tura Novi Testamenti in quo idiomate originaliter ab Apostolis edita fuit? Paderbornæ, 1822. 8vo.

41. Binterim (A. J.), Propempticum ad problema criticum, Sacra Scriptura Novi Testamenti in quo idiomate originaliter ab apostoliedita fuerit? A Doctore Marco Molkenbuhr nuper propositum. Moguntiæ, 1822. 8vo.

The object of Molkenbuhr's tract is, to revive the absurd and long since exploded hypothesis, announced in the former part of the last century by father Hardouin, viz. That the Greek Testament was a translation from the Latin Vulgate. Molkenbuhr has been most satisfactorily refuted by Binterim, and with equal learning and ability.

42. De Origine Versionis Septuaginta Interpretum: Auctore S. T. Muecke, correctore Lycei Soraviensis. Zullichoviæ, 1788. 8vo.

Bp. Marsh pronounces this to be "a very useful work, as it represents both concisely and perspicuously the several topics which suggest themselves for consideration on the origin of the Septuagint version." (Lectures, part iii. p. 123.)

43. The Veracity of the Evangelists Demonstrated, by a comparative View of their Histories. By the Rev. Robert Nares, À. M. F. R. S., &c. London, 1815, 1818. 2d Edit. 12mo.

44. An Enquiry into the present State of the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament. By Henry Owen, D. D. Rector of St. Olave, Hart Street. London, 1769. 8vo.

45. A Brief Account, Historical and Critical, of the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament. By the same Author. London, 1787. 8vo.

46. The Modes of Quotation used by the Evangelical Writers, explained and vindicated. By the same Author. London, 1789. 4to.

All Dr. Henry Owen's works are characterised by sound cricicism and laborious research. Bp. Marsh, who says that he is an excellent critic, observes that his Historical and Critical Account of the Septuagint Version, "should be read by every man, who wishes to be acquainted with the history of that version."

47. Critica Sacra; or a short Introduction to Hebrew Criticism. [By the Rev. Dr. Henry Owen.] London, 1774. 8vo.

This little tract is not of common occurrence. Dr. Owen was a learned and sober critic, but no advocate for the absolute inerrancy and integrity of the Hebrew text. His book was violently attacked by Mr. Raphael Baruh in his Critica Sacra Examined. (London, 1775. 8vo.) Dr. Owen rejoined in a learned tract entitled, Supplement to Critica Sacra; in which the principles of that treatise are fully confirmed, and the objections of Mr. Raphael Baruh are clearly answered. London, 1775. 8vo.

48. Palæoromaica, or Historical and Philological Disquisitions : inquiring, whether the Hellenistic Style is not Latin Greek? Whether the many new words in the Elzevir edition of the Greek Testament are not formed from the Latin? And whether the Hypothesis, that the Greek Text of many manuscripts of the New Testament is a translation or re-translation from the Latin, seems not to elucidate numerous passages, to account for the different recensions, and to explain many phenomena hitherto inexplicable to the Biblical Critics? London, 1823. 8vo.

The absurd reasonings and mischievous tendency of this publication (which is noticed here to put the unwary student on his guard against it), are exposed with equal learning and ability in the British Critic for January, February, and April, 1823; in the Rev. J. J. Conybeare's "Examination of certain Arguments" contained in it (Oxford, 1823. 8vo.); and in the Bishop of St. David's Postscript to the second edition of his "Vindication of 1 John v. 7. from the objections of M. Griesbach" (London, 1823.) "The publication, entitled Palæoromaica, (this dis

tinguished prelate has most justly said, is a work of very extensive reading and research; and abounds with valuable quotations. But the materials are as destitute of selection, as his," [the anonymous author's]" strictures are of simplicity and candour." (Postscript, p. 196.) The hypothesis, which the author of Paleoromaica endeavours to maintain, is briefly this: That the received text of the Greek Testament is a servile translation from a Latin original long since lost, and that this translation was made by a writer imperfectly acquainted with one or possibly with both of the languages in question. In support of this hypothesis, the anonymous writer has recourse to two sorts of proof, direct and indirect.

1. The direct proof he finds in the many and obvious Latinisms which he asserts to exist in almost every page of the Greek Text. The principal Latinisms occurring are enumerated, and accounted for, in p. 30. of this volume: but, besides these, the anonymous writer has collected many others, which he has arranged under several heads or classes, which the nature of the subject and the limits of the present notice forbid us to detail. The reader is therefore necessarily referred to pp. 29-51. of Mr. Conybeare's examination, in which the anonymous writer's errors are completely exposed.

