are not to be compared with our printed editions, with our textus receptus, but with the text of their church and of their age: which text was sometimes purer, but most frequently less correct than ours, and always exhibits diversities,-in themselves, indeed, of little importance, but which nevertheless would be sufficient sometimes to conceal the phrase cited from readers, who should not remember that circumstance." P. 17. The authenticity of the books of the New Testament being proved, their credibility is a necessary result: this is demonstrated by a masterly analysis of their contents, the force of which no candid infidel can elude, but which it is impossible to abridge, without injustice to the argument. For the same reason, we pass the interesting account of the formation of the sacred canon, and the critical history of the text. The details respecting manuscripts, editions, ancient versions, and the critical use which is to be made of the quotations of the New Testament by the fathers of the Christian church, are satisfactory, as far as they go; but, on all these topics, and especially on the subject of editions and manuscripts, our readers will find more copious information in Michaelis and his annotator Bishop Marsh, and in the second volume of Horne's Introduction to the Study of the Scriptures; which last work, besides presenting some more recent information than is to be found in that learned prelate's edition of Michaelis, has the further advantage of being illustrated by numerous fac-similes of the more interesting manuscripts. The second part of M. Cellérier's abridged translation of Professor Hug's Introduction is devoted to an examination of the several books of the New Testament. In analysing the historical books, he enters into a discussion of the design of the author of each book, the order pursued in his narrative, and the circumstances, &c. selected by him. Both Hug and his translator are of opinion that Mark and Luke had seen the previous gospel of Matthew; but this opinion, though_plausibly supported, has long since been refuted. It is generally admitted that the Apostle and Evangelist John had seen the three first gospels, to which his own is justly considered as a supplement. Some new light is thrown on the chronology of the Acts of the Apostles, in the section appropriated to that book. In the analysis of the epistolary or doctrinal books, the state of the Christian churches, or persons to whom they were addressed, together with the scope and design of the several epistles, is distinctly but briefly stated. The Apocalypse is considered in another section, and the work concludes with an Appendix, containing some observations on the Apocryphal books of the New Testament. Often as these subjects have been discussed, the author has frequently succeeded in throwing light on obscure or difficult topics. In this part of the work, we have been most struck with the remarks on the original language of the New Testament; and as this subject is just now of considerable interest and importance, in consequence of the recent attacks made by the enemies of divine revelation on the New Testament, we shall devote the remainder of the present article to a brief consideration of them. With regard to the original language of the New Testament, it may be necessary to remind our readers, that an anonymous author, in the course of last year, published a bulky volume full of learned quotations misapplied; the object of which was to prove (contrary to all evidence, historical and critical, external and internal,) that the received text of the Greek New Testament is a servile translation from a Latin original long since lost; and that this translation was made by a writer, imperfectly acquainted with one, or possibly with both of the languages in question. The errors and inconsistencies of this hypothesis have been exposed in a masterly manner by the venerable Bishop of St. David's, and by the Rev. Messrs. Conybeare and Broughton, in their recent critical publications. We advert to this strange scheme, in this place, merely to observe, that the subjoined facts, (independently of their novelty and learning,) afford an additional refutation of it, and prove most satisfactorily that Greek was and is the original language of the New Testament. To the question whether Greek was generally understood in Palestine in the time of the Evangelist Matthew, Hug replies in the affirmative in the following manner. "1. When the Macedonians obtained the dominion of Asia, they filled that country with Greek cities; great numbers of which were erected by the sovereigns of the Ptolemæan race, and especially by those of the dynasty of the Seleucidæ. "2. The Greeks acquired possession of many cities in Palestine. The Herods succeeded them by other cities which were likewise inhabited by Greeks. Herod the Great, in particular, made continual efforts to give a foreign physiognomy to Judæa; which country, in the time of Jesus