New Testament Literature


§ 1. From lino, to daub or smear (supine, litum), comes litera, a mark, and more especially a significant mark—a character—a letter of the alphabet. The plural (literce) denotes—1, the letters of the alphabet collectively—2, then any combination of them in a written composition—whether smaller (e. g. a letter, or epistle, made up of a few letters; or, as we say, "a few lines "), or larger (as a book)—3, then books in general, or in the aggregate—and then 4 (subjectively), the knowledge of books (" book-learning "), education—as in Cicero's phrases, "sine Uteris," "nescire literas," the French "belles-lettres," and the English "man of letters,"

meaning much more than a man who "knows his letters."

§ 2. From litera itself comes the adjective literatus, in form a participle, but without a corresponding verb (as in English), meaning primarily lettered, i. e. marked with letters, as a book is lettered by the binder—but secondarily, acquainted with (possessed of) letters, (in the higher sense,) i. e. educated, learned. The plural of this Latin word (literati) is still used in English and although the old derivative (literate) is obsolete, except in certain technical or legal forms, its previous existence is attested by its opposite, illiterate, uneducated, ignorant.

§ 3. From literatus (or from literal directly) comes the abstract term, literatura, meaning, in the classics, first, alphabetic writing; then grammar, philology, the science of language • and lastly, learning, education, or the knowledge of books.

As distinguished from science in modern parlance, literature may be defined as the knowledge of books as books; not merely their contents or

substance, but their form, text, language, style, origin, and all that constitutes their [critical and literary] history.

§ 4. The generic term, as thus defined, admits of various specific applications to particular classes or kinds of books, whether differing in form of composition (as poetical and prose literature), or in date (as ancient and modern literature), or in language (as Greek and English literature), or in subject (as medical and historical literature). In this sense every science (or branch of systematic knowledge) may be said to have its " literature ;" i. e., a collection of writings peculiar to itself. Thus the modern Germans use the term Litteratur to denote the bibliography of any given subject.

§ 5. Among the many possible distinctions and divisions of this nature, one of the most familiar, and at the same time most connected with our present studies, is that of Sacred and Profane Literature.

Profane, according to its Latin etymology {pro

fano, before the temple, outside of the consecrated precincts), is primarily negative and simply means not sacred, though in both languages it 60on acquired the positive and stronger sense of irreverent, impious, and even blasphemous. The difference of the primary and secondary meaning may be seen in the equally familiar combinations, "profane history" and "profane swearing." The primary or negative sense must be determined by that of the correlative expression, "sacred."

§ 6. Sacred Literature may be taken either in a wider or more restricted application. In the former, it denotes (objectively) the aggregate of books, or (subjectively) the knowledge of such books, on sacred subjects, and is then equivalent to Religious Literature. In the latter, it denotes the aggregate (or knowledge) of sacred writings, i. e. inspired, and therefore of divine authority; and is then equivalent to Biblical Literature, or the literature of the Bible.

§ 7. This term {Bible) is immediately derived

from the Latin and Greek plural (Biblia), a diminutive of y8t'/3\o9 (sometimes written /3u/3\o?), which originally means the papyrus plant, the inner bark of which was used of old as a material for writing —hence our paper, though composed of an entirely different substance. A secondary use of both the English and the Greek word is to signify any piece of writing (as a bill of divorcement, Matt. 19, 7 Ot a book), in which sense it is applied to the divisions of the Old Testament—the "book of Moses" (Mark 12, 26)—the "book of Psalms" (Luke 20, 42)—the "book of the Prophets " (Acts 7,42)—but never to the whole of the Old Testament collectively. Its application to the entire Word of God, as the Book of Books, or Book icar e^o-^qv, appears to have been introduced by Chrysostom.

§ 8. Another common name for the whole Word of God is Scripture, from scriptura, scriho, corresponding to the Greek ypacf>rf from 7pa0coJ meaning, originally, any writing whether great or small; but applied emphatically sometimes to a single text or passage (as in Luke 4, 21)—sometimes to several in connection (as in Acts 1, 16)—sometimes to

the whole of the Old Testament (as in John 10, 35. 2 Tim 3, 16)—which is still more frequently denoted by the plural (ypcujxii, scriptures) of which some find the earliest example in Daniel 9, 2. (Compare John 2, 22 and 5, 39.) With this plural Paul employs the epithets holy (Kom. 1, 2) and sacred (2 Tim. 3,15), which are confounded in the English version.

§ 9. The English adjectives derived from these names (Biblical and Scriptural), although substantially synonymous, are not entirely convertible in usage; the latter being commonly employed to express internal agreement with the Word of God, the former what externally belongs to it, as in the phrases, " scriptural doctrine," "biblical learning," in which the epithets cannot conveniently be interchanged.

§ 10. Applying to the Book which we distinguish from all others as the Scriptures, or the Bible, the definitions previously laid down, we may understand by the term Biblical Literature, in its subjective sense, the knowledge of the Bible, as a book, or of the writings which compose it, as books,

§ 11. Here again, as in the case of Sacred Literature, we may conveniently distinguish a wider and a narrower application of the term ; the former comprehending Interpretation, not only as a part, but as the most important part of Biblical Literature, to which its other elements are merely auxiliary.

§ 12. But Interpretation is the business of a lifetime, which, so far from being finished in a course of academical instruction, can only be prepared for and begun. And as this preparation and beginning are not confined to any one department, but diffused, at least in theory, through all, we need a more specific definition of the study upon which we are now entering.

§ 13. Biblical Literature, then, in the restricted sense, excludes Interpretation proper, not as being either unimportant or irrelevant, but, on the contrary, as the all-important end to which it is itself a necessary means. In other words, it compre

hends those studies which may be regarded as auxiliary to the Exegesis, or the actual Interpretation of the Word of God.

§ 14. Biblical Literature, thus defined, may be correctly represented both as an ancient and a modern science. In its essential elements and parts, it is coeval with Interpretation, properly so called. Ever since men have attempted to expound the Scriptures, they have unavoidably made some use of these auxiliary studies; but in ancient times without reducing them to system, as a science or distinct branch of sacred learning. Important contributions, both of material and principle, are due to such men as Jerome and Augustin in the ancient church; to Junilius and Cassiodorus, at a somewhat later date; to Alcuin and Photius in the middle ages. But, as a methodized and systematic science, it is scarcely older than the Reformation, and has been developed chiefly since that great event, especially among the Germans, .where it has become a mighty engine for the propagation of sceptical theology, which is a reason not for neglecting it, but rather for its more assiduous culti

vation, as the only antidote to such perversion, and the best security for sound interpretation.

§ 15. Another reason for attending to these studies here is that more than any other they ensure attention to the "Word of God hereafter by making it now a subject of investigation as a whole, and in its principal divisions, with their mutual relations, and the most efficient methods of minute and thorough exposition, to be carried out in future life, not as a literary pastime, or a merely intellectual employment, but as the great work of the ministry, by which the staple of its pastoral instructions must be chiefly furnished. This prospective influence on future labor is not so effectually exerted by the minute interpretation of small portions of the "Word—however valuable in itself, and in its bearing upon other ends—as by a more discursive and apparently more superficial view of those preliminary and auxiliary studies, which are comprehended in the conventional and somewhat vague term, Biblical Literature.

§ 16. The intimate relation thus existing between these auxiliary studies and the great work of interpre

tation led to the early adoption of the Isagogic form and method, which regards them as directly introductory or preliminary {elaaytoyrj from et'owyo), introduce)) to actual exegesis or interpretation of the Scriptures. Thus the learned Roman Catholic, Pagninus, who died before the middle of the sixteenth century, wrote two works, under the Greek title Isagoge {ad sacras Uteras, and ad mysticos sacrce scriptural sensus). The same title was adopted in the next century by the great French Protestant divine Andrew Rivet. {Isagoge ad Scripturam Sacram). Carpzovius and others used the corresponding Latin title Introduction which has since become the current one, not only in Latin but in English {Introduction) and German {Einleitung).

§ 17. The idea of an Introduction, being relative, varied in extent, according to the judgment or convenience of the writer. One of the most comprehensive applications of the title is in Thomas Hartwell Horne's well-known work in four volumes, which embraces all that can be reckoned introductory or even auxiliary to interpretation, not excepting the evidences of revealed religion,

nor biblical antiquities, geography included, which, though certainly belonging to Biblical Literature in the widest sense, are commonly omitted by the Germans in their technical use and definition. o£ t\\e term Einleitung.

§ 18. The usual practice has been to divide Introduction into two parts: General and Special; the former including what relates to the whole Bible or to one of its great parts, considered as a •whole; the other what can be conveniently considered only in connection with the several books.

§ 19. The order of these two parts has not always been the same, though commonly the one first stated. Some writers of celebrity, however, have begun with Special Introduction, for the sake of a more chronological arrangement, by beginning with the history of the several books before reciting that of their collection into one book.

§ 20. This has led in later times to another view of the whole subject and a corresponding difference in arrangement and the mode of treatment, not as introductory to any thing, but as independent

and complete in itself; or rather as a branch of history, literary or ecclesiastical; a theory long ago suggested, although not carried out, by Richard Simon, a learned Roman Catholic, near the close of the seventeenth century, in his JTistoires Critiques, or Critical Histories of the Old and New Testament, the Yersions, Commentators, &c.

§ 21. As this difference affects only the arrangement and the nomenclature of the subject, leaving its substance unchanged, it is purely a question of convenience, or at most of literary taste, which is likely to be variously answered according to the predilection of the writer or the teacher for historical or exegetical studies. There is certainly no ground for the extravagant and vehement denunciation of the older (isagogical) method, by some recent German writers, as unphilosophical and obsolete.* To those who estimate such studies by their bearing on Interpretation, it will always seem more natural to treat them as a branch of it, or rather as an introduction to it; while to others or the same, it will be recommended by its obvious convenience in descending from generals to particu* Reuss—Guericke (2d. ed.)

22. This subject, even in its most curtailed dimensions, is too vast and various to be subjected to a single process of investigation or compressed into a single course of study and instruction. Of the different divisions which have been proposed or acted on, the most satisfactory in theory and practice is the one founded on the immemorial and universally familiar distinction of the Old and New Testament.

§ 23. This word, both in English and in Latin (testamentum), means a last will, or final disposition of one's property, to take effect after the death of the testator.* It is used in the Latin Vulgate to translate the Greek word BiaStficn, not only when it means a testamentary arrangement (as in Heb. 9, 16. 17), but also when it means a dis

* It is worthy of remark that while "testament" has acquired this secondary meaning, which it would now be folly to disturb, its kindred terras, testamentary, testator, and intestate, are never used in any but their primary and proper application.

pensation or divine economy (as in Gal. 4, 24. Heb. 9, 15), and when it means a mutual arrangement or a covenant (as in Horn. 11, 27 and passim). From the sense of dispensation or economy the transition was an easy one to that of its appropriate and peculiar revelation, in which sense Paul employs the phrase iraXala Sia&rjici) (2 Cor. 3, 14) in immediate connection with the act of reading (avayvcoaerj,) and with obvious reference to the Hebrew Scriptures. In exact analogy to this apostolical expression, the correlative phrase, iccuvr) StaStficTj, may be used to designate the Greek Scriptures, or the Christian revelation, though applied in the New Testament itself only to the new covenant or dispensation, of which these books are the written charter or organic law. (See Matt. 26, 28. 2 Cor. 3, 6. Heb. 8, 8. 9, 15. 12, 24.) This analogous use of icaivrj Bio^^kt] is at least as old as Origen, and that of Novum Testamentum may be traced still further back, to Tertullian, and perhaps to the oldest Latin version in which this phrase may have coexisted with the kindred one of Novum Instrumentum.

§ 24. The distinction here proposed is not con

ventional or arbitrary, but arises from the mutual relation of the parts, which, although constituting one revelation, and inseparable from each other, and reciprocally necessary in the process of interpretation, are still formally so far unlike as to admit and even to require somewhat different exegetical appliances and processes. Such are found necessary in the writings of two different ages, even where the language is essentially the same, as in the case of Homer and Demosthenes, Chaucer and Shakspeare. How much more when the languages are not only different, but of different stocks, as in the case of Greek and Hebrew! The same necessity arises in some measure from the difference of subject and design between a preparatory and completed revelation, a ceremonial and a spiritual dispensation. This division has accordingly been long adopted by the best German writers on the subject.

§ 25. The only plausible objection to the separation here suggested is the one arising from the danger of interpreting the Old and New Testaments without regard to one another; and this is rather theoretical than practical, as all experience shows how utterly impossible that process is, where

both parts are received as equally inspired. Least of all is such an error to be apprehended either on the part of teachers or of learners, in our public institutions, where the study of both testaments is constantly and simultaneously pursued, as parts of the same uniform and homogeneous system. Where either portion of the Word is neglected for the sake of the other, the abuse must spring from personal obliquity of judgment rather than from any formal distribution or arrangement.

§ 26. If the critical study of the Scriptures were preceded by no early and more superficial knowledge of them; if the Bible were as unknown to the student of theology as the Vedas, or even as the Koran; the only reasonable method would be to dispose of the Old Testament before proceeding to the New. But as we all know something of the Scriptures from our childhood, and the object of professional interpretation is not so much to discover what is new, as to perfect and reduce to system what is partially known already, there is neither theoretical absurdity nor practical inconvenience in pursuing the two studies at the same time in parallel courses. And as most of us are first and best ac

quainted with the later revelation, there is nothing to forbid, if nothing to require or recommend, our taking the last first, and immediately proceeding to the proper subject of this course, to wit: 3^ew Testament Literature or Introduction.

§ 27. Applying the previous definitions and distinctions to this part of Scripture, we may understand New Testament Literature as denoting the knowledge of the New Testament, as a book, or of the writings which compose it, as books; not merely the truth which they contain, but their peculiar form and literary history.

§ 28. To this as well as to the Old Testament, the same two theories have been applied, with the two corresponding modes of treatment, the Isagogieal and the Historical. The former has been commonly adopted till within a few years, Richard Simon's Histoire Critique du JVouveau Testament (1689) being rather an apparent than a real exception, and including only a part of the whole subject.

§ 29. The rise of the sceptical theology in Germany was not without effect upon this branch of

learning, and was reciprocally aided by it. On the boundary between old doctrines and neology stands John David Michaclis, of Gottingen, whose Introduction to the New Testament was originally published in 1750, carrying out the critical principles of Richard Simon, and doing good service in relation to the text and ancient versions. To the fourth edition of this work were added valuable notes by Herbert Marsh, of Cambridge, afterwards Bishop of Peterboro', translated into German by the younger Kosenmiiller (1795). Between the first and fourth editions, Sender had begun to treat the subject rationalistically in his " Apparatus ad libertatem Novi Testamenti Interpretationem" (1767), and his treatise on the free investigation of the Canon (1771—1775). The process thus begun was carried further by Eichhorn, in his Introduction, published during the first quarter of the present century (1804—1827), and reached its height in that of DeWette, the first edition of which appeared in 1826, and the fifth in 1848. In the mean time a reaction had begun, promoted by the learned and ingenious Koman Catholic, John Leonard Hug, whose Introduction appeared first in 1808 (fourth edition, 1847).

§ 30. Among those who contributed to this reaction •was H. F. Guericke, an orthodox and pious Lutheran of Halle, in his Contributions to New Testament Introduction, occasioned by DeWette's publications (1828), his Further Contributions (1831), and finally, his formal Introduction (1843), which may be regarded as a summary of all that went before, designed expressly to resist the infidel tendency of the age, and to maintain the inspiration and divine authority of Holy Scripture. This work was constructed on the old isagogical principle; but in its latest and best form, divided into General and Special Introduction, presenting first what relates to the New Testament collectively, and then what is peculiar to the several books.

§ 31. After this work was printed, but before its publication, another of the same general character was brought out by a young Professor (Reuss) of Strasburg, in which the isagogical method was entirely discarded, and the subject treated, not as introductory to exegesis, but as a branch of history,

and therefore chronologically ordered, under six successive topics, without any division into General and Special. This arrangement, disapproved by Guericke in the preface to his first edition, was adopted in the second (1853), after having been reissued by its author in a fuller and completer form. Not satisfied with this change, Guericke denounces all adherence to the old isagogical method as behind the age and utterly unscientific; whereas, both arrangements, as we have already seen, are views of the same object from two different points of observation, and the old one has advantages peculiar to itself.

§ 32. As this historical arrangement, although not more scientific than the other, and practically less convenient for our purpose, is ingenious in itself, and likely to remain in Vogue until another is discovered, it may not be without use to introduce the scheme, as first proposed by Reuss, and slightly modified by Guericke. The whole subject is reduced to six consecutive heads, without subdivision, and may be expressed as follows:

1. The history of the preparation for the New Testament revelation [or its antecedents].

2. The history of its origin [viz., that of the several books, seriatim].

3. The history of their collection [or of the New Testament Canon].

4. The history of its preservation [or of the New Testament Text].

5. The history of its circulation or diffusion [by the aid of versions].

6. The history of its usage or application * [in the way of exegesis or interpretation].

§ 33. Having thus exhibited the new historical arrangement of the subject, for the purpose of comparison and reference, we now return to the more familiar and convenient isagogical method, which considers the whole subject, not as a chapter of literary history, but as a preparation for the work of actual interpretation, and divides it into two great parts, called General and Special Introduction, / the former, as we have already seen, embracing what relates to the New Testament or all its books, collectively; the latter what belongs to the books singly, and can be satisfactorily treated, only by examining them in detail, and one by one. * So Reuss (not Guericke).

The first of these divisions, being rather a conventional or arbitrary than a scientific or a necessary one, may be expanded or contracted at our own discretion.

§ 34. But whatever be the topics comprehended under General Introduction, it is highly important to arrange them, not at random, or by any arbitrary method, such as the alphabetical, but on some rational intelligible principle, by which is not meant one that is purely philosophical or scientific, but simply one for which a reason can be given, as opposed to one that is merely accidental or capricious. The best mode of obtaining such a method in the present case is by adhering to the isagogic principle, considering interpretation as the end to be attained, and then inquiring what preliminary questions must be answered, or may be answered with advantage, before entering on the ultimate and main work of exegesis or actual interpretation.

