CORNELL UNIVERSITY L I BRARY The Robert M. and Laura Lee Lintz Book Endowment for the Humanities Class of 1924 CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 3 1924 093 776 221 DATE DUE W^P* GAYLORD PRINTED IN U.SA Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924093776221 GREEK THE LANGUAGE OF CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES GEEBK THE LANGUAGE OF CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES. MORRISON AND OIBB, EDINBURGH, PRINTERS TO HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY omcE. ALEXANDER ROBERTS, D.D., PROFESSOR OF HUMANITY, ST. ANDREWS. 'O ti/patof ttal h ytj x-aptXivjorrcni, »1 3i Xoyoi M«v ov (in tfapikitin. St. Matt. xxiv. 86, otc. LONDON: LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. AND NEW YORK : 15 EAST 16th STREET. 1888. All Rights reserved. rtTK ^64 1 * PREFACE. In this volume I make my final effort to convince the world that Greek was the language habitually made use of by Christ in His public teaching, and h that, consequently, such a discourse as the Sermon ^ on the Mount still remains to us in the language m vi which it was originally delivered. To make good I this position has been the one great literary labour of my life. More than a quarter of a century has now passed away since the date of my first publica- tion upon the subject. Up to this time, however, my endeavours have only been very partially success- ful. Encouragement, indeed, has not been wanting. A great scholar, happily still spared to us, referring to the first edition of my Discussions on the Gospels, said of it, " The result at which Mr. Roberts arrives is, that * Christ spake for the most part in Greek, and only now and then in Aramaic,' and he establishes this conclusion by an amount of evidence which can hardly leave a doubt in the minds of unprejudiced readers" {Saturday Review, Nov. 29, 1862). But the same periodical, though not the same writer, after the lapse of twenty years, speaks in <,,OLOu VI PREFACE. very different terms respecting the theory which I have sought to establish. Reviewing another work of mine, in which I had occasion again to argue briefly in support of my views as to the habitual use of Greek by Christ, the writer says with regard to some new translations of passages from the Old Testament which I had suggested, " The main design of the learned Professor is of a different nature. The fact is that he has fully committed himself to a notion, not originating with him, but never before perhaps maintained with so much firmness or ability, that the ordinary language of our Lord and His disciples was Greek, and that the Greek language being almost universally employed in Palestine in the first century of our era, the Scriptures to which the Lord appealed comprise the Septuagint translation, not the Hebrew original, or an Aramaic version thereof. . . . We do not purpose to examine the Professor's case, which he urge3 with much zeal and an earnest conviction of its truth, such as even judicious men may easily attain to, if they will but fix their minds exclusively on the facts which make in favour of their hypothesis. He is quite right in saying that, should the view for which he pleads ' as to the language generally used ' by Christ be at last accepted, a revolution must, to a considerable extent, take place in the science of Biblical Criticism.' We can only profess our belief that such a revolution none of us will live to see " (Saturday Review, Aug. 11, 1883). PREFACE. Vll The reader must judge for himself which of these two views of my argument is the correct one. I have presented it once more with fresh illustrations and supports, and have not willingly passed by any of the objections which have been brought against it in recent literature upon the subject. I still believe, and more than ever believe, in its absolute soundness ; and I do not despair of yet seeing it accepted (in spite of long prepossession to the contrary) by scholars in the first place, and then by those whose opinions are naturally formed under their influence. A. R. University, St. Andrews, December 16, 1887. CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION — STATEMENT OF THE3I8. Proposition of this Work, .... Different Views which have been held on the Question, Preliminary Observations, Caution against groundless Assumptions, . Method of Argument, .... Sources of Evidence, .... 1 5 10 16 19 23 CHAPTER II. HISTORICAL FROOFS OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE IN THE TIMES OF OHBIST AND HIS APOSTLES. General Diffusion of tho Greek Language at the commence ment of the Christian Era, . Causes which led to the Prevalence of Greek in Palestine, Various Proofs of this Prevalence, Greek Inscriptions, Numismatic Evidence, The Mischna, The Works of Philo and Josephus The Apocryphal Books, . 29 39 42 49 50 52 53 54 X CONTENTS. CHAPTER III. PROOFS PROM THE WRITINGS OP JOSEPHUS OP THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE IN THE TIMES OF CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES. PAGE Joscphus and ancient Hebrew, .66 Josephus and the Septuagint, .67 Speeches recorded by Josephus, .69 Herod, Varus, and Antipater, .70 ' Pctronius and the People of the Jews, 72 Hellenic Tendencies of Herod, .74 Greek known to Children and Slaves, .77 Necessary Conclusion, . . .79 CHAPTER IV. PROOF FROM A GENERAL SURVEY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT THAT GREEK WAS THE PREVAILING LANGUAGE OF PALESTINE IN THE TIMES OF CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES. Statement of the Argument, General Proof from the Epistles, General Proof from the Gospels, 81 90 95 CHAPTER V. PROOF FROM THE USE MADE OF THE SEPTUAGINT VERSION THAT GREEK WAS THE PREVAILING LANGUAGE OF PALESTINE IN THE TIMES OP CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES. Form in which the Old Testament was used by Christ, . Ill Hypothesis that Christ and His Disciples made use of the original Hebrew, . . . . .113 The ancient Hebrew a dead Language in the Time of Christ, . 116 Cost of Hebrew Manuscripts, . . .• 119 Hypothesis that Christ and His Disciples made use of an Aramaic Version, .121 ■- \ h CONTENTS. Written Aramaic Versions interdicted, Deutsch on the Talmud, ..... No written Aramaic Version of 0. T. ever existed, The Septuagint really the Bible of Christ and His Apostles, The Question as to prevalent Language of Palestine thus settled, ...... XI PAGE 124 128 131 133 143 CHAPTER VI. SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE GOSPELS THAT GREEK WAS THE PRE- VAILING LANGUAGE OP PALESTINE IN THE TIMES OF CHRIST AND HIS AP08TLES. The Sermon on the Mount, . . . .145 Conversation of Christ with the Woman of Samaria, . 154 The Greeks who asked to see Jesus, . . .157 Pilate's Litercourse with Christ and the People of the Jews, 159 Incident connected with the Crucifixion, . . .165 Conversation of Christ with Mary Magdalene, . .170 Recapitulation, . . .172 CHAPTER VII. SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES THAT GREEK WAS THE PREVAILING LANGUAGE OF PALESTINE IN THE TIMES OF CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES. Narrative of Events on the Day of Pentecost, Succeeding Speeches of the Apostles, Opinions regarding the Hellenists and Hebrews, Discussion of the Question, Speech of Si Stephen before the Sanhedrim, Succeeding Chapters, Council of Jerusalem, Tumult excited against St. Paul, Concluding Chapters of the Acts, Recapitulation, 176 184 188 190 206 208 211 217 220 224 Xll CONTENTS. CHAPTER VIII. PROOF FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWB OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE IN THE TIMES OF CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES. PAOK Questions agitated respecting the Epistle to the Hebrews, . 226 Authorship of the Epistle, .... 230 Hypothesis of the exclusively Paulino Authorship, 238 Hypothesis of the exclusively non-Pauline Authorship, 243 Hypothesis of a twofold Authorship of the Epistle, 249 To what Readers the Epistle was originally addressed, 257 Different Opinions regarding this Point, . . . 263 Conclusion and Inference, . . . .271 CHAPTER IX. FURTHER PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT THAT GREEK WAS THE PREVAILING LANGUAGE OF PALESTINE IN THE TIMES OF CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES. Style of the Epistle of James, All Records of Christ's Teaching are in Greek, Existence and Origin of Hellenistic Greek, Modes in which the Septuagint is cited, . Hymn of the Virgin Mary, Intercourse of Soldiers with John the Baptist, The terms Sanhedrim and Euergetes, Narrative of St. Paul's Conversion, Use of the Terms Alpha and Omega by Christ, Conclusion, .... 274 280 286 292 296 298 299 300 302 303 CHAPTER X. GREEK TOE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL — INTERNAL EVIDENCE. The different Opinions stated, .... 306 Bearing of the Conclusion formerly reached on the present Question, . . . . .311 i ' I CONTENTS. X1H PAGE General Character of the Gospel, .... 315 Mode in which Quotations from the Old Testament are made in it, . . . . • 316 Explanations of Hebrew Words and Phrases which occur in it, 320 Latinistic Forms which appear in it, . . .324 Frequent Employment of the Imperfect Tense, . . 326 Occurrence of unusual Greek Expressions, . 328 CHAPTER XL GREEK THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF 8T. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL — EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. Unfounded Assertions of the Advocates of Hebrew Original, 331 Authority of the existing Greek Gospel, . . . 334 Proof of Authorship by St. Matthew, . . . 336 Manner in which we should deal with Statements of the Fathers . 338 The Greek Gospel of St. Matthew the only one we are sure he ever wrote, . . . .340 St. John saw and sanctioned the Synoptical Gospels, . 342 CHAPTER XII. GREEK THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL — OPPOSING STATEMENTS OF ANCIENT WRITERS. Reference to the Fact already established, . . 348 Nature of the Evidence derived from the Assertions of early Ecclesiastical Writers, .... 351 Statement of Papias as to the original Language of St. Matthew's Gospel, . . .352 Testimony of Irenaus, ..... 356 Testimony of Pantaenus, . . 359 Testimony of Origen, .361 Testimony of Eusebius, ..... 363 Testimony of Jerome, ..... 3G5 XIV CONTENTS. Explanation of the Manner in which the Error of Pnpias probably arose, ..... 368 Origin of the Gospel of the Hebrews, 371 CHAPTER XIII. GREEK THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF ST. MATTHEW'S GOSFEL- FURTHER REMARKS. Fancied Discoveries of the Hebrew Original of St Matthew's Gospel, Cureton's Syriac Gospels, . Claims for them refuted, . Their Origin, Hypothesis of a Twofold Original of St. Matthew's Gospel, Destitute of Evidence, Opposed to Phenomena in Greek Gospel, No original Aramaic Gospels, CHAPTER XIV. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE — ORIGIN OF THE GOSPELS. Difficulties of the Question, Eichhorn's Hypothesis, .... Bishop Marsh's Hypothesis, Eichhorn^s amended Hypothesis, . Hypothesis of this Work, Explains the Coincidences, Failure of other Hypotheses, Hypothesis of this Work also explains the Diversities, The Cycle of Apostolic Teaching, . Insufficiency of Copying Hypothesi.?, l'osition occupied by Dr. Tregelles, Only satisfactory Explanation, 374 375 377 379 381 382 384 387 391 393 395 397 400 402 412 416 418 420 427 430 $ h CONTENTS. XV CHAPTER XV. CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS TO THE VIEW THAT GREEK WAS THE PREVALENT LANGUAGE OF PALESTINE IN THE TIMES OF CHRIST AND HI8 APOSTLES. PACE A priori Objection, ..... 432 Objection from the Employment of Aramaic among the Jews, ...... 438 Objections from the Writings of Joscphus, .441 Objection based on the Assertion that the Jews of Pales- tine did not use the LXX. in their Synagogues, . 453 Objection from the Existence of the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan, ..... 458 Objections from the New Testament, . . .461 Conclusion, . . .476 CHAPTER XVI. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE APPLICATIONS AND RESULTS. Interest of the Conclusion that Christ made use of the Greek Language, Illustrations of its Practical Importance, . The Authorship of the Apocalypse, The Spirit and the Letter of Scripture, The original Language of St. Matthew's Gospel, The Origin of the Gospels, 479 484 488 494 497 498 GREEK THE LANGUAGE OF CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES. CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION — STATEMENT OF THESIS. The leading object of this work is to prove, chiefly from the New Testament itself, that Greek was £ widely diffused, well understood, and commonly employed for all public purposes in Palestine during the period spent on earth by our Lord .and His apostles. In maintaining this proposition, I do not mean to deny that the Hebrew language, in the form of Aramaic, also existed throughout the country, and was, to a considerable extent, made use of among the people. The real state of matters I believe to have been this — that almost all the Jews, both in and beyond Palestine, were then bilingues, that is, they understood Greek, the common language of the civilised world, and their own vernacular dialect, the proper national tongue of the region in which they lived. In this view of the case the two languages, both commonly made use of by the Jews of Palestine (though, as we shall see, generally for different A INTRODUCTION. purposes), would be the Hebrew in its modernized and corrupted form, their true ancestral dialect, and the Greek, which had through the force of circumstances been introduced into their country, and nourished side by side with their mother- tongue. 1 The condition of the Palestinian Jews at the date referred to when regarded in this light, appears to have been quite analogous to that of some of our English colonies at the present day. In several of these we find two or more different languages simultaneously existing, one of which is the language of the conquerors, and the other of which is a form, more or less corrupted, of the ancient vernacular language of the country. " In Canada," for example, as Latham writes, " the English language first took root after the taking of Quebec in the reign of George the Second. As Canada, however, had been previously a French colony, the European language that was first spoken there was not the English, but the French. Hence, when Quebec was taken, the language of the country fell into two divisions. There were the different dialects of the original Indians, and there was the French of the first European colonists. At the present moment both these languages maintain their ground ; so that the English is spoken only partially in Canada, the French and the Indian existing by the side of it. "At the Cape of Good Hope the English is 1 To prevent misconception, it may be well to observe here, once for all, that by Hebrew is invariably meant, throughout this work, the Aramaic or Svro-Chaldaic language, except where it is plainly stated that the ancient Hebrew is intended. STATEMENT OF THESIS. 3 spoken in a similar manner, that is, it is spoken partially. The original inhabitants were the Caffre and Hottentot tribes of Africa, and the earliest European colonists were the Dutch. For these reasons Dutch and English, conjointly with the Hottentot and Caffrarian dialects, form the language of the Cape o Good Hope. In Guiana, too, in loufh America English and Dutch are spoken in the neigh- bourhood of each other, for the same reason as at the Or, as perhaps still more accurately and clearly representing the state of things which is conceived to have then existed in Palestine, I may briefly refer to la e v nT 8 - T P r Ul i aHt7 ° b8erVable at the P^nt tZnl O h ° f * he Engli8h Channel - I" ^ese islands -Guernsey, for instance _ almost all the inhabitants understand and employ English • but side by side with that language, there eSsts a kind of impure or antiquated French, which, being the Old Norman tongue partially corrupted, is still largely niade use of by the lower orders of the people. Ari X Tr X1 T/ nly am0n S the educa ^ classes in he island would perhaps never suspect that any other language than his own was in common use two inV VT atl0Q J ^ if ^ ^ etrate a *** or two into the interior, and accost any of the peasantry m their homes or at their labours, he will soon hear • nTll a f f ° Tei f tm ^ a *d will find that it is generally preferred in familiar intercourse to the anguage of England. Hence it comes to pass th a both English and French, the one language in many instances greatly influenced by the other, are known 1 Latham On the EnglM Language, vol. i. p. 376. 4 INTRODUCTION. by almost all the natives of the island ; and while the educated classes generally make use of the former, the lower orders as generally prefer the latter. Many similar examples might be referred to of the ancient vernacular language of a country having been overlaid, so to speak, by that of its conquerors. A striking additional illustration is furnished in the fate of the Greek language itself as employed by the inhabitants of the Ionian Islands. During the supremacy of the Venetians in these islands, the Italian almost entirely superseded the Greek as the language of education and general public intercourse. At the same time Greek continued to hold its place as the mother-tongue of the whole native population, and was commonly employed by them in familiar conversation. The ancient vernacular language was never altogether uprooted, but it was for a lengthened period entirely deprived of the position which it had formerly occupied as the medium of polite and public intercourse; while it speedily, of course, became greatly corrupted, from being left to be prin- cipally employed by the uneducated classes among the people. 1 Now these two cases, of the Ionian Islands formerly and the Channel Islands at the present day, very nearly represent what is here maintained to have been the state of matters in Palestine in the i "The language of the country people in the islands has always been Greek, more or less corrupted. That employed in good society, „d in commerce, as well as in legislation and official busmess^ was Italian, till the recent adoption of Greek as the anguage , oi ! the legislature, courts of law, and all pubhc departments. Eney. Bnt., 8th ed, art. "Ionian Islands." STATEMENT OF THESIS. days of Christ. The Greek language I believe to have been almost universally prevalent, and to have been understood and employed, more or less, by all classes in the community. But I also believe that the Greek, though thus generally used, was attended by the Aramaic, which was frequently spoken by all ranks of the native population ; was made use of by such, at times, on public as well as private occasions ; but was, for the most part, employed only in homely and familiar intercourse ; and might still be said, though with difficulty and amid many exceptions, to maintain its position as the mother-tongue of the inhabitants of the country. It will be observed then, and I desire it to be specially noticed, that I put in no claim for the Greek as having been the only language in common use among the Jews in the time of Christ. That claim, though, as we shall immediately see, it has been made, seems to me both paradoxical in itself and opposed to indubitable facts. But what I main- tain, and shall endeavour to prove, is, that Greek was in several important respects the then pre- vailing language of Palestine; — that it was, in particular, the language of literature and commerce ; the language generally employed in public inter- course ; the language which a religious teacher would have no hesitation in selecting and making use of, for the most part, as the vehicle for conveying his instructions, whether orally or in writing ; and the language accordingly which was thus employed both by our Saviour and His apostles. Some few scholars have taken much higher, but I /y^-w-u the vast majority greatly lower ground upon this ' **A~. $ Lr*« b INTRODUCTION. question. Above a century ago a treatise 1 was published at Naples by Diodati, in which the learned and ingenious author labours to prove that Greek had, in the days of our Lord, entirely sup- planted the old Palestinian dialect, and was, in fact, the only language then generally known among the people. In this particular object I think it must be admitted that the author fails. And it is to be regretted that he should have pushed his reasonings to such an extent, as the fact of his having done so has greatly prejudiced his whole argument. His work excited much attention when it was published, but from the extreme ground which it assumed soon gave rise to a powerful reaction in the opposite direction. We shall have occasion to notice after- 1 The title of the excellent little treatise here referred to is as follows, "Dominici Diodati J. C. A'eapolitani, de Christo Orcece loquente," 8vo, Neapoli 1767. It had become so rare that Hug states he could not procure a copy of it even at Naples ; but it is now accessible to all scholars in a neat and convenient form, having been republished in this country some years ago by Dr. Dobbin of Trinity College, Dublin. Diodati was a civilian, and not an ecclesiastic, as he is sometimes naturally but erroneously called. In the licence to print the work, which is appended to the original edition, the censor having stated that he had found nothing in it " contrary to sound morals or the Catholic faith," proceeds as follows : — " Quin gratulandum lmic juveni est, quern licet non sit ex Ecclesiasticorura online, cum juris scientia sodas fecisse sanctorum voluminum scienliaiu, atque orientalium linguarum peritiam, atque ad conimunem Christianorum utilitatem, ac qutestum tot saeculonnu intercapedine ignotam hanc snene historic potissimam, ac principem partem sane quam erudito commentario, et evidentissimornm monumentorum ac rationum ope asseruisse, ingen- temque nomini suo famam conquisivisse." Other similar laudations follow ; and when the work was published, " it excited," says Dr. Dobbin, " the liveliest interest throughout the learned world, and pro- cured for the author enrolment by acclaim among the members of several academies and other literary institutions. Royalty itself con- descended to express its approbation of the genius and ability of Diodati, and Catherine II. of Russia forwarded to Naples tokens of her imperial regard." STATEMENT OF THESIS. 7 wards some of the forced, and almost at times ridiculous interpretations to which he has recourse in order to make good his position. But though his conclusions are of much too sweeping and trenchant a character, and though he uses several bad argu- ments while he overlooks many more that are good, it will be admitted by every candid reader of his work that he collects much and varied information bearing upon the general question, and that his discussion of the subject is conducted throughout with a lucidity of statement and a liveliness of style which render it extremely interesting and attractive. On the other side, it has been far more generally J„~~ * <«« maintained that the Greek language was scarcely f » . ^ *» \ used at all, in ordinary intercourse, by the Jews o£r~f-*'t^*- our Saviour's day; and that, accordingly, Aramaic J was the language which He generally or exclusively | employed. Among the supporters of this view Dr. Pfannkuche may perhaps be referred to as chief. This writer had never himself seen the work of Diodati ; but his treatise may nevertheless be regarded as a formal reply to that of the Nea- politan scholar, inasmuch as he made use of the previous reply of De Rossi, which had been pub- lished at Parma in 1772. Respecting De Rossi, the learned Professor Hug observes that he " some- times confounds different periods, often uses poor weapons, but is a stout combatant ; " and in all these respects he found in Dr. Pfannkuche a not unworthy successor. There is, as every reader must feel, a most irritating want of method, clearness, and logical coherence in the work of the learned 8 INTRODUCTION. *> German. In these particulars, no less than in his special object, his treatise is the very reverse of Diodati's ; and were the question in debate to be settled by an appeal to the literary ability displayed by the respective champions, there could be little doubt in whose favour judgment would instantly be pronounced. 1 Another extreme opinion on the point in question .is, that neither Greek nor Hebrew, but Latin, was w » the language generally prevalent in Palestine in the lays of Christ, and the language therefore in which, with few exceptions, the books of the New Testament were originally composed. This hypothesis was first formally advanced by the Jesuit priest Hardouin in his Commentary on the New Testament, published in 1741. 