1851.]

Davidson's New Testament Introduction.

221

dances and commentaries. It is a monument of patient and successful labor, of exact and varied knowledge, and of sound judgment on the most important of all subjects, the elucidation of heavenly mysteries.

II. DAVIDSON'S NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION.1

WE gave some account of the first Vol. of this work, in the Bibliotheca Sacra, 1849, pp. 357-365. The author is Professor of Biblical Literature in the Lancashire Independent College, near Manchester, England. The work before us is the first attempt of the kind, so far as we know, in the English language. The Introduction, by Hug, which is on a more extensive plan, has been twice translated into English. Many Introductions have been published in the German language, such as those of De Wette and Guerike. Dr. Davidson's first volume embraces the four Gospels; the second closes with the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians; the third, which will be published in the course of the next Spring, will close the New Testament. Sixty-five pages of the second volume are occupied with the Acts of the Apostles. In the next 100 pages, the author treats of the life of Paul, the chronology of his life, his education, writings, style, and diction, all serving as a general introduction to the Pauline epistles. Then follow special introductions to ten of Paul's epistles, in each of which such topics as the following are considered at more or less length: origin of the church, persons of whom the church was composed, time and place of writing the epistles, object, language, integrity, authenticity and genuineness, and outline of the thought or subdivisions. Of course the number and character of the topics would somewhat vary in the different epistles.

Perhaps the best method of conveying a just idea of the work, will be to present a summary of the conclusions to which the author has come, on the two epistles to the Thessalonians. He considers: 1. Origin of the Church at Thessalonica. Paul and Silas visited the place on Paul's second missionary journey. A large church was soon established, consisting mostly of gentiles, 1 Thes. 1: 9. Many of the gentiles who had attended the synagogue, and had become proselytes, believed. Paul's stay here was comparatively short, so that he was not able fully to instruct the church in the doctrines and duties of Christianity. It is supposed that a main feature in the Apostle's preaching was apocalyptic, i. e. it turned on the coming of the kingdom of Christ. 2. Time and place of writing the first epistle. It seems to have been written at Corinth, near the commencement of Paul's first visit to that city, A. D. 52; if so, it was the first of his epistles. It should seem from various circumstances, e. g. the need of further instruction and admonition, that the church had been recently planted. Various arguments to show a later date of the epistle are fully considered. 3. Immediate occa

1 An Introduction to the New Testament, by Samuel Davidson, D. D., LL. D., Vol. II. The Acts of the Apostles to the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. London: Bagsters, 1849. pp. 467, 8vo.

sion and object of the epistle. Paul's object was to encourage the believers to continue steadfast in the faith, and to admonish them in respect to remaining immoralities, neglect of their worldly calling, etc. The author concludes with an outline of the contents of the epistle. 1. Occasion, object and date of the Second Epistle. The occasion was the fresh intelligence which Paul had received from Thessalonica. His leading object was to instruct the church in regard to our Lord's coming. The advent was not so near as many supposed. Antichrist must previously come and exert a powerful and destructive influence. An epistle had been forged in the apostle's name, and expressions which he had uttered, were distorted for the purpose of fostering the idea of the Messiah's speedy advent to judgment. False apprehensions, anxiety and consternation were the consequence. Who forged the letter is uncertain, or whether his intention was good or evil. The Second Epistle should be dated towards the end of Paul's stay at Corinth, A. D. 53, or 54. 2. Contents. 3. Authenticity and genuineness of both epistles. The authenticity is unequivocally stated by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian. The early lists of the Homologoumena contained them. There are indistinct allusions to them in the apostolic fathers. The internal objections to the authenticity have little or no weight, being merely the subjective fancies of such men as Baur of Tübingen. The principal stumbling block is the celebrated passage 1 Thess. 4: 15, 17. It is thought that the apostle really expected the day of judgment in his own lifetime. This idea he expresses in his first epistle, but modifies it in the second. But a phrase similar to that in the first epistle relating to the nearness of the second advent is found 1 Cor. 15: 52, written after both of the epistles to the Thessalonians. After reviewing and rejecting three hypotheses, which have been adduced to explain the passage, Dr. D. maintains that the only tenable view is that which excludes the writer and the early Christians gen erally from the language, "we who are alive," etc. The personal pronoun is used in the way termed by rhetoricians, communicatio, the apostle transferring to himself what belongs chiefly or wholly to the readers or to persons represented by them. "We who are alive and remain," can mean only “such Christians as live and remain." Paul employs himself and the early Christians as the representatives of those who should be alive at the second advent. So in Deut. 30: 1, the generation addressed is the representative of a succeeding one. In John 6: 32, a succeeding generation is employed to represent a past one. The language in 1 Thess. 4: 15, does not imply the absolute, but the relative nearness of the event.