§ 35. Taking the widest view of General Introduction that has been proposed by any writer, and supposing the interpreter to be incited, not by

mere literary curiosity, or vague desire of knowledge for its own sake, but by religious motives, and especially an earnest wish to know tbe will of God, the first preliminary question which might be expected to present itself is this: "What reason is there to believe a revelation possible or necessary— or, if this be granted, what reason is there to believe this book to be the Word of God—or this New Testament to be a part of such a revelation? Supposing this to be determined, the next questions would be: What are the writings which compose this volume? What detailed compositions have a right to a place in this collection? These two questions may appear to involve each other; but the fact is certain that even where the inspiration of the Bible, as a whole, is granted, there may be a doubt as to the parts of which it is composed.

§ 36. A third preliminary question, in the case supposed, is, whether this book, or these writings which compose it, are precisely as they were at first, and exhibit the ipsissima verba of the sacred

writers; or if not, whether they can be restored to their original condition. The solution, and even the investigation, of this question, presupposes some acquaintance with the language in which the book is written. It may, therefore, be presented as a previous or intermediate question, What that language is—its origin—its history—its character—the means by which it may be mastered—and the sources from which illustrations may be drawn?

§ 37. Supposing this essential knowledge to have been acquired, the question in relation to the text may be successfully pursued. But even when it has been answered, it is found that the book, although verbally intelligible, is obscured by perpetual allusions to remote times and places, to peculiar climates, soils, and products, to a state of society unlike our own, to personal habits, to domestic, social, civil, and religious institutions, of a kind with which the reader has no personal acquaintance, and of which he must know something, in a general way at least, before he can attempt interpretation in detail, with any prospect of success. "We may now suppose him to have gained this knowledge; but before he enters on the work of exegesis with entire satisfaction, he will naturally ask another question, really including two.

§ 38. This is the question: How—upon what principles, the work is to be carried on? How far must the interpretation of this book as an inspired one, be different from that of a mere human composition? And a man of due humility and self-distrust would scarcely fail to add the question, "What have others done before me in the effort to explain this book to others, or to understand it for themselves? What rules have they adopted or laid down? and what are the results? What means of illustration, and facilities for study, have they left to their successors 1 And how may we avail ourselves of their assistance to the most advantage i These concluding questions being satisfactorily answered, the way to a correct interpretation of this part of Scripture is completely open, and requires only to be diligently walked in.

§ 39. This may seem to place the business of interpretation at too great a distance, and to hinder the approach to it by too many obstructions. But this discouraging impression may be rectified by recollecting that it is not the minute detail, in

eluded under these successive topics, that is absolutely necessary as an introduction to the actual processes of exegesis, but only a correct acquaintance with the main points upon which the rest depend. "When these are mastered, even in their principles or outlines, the very process of interpretation will throw light upon the others, and receive light from them by a mutual reflection. But interpretation cannot even be begun, in an intelligent and profitable manner, without a previous solution, however general and superficial, of the questions which have been successively propounded, and the answers to which comprehend the whole of General Introduction in its widest sense. As an aid to the memory, let us briefly recapitulate the questions, and observe their correspondence with the parts of Introduction.

§ 40. To the first question—(what reason have we to regard the Bible as the Word of God ?)—the answer is afforded by that part of Introduction, in the widest application of the term, which the Germans call Apologetih, and which we, for want of any technical expression, call the Evidences of Revealed

Religion. To the second question—(what particular writings are entitled to a place in this inspired collection ?)—the answer includes all that relates to what is technically called the Canon of [Scripture or of] the New Testament. To the third question —(what is the original language, its affinities, its history, its character, the means of its elucidation ?) —the answer is afforded by that part of Introduction called New Testament [or Biblical] Philology. To the fourth question—(how may the exact words of the sacred writers be determined? and how far has this been done already ?)—the answer is afforded by New Testament [or Biblical] Criticism, i. e. of the text, using both words in their technical and narrow sense.

§ 41. The fifth question—(what were the peculiar circumstances of the people mentioned in the Bible, as to country, climate, habits, institutions, some knowledge of which is necessary to a correct determination of its meaning?)—opens the whole subject of Antiquities or Archaeology, including the Geography of Scripture. The answer to the sixth question—(what are the principles and laws of

biblical interpretation ?)—corresponds to what is technically known as Ifermencutics, differing from Exegesis, as the science from the art, or theory from practice. But as this is an inductive science, resting more upon experience and common sense than on any abstract speculations a priori, it is not to be severed from the seventh and last question— (what has been already done in this department ?) —corresponding to the History of Interpretation. Indeed, it may be found most convenient in practice, to give this the preference in order of consideration, so as to secure the advantage of historical induction in determining our rules and principles of exegesis.

§ 42. Such is a brief view of the topics comprehended in the widest application of the technical term Introduction, and actually treated in some works upon the subject, as for instance that of Horne already mentioned (§ IT). But in order to reduce the field to manageable compass [as well as to accommodate our own arrangements], it will be necessary to eliminate several of these topics, although not precisely on the same grounds. One of

these, the first in our enumeration, though a fundamental and preliminary question, belongs rather to Theology than to Introduction, and is either presupposed or included in that study. Another, holding the fifth place, may be excluded on the ground that it is rather a collateral auxiliary than an introductory preliminary study. This, with its vast extent and growing interest, requires it to be separately treated [as I hope it will be in our course of study]. The only other topic which can be omitted is that of Hermeneutics, on the ground that it cannot well be separately handled in connection with the two great divisions of the Bible, but must be disposed of once for all, without regard to this conventional distinction.

§ 43. The elimination of these topics leaves us four, to constitute the first part of our present course, distinguished from the last part by the name of General Introduction. I. The New Testament Canon (or the books entitled to a place in the collection). II. The New Testament Philology (or all that relates to the Original Language). III. The New Testament Text and Textual Criticism (by which we determine the ipsissima verba of the

sacred -writers). TV. The Exegctical History of the New Testament (including that of "Versions, ancient and modern, and that of schools and systems of interpretation, but excluding that of individual books and writers, which belongs to Special Introduction^)

§ 44. The transition or connecting link between General and Special Introduction will be furnished by a topic which belongs exclusively to neither, and yet partially to both—to the second, as concerning the particular books—to the first, as necessarily preceding their minute examination one by one. This is the topic of Classification and Arrangement, under which we may arrange some matters commonly connected with the Canon, such as the circumstances out of which the Christian Revelation (or New Testament) arose, and the traces of an actual collection of the books into a volume; the canonical history of each book, as detailed proof of its canonicity, belonging necessarily to Special Introduction.

§ 45. The first division, then, of General In

TRODticTioN is the Canon of Scripture, or, according to the distribution which we have adopted (§ 22— 26), that of the New Testament. By means of the arrangement just proposed (§ 44) we are enabled to reduce this topic to a reasonable compass, introducing only what is absolutely necessary as a preliminary to the others; and in answer to the question, "What shall we interpret? answer, the New Testament. But what is the New Testament? What volume is entitled to the name? The Book of Mormon, or the Koran, might be lettered the "New Testament," but this would not entitle them to be so reckoned; and even when we have identified the volume as a whole, the question still remains to be decided, "What books are entitled to a place in this collection? Are the twenty-seven books which now compose it those which were acknowledged by the church from the beginning— neither more nor less? The question with which we are directly here concerned is not whether these books are inspired, but whether they were so considered by the church from the days of the apostles, and thereby entitled to a place in the Canon?

§ 46. The Greek word (icavav) may be traced to

one originally meaning a cane or reed—then any straight rod suitable for measuring or for keeping other things straight—with specific application to the beam of a balance—or, as some say, to its perpendicular support—but certainly denoting, as a secondary meaning, any rule or standard, physical or moral. It is then applied, by way of eminence, to the Rule of Faith and to the Scriptures, or inspired Word of God, as constituting that rule.* The sense of list or catalogue attached by some to this word, is entirely derivative and later in its origin. The cognate adjective to canon is canonical, belonging to the Canon, or the Rule of Faith. Its correlatives and opposites, apocrypha, apocryphal, derived from a-rroicpinrra, to hide from or to hide away, and variously used by ancient writers to denote what is secret or mysterious, anonymous or of uncertain origin, spurious or counterfeit, untrue or fabulous, heretical or doctrinally false, but as a technical and ecclesiastical expression meaning sim

* "By the straight we judge both itself and the crooked, for the rule is singly the test of both (spires ai&oiv 6 Kavilv)." Aristotle dc Anima, c. S, § 16, ed. Trendelenburg, quoted by Archer Butler, Tol. ii. p. 385 (ed. W. H. Thompson).

ply and specifically something which purports or claims to be a part of Holy Scripture, but is not so, perhaps with the accessory notion of uncertain origin, by which the so-called Apostolic Fathers arc exempted from the application of the term, though some of them were anciently regarded as inspired, and their writings read in public worship.

§ 47. The precise point to be determined under this head is the identity of the book which we call the New Testament, and of the writings which compose it now, with those acknowledged, under the same names, from the beginning, as belonging to the Canon or the Rule of Faith. There are two methods of conducting this inquiry, which may be distinguished as the a priori and a posteriori process. The first consists of a historical deduction in the order of time, tracing the origin of each book, and of the entire collection, with the proofs of their continued existence to the present time. This is the course adopted by those writers who prefer the Historical arrangement to the Isagogical (§ 21, 22, 23). Under the latter plan which we are now pursuing, this deduction may be most conveniently presented in its outlines at the close of the General

Introduction in connection with the subject of Classification and Arrangement, and in its details in the Special Introduction to the several books of the New Testament. In this place, and in answer to the preliminary question just propounded, it will only be necessary to present in brief the a posteriori argument for the identity of our New Testament with that which came from the Apostles, setting out from undisputed and notorious facts belonging to the present, and then tracing up the testimony to the very times of the Apostles.

§ 48. The fact from which we set out in this a 'posteriori process is the palpable and certain one, that the book now called the New Testament is the same in every language, and throughout the world. This statement has no reference to minute variations of the text, which will be afterwards considered, but to the collection as a whole, and to the smaller books of which it is composed. This uniformity is the more remarkable, because it has no existence in the case of the Old Testament, one of the points of difference between most Protestants and the Church of Rome, relating to the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures; whereas, although the

New Testament apocrypha are still more numerous, not one of them is anywhere regarded as belonging to the Canon, but all critics and all nations and all churches, are agreed in acknowledging the same Sew Testament, composed of the same twentyseven books, neither more nor less.

§ 49. The next fact, equally notorious and certain, although more remote from our immediate sphere of observation, is that this identity or uniformity has constantly existed for a period of more than 1400 years; before as well as since the Reformation; through the Middle Ages; back to the close of the fourth century. The evidence of this fact is both negative and positive, arising from the absence of all contrary appearances throughout this series of ages, and confirmed by explicit testimony, at the date referred to, that the same New Testament which we possess, and made up of the same books, was then both in public use and private circulation. This explicit testimony is afforded both by individuals and by collective bodies, of great eminence, and highly qualified to testify without mistake or partiality.

§ 50. In order to preclude all misconception as

to this point, it is proper to observe and bear in mind, that we appeal to fathers and to councils, not as judges, as the Church of Rome does, but as witnesses to matters of fact, of which they were personally cognizant, as well as ex officio. The weight of the testimony is to be determined, as in other cases, by the character and standing of the witness as known aliunde, by his opportunities of information, and his freedom from all motives to misrepresent. Measured by this rule, one man may deserve more credit than the largest council; but in general the testimony of such bodies is peculiarly important, as embodying the testimony of great numbers; as preceded often by inquiry and discussion; as expressed, not hastily and loosely, but with more or less precision and formality; and, lastly, as transmitted to us, not by vague tradition, but in solemn, and official acts.

§ 51. The fact already stated, that the Canon of the New Testament, at the close of the fourth century, was perfectly identical with that in universal

use at present, is attested by Jiufinus, an eminent Father of the Latin Church, who enumerates the books by classes, namely, the Four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, fourteen epistles of Paul, two of Peter, one of James, one of Jude, three of John, and the Revelation of the same Apostle. That this is no subjective judgment of his own, as to what books ought to be received on their own merits, but his simple testimony to a historical fact, appears from his adding to the list, "hsec sunt quae patres inter canonem concluserunt," using the word canon just as we do, and describing it as closed or completed, not by him or his contemporaries, but by the patres, meaning, no doubt, those of the primitive or apostolic age. That he does not understand by canonical (as Sender did) such books as were used in public worship, appears from his enumerating others which he calls ecclepiastici, and not canonici, because the fathers willed them to be read in Church, but not to be adduced in proof of doctrine (such as the Shepherd of Hermas, and Old Testament Apocrypha), and then distinguishes from both classes the New Testament Apocrypha, " quaa legi noluerunt." The same facts are abundantly attested by the still more eminent contemporaries, Jerome and Augustin.

§ 52. This individual testimony, which would be almost conclusive by itself, is confirmed as to the most essential point, by two contemporary councils, both held in North Africa, then one of the most prosperous and enlightened portions of the Church, within the last ten years of the fourth century. The Council of Hippo (A. D. 393), after ordering that nothing shall be read in church, under the name of Divine Scriptures, "prseter Scripturas canonicas," proceeds to specify them in the most deliberate and formal manner: "Sunt autem canonicse scripturas evangeliorum libri quatuor,"— then follows one book of Acts, 13 epistles of Paul, "ejusdem ad Hebrseos una,"—2 of Peter, 3 of John, 1 of James, 1 of Jude, and the Apocalypse of John, just the Canon of Rufinus, and our own. To this decree it is added: "de confirmando isto canone transmauna ecclesia consulatur "—and accordingly we find it confirmed, not only by a council at Carthage four years later (A. D. 397), but soon after by the bishop of Pome (Innocent I.), and long after by a Roman council (A. D. 494:), showing that no change had taken place within a century, as none has taken place within the fourteen centuries that follow.

§ 53. Going further back in the fourth century, we find among the writings of Athanasius, the most eminent Greek Father of that age, and the champion of the Nicene faith against the Arians, a list of the canonical books of the New Testament, comprising the 4 Gospels, Acts, 7 Catholic epistles, 14 of Paul, and the book of Revelation, as to which last it is added, that it was received as John's by the ancient saints (or holy) and inspired Fathers. This, although in favor of the book, implies that some held a different opinion, and is the first intimation that we come to in this retrograde inquiry, of the least dissent from the existing canon, which was then received not only in the Greek and Latin, hut the Syrian Church, as we learn from the fact that Ephrem Syrus, its greatest representative, who died A. D. 378, quotes in his extant writings every one of our twenty-seven books.

§ 54. A contemporary Father of great eminence, Gregory of ISTazianzen, says of the Apocalypse that some receive it (eyicpivovcriv), but that

the majority pronounce it spurious (pi 7r\«ou? Vooov \eyovcri). Another, equally distinguished, Cyril of Jerusalem, omits it in his catalogue (including the 4 Gospels, with a positive exclusion of all others, as .ylrevSeiriypada Km /3\a/Se/3a, Acts of 12 Apostles, 7 Catholic epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude —14 epistles of Paul), then adds: TAAOIUAUANTAEZfl KElXenENAETTEPni. Precisely the same canon is contained in a decree of the Council of Laodicea (360—364), which some reject as spurious, but which certainly belongs to the fourth century, and if not the testimony of a council, is at least that of another (although an unknown) individual.

§ 55. When we reach the early part of the fourth century we come to the famous canon of Eusebius, bishop of Cesarea, the confidential friend of Constantine the Great, and "Father of Church history." He divides the Christian books of his day into three great classes: I. Ilomologumena, acknowledged, undisputed. II. Antilegomena, assailed or called in question. III. Notlia, or (atopa Icai dyssebe).

Under the first head ho enumerates the Four Gospels, Acts, Epistles of Paul (without name or number), 1 John, 1 Peter, and Apocalypse, eiye, (paveCrj. Under the third head he enumerates several gosj)els and acts of the apostles, now universally rejected as apocryphal, with the Book of Revelation, as before, el <paveirj. Between these, under the title of Antilegomena, he names the five smaller Catholic epistles, with the Acts of Paul and the Shepherd of Hennas. The last two have been universally rejected, and the other five as universally received, since the close of the fourth century, as we have seen. In another place, Eusebius calls the first class Sacred Scriptures, represents the second as objected to, but read in most churches, and describes the third as " spurious, and alien from apostolical orthodoxy." In a third place he mentions seven Catholic epistles. He nowhere expresses any doubt of his own, even as to the Apocalypse or Antilegomena, but only records that of others. His placing the Apocalypse in the first or third class, not the second, seems to imply that if not the work of an apostle, it was an "absurd and impious" forgery. Towards the close of the third century, we find Dionysius of Alexandria admitting the Apocalypse to be inspired, but denying the authorship of John, entirely from internal evidence.

§ 56. A little earlier, Origen, the master of this Dionysius, and the most distinguished Father of that age, includes the Book of Revelation in a list of the canonical books, and names John as its author, but omits the five shorter Catholic epistles, and describes that to the Hebrews as containing Paul's thoughts in the language of another. He elsewhere mentions that of James as current (<fcepofj,evrj) under that name, and 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, as doubted by others—and he once speaks of Peter's two epistles, and of John's in the plural number, and refers to those of James and Jude. His voluminous writings, some of which are lost, are said to contain abundant quotations from all the books noAv in the Canon. This may serve to show that mere omissions in these ancient catalogues must not be made to prove too much.

§ 57. Cyprian, Origen's contemporary in the Western Church, refers to all the books now in the Canon, except Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. Clement of Alexandria, Origen's predecessor and preceptor (A. D. 220), rec

ognizes the four Gospels, Acts, 13 Epistles of Paul,

1 of Peter, 1 of John, 1 of Jude, and the Book of Revelation. Hebrews he supposes to have been originally written by Paul, and translated into Greek by Luke. The same writer comments upon

2 John, and alludes to James and 2 Peter, without naming them. His contemporary, Tertullian, the oldest of the Latin Fathers (A. D. 222), mentions all the books except 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, "but represents Hebrews, though canonical, as the work of Barnabas. Irenaeus, a connecting link between the second and third century, and also between the Eastern and the "Western Church, does not mention

3 John, alludes to James and 2 Peter, without naming them, regards Hebrews as canonical, but not of Pauline origin, and recognizes all the other books as we do.

§ 58. The Muratori Canon, a fragment found at Rome in the 18th century, contains a list of the books read in-churches in the time of Pius L, who was bishop of Rome dui"ing the second century, omitting James, and leaving 2 Peter doubtful, and giving Hebrews a different name, and not assigning it a place with Paul's epistles. The Peshito

or old Syriac version, made near the close of the second century, or early in the third, omits 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation, all which are found in a few manuscripts, but probably of later date. As to most of the books, we have thus concurrent testimony, at the end of the third century, from Gaul, Asia Minor, Egypt, Italy, and Carthage.