2 It has been adopted by a few Roman Catholic writers, 8 but manifestly more in the interest of party than of truth. The object, of course, which such a theory tends directly to serve, is to exalt the Vulgate to a superiority over the canonical Greek Gospels, as containing the ipsissima verba of our 1 The work of Pfannkuche was translated and published in this country in vol. iL of Clark's Cabinet Library. We shall have occasion in the sequel to advert to some of the halting conclusions of this writer ; meanwhile, in illustration of what is said above, I may simply refer to page 15 of the translation, where we find the translator naively remarking on a statement in the original, " It was not good in Dr. Pf. to keep for himself the more decisive proofs I " * The ground assumed by Hardouin will be plain from a single sentence. Speaking of the writers of the New Testament, he says : " Arbitramur enim scripsisse Latine qutecunque scripserunt ; nonnulla etiam Grtece fortassis: Ebraice etiani Apocalypsini fuisse scriptam, non Latine tantum." The views of Hardouin were fully refuted by Lamius in his very curious work, De Erudition* Apoitoloruni, etc., pp. 1072-1135. • The chief of these is Molckenbuhr, who thinks that on every ground there is reason to believe that the New Testament was written, % STATEMENT OF THESIS. V Lord and His apostles. But it is too palpably absurd to be accepted by almost any except those whose minds are completely under the influence of prejudice. It did, however, to a considerable extent find an acute and learned supporter in the author of Palceoromaica, a work published anonymously in London in 1822. This volume, though now almost forgotten, excited not a little attention at the time of its appearance. Some of the best scholars in the Church of England entered the lists against the accomplished author ; while he, for his part, showed no want of spirit in defending the views which he had so unex- pectedly propounded. It is needless to add to whose side victory inclined. The theory of Black (for such was the author's name) was, indeed, what Johnson might have called mere " unresisting imbecility," and was sufficiently refuted in its announcement ; but the work itself, though wedded to this untenable hypothesis, is nevertheless full of learning, both biblical and classical, and may on this account still be read with pleasure and instruction. 1 not in Greek, but in Latin. He says (p. 46) : " Die Sache bios a priori betrachtet, ist es wahrscheinlicher, dass, wie Harduin meynet, das Neue Testament urspriinglich nicht in griechischen, sondern in lateinischer Sprache geschrieben Bei. A potteriori aber ; was wirklich geschehen ist, kommt es auf iiusserliche Zeugnisse, und innerliche Kenntzeichen an." He was conclusively answered by Binterim, another Boman Catholic priest, in a work entitled De Lingua Originali Novi Testamenti non Latina, etc. 1 The title of this curious work is as follows : " Palceoromaica, or Historical and Philological Disquisitions, inquiring whether the Hellenistic Style is not Latinistic 1 Whether the many new words in the Elzevir Greek Testament are not formed from the Latin ? And whether the hypothesis that the Greek text of many MSS. of the New Testament is a translation or retranslation from the Latin, seems not to elucidate numerous passages ; to account for the different recensions j and to explain many phenomena hitherto inexplicable to 10 INTRODUCTION. STATEMENT OF THESIS. 11 In entering on the proof of that position which it is the object of this work to establish, I am deeply sensible of the opposition to be encountered on the part of many eminent biblical scholars. As Vossius long ago remarked, " It has come, in some way or other, to be an accepted opinion among the learned, that our Lord and His apostles employed not the Greek, but the Hebrew language." 1 This assumption (for I hold Biblical Critics 1 " London : Murray, 1821. Among those who pub- lished answers to the work are to be found the names of Maltby (afterwards Bishop of Durham), Bishop Burgess, Dr. Falconer, and, above all, Mr. Broughton in his work styled, An Examination of the Hypothetic advanced in a recent publication, entitled l'alaoromaica. London, 1823. i " Verum nescio qull ratione factum situt hoc nostro seeculo pleri- que fere docti Christum et Apostolos Hebraice semper locutos fuisse, existiment, non autem Grace. . . . Nullis profecto vel arguments vel testinioniis nititur hasc opinio." Is. Vossius, De SilyUinii Oraculit, cap. xvi. If this was the prevailing opinion in the days of Vossius, it is certainly not less so in our own. To indicate this, and show how opinion now stands among scholars in regard to the point in question, I may give the following extracts as specimens : — The learned and candid Dean Milman expresses himself thus in his Bampton Lectures for 1827: "The general prevalence of the Greek language in Palestine, after the closest investigation I have been able to institute, appears to me to have been asserted in direct opposition to all authorities, and upon no grounds whatever, except an inference from its gradual extension in other countries. It is now almost universally allowed that our Lord and His apostles usually spoke the vernacular language of Palestine, a Syro-Chaldaic, or as it is sometimes called, an Aramaic dialect," etc. Dr. Thiersch having occasion to refer to a statement of Weisse, that St Mark has preserved some Greek words as they were really uttered by our Lord, speaks of this idea as being "im Widerspruch mit der jetzt mit Recht herrschenden Ansicht, dass Christus gewuhnlich in der Landessprache redete." Veriuch zur Herstellung, etc., p. 68 M. Kenan, referring to Christ, says: "II n'est pas probable quil ait su le grec Cette langue ^tait peu repandue en Judee," etc. Vie de Jesus, p. 32. .,.,,!• Dr Schiirer says: "It must be assumed that the lower classes in Palestine possessed either no knowledge, or only an insufficient one of Greek." A History of the Jewish Peoplt, p. 48 (Eng. trans.). And so on, almost ad infinitum. it nothing more) meets us everywhere throughout our biblical literature. It is found in all commentaries on I the New Testament, whether popular or critical, and is for the most part referred to by writers of all sorts as if it were an unquestionable fact. So firmly imbedded is this notion in the minds of many, that they seem to claim for it all the respect due to a primary truth — will not so much as listen to any arguments which tend to contradict it, and have nothing but ridicule for those who venture to propound them. Their minds are made up on the subject ; they wonder that any one possessed of " common sense " should ever stir the question, which has, in their opinion, been so conclusively settled ; and, with a scoff or sneer, which takes no account of reason, they dismiss all that may be adduced in favour of the opposite conclusion. I need hardly say that it is only a deep conviction of the soundness of those views which are set forth in this work, and of their extreme importance in regard to some biblical questions, that could have induced me in such circumstances to venture on their pub- lication. I have often been tempted to acquiesce quietly in the prevailing opinion. The fact that such eminent scholars as Ewald and Renan, not to men- tion here many others, both at home and abroad, have expressed themselves so confidently in favour of the idea that our Lord and His disciples generally made use of Hebrew, 1 has often presented itself with almost overwhelming force to my mind. I have felt 1 Ewald's language on the point in question is very strong. Refer- ring to our Lord, he says : " Es ist an sich einleuchtend dass ntir die allgemein verstandliche Landessprache seinem Zweck dieueu konnte ; und eine andre noch neben ihr zu gebrauchen lag fiir ihn keinerlei Yeranlassung vor, noch linden wir davon dass er noch eine andre 12 INTRODUCTION. STATEMENT OF THESIS. 13 as if, after all, I must be mistaken. But if so, I can only say that the more I have examined the subject, the more has my confidence in the views propounded in this work increased. And I have a humble hope that, however much opposed to reigning opinions these views may be felt to be, they will not be re- garded by biblical scholars as the offspring of mere folly or presumption, but will be taken for what they are worth, as the earnest, though most imperfect, fruit of some study on the part of one whose highest ambition it is to promote, in however small a degree, the interests of sacred truth. It may be observed, however, that of late years there has been some tendency shown among scholars to reconsider this question, and, more or less, to accept what I believe to be the truth regarding it. Most of our leading critics, native and foreign, now acknow- ledge that the Greek language was far more gene- rally used in Palestine in our Lord's time than the school of De Eossi or Dr. Pfannkuche imagined. Among English scholars, for example, Dean Alford often expresses himself to the effect that " Greek was commonly spoken in Palestine," though, as we shall afterwards see, he falls into several difficulties, from the limitations which he thinks it necessary to append to this statement. And among foreign critics, Winer (while agreeing with almost all critics that our Lord spoke in Syro-Chaldaic) admits, in his Iieal-Worterbuch, that "the Jews, ever since the niiiulich die griechiache irgendwo gebraucht habe die geringste Spur." Jahrbucher der Bibliichen Wiueruchaft, ii. 185. Re nan saya: "Nous pensons que le Syro-Chaldaique dtait la langue la plua repandue en Judce, et que le Christ ne dut pas en avoir d'autre dans sea entretiens populaires." Hutoire det Languet Sfinitiques, p. 223, 2nd ed. epoch of the Seleucidae, were, to a great extent, ac- quainted with the Greek language ; " l and refers, in his Grammar of the New Testament Idiom, to the sacred writers as "persons who, though not pos- sessing any scholastic acquaintance with literature, nevertheless heard Greek continually spoken by those around them, and very often, indeed regularly, them- selves employed that language." 8 Yet, even among those who advanced farthest in this direction, there still appears a backwardness to trust only to facts for the ultimate conclusion to be held on this subject. They seem to be unduly influenced by various a "priori considerations. Admitting that, " for literary purposes, Greek was undoubtedly the prevailing language in Palestine," they yet refuse to occupy the ground assumed in this work as to its habitual em- ployment by our Lord and His disciples. " It can hardly be maintained," they remark, " that never, in the course of His ministry, did Jesus address the common people in the vernacular, as when He went through the villages teaching, or when He entered into the synagogue, and read and expounded Isa. lxi 1 (Luke iv. 17). Nor can it be supposed, whatever extension and prevalence of the Greek language in Palestine may be conceded, that all words of other interlocutors which are given in Greek in the Gospels were uttered in Greek,— such as addresses from poor lepers, exclamations from the populace, and the like." 8 1 "Gewissistdassdie Juden, seit der Selencidiachen Periode zum grossen Theil griechiach veretanden." Winer, R WD. art. " Sprache " "Manner, welche zwar kein wiaaenacbaftlichea Sprachstudium tneben, aber daa gnechiache bestiindig sprechen horten, und sehr oft ia r,ge roasa.g, aelbat aprachen." Winer, Oram, des Neut. Sprach, p 33 * We,tmxn»ter Review, July 1859, p. 256, in a very fair and able notice of the author's former work. 14 INTRODUCTION. I quote these sentences because they probably put the case against us as strongly as it admits of,, and because I am anxious at once to deal with the difficulty which they suggest. That difficulty, or apparent difficulty, I do not mean to deny or depre- ciate. There certainly does seem to us, standing on a priori ground, a great antecedent improbability against the proposition that it was the Greek lan- guage which our Lord and those about Him almost continually employed. A strong tendency is at once felt to pronounce such a thing impossible. We can hardly conceive that a language, which it is almost the highest triumph of scholarship to master at the present day, could, even in its simplest form, have been familiarly employed by the humblest of the people in Palestine. And we have been so much accustomed to think of the Hebrew language in connec- tion with the Jews, and to consider the employment of Greek as the very badge of Gentilism, that it is perhaps with a kind of reluctance we conceive of our Lord and His immediate followers as using any other than the ancient, distinctive language of the country. But what then ? Shall we yield so far to the influence of these feehngs as to refuse to consider such facts as seem to oppose them ? Shall our views of the likely or the unlikely hinder us from doing homage to the positive and the actual ? If it can be proved (as I maintain it can) that for several genera- tions before Christ, Greek had been generally used throughout Syria and the neighbouring regions, and that in the days of our Lord especially it was every- where current in Palestine, shall we allow any sup- posed improbabilities, however strong, to debar us STATEMENT OF THESIS. 15 from the conclusion to which these considerations lead ? If we adopt such a principle in dealing with the past, we shall speedily make wild work among the facts of history. It may, for instance, be felt not a little difficult at times to believe that the Choruses of ^Eschylus, or the Orations of Demosthenes, which require so much study from us that we may thoroughly understand them, were prepared for the populace of Athens ; but the fact is nevertheless too certain to be disputed. 1 And in like manner, I beg to appeal from fancies to facts in regard to the point in question. In the phraseology of Bacon, here strictly applicable, I claim to be allowed a free in- terrogate Scriptural on the subject, and not to be deprived of this by that anticipatio Scriptural which pronounces that certain things cannot be supposed or believed. I do not undertake to prove that our Lord and His followers never made use of the Hebrew language. That would be a rash, and, I think, un- tenable assertion. But what I maintain, and mean to prove, is, that Greek was the language which they habitually used in their public addresses ; so that if any one affirms that Hebrew was used on some occa- sions when their discourses have been reported in Greek, it remains with him to show it. I may be inclined to believe that some such occasions are pos- sibly to be met with in the Gospel history ; but at 1 " The tragic writer was preacher, essayist, and lecturer as well as poet ; a fact not to be doubted when we consider how familiar to the multitude those writings must have been, when a casual quotation by a comic author, or even an indirect allusion by a rival poet, could find an immediate response in the vast assembly of the Athenian theatre." Paley's JEschylut, 1861, p. xxvi. To those who have puzzled over the obscurities of ^Eschylus, the fact of such familiarity with his verses might seem & priori not a little questionable. 16 INTRODUCTION. any rate I affirm that these were altogether excep- tional, and that Greek was the language usually employed in addressing even the very humblest of the people. The position which I uphold is thus the exact converse of that usually maintained upon the subject. While it is now generally said that our Lord spoke for the most part in Hebrew, and only sometimes in Greek, what I venture to maintain is, that He spoke for the most part in Greek, and only now and then in Hebrew. And all I ask is to be allowed a fair trial. If I fail to adduce sufficient proof that Greek was the tongue thus spoken by our Lord and His disciples, then let judgment be given accordingly ; but if I do succeed in producing such evidence, let not its force be blunted, and the cause of truth injured, by any a priori considerations. I To one of such considerations I must here direct (special attention. It has been usual to block the way against the admission of the force of my argument by *■ 'some such allegations as the following : A Greek- speaking Messiah was to the Jews inconceivable. They would never have listened to one making use of the Greek language. They hated all tongues save that of their ancestors, and would on no account have tolerated any teacher who made use of the language of heathenism, that is, the language of Greece. 1 Such is the style of argumentation which has been made use of by almost countless writers. They have runf the changes upon it in many different forms, 1 The writers who have maintained these views are too numerous to mention. As giving the most recent expression to them I may refer to an article in The Church Quarterly Review (April 1887), in which the writer affirms (p. 161). that " the Jews hated Greek." i % STATEMENT OF THESIS. j f but all coming in substance to denote the same thing Ihe sum of their contention is, that the Jews in the time of Christ hated the Greek language, and would never have listened with patience to Iny one wo made use of it. Now it is obvious that if statements of the kind referred to are well founded, I m i ght ] ay askle ' SI "eh ? G ^ Underdi -°sio y n -uld Z he a Cta if mU ft W 8 P° ken H ^rew, whatever tJie facts that might seem to direct us to a different conclusion. These facts must be left out of a count or mu st m or another ^ count, G^JESS^Ssp-ei _cli S lik^d z3 ay i abLutely hatli tt2Z^^*"3Z have been doubted." rn ^ IT T thG reader bef0re Preceding farther to ask if the above allegations are correct. On w hit foundation do they rest ? The learned writer, who has Just been referred to in a note, tells us tla h ey possess "historical evidence," while he add' tnat a fast was appointed as a day of humiliation and repentance for the translation of the Old Tel nient into t] G k hagaa ^. ft fa lest - find this silly fable about the Septuagint ver°sio brought forward as having any weight jZ day. Scholars have long rated! at it ^T The groundlessness of th^wasliy %£t Archdeacon Hody nearly two centurie's ag'o H refers to it as "istud figmentum de jejunlo" ami classes it with the account of a oo^^J^^ 1 1 Edersheim's Life and 7W, of Jesus the Messiah, i. 130 . \S 18 INTRODUCTION. " cui nihil fundamento erat prseter mendacium quoddam perridiculum," 1 and it need here receive no further consideration. As to the " historical evidence " which the writer says exists to the effect that " the Jews hated Greek," he does not inform us to what he refers. But the following may be given as evidence on the other side. Dr. Hamburger having stated that " the best-loved tongue in Palestine was the Greek," 2 gives the following quotations from the most ancient Kabbis in support of his statement. " The beauty of Japhet is his speech — the Greek : it is the fairest in all the East." 8 "The patriarch Rabbi Juda I. thus admonished his readers : ' What is the need of the Syrian tongue in Palestine, use either the Hebrew or the Greek.' " 4 " The Law must be translated only into Greek, for only in that language can it be perfectly rendered." 6 "The Greek language may be used for everything." 6 "The Greek language was spoken in the house of the patriarch, and five hundred children were instructed in that tongue." 7 To the same effect the late Professor Tholuck has quoted many additional passages from the Jewish Rabbis. He shows how greatly they esteemed the Greek language, and how carefully they studied the Greek authors. He points out how impossible it is to allow some occasional condemnations of Greek made in special circumstances, or some contemptuous utterances of later Rabbis, to outweigh the manifold testimonies of 1 De Bibliorum Textibu* Originalibw, p. 221. * Real- Encyclopedic fur Bibel und Talmud, Abthcil ii. art. " Unter- richt," see also art. "Griechenthum." 3 Megilla, 18a. 4 Sota, 49b ; Baba Kama, 82b. » Jeruu. Megilla, 8. 6 Megilla, 18a. f Gittin, 28b. STATEMENT OF THESIS. 1 9 earlier writers as to the high estimation in which Greek was held an Palestine; and he sums up by s atmg that "the Greek language was prized as the medium of public intercourse and literature, while the Grecian authors were studied by the Rabbis, and ins^r -? even made the ex * ress * <* Several other passages of a similar character to the above will be quoted in the sequel, when we come to dea] with the quests as to the value set upon tin, Septuagmt by the Jews of our Lord's day. But I hope that those which have been here given will be sufficient to break down that barrier of prejudice which has too often existed against my argument, in the supposed antipathy of the Jews of the period the Greek language. It must surely be obvious from the passages cited that a totally different feeling prevailed among them, and that they like ' many other nations at the epoch referred to, loved Woft^* 6mpl0yed *» *— * live r t L P d r T d t0 ° bSerVe that While the *"*«- hve method of argument is to be rigidly followed throughout this work, a very differe * t i^™ been adopted by those on the opposite side. I pro! 1 Commentar zmn Brief, an die IlebrUer, Dritt Kan Thi. 1 < '* a very valuable one, the original Rabbinical HebtwK. PUr ease quoted by Dr. Tholuck <*«„ „, . cal Uebrew °enig m every said, the leaid SddenWork 2 T'Z 7^°* ^ ha " bce » chap. ix. etc. ' " S S nedn » ^terum Ebraorum, A strange disposition has been evinced in «... a such testimonies. This is seen not 1. 1 Y ° Verl ° ok "" writings, but even a «cho^ 1 k e DrLd;; y ,, ln T*** P°P" lar opposition to my argument "The ™„ Yf ™* h ' mseU to »* '» was Greek," ^i«W, vo , vii^ sT ^ Dati ° n Lated aJ1 *»* 20 INTRODUCTION. \J pose in the sequel to lead the reader from facts to conclusions ; but the writers referred to have rather been in the habit of simply regarding certain facts as illustrative of the conclusion already formed. Our Lord, for example, is represented by the evangelists as making use of the Aramaic language on some few occasions. Now it is manifest that on an inductive process of reasoning these form no sufficient basis for the conclusion that He always or generally em- ployed that language. But the supposition is first made that He did continually make use of that form of speech, and then these rare instances of its em- ployment are referred to as examples of the practice which has already been assumed as habitual; or again, some abstract principle, such as the ineradic- able character of national speech, is adopted as a universal truth, and then it is reasoned deductively from that principle as to the general employment of Hebrew by our Lord and His apostles. 1 But in the following pages we are to foUow an entirely different proccss.° We shall assume nothing, except that the works are genuine which form the sources to which an appeal must be made on this question. We are to look simply and exclusively at facts ; and it will be evident, I trust, to every reader that this is done in a spirit of fairness, and with a sincere and honest desire to reach and vindicate the truth. In order still more completely to open up the way for an impartial dealing with the facts which are to be brought forward, let me here direct the reader's attention to a case in which the same antecedent im- i A striking example is found in Dr. Bohl'a interesting and learned work, Fwchungen nach finer VM.biUl znr Zeit Jon. See p. 13, etc STATEMENT OF THESIS. 