One of the most striking characteristics of this work is the thoroughness with which the author has gone into the most recent investigations of the German biblical critics. Nothing seems to have escaped his search. He has patiently threaded the daring speculations and idle fancies of the Tubingen school,—a school that have pressed their subjective criticism so far that it becomes simply ridiculous, and is now deemed unworthy even of the attention of respectable neologists. Yet Dr. D.'s laborious investigation of hese cavils may be followed by an eminent practical advantage. It shows

1851.]

Davidson's Introduction.

223 to what miserable shifts and subterfuges the oppugners of revelation are now reduced. It should seem that they must be soon driven from the field.

The work is very valuable in another point of view. It brings into a very convenient and readable shape a vast amount of criticism and of instructive material on all the New Testament books, which material is scattered through a hundred German and Latin commentaries, introductions, monograms, reviews, etc. Not a few of these are invaluable in casting light on the argument of an epistle, in removing obscurity from some cardinal doctrine, or in reconciling some serious discrepancy between two writers. There are discussions - whatever may be said of the cavils and destructive course of some of the German crities — which should be welcomed by every friend of the Bible. We are deeply concerned with all which relates to the records of our faith. We not only wish to believe that the foundation standeth sure, but to be able to give reasons for our belief. In the wide diffusion of knowledge, in the great increase of men of acute minds and of sceptical views, in the middle and lowest ranks of society, both in this country and in England, such discussions as are found in these volumes will be very opportune. They will furnish ready weapons for the overthrow of skilful assailants.

Besides, for the advanced philologist these volumes contain very valuable and timely discussions. Whether he agrees with the respected author, or not, in such questions as the Hebrew original of Matthew, the genuineness of the last verses of Mark's Gospel, only one imprisonment of Paul at Rome, etc., he will be glad to see the topics brought into a convenient form, and all the arguments for a particular position skilfully selected and marshalled. The author evidently seeks for truth, rather than victory. His work affords many indubitable evidences that he is an honest, painstaking and independent, as well as learned, investigator. We again commend it earnestly to the attention of biblical students as one of the most valuable works which has lately appeared in the department of sacred philology in any country. Those who are not familiar with the questions here discussed, but who feel an interest in biblical investigations, would be highly gratified and instructed by the study of these volumes. They will open fresh sources of thought and feeling. We may add that the work is brought out in the best style of London typography.

With a few suggestions on particular points in Vol. II., we will conclude this notice. 66 Notwithstanding his danger, the apostle continued at Ephesus nearly three years," p. 90. His danger did not continue during the whole time. "When he arrived at Jerusalem the fifth time after his conversion, immediately before the passover," p. 91. The pentecost, the passover had been spent at Philippi, Acts 20: 6. "The measure failed of the effect intended, at least with the majority. The zealots were only more embittered against him," p. 93. But were these zealots believers? Was not the measure successful as to the believers? "Clement himself, writing from Rome, should rather in that case have employed roosvoάusvos, or a similar word; having gone, not having come," p. 99. But 20 may mean that.— See the Lexicons. "The authority of the fragment, though belonging probably to

the 2d century, in favor of the journey to Spain, is too precarious to be relied on," p. 102. The fragment shows, beyond all question, that the belief of a journey to Spain was entertained by some, whether the writer means himself to deny or affirm it. It is conclusive as to the existence of a tradition to that effect in the second century. "The date that can be settled with the most accuracy is the time of Porcius Festus's arrival in Palestine, in room of Felix," p. 107. This is the most uncertain of all the leading dates. "But it cannot be doubted that Paul was acquainted with the Latin language. He could both speak and write it," p. 128. Can we affirm this so positively? "Luke puts his materials together without much carefulness,” p. 24. Is this expression well chosen? "To the unknown God," p. 88. To an unknown God. The reason given for Paul's visit to Arabia savors rather of a modern college, than of apostolic experience, pp. 79, 80. "He went through a process of training there, for the purpose of preaching the Gospel."