§ 59. Beyond this point we have no formal catalogues, but only references and quotations, the paucity of which may be accounted for by the paucity of writings which contain them; by the slow communication in the ancient world, which caused some writings to be late in gaining general circulation; and by the authority which still belonged to oral tradition, making reference less necessary, even to books which were acknowledged as inspired, and therefore as canonical. But the aggregate testimony of the first and second centuries is amply sufficient to establish the reception of the Gospels, Acts, 13 epistles of Paul, that to the Hebrews, though not always under his name, 1 Peter, 1 John, and the Book of Revelation.

Of the remaining books, the one most frequently alluded to is Jude, then 2 John, then James, then 3 John, and then 2 Peter, which is not expressly quoted in the first or second century, though mentioned near its close "by Irenseus and Clement of Alexandria. The result of this induction may be therefore summarily stated thus, that 20 of the books now included in the Canon have been homologumena, or undisputed ab initio; while the other seven are less frequently referred to in the early ages, and afterwards spoken of as antilegomena, though universally received into the Canon at the close of the fourth century.

§ 60. The question now is, not whether these seven books shall be received to an inferior place in the Canon, as proposed by Augustine and some of the Reformers, but rejected even by the Council of Trent; but whether they are entitled to a position of perfect equality with all the rest. The obvious reason is, because there can be no such thing as half-canonical or half-inspired; a writing must be

either wholly so or not at all. Nor is the question, why should we receive these books, as they were certainly received at the close of the fourth century; but why should we reject them. The presumption raised by their reception then, perhaps on evidence no longer in existence, throws the burden of proof on those who would exclude them. Nor is this presumption weakened by the charge of uncritical negligence, which some allege against the ancient church, a charge not wholly groundless with respect to the text, but shown to be so with respect to the Canon, by the very doubts and difficulties now in question; unless we absurdly assume that the caution previously exercised was suddenly abandoned at the close of the fourth century.

§ 61. The only question which remains is, whether the acknowledged doubts and hesitations as to these seven books can be accounted for on grounds consistent with their having been canonical from the beginning. It is not required that the proof be as clear and as abundant as it is in the case of the other books, but only that it be sufficient to remove all reasonable doubt upon the subject, and confirm the strong presumption which arises from the fact that at the close of the fourth century, the balance, which had oscillated for a course of ages, was unanimously held to preponderate in favour of the books in question. This decision we are not only authorized, but bound, to acquiesce in, as the church has acquiesced in it for fourteen hundred years, provided we can find any probable solution of the question why these books, if canonical, were ever called in question.

§ 62. The sufficiency of such an explanation will not be impaired, but rather strengthened, by its not being uniform or perfectly identical in reference to all the books in question. Such a sameness might indeed be suspicious, or indicative of concert or contrivance for the purpose of securing their admission to the Canon. On the other hand, if all, or nearly all, admit of different solutions, resting upon different circumstances in the origin and history, or in their character and contents, there will be no ground for the suspicion above mentioned, nor for any further hesitation in accepting the unanimous testimony of all Christian writers at the close of the fourth century, that these books

were entitled to an absolute equality in this respect, with all the others, as having been canonical from the beginning. That there is varied yet harmonious solution in the case of all these books, we now proceed to show, going only so far into the details as may be necessary for this purpose, and reserving all the rest for other and more suitable occasions. (See above, §§ 44, 45).

§ 63. With respect to the Epistle to the Hebrews, the peculiar and decisive fact is, that the ancient doubts had no relation to its canonicity, but only to its authorship, which is not an essential circumstance, since many books of Scripture are anonymous, and the authorship of some entirely uncertain. That some should have doubted whether Paul, whose name appears in all his other writings, would omit it in this one, was natural enough, especially before men had considered any of the possible solutions of this singular departure from his otherwise invariable practice, such, for example, singling one out of many, as that when the Apostle of the Gentiles found it necessary to address the

Hebrew Christians, he omitted that official description of himself which adds so much to his authority when writing to the Gentile churches. It is not necessary to affirm that this was really the reason, but only that it may be thus and otherwise accounted for, and also that the class of readers obviously addressed in this epistle would of course prevent its being known so early or diffused so widely as those which bore the author's name, and were addressed to Gentile churches or believers.

§ 64. The Epistle of James is not anonymous, but bears a name of doubtful application, having been really ascribed to three different persons so called, namely, James the Son of Zebedee, James the Son of Alpheus, and James the Brother of the Lord, whom many still believe to be distinct from both the others. Hiis uncertainty might be sufficient of itself to cause some hesitation, which would be of course increased by the erroneous impression, current in all ages, of a doctrinal diversity between James and Paul as to the cardinal doctrine of justification. If such an one as Martin Luther, in his zeal for that articulus stantis et codeatis ecclesise, could rashly for a time expunge this epistle from

the Canon, surely the same mistake might generate some doubt and hesitation in the ancient church, although it was canonical from the beginning.

§ 65. Of the four smaller writings, Jude and

2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, it may be observed in general that they are all comparatively short and therefore furnish relatively little matter for quotation, which accounts for the paucity of references to them by the early Christian writers, a fact no more decisive of their being uncanonical than the same fact proves the same thing of the shortest of Paul's writings (the epistle to Philemon) which has never been disputed. Of Jude and 2 Peter in particular, it may be further said that one cause of suspicion, in the minds of some, was a remarkable resemblance, not in sentiment or substance merely, but in minute forms of expression, so that one might seem to have been copied from the other. Now on the natural though false assumption, that but one could be canonical, a view refuted by the obvious analogy of other scriptures,* it is easy to

* Compare Ps. 14 and 63; Ps. 18 and 2 Sam. 22; Isai. S6 38, and 2 Kings, 18.

imagine that the public judgment might be long embarrassed and divided, although finally convinced that each had held a place in the original canon. On the other hand, 2 and 3 John are both extremely short, being in fact the smallest distinct parts of the New Testament, and both in their immediate form and purpose very personal and private, and lastly both anonymous or half so, as the writer describes, but does not name himself. All these are reasons which in part account for the deliberation of the ancients in admitting these epistles to the canon, though entitled to a place there ab initio.

§ 66. Different as these cases are from one another, they are no less different from that of the Apocalypse (or book of Revelation) which is quite unique and sui generis. The main fact here is, that ui tracing the books upward, after finding this one undisputed at the close of the fourth century, we come first to vague intimations, then to positive assertions, and at last to argumentative attempts at demonstrations, that it cannot be canonical; but passing on still further, we discover it completely

reinstated, and the recognition of it more or less distinctly running back to the very age of the apostles. In other words, the book was first received by all, then suspected or condemned by some, and then again unanimously recognized as genuine. It simply suffered an eclipse, which like literal eclipses, was of brief duration, and has now been past for more than 1400 years. But how can we account for this eclipse—for this rejection of the book by certain Fathers, and for its omission in the old Peshito version? If this last fact be conceded, as it is not by all writers of distinction, a sufficient explanation is afforded by the circumstance, that versions of the Scripture were originally made, not for private circulation but for use in public worship, and that this book may have been omitted as unsuited to that purpose, though believed to be canonical, precisely as the Church of England now omits it almost wholly in her calendar of lessons, but expressly names it as a part of Holy Scripture in her articles of faith. A no less plausible and even satisfactory solution of the other fact in reference to this book, namely, its exclusion from the canon by some Fathers of the third and fourth ccn

turies, is furnished by the well-known circumstance, that ,chiliastic doctrines of a very gross form then extensively prevailed, though constantly repudiated by the church at large, and so abhorred by some distinguished teachers that it tempted them to sweep away its alleged foundation by discrediting the part of Scripture which contained it. That this dangerous principle of exegesis was maintained and acted on by some, is certain; and that this great error was the cause of the eclipse before referred to, is apparent from the circumstance, that as soon as the obstruction offered by the chiliastic errors disappeared, or was reduced to harmless compass, the Apocalypse shone forth again with all its ancient but mysterious splendour.

§ 67. We have now seen that in reference to all these once disputed books, there is, to say the least,a possible solution of the doubts which once existed, perfectly consistent with their primitive and perfect canonicity, and, therefore, that we have no reasonable ground for refusing to accept the verdict of the church at the close of the fourth century, which put these seven books upon an absolute

equality, in this point, with the other twenty. Of the whole collection, thus restored to its original completeness and unity, it may now be observed, in conclusion, that the proof of its authenticity and genuineness far surpasses not only that of all apocryphal productions, which is saying nothing, nor that of any of the Apostolic Fathers, which is saying much, but that of any or of all the ancient writings in existence, with the single exception of the Hebrew Scriptures, which repose upon the same foundation, but without excepting the most valued and familiar of the Greek and Roman classics, whether Homer, Plato, Cicero, or Virgil, the identity of whose immortal writings no one ever dreams of questioning, though far less satisfactorily attested than the twenty-seven books of the New Testament.

§ 68. The reception of these twenty-seven books into the Canon is, ipso facto, the exclusion of all others which have ever claimed a place there, or have been considered as entitled to it. This definition or description comprehends two very different sorts of ancient writings, the Apostolical Fathers and the so-called New Testament Apocrypha. Some account of both will be given below, under

the head of Hellenistic Literature.* All that is necessary here is to guard against a false assumption of some German writers, that all these books, canonical and apocryphal were promiscuously used at first, and on precisely the same footing, but that out of these the improving taste and judgment of the Christians finally selected those which constitute the present canon. This hypothesis, though plausible, and seemingly innocuous, would lead to very dangerous conclusions, making it impossible to separate the elements, and leaving us but one alternative—either that both are equally inspired or neither. The true state of the case is, that no books except those now contained in the canon, were entitled to a place there ab initio; that instead of the canonical books being chosen out of the whole mass of Christian writings, the apocryphal books arose from imitation of them. The great number of the latter goes to show the necessity of caution and discrimination in the ancient church, and to enhance the evidence in favour of the Canon as it now is, by contrasting the small num* See above, § 46, and below, §§ 129, 140.

ber of the books which it contains with the multitude which clamoured for admission, in the age succeeding that of the Apostles.

§ 69. Having now determined, in a general way, what book is entitled to the name of the New Testament, and what are the writings which compose it, we are ready for the next inquiry, as to the original language, or what is technically called JVew Testament Philology. That this is in its proper place between the Canon and the Text (§ 43) is plain, because until we have identified the book, we cannot ascertain the language; and until this is done, we cannot think of ascertaining the ipsissima verba, which of course have no existence even in the most exact translation. A familiar illustration may be borrowed from the case of one to whom a definite number of important papers have been solemnly entrusted for a certain purpose. The papers, it may be supposed, as well as the receptacle which holds them, are all sealed and labelled, and may thus be identified, before he opens them. But having ascertained that they are all in his possession, he proceeds to examine their contents, and, as the first step, to discover in what language they

arc written, and whether it is one with which he is acquainted; after which he may consider the particular expressions.

§ 70. If each of the twenty-seven books were written in a language of its own, or several in one and several in another, this whole topic would of course belong to Special Introduction. But as all the books, as far as we can trace them, are in one and the same language, what we have to say of it applies to the New Testament collectively, and therefore forms a necessary part of General Introduction. (§§ 18, 30, 33.) It is all reducible to four leading questions: 1. What was the original language of the New Testament? 2. Why was it different from that of the Old? 3. Why was Greek selected for this purpose? 4. What kind of Greek is used in the New Testament? The answers to these questions will constitute the topics of New Testament Philology, as we shall treat it—dwelling chiefly on the last, or the history and character of the Hellenistic dialect, in which the New Testament is written.

§ 71. The first question (what is the original

language of the New Testament ?) may seem superfluous, or answerable in a single syllable; but this has not been always an unanimous response. As examples of remarkable dissent from it may here be specified the notion of the Jesuit Harduinwho, in his Commentary on the New Testament (1741), gravely insisted that all the books were written in Latin, except the Epistle to Philemon, which was written in Greek, then translated into Latin, and then retranslated into Greek. The motive of this singular paradox was no doubt to put honour on the Latin Vulgate, as declared to be " authentic" by the Council of Trent. A very different motive, the desire to escape from exegetical embarrassments, led Bolten, in his work on the Epistles (1800), to maintain that they were dictated by Paul in Aramaic, and written down in Greek by his amanuensis, whose errors of translation would account for most of the existing difficulties. Both these opinions are remembered only as curiosities of literary history. The questions still raised as to one or two books, more particularly Matthew's Gospel, belong properly to Special Introduction, and

will there be fully treated. But even as to these books, it is not disputed that, so far as we can trace them, they have always worn a Greek dress, so that even if they were originally written in another language, which is not the case, as we shall see below, they can scarcely be regarded as exceptions to the general statement, that the whole New Testament is composed in Greek.

§ 72. The fact suggested by the second question (why was the New Testament written in a different language from the Old ?) is not to be regarded as a matter of course, since all the antecedent probabilities were in favour of Hebrew as having been already used for the same purpose, and thereby specially adapted to it, as well as invested with a certain sanctity, over and above the prestige of its antiquity and claim to be regarded as the oldest of all extant tongues, if not the primitive language of mankind. To refer the adoption of another language in the Christian revelation to the sovereign will of God, is not explaining it, but simply a confession that it cannot be explained. The question is not whether God so willed it, which is absolutely

certain, but whether he willed it for a purpose scrutable by us. If so, though under no necessity of knowing what that purpose is, we are at liberty to seek for it, and ascertain it, as an aid in solving other questions.

§ 73. The most satisfactory solution of this queston is, that each revelation was conveyed by the vehicle best suited to its purpose—the national and local revelation in the language of the chosen people—the oecumenical or universal revelation in the language of the civilized world. In the age of the Old Testament the Hebrew was moreover in itself the best adapted to the ends of a divine revelation; but at the close of the four centuries which intervened between the two, that language had not only never spread beyond the people who originally spoke it, but had ceased to be vernacular even among them; while the Aramaic dialect which superseded it had neither the prestige of great antiquity, nor special adaptation, nor the sanctity of long association, nor remarkable intrinsic qualities to recommend it.

§ 74. It may be objected to this explanation,

that it makes an invidious distinction between the Old and New Testament, as if the latter only were designed for permanent and perpetual use. But this is a mistake very easily corrected by observing, that the difference in question has respect only to tbe primary form of the communication, not to its continued use; just as the form of Paul's epistles was determined by their being actually sent as letters to certain individuals and churches, though designed from the beginning to be permanently left on record for the use of all believers in succeeding ages. So, too, the Hebrew Scriptures, though originally meant for the instruction of a single race, and, therefore, written in a language never used as a vernacular by any other, were designed from the beginning to form part of a perpetual and universal revelation of the will of God to all mankind throughout all ages.

§ To. To the third question (why was Greek selected as the language of the Christian revelation ?) there is a twofold answer; one extrinsic, or derived from outward circumstances; one in

trinsic, or arising from the qualities belonging to the language itself. The extrinsic reason is, because at the time of the Advent, it was the most widely spoken language in the world, and, therefore, the best fitted for this purpose, irrespective of its character and structure. The intrinsic reason is, that it was also the most perfect language in itself, and, therefore, doubly suited to become the vehicle of such a revelation, especially after it had been in use for ages as the language of the oldest version of the Hebrew Scriptures. (See below, § 95.)

§ 76. This preparation of a language for the Christian revelation must not be regarded as fortuitous, but providential, being part of an extensive preparation for the advent of the Saviour, going on for ages among Jews and Gentiles. This has sometimes been described by saying, that among the Jews, God prepared salvation for man (compare John 4, 22), and among the Gentiles, man for salvation; both negatively, by experimentally evincing the futility and worthlessness of heathenism, and exciting the desire of something better, and posi

tively, by providing vehicles and forms for the Christian revelation. The negative process here described, may be distinctly traced in the history of the most enlightened heathen nations, and especially in their condition at or just before the birth of Christ. The positive consisted partly in the general intellectual culture of the Greeks and others whom they influenced; partly in the gradual maturing of the Greek language to be used in the New Testament.

§ 77. The fourth question as to the original language (in what kind of Greek is the New Testament written ?) presupposes the existence of more kinds than one, or in other words, implies that the language had experienced certain changes, or appeared in different forms, before it was made use of for this purpose. This makes it necessary to consider the origin and progress of the language, not in minute detail, but briefly, both for want of time, and because this part of the subject belongs rather to a previous stage of education, in which not only the language itself, but its history now generally occupies a prominent position. All that is necessary, therefore, is, a brief recapitulation of familiar

facts, or a rapid recollection of things previously known.

§ 78. In doing this it will be convenient to begin with the affinities of Greek and its position in the family of languages to which it properly belongs, as determined by Comparative Philology. The science designated by this phrase is one entirely of modern origin, having sprung up chiefly within half a century, but with a rapid growth, which has brought it to an almost instantaneous maturity. One of its marked results is an improvement in the scientific treatment of the several languages subjected to comparison, arising from the light which they mutually throw upon each other. Another is a gratifying confirmation of the statements found in Scripture as to the original oneness of the race, and of its language. Though all obscurities are not yet cleared up, this is the acknowledged tendency of all impartial and intelligent discussion and research, not only in Comparative Philology, but also in the kindred coeval science of Ethnology, or, as it is sometimes called, Ethnography. The way in which Comparative Philology contributes to this end is by showing the affinity of

dialects apparently the most remote, and long regarded, even by the learned, as wholly and hopelessly heterogeneous. This again is brought about by exchanging the old fanciful and superficial etymologies founded on mere fortuitous resemblances of shape and sound, for a scientific and historical deduction, governed by fixed laws of permutation and analogy, and often leading to conclusions utterly unlike the premises or data, although rendered certain by an unbroken series of intermediate steps or changes. By this new and interesting process, forms of speech, the most dissimilar at present, may be traced back to a common origin, and thus the way prepared for an ultimate removal of the only serious obstruction to the identification of all known varieties of language, as diverging streams from one and the same fountain.