21 i ■; i 5 probability might seem to have existed to the use of Greek as to its employment by even " poor lepers " in Palestine, and we shall see how necessary it is to lay aside all prepossession in dealing with such a ques- tion. The case referred to is set before us in the four- teenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. In that chapter (vers. 8-18) we have an account of what occurred while Paul and Barnabas were in Lystra, a city of Lycaonia. We read first of Paul's speaking to the people at large, and then successively of his addressing a lame man who attracted his attention in the crowd, of the cure which was accomplished by his words, of the excitement which this miracle gave rise to among the men of the city, of the attempt which was accordingly made to offer divine honours to the apostles, and of the address, dissuading from this purpose, which was delivered to the assembled multi- tude. Now the state of matters plainly indicated in this narrative with respect to the languages then employed in Lycaonia, forms an exact parallel to what I believe to have been the linguistic condition of Palestine in the time of Christ. There cannot be the slightest doubt that the apostles then spoke only in Greek ; ' and in doing so they were perfectly well understood by the inhabitants of Lystra. The poor cripple even, who probably owed as little to what is technically known as education as did poor lepers in 1 Like many other obvious facts which happen to clash with a favourite hypothesis, this has indeed been doubted or denied. See, e.g., the learned commentaries of the late Bishop Wordsworth and the Rev. Canon Cook on the Acts of the Apostles, in both of which we find state- ments to the effect that the apostles understood and employed the Lycaonian tongue. This supposition is in the very teeth of the inspired narrative, and, as has been often observed, leaves the conduct of Paul and Barnabas at this time absolutely without explanation. The almost 22 INTRODUCTION. Palestine, was quite able to follow Paul speaking in Greek; and having "faith to be healed," he was singled out from the rest of the crowd, and indi- vidually addressed by the apostle in these very words, 'Avda-Trjdt inl tow? ir68a<: aovopdos, — words which were at once apprehended by his understanding, and which, at the same time, producing their proper effect upon his heart, were made the means of conveying to him a faculty which he had not before possessed. Upon this a thrill of astonishment and awe passed through the multitude. They imagined themselves in the presence of some superior beings ; and, excited by this thought, they fell back, as was most natural in such circumstances, on the use of their native dialect, and exclaimed in the language of Lycaonia, " The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men ! " Under this impression they proceeded to prepare sacrifices with which to do honour to their celestial visitants ; and Paul and Barnabas, appa- rently not comprehending their purpose, did not for a time interpose to prevent them. But as soon as they learned what was really proposed, they hastened to put a stop to the impious attempt, one or both immediately addressing the promiscuous assemblage in words of great eloquence and power, and that evidently in the Greek language. Here, then, we have a case in which two distinct universal opinion of biblical scholars, both at home and abroad, is ex- pressed by Prof. Hackett when he says that the apostles, " in confer- ring with the people, had used, doubtless, the Greek ; " and when he also remarks, " Luke mentions that the Lystrians spoke in their native tongue, that we may know why the multitude proceeded so far' in their design before Paul and Barnabas interposed to arrest it." Hackett'a Comm. on the Act*, in loc. STATEMENT OF THESIS. 23 < languages or dialects were in common and familiar use among the people. There was the old vernacular tongue of Lycaonia (whatever that may have been), endeared by many tender and venerable associations to the inhabitants of the country. There was also the Greek, known, as is manifest, to all ranks among the population, regularly employed as the vehicle of public instruction or address, and habitually made use of in the market-place or popular assembly, as it was so readily and successfully by the apostles on this occasion. Now, for Lystra read Jerusalem, and the above incident sets forth exactly what I undertake to prove as to the relation subsisting between the two lan- guages of Palestine in the time of Christ. It is not meant to be denied that, as a matter of feeling, the ancient vernacular language of the country may have possessed some peculiar charms to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, as the old speech of Lycaonia manifestly did to the inhabitants of Lystra. But it is meant to be affirmed that, as a matter of fact, in the one case as in the other, Greek was the ordinary language of public intercourse and instruction. There may have been occasions of great excitement (as we shall after- wards see) on which the Jews, like the Lycaonians, would prefer the accents of their ancestral tongue ; but these very occasions, from their exceptional cha- racter, tend to confirm the truth of that proposition which it is the object of this work to establish. Not a little has been accomplished by previous investigators with respect to what may be called the external or historical part of the argument ; so that, to a considerable extent, we shall merely require in 24 INTRODUCTION. this department to gather together the proofs which have already been indicated or adduced. In addition to Diodati in the work formerly described, Professor Hug, 1 in particular, has laboured very assiduously in this portion of the field, and has accumulated much Valuable information on the point at issue. But both Diodati and Hug, as well as all the other writers on this question with whom I am acquainted, have left one important branch of the evidence almost entirely untouched. They are very painstaking and successful in collecting historical proofs from other ancient writings and monuments as to the prevalence of Greek in Palestine at the commencement of our era ; but their references to the proof of this fact, which is contained in the books of the New Testament itself, are meagre and insufficient. There seems, indeed, to be what I cannot but humbly reckon a mischievous fallacy existing in the minds of not a few scholars in regard to this subject. They speak of the position sought to be established in this work as being " per- fectly untenable in face of the mass of evidence to the contrary with which Oriental scholars arc familiar." a Now, I can truly declare that I have anxiously inves- tigated every item of this evidence of which I could discover the slightest trace. Not the least part of it has been willingly left out of account in forming the conclusion which is set forth in this work. But I confess I have found no great " mass of evidence," apart from the New Testament itself, bearing upon 1 See his Introduction to the New Tcttament, Part II. § 10. 8 I quote these words from a review of my former work, which appeared in the Athenceum of June 16, 1860, and in which it was spoken of in quite as kind terms as it deserved. I only wish that the writer had specified some of that " mass of evidence " to which he referred. STATEMENT OF THESIS. the question. All the sources of information with which I am acquainted may be classed under the following heads : — I. Works generally allowed to precede the birth of Christ, or to belong to the first century of our era, viz. the Septuagint translation and the Apo- cryphal books of the Old Testament ; the canonical writings of the New Testament, consisting of the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the fourteen Epistles of St. Paul, the two Epistles of St. Peter, the three Epistles of St. John, the Epistle of St. James, the Epistle of St. Jude, and the Apocalypse of St. John ; the writings of Philo and Josephus ; and, perhaps, the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. II. Works referred to an early period in our era, but the exact date of which is doubtful, viz. the most ancient Targums ; the Mischna (in its sub- stance) ; the Syriac Peschito version ; some of the later Apocryphal books. III. Statements to be found in some of the classical and patristic writers bearing on the point in question. IV. Numismatic evidence, and inscriptions to be met with on ruins existing throughout Syria and Palestine. Such is the whole amouDt of evidence of which I have been able to learn anything in connection with this subject. It will all be found referred to as occa- sion offers in the following pages ; and a glance at it is sufficient to show that the New Testament itself contains by far its largest and most valuable portion. And here I cannot but remark how important it is, in dealing with this and many other biblical ques- 26 INTRODUCTION. STATEMENT OF THESIS. 27 tions, ourselves to approach to those integri fontes from which flows almost all that is really of import- ance in determining our judgment. There is great danger lest the amiable, but perhaps somewhat indo- lent, habit of acquiescing in the opinions of ancient fathers, or venerated reformers, or illustrious scholars, should prevent us from looking with our own eyes at the true and primal source of almost all that can with certainty be known respecting either our faith itself, or the circumstances amid which it was ushered into the world. It does not fall within our present purpose to illustrate how much detriment has in this way been entailed on the cause of divine truth, and how errors of various kinds, which might have been corrected by a simple, unprejudiced reference to the New Testament, have been propagated from age to age in the Church. I shall merely remark on this point, that it certainly requires no very lengthened experience in critical pursuits to render the student suspicious of the validity of some of those traditional explanations of difficult passages which he finds repeated by one commentator after another. If he traces the history of such explanations, he will pro- bably find that some writer, centuries ago, hazarded a conjecture as to the meaning of the dark or am- biguous phrase in question— that this opinion was then adopted by another, as if it had now some really substantial ground to stand upon— and that thus coming down to us from a venerable antiquity, it seems°to demand acceptance as a matter of right at the present day, whereas, in truth, the person who first offered the conjecture had nothing more to guide him than we still possess in the original text. Let > us then, in the question which we are about to investigate, look for ourselves at the evidence of Scripture. Eusebius may tell us again and again that the apostles understood no language except Syriac ; ' but let not that deter us from weighing impartially the evidence which may be adduced to show that they both understood and employed Greek. The Rabbini- cal writers may, according to their fancy, at one time inform us that the Jews of Palestine despised those who employed the Greek language ; and may, at another time, go so far as even to ascribe divine- inspiration to the Septuagint version of the Scrip- tures ; ' but let neither the one statement nor the other divert us from the track by which alone there is any likelihood that truth and certainty will be reached in the matter. To the New Testament itself above all else we make our appeal ; for in the writ- ings which it contains we find by far the largest and most reliable portion of that evidence which is avail- able to settle the question about to be considered. It can hardly be doubted that this would have been generally perceived and acted upon had the books which constitute the New Testament happened to be the productions of secular instead of sacred writers. If we possessed such a number of the works of other 1 Euseb. Dem. Evang. lib. iii. In one passage of this book Euse- bius speaks of the apostles as tin lipuv ov xXf'o» Wuiovrt; (tavqf. And in another passage he represents the apostles as (but for the promise of divine assistance) being in circumstances to reply to their Lord's command to " go and teach all nations " in such words as these : toix it xpwiftfH* At'£i/ irpo:"E~A*r)»ct(, citipi; tjj "SOpui/ inpu(titirt( ftitr) 0atfi ; To the same effect Chrysostom in several passages ; com p. Milman, Bampton Led. p. 173. * See this point further noticed in chapter xv. ; and compare with the above remarks Stanley's Sermont on the Apostolic Age, p. 31 ; and Jowett in Essays and Review*, p. 384. 28 INTRODUCTION. Jews who lived in that age as we have in the New Testament, it would have been felt that little diffi- culty ought to remain as to the language which then prevailed among them. But it lias happened here, as with some other more important points connected with our religion. That tendency which has led in many cases to the neglect of the strong confirmation of the truth of Christianity, which is found in the acceptance of it as divine by such a man as Paul, simply because he did accept it, has also led to the overlooking of the evidence which the New Testa- ment itself furnishes as to the language of Palestine in the age in which it was written, simply because it is the Neiv Testament. That collection of sacred writings contains histories and epistles by no fewer than eight different authors ; and if it be admitted that their works arc the genuine products of the age to which we ascribe them, it must also be acknow- ledged that they lay open to us a source of informa- tion in regard to the question at issue, compared with which all that can be gathered from other quarters is utterly insignificant. To this most precious, but greatly neglected portion of the evidence, I pro- pose in the sequel principally to direct attention. The writers of the New Testament will themselves be interrogated as the leading witnesses in the question regarding the language generally employed by our Lord and His disciples; and before pro- ceeding to this, I shall merely give a summary in the following chapter of what, by way of distinction, I have ventured to call the external or historical argument. ^y CHAPTER II. HISTORICAL PROOFS OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE IN THE TIMES OF CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES. It must be admitted by all that the Greek tongue had become very widely and generally known throughout the world before the birth of Christ. Greek, indeed, was then the common language of all civilised nations, 1 and thus formed a medium of intercourse between countries far separated in geographical position, as well as differing greatly in national habits and institutions. Many and powerful causes had contributed to this result. A foundation was laid for it in the transcendent merits of the language itself. Never has a tongue been spoken by man which can vie with the Greek in all that constitutes the excellency of a language. In copiousness, plasticity, melody, and power, it has ever been, and probably will ever remain, unrivalled. It was natural, therefore, that as the world advanced, under the wise and benignant providence of God, in knowledge and civilisation, this pre-eminent language should more and more attract attention and acquire ascendency. It was in itself the very queen of 1 "Die griechische Sprache war damals in der ganzen gesitteten Welt verbreitet." De Wette, Einleiturtg in dai N.T.%\. 30 HISTORICAL TROOFS OF THE languages ; and it could not but happen that as refinement and the desire for intellectual improve- ment continued to spread throughout the earth, its manifest title to supremacy, as the best means ever devised for expressing all kinds of human thought, should be more and more practically acknowledged and proved. And, as contributing to this result, there must also be taken into account the literary treasures which from a very early date in the history of nations it had contained. Not only was the Greek language in itself an instrument of exceeding beauty and power, but that instrument had been so used as to give rise to many of the very masterpieces of human intellect and genius. In poetry, in philo- sophy, in history, in eloquence, Greece had already, centuries before the Christian era, poured forth in her own unequalled tongue effusions of still un- equalled excellence — so perfect, indeed, that it has been the highest ambition, and well-nigh the despair, of all subsequent ages simply to imitate and approach them. It was doubly impossible, therefore, if the world continued in a course of progressive improve- ment, that the tongue of Greece should not more and more be studied and prevail. Mankind, advanc- ing in knowledge and refinement, could not possibly remain satisfied without a widespread acquaintance with the language of Homer, Plato, and Demos- thenes; and however much the political influence of Greece might wane among the nations, it was certain that if light and literature continued to spread, her intellectual dominion would survive and increase. % i t I I - PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 31 The familiar line of Horace, in which he tells us of his own country that—" Graacia capta ferum vic- torem cepit," just expresses what must in every case have happened, unless mankind were to retrograde instead of advancing— to relapse into barbarism and darkness, instead of pressing forward in the career of civilisation and improvement. 1 But besides these resistless intrinsic claims on the homage and submission of mankind, there were other events of an external character that powerfully tended to the dissemination and supremacy of the Greek literature and language. The triumphant march of the great Alexander from his native Macedon to the banks of the Indus ; the complete subjugation of so many different nations by his arms; the settlement of Greek princes on the thrones of those mighty king- doms, into which, on his death, his colossal empire was divided; and the establishment of numerous colonies of Greeks throughout the countries which he had subdued— all necessarily led to the very wide diffusion of the Greek language, and to a general tendency to imitate Greek manners and institutions And thus that very language which, had it been left to be judged by its own merits, would assuredly have recommended itself above every other to the general admiration of mankind, was almost forced upon their adoption by many concurring providential circum- stances, and secured in favour of its extensive diffu- sion the prestige arising from military supremacy, no less than the more legitimate claims founded on • I l^T fl* ™ due t0 the intellect «al results produced by the inhabitants of th» small canton of Europe (Attica), that the language in which they spoke and wrote became the vernacular tongue Zffhe whole world." Wordsworth's Greece, p. 119. J 32 HISTORICAL PROOFS OF THE inherent superiority and unequalled literary attrac- tiveness. Now, as was to be expected from the combined operation of all these causes, there exists the amplest and clearest testimony to the widespread ascendancy which had been gained by the tongue of Greece before the birth of Christ. A familiar acquaintance with it was more or less possessed by almost all those nations which were then embraced under the sway of Imperial Rome. Nay, so penetrative had proved the genius of the Greek language, that we find traces of its use even among barbarous tribes while still unsubdued by the Roman arms, and totally unac- quainted with the Latin literature. Thus Julius Caesar narrates in his Commentaries that on taking possession of the camp of the Helvetii, he found in it lists of the several Gallic nations which had leagued with that people in their enterprise written in Greek; and the same historian informs us that while the Druids did not think it lawful to commit to writing the topics dwelt upon in their sacred verses, they were accustomed to employ the Greek characters in almost all other public and private transactions. 1 1 " In castris Helvetiorum tabula; repertie sunt Uteris Gnecis con- fecUe." Ctesar, De Bell. (Jail. lib. i. 29. " Neque fas esse existimant, ea Uteris nwndare, quum in reliquia fere re bus, publicis privatisque rationibus, Gnecis utantur literis." Ibid. lib. vi. 14. It is doubtful whether these passages imply that the Greek language, or perhaps rather only the Greek letters, were in use among the Gauls. Either way, proof is furnished of the wide extent within which Hellenic influ- ence was then felt even among barbarous nations. The same thing appears from the striking question of Seneca, Consol. ad I/elviam, cap. vi. : " Quid sibi volunt in mediit barbarorum regionibru Grata* urbes ? quid inter Indos Persasque Macedonicui sermo 1 " Corup. also Tacit. Germ. cap. iii.; and see for a concise statement of the spread of Hellenism in the East, Dollinger, Gentile and Jew in the Courts of the Temple of Christ, p. 40. I PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 33 While acquiring this so world-wide diffusion the ancient tongue of Greece had of course Tecome greatly corrupted. Ionic softness and Attic eZZce loZTZrTX ^ repkCed b ^ a — °than llono or ^ohan harshness. The vernacular dialects ^everywhere exerted a very marked and dl™ nfluence upon the adopted tono- ue But still !i language of Herodotus and Euripides had 1 " s anc e M ^ ^ V^ n t sub- birth of Christ, and was then, as well as for some generations afterwards, the link by which the mZ distant portions of the world owning Caestl " e were socially and intellectually held°togXr In e;r g dT: C th aPltal itSelf ' Which -^^ W been regarded as the empire in miniature, since under its ample wings representatives were gathered from the mpWd Pr Tn Ce :; ^ ° reek t0n ^ ^ C °^ employed. In the reign of Tiberius, as Valerius Maximus, a contemporary writer, informs us h eWes^d n d T - t0 deafening ^ «% debates , and Dio Cassius relates that the samo emperor was accustomed very frequently to hear Le argued, and himself to investigate them, in the <££ language.' Suetonius bears equally strikina Tsti mony to the very general use of^Greek by 1" Romans under Tiberius and Claudius ; and by the account which he gives of the efforts made by the former emperor to discourage its use in certain cases shows how greatly it had encroached on the v^ 1 "Quia ergo huic consuetudini ana n,,™ n ■ «U* ii »., mMt iTtfaT i,. Di0 ^ £»* * JW«K M. h C " 34 HISTORICAL PROOFS OF THE cular language. 1 In the reign of Domitian, as we infer from Martial, it was a proof of absolute rus- ticity not to be perfectly familiar with the tongue of Greece ;* while in the reign of Trajan, as we learn from Juvenal, 8 that language was continually em- ployed by his fellow-citizens for all sorts of purposes. And in these, as well as other similar intimations contained in the classical writers, we find proof that while during the period in question almost countless dialects, in addition to the native Latin, might have been heard among the vast and multifarious popula- tion of Eome, the various tribes there mixed together possessed in the language of Greece, then become the language of the world, a means whereby they could communicate with one another. 4 1 " Sermone Grseco, quanquam alias promptus et facilis, non tamen usquequaque uaus eat, abstinuitque maxima in senatu, adeo quidem, ut ' monopolium ' nominaturua, prius veniam postuMrit, quod Bibi verbo peregrino utendum easet. . . . Jfilitem quoque Grace interrogatum, nisi Latine respondere vetuit." Suet. Tib. cap. 71. (Comp. Seneca, De Ira, lib. ii. cap. v.) "Stepe in senatu, legatia perpetua oratione (Gncca) respondit. Multum vero pro tribunali etiam Homericia locutua est veraibus." Suet. Claud, cap. xlii. 2 " llusticus es 1 nescia quid Grceco nomine dicar ? " Mart. Epig. xiv. 58. * " Omnia Greece, Cum sit turpe magis nostria nescire Latine. Hoc sermone pavent, hoc iram, gaudia, euros, Hoc cuncta effundunt animi secreta," etc. Juv. Sat. vi. 180 seq. Again : " Non possum ferre, Quiritea, Gnecam urbem ; quamvis quota portio fcecia Achteto ? Jampridem Syrus in Tiberim defluxit Orontes Et linguam et mores," etc. Ibid. iiL 60 seq. See also Ovid, Art Ainat. ii. 121, 122 ; Tacitus, De Oratoribm, cap. xxix. ; Martial, lib. x. 68, etc. 4 With respect to the extent and population of the Home of the Geaars we find the following statement by one whose competency to PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 35 There seems, in fact, to have existed among the Komans during several generations, both before and after the birth of Christ, a strong and universal passion for the Greek language and literature. Hence we find Cicero often complaining with no small bitterness of the neglect with which writings in the proper language of Latium were received; and Juvenal, notwithstanding the noble native literature which had accumulated during the Augustan age, Htill finds it necessary in his own day to direct his sarcasms against the prevailing preference for the fascinating language of Greece. 1 Hence also we Xi^:i^^^ssr mi n Th ° mas have had a common language and thT™ m I , aVe "' mU8t Greek T it.-n „f gua ° e ; ana that c °u'd be no otlier than the Compare on this whole subject the remarks of 1! • I , ^ authority among ourselvea Max Mil f , T" 6 "* hvin S Cum sit turpe mag.a nostria nescire Latine" Juv L vMsV T is worthy «f notice that as Cicero himself addressed lS,V —to u. Greek, so Molo, his former teach at 5£. ed theT""" aenato m the aame .language. Comp. Vorsyl^L^fCicll T and see also, pp. 10, 18, 170, etc. ' ' ; 36 HISTORICAL PROOFS OF THE learn without surprise that throughout the period in question Greek was freely employed in all parts of the empire hy Roman orators, generals, and magis- trates. Cicero himself spoke in Greek in the senate at Syracuse. Crassus, when as proconsul he made war against Aristonicus in Asia, showed himself so familiar with the Greek language that he even addressed each of the Greek tribes in its own proper dialect — speaking to the Ionians in Ionic, to the Dorians in Doric, and to the iEolians in iEolic, as well as employing the Attic and common dialects when occasion required. Augustus as conqueror and sovereign addressed the people of Alexandria in Greek ; and Mucian, as Tacitus informs us, induced the inhabitants of Antioch by his persuasive elo- quence in the Greek language (Graca facundia) to espouse the cause of Vespasian. 