them all. We do not recollect to have seen such inconsistencies in the writings of St. Luke. Luke knew the characters, and witnessed many of the facts, of which he speaks, and he could receive the best information respecting those facts which were transacted in his absence. Jo sephus was born A. D. 37, some years after our Saviour's ascension. Now it is a very important observation of Michaelis that the period of history with which mankind are least acquainted is that which includes the time of their childhood and youth, together with the twenty or thirty years immediately preceding their birth. Concerning the affairs transacted during that period we are much more liable to fall into mistakes than concerning those of a remoter age. The reason is, that authentic history never comes down to the period of our birth; our knowledge of the period immediately preceding depends on hearsay; and the events which pass within the first eighteen or twenty years of our lives we are too young and heedless to observe with attention. This must have been more remarkably the case in the time of Josephus than at present, when there were neither daily papers nor periodical journals to supply the want of regular annals. There was no historian from whom Josephus could derive any knowledge of the times that immediately preceded his birth. There is a period then of forty or fifty years, in which, even with the most diligent enquiry, he was exposed to error. When we find, therefore, the relations of Luke and Josephus so different as not to be reconciled, it would be very unfair to determine, without any further enquiry, in favor of Josephus. Let their character, works, and situation, be strictly examined; let their testimony be duly weighed and compared; and then let the preference be given to that author who, according to the strictest rules of equity and justice, seems entitled to the highest degree of credit. The decision of a jury, we shall venture to say, would in every instance turn out in favor of Luke. Having thus ascertained the authenticity of the books of the New Testament, the next thing to be considered is their inspiration. It is certainly of some importance to know how far the apostles and evangelists were guided in their writings by the immediate influence of the Spirit of God; though this knowledge, if attainable, is not equally important with that of the authenticity of these writings. Michaelis indeed asserts that the divinity of the New Testament may be proved whether we can evince it to be written by immediate inspiration or not. The question,' says he, whether the books of the New Testament are inspired, is not so important as the question whether they are genuine? The truth of our religion depends upon the latter, not absolutely on the former. Had the Deity inspired not a single book of the New Testament, but left the apostles and evangelists without any other aid than that of natural abilities to commit what they knew to writing, admitting their works to be authentic, and possessed of a sufficient degree of credibility, the Christian religion would still be well founded. The miracles by which it is confirmed would equally demonstrate its truth, even if the persons who attested them were not inspired, but simply human witnesses; and their divine authority is never presupposed, when we discuss the question of miracles, but merely their credibility as human evidence. If the miracles are true which the evangelists relate, the doctrines of Christ, recorded in the gospels, are proved to be the infallible oracles of God; and even if we admit the apostles to be mistaken in certain not essential circumstances, yet, as the main points of the religion which Christ commissioned them to preach are so frequently repeated, their epistles would instruct us as well in the tenets of the Christian system as the works of Maclaurin in the philosophy of Newton. It is possible, therefore, to doubt, and even to deny, the inspiration of the New Testament, and yet be fully persuaded of the truth of the Christian religion; and many really entertain these sentiments either publicly or in private, to whom we should render great injustice, if we ranked them in the class of unbelievers. Yet the Christian religion would be attended with difficulty, if our principium cognoscendi rested not on firmer ground; and it might be objected that sufficient care had not been taken for those whose consciences were tender, and who were anxiously fearful of mistaking the smallest of the divine commands. The chief articles, indeed, of Christianity are so frequently repeated, both by Christ and his apostles, that even were the New Testament not inspired we could entertain no doubt of the following doctrines: Jesus was the Messias of the Jews, and an infallible messenger of God: he died for our iniquity; and by the satisfaction made by his death we obtain remission of sins, if on our part be faith and amendment of life; the Levitical law is abolished, and moral precepts with the ceremonies of baptism and the Supper of the Lord, are appointed in its stead; after the present follows an everlasting life, in which the virtuous shall be rewarded and the wicked punished, and where Christ himself shall be the judge.' To