§ 79. Another fruit of the Comparative Philology of modern times, is the division of all cultivated language into two great families or stocks, excluding the Chinese and its derivatives, though spoken by a third part of the human race, as hav

ing really no structure, in the ordinary sense of the expression, or at least as never yet successfully subjected to a thorough philological analysis. With this extensive and significant exception, all the cultivated languages of earth, meaning thereby such as have been written long enough to have a literature of their own, may be divided into two great classes. (I.) The Semitic (or Shemitish), chiefly spoken by the race of Shem, but also called the Syro-Ardbian, Hebraic, and by several other names which need not be enumerated here, and (II.) the Japhetic, chiefly spoken by the race of Japhet, but more generally known by the comprehensive name of Indo-European, or the more specific one of IndoGermanic, which at once suggests its vast extension from the Indian to the German Ocean, comprehending all the cultivated dialects of Europe, with several belonging to the south and west of Asia—the Sanscrit and its numerous derivatives—the Celtic, Teutonic, Scandinavian, and Slavonic dialects,— and intermediate between these the two classic languages of Greece and Rome. The Semitic family is far inferior, both in superficial measurement and

number of affiliated languages, themost important being Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic.

§ 80. Tbe most striking features of the IndoEuropean stock, by which it is distinguished from the other, are, first, the direction of the writing from the left hand to the right; then, the indiscriminate use of consonants and vowels, both as alphabetic characters and etymological elements; the less conspicuous position of the verb among the parts of speech, or rather of verbal roots, as the origin of other words; the absence of a definite and fixed form for these verbal roots, such as the triliteral [and dissyllabic]; the exclusion of gender from the verb, and its restriction to the noun and pronoun; the greater variety of temporal and modal forms; the disuse of prominal suffixes; and an almost unlimited fertility, boundless liberty, and freedom in all other kinds of composition. It is to the last two features—the variety of verbal and of compound forms—that the most developed and matured of the Indo-European tongues owe the flexibility and richness which distinguish them above all others.

§ 81. Among the errors which have been exploded by Comparative Philology is that which long prevailed as to the mutual relation of the two great languages of classical antiquity, it being now held by the highest philological authorities, not only that the Greek is not the mother of the Latin, but that it is probably not even an elder sister, as a living writer, of great eminence in this department, argues from the absence of the article in Latin and the smaller number of particles denoting the relations properly expressed by cases, both which peculiarities he looks upon as proofs of a later and more complete development of Greek, as we now have it.* But however this may be, the two are now regarded as collateral derivatives from a common stock, holding a central geographical position in this wide-spread family of languages, between its north-western and south-eastern limits, as well as in relation to their structure, being almost equidistant from the superabundant richness of the Sanscrit stem, and the comparative meagreness of some Teutonic branches.

* See Donaldson's New Cratylus, 2d edition (London, 1859).

§ 82. The origin, both local and historical, of these important languages is hidden in obscurity; nor can it even be determined whether, or how far, they had a common basis in an older language ever actually spoken both in Italy and Greece. The two great elements of classic Greek, still commonly assumed, are scarcely known to us except by name, and that rather as an immemorial tradition than as the result of modern philological analysis. "We only know, and only in this way, that the basis of the language was Pelasgic, and its later adventitious element Hellenic y but the origin of these names, with the local habitation of the mother tongue, and the date of the supposed amalgamation, are still subjects of conjecture and dispute, the settlement of which has thus far baffled 'the exertions both of philological and ethnographical research.

§ 83. It is a characteristic circumstance in Greek and Koman history, that the palmy period of the latter is the period of consolidation under one great central power, whether republican or im

perial in form; whereas that of the former is the period of local separation into petty states, either hostile to each other, or at most united in a loose confederation. Whatever ground for this distinction may be found in the national character of these two races, the difference certainly exists, not only in their social and political condition, but even in their language, and particularly in the fact with which we are immediately concerned, that Greek, as far back as we now can trace it as a cultivated tongue, existed, not as one, but under several provincial forms, called Dialects.

§ 84. The origin and relative antiquity of these old dialects is so obscure, that even their number is a variable quantity, some writers recognizing more, some fewer, just as we might hesitate or differ in determining how many distinct dialects exist among ourselves, and still more in the British isles, where such diversities are far more numerous and marked. The highest philological authorities, however, seem agreed in retaining the old quadruple division, only discarding what the earlier writers called the Poetical Dialect, as something not dependent upon

local usage, but on literary fashion and prevailing taste. Omitting this, we may assume, in strict accordance with the latest philological research, as well as with an older usage, two original or primary variations in the language, and two subsequent or secondary, probably occasioned by extensive and remote migrations of the Greek or Hellenic race. The first two are the Doric and Ionic, one distinguished by its strength and harshness, and the other by its softer and more musical pronunciation, arising in a great degree, though not entirely, from a different combination and proportion of the consonants and vowels. After the settlement of Asia, in the proper sense, that is, the western provinces of what we now call Asia Minor, by Greek colonists, each of these ancient dialects received a colonial modification, the Asiatic counterpart of the Doric being the iEolic; while, on the other hand, the name Ionic, like its parent form Ionia, became fixed in Asi a, and the Grecian branch of the same great dialect was called the Attic.

§ 85. The general difference between these Greek and Asiatic dialects was the same as that

between the tribes who used them, the Ionian and ^olian cultivation tending more to a voluptuous softness, the Doric and the Attic to a masculine severity. It is also important to observe, that these provincial dialects, although originally nothing more than local variations of the spoken language, became afterwards distinct types of expression and of composition, which were more or less promiscuously used, without regard to the writer's residence or nationality, as specially adapted to certain styles and subjects. Thus the Doric dialect was used all over Greece in choral, the iEolic in lyric, the Ionic in epic composition; while the Attic, though distinguished in every kind of literary labor, surpassed all the rest in its inimitable prose, which, in the writings of Thucydides, Plato, and the Orators, is still the highest model of combined strength and beauty, the most exquisite simplicity, and the purest taste. This marked superiority in that specific form of composition, which is more and more required and practised as civilization marches onward, was at once the cause and the effect of the extraordinary galaxy of genius by which Athens is immortalized. In other words, it was because her language was so perfect, that so

many of her writers gained celebrity; and yet, it may be said with equal truth, it was because her writers were so highly gifted, that the Attic dialect attained the highest place by general consent, even while the states of Greece still remained aloof and independent of each other.

§ 86. The first great change from this condition, political and literary, was occasioned by the Macedonian ascendancy, in both its stages, the first under Philip of Macedon, the second under his still more illustrious son, Alexander the Great. Macedonia, lying on the northern boundary of Greece, and reckoned as belonging to it in the widest application of the name, was excluded from its stricter definition, and its people treated as barbarians by the national Hellenic pride, although the Greek descent of Philip and his royal predecessors was conceded, either as a subtle flattery, or in extorted admiration of his genius. By intrigue and influence, as much as by mere military strength, he gained an ascendancy in every Grecian state, and

Attic dialect surpass the rest? Of what was this both the cause and the effect? How early was this superiority acknowledged?

was finally acknowledged as the Protector of the whole, thus uniting the proud independent races, for the first time, in one nation, but purchasing this unity at the expense of all the local dignities in which they gloried. The analogous effect upon the language was to fuse its local variations into one Koivt) SiaXeicTos, of which the Attic was the basis, but to which the others all contributed their quota both of idioms and vocables. The conquests of Alexander carried some knowledge of this common dialect to the verge of India, and gave it permanent establishment wherever permanent Greek colonies were founded, and especially in those Greek kingdoms which were shared among the Macedonian generals, and preserved in a divided form the glories of that empire which existed undivided only seven years, and of that great conqueror who had personally no successor.

§ 87. Of these kingdoms, the most splendid on the whole was that of Egypt, where the Ptolemies succeeded one another, as the Pharaohs had of old. The importance of this new state was enhanced by

the language? What was the basis of the Koij/5) Sioxcktos? What was the effect of Alexander's conquests? Where was the Greek language introduced temporarily and permanently?

that of the commercial mart established by the foresight and sagacity of Alexander, and distinguished, under his own name of Alexandria, for ages as a centre not only of commercial but of intellectual activity. As usual in all such cases, the activity of intercourse in trade, aroused and stimulated mental life; the confluence from all parts of the world increased it; Alexandria grew famous for its schools and libraries, among which Was the greatest of the ancient world. Greek philosophy and learning here sought patronage or refuge from the decaying schools of Greece itself. It was in Alexandria that the race of Greek grammarians had its origin, whose soulless but invaluable labours first subjected the incomparable language to a microscopic criticism .and minute analysis. These causes, in addition to their other manifold effects, could not fail to influence the language. It is still common to assume the existence both of a Macedonian and an Alexandrian dialect; the one produced by the Macedonian conquests, both in Greece and Asia, the other by the Macedonian reign in Egypt; though the traces of the former consist chiefly of a few detached words, said to be of Macedonian origin, and

the latter first assumes a positive and independent character when afterwards developed as the Hellenistic dialect, by causes and in ways which we must now describe with some particularity.

§ 88. The next point to be considered is the providential means by which the Jews were brought in contact with the changes which have been described as flowing from the Macedonian conquests. The Greek kings of Egypt, in addition to their patronage of learning, took a lively interest in its inhabitants, contending with the Greek kings of Syria for the sovereignty of that diminutive but most important state, and when possessed of the ascendancy, not only favouring the Jews at home, but encouraging their emigration into Egypt, where extensive colonies were settled under the first Ptolemies, and a large proportion of the population of Alexandria was composed of Jews. This brought them into contact with the Greek civilization, and produced a mutual action and reaction between Judaism and Heathenism, not without perceptible effects upon both systems, or at least on some of •

.was the Alexandrian dialect? In what form was it afterwards developed? How must this form be considered?

§ 88. How were the Jews brought into contact with these changes? Who contended for the sovereignty of Palestine? What was the policy of the Ptolemies towards the Jews? What effect had this upon Judaism and Heathenism? What was the origin of their adherents. This was the origin of the Sadducees or lax Jews, who inclined to assimilation with the cultivated Gentiles, in opposition to the Pharisees or rigid separatists not only in a social but a national sense. It also gave rise to that class of devout Gentiles whom we find in the New Testament and elsewhere, treating the religion of the Jews with serious respect, without in every case embracing it. Another fruit of these relations was a further modification of the language, which had now become the universal medium both of business and of literary intercourse. The idiom or dialect which thus arose is called the Hellenistic.

§ 89. According to the national tradition of the Greeks, once discredited as fabulous, but now again received as the best authority to which we can get access, the name usually given to the whole race (i. e. by themselves) was derived from that of Hellen, a son of Deucalion (the Noah of the classical mythology) who built a town in Thessaly to which ha gave the name of Hellas, afterwards extended to the whole surrounding region, also called Phthi

otis, or the country of the Myrmidons; then still further to the whole of Upper (or Continental) Greece, as distinguished from the Peloponnesus, or to Middle Greece, including parts of both; and finally applied to all countries settled by the Greeks, including Asia Minor and the part of Italy called. Magna Grsecia, in antithesis to which the mother country was sometimes spoken of as Old Greece (rj ap^aia e"\Xds). By a similar extension, the name of the reputed founder was applied to his descendants, both in the singular and plural form (eWrjv and eWrjves),* with the corresponding adjective (iXkTjvucb*;, comparative eW^viicwrepos) and adverb (eWrjviicwt), applied by Herodotus and Xenophon to the language, especially as purely spoken.

§ 90. Another derivative of "EWrjv was the verb eWqvtgw, meaning to make Greek in any sense, as Thucydides applies the passive to a language (eWr/vwdfjvat Trjv yktbaaai), then to be Greek, or to imitate the Greeks, in manners, institutions, sentiments, but specially in speech or language. The word was even used of native Greeks who paid particular attention to their diction, so that IXX17

* Hesiod uses the form 7raceAA7jc6j, trhich also occurs in a suspected reading of the Iliad.

vl&iv sometimes means to speak good Greek. But a much, more common application of the term is to foreigners who spoke the language, whether well or ill. This imitation of the Greek or assimilation to them, both in the wider and the stricter sense, was eWrjvio-fios, while the person by whom it was practised was a eX.Xi?ftcrTJj9. This word also had its corresponding adjective and adverb (e\\?7i/to-Tt/eo? and iX\.rjvio-Ti).* In its primary and wide sense, therefore, eWyvtorq? denotes any foreigner who in any way followed the Greek fashion, but especially who used the language.

§ 91. As the Jews of the Diaspora in general, but more especially the Jews in Egypt, used the Greek language not only for colloquial but religious purposes as we shall see hereafter, they acquired a sort of twofold claim to the name Hellenist which in usage soon became appropriated to the Greek— as distinguished from the Hebrew, (or the Aramaic) speaking Jews. This specific application of

* See John 19, 20; Acts 21, 37, where it simply means in Greek. It is also used by Xenophon with \vvUvai.

the term occurs in the New Testament certainly once, probably twice, and possibly a third time. The undisputed case is Acts 6, 1, where a jealousy is said to have arisen in the infant church between the Hebrews and the Hellenists, to allay which seven deacons were appointed, all of whom have Greek names. Another almost equally clear instance is Acts 9, 29, where Saul is said after his conversion and return to Jerusalem, to have disputed with the Hellenists, or Greek-speaking Jews, to which class he belonged himself, and was therefore qualified to carry on the work, though he escaped the fate, of Stephen the first martyr. The only doubt in this case has respect to the true reading, which according to some copies is eWijra?, Greeks, i. e. natives or inhabitants of Greece, although the latest critics still retain the common reading (eWrjvi<TTds). A much greater doubt exists as to the third case, Acts 11, 20, where the external evidence preponderates in favour of eXXijwo-Ta? and the internal in favour of eXKrjvas. In all these instances, the English version uses the form Grecians, to distinguish these Greek-speaking Jews from Greeks(eXA^ras), which last form frequently occurs, but is

sometimes rendered Gentiles (e. g. John 7, 35. Kom. 2, 9. 10. 3, 9. 1 Cor. 10, 32.12, 13). In the second of the places above quoted (Acts 9, 29), the Peshito (or old Syriac version) paraphrases eWiyvia-ras as the Jews who knew Greek, and Chrysostom explains it as denoting Tov? iWyvio-Ti <f>8eyyofievovs). This is the sense in which I shall hereafter use the terms " Hellenist" and " Hellenistic."

§ 92. It follows from what has now been said, that the Hellenistic dialect or idiom is that form of the Greek language in which it was used by Jews, and as Alexandria was the point of contact between Greek and Jewish learning, this dialect is commonly regarded as a modification of the Alexandrian before described, arising from a greater or less mixture or infusion of a Hebrew element, whether derived from the vernacular of Palestine, or from the Hebrew Scriptures. The precise extent to which and way in which this Hebraic or Judaic modification of the Greek tongue took place is disputed, and will present itself again hereafter, for a more deliberate consideration.

§ 93. Had this dialect or idiom been merely oral, it would long since have shared the oblivion of their national or local variations in a spoken language. But what gives it interest and value now, is the fact that books were written in it, for a course of ages, and among them books of the highest importance. The aggregate of these books constitutes objectively, as the knowledge of them does subjectively, what is called "Hellenistic Literature," a branch of learning now distinctly recognized in our curriculum, and formally assigned to my department. It may be reduced to two great heads or classes, the Biblical and Non- (or rather Extra-) Biblical. A still more convenient distribution for our purpose, is the chronological division into periods or successive phases of this Hellenistic literature, as it still exists and may be traced in history.

§ 94. 1. The first of these forms is the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, anterior in date, by several centuries, to any other, and to which, as we shall see below, the Hellenistic dialect owes its distinctive character, if not its existence. 2. At

tached to the Septuagint version in most copies, .whether manuscript or printed, are a number of writings, not translated from the Hebrew, but originally written in the Hellenistic dialect, and technically known as the Old Testament Apocrypha. 3. The third place in this chronological series of Hellenistic writings belongs to the New Testament itself. 4. Nearly contemporary, but a little later, and forming a distinct class by themselves, are the Jewish writers, Philo and Josephus. 5. Belonging to the same age, but of Christian origin, though uninspired, are the writings known in history as those of the Apostolic Fathers, on the verge of the first and second centuries. 6. "Within the first half of the latter period fall such of the New Testament Apocrypha as were originally written in Greek, and which may be regarded as the latest samples of the ancient Hellenistic dialect, although it likewise forms the basis of the Ecclesiastical Greek, or that of the ancient Fathers after the Apostolical, and that of the mediaeval or Byzantine idiom, and more remotely of the Romaic dialect now actually spoken and generally known as modern Greek. But these three latest forms of the Greek language lie beyond the limits of our present course, and will therefore

be excluded from the rapid view which I propose to give you of the other six.

§ 95. The oldest extant specimen or sample of the Hellenistic dialect and literature is the Septuagint version—by far the oldest biblical translation in existence—so old as to be in some sense an original. Septuagint is a slight abbreviation of the Latin Septuaginta, meaning seventy—corresponding to the Greek i^So/i^icovra—and often represented by the .Roman numerals LXX. Of this ancient title there are two explanations, both of which agree in making seventy a round number for seventy-two, but one of which refers it to the Jewish Sanhedrim, either in Palestine or Egypt, by which the version is supposed to have been sanctioned; while the other and more common one explains it as the number of translators, handed down by an old tradition. This tradition exists in several different forms, the latter being generally more embellished than the older. From the close of the fourth century to the close of the seventeenth, there was a general acquiescence in the tale as told by Epiphranius, a learned and orthodox, but credulous

and injudicious Father, who describes this version as the work of seventy-two men, who were shut up by pairs in six-and-thirty cells, and each translated all the books without the slightest variation. Two hundred years earlier Justin Martyr gives the same account, but varies it by mentioning as many cells as there were writers. Both these accounts imply that the translation was inspired, a fact explicitly affirmed by Philo, who says that being filled with God (or having God within), they prophesied (or spoke by inspiration).*

§ 96. The contemporary Jewish historian, Josephus, makes no mention of this circumstance, nor of the preternatural agreement of the versions, but gives a detailed account of the origin of the Septuagint, with accompanying documents. These are all derived however from another source, still extant, an epistle to Philocrates, purporting to be written by Aristeas, a courtier and friend of Ptolemy Philadelphus—and relating that Demetrius Phalereus, the librarian of that monarch, advised

* IvBovaiwvres irpoityfrtvov. Philo de Vit. Mos.