1 Greek, then, and not Latin, was really during the period in question the language of the Roman Empire. Cicero himself sets very tersely and accu- rately before us the relation subsisting between the two languages, when he tells us (Pro Arch. Poet. § 23), " Graca leguntur in omnibus fere gentibus, Latina suis fmibus, exiguis sane, continentur." And if this statement could be made even in his day, with much more emphasis might it have been repeated some generations afterwards. 2 The Greek » Cicero in Fen-em, iv. 66; Val. Max. viii. 7, 6; Dio Cass, li. 16; Tacit. Hist. ii. 80. » It has been justly remarked on the above declaration of Cicero, which might, perhaps, in reference to his own times be charged with some rhetorical exaggeration, "Sicherlich war diese Verbreitupg der "riechischen Sprache in der Zeit bis zur Entstehnng unserer neu- testamentlichcn Schriften nur noch allgemeiner geworden." Credner, Gtvhkhte des Sent. A'tinon, p. 138. Schlosser in his Universal- PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 37 language continued rapidly to spread during the century which followed the death of Cicero, 1 and maintained its general supremacy through several ages of the Christian Church. Accordingly such facts as the following present themselves to us in the literature of the period. The Apostle Paul, as all acknowledge, wrote to the Romans in Greek ; Clement of Rome wrote from that city in Greek ; Ignatius, like Paul, addressed the Roman Christians in Greek ; Justin Martyr, although long resident in Rome, composed his two Apologies to the emperor in Greek ; and Irenseus wrote from Lyons in Greek on a theme* interesting to, and intended to be considered by, the whole Christian world. 2 historische Uebersicht der Geschichte der alten Welt und Hirer Crdtur, referring to the time of Cicero, observes, " Keiner konnte Ausspruch machen, unter den ersten der Nation zu glanzen, wenn er nicht in die Wissenschaften," welche von den nach Bom stromenden Griechen gelehrt werden, Meister war," ii. § 2, p. 538. 1 Walpole in his Herculanensia, after noticing (p. 83) the " very great number of manuscripts in the Greek language discovered at Herculaneum," adds (p. 86) respecting Greek at Rome, " that there is reason to conclude that the language was very generally known. The comedies of Menander were in the hands of every one ; ' solet pueris virginibusque legi,' says Ovid," etc * I should not have thought a single remark necessary in corrobora- tion of any of the above-mentioned facts had I not found a metropolitan critic of my former work branding as "false" the statement that Iremeus wrote in Greek. " The book against heresies," he says, " exists only in Latin. Ireneeus was by birth a Greek, and had to learn Latin and Keltic when he was called to be Bishop of Lyons. Finding that Gnostic doctrines had been introduced there, he warned the people of his diocese against them ; he therefore addressed them in Latin, and in his preface apologised for the barbarous style in which he wrote." Morning Post, Sept. 19, 1860. My argument may indeed be, as this writer asserts, " an utter failure," but it will at least probably withstand any such attack. Every scholar knows that the Latin which we possess of the work of Irenceus against heresies is a translation, and that its original language was Greek. The learned Walchius in his elaborate dissertation, De Authentia Librorum Jrenad adversiis Ilareses (Gutting. 38 HISTORICAL PROOFS OF THE These facts, with many others of a similar nature which meet us in the literature of the period, are more than enough to prove the general, we might almost say universal, use which was then made of the Greek language. It was one of the few things common to the whole Roman Empire. From the mighty capital to the remotest provinces the tongue of Greece was in every direction employed ; and while there were numerous vernacular dialects which lingered side by side with it in the many different countries then forming the vast orbis Romanus, it was Greek which furnished a medium of intercourse to the various nations thus politically united, 1 and which was especi- ally made use of as the language of commerce, letters, and public instruction. And now the important question arises, Is there any reason to suppose that Palestine formed an excep- tion to what has just been stated ? Must we believe that while Greek was so prevalent, as has been seen, in other parts of the Roman world, there were pecu- liar causes at work which prevented its introduction into Judaea, or which kept it from being generally known and employed in that country ? Unless this can be shown, the evidence already brought forward to prove that Greek prevailed throughout the Roman Empire at large as the language of public life must 1775), observes, "Greece eos (libros) scriptos esse, nemo nostril etate negabit ; " anil certainly one could scarcely have anticipated that a remark to that effect would have been stigmatized by any would-be critic at the present day as a " false " or erroneous statement Gomp. in connection with the above, Bunsen, Hippolytut, ii. 123. 1 " Die griechische Sprache damals in der ganzen gesitteten Welt verbreitet war, und man mit ihr in ganzen Umfange des Romischen Reichs sich veratandlicb niachen konnte." Guericke, Ncuteat. hagog. § 10. I PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 39 be held also to prove that it thus prevailed in Pales- tine ; and that, consequently, just as St. Paul naturally wrote to the Romans and the Galatians in Greek, so the Jews, if written to at all, would probably be addressed in the same language. Now we do find that there were for several generations before Christ special causes at work among the Jews of Palestine which were certain to have a great effect upon the linguistic condition of that country. But these causes favoured, instead of impeding, a general acquaintance with Greek among the people. It seems almost impossible for any one to consider the national history of the Jews for a century or two before the commencement of our era, without inferring that Greek must have obtained a large ascendency among them. The several dynasties to which they were successively subject, Egyptian, Syrian, and Roman, all tended to this result. A new wave of Hellenic influence passed over the land with every fresh change which occurred in its political condition. Ptolemy, Antiochus, and Herod, in what- ever else they might have differed, were alike certain by their very supremacy to contribute to the spread of Grecian usages in Palestine. Nor was this ten- dency much checked under the Maccabean princes. With the temporary independence then enjoyed by the nation, there was no doubt an attempt made to throw off the taint of Gentilism and to revive the properly Judaic institutions. But Hellenic influence had become too firmly rooted in the land, and the constant use of the Greek language was found too necessary in all national transactions, to allow of any considerable change taking place during the brief 40 HISTORICAL PROOFS OF THE period in which Judaea then existed as an indepen- dent kingdom. And soon did the hopeless effort to bear up .against the encroachments of Gcntilism die away. More than half a century before the com- mencement of our era (a.c. 63) did Pompey the Great appear in the land as an arbiter between the two brothers Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, and from that moment Gentile influence revived in greater ascendency than ever. The government speedily passed from the Asmonaean to the Herodian family : Judaea soon became an acknowledged dependency of Rome ; and as in other parts of the empire so in Palestine, the Roman power was the pioneer and the support of Greek civilisation and literature. 1 It deserves also to be remarked, that besides the influence which could not fail to be exerted among the Jews in favour of the Greek language by the mere political changes through which they passed, the power of the monarch was at times vigorously put forth in the same direction. Thus we are told (1 Mace. i. 44) that "the king (Epiphanes sent letters) by special messengers to Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, that they should walk after the strange laivs (vo/ii/iav aWorplav) of the land." Again we read (2 Mace vi. 1 et seq.) that the same monarch " sent an old man of Athens to compel the Jews to give up the customs of their fathers and no longer to live according to the laws of God ; and also to pollute the temple at Jerusalem, and to name it 1 See Ewald, Qetchiclde des Voltes Israels, iv. pp. 250-520, for an excellent sketch of the history of the period, showing the gradual encroachments and ultimate ascendency of Gentilistn. Compare also Conyb. and Howson, Life and Epistles of St. Paul, vol i- p. 29, orig. edition. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 41 that of Jupiter Olympius ; . . . and there went forth a decree against the Jews, that those of them who would not make the required change to the Grecian customs should be put to death." To the same effect Tacitus informs us that " after the Mace- donians obtained the supremacy, King Antiochus used his endeavours to root out the superstitions of the country, and to establish the institutions of the Greeks." 1 Josephus also relates (Antiq. xiii. 11. 3) respecting Aristobulus the son of Hyrcanus (circ. 100 A.c), that he yielded so much to Hellenic influ- ences as to obtain the name of QiKeKXyv, " a lover of the Greeks;" and the same writer tells us (Antiq. xiv. 8. 5) of a decree of the people of Athens by which they resolved to confer upon Hyrcanus (who held the priesthood, circ. 45 a.c.) a crown of gold and other honours for his marked partiality to the Greeks. And still further, Josephus declares respect- ing Herod the Tetrarch (that is, Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great, and the ruler of Galilee during the public ministry of our Lord), that "he openly professed himself more friendly t& the Greeks than Jews" (Antiq. xix. 7. 3), and practically demonstrated this sentiment by the whole of his public conduct. We naturally infer from such a persistent course of policy on the part of the rulers of Palestine that (as in the somewhat analogous case of the Norman supremacy in England 2 ) the language so favoured by the Court would gradually encroach upon the ancient 1 " Postquam Macedones prtepotuere, rex Antiochus demere super- stitionem, et mores Greecorum dare adnixus," etc Tacit. Hist. v. 8. * It may be worth while to quote here a sentence from a mediaeval writer (Rob. Holkotus, Dominicanus, circ. a.d. 1850) respecting the conduct of William the Conqueror towards the English, as it seems to I 42 HISTOBICAL PROOFS OF THE vernacular dialect, and would inevitably in process of time become prevalent, not only as the language of refinement, but as that of general public intercourse and instruction. And this conclusion is amply supported by facts. There are several distinct sources of information open to us in the surviving literature and antiquities of the period, and the result to which these point can hardly be regarded as doubtful. The inscriptions remaining on temples, gates, and other ancient public buildings in Palestine ; the numismatic illustrations of the age and country which are available ; the infer- ences to be derived from the Mischna, and the still extant works of Philo, but more conclusively those of Josephus ; and the proofs furnished by the various apocryphal books of the Old Testament, ranging in date from about the beginning of the third century before Christ to perhaps about the year 30 before Christ, seem harmoniously to lead to the same con- clusion. That conclusion is (as, to guard against all furnish quite a parallel to the statements made by Josephus regarding the conduct of Epiphanea towards the Jews : " Narrant historic, quod cum WillelmuB, Dux Normandorum, regnum Angliie conquisivisset, deliberavit quomodo linguam Saxonicam posset destruere, et Angliam et Normaniam in idiomate concordare ; et ideo ordinavit, quod nullus in curia regis placitaret, nisi in Gallico, et iterum quod puer quilibet ponendua ad literas addisceret Gallicam, et per Gallicam, Latinam, quae duo usque hodie observantur." Admitting the accuracy of this account of William's policy towards the English, though that is denied by Sir F. Palgrave and some other recent writers, both he and Antiochus seem to hare acted in such a way as to justify the remark of Walton, who observes (Prdeg. i. 19), " Hoc plerumque evenit ut in victos simul cum imperio victoruni lingua derivetur ; nee se victores existimant, aut rerum potitos, aut actionum humanarum dominos, nisi et termoni dominentur." The result of this policy in the case of the English was, as Diodati expresses it, that " ita sensim prorsus extincta fere lingua Anglicana ; " what the result was in the case of the Jews will be immediately seen. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 43 misconception, I may be allowed to repeat), not that the Jews of our Saviour's time did not at all employ Hebrew, — for evidence to the contrary may be drawn from almost all the sources which have been men- tioned, — but that they commonly used both Greek and Aramaic, — the one language being employed in public intercourse of all kinds, and the other in more domestic and familiar transactions. This is of course, like previous remarks of the same kind, meant to be only a very general statement as to the relation sub- sisting Jbetween the two languages. From the nature of the case, their respective provinces cannot be defined with perfect strictness. Occasions may easily be conceived, and would doubtless arise, on which the department usually occupied bj* the one language would be broken into by the other. We shall find examples of this on proceeding to an examination of the New Testament ; but these, instead of contro- verting our thesis, serve rather to confirm it. The position laid down in this work is that both languages then existed, and were pretty equally diffused among the people. It is not therefore in the least damag- ing to our views to prove that Aramaic or modernized Hebrew was quite commonly employed by the Jews of our Saviour's day, and that it was sometimes used by them even on public occasions. Such is exactly one part of the proposition which I am ready to maintain upon the question at issue, while the other part, specially contended for in this treatise, is, that Greek was at least in as common use as Aramaic, and was, except in peculiar circumstances, the' language employed for all public and literary purposes. As introductory to some proofs of this position, 44 HISTORICAL PROOFS OF THE to l)c derived from other sources than the New Testament, I may here submit to the reader the following statement respecting the whole subject from the works of two most accomplished scholars, the one belonging to a former and the other to the present generation. It will thus be seen that while the views which I venture to uphold have been strongly, and even contemptuously, rejected by many modern biblical critics, they are not without the sanction of some who must be univer- sally respected, both for their great critical acumen and for their accurate and comprehensive scholar- ship. " Wherever," says Isaac Yossius, " from the times of Alexander the Great the Greeks had become masters, there also the Greek language obtained ascendency. And it would be absurd to reckon Judsea a solitary exception to this rule, when both Josephus and the Books of Maccabees sufficiently testify how ready the Jews were, under Greek sovereigns, to adopt Greek customs, so that the greater part of them chose rather to be deemed Greeks than Jews. Nay, even those among them who hated the Greeks found it necessary if they wished to be understood, and had any regard to their own interests, to learn the Greek language employed by their rulers. The consequence was that, as in Egypt, Asia, and the rest of Syria, so likewise in Judaea, no language was heard but the Greek, especially in the cities and towns. Those only who lived in the country and in villages, or belonged to the lowest of the people, made use of Syriac, their vernacular dialect ; and PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 45 even that had in course of time become greatly I corrupted, so as to be a kind of mongrel Greek. The very synagogues at Jerusalem resounded with nothing else but the tones of the Greek language. And if the sacred Scriptures were first read, a Greek interpretation was added, since none except the learned understood anything of the ancient Hebrew / language." l I I am not inclined to go quite so far as Vossius here does in restricting the use of the Aramaic language at the period in question almost exclu- sively to the country districts and villages. There can be no doubt that it was also well known in Jerusalem by all ranks of the native population. The following statement of the case by another eminent critic comes nearer the views which are maintained in this work : — "Ever since the times of Alexander the Great," says Credner, " the Jews had emigrated in great numbers from Palestine to Greek countries. In these lands even the more learned among them, such as Philo, forgot their mother-tongue ; and this happened all the more readily, since, from their sacred books having been translated into the Greek language, provision had thus been made even for their religious necessities. Nevertheless these 1 Vossius, Be Sibyllinis Oraculis, cap. xvi. It is a curious fact that Vossius, thongh writing so strongly as to the prevalence of Greek in Palestine, has nothing but contempt for those who do not believe that St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew. He expresses himself on this point as follows: "Audio semi-theologos quosdam Babbinistas omnium patrum omniumque ecclesiarum testimonia conculcare, ac serio adfirmare MatthiBum non Hebraice sed Greece scripsisse. Stulti simus, si istius- modi deliriis aliquid reponamus." Prcef. in Append, ad lib. de LXX. Interp. 46 HISTORICAL PEOOFS OF THE Grecian Jews, known as Hellenists, remained in unbroken communion with their native country. Jerusalem was always regarded by the Jews as their capital ; the Sanhedrim of that city was in all religious points their highest authority ; and thousands of Greek-speaking Jews travelled annually to Palestine in order that in the national sanctuary at Jerusalem they might present their supplications and pay their vows to the Lord who dwelleth in Zion. At the same time first the Greek and then the Roman conquerors filled the land ; and v from the time of Herod not only were Greek artists and artisans to be seen at work in Palestine, but Greek colonies were also in no small numbers to be found. The combined influence of these circum- stances had in the time of Christ brought about this peculiar condition of things in Palestine, that the Greek language was generally (ziemlich allge- mein) understood, while^-the properly Jewish language was understood only by the strictly Jewish inhabit- ants ; so that one may say, almost all the dwellers in Palestine understood Greek, but not all their own vernacular language." l 1 Credner, EM. in das N. T. §,7!* Yet, notwithstanding the above statement as to the prevailing language of Palestine during the period in question, Credner still falls in with the common belief that our Lord and His apostles spoke for the most part in Hibrew. His reasons are just those commonly alleged, partly d priori and partly the occurrence of Aramaic expressions in the Gospels. He says, tj 78, " Ein Griechisch redender Messias war den Palastinensern mehr noch als ein (Jreuel, war ihnen vbllig undenkbar. In der That fehlt es auch nicht an Beispiclen, dass Jesus und die Apostel uberull wo nicht besondere Auliisse eiue Abweichung geboten und rechtfertigen, sich der Hebra- isuhen Sprache bedient haben." The grounds on which the learned writer here rests for the proof of his opinion that Christ and His disciples usually spoke in Hebrew, will be found fully examined in the following chapters. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 47 I may yet add to these extracts the following remarks from the writings of an eminent scholar among ourselves, and it will be 3een both how far recent scholarship has advanced towards the opinion maintained in this work, and also into what apparent inconsistencies it has fallen from allowing a priori considerations a predominating influence in some parts of the question. In his work on the Epistles of St. Paul Professor Jowett expresses himself as follows: "After" the establishment of the Greek kingdom of Alexander's successors, Greek became a familiar language, not only in Asia and Egypt, but also in Judaea. The Jew in other countries, who spoke and wrote in Greek, was not cut off from intercourse with his Palestine brethren, and new ideas and opinions readily passed from one to the other." This seems almost in exact accordance with the views maintained in this work; but on the immediately preceding page we encounter the following seemingly opposite statement: "As per- sons who have no education imagine that the author- ized English version is the original of the Scriptures, so, too, scholars are apt to think and write as thoush the Greek of the New Testament were the original language in which Christianity was first conceived. But our Lord and His disciples were Galileans, whose familiar speech could never have been Greek." 1 A different meaning must be assigned to the word " familiar " in these two passages, else they can hardly escape the charge of being in direct opposi- tion to each other. At the same time there is 1 Jowett on the Epistles of St. Paul, vol. i. pp. 451, 452, 2nd edition. 48 HISTORICAL PROOFS OF THE certainly much truth in the remark made by Pro- fessor Jowett as to the manner in which biblical scholars frequently write regarding the Greek of the New Testament, while believing, as he does, that Greek was not the language employed by our Lord and His disciples. This inconsistency will be found noticed and illustrated in the concluding chapter of this work. Returning to a consideration of the statements quoted, from Vossius and Credner, all the points affirmed by them (with the slight exception already noted) admit, I believe, of satisfactory proof, and most of them, indeed, hardly require any to those who are acquainted with the history of the period. That the conquests of Alexander brought Asia in general under the influence of the Greek literature and language ;' that from the date of the Macedonian supremacy vast numbers of Jews emigrated to Egypt and other Greek -speaking countries ; 2 that these Hellenized Jews nevertheless continued in close fellowship with Judaea, and habitually frequented Jerusalem as the metropolis of their religion ; 3 that numerous colonies of Greeks existed throughout 1 Plutarch, ill referring to the conversation of Alexander with Diogenes, remarks incidentally that it was the great work of the Macedonian conqueror, "t« /3*«3«^*ii toic 'EAXdmusi; uteuami ...**) Tii» 'EXAv Tr\a,Tcoin'£ei, Photius, Bib. Grose, p. 151). This author was born about the year 20 b.c, and with all his learning and zeal for the institutions of his country, seems to have been almost entirely ignorant of the Hebrew language. His works bear conclusive evidence of this, and show very strikingly how completely Hel- lenized the Jews of Egypt had become ; while, if we remember how closely connected these still remained with their native country, we are also led inferentially to the conclusion, so abundantly substantiated on other grounds, that the Greek language must then have been well known in Palestine. 2 If Philo has been compared to Plato, Josephus has been styled the Jewish Livy. His works are / Lightfoot's Works, by Pitman, vol. xi. p. 25. * Dr. Pfannkuche asserts (p. 83 of the English translation) that Philo was familiar with Aramaic ; also (p. 14) that the Egyptian Jews contemporary with Josephus spoke that language ; and still further (p. 39), that the Alexandrine version was made, not from the Hebrew original, bat from very ancient Targums I Well might an eminent German scholar remark, "Bei De Eossi wie bei Pfannkuche, finden sich manche unrichtige und ubertriebene Behauptungen, was das Verhaltniss des Aramiiischen zum Griechischen betrifft." Bleek EM. in dot A. T. p. 51. ' 54 HISTORICAL PROOFS OF THE written with great care, on the model of the classical authors, and are extremely valuable in all that relates to the elucidation of the history and antiquities of his country. They furnish many important contribu- tions to our argument. The evidence of Josephus, indeed, is to my mind absolutely conclusive as to the constant use of Greek on public occasions by the Jews of Palestine for several generations before Christ. That evidence, however, has been strangely overlooked. In formerly dealing with it, I was content simply to refer to various passages ; but as these have attracted little or no attention, I shall devote the whole of the following chapter to a consideration of the arguments which may be derived from the writings of the great Jewish historian. Before proceeding to this, it only remains that we glance at the important evidence in our favour which is afforded by the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament. 