the epistles indeed,' says Michaelis, ‘ inspiration is of real consequence; but with respect to the historical books, viz. the gospels and Acts of the Apostles, we should really be no losers if we abandoned the system of inspiration, and in some respects have a real advantage. We should be no losers, if we considered the apostles in historical facts as merely human witnesses, as Christ himself has done in saying, Ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning,' John xv. 27. And no one that attempts to coavince an unbeliever of the truth of Christianity, would begin his demonstration by presupposing a doctrine which his adversary denies, but would ground his arguments on the credibility of the evangelists as human historians, for the truth of the miracles, the death, and the resurrection of Christ. Even those who examine the grounds of their faith for their own private conviction must treat the evangelists as human evidence; since it would be arguing in a circle to conclude that the facts recorded in the gospels are true because they are inspired, when we conclude the Scriptures to be inspired, in consequence of their contents. In these cases, then, we are obliged to consider the evangelists as human evidence; and it would be no detriment to the Christian cause to consider them at all times as such in matters of historical fact. We find it nowhere expressly recorded that the public transactions which the apostles knew by their own experience, and of which St. Luke informed himself by diligent enquiry, should be particular objects of divine inspiration. We should even be considerable gainers, in adjusting the harmony of the gospels, if we were permitted to suppose that some one of the evangelists had committed an immaterial error, and that St. John has rectified some trifling mistakes in the preceding gospels. The most dangerous objections which can be made to the truth of our religion, and such as are most difficult to answer, are those drawn from the different relations of the four evangelists. Before any enquiry is made respecting the inspiration of the books of the New Testament, it is necessary to determine the reading of the term; for theologians have given to it a variety of significations. Most of the German divines make it to consist in an infusion of words as well as ideas. Luther, Beza, and Salmasius, restrict it to ideas alone. Doddridge understands by it an intervention of the Deity, by which the natural faculties of the mind were directed to the discovery of truth. Warburton and Law think it was a negative intervention to preserve the sacred writers from essential errors. Some believe every circumstance was dictated by the Holy Ghost; others suppose that no supernatural assistance was granted except in the epistolary writings. See INSPIRATION. As there is an evident distinction between in spiration and revelation, and as the origin of the Christian religion may be still proved divine, even though it were denied that those who record its facts and doctrines were inspired in the act of writing, it will be most judicious and safe to employ the word inspiration in that sense which can be most easily defended and supported. By doing this, much may be gained and nothing lost. It is difficult to prove to a deist that the words of Scripture are divine, because he sees that every writer has words and phrases peculiar to himself. It is difficult also to prove that the ideas were infused into the mind of the authors while they were engaged in the act of writing; because, concerning facts, they appeal not to divine inspiration, but declare what they have seen and heard. In reasoning, they add their own sentiments to what they had received from the Lord, and subjoin, especially in their epistles, things not connected with religion. The definition which Doddridge gives seems applicable to ordinary gifts, or the usual endowments of rational creatures, rather than to the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit, which were bestowed on the apostles. Those who maintain that every fact or circumstance was suggested by divine inspiration will find it no easy matter to prove their position. The opinion of Warburton and Law, with proper explanations, seems most probable. The opinion of Grotius, that only the epistles were inspired, may be easily refuted. The proof of the authenticity of the New Testament depends on human testimony. the proof of its inspiration is derived from the declaration of inspired persons. In proving that the New Testament is inspired, we presuppose its authenticity; that the sacred books were written by the apostles whose names they bear; and that they have been conveyed to us pure and uncorrupted. This we have already attempted to prove, and we hope with success. The evidence of inspiration is the testimony of Christ and his apostles, which we receive as credible, because they confirmed their doctrines by miracles. From the important mission of Christ and his apostles, we infer that every power was bestowed which divine wisdom thought expedient; and from their conduct we conclude that it is morally impossible that they could lay claim to any powers which they did not possess. It is proper, therefore, to enquire into the