preserved five hundred years, especially considering the great variety of calamities, as well as the different species of tyranny which the nation experienced in that interval. The language of the neighbours, and of those who, from the circumjacent countries, had, during the people's absence, possessed the land, which was chiefly Syriac, would have a considerable share in the ordinary speech. With these we might expect to find a mixture of Persic, Greek, and Latin, words, as Judea had been successively subjected to the Macedonians, the Persians, and the Romans. Exactly such it is found to have been in the time of our Saviour. What, therefore, is called Hebrew, in the New Testament, and by the earliest fathers, is not the language of the Scriptures of the Old Testament, spoken by the Jews in Palestine before the captivity; it is not the Chaldee spoken in Babylon; neither is it the Syriac spoken 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 SyroChaldaic, as having a great affinity to both, and, at the same time, retaining much of the old Hebrew idiom.After the destruction of Jerusalem, the extinction of the Jewish polity, and the dispersion of the people by the Romans, their particular dialect fell quickly into disuse; and Syriac, the language of the province (for to Syria Palestine had before now been annexed), became soon 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 short time no where to be found. The very dialect shared in the fate of the people, and did not long survive their city and temple. 19. FURTHER, that the language of the Syriac version of the New Testament (though justly accounted much nearer to the language used by our Lord and his Apostles than that of any other version now extant) is not properly the same language, may be proved from that very translation itself; where we sometimes, not always, find a difference between the words which the sacred writers have retained in their original form, and those employed by the Syriac interpreter. In some cases, I admit, they are the same. Thus, the Evangelist Mark has given, in his Gospel 42, the original expression, Talitha cumi, used by our Lord, adding the interpretation into Greek. The Syriac translator employs also the original expression, but adds no interpretation, finding that it suits equally the Syrian language, as that which in the New Testament is called Hebrew. Nay, the same expression is used, in another Gospel in the Syriac 43, where the Evangelist had not, as Mark, introduced the original words. Also many words, as rabbi and abba, are the same in both. This may likewise be said of the word Ephphatha" (though spelt a little differently) 42 ch. v. 41. VOL. III. 44 Mark, vii. 34. 8 43 Luke, viii. 54. to which no interpretation is added in the Syriac version. The small difference in spelling ought to be ascribed solely to the Greek original, and not to any variation in the Syriac from the Hebrew. It was customary, in writing Greek, to make such alterations on foreign words introduced, as suited the Grecian orthography. Hence the many changes in the Septuagint, on the names of the Old Testament. As to some proper names, which have the signification of appellatives, Cephas being of the same import in both languages, needed not an interpretation in Syriac as in Greek". On the name Thomas there was an inconsiderable difference. What was Thaoma in the dialect of Jerusalem, was, in proper Syrian Thama. This interpretation is thrice given in the Syriac version of John's Gospel ", as answering to the Greek Aidvuos, twin. Boanerges 47, Aceldama", and Golgotha ", are all translated by that interpreter, who would not have made this distinction, with regard to them, if he had thought them equally intelligible to Syrian readers, with the terms whereof he has given no explanation. As to the change made by that interpreter on the cry, Eli, eli, uttered by our Lord on the cross, I must refer the reader to the notes on the passages 50 where it is mentioned. On the name Siloam 51, a small alteration is made; and no interpretation is added, as in 45 John, i. 42. 47 Mark, iii. 17. 49 Matth. xxvii. 33. 51 46 ch. xi. 16. 50 Matth. xxvii. 46. Mark, xv. 34. the Greek, because the word, so altered, conveys the same meaning in Syriac, which Siloam did in the dialect of Jerusalem, and consequently needs no interpretation. All these observations serve to show both the affinity of the two languages, and their difference. The difference, in my judgment, was enough to render one of them unintelligible to those who were accustomed only to the other; and the affinity was so great, as to render a very little practice sufficient to qualify those who spoke the one, for understanding the other. Whether the same may not be said of some northern European tongues, as German, Dutch, Danish, and Swedish, or even of those of the southern regions, as French, Italian, Portugueze, and Spanish, I leave to those, who are best acquainted with these languages, to determine. § 20. I SHALL add only one remark more for evincing the difference between the language called Hebrew in the New Testament, and the Syriac: it is this, that the name always given to Syria, in the Syriac version, is not Aram, as in the Old Testament, but Suria; whence, according to analogy, the name appropriated to the language is ' Suriaith $2; whereas Eßpaigt, in the Greek New Testament, or τη Εβραιδι διαλέκτω, is never rendered Suriaith, but Ghibraith. See the passages quoted 52. 52 Shaffi Lexicon Syriac. N. T. editio 2da prætermissa. in the margin 53; in some of which, we have both the name itself, in what is called Hebrew, the language of the place, and, for the sake of the Syriac reader, an interpretation of the name into that tongue. This shows evidently, that the Hebrew word had no currency with them, as it needed an explanation. Nay more, in the postscript subjoined to the Syriac version of this Gospel, the language in which Matthew wrote and preached, is not termed Suriaith, but Ghibraith 54. Let it be observed, that I urge this, not as a testimony of the fact, (as a testimony it is not needed, and would be of very little consequence,) but solely, to mark the distinction observed in the application of the words Syriac and Hebrew. But, enough for showing that the language called Hebrew by the writers of the New Testament, is not the same with the language of the Old Testament, 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 considerable mixture of the other two. An attention to these things, will serve to show, how ill-founded many things are, which have been advanced on this subject, by Basnage, Beausobre, and others 55. 53 Luke, xxiii. 38. John, v. 2. xix. 13. 17. 20. Acts, xxi. 40. xxii. 2. xxvi. 14. Rev. ix. 11. xvi. 16. 54 The postscript, literally translated, is, "Here endeth the 66 holy Gospel of Matthew's preaching, which he preached in "Hebrew, in the land of Palestine." 55 In a late celebrated work, an hypothesis is hinted which |