III. DECIPHERING OF THE ASSYRIAN AND BABYLONIAN INSCRIPTIONS.

IN an article of eighty-three pages, in Part 2d of the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1850, Major H. C. Rawlinson has given a general view of the results at which he has arrived in deciphering the Inscriptions. We have condensed some of the more important facts.

There are found in many parts of Persia, either graven on the native rock, as at Hamadân, Vân, and Behistûn, or sculptured on the walls of the ancient palaces, as at Persepolis and Pasargardae, cuneiform inscriptions, which record the glories of the house of Achaemenes. These inscriptions are, in almost every instance, trilingual and triliteral. They are engraved in three different languages, and each language has its peculiar alphabet; the alphabets, indeed, varying from each other, not merely in the fact that the characters are formed by a different assortment of the elemental signs, which we are accustomed to term the arrow-head and wedge, but in their whole phonetic structure and organization. The object of engraving records in three different languages, was to render them generally intelligible, as the governor of Baghdad would now publish an edict in the Persian, Turkish and Arabic languages.

The Persian cuneiform alphabet was first deciphered, and the language was subsequently brought to light. There are not now probably more than twenty words in the whole range of the Persian cuneiform records, upon the meaning, grammatical condition, or etymology of which, any doubt or difference of opinion can be said now to exist.

As the Greek translation on the Rosetta stone first led to the deciphering of the hieroglyphic writing of Egypt, so have the Persian texts of the trilingual cuneiform tablets served as a stepping-stone to the knowledge of the Assyrian and Babylonian inscriptions. The tablets of Behistûn, of Nakhshi-Rustâm, and Persepolis, have, in the first place, furnished a list of more than eighty proper names, of which the true, pronunciation is fixed by their

1851.]

Rawlinson on the Assyrian Inscriptions.

225

Persian orthography, and of which we have also the Babylonian equivalents. A careful comparison of these duplicate forms of writing the same name, and a due appreciation of the phonetic distinctions peculiar to the two languages, have supplied the means of determining with more or less certainty, the value of about one hundred Babylonian characters, and a basis has thus been fixed for a complete arrangement of the alphabet. The next step has been to collate inscriptions, and to ascertain or infer from the variant orthographies of the same name, and particularly the same geographical name, the homophones of each known alphabetical power. Here it must be observed, that though two inscriptions may be absolutely identical in sense, and even in expression, it does not by any means follow that where one text may differ from the other, we are justified in supposing that we have found alphabetical variants. Many sources of variety exist besides the employment of homophones; abbreviations may be substituted for words expressed phonetically; or the allocation is altered; or synonymes are used; or grammatical suffixes or affixes may be used, or suppressed, or modified. By mere comparison, however, repeated in a multitude of instances, so as to reduce almost infinitely the chance of error, Major Rawlinson says he has added fifty characters to the hundred previously known through the Persian key. This acquaintance with the phonetic value of about one hundred and fifty signs limits his present knowledge of the Babylonian and Assyrian alphabets.

The Babylonian translations of the Persian text in the trilingual tablets have furnished a list of about two hundred Babylonian words, of which we know the sound approximately, and the meaning certainly. Nearly all these words are found entire, or only with some slight modification, in Assyrian. The difficult, and at the same time, the essential part of the study of Assyrian, consists in thus discovering the unknown from the known, in laying bare the anatomy of the Assyrian sentence, and guided by grammatical indications, by a few Babylonian landmarks, and especially by the context, in tracing out, sometimes through Semitic analogies, but oftener through an extensive comparison of similar or cognate phrases, the meaning of words which are otherwise strange. This last branch, Major Rawlinson has prosecuted with great care, and he thinks he has added two hundred meanings certainly, and one hundred more, probably, to the vocabulary already obtained through the Babylonian translations. He estimates the number of words in the Assyrian and Babylonian inscriptions, at about 5000, and he does not pretend to be acquainted with more than a tenth part of that number; but the five hundred already known constitute the most important terms in the language.

The actual language of the Assyrian and Babylonian inscriptions, is neither Hebrew, Chaldee, or Syriac, or any of the known cognate dialects, but it has so many analogous points with those dialects, both in grammatical structure and clementary words, that the author thinks it may be determinately classed in the Semitic family. The languages of Assyria and Babylonia can hardly be termed identical, as each dialect affects the employment of certain specific verbal roots, and certain particular nouns and adjectives, but