declarations of Christ and his apostles concerning the nature, degree, and extent of the inspiration bestowed upon the writers of the sacred books. If we consider Christ's more immediate promises of inspiration to the apostles, we shall find that he has given them, in the most proper sense of the word, at three several periods, 1st, When he sent the apostles to preach the gospel; 2dly, In holding a public discourse relating to the gospel, at which were present a considerable multitude; 3dly, In this prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem. When he sent the apostles to preach the gospel, he thus addressed them: When they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak; for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak; for it is not you that speak, but the spirit of your Father that speaketh in you.' The same promise was made almost in the same words in the presence of an immense multitude: Luke xii. 11, 12. From these passages it has been urged that, if the apostles were to be inspired in the presence of magistrates in delivering speeches, which were soon to be forgotten, it is surely rea sonable to conclude that they would be inspired when they came to compose a standard of faith for the use of all future generations of Christians. If this conclusion be fairly deduced, it would follow that the writings of the New Testament are the dictates of inspiration, not only in the doctrines and precepts, but in the very words. But it is a conclusion to which sincere Christians have made objections; for, say they, though Christ promises to assist his apostles in cases of great emergency, where their own prudence and fortitude could not be sufficient, it does not follow that he would dictate to them those facts which they knew already, or those reasonings which their own calm reflection might supply. Besides, say they, if the New Testament was dictated by the Holy Spirit, and only penned by the apostles, what reason can be given for the care with which Christ instructed them both during his ministry and after his crucifixion in those things pertaining to the kingdom of God? In answer to this we may observe that though it be difficult to prove that the identical words of the New Testament were dictated by the Holy Spirit, or the train of ideas infused into the minds of the sacred writers, there is one species of inspiration to which the New Testament has an undoubted claim. It is this, that the memories of the apostles were strengthened, and their understandings preserved from falling into essential errors. This we prove from these words of our Saviour, and I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever. He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance whatsoever I have said unto you.' John xiv. 16, 26. This promise was surely not restrained to the day of Pentecost; it must have been a permanent gift, enabling the apostles at all times to remember with accuracy the discourses of our Saviour. When the apostles therefore (Matthew and John) relate those precepts of Christ which they themselves had heard, they write indeed from memory, but under 'the protection of the Spirit, who secures them from the danger of mistake: and we must of course conclude that their gospels are inspired. Were we called upon more particularly to declare what parts of the New Testament we believe to be inspired, we would answer, The doctrines, the precepts, and the prophecies, every thing essential to the Christian religion. From these the idea of inspiration is inseparable. As to the events, the memory of the apostles was sufficient to retain them. If this opinion be just, it will enable us to account for the discrepancies between the sacred writers, which are chiefly confined to the relation of facts and events. I. Of the language of the New Testament Scriptures. All the books of the New Testament were originally written in Greek, except the Gospel according to Matthew and the Epistle to the Hebrews, which there is reason to believe were composed in the Syro-Chaldaic language, which in the New Testament is called Hebrew. Various reasons have been assigned why the greatest part of the New Testament was written in Greek; but the true reason is this: it was the language best understood both by writers and readers. Had St. Paul written to a community in the Roman province of Africa, he might have written perhaps in Latin; but epistles to the inhabitants of Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, and Thessalonica, to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, from a native of Tarsus, could hardly be expected in any other language than Greek. The same may be said of the epistles of St. Peter, which are addressed to the Christians of different countries, who had no other language in common than the Greek; and likewise of the epistles of St. James, who wrote to the Jews that lived at a distance from Palestine, and were ignorant of Hebrew. The native language of St. Luke, as well as of Theophilus, to whom he addressed his gospel and Acts of the Apostles, appears to have been Greek, and that St. John wrote his gospel in that language, and not in Hebrew, is by no means a matter of surprise, since he wrote at Ephesus. With respect