THE BRITISH CRITIC, For JUNE, 1794. Εν πασι ταυτό καλόν εφυ, σοφόν θ' άμα, If all men thought the fame of good and wife, EURIP ART. I. Introduction to the New Teftament. By John David Michaelis, late Profeffor in the University of Gottingen, &c. tranflated from the Fourth Edition of the German, and confi derably augmented with Notes, Explanatory and Supplemental. By Herbert Marsh, B. D. Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge. 8vo. 3 vols. 18s. Johnson, &c. 1793. THE writings of the German Divines, all replete with proofs of extenfive learning and indefatigable diligence, many with thofe of acuteness and fagacity, though fome too much influenced by the fpirit of hypothefis, are very little known to this country. Among the names refpected here for Theological learning, that of Michaelis has long held a principal rank; or rather he is one of the few German Theologifts to whom any honour has been paid among us; his Annotations on Lowth's Lectures, republifhed by Lowth himself, and a tranflation of the first edition of the work at prefent before us, having long made his name familiar to the Englith divines. The firft edition appeared in 1750, and the English tranflation in 1761. Two Tt intermediate BRIT. CRIT. VOL. III. JUNE, 1794. intermediate editions of the German in 1765 and 1777, both augmented confiderably by the author, have past unnoticed in England. It is the fourth edition of 1788 which had received the last cares of the learned author, and was rendered fix times as voluminous as the first, which is made the basis of the prefent tranflation, but which, however, is extended only to half of the original. The German work confifts of two volumes in quarto. The first of thefe is contained in thefe three volumes of tranflation. The fecond, containing particular introductions to each book of the New Testament, is referved for a future undertaking. That our readers may form a due notion of what they are to expect in thefe volumes, we will lay before them a fhort account of their contents, taken in part from the Preface of the tranflator,. with fuch alterations as appear to us neceffary or convenient. The fubject of the firft Chapter is the title ufually given to the writings of the New Covenant, in which are fome pallages which we shall presently take occafion to notice more at large. In the fecond Chapter," which relates to the authenticity of the New Teftament the evidence both external and internal is arranged in fo clear and intelligible a manner, as to afford conviction even to those who have never engaged in theological enquiries: and the experienced critic will find the fubject difcuffed in fo full and comprehenfive a manner, that he will probably pronounce it the most complete Effay on the Authenticity of the New Teftament that ever was published." The third Chapter relates to the infpiration of the New Teftament: the language of which is analysed in the fourth with all the learning and ingenuity for which the author was fo eminently diftinguished. In the fifth Chapter he examines the paffage which the Apoftles and Evangelifts have quoted from the Old Teftament.— The fixth Chapter contains an account of the various readings of the Greek Teftament, affigns their origin, and deduces clear and excellent rules to direct us in the choice of genuine readings. In the feventh, we find an hiftorical and critical review of the ancient verfions of the New Testament; and the eighth contains a fimilar view of the Greek Manufcripts. The quotations from the New Teftament, in the works of Ecclefiaftical writers, form the fubject of the ninth Chapter (mif-printed eighth in the Preface, p. vii.) The tenth Chapter is employed in the examination of fuch readings, as either are or have been introduced into the facred text on mere conjecture. Of which we will give the author's opinion in the words of Mr. Marth; the words being well chofen, and the opinion, in these days of daring innovation and licence of alteration, very important. "He He allows that critical emendations, which have no reference to points of doctrine, are fometimes allowable; but he highly inveighs against Theological conjecture, and maintains that it is inconfiftent to adopt the New Teftament as the standard of belief and manners, and yet to affert the privilege of rejecting or altering, without authority, whatever contradic's a previously affumed hypothefis. He is of opinion that there is no medium between adopting in general the doctrines which the New Testament literally contains, and rejecting the ambole as an im proper criterion of faith. In this opinion we most heartily join with him, and fincerely with, that all who call themselves Chriftians would confent to be guided by it. We proceed in our account of the chapters of Michaelis. The eleventh Chapter contains only a chronological account of the authors who have collected various readings to the Greek Teftament: but the twelfth contains a very excellent review of all the critical editions of the Greek Teftament, from the year 1514, when the Complutenfian was printed, down to the prefent time. The thirteenth Chapter, which is the laft, relates to the marks of diftinction in the Greek Teftament, and the divifions which have been made at different times in the facred text. The tranflator, after giving a general view of the work he has laid before the public, apologizes very modeftly for defects that may be found in his ftyle, on the fcore of long abfence from his country in a German University; we have not perceived the apology to be neceffary, but if it were, it might certainly be accepted, and the modefty which led the writer to make it, ought certainly to fmooth the brows of his critics. We now proceed to the work itfelf, in the very opening of which we find a difference between the original author and his tranflator, which demands fome attention. The fubject of it is the name of Teftamentum, or Teftament, applied to the Old and New Scriptures; which, as Michaelis rightly obferves, cannot properly be given to them in the common sense of a Teftament, there being no teftator. "A being, capable