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 confiderably augmented with Notes, and a Differtation on the Origin and Compofition of the three first Gofpels. By Herbert Marth, B. D. F. R. S. Fellow of St. John's College Cambridge. 8vo. 6 vol. Rivingtons. 1802.

IN

N no country, perhaps, has the literary tafte undergone, within a century, a greater revolution than in Germany. As laborious and useful scholars the Germans have excelled ever fince the æra of the reformation; and science, phyfical, moral and political, has long been cultivated among them with great fuccefs. It is but of late years, however, that their attention has been generally turned to the cultivation of their own language, and to the ftudy of poetry and the Belles lettres; but fo far are we from admiring their rafte, that we would rather labour through the most prolix publications on law, phyfic, and divinity, of the grandfathers of the prefent generation, than wafte our time on fome of the admired productions of Schiller, and Kotzebue, and Wieland. In the works of the elder authors information may certainly be obtained by him who has patience to dig for it. In thofe of the latter there is little to be found befides fhocking profaneness, or tales of horror calculated to frighten children.

NO. LXXI. VOL. XVIII,

B

Such,

Such, however, is the rage for what is called poetry, that every ancient writing is, by the prefent race of Germans, confidered as poetical; and grave divines, or rather thofe, who, by the courtesy of the country, are called divines, instead of co-operating with their forefathers to illuftrate, by various erudition, the facred text, treat the Scriptures of the Old Teftament as a collection of oriental fables. Hence the dull abfurdities of Herder, which are daily done into Englifh for the mutual benefit of the deers and the bookfellers, and hence the admiration of German theology, which we so often meet with in the Monthly Review, and other Journals of the fame stamp.

By this we do not mean to infinuate that there are no fober divines in Germany. In a country fo populous, and containing about forty univerfitics, there are, doubtlefs, many fuch; and the work before us is a proof that very lately there was in it at least one theological writer who had no occafion to fhrink from a comparison with any that had written before him. It is, indeed, the merit of this tranflation of Michaelis's Introduction to the New Teftament, that has induced us to give a pretty copious account of the whole of it to our readers; for, the first part having been published several years before the commencement of our critical labours, it is only to the fecond that our attention is imperiously called by duty. Of the first part the learned tranflator gives a concife yet comprehenfive view in the following words:

"Each chapter contains a separate differtation on fome important branch of facred criticism. In the chapter, which relates to the authenticity of the New Testament, 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 inquiries: 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 chapter, which relates to the infpiration of the New Teftainent, contains a variety of very fenfible and judicious remarks; and though the intricacy of the fubject has fometimes involved our author in obfcurity, yet few writers will be found who have examined it with more exactnefs. The language of the New Teftament is analyfed in the fourth chapter with all the learning and ingenuity for which our author is fo eminently diftinguished.-In the fifth chapter, where he examines the palages which the Apofiles and Evangelists have quoted from the Old Teftament, he takes a diftinct view of the feveral parts of the inquiry, and confiders whether thefe quotations were made immediately from the Septuagint, or were tranflations of the Hebrew; whe ther their application is literal or typical; and whether the facred writers did not fometimes accommodate to their prefent purpofe expreflions and pallages, which in themfelves related to different fubjects. In the fixth chapter, which contains an account of the various readings of the Greek Teftament, he fhews the different caufes which gave them birth, and deduces clear and certain rules to guide us in the choice of that which is genuine. The feventh chapter, which contains a review of the antient verfions of the New Teftament, is not only critical but hiftorical, and com

prifes in itself fuch a variety of information, as makes it difficult to determine, whether it most excels in affording entertainment or conveying inftruction. The eighth chapter relates to the Greek manufcripts, and after fome previous differtations in regard to the fubject in general, contains a critical and hiftorical account of all the manufcripts of the Greek Teftament, which have been hitherto collated. The quotations from the New Teftament, in the works of ecclefiaftical writers, form the fubject of inquiry in the ninth chapter, in which our author examines the various modes in which it is fuppofed that thefe quotations were made, and confiders how far they were made from mere memory, and how far we may confider them as faithful tranfcripts from the manufcripts of the New Teftament, which the writers refpectively ufed. Having thus examined the text of the Greek Teftament, its various readings, and the three grand fources from which they must be drawn, namely, the Greek manufcripts, the antient versions, and the quotations in the works of ecclefiaftical writers, he proceeds, in the tenth chapter, to examine fuch readings, as either are, or have been introduced into the facred text on mere conjecture. He allows that critical emendations, which have no reference to points of doctrine, are fometines allowable; but he highly inveighs against theological conjecture, and maintains that it is inconfiftent to adopt the New Teftament, as the ftandard of belief and manners, and yet to affert the privilege of rejecting or altering, without authority, whatever contradicts a previously affumed hypothefis.-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 1514, when the Complutenfian was printed, down to the prefent time. He likewife confiders the imperfections, which have hitherto attended fuch editions as are printed with various readings, and delivers the plan, and the rules, on which a perfect edition, according to his opinion, thould be formed. The laft chapter, which relates to the marks of diftinction in the Greek Teftament, and the divifions which have been made at different times in the sacred text, will be most interesting to those who are engaged in the examination of Greek manufcripts: but as many practical rules are deduced from the inquiry, it will be likewife of importance to every man who is employed in the ftudy of divinity at large." (Pref. Pr. 3—6.)