to the Epistle to the Romans, it may be asked indeed why St. Paul did not write in Latin? Now, whoever proposes this question, must presuppose that St. Paul was master of the Latin language in such a degree as to find no difficulty in writing it; a matter which remains to be proved. It is very probable that St. Paul was acquainted with the Latin; but, between understanding a language and being able to write it, there is a very material difference. As St. Paul was a native of Tarsus, his native language was Greek; he had travelled during several years through countries in which no other language was spoken, and when he addressed the Roman centurion at Jerusalem, he spoke not Latin, but Greek. Is it extraordinary, then, that in writing to the inhabitants of Rome he should have used a language which was there so generally understood? It has been long remarked that Greek was at that time as well known in Rome as French in any court of modern Europe: that according to Juvenal even the female sex made use of Greek as the language of familiarity and passion; and that, in letters of friendship, Greek words and phrases were introduced with greater freedom than French expressions in German letters, as appears from Cicero's epistles to Atticus, and from those of Augustus preserved in the works of Suetonius. To this must be added a material circumstance, that a great part of the Roman Christians consisted of native Jews, who were better acquainted with Greek than with Latin, as either they themselves or their ancestors had come from Greece, Asia Minor, or Egypt, in which Greak was the language of the country. At least they read the Bible in that language, as no Latin translation of the Old Testament at that time existed; and, the Christian church at that period consisting chiefly of Jews, the heathen converts in Rome were of course under the necessity of accustoming themselves to the Greek language. In short, St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans made use of a language, in which alone those who were ignorant of Hebrew could read the Bible. What has been here advanced respecting the Epistle to the Romans is equally applicable to the Greek of St. Mark, on the supposition that it was written at Rome. To the above arguments may be added the example of Josephus, who, as well as the apostles, was by birth a Jew. He even lived in Rome, which is more than can be said of St. Paul and St. Mark, who resided there only a certain time: he was likewise younger than either; he came to Italy at an age which is highly suitable to the learning of a language, and previous to that period had spent several years in the Roman camp. The Jewish antiquities, the history of the Jewish war, and the account of his own life, he wrote undoubtedly with a view of their being read by the Romans; and yet he composed all these writings in Greek. He expresses his motive for writing his Greek account of the Jewish war in the following terms: That having written in his native language (i. e. the Hebrew dialect at that time spoken) a history of the war, in order that Parthians, Babylonians, Arabians, Adiabenes, and the Jews beyond the Euphrates might be informed of those events, he was now resolved to write for the Greeks and Romans, who had not been engaged in the campaigns, a more certain Michaelis has thus characterised the style of the New Testament. The New Testament,' says he, was written in a language at that time common among the Jews, which may be named Hebraic Greek; the first traces of which we find in the translation of the LXX. Every man acquainted with the Greek language, who had never heard of the New Testament, must immediately perceive, on reading only a few lines, that the style is widely different from that of the classic authors. We find this character in all the books of the New Testament, in a greater or less degree, but we must not therefore conclude that they possess a uniformity of style. The harshest Hebraisms, which extend even to grammatical errors in the government of cases, are the distinguishing marks of the book of Revelation; but they are accompanied with tokens of genius and poetical enthusiasm of which every reader must be sensible who has taste and feeling. There is no translation of it which is not read with pleasure even in the days of childhood; and the very faults of grammar are so happily placed as to produce an agreeable effect. The gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark have strong marks of this Hebraic style; the former has harsher Hebraisms than the latter, the fault of which may be ascribed to the Greek translator, who has made too literal a version, and yet the Gospel of St. Mark is written in worse language, and in a manner that is less agreeable. The epistles of St. James and St. Jude are somewhat better, but even these are full of Hebraisms, and betray in other respects a certain Hebrew tone. St. Luke has in several passages written pure and classic Greek, of which the first four verses of his gospel may be given as an instance; in the sequel, where he describes the actions of Christ, he has very harsh Hebraisms, yet the style is more agreeable than that of St. Matthew or St. Mark. In the Acts of the Apostles he is not free