of death, can neither have made an Old nor make a New Teftament." Aiban therefore, the original word, should have been rendered Covenant, though in itfelf capable of either fenfe. The title of Teftament is derived from the old Latin verfion, and the Latin tranflator, fays Michaelis, purpofely ufed Teftamentum, a word which he confidered as capable of meaning either Covenant or Teftament, as a proper rendering for Aanxn, which has both thofe fenfes. Such is the opinion of the German author; but his tranflator, in this point, diffents from him. Mr. Marth denies that Teftamentum admits the sense of Covenant, and contends that the Latin tranflator acTt 2 tually tually mistook the meaning of dianan, and therefore rendered it improperly by Teftamentum. He confeffes, indeed, that it acquired this meaning afterwards in Church Latin, but undoubtedly, that alone would not account for its original introduction. In this matter, however, we are inclined to think Michaelis more right than his tranflator, and that it was probably not an error, but the ufe of the popular Latin of his time, which led the old tranflator to employ the word Teftamentum, not merely in the fingle fenfe of Teftament, but as fignifying either that, or Covenant indifferently. As an authority for Teftamentum in the fenfe of Covenant, Michaelis refers to the ninth chapter of Genefis in the Vulgate, where it is used to denote the Covenant which God made with Noah after the Deluge. This, however, as Mr. Marth rightly obferves, is an error with refpect to the reference, for the word is fo ufed in the old Italic verfion, and not in the Vulgate, where it is corrected by Jerom. But it is an error only in the reference, for it certainly ftrengthens the argument that fuch was the current fenfe of the word, at the time when that old verfion was formed. The italic verfion, which St. Jerom corrected to form the Vulgate, is generally deemed very ancient, and poffibly aimoft coeval with the first preaching of Chriftianity to the Romans. It must therefore have been either made by fome of the earliest teachers of Chriftianity among the Romans, or at least submitted to their correction: and it feems impoffible that while Chriflianity was taught vivâ voce, they 1hould permit fuch an error to fubfift throughout both the Old and New Teftament, as Teftamentum employed in a fenfe not well known, and current among the common clafs of Roman difciples. The greater antiquity, therefore, of the Italic verfion above that of the Vulgate, which was made by Jerom about the year 400, confirms the opinion implied in the words of Michaelis, that Teftamentum, in vulgar language, meant at that time any deed or covenant which was attelted, more ftrongly than if the quotation had been really taken from the Vulgate. It tends alfo to difprove the fuppofition of Mr. Marsh, that Teftamentum "gradually acquired this fenfe in Church Latin,” fince it hereby appears to have been thus employed from the very origin of Chriftianity. It might further be worth while to examine whether Teftamentum be employed universally in all the remains now extant of the Italic verfion, for as the feveral variations in that version, were made as corrections of it by different perfons, it must seem furprising that none of them should any where have ejected Teftamentum in cafe it had been ufed originally through a mere error, and if the Latin Chriftians Chriftians of the common clafs might have been in danger from its ufe, if not rightly comprehending the fcriptural fenfe of the word. Nor is our tranflator's reafoning from the corrections of Jerom perfectly valid: fince that father might think a word capable of only one sense preferable in point of precition, to one that would bear two meanings, without confidering the latter as improperly used in either fenfe. That this was actually the cafe, appears the more probable, because he has not always altered Teftamentum to pactum even when a covenant was certainly meant. Thus, in Pf. 49, v. 5, he has "Congregate illi fanctos ejus qui ordinant Teftamenta ejus fuper facrificia." And again in ver. 16, in both which places the Septuagint has Siann, and Junius and Le Clerc have fubftituted foedus. Jerom himfelt explains Teftamentum in the latter place by pactum, in a reference to it in his notes on Ezekiel xvi. ap. fin. He probably preferred Teftamentum in this place to Pactum, or Fœdus, in order to lead his readers to the predictive sense of the verse, as alluding to the times of the New Teftament as well as the Old. For he fays on ver. 5, "Vel qui ordinant, prædicant, et implent Teftamentum Novum fuper vetus." Nor does the note of Jerom on Malachi, ch. ii. at all imply that Teftamentum was improperly used in the old verfion to fignify a covenant. The note is this," Notandum, quod Brith, verbum Hebraicum, Aquila nxny, id eft pactum interpretatur, feptuaginta femper a, id eft Teftamentum : et in plerifque Scripturarum locis Teftamentum non voluntatem defunctorum fonare, fed pactum viventium." Teftamentum might then, in the vulgar language of the Romans, be fometimes employed in the fenfe of a covenant, though no example of that ufage, as far as we know, happens to be extant in any prophane author. For our prophane authors now extant have preferved chiefly the polifhed Latin, not that of the vulgar, by fome one of whom the old Italic verfion was apparently made. The fame double sense adhered likewife to dann, and thefe more general fenfes of ftipulations in general dictated by perfons having authority to make them, and properly teftified, were doubtlefs the primary and original fenfes of 9n and Teftamentum, though they were afterwards restricted to the more particular fenfe of that kind of teftified deed called a will. But Sanan, in its more extenfive fenfe, was as little used as Teftamentum, at least, no authority of profane authors is quoted for it by Buddæus or Stephens; and though all the Lexicographers have affirmed that it means a covenant in general, they feem to have founded this affertion chiefly upon the ufage of it in the Septuagint. Nor do the ancient Tt3 Lexico |