2. The indirect proofs that the New Testament is a servile translation of a lost Latin original are two-fold: first, the existence of certain analogous cases of translation from the Latin, and particularly the Aldine edition of the Greek Simplicius; and secondly, the certainty that the Latin rather than the Greek was the prevalent language of Palestine and its neighbourhood, in the age of the evangelists and apostles.

(1.) Both the Bishop of St. David's (Postscript, pp. 186. et seq.) and Mr. Conybeare (Examination, pp. 7-16.) have demonstrated that the case of the Aldine Simplicius is utterly inapplicable to the purpose for which it is adduced: and to their learned publications the reader is necessarily referred. It must suffice here to remark that the case of this Simplicius is very different from that of a book, like the New Testament, which was in the custody of the whole Christian church, -a book in which every part of the church took a deep interest, and of which every separate congregation had its copy or copies. When the Aldine Greek version of the barbarous Latin translation, made by W. de Moorbeka in the thirteenth century, was published, the Greek original was unknown, and continued to be unknown, until it was discovered a few years since by M. Peyron: whereas the Greek Text of the New Testament was never lost or missing.

(2.) In full disproof of the alleged certainty of the prevalence of the Latin language, in Palestine and its vicinity, during the apostolic age, it will be sufficient to refer to pages 15-19. of the present volume, which contain some evidences of the general prevalence of the Greek Language that have escaped the researches of Bishop Burgess and of Mr. Conybeare: and also to the fact also mentioned in p. 203. that the old Syriac Version of the New Testament made in the close of the first, or at the beginning of the second century, contains many Greek works untranslated; - an incontestable proof this, of the previous existence of a Greek original. For the following additional evidences of the existence of the Greek original of the New Testament we are indebted to that learned prelate. "If," says he, "from the prevalence of the Greek language at the time of the Apostles, we extend our view to the state of the Christian church in its earliest period, we shall find increasing probabilities of a Greek original. All the Gentile churches established by the Apostles in the East were Greek churches; namely, those of Antioch, Ephesus, Galatia, Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, &c." Again: "The first bishops of the Church of Rome were either Greek writers or natives of Greece. According to Tertullian, Clemens, the fellow-labourer of St. Paul, was the first bishop of Rome, whose Greek Epistle to the Corinthians is still extant. But whether Clemens or Linus was the first bishop of Rome, they were both Greek writers, though probably natives of Italy. Anencletus was a Greek, and so were the greater part of his successors to the middle of the second century. The bishops of Jerusalem, after the expulsion of the Jews by Adrian, were Greeks. From this state of the government of the primitive church by Greek ministers, Greeks by birth, or in their writings, - arises a high probability, that the Christian Scriptures were in Greek.

"The works" also "of the earliest fathers in the church, the contemporaries and immediate successors of the Apostles, were written in Greek. They are altogether silent, as to any Latin original of the New Testament. They say nothing, indeed, of a Greek original by name. But their frequent mention of malaia amTuna, without any distinction of name, can mean only Greek originals.

But if we have in the Greek fathers no mention of a Greek original, we have

1

the most express testimony of Jerome and Augustin, that the New Testament (with the exception of the Gospel of St. Matthew, which some of the fathers supposed to have been written by its author in Hebrew) was originally composed in Greek. Jerome said, that the Greek original of the New Testament was a thing not to be doubted.'

"Of all the [Latin] MSS. of the New Testament, which had been seen by Jerome (and they must have been very numerous), the author of Palæoromaica observes, that the whole, perhaps, of the Gospels and Epistles might be versions from the Greek.' Surely this is no immaterial evidence, that Greek was the original text; and this will be more evident, if we retrace the history of the Greek text upwards from the time of Jerome. The Greek edition nearest his time was that of Athanasius. Before him, and early in the same century, Eusebius published an edition by the command of Constantine. In the third century, there were not less than three Greek editions by Origen, Hesychius, and Lucianus. In the second century, about the year 170, appeared the Datessaron of Tatian, containing not the whole of the New Testament, but a hai hony of the four Gospels. And in the same century we have an express appeal of Tertullian to the authenticum Græcum of St. Paul, which, whether it means the autograph of the Apostle, or an authentic copy of it, is, of itself, a decisive proof of a Greek original. Again, in the same century, before either Tertullian or Tatian, we have, A. D. 127, the Apostolicon of Marcion, which, though not an authenticum Græcum, was Græ

cum.

"To the evidence from the Greek editions of the New Testament in the second, third, and fourth centuries, and Tertullian's testimony, we may add the language of those Greek ecclesiastical writings which were not admitted into the sacred canon, but were, for the most part, of primitive antiquity; - I mean the Apostles' Creed, the Letter of Abgarus to Christ, and the Answer to it; the Liturgies of St. James, St. John, and St. Peter; the Epistle of St. Paul to the Laodiceans; the Apostolical Constitutions, &c. These would never have been written in Greek, if the apostolical writings had not been published in the same language." (Postscript to Vindication of 1 John v.7. pp. 182-185.)