§ 96. How does Josephus tell the story? Upon whoso authority? Who was Aristeas? What is his account? Who advised the translation? What did Aristeas himself advise? What did the king

him to complete his collection of the laws of various nations, by adding those of Moses, or the Jews, and as these were written in an unknown character and language, counselled him to send for an authentic copy, and for competent translators from the Holy Land itself.* He accordingly sent two ambassadors, of whom Aristeas was one, and Andreas, the captain of his guard, the other. These went to Jerusalem, with letters and presents to the High Priest, who sent them back with a copy of the law written on parchment in letters of gold, and accompanied by six elders from each tribe, well acquainted with both languages. After being hospitably entertained for several days at court, they were conducted by Demetrius to an island, supposed to be that of Pharos, in the harbor of Alexandria, where they executed their task, not singly or in pairs, but jointly; the translation of each portion, when agreed upon, being written down in Greek by Demetrius himself. "When their task

* Aristeas himself advised him to conciliate the Jews by ransoming the (100,000) Jewish slaves in Egypt, which he did, by paying 20 (Josephus says 120) drachms for each to the soldiers who owned them.

was accomplished, they were sent home loaded with gifts and honours.

§ 97. There are some discrepancies in this account—e. g. as to the power by which the Jews had been enslaved, whether Persian or Macedonian —which, taken in connection with the obvious attempt to play the Greek, while all the style and sentiments are Jewish, have led the modern critics first to suspect and then to condemn this writing as a forgery—prompted by a wish to give ecclesiastical authority to a translation which might otherwise have seemed suspicious to the stricter Jews, as having been made in a foreign country, and under the auspices of a heathen king. This sceptical criticism has perhaps been pushed too far, as there is nothing intrinsically improbable in the story itself, which is certainly older than Josephus, whether written by Aristeas or not. That the version is of Egyptian origin, there is internal evidence; and although it was certainly in general use among the Jews there, this is not at variance with the fact of its having been prepared originally under the direc

tion of the king, and for a political or literary, rather than a religious, purpose. The oldest undisputed testimony on the subject is that of Aristobulus, a Jewish Aristotelian in the reign of Ptolemy Philometor, some fragments of whose writings are preserved in those of Clemens Alexandrinus and Eusebius the historian, in which he says that the whole of the law was first translated into Greek under Ptolemy Philadelphus,* which may therefore be considered an established fact, and the germ of all the subsequent embellishments.

§ 98. The use of the ambiguous term law in these accounts, has raised the question whether it is to be taken in its wide sense as denoting the Old Testament, or in its strict sense as denoting the Pentateuch, or books of Moses. Josephus says expressly f that the latter only were translated by the seventy; % but in the prologue to Ecclesiasti

* 'H 5e o\7j ippiprtia ruv fiia Tov v6y.ov irdvTav. \ Ant. Prol. § 3.

J "Et Aristeas ct Josephus et omnis schola Judoeorum quinque tantum libros Moysis a lxx. translatos asserunt." Hieron. in Ezech. v.

cus,* the writer speaks of the law, the prophecies, and the other Scriptures, as existing in both languages. From this it is now commonly inferred, that the version was gradually made, having been begun under Ptolemy Philadelphus (or his father), and completed by the 38th year of Ptolemy Physcon, (B. C. 132).f

§ 99. That the version is the work of different hands, if not of different ages, is now very commonly agreed to be established by a marked diversity, not only of mere style and diction, but of ability and skill and knowledge,, both of Greek and Hebrew. The most valuable portion is the Pentateuch, not only as the oldest, but because the Egyptian authors or translators were particularly

* 'O v6/ios Km a'nrpotj>r]Te?ai Ktu Toaoota Tcsv fliflAlav.
t 323 Ptolemy Soter (Lagi).
28S Ptolemy Philadelphus.
247 Ptolemy Euergetes.
222 Ptolemy Philopator.
205 Ptolemy Epiphanes.
181 Ptolemy Philometor.
170 Ptolemy Physcou.
117 Ptolemy (Soter) and Cleopatra.

qualified for that part of the task. In the Pentateuch itself some distinguish as the best part the book of Leviticus, and in the rest the book of Proverbs, while the lowest place is unanimously given to the book of Daniel, which is so defective or absurd, that another version (that of Theoclotion) was early substituted for it in the copies of the Septuagint version.

§ 100. At a very early period, perhaps soon after it appeared, this version became current among the Hellenistic Jews, not only in Egypt, but in other countries, and, according to tradition, in the Holy Land itself. It was even introduced into the Synagogues, but probably not to the exclusion of the Hebrew text, which is still used by the Jews throughout the world in worship, though accompanied by vernacular translations for the benefit of those who are ignorant of Hebrew. A similar purpose was answered by the Septuagint in ancient times, when Greek was the language of the civilized world. It thus obtained extensive circulation, perhaps even among Gentiles, and was highly

valued by the Jews themselves, until the virulence of anti-Christian controversy led them to denounce it as an inexact translation, and fall back upon the Hebrew original, or on more accurate Greek versions, many of which sprang into existence in the first and second centuries of the Christian era. Three of these are known to us by name, those of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotian, and three others, which are nameless, but distinguished as the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh, in the great work of Origen, the history of which, as well as of these versions, as such considered, belongs to Old Testament Literature. All that need be stated here is that all these versions have been lost, and now exist in fragments only, with the exception of the oldest, wbich has been preserved from the same fate by its ecclesiastical employment, first in the Synagogue and then in the Greek or Oriental Church, where it still maintains its ground, along with the original New Testament, and is the only one of these Greek versions which demands attention in the present course.

§ 101. The violent revulsion in the feelings of the Jews with respect to this time-honoured version

may be gathered from the foolish and extravagant expressions of the Talmud, e. g. that darkness overspread the earth when it was finished, and that the sin of making it was equal to the sin of making the golden calf. A like depreciation, though from other motives, and expressed in other forms, has resulted in our own day by reaction from the opposite extreme of idolatrous attachment which prevailed throughout the Christian world for ages, an extreme which still exists, though now comparatively rare.

§ 102. As a specimen of these extreme views may be cited the position occupied by Grinfield, one of the most learned Hellenistic scholars of the day, in his "Apology for the Septuagint" (London, 1850), namely, that the Septuagint version is inspired and precisely equal in canonical authority to the Hebrew text, or rather superior to it, on account of its affinity to the New Testament, arising from community of language, dialect, and diction, and from its being directly quoted in the New Testament itself. If such a theory could be established, it would revolutionize the whole work of criticism and interpretation by requiring them to

recognize a version and original alike and equally infallible, but in a multitude of cases quite irreconcilable.

§ 103. The arguments by which it is attempted to establish this extraordinary doctrine are in substance these: 1. The antecedent probability that with the change of dispensations from a local to an universal church, there would be a corresponding change in the language even of the older revelation, to adapt it to a new and more extensive use. 2. The fact that the New Testament was written in the very language of this ancient version, not only in Greek, but in the very kind of Greek, of which it furnishes the oldest sample.* 3. The derivation of the New Testament terminology from this source.f 4. The actual quotation from it, even when it differs from the Hebrew.:): 5. The fact (alleged without proof) that our Saviour himself used this version from his childhood. 6. The fact (also asserted without proof) that German and American neology is owing to the neglect of Hellenistic learning, and exclusive study of the Hebrew Sciptures.

§ 104. In answer to. these arguments it may be * See below, § 109. f See below, § 110. J See below, § 108.

stated first, that they either prove too little or too much, i. e. either that an uninspired version was sufficient for all necessary purposes, or else that the Hebrew text is wholly useless, being superseded by a version equally inspired, and therefore really a new revelation, as maintained in theory by several of the Fathers, and in practice by the Greek Church to the present day. In the next place, the original and version cannot be equally inspired, because if they were they would agree, and if it be alleged that either, is corrupt, which is it, and why should it have been suffered to become so? All the arguments employed to prove the point go to show that the Hebrew text of the Old Testament is either sufficient or superfluous. It would be far easier to maintain, with some degree of plausibility, this last alternative, viz., that the Septuagint is not a version, but a new original, designed to supersede the old forever.

§ 105. Between these hurtful and extravagant extremes, there is a golden mean in which the learned, after many oscillations of opinion, have been gradually settling, a position equally removed from the error of the Christian Fathers, who re

garded the Septuagint version as a second revelation, by "which the first had been legitimately superseded, and from that of the contemporary Jews, who, not content with rejecting its unauthorized pretensions to take precedence of the Hebrew text, repudiated and denounced it as an impious abomination. This conclusion naturally prompts the question, how shall it be reduced to practice ?—or, what is the use to be legitimately made of the Septuagint version?

§ 106. The legitimate use of the Septuagint is twofold, in relation to the Old and New Testament. This is not a mere conventional distinction, but a radical and total difference, to show which it may be observed still more particularly, that the Old Testament use of this version is itself also twofold. In the first place, it is an important aid in determining the text of the Old Testament [though often misapplied in this way], by showing how these old translators read it. In the next place, it affords assistance in determining the sense, by showing how these old translators understood it. In other words, it is, when properly employed, a help both in Criticism and Interpretation.

§ 107. Now both these uses of the Septuagint version—namely, the Critical and Exegetical—are wholly inapplicable to the New Testament, which came into existence afterwards, and with whose text and meaning this old version can have no connection except indirectly, in a way wholly different from that in which it may be made to bear upon the Hebrew Scriptures. But, although not in the same sense or the same form, the Septuagint version is of no less value, possibly of greater, to the student of the New than of the Old Testament— and that in reference to three particulars which we shall specify.

§ 108. In the first place, the New Testament abounds in quotations from the Old, which are sometimes of the most important kind, such as prophecies fulfilled, or historical events explained, or general truths enforced by authoritative repetition. These quotations, which occupy a larger space than careless readers may imagine, are sometimes made directly from the Hebrew by original translation, but more frequently borrowed from the Septuagint version, as the one in common use, with

or without modification. This brings that version into close connection with the Christian revelation, as the source of some of its most striking passages.

§ 109. But in addition to direct quotation, formal transfer of whole sentences or phrases from one part of Scripture to the other, there is a less prominent, but still more intimate, relation of the two, arising from community of language and identity of dialect. The basis of the Christian or New Testament idiom lies in the Septuagint version, and can never be elucidated fully without reference to it. In other words, it was the same peculiar form of Greek, which had its origin, or has its oldest extant exhibition, in this ancient version, that was afterwards adopted by the Holy Spirit, as the vehicle or costume of the new revelation.

§ 110. Lastly, although really included in the previous specification, it may be distinctly stated, on account of its important bearing both on interpretation and theology, that a large part of the religious terminology or phraseology which characterises the New Testament is really of older date, and may be traced to this old version of the Hebrew Scriptures,

etckXrjcria •jrpecrfivTepo'i.

§ 111. These important uses of the Septuagint version with respect to the New Testament, together with its value as the oldest form of Hellenistic composition, entitle it not only to a place in such a course as this, but to more assiduous attention as a part of ministerial training than it commonly receives. The best mode of supplying this deficiency, would be by connecting the study of the Septuagint version with the thorough philological analysis of the Hebrew Bible, so as to compare the two by one simultaneous (or immediately successive) process, an addition to our present theological curriculum devoutly to be wished.

§ 112. The grammatical study of the Septuagint version is facilitated now by cheap and accurate editions of the text (such as those of Tischendorf, Van Ess, and Yalpy), and by the reference to Septuagint usage in the best Greek lexicons in common

use, both general and special (such as Liddell & Scott's, Robinson's, &c.); while the means of more specific and minute investigation are afforded by the older works of Schleusner, Troinmius, and others. [An effort to promote this study, on the plan above suggested, will be made, if practicable, in connection with the present course.]

§ 113. Next to the Septuagint or old Greek version of the Hebrew Scriptures, stands, in point of age and philological importance, as a source of illustration to the Greek of the New Testament, as well as a distinguishable form or phrase of Hellenistic Literature, a series or collection of ancient writings, known as the Old Testament Apocrypha.* The argument against the canonicity of these books, belongs entirely to Old Testament Literature, or Introduction, and will be treated under that head, with as much particularity as circumstances may allow. In the meantime it may be assumed, as the conclusion of that argument, that all the books in question were uncanonical and uninspired.

§ 114. But though entirely without authority or * See § 47.

use, as belonging to the Rule of Faith, theso writings are entitled to attention from their great antiquity, their Jewish origin, and their Greek (or rather Hellenistic) dress. The salutary prejudice among most Protestants against them, as unjustly claiming or assigned a place in the inspired canon, should not be pushed so far as to prevent our making a legitimate and profitable use of them, as curious and ancient compositions, which contain some false doctrines, more false facts, and still more of false taste, but are, nevertheless, interesting; first, as sources or materials of history; then, as illustrative of Jewish manners and opinions in the interval between the Old and New Testaments; and 3dly, as throwing light upon the language of the latter; which last is the only reason for assigning them a place in any systematic course, however meagre and imperfect, of ISTcw Testament Philology.

§ 115. The fact just stated will require us to define with more precision the class of writings here referred to, some of which, if taken in the widest sense of the generic or collective term (Old Tcsta

merit Apocrypha), have no connection with our present subject, such as the 4th book of Esdras, and the 5th book of Maccabees (so called), which are not now known to exist in Greek at all, whatever may have been their original language. Of the much larger number which remain, some are certainly or probably mere Greek translations of Hebrew or Aramaic originals; but this does not impair their philological value as specimens of Jewish Greek or Hellenistic composition, any more than in the case of the Septuagint itself. For this reason, and because, with the exception of a single book (Ecclesiasticus), which is avowedly translated from the Hebrew, the evidence of this fact is exclusively internal and conjectural, it will be best to treat them all alike, merely observing, once for all, that besides the book just mentioned, those regarded by the latest critics as most probably translated from some other language, are the books of Tobit, Judith, and 1 Maccabees, together with the brief composition called the Prayer of Manasseh; whereas all the other books of Maccabees and Esdras (which exist in Greek), the book of Wisdom, the epistle of Jeremy, and the additions to Esther

and Daniel, are now commonly regarded as original Greek compositions. The book of Baruch is referred by some to either class, the first half having indications of translation, which the latter half does not exhibit.

§ 116. As the term Apocrypha is somewhat vague, and the number of books comprehended under it not perfectly determinate, it may be useful for our present purpose to define it by restricting it to those hooks which are found in the Septuagint version, hut not in the original Hebrew. How they gained admission to the Greek translation, where we find them intermingled with the canonical books, can only be conjectured. The most probable opinion is that the Greek or Hellenistic canon of the Old Testament, having no such protection as the Masora, or critical tradition of the Hebrew text, and the official or professional inspection of the Scribes, it was not always easy to determine whether books npon religious subjects, which were current among foreign or Greek-speaking Jews, were canonical or not; and as no authority existed out of Palestine to settle such disputes, some corruption became unavoidable.

§117. Although we are directly concerned only with, the language of these books, and not with their intrinsic value, either literary or religious, it may not be amiss to observe, before proceeding further, that this value is as far as possible from being uniform or equal. On the contrary, the most remote extremes may here be said to meet, of eloquence and drivel, of the highest human wisdom and the silliest of nonsense. While the story of Susanna, and of Bel and the Dragon, are at best ingenious fables in the style of Scripture, and the larger books of Tobit and Judith mere domestic or historical romances, and the additions to Esther, with the books of Esdras, mere gratuitous additions to the corresponding parts of Scripture, the two books of Maccabees, and more especially the first, are almost the only sources of our knowledge as to the period of the Maccabees or princes. On the other hand, with many indications of the doctrinal corruption of the Jews, the moral books of the Apocryphas abound in noble sentiments and true philosophy immeasurably higher than the heathen standard, and often rising to a high degree of eloquence, not only in the Greek, but in the English version, made at the same time with that of the in

spired Scriptures, and containing many words and phrases not to be found there, though all belonging to this well of English pure and undefiled. The two books, called Ecclesiasticus and "Wisdom, arc the most successful imitations of the style of Solomon that have ever been attempted, and perhaps approach as nearly to Ecclesiastes and the Book of Proverbs as any uninspired writings could at ar.y rate, much nearer than would be attainable by even the most gifted modern writer. One of these aprocryphal, but ancient compositions, is retained, not only by the Church of Rome, but by the Church of England in her daily service, as the Befiedicite, or Canticle, to be said or sung in place of the Te Deum, at the option of the minister.


§ 118. As to the use of these books in reference to the New Testament it is of course not intended to advise the expenditure of time and labor upon 6uch aprocryphal productions in the case of ordinary ministers, but only to indicate a source from which the best writers now derive important illus

trations of the language and external form of the New Testament. At the same time there is a certain amount of general knowledge with respect to the Apocrypha which may be reckoned almost indispensable to every educated minister and critical student of the Scriptures. Of this I have given a mere outline which may be filled up by private reading as you find desirable hereafter.*

§ 119. The next group of Hellenistic writings includes those of Philo and Josephus, put together as belonging to no other class, and as living nearly at the same time, namely, Philo contemporary with our Saviour, and Josephus belonging to the next generation. Although both were Jews, yet eminent Greek writers, and, therefore, in the strictest sense Hellenists,f there could scarcely be two writers of the same class more unlike in their particular characteristics. They were not even residents or natives of the same country, and were wholly unlike in their literary tastes and predilections, the one connecting Jewish learning and religion with

* For a full description of the Apocryphal books, with the latest opinions in relation to them, see the 2d volume of Home's Introduction (new edition.)

the Greek philosophy, the other with Greek history. The one has been called the Jewish Plato, the other might be called the Jewish Xenophon.

§ 120. Of Philo's life we know but little beyond the fact that he was born and lived in Alexandria, where he enjoyed a high reputation both for eloquence and learning, and was sent, about the year 42, to represent the Jews of Alexandria at Rome, in opposition to a heathen deputation led by Apion, and commissioned to accuse the Jews before Caligula, who treated Philo and his cause with great severity, refusing even to let him speak, and even threatening his life. Later legends or traditions of the Church represent him as a convert to Christianity, and a friend of St. Peter whom he met at Rome, but as afterwards apostatizing. More authentic, no doubt, are the statements with repect to his high standing by Josephus and Eusebius.