This is fo full, and, at the fame time, fo juft an account of what is promised in the first part of Michaelis's Introduction, that we might difmifs that part of the work without farther notice; did it not contain many incidental obfervations of the highest importance; and were it not illustrated by many valuable notes of the tranflator. Some of the obfervations will be found exceedingly useful; and fome, though ingenious, both groundless and dangerous; nor can a different character be given of the notes and differtations of the editor, who, though he often corrects his author, fometimes, we think, falls into error himself. We fhall, therefore, proceed rapidly through the whole work, dwelling only on fuch particulars as have not been noticed by Mr. Marfh in this concife review; ftating, occafionally, fuch additional arguments as occur to us in fupport of the truth; and,

A 2

4

"

ORIGINAL CRITICISM.

and, with becoming deference to learning, genius, and integrity, cautioning our readers against fuch hypotheíes as appear to us unfupported or dangerous.

In the first chapter, which treats "of the title ufually given to the writings of the New Covenant," the only thing of importance is the reafon affigned why the Apoftles, who fo often quote the writings of the Old Teftament, rarely quote thofe of the New. "They were, at that time," fays Michaelis, "too recent, and too little known to the Chriftians, in general, to form a fubject of quotation, fince otherwife St. Paul would hardly have omitted, in writing his first epiftle 10 the Corinthians, to quote, in the fifteenth chapter, the Gospel of St. Matthew, whofe writings bore teftimony to the refurrection of Jefus."

But this remark," as Mr. Marsh obferves, "pre-fupposes that the Gospel of St. Matthew was written before the first epistle to the Corinthians, which is affirmed by Dr. Owen, but denied by Fabricius, Mill, Lardner, and Semler. Befides, if St. Matthew wrote in the dialect of Palestine, as our author fuppofes, it would have been uselefs to refer the Corinthians to a work written in a language to which they were utter ftrangers." (Vol. I. p. 347.) To this may be added, that St. Paul could hardly quote with propriety the gospel of St. Matthew as bearing teftimony to the refurrection of Jefus. In the beginning of the fifteenth chapter he fays to the Corinthians; "I delivered unto you first of all, that which I also received, how that Chrift died for our fins, according to the Scriptures: and that he was buried, and that he rofe again the third day, according to the Scriptures; and that he was feen &c." but the Apostle every where declared, and appealed to "the demonftration of the Spirit and of power, with which he preached," that "he neither received the gofpel (of which the refurrection of Jefus was a molt important article) of man, neither was taught it, but by the revelation of Jefus Chrift.*" Some ground would have been afforded for calling the truth of thefe declarations in queftion, had he referred to any man, even to St. Matthew, as an authority; and, therefore, fuch reference is with great propriety omitted.

The fecond chapter, which treats of the authenticity of the New Teftament, is divided into twelve fections, of which the first is employed in evincing the importance of the enquiry.

"Its influence is Tuch as to make it a matter of furprise, that the adverfaries of Christianity have not conftantly made their first attacks upon this quarter. For, if they admit thefe writings to be as antient as we pretend, and really compofed by the perfons to whom they are afcribed, though we cannot from these premifes alone immediately conclude them to be divinely

* 1 Cor. ii. 4, and Gal, i. 12.

infpired,

inspired, yet an undeniable confequence is the truth and divinity of the religion itself. The apoftles allude frequently in their epiftles to the gift of miracles, which they had communicated to the Chriftian converts by the impofition of hands, in confirmation of the doctrine delivered in their fpeeches and writings:-but to write in this manner, if nothing of the kind had ever happened, would require fuch an incredible degree of effrontery, that he, who pofleffed it, would not only expofe himself to the utmost ridicule, but giving his adverfaries the fai eft opportunity to detect his impofture, would ruin the caufe, which he attempted to fupport." (Pr. 4, 5.)

On this account Michaelis thinks that the epiftles, if allowed to be genuine, whether written by inspiration or not, afford evidence of the divine origin of our religion fuperior even to that which the gofpels contain; but for this diftinction we perceive no ground. The four Gafpels, together with the Acts of the Apofiles, record fo many miracles of Chrift publicly performed among a people who abhorred. his name and his doctrine, that if thefe books be allowed to be genuine, it is impoffible to question the origin of Chriftianity.

*

We have in this fection a very impertinent hypothefis of Dr. Semler, to which Mr. Marth feems to pay infinitely greater regard than it deferves. He fuppofes, forfooth, that, in the 12th, 13th, and 14th chapters of his firft epiftle to the Corinthians, St. Paul alludes "not to fupernatural gifts, but merely to certain offices in the church, the exercife of which required only natural knowledge and ability; and that the gift of tongues refpects thofe foreigners who were employed. as minifters in the Corinthian church, in order that trangers who frequented the city, whether Syrians, Arabians, or Egyptians, might hear the gospel in their native language." (PP. 7, 8.)

In the work before us Michaelis treats this hypothefis with merited contempt; but it seems he had lived to change his opinion, as appears from his commentary on the epiftle, which was published in 1791.t He does not, indeed, even there adopt the hypothefis of Semler, which still seems to him extremely improbable; but he thinks that the number of enthufiafts who, in the church of Corinth, imagined themfelves poffeffed of the gifts of the Holy Ghoft, were fuperior to thofe who had really fuch endowments. He founds this opinion, in part, "on the ridiculous diforder which prevailed in the Corinthian community in the use of the gift of tongues;" a diforder which he greatly aggravates, unlefs he derived his information from fome other fource than the first epistle to that community; and then he triumphantly afks: "Are talents like thefe the gifts of the Holy Ghoft?"

In reply both to our author and to Semler, it is to be obferved,

*See this argument clearly, though concifely ftated, at the end of Dr. Gleig's Sermons, lately published.

+ See Mr. Marfh's note at p. 350.

B 3

that