from Hebraisms, which he seems to have never studiously avoided; but his periods are more classically turned, and sometimes possess beauty devoid of art. St. John has numerous, though not uncouth, Hebraisms both in his gospel and epistles; but he has written in a smooth and flowing language, and surpasses all the Jewish writers in the excellence of narrative. St. Paul again is entirely different from them all; his style is indeed neglected and full of Hebraisms, but he has avoided the concise and verse-like construction of the Hebrew language, and has upon the whole a considerable share of the roundness of Grecian composition. It is evident that he was as perfectly acquainted with the Greek manner of expression as with the Hebrew, and he has introduced them alternately, as either the one or the other suggested itself the first, or was the best approved.' Michaelis has shown that the New Testament not only contains Hebraisms, but Rabbinisms, Syriasms, Chaldaisms, Arabisms, Latinisms, and Persian words, of which he has exhibited many specimens. To theologians, whose duty it cer tainly is to study the language of the New Testament with attention, we would strenuously recommend the perusal of this work, which in the English translation is one of the most valuable accessions to scriptural criticism that has yet appeared. We speak of the English translation, which the large and judicious notes of Mr. Marsh has rendered infinitely superior to the original. We shall here add a few remarks on the peculiarities of the style and manner of the sacred writers, particularly the historians. These remarks extend to the Old Testament as well as to the New. 1. The first quality, for which the sacred history is remarkable, is simplicity in the structure of the sentences. The first five verses of Genesis furnish an example, which consist of eleven sentences. The substantives are not attended by adjectives, nor the verbs by adverbs, no synonymes, no superlatives, no effort at expressing things in a bold, emphatical, or uncommon manner. 2. The second quality is simplicity of sentiment, particularly in the Pentateuch, arising from the very nature of the early and unculti vated state of society about which that book is conversant. 3. Simplicity of design. The subject of the narrative so engrosses the attention of the writer, that he himself is as nobody. He introduces nothing as from himself, no remarks, doubts, conjectures, or reasonings. Our Lord's biographers particularly excel in this quality, This quality of style we meet with in Xenophon and Cæsar. The evangelists may be ranked next to Genesis for simplicity of composition in the sentences. John and Matthew are distinguished for it more than Mark and Luke. But the sentiment is not so remarkable for simplicity in the evangelists as in the Pentateuch. The reasons of this difference are, the state of the Jews was totally changed; their manners, customs, &c., split into factions both in religion and politics. 2. The object of our Lord's ministry, which is the great subject of the gospels, was to inculcate a doctrine and morality with which none of their systems per fectly coincided; besides, being constantly op posed by all the great men, the greater part of his history consists of instructions and disputes. 3. As it is occupied with what our Saviour said, and what he did, this makes two distinctions of style and manner; that of our Saviour and the sacred penman's. In their own charac ter, they neither explain nor command, promise nor threaten, praise nor blame. They generally omit the names of our Lord's enemies; thus directing our hatred at the vices they committed, not at the persons. They never mention such persons without necessity; which is the case with the high-priest, Pilate, Herod, and Judas: the first three for the chronology, the fourth to do justice to the eleven. Herodias is indeed mentioned with dishonor, but her crime was a public one. On the other hand, all persons distinguished for any thing vir tuous are carefully mentioned, Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, Zaccheus, Bartimeus, Jairus, Lazarus, Mary, and Martha. They record their own faults (Peter's, Thomas's), nor do they make any merit of their confession. In one uniform strain they relate the most signal miracles and most ordinary facts. From the narrative is excluded that quality of style which is called animation. Nothing that discovers passion in the writer, or is calculated to excite the passions of the readers. Every thing is directed to mend the heart. But, in the discourses and dialogues of our Saviour, the expression, without losing any of its simplicity, is often remarkable for spirit and energy. Respect ing harmony and smoothness, qualities which only add an external polish to language, they had not the least solicitude. As to elegance, there in an elegance which results from the use of such words as are most in use with those who are accounted fine writers, and from such arrangements in the words and clauses as have generally obtained their approbation. This is disclaimed by the sacred authors. But there is an elegance of a superior order more nearly connected with the sentiment; and in this sort of elegance they are not deficient. In