Page images
PDF
EPUB

is not the language of the Scriptures of the Old Teffament, Spoken by the Jews in Paleftine before the captivity; it is not the Chaldee spoken in Babylon; neither is it the Syriac fpoken in the neighbouring country of Syria; but it is a dialect formed of all the three languages, chiefly the two last blended together, and which is therefore properly denominated Syro-Chaldaic, as having a great affinity to both, and, at the fame time, retaining much of the old Hebrew idiom. After the deftruction of Jerufalem, the extinction of the Jewish polity, and the difperfion of the people by the Romans, their particular dialect fell quickly into difufe; and Syriac, the language of the province (for to Syria, Paleftine had before now been annexed,) became foon the prevailing language of the whole country. This will perhaps in part account for the undoubted fact, that a correct copy of Matthew's original was in a fhort time no where to be found. The very dialet fhared in the fate of the people, and did not long furvive their city and temple.

Further, that the language of the Syriac verfion of the New Teftament (though juftly accounted much nearer to the language ufed by our Lord and his Apoftles than that of any other verfion now extant) is not properly the fame language, may be proved from that very tranflation itself; where we fometimes, not always, find a difference between the words which the facred writers have retained in their original form, and thofe employed by the Syriac interpreter. In fome cafes, I admit they are the fame. Thus, the Evangelift Mark has given, in his gofpel (ch. v. 41.) the originał expreffion, Talitha cumi, ufed by our Lord, adding the interpretation into Greek. The Syriac tranflator employs alfo the original expreffion, but adds no interpretation, finding that it fuits equally the fyrian language as that which in the New Teflament is called Hebrew. Nay, the fame expreffion is ufed, in another Gofpel, in the Syriac where the Evangelifts does not, as Mark, introduce the original words. Alfo many words, as rabbi and abba, are the fame in both. This may likewife be faid of fome proper names, which have the fignification of appellatives. Cephas being of the fame import in both languages, needed nct an interpretation. in Syriac as in Greek. On the name Thomas there was an inconfiderable differenec. What was Thaoma in the dialect

of Jerufalem, was in proper Syrian, Thama. This interpretation is thrice given in the Syriac verfion of John's Golel, as anfwering to the Greek Ads twin. Boanerges, Aceldama, and Golgotha, are all tranflated by that interpreter, who would not have made this diftinction, with regard to them, if he had thought them equally intelligible, to

Syrian readers, with the terms whereof he has given no explanation. These observations ferve to fhow both the affinity of the two languages, and their difference. The difference, was enough to render one of them unintelligible to those who were accustomed only to the other; and the affinity was fo great, as to render a very little practice fufficient to qualify those who spoke the one, for understanding

the other.

I fhall add only one remark more for evincing the difference between the language called Hebrew in the New Teftament, and the Syriac: it is this, that the name always given to Syria, in the Syriac verfion, is not Aram, as in the Old Teftament, but & Suria; whence, according to analogy, the name appropriated to the language is D Suriaith; whereas Eßeas, in the Greek New Testament, or TM Eßpaide SaλixTw, is never rendered Suriaith, but Ghibraith. See the following paffages, Luke xxii. 38. John v. 2. xix. 13, 17, 20. Acts xxi. 40.-xxii. 2.-xxvi. 14.-Rev. ix. 11. in fome of which, we have both the name itself, in what is called Hebrew, the language of the place, and, for the fake of the Syriac reader, an interpretation of the name into that tongue. This fhows evidently, that the Hebrew word had no currency with them, as it needed an explanation. Nay, more, in the poftfcript fubjoined to the Syriac version of this Gofpel, the language in which Matthew wrote and preached, is not termed Suriaith, but Ghibriath*. Let it be obferved, that I urge this, not as a teftimony of the fact (as a teftimony it is not needed, and would be of very little confequence), but folely to mark the distinction obferved in the application of the words Syriac and Hebrew. But enough, for fhowing that the language called Hebrew by the writers of the New Teftament, is not the fame with the language of the Old Teftament, which is never in Scripture called Hebrew; that it is neither pure Syriac nor Chaldee, but that it approaches nearest the last of these, though with a confiderable mixture of the other two. An attention to these things will ferve to fhow, how ill-founded many things are, which have been advanced on this fubject, by Beaufobre and others.