1 Much uncertainty rests on the questions as to where, when, and by whom these books were severally composed. But it is almost certain that the latest of them was written before the commence- ment of our era, while the others range at uncertain 1 1 include under this title the books which are enumerated in the sixth Article of the Church of England, viz. : — The Third Book of Esdras, The Fourth Book of Esdras, The Book of Tobias, The Book of Judith, The rest of the Book of Esther, The Book of Wisdom, Jesus the Son of Sirach, Baruch the Prophet, The Song of the Three Chil- dren, The Story of Susanna, Of Bel and the Dragon, The Prayer of Manasses, The First Book of Maccabees, The Second Book of Macca- bees. The other writings sometimes spoken of as belonging to the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament, and collected by Fabricius in his Codex Pseudepigraphus Veterit Tettamenti, do not here fall under our notice, as, with a few doubtful exceptions, they were all composed since the commencement of the Christian era. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 55 dates from that period up to perhaps the third century before Christ. Now, it at once strikes us as a suggestive fact connected with these books that they exist only in Greek. One of them, we know, was at first written in Hebrew, but the original was soon replaced by a translation. Another one is generally believed to have been composed in Hebrew ; but of it, too, all traces of the supposed original have perished. Some of the rest are conjectured by critics to have been partly written in Greek and partly in the ancient tongue of Palestine ; but of all, without exception, it holds true that only in their Greek form were they generally known to the Jews of old, and only in that form are they known to us at the present day. 1 In this consideration there seems an argument which will weigh much with every unprejudiced mind in the controversy respecting the prevailing language of Palestine in the time of Christ. The Jewish literature was then Greek. Writings intended for the people, and commonly current among them, were composed in the Greek language. Of that fact the most cursory glance at the Apocrypha is sufficient to convince us ; and the impression thus made in favour of the general employment of Greek in Palestine for several generations before Christ, is strengthened when we look a little more particularly at the several books.' 1 As has been justly remarked, " The fact that some of the Apocryphal books were originally written in Hebrew, appears rather unfavourable than otherwise to Prof. Neubauer's view (which will be noticed afterwards). For the early and complete loss of the originals shows that, although the writers preferred to use Hebrew (or Aramaic), the readers preferred Greek." The Classical Review, July 1887, p. 196. ' A useful synopsis of the Jewish literature belonging to this period is given by Westcott in his Introduction to the Gospels, London 1800, 56 HISTORICAL PROOFS OF THE The Third Book of Esdras (First in English) is deemed by some a translation from the Hebrew; the Fourth Book (Second in English) is universally allowed to have been composed in Greek. It is certain, respecting the former, that it was current in Greek during the first century before Christ. Josephus makes use of it in several places (comp. Antiq. xi. 2 with chap. ii. 16 seq. ; and Antiq. x. 4. 5 with chap. i. 1 seq.) ; and although we have not such sure evidence of the early existence of the Fourth Book, the probability is that it was composed before the days of our Saviour. Both works seem to have been written by Jews of Palestine. The Book of Tobit dates about the Maccabean period — a little earlier or later. It is agreed by all that its author could be no other than a Jew of Palestine. On this account solely the originality of the existing Greek has been denied by some critics. But this denial manifestly springs from a precon- ceived opinion as to the language in which alone a Jew of Palestine would write. Other critics have impugned the originality of the Greek, on the ground of mistakes which they fancy they have discovered pp. 83, 84. The dates of several books, which he assigns to the first or second centuries before Christ, are very doubtful. But to whatever period such writings as the Apocalypse of Henoch, or the Psalms of Solomon, may be ascribed, there is no adequate reason to doubt that they were originally composed in Greek. See Fahrieius, Cod. Pseudepigr. p. 179, and p. 915 ; Herzog's Real-Encyc. art. "Henoch," etc. As a mere expression of opinion, and without assigning it the character of testimony, to which it has no claim, I may here observe that the Syriac bishop, " George of the Gentiles," in seeking to account for the omission of the three tings iu the genealogy of our Lord con- ./ tained in the Greek Gospel of St. Matthew, makes the following, among other remarks, that at the period in question " Ilebraeoruni plerique Grueco sermone utebantur." See the passage, as quoted from Dionysius Bar-Salibi, in Asseman. Bib. Orient, ii. pp. 160, 101. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 57 as committed by the supposed translator. But the truth is, there is no evidence worth speaking of, either internal or external, to show that the work as we now have it is a translation ; and the conclusion of the most recent criticism is, that though written by a Jew of Palestine, and for the natives of that country, it was undoubtedly composed in Greek. 1 The Book of Judith is dated by Ewald about 130 before Christ ; while other writers, such as De Wette, building on the circumstance that it is first plainly referred to by Clement of Rome (Ep. ad Cor. cap. 55), assign it a somewhat later date. All admit that it was written by a Jew of Palestine. Some critics, such as Fritzsche and Hitzig, have deemed the exist- ing Greek a translation from the Hebrew, while others, such as Eichhorn and Jahn, maintain its originality. There are, in this case, good grounds for believing that the book was written in a Hebrew dialect. But, be that as it may, a necessity was soon felt for translating it into Greek, for it is certain that the existing work is nearly as old as the supposed Hebrew original. The Apocryphal additions to the Book of Esther were beyond all question originally composed in Greek. De Rossi's fanciful hypothesis regarding them has long been exploded ; and the opinion of 1 See especially, on the whole subject of the Apocryphal Books, the following work, Kurtzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen dee Atien Testaments. Bearbeitet von Dr. O. F. Fritzsche und Dr. W. Grimm, Leipzig 1851-60. In the brief remarks made above on the several books, I beg to be understood as stating with great diffidence my own conclusions in regard to the obscure questions connected with the Apocrypha. The great unquestionable fact is, that Greek was the language iu which, almost exclusively, these books were known of old among the Jews. 58 HISTORICAL PROOFS OF THE Scholz, that they are a translation from the Hebrew or Aramaic, has no supporters. It is doubtful when or where they were composed, but it appears from the writings of Josephus (Antiq. xi. 6. 1 scq.) that he was acquainted with them. The Book of Wisdom must be assigned to the second century before Christ, although neither Philo nor Josephus refers to it. There is a decided allusion to it in Clement of Rome [Ep. ad Cor. cap. 27, com- pared with Wisd. chap. xi. 22, and xii. 12). No critic doubts the originality of the Greek text ; and there is little, except a prejudice on the subject of its language, to support the prevailing opinion that it was written by a Jew of Alexandria, and not of Palestine. The Wisdom of the Son of Sirach, or Ecclesias- ticus, was undoubtedly at first composed in Hebrew. This much is stated in the prologue to the existing work ; but it is doubtful whether the ancient or modern Hebrew is intended. For several reasons I assign to the term 'EPpaiarl, employed by the translator, the same meaning which it bears in the New Testament, and believe the work to have been written at first in Aramaic. The date of the original writing was probably about the end of the third century before Christ. But, though this book was composed in Hebrew, the grandson of the author found it expedient, some half century afterwards, to translate it into Greek ; and the translation hence- forth superseded the original. Both the original author and the translator were Jews of Palestine. The Book of Baruch is generally admitted to have been written partly at least in Greek. But some PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 59 critics have imagined that there are marks of two different authors in it ; and have argued that, as the first section was probably written in Palestine, it must have been composed in the Hebrew language. This is a mere assumption, as is also the opinion that the other section was written at Alexandria. The whole book was probably composed in Palestine. . The Song of the Three Children ; The Story of Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon ; The Prayer of Manasseh ; and the Letter of Jeremiah, are admitted by the most recent critics to have been composed in Greek. 1 These writings probably all belong to the first or second century before Christ ; and if some of them were composed in Egypt, all seem to have been current in Palestine. Looking, now, at the First and Second Books of Maccabees, we find still more clear and decisive evidence of the prevalence of Greek in Palestine before the days of Christ. It is not necessary to enter here into the disputed question as to whether or not the First Book was originally written in Hebrew. Admitting, in the face of some manifest difficulties, that it was so, 2 we know for certain that both books were current among the Jews in their present form during the century which preceded the birth of our Saviour. And it must surely be conceded by all, 1 See Fritzsche and Grimm, ut gup., erete Liefemng ; and Davidson, Introduction to Old Testament, iii. 435, etc. 3 Gjimru, 'while deciding that the book is a translation from the Hebrew, acknowledges one of these difficulties, when he remarks that the Septuagint, and not the original Hebrew, is followed in the quota- tions from the Old Testament which occur in it, e.^. at chap. vii. 9 : "Diese Abhiingigkeit," he says, "des Buchs von den LXX. konnte einen Augenblick geneigt machen den griechischen Text des Buchs fur das Original zu halten." See ut sup., diitt. Lief. zv. / 60 HISTORICAL PROOFS OF THE that the intercourse which the First Book narrates as having been carried on between the Jews and the Lacedaemonians, was conducted in Greek. At chap, xii. 5-18, we find a copy of a letter which Jonathan, the high priest of the Jews, wrote to the Spartans ; and at vers. 19-23 of the same chapter, we have also a copy of a letter sent to Onias, a former high priest, by Oniares, or Areus, king of the Lacedaemonians. Again, at chap. xiv. 16-23, we have an account of another communication received from the Spartans, and respecting which it is expressly said that " it was read in the presence of the church at Jerusalem." No hint is given of any interpreter being employed on these occasions, or of the least interpretation being requisite ; so that we naturally infer that the Jewish people were quite familiar with the Greek language. 1 That this was the case appears from several other considerations which the book suggests. It cannot, I believe, be even plausibly denied that Greek was then the language of that portion of the great kingdom of Syria which lay next to Palestine. I am aware, in- 1 This conclusion is not, of course, in the least invalidated though the following statement of Dr. Davidson with respect to these letters be admitted : "The copies of the letter of Areus, king of the Lacedae- monians to Onias (xii. 20-23), and of the Spartan letter in xiv. 20-23, are not literally authentic. So also the letter of the Romans in xv. 10-21 is not exactly given, because Lucius Calpurnis Piso stands for Cneius C. Piso ; and there is no mention of a second consul, as there should lie. A careful examination of the documents given by the author will show, that however correct in substance, their form and minute details are not always so." Introd. to Old Testament, iii. 438. Dean Milman expresses himself still more sceptically {Hist, of the Jews, ii. 18) with respect to the connection between Jerusalem and Lacediemon, but even he is disposed to admit "some truth" in the account ; and if the fact of communication between the two cities be conceded at all, my argument, as above stated, will in so far hold good. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. CI deed, that it is not uncommon to meet, in the writings of eminent scholars, with expressions that seem to imply that they suppose Aramaic to have been the prevailing language of Antioch and the adjacent region under Alexander's successors. But, for many reasons, I humbly conceive this opinion to be mis- taken. The dynasty of the Seleuciclse is expressly denominated, in the eighth chapter of this book (ver. 18), "the kingdom of the Greeks" (ttjv fiao-iketav t5>v 'EXkqvcav) ; and it will surely be admitted that Greeks spoke the Greek language. 1 We know, more- over, that these Greek princes, from Seleucus Nicator downwards, were keen supporters of Greek literature and usages, and took every means of extending and establishing these among their subjects. 2 It can scarcely be doubted, therefore, that Greek was the language employed by those soldiers who were stationed by Antiochus Epiphanes and others in the tower of Jerusalem. And this being granted, its 1 Tacitus makes an observation which clearly shows that Greek was the language of the inhabitants of Antioch. Speaking of Mucian, a partisan of Vespasian, he remarks (Hist. ii. 80), "Turn Antiochensium theatrum ingressus, ubi illis consultare mos est, concurrentes, et in adulationem effusos adloquitur ; satis decorus etiam Gwecfl facundi.t omniumque qua? diceret atque ageret, arte quiidam ostentator." Josephus ( Wars, ii. 13. 7, compared with ii. 14. 4) uses the terms Ivpo! and "ExxuMf as convertible. 1 Vaillant, in his work entitled Seleucidarum imperium give Historia regwm Syria ad /idem numismatum accommodata, observes respecting the founder of the kingdom of Syria (b.c. 312), " Seleucus Nicator, Syri4 occupatft, in eft dorainationis sedein meditans, non solum ut tradidit Appianus, plurima nomina Groeca urbibus Syria? imposuit, sed et linguam Grsecam populis communicavit, et in publicis monu- mentis usurpare jussit," p. 109. Comp. Norisius, Annus et Epochoe Syro-Macedonum in vetustis urbium Syria nummis proesertim Medicceis expositce, Diss. i. cap. 3 ; and see on the whole subject, Diodati, ut tup. pars i. cap. i. prop. 3. In the above remarks I refer, of course, only to Syria cit Euphratem. C2 HISTORICAL PROOFS OF THE common use by the inhabitants of Palestine is a manifest and necessary consequence. We find it stated in this book (chap. vi. 21-27), that some of the heathen soldiers in Jerusalem were joined by a number of the Jews, and betook themselves to King Antiochus, in whose presence these apostate Israelites urged the importance of immediate steps being taken for the preservation of the king's supremacy in Palestine. Much the same thing is again narrated at chap. vii. 5, 6 ; the employment of the Greek language by the Jews being evident on both occasions. But still more decisive of the point in question is the account contained in chap. x. 1-8. Demetrius, king of Syria, being threatened on his throne by the impostor Alexander, sent letters to Jerusalem to secure the friendship of the governor Jonathan, in view of the conflict which lay before him. These letters were unquestionably written in Greek ; and let the reader mark what is said regard- ing them. "And Jonathan," we are told (ver. 7), " came to Jerusalem, and read the letters in the ears of all the people, and of them belonging to the tower." The obvious meaning of these words is, that the letters of Demetrius were read at the same ■ time in the hearing of a promiscuous multitude of the inhabitants of Jerusalem and of those Gentile soldiers who had been stationed among them. No interpreter was employed on either side ; the epistles of the king were equally intelligible to both parties ; and this being so, the inference is surely irresistible, that the dwellers in Jerusalem were then thoroughly familiar with the Greek language. Not less evident is the proof of this fact to be PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 63 derived from several passages in the Second Book of Maccabees. There can be no reasonable doubt that this book, as a whole, was written in Greek. 1 Some critics, under the influence of that prejudice which has so largely prevailed with respect to the language of Palestine at the time, have maintained that the two epistles prefixed were first written in Hebrew, but without a shadow of evidence. These were undoubtedly composed, like the rest of the book, in the language in which they still exist, and thus of themselves bear the strongest testimony to the wide acquaintance with Greek which was then possessed in Palestine. The same thing strikingly appears from some passages which contain allusions to the ancient vernacular language of the country. In the seventh chapter we have a remarkable account of the heroic conduct of a mother and her seven sons when subjected to torture in the presence of Antiochus Epiphanes. Mention is again and again made in the narrative of the sufferers having made use of their own national tongue in addressing each other, while, at the same time, it is evident that they also under- stood and employed Greek. At ver. 21 we are told respecting the mother, that, full of the noblest cour- age, she exhorted each of her sons, " in their native tongue," to suffer patiently ; and at ver. 24 we read that the king, not understanding the language which was used, and suspecting that it was meant to mock his power, put forth his utmost efforts to win over to his purrJose the youngest brother, who still remained alive. And then at ver. 26 we find the mother 1 Grimm remarks, ut tup., " Das Buch gibt sich auf den ersten Blick als griechisch Original zu erkennen." 64 HISTORICAL PBOOFS OP THE addressed by the monarch evidently in Greek ; but only replying to his exhortation by again appealing to her son (ver. 27) in " the native tongue ; " while at vers* 31-38 we read of the young man directly addressing the king in words of severe rebuke and resolute defiance. Some writers have argued from this and similar passages in the book (chap. xii. 37, xv. 29), as if they furnished proof that Greek was still unknown in the country, and that the ancient vernacular tongue only was employed. 1 It seems marvellous that such an argument should ever have been used. These very passages suggest to the reader that the employment of Hebrew was excep- tional, and thus rather tend to support than subvert our proposition. It is manifest that both the mother and her sons whose courage is celebrated in the seventh chapter were bilingues ; for, while they spoke between themselves in Hebrew, they also addressed Antiochus in Greek. The whole book, in short, bears unmistakeable evidence of the sway then possessed by Hellenic influence in Palestine. No one can read it in a spirit of candour without being convinced, as the writer himself declares, that "a kind of acme of Hellenism" (a/c/w; tk ' EWyvurfiov, chap. iv. 13) had then been reached in the land; and that, in accordance with this state of things, the people generally had become quite familiar with the Greek language. 1 See, for example, Greswell, Dissertations on the Gospels, iii. p. 335. If this learned writer means to deduce from the passage simply what Dr. Pfannkuche infers from it, " that the national Aramaic was not extinguished in Palestine by the tyranny of Antiochus Epiphanes" (]). 23 of Eng. trans.), then, of course, his argument is not in any way opposed to the views maintained in this work. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 65 Summing up, I venture to affirm that the evidence derivable from the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament, and especially from the Second Book of Maccabees, is conclusively in favour of the proposi- tion of this work. CHAPTER III. PROOFS FROM THE WRITINGS OF JOSEPHUS OF THE PREVALENCE OF GKEEK IN PALESTINE IN THE TIMES OF CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES. In entering on this portion of our subject, it may be observed, in the first place, that Josephus, as a man of eminent learning, was undoubtedly far better acquainted with the ancient Hebrew than were the great majority of his countrymen. In a well-known passage, he expressly claims this superiority, and speaks of it as a thing which was freely conceded by his contemporaries. " Those of my own nation," he says, " willingly acknowledge that I far exceed them in the learning belonging to the Jews." l Yet, with all this, it is certain that even his knowledge of the Hebrew tongue was by no means profound or accu- rate. Referring to the ignorance of ancient Hebrew which is betrayed by both Philo and Josephus, Renan remarks: "The explanations which they give of certain Hebrew words surpass the very strangest hallucinations of the ancients on the field of etymology.'" If such, then, was the case with the eminently learned Josephus as respects a know- * Jliitaire de* Langw Simitiquei, p. 168, 1st ed., or p. 166, 2nd ed. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 67 £ f ledge of ancient Hebrew, 1 we may infer how utterly destitute the great majority of his countrymen must have been of any acquaintance with that language. It is certain, moreover, that Josephus, in his references to the Old Testament, makes more habitual use of the Alexandrine version than of the original Hebrew. Fritzsche observes on this point : " Josephus is more dependent on the LXX. than on the Hebrew text ; " and he refers in confir- mation to the treatises of Spittler and Scharfenberg on the subject. 2 To the same effect, De Wette remarks respecting the Septuagint : " Philo uses it exclusively, and Josephus himself makes a greater use of it than of the Hebrew text." 8 Some, indeed, have judged otherwise. The learned Hody, e.g., thinks that Josephus generally made use of the original Hebrew. But he, too, admits that the Jewish historian was largely dependent on the Septuagint, and even sometimes followed it when it varied from the Hebrew. 4 Gesenius may be re- garded as probably right when he simply claims for Josephus some knowledge of ancient Hebrew, while he acknowledges the many glaring errors which occur in the writings of the Jewish historian with respect to that language. 8 Now, all this clearly 1 It ia not necessary to go so far as some have done with respect to the ignorance of ancient Hebrew displayed by Josephus. "Quia minus," exclaims Salmasius, "quam Josephus Judoeorum Hebraice doctus? Quia Greece magia]" Capellus affirms that he "in lingua Hebraica infantem plane fuisse, si modo quid omnino Hebraice scivisse dicendus est." Quoted by Hody, p. 222. * Herzog'B Real-Encydvpadie, art. " Alex.-Bibelubersetz." 3 EM. in das A. T., p. 43. 4 De 1'extibut, etc., p. 224. 8 " Auaser seiner aramiiischen Muttersprache wird man ihra anch einige althebriiische Sprachkenntuiss nicht streitig machen konnen, 68 TROOFS FROM THE WRITINGS OF JOSEPHUS OF THE indicates how much the generality of the Jews of the time of Christ had to rely for their knowledge of the Bible on the Greek translation, and how common its use was even among those who had some acquaint- ance with the tongue in which the Sacred Scriptures were originally composed. Again, we find Josephus referring to many places in Judaea which bore Greek names, or both Greek and Hebrew names — a thing to be expected, if the relation between the two languages was such as is here supposed. Thus, in reference to the Holy City itself, he mentions many such names as the follow- ing as belonging to places within it : TwaKeloi irvpyoi (Wars, v. 2. 2), Ko\vfi^6pa 6deyy<-To) many other insolent things to the Romans, he ended by challenging (irpovicaXetTo) the best of them to single combat. But many of those who were stationed there ridiculed him, while there were some (as was to be expected) who were afraid of him. . . . And when no one for a long time came forth to meet him, the Jew railed (/caTa/ce/jTo^oOj/To?) against their cowardice at great length." Here there could be no interpreter ; and as the Romans cannot be supposed to have understood Hebrew, nor the Jew Latin, their intercourse must have been conducted in the Greek language. The other case is recorded in Wars, vi. 6. 