§ 121. Philo's learning seems to have been wholly Greek, and chiefly philosophical. He is commonly supposed to have had no knowledge of the Hebrew language as he always quotes the Sep

tuagint version, and sometimes betrays ignorance of the original. He is not considered an authority even with respect to Jewish usages and doctrines. The great aim of his life was to find the principles of Plato in the books of Moses, and thus to reconcile his philosophical convictions with his hereditary faith in the Old Testament. This could be accomplished, even in appearance, only by the most unnatural interpretations (aXKrjyopCai) of the Cosmogony and Primeval History, as well as that of the Patriarchs, together with the Life and Laws of Moses. These are accordingly the chief topics of his extant works, consisting of detached pieces, or perhaps of one continued work divided by his copyists or editors. The abstruse and uninteresting character thus given to his writings has caused them to be little read or known in later times, the principal exception being those in which he gives historical information, as to the Therapeutse and Essenes and as to his own embassy to Rome. On the other hand, his forced allegorical interpretations are supposed to have exerted an unfavourable influence, not only on the early heretics, but

also on the great Alexandrian school of Catholic Theology.

§ 122. From what has now been said it will be seen that Philo's writings are of more importance as a specimen and part of Hellenistic Literature, than from any practical assistance which they yield in the criticism or interpretation of the "New Testament. That they are not wholly useless, even for this end, however, may be gathered from the long disputes respecting the Platonic Logos, as it appears in Philo's writings, and the influence exerted by it on the Christian terminology; as well as from occasional elucidations of particular expressions, where the classical and Septuagint usage fail us, and the only authority for certain senses is derived from Philo.*

§ 123. That we know far more of Josephus is owing partly to the popularity of his writings, partly to the gossiping and egotistical autobiography found among them. The main points of his

* Sec for example the verb Kotohtp^w, as explained by Hodge on 2 Cor. 8, 18 (p. 16.)

history, as there recorded, are his high extraction (priestly on his father's side, and royal on his mother's) ; his great advantages of education in the Holy Land, and his unusual precocity in learning •, his deliberate comparison of the.three great sects or parties, and his final preference of the Pharisees; his embassy to Rome in behalf of certain priests whom Felix had sent there for trial; his success in this commission, and kind treatment by Poppsea, wife of Nero; his shipwreck in the Adriatic, with a company of six hundred; his advancement to important public posts at home, both civil and military; his settled opposition to the Zealots, and their consequent distrust of him; his masterly defence of Jotapata against the army of Vespasian for seven weeks; the loss of the place by treason, and his favourable treatment by Vespasian and Titus; his. return with them to Rome, and then again to Palestine, and ocular witness of the Jewish war until the downfall and destruction of Jerusalem. The History of this War is his earliest production, and appeared about A. D. 75, in seven books, two of

which contain a rapid sketch of Jewish history, from Antiochus Epiphanes to the appearance of Vespasian in the Holy Land; the other five, a most minute description of the war that followed, and of which Josephus was not only an eye-witness, but a magna pars.

§ 124. Eighteen years later (A. D. 93), he brought out his 'ApxaioXoyia IovSaiict], promised in his first work, and containing (in twenty books) an elaborate paraphrase of the Old Testament History, with occasional deviations and additions, perhaps founded on a national tradition, or derived from authentic sources, but in many cases, no doubt, merely conjectural or fanciful. After the close of the Old Testament, the history has more of an original and independent character, although it follows the books of Maccabees so far as they go. The period handled in the first books of the Jewish "War is more particularly treated here, down to the

time of Gessiua Floras, whose severities occasioned the great otitbreak.

§ 125. A third work of Josephus, not to be confounded with the second, from the similarity of the title, is his Two Books against Apion, concerning the antiquity of the Jews as a nation, in which he vindicates the truth of sacred history, and the doctrines of the true religion, as he understood them, against heathen charges and objections. This work is valuable chiefly for the knowledge which it gives us of more ancient writings long 6ince perished, such as the dynasties of Manetho.

§ 126. Besides the clear though incidental testimony which Josephus bears to the existence and the character of Christ and John the Baptist, he is almost our sole dependence for the last vears of the Jewish state, and often useful as a commentator on the earlier history. His credit as a historian has fluctuated greatly. The contemporary Jews considered him a traitor to their cause, and accused him of falsifying history. This led their Christian opponents to the opposite extreme of overweening

praise and confidence. Between these two extremes the opinion of the learned world has oscillated ever since. Some German writers do not hesitate to prefer his authority to that of the New Testament. Others argue from his flattery of Vespasian and Agrippa, that he cannot be relied upon. The present tendency, as in the case of Herodotus and other ancient writers, is to a more moderate and just appreciation of Josephus as a highly qualified and generally trustworthy witness, although not free from the common lot of weakness and corruption.

§ 127. The Jewish "War was written, as we learn from himself, in the language of his country, and translated into Greek for the use of Gentile readers. As he makes no such statement with respect to the Antiquities, we may suppose that the interval of eighteen years, which he chiefly spent at Rome, enabled him to use Greek in the first instance. He affects Attic elegance in composition, but occasionally shows his Hellenistic origin. The writings of Josephus are among the most popular of ancient works. They and Plutarch's lives are constantly reprinted in cheap editions, and circulate even

among uneducated readers. Whiston's rude but faithful version is within the reach of all who read at all, both in the homeliest and in more attractive forms.

§ 128. The sixth group of Hellenistic writings (reckoning the New Testament itself as one) comprises what are called the Apostolic Fathers on the verge of the first and second centuries. The name of Apostolic Fathers has been given to those uninspired writers who were disciples, or at least contemporaries of the Apostles. There are seven usually reckoned, though the authenticity of several is still disputed. A full view of this subject belongs to the ancient period of Church History. Only so much of it will here be given as may be needed to complete our outline sketch of Hellenistic Literature.

§ 129. The first place in the catalogue is commonly assigned to Clement of Home (or Clemens Romanus), represented by tradition as one of the earliest bishops of that church, and supposed to be

the person named by Paul in his epistle to the Philippians (4, 3), as one of his fellow-labourers. An epistle of this Clement to the Church at Corinth was not only well known to the ancients, but actually read in public worship, but when this was discontinued, perhaps on the final settlement of the Canon, the epistle was lost sight of until re-discovered in the seventeenth century, as forming part of the contents of the famous Codex Alexandrinus, of which some account will be given in another place. It is an earnest exhortation to humility and concord, modelled upon Paul's epistles, but without much original or independent value. The same manuscript contains a portion of another composition under the name of Clement, commonly called his second epistle, but more correctly described as a homily or discourse, and of very doubtful genuineness, as it is not mentioned by the ancient writers, though it may be of the same age, and available in illustration of the later Hellenistic dialect. Other writings, once ascribed to Clement,

such as the Clementina, the Apostolical Canons, Apostolical Constitutions, and a few decretal briefs or letters, are undoubtedly of later date, and will be here left out of view entirely, as belonging to the ecclesiastical history and literature of succeeding centuries.

§ 130. Under the name of Barncibas there is extant an epistle which was certainly known to Clement of Alexandria, and which many still regard as the production of the Barnabas so often mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles and in Paul's epistles; while others infer from its allegorical interpretations of Scripture, and the disrespect with which it seems to treat the institutions of the old economy, that it is of a later date, and either a forgery (or pious fraud), or possibly the composition of some other Barnabas, erroneously confounded with the primitive missionary or apostle. Even Eusebius and Jerome regard it as apocryphal, i. e., not belonging to the Canon.

§ 131. Another name occurring in the New Testament, and also as the author of an extant writing, is that of Hernias {Hermes), named by

Paul in his epistle to the Romans (16, 14), and in the title of a book called the Shepherd, which we find referred to, as an ancient composition, by Origen, in the third century. It consists of three parts, the first of which contains four Visions, the second twelve Mandates, and the third ten Similitudes, the whole communicated by an angel in the form of a shepherd. This book, though fanciful and mystical, was highly esteemed in the ancient church, being often read in worship, and regarded as inspired by such men as Origen and Irenasus. The Muratori fragment before mentioned, represents it as the work of another Hennas, the brother of Pius, who was bishop of Rome about the middle of the second century. The intrinsic value of the work is small, and even its literary interest for us not great, as it now exists only in the form of a very ancient Latin version.

§ 132. The same thing is partially true of an undisputed writing of the same class, an epistle of

p>Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, a disciple of St. John, and an eminent martyr under Marcus Aurelius (A. D. 168). This epistle is addressed to the Philippi ans, and is valuable chiefly on account of its citations or references to the !N"ew Testament. Of the Greek original there are only fragments extant, but a complete Latin version.

§ 133. Ostensibly much earlier in date, but of far more doubtful authenticity, are the famous epistles of Ignatius, bishop of Smyrna, and martyr, under Trajan, which have been a subject of dispute for ages. The maximum number is fifteen, but a majority of these, five in Greek, and three in Latin, are now unanimously looked upon as spurious. The remaining seven exist in two forms (or recensions), a longer or a shorter, each of which is claimed to be the original by many learned writers. Within a few years a still shorter form in Syriac has been recently discovered, and is by some regarded as the original form, by others as a mere abridgment or mutilation of it, while a third class reject all three

recensions as alike supposititious. The epistles are remarkable for earnest opposition to certain forms of heresy, and zealous assertion of the Divinity of Christ, but chiefly for the zeal with which they urge the claims of the episcopate, and which has given them importance in connection with exciting questions of church-government. Whether written by Ignatius or not, their language is essentially the Greek of the New Testament, and therefore Hellenistic.

§ 134. Papias, bishop of Hierapolis (and martyr), like Polycarp, is said to have been a disciple of St. John, and a diligent collector of the sayings and doings of our Lord, as preserved by oral tradition. His book (Xoyiwv icvpiaicau e^fijaK) exists only in fragments, preserved by Irenaeus and Eusebius. The latter describes him as a man of little mind and a gross Chiliast, which error was extensively promoted by his writings.

§ 135. "With these Apostolical Fathers, commonly so-called, is usually classed the anonymous writer of the Epistle to Diognetus, once ascribed to

Justin Martyr because found among his works, but now regarded as of earlier date, and by one who describes himself as airoaroXcov ryevofievos fia^rjTrj^. It is an eloquent defence of Christianity against the objections of an intelligent heathen friend, and is much more elegant in style than most Hellenistic writings.

§ 136. Not only as a specimen of Hellenistic literature, but as a connecting link between the Apostolical and later Christian writings, these works are entitled to attention on the part of ministers and others who are interested in the early church, though only few may be called to spend much time upon them. They have been translated into English more than once, the best known version being by an archbishop of Canterbury in the early part of the last century (Dr. Wake), who was disposed, however, to exaggerate their value. Among the editions of the original, there is a beautiful and cheap one in a single volume, edited by Hefele, a Roman Catholic professor of high standing.*

* Tiibingen, 1847 (3d edition).

§ 137. The last group of writings that can bo regarded as belonging to the Hellenistic class, even in the widest sense of the expression, are the New Testament Apocrypha, a heterogeneous mass of forgeries or pseudepigrapha, which sprang up, with a rank growth, chiefly in the second century,* intended partly to maintain and propagate heretical opinions; partly to glorify the true religion by the unlawful means of pious frauds, but chiefly to fill up the supposed deficiencies and chasms in the canonical books of the New Testament. Of these writings none are strictly doctrinal in substance, and only one or two epistolary in form, such as the epistle to the Laodiceans, supposed to be referred to in Col. 4, 1G, and a third epistle to the Corinthians, supposed to be referred to in 1 Cor. 5, 9; to say nothing of the pretended correspondence between Paul and Seneca, or that between our Lord himself and Abgarus, king of Edessa. Some of these writings are pretended prophecies, ascribed to heathen

* Epiphanius mentions thousands of Gnostic Apocrypha, and Irenasus found, among the Valentinians alone, inerrabilis multitvdo apocryphorum et perperam scripturarum. *

Beers (as the Sibylline books, in Homeric hexameters), or to real characters in sacred history, such as the Book of Enoch, the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Ascension of Isaiah, all which contain express predictions of the Saviour and the Christian Church.*

§ 138. But most of these Apocrypha are histories, intended to supply the omissions of the Gospels or the Acts. Some, no longer in existence, but referred to by the ancient writers, such as the Gospel of the Hebrews, that of the Egyptians, that of Peter, that of Marcion, seem to have been mere corruptions of the canonical four gospels, made for the use of heretical sects. Others, still extant, and more properly denoted by the name Apocrypha, do not purport to be complete histories 01 Christ, but only supplements relating chiefly to his childhood and his passion. Of the former class, the oldest and the least extravagant is that called the Protevangelium of James the Less, designed to glo

* There are also spurious apocalypses under the names of Peter, Paul, Stephen, Thomas, and even John himself, all of which appear to have been more or less absurd imitations of the genuine Apocalypse.

rify the Virgin Mary, not only as the Mother of our Lord, but by relating her whole history. Another of the same general character is the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary, purporting to be written by Matthew and translated by Jerome. A third is the history of Joachim and Anna, the nativity of Mary, and the infancy of Christ, chiefly occupied with miracles wrought by him in the flight to Egypt. A fourth is the history of Joseph the Carpenter, which dwells chiefly on the circumstances of his death, of which we have no account in the New Testament. Far more absurd than these is the Gospel of the Saviour's infancy, containing a multitude of silly and unmeaning miracles. Still worse is the Gospel of Thomas, which pretends to give the life of Christ, from his twelfth to his sixteenth year. The character of these books is evinced by their attempting to supply those omissions which especially illustrate the veracity and wisdom of the true evangelists, and in a way as destitute of taste and common sense as of religious spirit and historical authority.

§ 139. The other class of apocryphal gospels professes to complete the closing part of our Lord's history, by furnishing additional details as to his passion. The Gospel of Nicodemus undertakes to give a formal record of the proceedings before Pilate; an account of two of the resuscitated saints referred to by Matthew, 27, 52, and described as sons of Simeon; and a description of our Lord's descent into hell. The Acts of Pilate is a name borne by three distinct works, only one of which is extant. The first was very ancient, being mentioned by Justin Martyr and Tertullian, and contained a report made by Pilate to Tiberius; a communication of the latter to the Senate, proposing to place Christ among the gods; and a letter of Tiberius to his mother. The second Acts of Pilate were of heathen origin, containing blasphemous perversions of the history as given in the Gospels. The third, still extant, like the first, though far posterior in date, purports to be a statement made by Pilate to Tiberius of the miracles, death, and resurrection of the Saviour. To these may be added an account of Pilate's punishment, and an epistle of Lentulus to the Roman Senate, containing a description of

Christ's personal appearance.* The epistle of Lentulus also originated in the middle ages, and several of the others are but little older, while a few of those first mentioned approach very nearly to the time of the apostles, and a large proportion are most probably not later than the second century, which may be regarded as the most prolific period of this supposititious literature.

§ 140. It is worthy of remark that in this whole collection or farrago, there is not one book, however small, which approaches in literary or religious value to the better books of the Old Testament Apocrypha. Indeed they may all be described as intrinsically worthless, and indebted for whatever adventitious value they possess to their indirect bearing on the genuine New Testament. Their use in this respect is threefold. 1. In the

* There were many apocryphal lives of the Apostles current in the third and fourth centuries, chiefly of Gnostic origin and tendency. The fullest collection (that of Tischendorf) contains thirteen, of which seven have been recently discovered. The latest in date is the Historia Certaminis Apostolorum, which, though containing older materials, is probably as late as the ninth century.

first place, they illustrate, by a glaring contrast, the perfection of the Scriptures, in comparison with writers of the same race and religion, and in some cases almost of the same age. Even the Apostolical Fathers answer the same purpose of exhibiting the difference between inspired and uninspired men of the same general character and class; but the contrast is vastly more instructive as presented in these obvious imitations and professed improvements on the sacred record.

§ 141. In the next place, they illustrate the discretion, care, and even critical skill, with which the ancient church preserved the sacred Canon and asserted its exclusive claims against so many, and such impudent, competitors. Not that the present Canon is, as some allege, a gradual selection made, as taste and judgment were improved, from a promiscuous mass originally equal in their claims and estimation—which would leave us no alternative but that of making all inspired or none—but because these wretched imitations, all posterior in date to the Canonical Scriptures, by their intrinsic

meanness or absurdity, confirm the judgment of the ancients -which excludes them from the Canon, and corroborate the external evidence in favour of the twenty-seven books which now compose it.

§ 142. In the last place, these Apocrypha, intrinsically worthless as they are, possess a certain literary interest, as samples of the language and the dialect employed in the New Testament. But this, which is their only claim to notice here, has reference of course only to such books as now exist in Greek, whether as originals or versions. Some, which were written in that language, are now extant only in translations, c. g. the Ascension of Isaiah, in Ethiopic; the Epistle to the Laodiceans, in Latin; the third to the Corinthians, in Armenian; the Historia Certaminis Apostolorum, in a Latin version of a Greek version of a Hebrew original; the History of Joseph, in an Arabic translation from the Coptic; the Nativity of Mary, in a Latin translation from the Greek; the Gospel of the Infancy of Christ, in an Arabic translation from the Syriac, &c. Some—e. g. the History of Joachim and Anna, the Acta Pilati, as now extant, &c.—seem to be Latin originals, while only a few,

but those the oldest, and in other respects the most important—such as the Protevangelium of James, the Gospel of Thomas, and of Nicodemus, the Anabaticon of Paul, the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, and the Sibylline Oracles—appear to have existed always in a Greek form. It is only with these, therefore, that we are concerned, as affording illustration to the Greek of the New Testament, and constituting the last class of writings which can be considered as belonging, even in the widest sense of the expression, to the field of Hellenistic Literature. [Besides more general and costly collections of the Now Testament Apocrypha, Tischendorf has published critical editions of the spurious Acts and Gospels, each in an elegant octavo volume].

§ 143. Having now surveyed the Hellenistic Literature in its outlines and its principal divisions, we return to our main theme, the Greek of the New Testament, and to the question, what kind ot Greek it is? Before considering it for ourselves,

it -will be well to glance at the history of opinion with respect to it, involving that of a most curious and protracted controversy, the results of which are still perceptible in this important field of sacred learning. To make this narrative intelligible, it will be necessary to begin as far back as the Reformation—or rather in the period of darkness which preceded it, and during which ancient learning, as well biblical as classical, was banished from the Church by the universal prevalence of scholastic dialectics and metaphysical theology.

§ 144. The great religious revolution, which we call the Reformation of the sixteenth century, was preceded and promoted by an intellectual or literary revolution, known in history as the Revival of Letters, i. e. an awakened interest in ancient, and especially in Greek and Latin, learning. A mighty impulse was imparted to this movement by the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks, and the downfall of the Eastern Empire (A. D. 1453), which scattered educated Greeks all over "Western Europe, and especially through Italy, who thus became the teachers of the western nations, and by exciting an enthusiastic zeal for the Greek classics, produced

What great indirectly an analogous effect in favour of Latin and. even Hebrew studies.