That this Gofpel was compofed by one born a Jew, familiarly acquainted with the opinions, ceremonies, and cuftoms, of his countrymen; that it was compofed by one conerfant in the facred writings, and habituated to their idiom; man of plain fenfe, but of little or no learning, except is atThe poftfcript, literally tranflated, is, "Here endeth judgesy Gospel of Matthew's preaching, which he preached the couw, in the land of Palestine."

ob

obnoxiou? VII. March, 1794.

R

what

what he derived from the Scriptures of the Old Teftament and, finally, that it was the production of a man, who wrote feriously, and from conviction; who, as on moft occafions he had been prefent, had attended clofely to the facts and Speeches which he related; but who, in writing, entertained not the moft diftant view of fetting off himself by the relation; we have as ftrong internal evidence as the nature of the thing will admit. Now, exactly such a man the Apostle and Evangelift Matthew muft have been; of whom, as we have feen, we have an hiftorical proof, quite unexceptionable, that he was the author.

That this hiftory was primarily intended for the ufe of his countrymen the Jews, we have, in aid of hiftorical evidence, very ftrong prefumptions, from the tenour of the book itself. Every circumftance is carefully pointed out, which might conciliate the faith of that nation; every unneceffary expreffion is avoided, which might in any way ferve to obtrust it. To come to particulars: there was no fentiment relating to the Mefliah, with which the Jews were more Hrongly poffeffed, than that he must be of the race of Abram, and of the family of David; Matthew, therefore, with great propriety, begins his narrative with the genealogy of Jefus. That he fhould be born at Bethlehem, in Judea, is another circumitance, in which the learned among the Jews of those times were 'univerfally agreed. His birth in that city, with fome very memorable, circumftances that attended it, this hiftorian has alfo taken the firft opportunity to mention. Thofe paffages in the Prophets, or other facred books, which either foretell any thing that fhould happen to him, or admit an allufive application, or were in that age generally underflood to be applicable to events which concern the Meffah, are never palled over in filence by this Evangelift. The fulfilment of prophecy was always to the Jews, con vinced of the infpiration of their facred writings, a principal topic of argument. Accordingly, none of the Evangelifts has been more careful than Matthew, that nothing of this kind should be overlooked. And none of the facred penmen has more properly avoided the unneceffary introduction of any term offenfive to his countrymen.

There is one argument from the language, and but one that has occurred to my obfervation, which forms, at least, a prefumption that the Greek is a verfion. Though the facred writers, in that language, fometimes retain in the narratives, without adding an explanation, a memorable Or tal word in frequent ufe among the people, and kno all connected with them, fuch as Hofanna, Hallelui never find, in the moral or didactic part, any thingible,

regard

from a different tongue, which renders the import of a precept unintelligible to thofe unacquainted with the tongue. Indeed, in the hiftory, the very words fpoken (to imprefs thofe more ftrongly who happen to understand them) are, though feldom, fometimes mentioned, but they are always accompanied with an interpretation, that no reader may be at a lofs for the meaning. Such are Ephphatha, Talitha cumi, and the exclamation on the cross. But the prohibition of what is criminal, and that under a fevere fanction, where the crime itself is expreffed in an unknown tongue, and left unexplained, is totally without a parallel in holy writ. Of this we have an example in the words thus rendered in the common verfion: Whofoever fhall fay to his brother, Raca, fhall be in danger of the council: but whofoever fhall fay, Thou fool, fhall be in danger of hell-fire." I think, with Dr. Sykes, that ppt, in this place, ought to be underflood as an Oriental, and not a Greek word, as well as gana; for amorch, is actually fuch a word, and could not be reprefented otherwife in the Greek character. The English tranflators, therefore, had the fame reafon for rendering the latter claufe, Whofoever fhall fay Moreh, that they had for rendering the former claufe, Whofoever fhall fay Raca. It is, at leaft, prefumable, that the fame caution which led the writer to preferve the original term in one member of this fentence, would lead him alfo to preferve it in the other, more efpecially as this is the claufe which contains the fe yereft threatening.