1. The historian there tells us : " Now among those priests who had continued to abide on the wall of the temple, there was a boy who in his thirst implored the Roman guards to pledge their honour for his safety, and con- fessed that he was very thirsty. They pitied his age and the necessity which pressed upon him, and pledged their honour as he desired. So he came down and drank himself, and having filled with water a vessel he had brought with him, he took to flight and made for his own friends. None of the guards was able to overtake him, but they reproached him for his breach of faith. He, however, replied that he had in no respect violated the terms agreed upon, for that they had pledged their honour, not with the view of his remaining among them, but simply that he should come down and take some water, and that • PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 77 i he, having done both these things, was plainly shown to have been faithful to his engagements." No word is required to prove that any idea of such a thing as interpretation having taken place between that boy and the Romans is incredible and absurd. Here, then, we have another conclusive proof that Greek — the only possible medium of intercourse between the parties — was then well understood even by children among the Jews. And this leads me now to remark that, at the period in question, the Greek language was a common acquisition of slaves in Palestine. Turning to the last chapter of the Antiquities (xx. 11. 2), we find Josephus expressing himself as follows : "I am bold % enough to say, now that I have brought to completion the objects at which I aimed, that no other person, whether a Jew or a foreigner, though he might have wished it, could have so accurately presented to the Greeks the matter contained in these books. For those of my own nation freely acknowledge that I far surpass them in the learning belonging to the Jews. I have also laboured diligently to become a master of Greek literature, and have acquired a grammatical knowledge of the language ; but the custom that prevails in our country has prevented me from attaining a correct pronunciation. 1 For 1 It is very difficult to grasp the exact meaning of this passage. The original stands as follows : " Ta» 'Ex>m«*S» li ypa/tfixTun iairovbaaa. ptTcioxih, t%» ypctftpeiriKif iff*tipi*» duahct^uii, tw It vtpl tij» irpotpopiu cLxpifamy irirpux UuXvm tvtitii*." The important question here is, "What is meant by itirpiH ai/nj0*/<*? These words have generally been explained as referring to the Hebrew patois then spoken in Palestine. But, after the most careful consideration of the passage, I think that Josephus is here referring to the Hebraistic Greek to which he was accustomed in his native country. The habitual use of that 78 TE00F3 FROM THE WHITINGS OF JOSEPI1US OF THE our people do not approve of those who learn the languages of many nations and who adorn their style with smooth words, because they regard such a study as common, and open, not only to all sorts of freemen, but also to as many of the slaves as are willing to learn." From this passage Cardinal Wiseman infers that the very slaves among the Jews then had access to a thorough acquaintance with the Greek language. His words are : " Josephi temporibus, etiam servi linguam Graecam callebant;" 1 and it would appear from the terms in which Josephus expresses himself, that, on account of the commonness which thus belonged to provincial dialect rendered it very difficult for him either to speak or write the language with any approach to classical correctness. His ]K>sition was thus analogous to that of many Scotch writers of English in the last century. Thus, says Dr. Beattie in a letter of date Jan. 5, 1778, "We who live in Scotland are obliged to study English from books like a dead language. Accordingly, when we write, we write it like a dead language which we can understand but cannot speak, avoiding perhaps all ungrammatical expressions, and even the bar- barisms of our country, but at the same time without communicating that neatness, ease, and softness of phrase which appeal's so conspicu- ously in Addison, Lord Lyttleton, and other elegant English authors.'' Life of Beattie, ii. 17. Of course, when Dr. Beattie says that Scotch- men of the period could not "speak" English, he means like English- men, for they were constant ly speaking English of a sort, just as the inhabitants of Palestine habitually spoke Greek of a Hebraic cast very different from that of the classical authors. I cannot help adding a few words on the phrase Kpotfopiv a.*.f,ifiu were able to make of it proves that it was generally known among their countrymen. Where did St. James (who seems never to have left Jerusalem) obtain that acquaintance with Greek which he displays in i his Epistle, if it was not commonly employed by those among whom he I mingled ? Are we to suppose that he, or any other of the apostles, devoted himself to the study of languages ? See this point further noticed in chap. xiv. J *The writer in the Church Quarterly Review (April 1887, p. Ifi8) says that "Greek may have been known to a few of the better educated Jews, and superuaturally or otherwise to the inspired men who wrote the different books of the New Testament." What is here meant by the words "or otherwise"? Are they equivalent to naturally t If so, how does the writer escape the force of my argu- ment as stated above 1 3 The above reasoning seems open to attack only on one side, and that, one to which few will probably turn. It might be said that as 92 GENERAL PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT OF THE inhabitants of Palestine, and how they should ac- cordingly have been addressed by the apostles in that language ? Even supposing that an acquaint- ance with Greek was supernaturally conveyed to the iviitcrs of the New Testament, it cannot be supposed that their readers were supernaturally endowed to understand it. And as it is impossible to believe that such an Epistle as that of St. Paul (or whoever else may have been the author) to the Hebrews, that is, in the first place, to inhabitants of Palestine, or the Epistle of St. James " to the twelve tribes in the dispersion," that is, to the Jewish believers scattered outside of the Holy Land, 1 would have been addressed to them in Greek unless they had been able easily to read it, we must conclude that the Jews generally, in Palestine as well as out of it, then possessed a familiar acquaintance with that language. It is undoubtedly, on a general view of the subject, an evident and striking proof of the wisdom as well as goodness of God, that the Scriptures of the New the apostles belonged to the lower ranks among the people their em- ployment of the Greek language does not prove that it was generally used among the higher. Some idea of this kind seems to have been floating before the view of Credner when he somewhat strangely writes : " So geschah es, dass in Paliistina die grieehische Sprache vorzuglich unter den niedern Stiinden der Eingebornen Juilen heimisch war, oline dass sie darum den Uebrigen unbekannt bleiben konnte." — EM. in das N. T. § 70. So a very few other writers. But we are generally told that the exact converse was true ; as, for example, by (Jrinfield when he eays, " The knowledge of Greek was confined chiefly to the upper orders and to the Roman officers."— Apology for the Septiiagint, p. 76. 1 We are perhaps scarcely justified in holding, with Alford (Or. Test. vol. iv., Proleg. to Ep. of James, § ii. 9), that the haairupa may be regarded as including Palestine: the term seems used exclusively of the Jews resident in foreign countries. Comp. John vii. 35 ; 1 Pet. i. 1. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 93 Testament should have been given to mankind in a language understood by the world at large, and not in a dialect like the Aramaic, which was intelligible 7m7y~within a very limited territory. But it is to blot and disparage both that wisdom and good- ness, if it be supposed necessary that, in order to carry their purpose into effect, the persons who were originally addressed had to be overlooked — that, by writing to them in Greek, their interests were to some extent sacrificed, while those of the world at large were consulted. Yet this is the conclusion to which those must come who, admitting the Palestinian designation of the Epistle to the Hebrews, hold that Hebrew was on any account the proper language of religious address among the Jews in the days of Christ and His apostles. The Christians of Jerusalem and Judaea, they concede, were addressed in Greek by the writer of that Epistle which specially bears their name ; and this, it is said, was done, not because that was the most fitting language in which to ad- dress them, — the contrary is maintained, — but for the sake of the rest of the world ! Such a notion seems almost too preposterous to require refutation. It will again come under our notice in a subsequent chapter ; and I simply remark in the meantime re- garding it, that, had the fact been as supposed, the Epistle in question must rather have irritated than edified those who received it. And if it be said, as it often is, that St. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, in order to conciliate the prejudices of his countrymen, by relating the gospel-history in their own language, how much more necessary was it that in an Epistle like that to the Hebrews, which strikes 94 GENERAL PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT OF THE at the root of all that was peculiarly Jewish, this means of propitiating and pleasing them should not be neglected ! Yet the Epistle in question was written in the Greek, and not in the Hebrew language. 1 But, on the other hand, if the proposition of this work be admitted, that Greek was then the fitting language of popular address in Palestine as in the rest of the civilised world, how illustriously does the wisdom of God shine forth ! He had by His provi- dence gradually brought the world into such a con- dition, that without any violent interference on His part there was existing on the earth at the commence- ment of our era a language which was known in common both by Jews and Gentiles. And thus, without any miraculous operations, and without the preference of the interests of any one nation to those of another, the Greek language was adopted as that of the New Testament — the language in which the Scriptures of the latter dispensation were naturally, as well as most fittingly, composed. Looking, then, at that part of the New Testament which has alone been as yet particularly noticed, — the Epistles, — is not the natural inference to be drawn from the data which it furnishes just that which has been stated — that Greek was then a familiar language to the inhabitants of Palestine ? And why strive to reach any other conclusion ? Why perplex and confound such a simple case as that of 1 The difficulty above suggested applies, of course, with double force to those who imagine that Hebrew was the prevailing language of Palestine at the time referred to, and yet are inclined to believe that the Gospel of St. Matthew was at first written in Greek. That the. evangelist, in whatever language he wrote, tpecially addressed himself to the Jews of Palestine is unquestionable. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 95 men writing naturally in a language which they themselves understood, to others in a language which they understood also, by supposing that the writers were led to compose their works in a language which they themselves did not naturally understand, and to send these to men who did not easily, perhaps not at all, comprehend what was thus addressed to them ! U And if we now glance at the other great division of the New Testament books, — the Gospels, — do we find any ground for supposing that these merely contain translations of the words which our Lord employed ? Is there a single hint to that effect given by any of the writers ? Do they not, on the contrary, express themselves exactly as they would have done supposing they Lad meant to report to us the very language which was made use of by the Saviour? Their constant formula is, "Jesus said," or "He spoke these words',' and that whether it happens to be Greek or Hebrew which they record as the language which was uttered. Not the least indication is ever furnished by the evangelists that for the most part they convey to us only a trans- lation of the words of Christ. And the supposition that such is the case must be justified, if it can be justified at all, by considerations entirely extraneous to the tenor of the narrative. It is quite gratuitous, for instance, so far as the record is concerned, to imagine that St. John translated the word which Jesus employed when he tells us that our Lord exclaimed on the cross Terekearai. There is no intimation given us to that effect any more than 96 GENERAL PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT OF THE when we are informed by another evangelist that He cried, " Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani ; " the onus probandi therefore manifestly falls upon those who assert that in either case it is only a version of our Lord's words which has been preserved ; for the natural impression made upon our mind by the narrative is, that in the one case as much as in the other the very language is reported to us which then actually proceeded out of the Saviour's mouth. A very strange mode of reasoning, as humbly appears to me, has prevailed with respect to those occasional Aramaic expressions which arc inserted in the Gospels as having been employed by Christ. It lias been argued that the occurrence of such terms now and then in the reports which have been pre- served to us of our Lord's discourses proves that He generally made use of the Syro-Chaldaic language ; and that accordingly it is in these few instances only that we have examples of the very words which He employed. But such a conclusion rests upon a manifest petitio principii ; there is not the least foundation furnished for it in the evangelic narrative. The writers (especially St. John and St. Mark) seem not a little anxious at times to let us know the exact words which our Lord and others employed. Only on the ground that they desired to be strictly ac- curate in this respect can we account for the trouble which they so frequently take in preserving Aramaic expressions, and then appending to these an inter- pretation, instead of at once representing them by their Greek equivalents. But, with all this, none of them ever hint that they are giving the words of Jesus more exactly when they report Hebrew than PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 97 when they report Greek. On the contrary, as has been already remarked, the very same mode of ex- pression is made use of by them, whether it be the one language or the other which our Lord is repre- sented as employing ; and to say, therefore, that the occurrence here and there of an Aramaic word or phrase proves that He habitually made use of that dialect, is simply to assume the point in question, and to mistake for a sound and valid argument what is in reality a foregone conclusion. 1 The fact seems to be that the occasional occurrence of Aramaic expressions in the Gospels, instead of proving that Christ habitually made use of that dialect, rather tends to prove the contrary. If it be maintained that Syro-Chaldaic was the language which He generally employed, the question at once occurs, why we have a few such words, and a few only, preserved to us as having been used by Him on rare occasions. On the supposition that He spoke usually in Greek, these words, we may see, come in naturally enough as exceptions to the general rule, and are specially inserted as such, just as in the reported discussions of Cicero we often find a few Greek terms introduced ; and, as in our own lan- guage, a French or German expression may every now and then occur. But if, on the other hand, it be supposed that Christ really for the most part made use of the Aramaic, so that the Greek was the 1 The method of argument on which I have here taken the liberty of remarking is found in countless writers. See, e.g., among a host of others, Wilier, R W7?.,art."Sprache;" Migne, Encyclopedia Theologique, vol. iii. art. " Matthieu ; " and (though in this case with some im- portant qualifying remarks) Trench On the Miracles, p. 186. The passages in question simply prove that our Lord made use of Aramaic on these occasions. G 98 GENERAL PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT OF THE exception and not the rule in His discourses, it seems impossible to give any satisfactory, or even tolerable, explanation of the manner in which the few Aramaic words found in the Gospels are introduced. They certainly appear to be brought in as excep- tional to our Saviour's practice ; and when regarded in that light their occurrence can cause little diffi- culty, even although no evident reason may be found for His use of Aramaic on these particular occasions. But when the opposite opinion is maintained, and when these words are looked on as being really speci- mens of His ordinary language, there is no principle of reason which can be suggested as likely to have guided the evangelists in their preservation and insertion. The most improbable, and even absurd, explanations of this matter have been offered by some of those who imagine that our Lord generally made use of Hebrew, as will be plain from the following examples. Dr. Pfannkuche having stated that in the well- known passages, Matt, xxvii. 46, Mark xv. 34, v. 41, vii. 34, we have " some fragments of Christ's speeches preserved in the original language," adds in a note, — " We can only conjecture why these passages of our Greek Gospels, which otherwise always give Jesus' speeches and sayings in Greek, contain only a few words of the original text. In the two first-quoted passages, as it seems, the original expression is in- serted, because thereby light is thrown upon the circumstance immediately after mentioned, — that Jesus, according to the supposition of some by- standers, cried for help from Elias. In the two latter passages, where the preservation of the original seems PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 99 to be rather accidental than intentional, the trans- lator may have been in the same predicament as the authors of the Alexandrine version, who now and then did retain, probably from mere inadvertence, a single Hebrew word," etc. 1 It is needless to notice the weakness of this explanation, if, indeed, it deserves the name of explanation. The dishonour which it does to the character of our Gospels, as written by intelligent, not to say inspired men, must be obvious to every reader. But other solutions of the difficulty have been suggested. By far the most plausible of such solu- tions is that which conceives of these particular Aramaic expressions having been preserved rather than others, on account of the peculiar solemnity which belongs to them. This view is stated by Archbishop Trench as follows : " St. Mark gives us, probably from the lips of Peter, the very words which the Lord spake in the very language wherein He uttered them — Talitha cumi — no doubt as having something especially solemn in them ; as he does the Ephphatha on another occasion." 2 But, if I may venture an expression of dissent from the many 'On this passage the English translator of Pfannkuche, while favourable to the general view maintained by his author, remarks, with his usual candour, " The translator is not much disposed to dis- pute the author's position with regard to the language of Palestine at the time of Christ j but he thinks it but fair to observe, that the proof here drawn from Christ's speeches is excessively weak." He then goes on to show this, and adds, "After all, Dr. Pfannkuche here only pre- supposes, and has not proved that the Greek Gospels are only transla- tions." Ex uno disce omnes: it has been supposition, and not proof, which has been characteristic of all that have maintained the views of Pfannkuche on this matter. 8 Trench On the Miracles, p. 186. 100 GENERAL PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT OF THE eminent scholars who seem willing to rest in this explanation, I must confess that it appears to me very far from satisfactory. There are numerous occasions, at least equally solemn, on which our Lord's words are given in Greek, — sucli as those majestic terms, preserved in St. Mark only, by which He soothed the tempestuous lake, and that mighty utterance of power which, as St. John informs us, brought forth from his grave the sleeping Lazarus. These two scenes must be allowed to have been among the most sublime in our Lord's history ; and if He had really been in the habit of speaking in Aramaic, and if the solemnity or grandeur of the circumstances in which He spoke had been deemed by the evangelists a sufficient reason at any time for preserving the very language which He employed, there are no occasions on which this feeling could have operated more strongly than on those which have been mentioned. Surely also, in such a case, we might have expected to have had preserved, in their original form, more of those impressive words which He spoke upon the cross. Only one of His seven cries is given in Aramaic ; the rest in Greek. And can it be conceived that the beloved disciple, who is so ready on other occasions to report the Hebrew terms which his Lord and those about Him employed, 1 would have failed to preserve some of these in their original form, had they really been uttered in Aramaic? John stood with a bleeding heart by the cross of his Master. Alone of all the apostles he was an eye-witness of the crucifixion. He heard, with his own ears, the words which the Saviour 1 See, e.g., St. John's Gospel, chap. i. 42, 43, ix. 2, xx. 16, etc. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 101 I now spoke ; and these must have sunk far too deeply into his affectionate memory ever afterwards to be forgotten. For our own part, we believe that they never were, and never will be, forgotten. According to our view, the faithful pen of the apostle has recorded the exact expressions which our Lord em- ployed ; when glancing first at His weeping mother, and then at His dearest disciple, He said to her, Tvvai l&e 6 vlot aov, while to him He added, 'ISe y fiij T VP a-ov. And the same pen, I believe, has accurately preserved, in its original form, that one word diyjrw, the utterance of which both indicated the intense anguish of our Lord at the moment, and accomplished the last predicted circumstance of His sufferings, — as well as that still more significant TeTeXearai, the word of words among all that ever passed human lips, and which, when it issued from the mouth of the Divine Redeemer, indicated that His sufferings were over, and His work fulfilled. I must reject, then, as altogether insufficient, that explanation of the Aramaic terms in question, which would account for them on the ground of the solemnity of the circumstances in which they were uttered ; and I cannot but reckon their insertion in the inspired record utterly inexplicable, if it be supposed that Christ commonly made use of the Hebrew lan- guage. 1 1 1 deem it needless to notice particularly other explanations which have been attempted of the occurrence of these Aramaic expressions in the Greek Gospels, on the supposition that they are really specimens of our Lord's ordinary language. The following may be quoted with- out comment. Lamius, after stating that no ingenuity could account for the insertion of the terms in question, nevertheless makes an effort, with regard to two of them, when he adds, "Quanquam de Talitha- cumi dicere possum, retenta fuisse ilia Syro-Clialdsea verba, quod 102 GENERAL PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT OF THE But now it may be asked — Can any explanation of the occurrence of these Aramaic expressions be given on the theory maintained in this work — that our Lord spoke for the most part in Greek, and only now and then in Hebrew ? In answer to this ques- tion, it seems almost sufficient to repeat the state- ment, which has already oftener than once been made, as to the relation which is conceived to have existed between the two languages. Let it be remembered, that I admit and maintain the simultaneous existence in Palestine, at the date referred to, of both the Aramaic and Greek, the former language being, no doubt, in many respects subordinate to the latter, but still the mother-tongue of most of the native popula- tion ; and how natural the supposition that, in such circumstances, our Lord should have sometimes found it expedient to depart from His usual practice, and make use of the debased, but still vernacular language of the country ! Occasions may easily be imagined on which He would find it suitable to do so ; just as a public teacher in many countries at the present day, while generally employing the language of literature there prevalent, would find it edifying and instructive at times to introduce a pithy expres- essent veluti verba concepta, et formula qua Judaei uti aolebant, cum medicanienta legrotis adhiberent, dicentes, Surge & morbo tuo, ut recte uc scite adnotavit Erasmus. Quod autem ad vocem Ephplieta attinet, exarata Svriace ab Evangelista videatur, quod geniitu et clamore quodam emisso, Christus subspirans earn pronunciaverit, ut Bonus i|>sissimii8 quodammodo illius claraoris perciperetur, vel saltern, meminissemus." Laniius, De Eruditione Apoitolorum, p. 1093. The opinion which has been recently expressed, that the Aramaic terms in question were left because they could not be translated into Greek, is clearly refuted by such passages as Matt, xxvii. 