TESTAMENT. 



Jews being called .; caXa.a o\«9«»r, and the writings fuper- 

 ;idded bv the apolUosaiid evanfrclifts, n xa./n hxiw-. 



'The New Teftamont confifted very ' anciently of two 

 codes or coUcaions, called gofpels and epiftlcs. This was 

 the cafe in the time of Ignatius, and alfo in the time oi 

 Tcrtullian, who diftinguillies the gofpcls by the names of 

 the writers, and calls them our " Digefta," or digcils, in 

 allufion, as it fcems, to fome coUedion of the Roman law-s 

 digcllcd into order. As to the order of the feveral gof- 

 pels, it appears, that in Tcrtullian's time they were dif- 

 pofed, at Icalt in the African churches, according to the 

 quality of the writers ; thofe two occurring firft which 

 were written by apoftles, and then the other two written 

 by apollolical men. In fome of the moft ancient MSS. 

 now extant, the order of the feveral evangelifts is thus; 

 Matthew, John, Luke, Mark. The order of the four 

 gofpels has been generally this: Matthew, Mark, Luke, 

 John ; then follow^he Afts, St. Paul's epiftles, the Catholic 

 epiftles, and the Revelation. It fufficiently appears, from a 

 variety of confiderations fuggefted by the excellent Dr. 

 Lardner, that the books of the New Teftament, confiftincf of 

 a coUeftJon of facred writings, in two parts, one called 

 Gofpel or Gofpels, or Evangelicon ; the other Epiftles, or 

 Apoftle or Apoftles, or Apoftolicon, were only known, 

 read, and made ufe of by Chriftians. (See Canon.) It 

 has been a fubjcft of fome difpute, whether any facred books 

 of the New Teftament have been loft ; but there are many 

 coniidcrations, tending to fatisfy us, that no facred writings 

 of the apoftles of Chrift are loft. 



The four gofpels, in our poftefTion, were written' for the 

 benefit of thofe who would undoubtedly receive them with 

 refpeft, keep them with care, and recommend them to 

 others ; and if any other fuch authentic hiftories of Jefus 

 Chrift had been written by apoftles, or apoftolical men, they 

 would have been received, and preferved in like manner. 

 The book of the Afts, which we ftill have, was the only 

 authentic hiftory of the preaching of the apoftles after our 

 Lord's afcenfion, which they had in their hands, or had heard 

 of; confequently there was no other fuch hiftory to be 

 loft. The epiftles of Paul, James, Peter, John, Jiide, were 

 fent to churches, people, or particular perfons, who would 

 fhew them great regard when received, would carefully pre- 

 ferve them, and readily communicate them to others, that 

 they might take copies of them, and ufe them for their 

 eftabliftimunt in religion and ifirtue ; and if other fuch 

 epiftles had been written, the cafe would have been much the 

 fame, nor could any of them have been eafily loft. Bclides, 

 the apoftles and evar.-gelifts, who drew up any writings for 

 the inftruftion or confirmation of Chriftiau people, mull 

 have been careful of them. Upon the whole, we have no 

 fufficient reafons for believing, that any facred writings of 

 the New Teftament have been loft. All the books of the 

 New Teftament were written in Greek, except the gofpel 

 of St. Matthew, who, according to St. Jerom, firft wrote 

 in Judea in the Hebrew language. Tertullian, as well as 

 many other ancient writers, afford us various teftimonies to 

 the integrity and genuinenefs of the gofpels and other books 

 of the New Teftament in his time, as well as to their divine 

 infpiration. See Bible. 