Befides, our finding that this word is a term of reproach in that dialect, as well as the other, adds greatly to the probability, that it was fo understood by the writer. Moreover, if this be interpreted as a Greek word, and rendered thou fool, it will coincide with raca, ftultus, fatus, which can hardly be rendered otherwife; whereas, there is evidently intended here, a gradation in the crimes, as there is a gradation in the punishments. Now, let it be obferved, that this manner, in fuch a cafe as the prefent, fuits more the exceffive fcrupulofity of a tranflator, than the fimplicity and plainnefs of an infpired writer, who means to inftruct his readers in every duty, and to warn them against every danger.

Dr. CAMPBELL tranflates the whole paffage thus, "Ye have heard that it was faid to the ancients, Thou shalt not commit murder; for whofoever committeth murder fhall be obnoxious to the judges. But I fay unto you, Whofoever is angry with his brother unjustly, fhall be obnoxious to the judges; whofoever fhall call him Fool, fhall be obnoxious to the council-but whofoever fhall call him Mifcreant, fhall be obnoxious to hell-fire," Mat. v. 21, 22.

[blocks in formation]

Did the facred penmen find it neceffary to employ Syro Chaldaic terms, because those reproachful names had nothing equivalent to them in the Greek language, and confequently because those who spoke Greek, not being fufceptible of the guilt implied in ufing those words, were in no danger of incurring the punishment? This is too abfurd to be believed by any body. There is no language, ancient or modern, in which abufe may not be uttered; and indignation, contempt, and abhorrence, fignified in the highest degree. In fuch a cafe, therefore, it would be unaccountable and unparalleled in an infpired author to adopt terms unintelligible to the people whofe language he writes, and leave them unexplained; but this manner is not at all to be wondered at in a tranflator, especially when we confider how apt the early tranflators among the Jews were to carry their fcruples this way to excefs. One of the greatest difficulties in tranflating, is to find words in one language, that fufficiently correfpond to thofe of another, which relate to manners and fentiments. In moft other matters there is, comparatively, but little difficulty. The word moreh, here ufed by the Evangelift, differs only in number from morim, the compilation with which Mofes and Aaron addreffed the people of Ifrael, when they said, with manifeft and indecent paffion, as rendered in the English Bible, Hear, now, YE REBELS, and were, for their punishment, not permitted to enter the land of Canaan. word, however, as it is oftner ufed to imply rebellion against God than against any earthly fovereign; and as it includes difbelief of his word, as well as difobedience to his command, I think better rendered in this place mifcreant, which is alfo, like the original term, expreffive of the greatest abhorrence and deteftation. In this way tranflated, the gradation of crimes, as well as of punishments, is preferved, and the impropriety avoided, of delivering a moral precept, of confequence to men of all denominations, in words intelligible only to the learned.

The

As the facred writers, efpecially the Evangelifts, have many qualities in common, fo there is fomething in every one of them, which, if attended to, will be found to diftinguish him from the reft. That which principally diftinguifhes Matthew, is the diftinctness and particularity with which he has related many of our Lord's difcourfes and moral inftructions. Of thefe his fermon on the mount, his charge to the Apostles, his illuftrations of the nature of his kingdom, and his prophecy on mount Olivet, are examples. He has also wonderfully united fimplicity and energy in relating the replies of his Mafter to the cavils of his adverfaries. Being early called to the Apostleship, he was an eye and ear witnefs of

moft

« PreviousContinue »