The British Critic: A New Review

quisitions ; inquiring whether the Hellenistic Style is not Latin-Greek? whether the many New Words in the Elzevir 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 Phenomenu hitherto inexpli

cable to the Biblical Critics ? pp. 542. Murray. This unusually long title page sufficiently explains the objects, which the anonymous writer, (who might have styled himself Harduinus Redivivus) had in view. The work before us consists of six disquisitions. In the first he combats the received opinion, that a knowledge of Greek was very general in the time of the Apostles. In the second and third he contends that one at least of the Gospels, and several of St. Paul's Epistles, were probably composed in Latin : but that at all events the Elzevir, or received text, of the New Testament, bears marks of being a version from the Latin ; possibly a Greek re-translation from the Latin of an original Greek work made at a very early period. This notion the author proceeds to corroborate in the foarth disquisition, by a list of words, phrases, &c. tending to prove that what is called the Hellenistic style, is not Hebrew Greek, but Latin Greek. In the fifth disquisition are quoted the opinions of some of the most distinguished Editors of the New Testament: and in the sixth, this hypothesis is applied to the elucidation of the theory of different families of MSS. of the New Testament.

The author professes to offer his notion as a matter for inquiry, without dogmatizing himself. But in the course of his work be not unfrequently falls into a style somewhat

B VOL. XIX. JANUARY, 1823.

too positive and pert for a humble inquirer after trath. He has pursued his researches with much industry, and has collected testimonies from a great variety of authors, although they are not very methodically arranged. We shall not enter into a minute consideration of each disquisition, but shall briefly review the state of the question, as it concerns the original language of the New Testament.

We need hardly inform our readers that the hypothesis of a Latin original of the New Testament is not now broached for the first time. A German Jesuit of the 17th century, Melchior Inchofer maintained tbat our Saviour and his disciples spoke Latin, from a principle of obedience to the Roman laws, which prescribed the use of that language in the provinces of the empire; a notion which has also been seriously taken up and defended by an Italian scholar. Another Jesuit, of greater celebrity, the learned but fanciful Hardouin, advanced what Michaelis terms “ the extraordinary hypothesis, that what we call the Latin translation is in fact the original, and that the Greek Testament is nothing more than an insignificant translation by an unknown band." Our present author goes even farther than this ; for he argues that the present Greek text is a servile translation from a Latin original, now lost. We should not, however, use the words “Latin original" without limitation; for he acknowledges that St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew'; consequently of his Gospel we have a Greek version of a Latin version of a Hebrew original. He observes very justly, that the discovery of truth can never injure the cause of religion : but he overlooks the very obvious remark, that this bolds goud only with regard to actual truth. The propagation of a notion which this or that individual believes to be truth, when in fact it is no truth at all, may be productive of the most injurious con-' sequences. Again, although the discovery of truth can do no barm (a position which requires some limitations) yet an inquiry after truth may be so conducted as to do a great deal of harm.

It may be a question of no importance to the authenticity of the Christian Scriptures, whether they were at first composed in Greek or Latin ; and whether the copies which we possess, be originals or translations, provided that the translations can be authenticated. But an examination of this question may be so carried on, as to do much disservice to the cause of religion. This will be the case, when the writer indulges in a vein of pleasantry ill suited to the subject; when he speaks contemptuously of opinions or things, which the Christian world is disposed to regard with vene

Books

The British Critic: A New Review, Volume 20