Lastly, the language and style of the New Testament are such as afford indisputable proof of its authenticity, as an antient volume, and consequently that it was originally written in Greek. On this topic compare Volume I. pp. 96-100. On all these grounds, we conclude with the learned writers already cited that Greek was and is the original language of the New Testament, and consequently that there is no evidence whatever to support the hypothesis that it is a translation from a lost Latin original.

49. Institutio Interpretis Veteris Testamenti, auctore Joanne Henrico Pareau, Litterarum Orientalium Professore in Academia RhenoTrajectina. Trajecti ad Rhenum, 1822. 8vo.

50. Augusti Pfeifferi Critica Sacra, de Sacri Codicis partitione, editionibus variis, linguis originalibus et illibata puritate fontium; necnon ejusdem translatione in linguas totius universi, de Masora et Kabbala, Talmude et Alcorano. Dresdæ, 1670, 1688, 1702, 1721. 8vo. Lipsia, 1712. 8vo. Altorfii, 1751. 8vo. Also in the second volume of the collective edition of his Philological Works, published at Utrecht in 1704. 4to.

51. Commentatio Critica ad Libros N. T. in genere; cum præfatione J. Gottlob Carpzovii. Accurante J. W. Rumpæo. Lipsiæ, 1757. 4to. 2d edit.

Critical questions of great variety and importance are here briefly but satisfac torily discussed by a reference to the writers of the greatest credit who have treated on each of them.

52. Sebaldi Ravii Exercitationes Philologica in C. F. Hubigantii Prolegomena in Scripturam Sacram. Lugduni Batavorum, 1785, 4to. "The principles of Houbigant, who carried his conjectures beyond all bounds, have been very ably combated" in this work. (Bp. Marsh.)

53. F. V. Reinhardi Dissertatio de Versionis Alexandrinæ authoritate et usu in constituendâ Librorum Hebraicorum Lectione genuinâ. Vitemberge, 1777. 4to.

54. Joannis Nepomuceni Schæfer Institutiones Scripturisticæ usui auditorum suorum accommodata. Pars prima, Moguntiæ, 1790. Pars secunda, Moguntiæ, 1792. 8vo.

55. Joh. Frieder, Schleusneri Opuscula Critica ad Versiones Græcas Veteris Testamenti. Lipsiæ, 1812. 8vo.

56. Christiani Friderici Schmidii Historia Antiqua et Vindicatio Canonis Sacri Veteris Novique Testamenti. Lipsia, 1775. 8vo. 57. J. S. Semleri Apparatus ad Liberalem Veteris Testamenti Interpretationem. Hale Magdeburgicæ, 1773. Svo.

58. Jo. Sal. Semleri Apparatus ad Liberalem Novi Testamenti Interpretationem. Illustrationis exempla multa ex epistola ad Roma

nos petita sunt. Hale Magdeburgica, 1767. 8vo.

59. Histoire Critique du Vieux Testament. Par le Père Simon. Paris, 1678. 4to. Amsterdam, 1680. Rotterdam, 1685. 4to. Best edition.

The first edition was suppressed by the Influence of the Jesuit Le Tellier; it is very inferior to the subsequent impressions.

60. Histoire Critique du Texte du Nouveau Testament; où l'on etablit la Verité des Actes, sur lesquels la Religion Chretienne est fondée. Par le Père Simon. Rotterdam, 1689. 4to.

61. Histoire Critique des Versions du Nouveau Testament, où l'on fait connoître quel a été l'usage de la lecture des livres sacres dans les principales eglises du monde. Par le Père Simon. Rotterdam, 1690. 4to.

62. Histoire Critique des Principaux Commentateurs du Nouveau Testament, depuis le commencement du Christianisme jusques à notre tems. Par le Père Simon. Rotterdam, 1693. 4to.

63. Nouvelles Dissertations sur le Texte et les Versions du Nouveau Testament. Par le Père Simon. Rotterdam, 1895. 4to.

-

All the works of father Simon are characterised by great learning and research "The criticism of the Bible being at that time less understood than at present, the researches which were instituted by Simon soon involved him in controversy, as well with Protestant as with Catholic writers, particularly with the latter; in whom he gave great offence by the preference which he showed to the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible above that which is regarded as the oracle of the church of Rome, the Latin Vulgate. Though I would not be answerable for every opinion (says Bp. Marsh), advanced by Simon, I may venture to assert that it contains very valuable information in regard to the criticism both of the Hebrew Bible and of the Greek Testament." (Lectures, part i. p. 52.) Walchius has given an account of the various authors who attacked Simon, in his Bibliotheca Theologica Selecta, vol. iv. pp. 250–259. The Histoire Critique du Vieux Testament was translated into English "by a person of quality," and published at London in 1683. 4to. The translation abounds with gallicisms in every page.