§ 145. The Revival of Letters, although providentially conducive to the greater Reformation which ensued, was not itself a religious movement. Some of its leaders, especially in Italy, were open infidels, and some affected to desire the restoration of the classical mythology. Even Popes and Cardinals could talk and write about the gods as familiarly as any ancient heathen. And some, who did not go so far, still sought the revival of letters for its own sake, whence the whole class took the name of humanists, or devotees of Litercs Humaniores, as distinguished from the barbarous scholastics, or illiterate priests and monks of the 6ame period, some of whom are said to have denounced the Hebrew Bible and Greek Testament as recent and heretical inventions.

§ 146. Some of the Humanists, especially in Germany and Holland, from previous habit or ecclesiastical position, gave particular attention to the Biblical part of ancient learning; a few, such as Caprio or Reuchlin, to the Hebrew Bible, and a

greater number to the Greek Testament, editing the text, translating, annotating, with the great advantage of familiar acquaintance with the Greek and Latin classics. The most eminent of this class was Erasmus, the most elegant of modern Latin writers, a devoted admirer of the Greek classics, to whom the world is indebted for excellent translations and editions of the Fathers, for the earliest series of Greek Testaments, on which the common text is founded, and for a paraphrase of the New Testament still unequalled in that kind of literature.

§ 147. But Erasmus, while contributing in this way to the Reformation, was a Humanist at heart, devoted more to learning than religion, and measuring even the Scriptures by a classical and heathen standard. It is not surprising, therefore, that with all his devotion to New Testament criticism and interpretation, he could speak of a "sermo apostolorum, non salum impolitus et inconditus, verum etiam imperfectus et perturbatis, aliquoties plane soloecissans," and that later writers, far less compe

tent to judge, and less entitled to be heard, spoke in still more exaggerated terms of the solecisms and barbarisms of the sacred •writers, arising from their ignorance of classic Greek, and from their Jewish education.

§ 148. Far more moderate and just was the judgment of two other eminent Greek scholars of the sixteenth century, Theodore Beza and HenryStephens, also connected with the history of the text of the New Testament. The former, in writing on the gift of tongues, admits the Hebraisms of the sacred writers, but regards them as beauties (gemmas) and as more expressive of the truth than any other forms of speech could be. The latter, in the preface to his edition of 1576, gives the same decision, and exclaims against those "qui in his scriptoria inculta omnia et horrida esse putant." But, notwithstanding these authorities, the supercilious judgment of Erasmus still continued to be echoed by a series of inferior writers.

§ 149. This continued through the sixteenth century, and the first quarter of the seventeenth, but then a violent reaction took place, marked by

the appearance of Sebastian Pfochen's Diatribe de linguae Graecse Novum Testamentum puritate (Amsterdam, 1629), followed by other writers upon both sides, two of the ablest being Heinsius for, and Gataker against, the Greek of the New Testament; while Olearius and Leusden held the middle ground, that although it had many Hebrew idioms, and a general Hebrew modification, it was still Greek. The controversy lasted a whole century in the Eeformed Church, and then began afresh in the Lutheran, where it continued many years.

§ 150. The extreme grounds taken by the Hebraists and Purists, as these parties called themselves, were equally untenable; the one maintaining that the Greek of the New Testament was no Greek at all, but a barbarous Jewish jargon; while the other held that it was pure and elegant according to the highest classical standard. Both proceeded also on fallacious principles; the Hebraists assuming that the presence of strange idioms and of a local tinge could destroy the identity of the

language; the Purists that it was derogatory to the Scriptures to admit that they contained bad Greek. This was only true upon the supposition that by "bad" was meant a language not adapted to answer its great purpose of expressing thought and conveying truth, but not if it merely meant the violation of some conventional factitious standard; just as a house would be too had for a church, if men could neither see nor hear nor obtain shelter in it, but not if it were only bad in the aesthetic sense of not being Gothic, with pointed arches and painted windows. These extremes conduced to the ultimate triumph of the middle ground already mentioned, and which was finally expressed in Ernesti's dictum, that the Greek of the New Testament is composed of a classical and Hebrew element, and that they are only to be pitied who maintain that it is all good Greek [that is, according to the Attic standard].

§ 151. One incidental good resulting from this long and apparently pedantic quarrel, was the vast accumulation of real or pretended Hebraisms on the one side, and of classical parallels upon the other, which could only be collected in the course of

many years and by a multitude of hands, and which have since afforded the materials of many valuable works, such as Lambert Bos on the Greek Ellipsis; various illustrations from the usage of particular Greek writers by Raphelius, Kypke, Schoetgen, Valckenaer, Krebs and others; and the later lexicons and grammars, some of which will be particularly mentioned in another place. (See below, § 162).

§ 152. Since the days of Ernesti the old school of Purists has been quite extinct, and that of extreme Hebraists nominally also; but there has not been wanting a strong tendency, especially in writers of a lower rank, to multiply such idioms unduly, and to seek them where some other explanation is sufficient and more natural. The great reformer of this last abuse is George Benedict "Winer, the chief glory of whose life is the success with which he has defined and held possession of the true mean between all extremes, rejecting equally unfounded claims to classical correctness and gratuitous assumptions of exotic idioms, where the

form of speech is really pure Greek, or common to all cultivated languages.

§ 153. It is important to observe that the merit of "Winer did not lie in the discovery or demonstration of any new principle, but simply in applying, with consummate skill, the one already fixed as the result of the investigations and discussions of the two preceding centuries, reducing the number of alleged Hebrew idioms on one hand, and on the other reaffirming some which the Purists had denied. This process, from its very nature, can be only an approximate one, as men of equal learning and capacity may still differ as to the existence of a foreign idiom in a given case, and no man's judgment can be absolutely binding upon others as to all such cases, though undoubtedly correct in most, especially when uttered by a writer of such philological precision, logical intellect, severe taste, and superior tact, as all acknowledge to have met in Winer.

§ 154. Another fact of some importance in defining his position, is, that while he fully recognized the language of the New Testament as genuine or

real Greek, the identity of which could not be vitiated by its pervading Jewish tinge or Hebrew idioms, especially when these had been reduced at least to probable dimensions; he still denied to it the name of a Greek dialect, and gave it the generic one of Idiom (Sprachidiom), by which he seems to mean the aggregate of insulated and detached departures from the standard of a strictly correct usage, having no organic unity or common character, arising from the action of like causes, as in the case of local or provincial dialects, like those of ancient Greece. And yet the germ of this last theory is found in "Winer's own great work, but only as it were in passing, and without a due effect upon his practice. The full development of this idea in its bearings upon exegesis, was reserved for younger and less practised hands.

§ 155: To II. J. Thiersch is commonly assigned the praise of having first broached, or more probably matured, the now prevailing notion of the Greek of the New Testament, as a co-ordinate and independent dialect, determined in its origin and character by causes quite analogous to those which

brought into existence the old dialects of Greece itself, and equally productive in both cases of a substantive, organic oneness, as remote as possible from simple aggregation of peculiar idioms, whether few or many.

§ 156. This, though it may not seem so at first sight, is a decided step in advance of the old doctrine," even as exhibited by Winer, and of great importance in its bearing on the critical and learned study of the Christian Scriptures. It is one thing to regard their confessed peculiarities even as innocent or unavoidable departures from the standard of correct Greek usage, and quite another thing both in itself and in its influence upon the student, to regard the same peculiarities as part and parcel of a definite local and provincial dialect, as truly living and as truly Greek as the Attic or Ionic. The most admirable thoughts expressed in broken or exotic English, may command our intellectual respect and moral reverence, but cannot possibly excite our literary or aesthetic admiration, and although this is not essential to the highest ends of language, it materially lessens its enjoyment by the

reader, in proportion to his native taste or cultivation. So in the case before us, the most firm believer in the inspiration of these -writings, may be pardoned for perusing them with less zest, of a literary kind at least, when he believes them to be written in genuine but bad Greek, even in the lower sense of this expression, than when he is permitted to regard them as invaluable samples of a dialect as noble, in its way, as Attic or Ionic!

§ 157. I say as noble in its way, because it would of course be preposterous to claim for it the qualities described as Attic purity, Ionic suavity, or Doric strength; for these arc to be measured by a standard of their own, which is esentially conventional and artificial, because resting on a variable taste and usage. But in reference to the highest end of language, to convey thought and reveal truth, this despised patois, as some have deemed it, may be just as perfect as the Greek of Plato; while in reference to the truths revealed, they are immeasurably higher; and this grandeur of the thoughts conveyed cannot fail to dignify and sublimate the vehicle itself. No language, even the

most meagre and inelegant, can be successfully employed for the expression of the highest truths, without being in itself ennobled. If an ordinary missionary, who translates into the jargon of some African or Indian tribe, the sublimest doctrines of the true faith, thereby changes its whole character, how could such an one as Paul, in the power of his logic and the fervour of his eloquence, controlled and prompted by his inspiration, fail to bring even Attic Greek still nearer to perfection, at least as the expression of those glorious truths, which neither Plato nor Demosthenes, if suddenly apprised of them, could possibly have uttered.

§ 158. We may safely rest then in the paradoxical but just conclusion of some recent German writers, both philologists and church-historians, that the Greek of the New Testament may claim not only a co-ordinate position with the old Greek dialects, as an organic form of the same language, but a place still higher, when considered as the dress, the channel, or the vehicle of saving truth. At the same time we may question or repudiate the -undue refinements of the same school in attempting to discriminate the shifting preponderance of the

classical and Hellenistic elements, not only in the different books, but in the same books when the tone or subject changes.*

§ 159. It is this noble dialect, of Greek extraction, but of Christian birth, the history of which we have been thus far tracing, and the main peculiarities of which we must now philologically analyze. These peculiarities fall into two great classes, the Lexicographical, relating to the sense of words, and the Grammatical, relating to their formal changes and syntactical construction. In investigating both it is the part of wisdom both to save time and facilitate the process by resorting to those writers who present with most authority and clearness the results of the great controversy which has been described, and the gigantic labours which grew out of it. From the earlier and more minute attention paid at first to lexicography, these helps are more abundant with respect to this department than to that of grammar.

* This caveat is necessary even with respect to the admirable chapter on the subject in Schaff's History of the Apostolic Church (German ed. § 134, English cd. § 153).

§ 160. Leaving wholly out of view the many works of older date, which have now been superseded and almost forgotten, I may mention as the first direct attempt to gather up the fruits of the great controversy, Schleusner's Lexicon in JV. T. / originally published in 1792, soon after the solution of the long vexed question, and in a fourth edition, 1819, during which period, of nearly thirty years, it was the standard and authoritative work, though more remarkable for crude and undigested learning than for scientific method or exact philology. Superior in both, as well as in the richness of its classical citations, was the Clavis IV. T. Philologica of Wahl, the first edition of which synchronizes with the last of Schleusner (1819), while a third appeared as late as 1843. But long before this there arose a new lexicographer, J3retschneider, whose Lexicon Manuale in JV. T. (first edition, 1824; third edition, 1840), performed the same work as to Hellenistic writers which had been performed by Wahl as to the classics. The Clavis JV. T. Philologica of Wilke (1841), is simply an improvement upon both these in philological com

pleteness, but without any very novel features of its own. All these were neologists or rationalists, more or less decided. Soon after the appearance of Wall's first edition, it was translated into English by Dr. Edward Robinson, now of New York, then of Andover (1825), who, ten years later, published a lexicon under his own name (1835). What he had done for Wahl, Dr. S. T. Bloomfield did for him, i. e. he edited Robinson's lexicon in London (1837), and a few years after brought out one of his own (1840), the latest edition of which (that I have seen) appeared in 1845; that of Kobinson in 1850. None of these books should be allowed to supersede the general Greek lexicon in study; first, because the latter gives a wider view of classical usage; and secondly, because the former exercise too much authority in exposition, although less suspected than avowed interpreters.

§ 161. Into the scale against these many lexicons, I throw a single grammar, the Grammatik des JVeutestamentichen Sprachidioms of Winer (first edition, 1822; sixth edition, 1855), which, for a full third of a century, a whole generation of

human life, has been unanimously recognized in Germany, and more slowly in other countries, as the standard and authoritative exposition of the theory which has been described already as the* final product of the Hebraist and Purist controversy. Besides an English version of the first edition by Professors Stuart and Robinson, and a New Testament grammar of the former, based on Winer's, but intended to answer the purpose of a general Greek grammar, the original work was translated in this country about twenty years ago, but was found to be so hastily and incorrectly executed, that its use has long been discontinued. A new translation by Edward Masson, M. A., "formerly professor in the University of Athens," has appeared this year in England, and simultaneously in Philadelphia. This translation is far superior to the other, and as nearly perfect as is necessary for our purpose.

§ 162. Out of "Winer's grammar, some years after its appearance, Professor Stuart framed an elementary Greek grammar, intended to embrace the valuable substance of the former, but without original or independent value. In 1842 appeared

in England a Treatise on New Testament Grammar, by Thomas Sheldon Green, an accomplished classical scholar and teacher, not claiming to be a •complete system, but full of profound grammatical philosophy and nice discrimination, illustrated by a wide and copious reading of the classics, and although wholly independent of Winer (of whose existence it betrays no knowledge), constantly tending to the same conclusions, and sometimes going further in the same direction.

§ 1. What is the ultimate root of literature? What is the primary and secondary sense of litera? What are the idiomatic uses of the plural? What traces of the same in French and English?

§ 2. What is the primary and secondary sense of literatus? What traces of this word in English usage?

§ 3. What is the classical usage of literatura? What is literature, as distinguished from science?

§ 4. How may this generic term be made specific? What relation has literature to the sciences? How do the Germans use the term litteratur?

§ 5. "What is the correlative or opposite of Sacred Literature? What is the derivation of Profane I What is its positive meaning? What is its negative meaning? How may they be exemplified? How is this to be defined?

g 6. What is the twofold sense of Sacred Literature? What is its wider application? What is its narrower application?

§ 7. What is the derivation of Bible? What was the primary sense of &l$Xos? What was its secondary sense? How is $l0Kiov used in the New Testament? How is $lp\os there applied? When was it first applied to the whole Word of God »

§ 8. What is the derivation of Scripture? How is ypa<pj) opplied in the New Testament? How is the plural (ypwpai nnd ypdfifiaTa) applied? What epithets are coupled with these plurals? Where does the phrase "Sacred Scriptures " occur?

§ 9. What is the true distinction (in English usage) between "biblical" and " scriptural"?

§ 10. What is Biblical literature?

not merely of their substance or contents, but of their form, text, language, structure, style and history.

§11. What is its widest application? § 12. Why must interpretation be excluded? § 13. What is the more restricted sense of Biblical Literature?

§ 14. How o'.d is this science? In what sense is it ancient? In what sense is it modern? When and where has it chiefly flourished? How has it been abused? How is the abuse to be corrected?

§ 15. Why should it form a part of theological instruction? In what respect is it more useful than actual interpretation?

§ 16. What was the earliest form given to this science? What was it called in Greek, and by whom? What in Latin? English? German?

§ 17. How much is included in the term introduction? Which part do the Germans commonly exclude?

§ 18. What has been the usual division of Biblical Introduction? § 19. In what two ways have these parts been arranged? § 20. What is the historical theory and method? Who introduced the title "Critical History "?

§ 21. What is the mutual relation of these methods? What false view has been taken by some recent writers? What are the advantages of the old Isagogical method?

lars, and looking at the Bible as a whole, before examining its parts, at least in the minute details.

§ 22. Why must the subject of Biblical Literature be divided? What is the most satisfactory division?

§ 23. What is the origin of "Testament," as thus applied? What is the origin of the phrase "Old Testament"? When was the phrase New Testament applied?

§ 24. Why may the two Testaments be separately treated? What is the difference in age? In language? In subject?

§ 25. What objection is there to this method? How may it be answered?

§ 26. Why may the two courses be pursued at once? Why may we begin with the New Testament?

§ 27. What is New Testament Literature?

§ 28. What two theories and plans have been applied to it? § 29. How was it affected by the sceptical theology of Ger

many? What were the principal New Testament Introductions of this school? Who may be considered as begiqning the reaction?

§ 30. Who continued it? What was the character and plan of Guericke's first edition?

§ 31. What change was introduced by Reuss? What effect had this on Guericke? To what extreme did he go in his last edition? What is the true view of these rival methods? Of what inconsistency was Guericke guilty? (That of retaining the word Isagogik.)

§ 32. Why is it well to be acquainted with the historical arrangement? What are the six topics of Guericke and Keuss?

§ 33. What method will be used in this course? What is the primary division of the subject? Why is the extent of general Introduction variable?

§ 34. How should its topics be arranged? What is meant by a rational method? To what is it opposed? How may such a method be obtained?

§ 35. What is to be assumed in the application of this principle? What then is the first preliminary question? What otherquestion does it raise? What is the next question? What other question does it raise? Why do these questions not involve each other?

§ 36. What is a third preliminary question? What other question does it raise? What do these questions presuppose? What is the previous question thus suggested?

g 37. What is the fourth preliminary question?

§ 38. What is the fifth preliminary question? What is the sixth?

§ 39. What objection may be made to the foregoing statement? How may it be answered? What use may be now made of these questions?

§ 40. How is the first question to be answered? How is the second to be answered? How is the third to be answered? How is the fourth to be answered? What is the technical use of the terms "text" and "criticism"?

§ 41. How is the fifth question to be answered? How is the sixth question to be answered? How is the seventh question to be answered? Why may the sixth and seventh be transposed?

§ 42. Where is this scheme carried out in its full extent? Why must it be reduced to narrower limits? How may this be effected? Why may the evidences be omitted? Why may Antiquities and Geography be omitted? Why may Hermeneutics be omitted?

§ 43. How many topics still remain? What is the first? What is the second? What is the third? What is the fourth? What part of it belongs to Special Introduction?

§ 44. What is the transition or connecting link with Special Introduction? How far does it belong to both? What may be conveniently referred to this intermediate topic?

§ 45. What is the first topic of General Introduction? What are the questions which it undertakes to answer? Why are these

necessary as preliminary questions? How is this topic related to that of inspiration?

§ 46. What is the etymology of canon and canonical? What

is that of apocrypha? What are the various senses of apocryphal? What is its technical and strict sense? Why are the Apostolic Fathers not Apocryphal?