46; Mark-vii. 34; John i. 39, 43, etc. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 103 sion, or a familiar and homely phrase, from the common, everyday language of the people. The necessity for explanation, then, is, on our hypothesis, much less stringent than on the opposite. If it be supposed that our Lord spoke almost always in Aramaic, it seems truly singular that so very few of His sayings in that language should have been preserved by the evangelists, and that no hint should have been given that they were then specially reporting to us the very words which He employed. If, on the other hand, Greek was the language which i I may give the following illustrations. On one occasion Dr. Chalmers, the great Scottish preacher, was labouring, with all the power of his earnest and eloquent lips, to convey to a poor woman whom he had visited an acquaintance with the nature of faith. He tried to represent his meaning under every form of speech which the English language afforded, but in vain. There was still no sign of answering intelligence on the part of his hearer ; when at last, desert- ing the English language altogether, he cried, "Just lippen to Him." This word " lippen " is the common Scotch expression for confide or trutt ; and it was no sooner uttered than the idea wished to be con- veyed was apprehended. What all the illustrative power of Chalmers failed to effect by means of English, was at once accomplished by his use of this Scotch expression ; and yet it could surely never be argued from this that his addresses, even to the humblest audiences, generally were, or should have been, delivered in the latter language.— In many parte of England even, the common dialect differs so much from that of books and education, that the people may be said to employ two different languages. This has been noticed in some educational reports. "In Teesdale," for instance, we are told, "though the presence of education is such that the adult population generally understand any ordinary English book, they still use the local dialect as their everyday medium. It would be deemed affectation to do otherwise. Hence children find the language of books strange for a time."— Quoted iu Times, Sept. 2, 1861. Now, in circumstances like these, occasions will doubtless often arise when it is found necessary or beneficial, in the course of public instruction, to introduce a word or two from the popular dialect ; while, at the same time, it is the English of educated men which is the language of all ordinary public addresses, just as we conceive the Greek to have been in Palestine in the time of Christ. 104 GENERAL PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT OF THE He generally made use of, and if, accordingly, His discourses, so far as preserved, are reported to us almost verbatim by the writers of the Gospels, there is no ground for surprise that an Aramaic word or phrase should now and then occur, even although we may not perceive the reason why that, language was then employed by our Lord, or why its employment was particularly noticed by the evangelists. 1 But I am willing to go farther than this. I am humbly inclined to believe that some reasons may be gathered from the special circumstances in which the few Aramaic expressions of a striking nature which are preserved in the Gospels were made use of, why that language, rather than the Greek, should have been employed, and why its employment should have been expressly recorded in the narrative. The first passage calling for explanation is Mark v. 41, which is thus rendered in our English version : " He took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha-cumi, which is, being interpreted, Damsel (I 1 The writer in the Church Quarterly Review (April 1887) has apparently not seen this, and has therefore failed to put the matter in its proper light, so far as my argument is concerned. He says (p. 156): "The common opinion has hitherto been that the Aramaic terms retained by the evangelists, and sometimes expressed in Greek forms, proved that this was the language used by Jesus; but a different view has been put forward by Dr. Roberts, who held that such a method of reasoning was nothing but a petitio principii. If the presence of these terms cannot be explained in the ordinary way, he is bound to reconcile them with his theory that the Saviour always spoke in public in the Greek language." But, as argued above, I am under no such obligation. The explanations I have given of the occurrence of these occasional Aramaic expressions may, or may not, be regarded as satisfactory ; but it is quite sufficient for me to remark that, on the supposition of the relations of the two languages being such as I have maintained, it was a thing to be expected that such Aramaic words and phrases should, from time to time, have been made use of, and consequently have found a place in the narrative. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 105 say unto thee) arise." Now, on the supposition that Greek was our Lord's usual form of address, I cannot but think that a very good and satisfactory reason may be perceived for the exception which is here par- ticularly noted. The language which He employed at this time was, of course, immaterial, so far as the result was concerned ; the designed effect would have followed, whatever words, or although no words, had been made use of; and, as the English translator of Pfannkuche's work has remarked, "whether the people standing by understood them or not, was of no moment." It must then have been from considera- tions connected with the damsel herself that our Lord's choice of a language on this occasion was determined ; and I venture to propose the following, as sufficient to account for His having made use of the Aramaic. The person on whom the miracle was per- formed was of tender years ; and, being the daughter of a strictly Jewish l family, she was probably as yet but little acquainted with the Greek. At any rate, Greek was to her, as to every native Jew, a language not generally employed in the domestic circle ; and it was to the Hebrew patois that her ears from infancy had been accustomed. How beautifully accordant, then, with the character of Him whose heart was tenderness itself, that now, as He bent over the life- 1 It is scarcely needful to remind the reader that her father is described as being "a ruler of the synagogue," — ccp^iavniyayoi,— a fact which it seems of some importance to keep in mind while seeking to account for our Lord's employment of Aramaic on this occasion. Common as Greek was throughout the country, it was exactly of such a case as hers that it might be said (as in the analogous case referred to in the preceding note), with respect to the language of literature and ordinary public address, that children found it strange for a time. 106 GENERAL PROOFS FBOM THE NEW TESTAMENT OF THE less frame of the maiden, and breathed that life- giving whisper into her ear, it should have been in the loved and familiar accents of her mother-tongue ! Although dead and insensible the moment before the words were uttered, yet, ere the sound of them passed away, there was life and sensibility within her. Does not every reader therefore perceive, in the thoughtful tenderness of the act, a most sufficient reason why it was in Hebrew, and not in Greek, that our Lord now addressed her? And do we not also discover a cause why the fact of His having done so should be specially noticed by the evangelist ? Are we not thus furnished with a new and affecting example of our Saviour's graciousness ? And do we not feel that St. Mark — the most minutely descriptive of all the evangelists — deserves our gratitude for having taken pains to record it? Softly and sweetly must the tones of that loving voice, speaking in the language of her childhood, have fallen on the sleeping spirit of the maiden ; and by words of tenderness, no less than words of power, was she thus recalled to life and happiness. Equally natural, as I am inclined to think it, is the explanation which may, on the hypothesis of this work, be given of our Lord's use of the Aramaic language in the case of the deaf and dumb man, of which we find a record in Mark vii. 32-37. At ver. 34, we read that the Saviour, having gone through those impressive preliminaries by which this miracle was preceded, said to the sufferer, "Ephphatha." And "straightway," it is added, " his ears were opened, and the string of his tongue was loosed, and he spake plain." Now here, as PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 107 before, our Lord's choice of a particular language could have been determined only by a regard to the man himself. And, as the slightest additional reason for His selection of one language rather than another must have been quite enough for Him who never violated propriety in even the lowest degree, we may be satisfied if we can discover, in the peculiar circumstances of this man, the least possible ground for the preference here given by our Lord to the Aramaic over the Greek. Supposing, then, as some commentators do, that the man had been hitherto entirely deaf and speechless, it will, perhaps, appear to every one fitting and proper that the very first sounds which fell upon his ears, and the first which his liberated tongue would naturally attempt to imitate, should be those of the vernacular language of his country. So far as respected the power of articulate speech, this man was a child. He had to learn to speak, as the infant gradually does ; and, while Jesus removed the impediments which had hitherto prevented this, He did not, of course, convey to the man a miraculous acquaintance with any language. The faculty of speech was imparted ; but it had to be used by the man himself, in order to lead to those attainments of which till now he had been destitute ; and, dealing with him as with a child, which in respect to speech he was, the Saviour now kindly and graciously addressed him in the mother- tongue of his native land. But a somewhat different view may be taken of this man's case, and one which, with Trench and others, I prefer. It would seem from some expres- sions made use of in the narrative that the man was 108 GENERAL PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT OF THE not entirely destitute of the power of speech, nor, of course, in that case of hearing. He is said to have been fioyt\d\o<;, and after the miracle was performed to have spoken opdm — both of which terms appear to imply that he had previously been able in a measure to speak and hear, though very defectively. And on this supposition it is perhaps still more easy to see why our Lord addressed him in Aramaic. In addition to the consideration formerly mentioned, there is now this one, that that was the only lan- guage of which it was at all likely the sufferer could possess any knowledge. He was dealt with throughout as an intelligent being. The various signs employed doubtless conveyed a meaning to his mind ; and when at last the decisive word was spoken, it was in the highest degree proper that that also should be intelligible to him. It was therefore graciously uttered in a language which alone in his afflicted circumstances he could have learned at all to understand — the mother-tongue of his native country. In the only other remarkable instance recorded in the Gospels of our Lord's use of Hebrew instead of Greek, — His cry upon the cross, — an obvious reason which we may venture to assign for His having chosen the one language in preference to the other will, I am disposed to believe, present itself to every reader. His thoughts naturally reverted in that hour of suffering to the very words which His illustrious type had used in the time of his distress — words on which the Saviour's mind had no doubt often before pondered, and words therefore which then spontaneously rose to His lips in their original PREVALENCE OF CREEK IN PALESTINE. 109 form as He now experienced the hidings of His Father's countenance. 1 And on the hypothesis that our Lord spoke for the most part in Greek, we can also very naturally account for those isolated and occasional Hebrew terms which occur in His discourses. The Aramaic had, as a matter of course, no small influence upon the Greek of the country, and necessarily insinuated many of its idioms and expressions into the coexist- ing language. Hence the occurrence of such words 1 In writing thus I am, of course, perfectly aware that as the words in question ,„, M in the Greek Gospels they are in the form, not of ancient, but modern Hebrew. But even though actually spoken as recorded by St. Mark, the language used with respect to them above could scarcely be regarded as altogether inappropriate, for they might still be said, even in their most Aramaized form when compared with the corresponding Qreek, to re-echo the very tones of the Psalmist. And I venture to think it by no means certain that our Lord did not, in fact, employ the exact expressions of David. Supposing Him to have done so, it is still probable, I think, that the evangelists would have preserved the words in Aramaic. This I reckon probable, both because we have every reason to believe that the writers were but little acquainted with ancient Hebrew, and because the evangelic narrative having been often repeated to those who understood (besides Greek) only modern Hebrew, the passage in question would soon come to be expressed in that corrupted form of the ancient language. And in the variations which are here found in the respective texts of Matthew and Mark, we seem to trace the process of deflection from the original words as perhaps spoken by our Saviour. St. Matthew, according to the received text, differs only by a single word (acc/3ax,6avi for 'jnaty) from the Hebrew of the Psalms, while St. Mark imparts a stronger Aramaic colouring to the whole exclamation. And the remark of Beza (in loc.) seems here in point : " Ego arbitror Christum Hebraeas Davidis voces usurpasse, ut apparet ex manifestiori paronomasia Eli et Elue." The writer of a friendly notice of my Discussions on the Gospels in the Edinburgh Review (July 1865) remarks : " Dr. E. vouchsafes but little notice to the fact of our Lord's quotation from the Psalms being made in Aramaic." But for reasons stated above I am inclined to think, with Beza, that the quotation was made from the original Hebrew. If bo, it would soon come to be expressed in the modern patois, but I can conceive of no reason for its being originally uttered in Aramaic. 110 THEVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. as Amen, Corban, Rabbi, etc., of such designations as Cephas, Boanerges, etc., and of such phrases as •npoaairov Xafifidveiv, yeveadai davdrov, etc. It seems no easy matter, on the supposition that our Lord generally made use of Hebrew, to account for the retaining of such words as 'Paxd (Matt. v. 22) and Ma/i/iavd (Luke xvi. 11), while His language is for the most part translated. For why, it may be well asked, should an exception be made in favour of these expressions ? What right had they to stand as they were originally uttered, while the whole context in which they are imbedded was subjected to a process of translation ? It certainly does appear to me some- what difficult to answer these questions on the hypothesis that our Lord spoke for the most part in Hebrew ; whereas on the theory here maintained, that the substance of His discourse was Greek, and has thus been reported to us in its original form by the evangebsts, nothing could be more natural or indeed inevitable than that such Aramaic words and phrases should from time to time occur and be preserved. It appears, then, from a general survey of the whole New Testament, that there are manifold and decisive reasons to conclude that Greek was commonly known and used in Palestine in the days of Christ and His apostles : that THAT accordingly was the language which He and they usually employed; and that, while both the Master and His disciples sometimes made use in public of the Aramaic dialect, such an occurrence was quite exceptional to their ordinary practice, and is on that account specially noticed in the evangelic history. CHAPTER V. PROOF FROM THE USE MADE OF THE SEPTUAGINT VER- SION THAT GREEK WAS THE PREVAILING LANGUAGE OF PALESTINE IN THE TIMES OF CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES. There is hardly a more interesting question connected with New Testament criticism than that which respects the form in which the Old Testament was made use of by our Lord and His disciples. We constantly come upon passages in the Gospels in which appeal is made to the Scriptures both by Christ and those whom He addressed. And the inquiry naturally suggests itself — What were the writings thus in the hands of our Lord and His contemporaries, writings which it is everywhere assumed were quite familiar alike to Him and His disciples, and to the people of Palestine among whom they mingled ? Did Christ and His contemporaries read and quote from the original Hebrew text ? Or was it an Aramaic version of the Old Testament which they had in their hands, and to which they appealed ? Or, finally, did they make use of the Septuagint Greek translation which we know had been begun to be formed between two and three hundred years before the Christian era, and which had gradually attained completion ? Much contrariety of bpinion and great apparent 112 PROOF FROM THE USE OF THE SEPTUAGINT OF THE confusion of thought are to be found on this subject in the writings of Biblical scholars. As we shall soon see, there is perhaps no critical question con- nected with the Scriptures which has continued to be treated in a more unscientific spirit. Suppositions are rested in to the neglect of facts. Theories of an a priori character are accepted though demonstrably opposed to positive evidence. One difficulty is evaded only by adopting another ; and there is a general clinging to traditional opinions on the subject, while a very brief consideration is sufficient to prove these destitute of any solid foundation. If this be so, we may safely predict that such a state of things cannot last. The demand of our day is that a supreme deference should be paid to facts. All theories however plausible, and all traditions however venerable, must be set aside if found to be unsupported by substantial and sufficient evidence. Truth at all hazards is what mankind most passion- ately desire. And in pursuit of this noble aim many views which formerly prevailed have become modified, while some have been altogether abandoned. Nor can it ultimately be otherwise in regard to the subject before us. Truth will prevail against tradition. And, as I shall endeavour to show, the truth here offers itself very clearly to our acceptance provided we are willing to look at the question in the genuine spirit of science, determined to lay aside all prepossessions, and to allow ourselves to be guided by evidence alone to a conclusion. I have above suggested three answers which might be given to the question about to be discussed, and these may be regarded as exhausting all the possibili- r-REVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 113 ties of the case. Christ and His apostles either used the Old Testament Scriptures (l)mjhe original Hebrew, or (2) in^an-Ara maic versi on, or (3) in the Septuagint translation."" I proceed, then, to an ex- amination ofthe several hypotheses, with the simple desire of ascertaining which of them is in accordance with the facts of the case, and has therefore a claim, however much opposed to deep-rooted an.d long- prevalent views, to be accepted with the homage ever due to the majesty of truth. The first hypothesis is, that Christ and His apostles, in reading and referring to the Old Testa- ment Scriptures, made use of the original Hebrew text. In the case of those persons who have not thought much upon the subject, this is doubtless the pre- vailing impression. They are aware that the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, and when they find our Lord and His apostles quoting from it, they naturally suppose that this was done in the original language. It has never occurred to them to question the fact, so that they quietly repose in the conclusion stated without giving it the smallest consideration. While this is the position occupied by readers of the New Testament in general, it is not uncommon to find, even among professed Biblical scholars, the same belief expressed or implied. Evidently without having reflected on the point, they write as if there could be no doubt that Hebrew was the language in which the Old Testament was known to Christ and His contemporaries. Thus, to give only one notable example: the late highly-accomplished and widely- 114 TROOF FEOM THE USE OF THE SEPTT7AG1NT OF THE learned Dean of Westminster tells us, in his Sermons in the East, with respect to Christ in the synagogue at Nazareth, that " the roll of the Hebrew Scriptures- was delivered to Him," and that He unrolled it and read, the supposition being apparently made that in so doing He was perfectly intelligible to His hearers. 1 The Dean may be regarded as being in this matter representative of a multitude of others. His atten- tion had probably never been specially directed to the point ; and he therefore naturally assumed that when our Lord read from the Old Testament to the people in the synagogue, He did so in the original Hebrew language. But the consensus of scholars proclaims that this could not have been the case. It is almost universally admitted that in the days of our Lord the language of the Old Testament books had long been dead, and was not understood by the great body of the people. It no doubt continued to be studied and taught by the learned. As the venerable language of the sacred books of the nation, such would, of course, be the case ; but acquaintance with it was confined to a comparatively limited class. The " Hebrew " men- tioned in the New Testament was a very different dialect. It seems to have been a kind of patois, formed from a mixture of Syriac and Chaldee, with perhaps some other elements ; " and the common use of this so-called Hebrew in Palestine still left the people utterly helpless when confronted with the Hebrew of the Old Testament. 1 P. 45. In quoting this passage, it is only fair to say that the Dean assured me a considerable time before his death, that the words would be altered in any subsequent edition. * Simon, Hitt. Crit. p. 65. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 115 At what time the language of their sacred books ceased to be a living language among the Jews cannot be positively determined. There is a well- known passage in Nehemiah bearing upon the point. We are told (chap. viii. 8) that Ezra and his coad- jutors read to the people " in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense and caused them to understand the reading." The question here is whether these words mean that Ezra translated the Hebrew into Aramaic, in order that the people might understand it, or whether he simply paraphrased and expounded the passage so as to make its mean- ing clear. Scholars are divided in opinion upon this point. On the one side, the learned Jewish authorities, Rabbis and Talmudists, generally assume that Hebrew continued to be used only up to the time of the exile, and was then gradually superseded by Aramaic. This view has also been adopted by many eminent Christian writers. Buxtorf and Walton may be named among scholars of a former age, and Heng- stenberg 1 and Havernick 2 among recent writers. But, on the other side, Gesenius observes : " It is a false impression derived from a misinterpretation of Nch. viii. 8, that the Jews, during their exile, had wholly forgotten their ancient language and were obliged to learn its meaning from the priests and scribes." ' 1 Bleek agrees with him in this, and maintains that the true meaning of the disputed word (^na?) is not trans- lated or interpreted, but distinct or clear,* so that 1 Booh of Daniel (Eng. trans.), p. 242 ff. > Inlrod. toO. T.\ 35. * Heb. Or. § 2, 6 ; comp. Oesch. d. ffeb. Spr. § 13. * EM. in das A. T:p. 96. 