64. Johannis Simonis Analysis et Explicatio Lectionum Masorethicarum Kethiban et Karjan Vulgo dictarum, ea forma quæ illæ in sacro textu extant, ordine alphabetico digesta. Editio tertia. Hala, 1823. Svo.

65. Stosch (Eberhardi Henrici Danielis) Commentatio HistoricoCritica de Librorum Novi Testamenti Canone. Præmissa est Dissertatio de Cura Veteris Ecclesiæ circa Libros Novi Testamenti. Francofurti ad Viadrum. 1755. 8vo.

66. Dissertations on the Importance and best Method of studying the Original Languages of the Bible, by Jahn and others; translated from the Originals, and accompanied with notes, by M. Stuart, As

sociate Professor of Sacred Literature, in the Theological Seminary at Andover.-Andover (Massachusetts), 1821. 8vo.

67. Tychsen (O. G.) Tentamen de variis Codicum Hebraicorum Veteris Testamenti manuscriptorum generibus a Judæis et non-Judæis descriptis, eorumque in classes certas distributione et antiquitatis et bonitatis characteribus. Rostochii, 1772. Svo.

68. Usserii (Jacobi, Armachensis Episcopi) de Græca Septuaginta Interpretum Versione Syntagma. Londini, 1665. 4to.

"It is divided into nine chapters, and relates to the origin of the version ac cording to the account of Aristeas (then supposed to be genuine), to the time when and the place where it was written, to the alterations which were gradually made in its text, to the corrections of Origen, to the modern editions, and other subjects with which these are immediately connected. This is a work of great merit: it displays much original inquiry; and may be regarded as the ground work of later publications on the Septuagint." (Bp. Marsh's Lectures, part ii. p. 121.)

69. Vorstii (Johannis) De Hebraismis Novi Testamenti Commentarius. Edidit notisque instruxit Johannes Fridericus Fischerus. Lipsia, 1778. 8vo.

70. Waltoni (Briani) in Biblia Polyglotta Prolegomena. Præfatus est J. A. Dathe, Prof. Ling. Heb. Ord. Lipsiæ, 1777. 8vo.

71. Wetstenii (Johannis Jacobi) Prolegomena ad Testamenti Græci editionem accuratissimam, e vetustissimis codicibus denuo procurandam: in quibus agitur de codicibus manuscriptis Novi Testamenti, Scriptoribus qui Novo Testamento usi sunt, versionibus veteribus, editionibus prioribus, et claris interpretibus ; et proponuntur animadversiones et cautiones, ad examen variorum lectionum Novi Testamenti. Amstelædami, 1730. 4to.

72. Benner (Joh. Herm.) Sylloge Thesium, Hermeneuticæ Sacræ inservientium. Francofurti et Giessæ, 1753. 12mo.

73. Chladenii (Martini) Institutiones Exegeticæ. Wittebergæ,

1725. 8vo.

74. Danhaueri (Joh. Conradi) Hermeneutica Sacra, sive Methodus exponendarum Sacrarum Literarum. Argentorati, 1684. 8vo.

75. Ernesti (Jo. Aug.) Institutio Interpretis Novi Testamenti. 8vo. Lipsia, 1761-1809. 8vo.

The edition of 1809 is generally considered as the best of Ernesti's admirable little manual; but the prefatory remarks and some of the notes of Dr. Ammon must be read with great caution, as they are too frequently destitute of those primary and indispensable characteristics of a good interpreter, sobriety and discretion. Two volumes of Supplementary Remarks, by Professor Morus, entitled Acroases super Hermeneutica Novi Testamenti, were published at Leipsic between 1795 and 1797, in 8vo. ; they relate only to part of Ernesti's volume, and they contain much valuable matter respecting the criticism and interpretation of the New Testament, clothed in elegant Latinity..

76. Elements of Interpretation, translated from the Latin of J. A. Ernesti, accompanied with Notes. By Moses Stuart, Professor of Sacred Literature in the Theological Seminary at Andover. 12mo. Andover, (Massachusetts) 1822.

A translation of the preceding article. The work of Ernesti, in passing through the hands of its translator, has undergone some alterations. Some things have been omitted; notes have been added where the subject appeared to require further elucidation; and copious extracts are translated from Morus's Acroases, as well as from Beck's Monogrammata Hermeneutices Novi Testamenti, and Keill's Elementa Hermeneutices Novi Testamenti, noticed below.

77. Franckii (Aug. Herm.) Prælectiones Hermeneuticæ ad viam