§ 47. What is the precise point to be settled? What are the two methods of proceeding? What is the a priori method? Where does it properly belong? What is the a posteriori method?

§ 48. What is the starting point in this inquiry? How is this statement to bo understood? Is it equally true of the Old Testament?

§ 49. What is the next fact? What ia the twofold proof of it? What is the negative proof? What is the positive proof?

§ 50. What is the authority ascribed in this argument to fathers and councils? How is their testimony to be vallied? What gives peculiar weight to that of councils?

§ 51. What is the testimony of Eufinus? Upon whose authority does it rest? What distinction does he make between canonical and other books? What does he say of the New Testament Apocrypha.

§ 52. How is his testimony confirmed? What is that of the Council of Hippo? By what other witnesses is it confirmed?

§ 53. What is the testimony of Athanasius, or a contemporary writer? What intimation does he give with respect to the Apocalypse? By what distinct branches of the Church was our canon then received?

§ 54. What does Gregory of Nazianzen say of the Apocalypse? What is the canon of Cyril of Jerusalem» What is that of the Council of Laodicea? Why is its genuineness not essential?

§ 55. What was the canon of Eusebius? What books does he refer to the several classes? What doubtful position does he give to the Apocalypse? How does he name the classes elsewhere? Why does he place the Apocalypse in the first and third divisions? How is it judged by Dionysius of Alexandria—and why?

§ 56. What is the canon of Origen? How does he vary from it elsewhere? What parts of the New Testament are quoted in his writings? What may be inferred from this?

§ 57. What is the Canon of Cyprian? What is that of Clemens Alexandrinus? What is that of Irenaeus?

§ 58. What is the Muratori Canon? What is the Peshito? What books of the New Testament does it omit? What lines of testimony hero converge?

§ 59. What is the nature of the testimony beyond this point? How may the paucity of references be accounted for? What is the sum of the testimonies of the first two centuries? What is the result of the whole induction?

§ 60. Why can there not be a secondary canon? What is the true state of the question as to the antilegomena? What is the natural presumption? Where is the onus probandi? What charge is brought against the ancient church? How far is it well founded? How may it be disproved in this case? What absurd assumption would be otherwise required?

§ 61. What is the remaining question? What is and what is not required as to the evidence? How far (or in what case) are we bound to acquiesce in the decision of the church at the close of the fourth century?

§ 62. Why is perfect uniformity of explanation neither necessary nor desirable? What is now to be shown—and how?

§ 63. What were the ancient doubts respecting the Epistle to the Hebrews? How may they be accounted for? How may the omission of the author's name be accounted for? How far is this assumption necessary? Why would this epistle be longer than the rest in becoming generally known?

§ 64. What was the first ground of hesitation as to the epistle of James? What was another more important ground? How did it operate in later times? Why is it now without force?

§ 65. What remark applies to the four smaller catholic epistles? What may be said of Jude and 2 Peter in particular? Why is there really no ground for doubt or hesitation? What of 2 and

3 John? What is the result pf those considerations?

§ 66. How does the case of the Apocalypse differ from the others? How may this be stated in the reverse order? To what may the canonical history of this book be likened? How may its omission in the Peshito be accounted for? What modern analogy

throws light on this hypothesis? How may the rejection of this book by certain councils and fathers be explained? What shows this explanation to be the true one?

§ 67. What is the general result of this examination? How does the evidence for the genuineness of those books compare with that for other ancient writings, such as the Apocrypha, the Apostolical Fathers, the Greek and Roman Classics?

§ 68. What books are excluded by the settlement of the Canon? Where does the description of these books belong? What is the

erroneous modern view of the relation originally borne by these books to those now in the Canon? Why is this a dangerous hypothesis? What is the true state of the case as to the Canon and Apocrypha? How does this enhance the evidence in favour of the former?

§ 69. What is the second topic of General Introduction? Why is this its proper place in the arrangement of the topics? How may this be familiarly illustrated?

§ 70. Why does this topic necessarily belong to General Introduction? To what four questions may it be reduced? Which of these will require most attention?

§ 71. Why is the first question not superfluous? What was Harduin's notion? What was Bolten's? How are these opinions now regarded? How is the general fact affected by the doubts as to one or two books?

§ 72. What is the second question? Why is it not a matter of course? Why were the antecedent probabilities all in favour of Hebrew? Why is it not explained by a reference to the sovereign will of God?

§ 73. What is the most satisfactory solution? What change had Hebrew undergone during the interval of four hundred years between the Old and New Testament f Why had the Aramaic no claim to succeed it?

§ 74. What objection is there to this explanation? How may it be answered? What analogy is furnished by the New Testament epistles?

§ 75. What is the twofold answer to the third question? What is the extrinsic reason?

§ 76. How is this connected with the providential preparation for the Advent? How -was it prepared among the Jews? How among the Gentiles? What was the negative preparation among the Gentiles? What was the positive preparation in general? What was it in particular?

§ 77. What ia the fourth question as to the original language? What doea it imply or presuppose? What does this require to consider first? Why may and must it be considered briefly?

§ 78. Where is it most convenient to begin this recapitulation? What is Comparative Philology? What effect has it had upon the study of particular languages? What is its tendency with respect

to the authority of Scripture? What other modern science coincides with it in this? How does Comparative Philology promote this end? How is this assimilation brought about? What may be expected from the further prosecution of this process?

§ 79. To how many families may cultivated languages be now

reduced? What is excepted from this classification, and why? What is meant by a cultivated language? What names have been given to the first of these great families? What to the second? What its extent? What languages does it include? What docs the other family include?

§ 80. What arc the most palpable and striking points of difference between these families of languages? Which of these peculiarities especially contribute to flexibility and richness?

§ 81. What ancient error has Comparative Philology exploded? What is now believed to be the true relation between Greek and Latin? What is Donaldson's argument for this conclusion? How much may be considered certain? What is the relative position of these languages, local and structural?

§ 82. What point is still involved in doubt, as to the origin of Greek and Latin? What is still assumed as to the elements of Greek? How (and how far) are they known to us? Uow far are they still uncertain?

§ 83. What is the characteristic difference of the Greek and

Roman greatness? How far does it extend to the language? In what form do wo first historically know the language?

§ 84. What doubt is there as to the old dialects? What one is repudiated by the modern writers? What is the twofold variation

commonly assumed? How are they related to each other? What were the two primary dialects? What was their characteristic difference? What were the two secondary dialects?

§ 85. How did they differ from the others? Were they any

thing more than local variations in the spoken language? How were they used in different kinds of composition? How did the

§ 86. What caused a change in the political and literary state of Greece? What was the first stage of the Macedonian ascendancy? How were the Macedonians and their rulers regarded by the Greeks? How did Philip of Macedon gain his ascendancy? What was its social and political effect? What was its effect upon

§ 87. Which was the most important of these Greek kingdoms in the East, and why? What was the position of Alexandria in the

ancient world? How was it distinguished in a literary way? What kind of learning had its origin and seat here? "What effect had this upon the language? What was the Macedonian dialect? What

the Sadducees? What was that of the devout Gentiles? What effect had this upon the language?

§ 89. Who was Hellen? What was the primary application of the name Hellas? What were its secondary applications? How far was the name Hellen extended?

§ 90. What adjective and verb come from "EWrjy? What verb?

How is it used? What nouns? What secondary adjective and adverb?

§ 91. Why was the name Hellenist applied particularly to the Jews? What was the opposite of Hellenist? How often does Hellenist occur in the Hew Testament? What does it evidently

mean in Acts 6, 1? What does it mean in Acts 9, 29? What doubt as to the reading? What donbt as to 11, 20? How does ■ the English version distinguish Hellenes and Hellenists? How is

Hellenes sometimes rendered? How docs the Peshito paraphrase

Acta 9, 29? How does Chrysostom expound it? How will Hellenist and Hellenistic be applied hereafter?

§ 92. What is meant by the Hellenistic dialect or idiom? How did it differ from the other dialects? How was the Hebrew modification brought about?

§ 93. What gives permanent importance to this dialect? AVhat is meant by "Hellenistic Literature "? To what two heads may it be reduced? How may it be chronologically divided?

§ 94. What is the first form or primary depository of Hellenistic

Literature? What is the second? What is the third? the fourth? What is the fifth? What is the sixth?

§ 95. What is the oldest specimen of the Hellenistic dialect and literature? What is the meaning of the name Septuagint, and what are its equivalents? How many explanations are there of this name? What is the one usually given? How is the tradition

given by Epiphanius? How is it given by Justin Martyr? What is Philo's statement?

do? Who were the ambassadors? What did they take with them? What did they bring back? How were the seventy received and treated? Where did they perform their task? Who was their amanuensis?

§ 97. What suspicious circumstances are there in this narrative? How is it regarded by the modern critics? What motive is imputed to the forgery? In what respect have the critics gone too far? What part of the story is entirely credible? What different purposes may this version have accomplished? What is the oldest

undisputed testimony on the subject? Where is it preserved? What docs it amount to? What may be considered certain, both from external and internal evidence?

§ 98. What question as to the extent of the translation? What Is the Jewish tradition as recorded by Jerome? What is the testi

mony of the son of Sirach? What inference is usually drawn from, it?

§ 99. How does the plurality of authors appear? Which is the most valuable part, and why? Which part of the Pentateuch is

best done? Which is the best of the other books? Which is the worst?

§ 100. How was the LXX. regarded by the Jews before the advent? How extensive was its use? Why did it not exclude the Hebrew text? What changed the feeling of the Jews respecting

it? What did they use instead of it? How many other Greek versions are known to have existed? Why were they not preserved?

§ 101. What extravagant expressions are used in the Talmud? What extreme opinions have existed since? § 102. What is Grinfield's doctrine?

§ 103. How is it supported?

§ 104. How may these arguments be answered?

§ 105. What is the true mean between these opposite extremes?

g 106. What is the twofold use of the Septuagint? What is its twofold Old Testament use?

§ 107. Why are these uses inapplicable to the New Testament? How many uses has it with respect to the New Testament? § 108. What is its use with respect to the quotations?

§ 109. What is its philological relation to the Hew Testament? § 110. What ia its technical use? How may this use be exemplified?

which had made many of these terms familiar to the Jews, long before they were incorporated into the language of the new or Christian revelation. As marked examples, serving to verify this general statement, may be mentioned the important terms,

§ 111. What is the best mode of studying the Septuagint? § 112. What are the best helps for such a study?

§ 113. What is the second group of writings belonging to the Hellenistic Literature? What part of the subject must be here omitted as belonging elsewhere? What will be assumed ad interim?

§ 114. Why are these books entitled to attention? What extreme or prejudice is to be avoided? What arc the three uses to be made of these books? What especially connects them with our present subject?

§ 115. Which of the Old Testament Apocrypha have no such

connection? Into what classes may they be divided as to origin? Why is this distinction unimportant for our present purpose? How is the line drawn by the latest critics?

§ 116. How may the Old Testament Apocrypha be conveniently defined? How did they gain admission to the Septuagint version

§ 117. How do the books differ among themselves? Which are the best books, historic and moral?

§ 118. How are these books to be used by the student of the New Testament?

§ 119. What is the next group of Hellenistic writings? Why are Philo and Josephus classed together? How do they differ from each other?

§ 120. What is known of Philo's history? What later legends with respect to him?

§ 121. What was the character of Philo's learning? What was

his favourite object? How did he endeavour to accomplish it? What parts of Scripture did he thus allegorize? What is the form of his extant writings? Why are they little read? Which of them are most read?

§ 122. What is the chief value of Philo's writings? What do they illustrate in theology? How do they throw light on the Greek of the New Testament?

§ 123. Why do we know more of Josephus? What are the

salient points of his biography? What were his advantages of birth, education, and position? Wbat points of contact with the history of Paul? What public stations did he fill? What was his relation to the Zealots? What was his chief military achievement? How was he treated by the Roman conquerors? How did he become a witness of the Jewish war? To which of his works did it

furnish a subject and occasion? When did this work appear? How is it divided? What is the subject of the two first books? What is the subject of the rest? What gives it great authority?

§ 124. What was his other great work? What is the meaning of the title? When did it appear? How is it divided? What is the first and larger part? What is its relation to the Old Testament history? What is probably the source of his variations and additions? How are they to be received? What is the value of the later part? What older history does it follow? What is common to both these great works of Josephus?

§ 125. What third work of Josephus is still extant? What is its design? What is its chief value?

§ 126. What testimony does Josephus bear to Christ and his forerunner? What are the different opinions on the passage which

relates to Christ? How may the historical uses of his writings be summed up? Why has his credit fluctuated? How is it at present?

§ 127. In what language did Josephus write? How far are his writings known to English readers?

§ 128. What is the sixth group of Hellenistic -Writings? What is meant by Apostolical Fathers? How many are usually reckoned? Where does this history properly belong? How much of it will here be given?

§ 129. To whom is the first place commonly assigned? Where

is he supposed to be named in the New Testament? What work of his is mentioned by the ancient writers? How was it then esteemed? What is its later history? What are its contents? What is its character? What other writing is ascribed to Clement? Why is its genuineness doubtful? How may it be used, whether genuine or not? What later writings have been falsely ascribed to the same person? Where does their history belong?

§ 130. What writing is ascribed to Barnabas? What are the opinions as to its author? What are the supposed indications of later date? How do Eusebius and Jerome regard it?

§ 131. Where is Hermas named in the New Testament? What work bears the same name? How far back may it be traced? How is it divided? What are the contents of the several books? What is the character of the whole? How was it regarded by the ancients? How by Origen and Irenseus? To whom is it ascribed in the Muratori fragment? What is its literary and religious value? Why is it comparatively unavailable for our immediate purpose?

§ 132. Who was Polycarp? When and how did he die? What extant writing bears his name? What is its chief value?

§ 133. Who was Ignatius? When and how did he die? What extant writings bear his name? What is the whole number of epistles? How many are now universally rejected? In what two Greek forms do the rest appear? What third form has been recently discovered? What different estimates are formed of it? What

are the characteristics of the seven Greek epistles? What has given them great interest in modern times? What is their philological character?

§ 134. Who was Papias? What book did he write? In what form has it been preserved? How does Eusebius describe him? What form of error did he help to propagate?

g 135. What anonymous work belongs to the same class? To whom was it formerly ascribed, and why? How does the writer describe himself? What is the subject of the epistle? What is the character of its language?

§ 136. Why are these works entitled to attention? Where do they exist in English? What is the most convenient edition of the original?

§ 137. What is the last group of Hellenistic writings? What do Irenseus and Epiphanius say as to their number? When do they most abound? What were their various designs? Are any of them doctrinal? Which are epistolary in form? Which are prophetic? What apocryphal apocalypses are there?

§ 138. To what class do the most belong? What were the Gospels of the Hebrews, the Egyptians, Peter, Marcion, &c.? What parts of the Gospel History do the extant Apocrypha pretend to

give? What is the Protevangelium of James? What is the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary? The history of Joachim and Anna? The history of Joseph the Carpenter? What is the Gospel of the Saviour's Infancy? The Gospel of Thomas? What is the characteristic difference between these and the canonical gospels?

§ 139. What is the other class of apocryphal gospela? What is the Gospel of Nicodemus? How many books have been entitled Acts of Pilate? What did the first contain? What was the

second? What is the one now extant? What other writings of the same class? What Apocryphal Acts are there?

§ 140. How do these books compare with the Old Testament Apocrypha? What is their intrinsic worth? What is their adven

titious value? How do they enhance that of the Canonical Scriptures? Why more so than the Apostolic Fathers?

§ 141. What bearing have they on the question of the Canon? What is the false view of their original relation to it.? To what dangerous conclusion does it lead? What is their true relation to it? How do they corroborate the external testimony in its favour?

§ 142. What is their philological use? restricted? How differ as to language?

To which of them is this
Which of them do not

exist in Greek at all? Which are Latin originals? Which are Greek originals? Where are the New Testament Apocrypha collected?

§ 143. What is the question now before us? What historical inquiry still remains? How far back must it be carried? What was the state of learning in the middle ages?

§ 144. What is meant by the Revival of Letters? political event hastened it? How?

§ 145. Was the Revival of Letters a religious movement? What was the religious spirit of some of its leaders? Who were the Humanists?

§ 146. Who were the Biblical Humanists? Who was the most eminent among them? How did he contribute to the reform?

§ 147. What were his real motives? What was his highest standard? How does ho describe the style of the New Testament? How was this idea carried out by others?

§ 148. What was the testimony of Theodore Beza and Ilenry Stephens? How was it opposed by others?

§ 149. How long did this opposition last? What reaction fol

lowed? What may be regarded as the opening of the strife? Who followed on both sides? What middle ground was taken, and by whom? How long did the controversy last, and where?

§ 150. What were the parties called? What were their extreme grounds? What was the false assumption of the Hebraists? What was that of the Purists? Why was bad Greek " not derogatory to

the Scriptures "? In what case would it be so? What is the real case? How may this be illustrated? Which opinion ultimately triumphed? What was Ernesti's dictum?

§ 151. What incidental good arose from this controversy? What important works have thus been brought into existence?

§ 152. What has been the state of the question since Ernesti? What abuse has still been practised? Who reformed it?

§ 153. What was and was not Winer's real merit? Why could not his work be absolutely finished? What were his qualifications for it?

§ 154. What did Winer still deny as to the Greek of the New Testament? What is the difference between idiom and dialect? Where is the germ of the modern doctrine to be found?

§ 155. Who first developed it? What is the new theory?

§ 156. Why is this an advance even upon Winer's doctrine? State the difference between them? How may this be illustrated from our own language? How may the illustrations be applied?

§ 157. In what sense must the Hellenistic be inferior to the Attic and other ancient dialects? In what sense may it bo superior? How may this be illustrated by analogy?

§ 158. What is the conclusion of the latest German writers? With what caution must it be received?

§ 159. How are we now to investigate this dialect? How may its peculiarities be classified? How may we best conduct the investigation? In which department are the helps more numerous, and why?

§ 160. What may be entirely omitted in enumerating the helps? What was the first lexicon which presented the results of the great controversy? What was its influence? What were its defects? What was the peculiar merit of Wahl? What of Bretsehncider?

What is the character of Wilkes' Clavis? What was the religious position of the men? What was the origin of Robinson's lexicon? What was that of Bloomfield's?

§ 161. What has been the one standard Greek for the last

third of a century? When was it first translated? What became of this translation? Who has recently translated it? Where has it been republished?