Although the New Teftament was written in Greek, an 

 acquaintance with the Greek claflics will not be found fo 

 conducive to the interpretation of it, as an acquaintance with 

 the ancient Hebrew fcriptures. The propriety of its being 

 written in the Greek language will appear from the follow- 

 ing hiftorical faft. After the Macedonian conquefts, and 

 the divifion which the Grecian empire underwent among the 

 commanders ou the death of their chief, Greei foon 



became the language of the people of rank through ail tfiir 

 extenfive dominions which had been fubdued by Alexander- 

 The perfecutions with which the Jews were haraffed under 

 Antiochus Epiphanes, concurring with feveral other caufes, 

 occafioned the difperfion of a great part of their nation 

 throughout the provinces of Afia Minor, Alfyria, Phcenicia, 

 Perfia, Arabia, Libya, and Egypt ; which difperfion was 

 in procefs of time extended to Achaia, Macedonia, and 

 Italy. The unavoidable confequence of this was in a few 

 ages, to all thofe who fettled in d.ftant lands, the total lofs 

 of that dialeft, which tlieir fathers had brought out of 

 Babylon into Palcftine, excepting only amongft the learned. 

 At length a complete verfion of the fcriptures of the Old 

 Teftament was made into Greek ; a language which was 

 then, and continued for many ages afterwards, in far more 

 general ufe than any other. (See Septuagint.) The 

 Jews, who inhabited Grecian cities, where the oriental 

 tongue was unknown, would be naturally anxious to obtain 

 copies of this tranflation. Wherever Greek was the mother- 

 tongue, this verfion would be gradually adopted into ufe 

 not only in private in Jewifti houfes, but alfo in public in 

 their fchools and fynagogues, for the explanation of the 

 weekly leffons from the law and the prophets. The ftyle of it 

 would confequently foon become the ftandard of language 

 to them with regard to religious fubjefts. Hence would 

 arife a certain uniformity in phrafeology and idiom among 

 the Grecian Jews, wherefoever difperfed, in refpeCt of their 

 religion and facred rites, whatever might be the particular 

 dialefts which prevailed in the places of their refidence, and 

 were ufed by them in converfing on ordinary matters. From 

 the conformity and peculiarity in language now noticed, 

 fome critics, in order to diftinguifti the idioms of the LXX 

 and New Teftament from that of common Greek, have 

 termed it HeUeniJltc ; which fee. Under that article we 

 have intimated, that the habit which the apoftles and evan- 

 geliils had of reading the fcriptures, and heai-ing them read, 

 whether in the original or in the ancient verfion ; would, by 

 infefting their ftyle, co-operate with the tendency which, 

 as natives of Paleftine, they would derive from converfation, 

 to intermix Hebraifms and Chaldaifms in their writings. 

 Some modern writers, whilft they have adverted to this cir- 

 cumftance, have defended the diftion of the facred penmen of 

 the New Teftament, and extolled it as altogether pure and 

 elegant. Among thefe we may reckon Pfochenius and 

 Blackwall, who, with this view, have made diligent refearches 

 among the writings of the ancient Greeks, for the difcovery 

 of words and phrafes, which might appeal- to refemblc \vhat 

 has been accounted Hebraifm or Syriafm in the New Tefta- 

 ment. Whereas the writings of the New Teftament carry, 

 in the very expreffion and idiom, an intrinfic and irrefiftible 

 evidence of their authenticity. They are fuch as, in refpeft of 

 ftyle, could not but have been written by Jews, and hardly 

 even by Jews fuperior in rank and education to thofe whofe 

 names they bear; and yet, under this homely garb, we find 

 the moft exalted fentiments, the clofeft reafoning, the purefl: 

 morality, and the fublimeft doftrine. 



Abftrafting from that loweft kind of beauty in language, 

 which refults from its foftnefs and harmony, confidered as 

 an objett to the ear, every excellency of ftyle is relative, 

 arifing folely from its fitnefs for producing, in the mind of 

 the hearer, the end intended by the wTiter. Now in this 

 view it is evident, that a ftyle and manner may, to readers 

 of one denomination, convey the writer's fentiments with 

 energy as well as perfpicuity, which, to thofe of a different 

 denomination, would convey them feebly, darkly, and, 

 when judged by their rules of propriety, improperly. This 

 feems to have been aftually the cafe with the writers of the 



Njw 