all the oriental languages great use is made of tropes, especially metaphors. When the metaphors employed bear a strong resemblance, they confer vivacity; if they be borrowed from objects which are naturally agreeable, beautiful, or attractive, they add also elegance. The evangelists furnish us with many examples of this kind of vivacity and elegance. Our Lord borrows tropes from corn-fields, vineyards, gardens, &c. As a valuable appendage to this part of our subject, we subjoin Dr. Campbell's method of studying the books of the New Testament. This we offer to our readers as a beautiful instance of the judicious application of philosophy to sacred studies. It is the same method of discovering truth, by analysis and induction, which was pursued by Sir Isaac Newton with such astonishing success, which since his time has been uniformly practised in natural philosophy, and has been also applied to chemistry, to medicine, to natural history, and to the philosophy of the mind, by the ingenious Dr. Reid. This is the path of sound philosophy, which can alone lead to the discovery of truth. In following it, our progress may be slow, but it will be sure. If all the theologians would steadily adhere to it, we might then entertain the pleasant hope of discarding for ever those absurd systems of religion which are founded on single passages and detached fragments of Scripture, and of establishing opinions and doctrines on a solid foundation. 1. To get acquainted with each writer's style; to observe his manner of composition, both in sentences and paragraphs; to remark the words and phrases peculiar to him, and the peculiar application that he may sometimes make of ordinary words; for there are few of those writers who have not their peculiarities in all the respects now mentioned. This acquaintance with each can be obtained only by the frequent and attentive reading of his works in his own language. 2. To enquire into the character, the situation, and the office of the writer, the time, the place, and the occasion of his writing, and the people for whose immediate use he originally intended his work. Every one of these particu lars will sometimes serve to elucidate expressions otherwise obscure or doubtful. This knowledge may in part be learned from a diligent and reiterated perusal of the book itself, and in part be gathered from authentic, or at least probable accounts that have been transmitted to us concerning the compilement of the canon. 3. The next general direction is, to consider the principal scope of the book, and the particulars chiefly observable in the method by which the writer has purposed to execute his design. This direction is particularly applicable to the epistolary writings, especially those of Paul. 4. If a particular word or phrase occur, which appears obscure, perhaps unintelligible, the first thing we ought to do, if satisfied that the reading is genuine, is to consult the context, to attend to the manner wherein the term is introduced, whether in a chain of reasoning or in a historical narration, in a description, or included in an exhortation or command. As the conclusion is inferred from the premises, or as from two or more known truths a third unknown or unobserved before may fairly be deduced; so from such attention to the sentence in connexion, the import of an expression, in itself obscure or ambiguous, will sometimes, with moral certainty be discovered. This, however, will not always answer. 5. If it do not, let the second consideration be, whether the term or phrase be one of the writer's peculiarities. If so, it comes naturally to be enquired, what is the acceptation in which he employs it in other places? If the sense cannot be precisely the same in the passage under review, perhaps, by an easy and natural metaphor or other trope, the common acceptation may give rise to one which perfectly suits the passage in question. Recourse to the other places wherein the word or phrase occurs in the same author is of considerable use, though the term should not be peculiar to him. 6. But 3dly, If there should be nothing in the same writer that can enlighten the place, let recourse be had to the parallel passages, if there be any such, in the other sacred writers. By parallel passages, I mean those places, if the difficulty occur in history, wherein the same or a similar story, miracle, or event, is related; if in teaching or reasoning, those parts wherein the same argument or doctrine is treated, or the same parable propounded; and, in moral lessons, those wherein the same class of duties is recommended; or, if the difficulty be found in a quotation from the Old Testament, let the parallel passage in the book referred to, both in the original Hebrew, and in the Greek version, be consulted. 7. But if, in these, there be found nothing that can throw light on the expression of which we are in doubt, the fourth recourse is to all the places wherein the word or phrase occurs in the New Testament, and in the Septuagint version of the Old, adding to these the consideration of the import of the Hebrew or Chaldaic word, whose place it occupies, and the extent of signification, of which in different occurrences such Hebrew or Chaldaic term is susceptible. |