Christ, was thus invaded on every side by a Greek population. Let us enter into a few details on this subject. Aristobulus and Alexander built or restored many cities, which were almost entirely occupied by Greeks, or by Syrians, who spoke their language. Some of the cities, which were re-built by the Asmonæan kings or by the command of Pompey, were on the frontiers of Palestine, but a great number of them were in the interior of that country. Concerning these cities we have historical data, which demonstrate that they were very nearly, if not altogether, Greek. Thus, at Dora, a city of Galilee, the inhabitants refused to the Jews the right of citizenship, which had been granted to them by Claudius *. Josephus says that Gadara and Hippos ελληνίδες εἰσὶ πόλεις are Greek cities t. In the very centre of Palestine stood Bethshan, by its Greek inhabitants called Scythopolis. According to the testimony of Josephus §, Gaza, which lay in the southern part of Judæa, was Greek. Joppa, the importance of whose harbour induced the kings of Egypt and of Syria successively to take it from the Jews ||, certainly could not remain a stranger to the same influence. "Under the reign of Herod the Great, Palestine became still more decidedly Greek. That prince and his sons erected several cities in honour of the Cæsars. The most remarkable of all these, Cæsarea, which was the second city in the kingdom, was chiefly peopled by Greeks I, who after Herod's death, under the protection of Nero, expelled the Jews who dwelt there with them ** Paneas or CæsareaPhilippi, had, subsequently to the time of Augustus, a theatre, a sta Jos. Ant. xvi. c. 11. n. 4. Polyb. 1. 5. c. 70. Joseph. Ant. xix. c. 6. n. 3. 1 Maec. x, 75; xii. 33, 34; xiii. 11; xiv. 34. 2 Mac. xiii. 3. Jos. Ant. xiii. c. 9. n. 2; xiv. c. 10, n. 22. Bell. Jud. I. iii. c. 9. Comp. I. ii, c, 13. n. 7... ** Bell. Jud. 1. ii. c. 14. n. 4. VOL. I. NO. I. dium, and Greek money, in which respects it was not singular. The Jews avenged the affront, which they had received at Cæsarea, on Gadara, Hippos, Scythopolis, Ashkalon, and Gaza ;—an additional proof that they dwelt in those cities jointly with the Greeks*. And though Josephus, when relating this fact, calls those Syrians, whom he elsewhere terms Greeks, yet we know that he gave those two names indiscriminately to the inhabitants of Western Syria t. "After Pompey's death, the Greeks being freed from all the restraints which had been imposed on them, made great progress in Palestine, under the protection of Herod; who by no means concealed his partiality towards them ‡ and spent immense sums of money for the purpose of naturalising their language and manners among the Jews. At Cæsarea he built a theatre and an amphitheatre §; at Jericho, an amphitheatre and a stadium ||; he erected similar edifices at the very gates of the holy city; and he even proceeded to build a theatre within its walls I. "3. The Roman government was rather favourable than adverse to the extension of the Greek language in Palestine, in consequence of Greek being the official language of the procurators of that country, when they administered justice, and spoke to the people." Not to follow Professor Hug through the long researches into which he enters in order to demonstrate this fact, we shall only remark that, by comparing numerous quotations of Roman authors, he proves, first, that, under the first emperors, the Romans were accustomed frequently to make use of Greek, even at Rome, when the affairs of the provinces were under consideration; secondly, that Greek was spoken still more frequently in Greece and in Asia; thirdly, that, in Palestine in particular, we do not perceive a single vestige of the official use of the Latin language by the procurators. No where do we see, either in Josephus or in the sacred books, that the Roman governors made use of interpreters and while use and the affairs of life accustomed the people to that language, the higher classes of society would, on many accounts, feel themselves obliged to make use of it. : "4. So far were the religious authorities of the Jews from opposing the introduction of the Greek language, that they appear rather to have favoured its use. They employed that language, habitually, in profane works, and admitted it into official acts. An article in the Mischna prohibits the Jews from writing books in another language **. The act * Bell. Jud. l. ii. c. 18. † Bell. Jud. 1. ii. c. 13. n. 7. Comp. c. 14. n. 4. Vita Josephi. c. ii. Antiq. 1. xvii. c. 5. n. 7. Hist. de l'Acad. des Inscr. et Belles Lettres, tom. ii. p. 170, 171. 8vo. Jos. Ant. xix. c. 7. n. 5. Jos. Ant. xv. c. 9, p. 773. Comp. xvi. c. v. Bell. Jud. 1. i. c. 33. n. 6. 8. Ant. xvii. c. 6. n. 3. 5. Bell. Jud. 1. ii. c. 9. Ant. xv. c. 8. Θέατρον ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις ᾠκοδομησεν Comp. Eichhorn de Judæorum Re Scenicâ. Comm. Soc. R. Scient. Gott. rec. v. ii. Cl. Antiq. p. 10-13. ** Misch. Tract. Megill. c. i. n. 8. |