11G PROOF FROM THE USE OF THE SEl'TUAGINT OF THE the passage simply implies that Ezra explained those portions of the Old Testament which he read in the- hearing of the people. It may be admitted that probability is rather in favour of this second view of the import of the passage. But the important point to be noticed is that all the above-named scholars, with multitudes of others, agree that the ancient Hebrew had died out of common use among the Jews long before the , coming of Christ. Opinions differ, as we have seen, with respect to the exact date at which this took place ; but those who are best entitled to speak with authority on the subject declare, with almost one voice, that for a century at least before our era the ancient Hebrew had ceased to be used in writing, as it had previously ceased to be used in speech ; and that though it continued to be studied by professed adepts as the language of the sacred books, it was, in the days of Christ and His apostles, totally unknown to the great body of the Jewish people. As this is a vital point in the present argument, let me give emphasis to it by expressly quoting the words of some leading authorities among Biblical scholars. There is a constant tendency evinced by mere popular writers on Scripture, quietly to assume that the Jews of our Saviour's day did understand the ancient Hebrew, and that, accordingly, it was in that language they became acquainted with the books of the Old Testament. Let the following statements of scholars of the highest standing suffice to set aside •such an opinion. Ewald declares that " the Hebrew in the last centuries before Christ became more and more an antique language, acquired only by special PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 117 study." ' ' De Wette writes : " After the exile the Hebrew language gradually ceased to be heard from the lips of the people, and continued to survive only as the language of learning and literature." 3 Bleek, referring to the times of Christ, remarks : " The ancient Hebrew had already for a long time been, even to the Jews of Palestine, a dead language, the knowledge of which, so far as it was necessary for the reading of the Holy Scriptures, continued only among those who were devoted to such a special study." 3 And not to multiply quotations, I shall simply add that similar views are also expressed by Winer, Gesenius, Deutsch, and almost every writer of re- putation who has touched upon the subject. Such being the state of the case, I cannot but express surprise that a scholar of the calibre of Keim should have written as follows : " The interesting question whether Jesus read the Scripture in the Greek translation rather than in the Hebrew text must be answered in the negative. Doubtless it has been before now maintained that the old Hebrew of the Bible had become a dead, unintelligible tongue to the Jews of that time who spoke Aramaic ; that only the scribes could still read it ; that the people were pointed to the Greek translation if they wished to study the Scripture for themselves. This view is altogether at variance with the Jewish regard for the sacred relics of their country," 4 etc. It would be a cause of great satisfaction if those writers who differ from the views which I hold as to ' Autftthr. Lehrb. d. Heb. Spr. p. 28. * EM. in da* A. T. § 34. » Ibid. p. 53. *Je*u» of Nazara, ii. p. 152 (Eng. trans.). 118 PROOF. FROM THE USE OF THE SEPTUAGINT OF THE the prevalence of Greek in Palestine in the time of Christ would boldly take their stand with Kcim, and maintain that the Jews still read the Old Testament in the ancient Hebrew text. We should then have to deal with something substantial, instead of being tantalised by the reiterated mention of an Aramaic version of the Old Testament, for the existence of which, as we shall soon see, no evidence can be produced. The ancient Hebrew text undoubtedly existed at the date referred to, and we should thus, I repeat, have something positive set before us, did scholars generally follow Keim, and say, That was the Bible in ordinary use among the Jews in the days of Christ and His apostles. But, as we have seen, there is no hope of this. Almost all critical opinion is dead in the teeth of such an assertion. 1 It is even a kind of commonplace among Biblical scholars that ancient Hebrew had been unintelligible to the Jewish people for generations before the coming of Christ. There is, indeed, not the smallest necessity at the present day for refuting the views of Keim, as set forth in the passage which has been quoted. Scholars, with consentient voice, call out against them. They are utterly opposed to the clearest evidence, such as that derived from the case of Joseph us ; and, as has been shown, Ewald, Bleek, De Wette, Gesenius, Winer, Deutsch, and many others join in condemning them. But let us bring the matter to a simple practical test. It is evidently taken for granted throughout the Gospels that the people of the Jews 1 The sole recent exception that I know of is the writer in the Church Quarterly Review (April 1887, p. 1G0), who maintains that the ancient Hebrew was " universally known among the people ! " PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 119 in the time of Christ had easy and 'familiar access to the entire Old Testament. Appeal is constantly made to the Scriptures as being in their possession. But not one in a hundred, to say the least, could have afforded to purchase a Hebrew copy even of the Law, far less of the entire Scriptures. Greek books, on the other hand, as we know from abundant evidence, were produced at a very low rate, and might easily be procured by almost the poorest of the people. Some valuable statements on this point occur m Dr. Edersheim's Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. He remarks, "From the extreme labour and care bestowed on them, Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible were enormously dear, as we infer from a curious Talmudical notice, where a common woollen wrap, which, of course, was very cheap, a copy of the Psalms, of Job, and torn pieces from Proverbs, are together valued at five minahs, say, about £19. Although this notice dates from the third or fourth century, it is not likely that the cost of Hebrew Biblical MSS. was much lower at the time of Jesus. This would, of course, put their possession well-nigh out of common reach. On the other hand, we are able to form an idea of the cheapness of Greek manuscripts from what we know of the price of books in Rome at the beginning of our era. Hundreds of slaves were there engaged copying what one dictated. The result was not only the publication of as large editions as in our days, but their produc- tion at only about double the cost of what are now known as 'cheap' or 'people's editions.' Probably it would be safe to compute, that as much matter as 3 PROOF FROM THE USE OF THE SEPTUAGINT OF THE uld cover sixteen pages of small print might, in :h cases, be sold at the rate of about sixpence, and that ratio. Accordingly, manuscripts in Greek or tin, although often incorrect, must have been easily ainable, and this would have considerable influence making the Greek version of the Ohl Testament ; 'people's Bible.'" 1 L trust nothing more need be said to convince the der that when our Lord quoted from the Scriptures Sis addresses to the people, or when they, in turn, so in conversation with Him, the original Hebrew t could in neither case be the medium employed. ! may refer, e.g., to Mark xii. 35-37, in which sage Christ is represented as teaching publicly in temple, and citing the Old Testament. "And us answered and said," we read, " while He taught ;he temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the of David ? For David himself said by the Holy jst, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou on my it hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool, /id therefore himself calleth him Lord ; and mce is he then his son ? And the common people rd him gladly." Here we find the people at re (6 7toXv? oxKos) spoken of as easily understand- our Lord when He quoted an Old Testament ;ement. And if we turn to such a passage as in vi. 31, we find a citation from the ancient iptures made by the people themselves. They, multitude (6 ox\oai — we are in search of, as having been in use among the Jews of Palestine in the days of Christ. " If the common people thus gradually had lost all knowledge of the tongue in which were written the books to be read to them, it naturally followed (in order ' that they might understand them ') that recourse must be had to a translation into the idiom with which they were familiar — the Aramaic. That, further, since a bare translation could not in all cases suffice, it was necessary to add to the translation an explanation, more particularly of the more difficult and obscure passages. Both translation and explana- tion were designated by the term Targum. In the course of time there sprang up a guild, whose special office it was to act as interpreters in both senses [Meturgeman), while formerly, the learned alone volunteered their services. These interpreters were subjected to certain bonds and regulations as to the form and substance of their renderings. Thus (com- pare Mischna, Meg., passim; Mass. Sofer. xi. 1; Maimon. Hilch. Tephill. 12, § 11 ff. ; Orach. Chaj. 145, 1. 2) ' neither the reader nor the interpreter are to raise their voices above the other ; ' ' they have to wait for each other until each have finished his verse ; ' ' the Meturgeman is not to lean against a pillar or a beam, but to stand with fear and with reverence ; ' ' he is not to use a written Targum, but he is to deliver his translation vivd voce,' lest it might appear that he was reading out of the Torah itself, and thus the Scriptures be held responsible for what are his own 12G PROOF FROM THE USE OF THE SEPTUAGINT OF THE dicta ; ' no more than one verse in the Pentateuch and three in the Prophets (a greater licence is given for the Book of Esther) shall be read and translated at a time ; ' ' that there should be not more than one reader and one interpreter for the Law, while for the Prophets one reader and one interpreter, or two interpreters, are allowed,' etc. (comp. xiv. 21 ff., xii. 30, 27, 28). Again (Mischna, Meg. and Tosiftah, ad loc), certain passages liable to give offence to the multitude are specified which may be read in the synagogue and translated ; others which may be read but not translated ; others, again, which may neither be read nor translated. . . . The same causes which, in the course of time, led to the writing down — after many centuries of oral transmission — of the whole body of the Traditional Law . . . engendered also — and about the same period, as it would appear — written Targums, for certain portions of the Bible at least. The fear of the adulterations and mutilations which the Divine Word — amid the troubles within and without the Commonwealth — must undergo at the hands of incompetent or impious exponents broke through the rule that the Targum should only be oral, lest it might acquire undue authority (comp. Mischna, Meg. iv. 5, 10 ; Tosifta, ib. 3 ; Jer. Meg. 4, 1 ; Bab. Meg. 24a; Sota, 396). Thus, if a Targum of Job is mentioned (Sab. 115a; Tr. Sopherim, 5, 15 ; Tosifta Sab. c. 14 ; Jer. Sab. 16, 1) as having been highly disapproved by Gamaliel the elder (middle of first century A.D.), who caused it to be hidden and buried out of sight, we find, on the other hand, at the end of the second century the practice of reading the Targum generally commended, PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 127 and somewhat later Jehoshua ben Levi enjoins it as a special duty upon his sons. The Mischna even contains regulations about the manner (Jud. iv. 5) in which the Targum is to be written." ' This passage has been gravely adduced 2 to prove, on the authority of Mr. Deutsch, that a written Aramaic translation of the entire Old Testament circulated in the time of Christ among the Jews of Palestine. If it does not prove that, its citation is wholly irrelevant to the point before us. The question is, What were those fpatuagl\t of the of the Hebrew Scriptures into Aramaic, nor does he appear to have made any use of such a version. Had it, then, any existence in his day ? Again, not one of the Christian fathers seems to have known anything of such a work. Some of them, we know, were very diligent in examining into the history of the ancient Scriptures, and arc not likely to have overlooked the fact that they had been translated into Aramaic, if such had really been the case. Yet even Origen, who understood Hebrew, and who was unwearied in Biblical researches, says not a word upon the subject. Finally, it appears somewhat remarkable that hardly anything which can be deemed a vestige of the imagined version, has descended to our day. 1 We still possess the Samaritan Pentateuch in a com- plete form. It can be traced from an early period, through references which are made to it, both in the Talmud and in the Fathers. In like manner, had an Aramaic version of the Old Testament existed among the Jews at the commencement of our era. it too would surely have been traceable, in whole or in part, down to the present day. But not a relic or reminiscence of it has been preserved ; while, as has just been remarked, not a single reference to it is to be found in the remains of patristic antiquity. The second hypothesis, then, with respect to the Bible of our Lord and His apostles, must as certainly be rejected as the first. No evidence is forthcoming that a written Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Scriptures existed among the Jews in the days of 1 De Wette refers only to Matt, xxvii. 46, as "eine spur targumischer Uebersetzung." Einl. in dan A. T. § 57. PREVALENCE OF GKEEK IN PALESTINE. 133 Christ. It is not, therefore, a mere " subjective opinion" 1 of mine which is put forward, when I remark that the language addressed by our Lord to His contemporaries — epeuvare ra<: ypad<: — could not have referred to such a version. Hard words have, no doubt, been used regarding me, for thus refusing to believe that the Bible of Christ and those around Him was an Aramaic translation of the Old Testa- ment. But let the blame still be borne, if it is thought to be still deserved. I must repeat that there was no such version in existence. Fancy may invent it, but facts testify against it ; and therefore I maintain that our Lord had in view some other form in which the sacred books of the Jews then really circulated among them, when He referred His hearers, as He so often did, to the Holy Scriptures. This leads us to the third hypothesis, which will now receive our careful consideration. s The. third hypothesis is, that Christ and His apostles, in reading and referring to the Old Testament Scriptures, made use of the Septuagint translation. Here we at once feel ourselves on firm ground. We know, beyond all doubt, that a Greek version of the ancient Scriptures did exist in our Saviour's day. Although much that is fabulous may have been mixed up with the account given under the name of Aris- teas, and repeated by others, of the formation of the translation of the LXX., certain points are admitted by all scholars as undoubtedly historical. Among these are the following : That the version was begun 1 So it has been called in The Expositor, vol. vii. p. 383. ! 134 PROOF FROM THE USE OF THE SEPTUAGINT OF THE about 280 B.c, that it was gradually completed in the course of the succeeding century, and that thus it had existed, in its entirety, for many generations before the coming of Christ. Is this, then, the Bible of which we are in quest ? It would seem that, since the two hypotheses already considered have, of necessity, been set aside, no further choice is left. By a process of exhaustion we are led to the conclusion, that the vers ion of the LXX. must have_been the Bible of Christ and His apostles. But if such was in reality the case, we are sure to find actual evidence to that effect. Let us then, first of all, turn to the New Testament, and inquire whether or not the facts which it presents harmonize with the conclusion which has been reached. On doing so we appear to be at once released from all lingering dubiety or hesitation. For, on glancing at the Old Testament passages cited in the New, we find that the great majority of them are expressed in the very words of the LXX. ; while others, though differing slightly, are manifestly derived from it. We also find the most remarkable harmony between the general diction of .the New Testament and that of the LXX. A strong prima facie impression is thus produced that the question we have been agitating is solved ; and that, in the Greek version of the Old Testament, we have discovered the Bible of our Lord and His disciples. We proceed, how- ever, to a fuller and closer examination of the whole facts of the case. The number of passages quoted from the Old Testament in the New has been somewhat differently PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 135 ' stated by different writers; and the reason is obvious. There are some cases in which it is difficult to say whether the words in question should be regarded as a direct citation, or merely a reference ; and accord- in" as they are viewed in the one aspect or the other, will be the sum-total of the quotations. Following a recent writer, who has treated the subject with great care, 1 we may say that altogether 275 passages are quoted from the Old Testament in the various books of the New Testament. If John vn 38, John vii. 42, and Eph. v. 14, be added, the whole number of citations will be brought up to 278- Now, as I have said, in the vast majority of these quotations the Septuagint is either exactly followed, or the resemblance is so close as to be virtually identical. As an example of perfect agreement we may refer to Acts ii. 34, 35, or Acts iv. 25, 26, in both of which passages the New Testament corre- sponds word for word with the LXX. As an instance, again, of slight,, variation, we may turn to Rom. x. 5, or 1 Pet. ii. 9 ; in the first of which passages we find i w»*r« in the New Testament for & «,?,«* in the Old ; while in the second, the apostle varies from the LXX. only by omitting the «at in his quotation of flaahtu* Up&revpa Kal IBvK a^ov. Such passages tell their own tale, as being directly and unquestionably .taken from the LXX. There are, again, many degrees of variation from the text of the LXX. , where still there can be no doubt a9 to the source whence the words were derived. Sometimes nothing more than a faint reminiscence of the Greek version seems to have been present to » Turpie, The Old Testament in the New, 1868. 136 PROOF FROM THE USE OF THE SEPTUAGINT OF THE the mind of the New Testament writer, while yet it is plain that he had it in view in his citation. We may refer for an example to John xiii. 18, where (not to notice other differences) we have e-n-rjpev «V ip.k Ttjv irrepvav in the evangelist, for 2(ieyd\wev eV ifie •m-epvKTfiov in the LXX. The Hebrew exactly corre- sponds with the LXX., and it is evident that St. John had the rendering of the latter in his mind, while he expressed its meaning otherwise in his citation. But further, there are passages which are quoted exactly from the LXX. where that version departs from the original Hebrew. An example is found at Matt. xiii. 14, where an imperative in the Hebrew is represented by a future both in the LXX. and the Gospel; and at Rom. xv. 12, where what is in the Hebrew, "which shall stand for an ensign of the people ; to it shall the Gentiles seek," is represented both in the Greek version and in the Epistle, " he that shall rise to rule over the Gentiles ; in him shall the Gentiles trust." In these and similar cases, the meaning expressed in the Greek may be implied in the Hebrew ; but so far as the phraseology is con- cerned, the New Testament departs entirely from the original text, and adopts that of the LXX. Besides this constant use of the LXX. by the New. Testament writers in quoting from the Old, it deserves to be noticed how Septuagintal through- out is the diction of the New Testament. This is strikingly apparent to any one who looks through sucli a book as Grinfield's Novum Testamentum, Editio Hellenistica. There is hardly a verse but is found to possess a close linguistic affinity with i PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 137 the LXX. The minds of the New Testament writers seem to have been saturated, so to speak, with the phraseology of the LXX. This is especially notice- able with regard to those great words which embody in themselves the root ideas of Christianity. Many of these are scarcely to be found in classical writers with any approach to their evangelical meaning, but are seen to have been got ready for use in the pages of the LXX. Let us turn, for example, to the Epistle to the Romans. There we soon encounter the verb tuuuwa (ii. 13, iii. 24, v. 1, etc.), on which so much depends in the New Testament. Its classical sense is " to make right," or " to think fit ; " but such is evidently not its import os employed by St. Paul. It means "to acquit," or "justify," or "free from guilt ; " and it was prepared in the LXX. for being so used (Ex. xxiii. 7 ; Ps. cxlii. 2, etc.). Again, what a flood of light is shed upon the Pauline phrase, vepi afiapTias, as applied to Christ (Rom. viii. 3), when we observe that that expression is constantly used in the LXX. (Lev. v. 6 ; Num. vi. 11, etc.) for "a sin-offer- ing " ! And, leaving the region of doctrine for that of ethics, we find such a word as Tairetvo? (and its derivatives) absolutely unintelligible, unless it is looked at as employed by the LXX. Where found in the classics, raireti/o? means only low in a local sense or in a bad moral sense ; whereas in the LXX. (Ps. xxxiii. 18 ; Prov. xi. 2) it denotes "humble" or " lowly," and in this sense is applied (Matt. xi. 29) by our Lord to Himself. The Septuagintal usage of words is thus a most valuable guide to their real meaning as employed in the New Testament ; while a mere acquaintance with the same words as occur- 138 PROOF FROM THE USE OF THE SEPTUAGINT OF THE ring in the classics, would prove dangerously mis- leading. It being thus certain that the New Testament phraseology is throughout based upon the LXX., this question may now be asked : Did the sacred writers ever quote directly from the Hebrew ? Many have replied very positively that such was the case. They think that the few cases in which the New Testament writers depart from the existing Greek text, and seem to have recourse to the Hebrew, are sufficient to prove the point. But let us consider. If any one of the human authors of the New Testa- ment might be expected to quote the Hebrew original, it would be the Apostle Paul. He had received a regular training under the famous Rabbi Gamaliel, and was, to use his own expression, a very " Hebrew of the Hebrews." Yet a very able and diligent student of his writings in our own day expresses himself on the point before us as follows : " The whole number of quotations is about 87 ... Of these, nearly half show a precise verbal agreement with the LXX. ; while of the remaining passages, at least two- thirds exhibit a degree of verbal similarity which can only be accounted for by an acquaintance with the LXX. None of these passages offer any certain proof that the apostle was acquainted with the* Hebrew original. That he must have been acquainted with it can hardly be doubted; yet it seems improbable that he could have familiarly known it without straying into parallelisms with the Hebrew text in those passages in which it varies from the LXX. ... On the other hand, the apostle must have possessed a minute knowledge of the PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 139 J 1\ LXX., as is found by the fragmentary character of the quotations, no less than their verbal agreement." 1 If St. Paul's acquaintance with ancient Hebrew is thus doubtful, much more ought we to hesitate before ascribing a knowledge of it to any of the other sacred writers. They all seem to have been dypafi/iarol Kal IBi&rai, men destitute of that technical and scholastic culture by which alone such a know- ledge could be acquired. But we will be told that they sometimes correct the LXX. rendering by turning to the Hebrew, and that they must there- fore have been acquainted with the ancient language. Matt. ii. 15, e.g., is appealed to, which contains a quotation from Hos. xi. 1, where the LXX. reads ra re/cva avrov instead of toi> vtov fiov, which is an exact rendering of the Hebrew. There can be no doubt that the LXX. followed in this passage an erroneous text, and that St. Matthew gives a correct rendering of the true original. But that is very far from proving — against all probability —that he possessed a knowledge of ancient Hebrew. Let us take an analogous case. Suppose a writer among ourselves is in the habit of quoting the authorized English version, but that he occasionally gives it an amended form — that, surely, would be no proof that he occasionally had recourse to the Hebrew or Greek original. There are well-known passages in which the Authorized Version is defective or incorrect ; and these are quite familiar to mere English readers who have given attention to the subject. And so with the New Testament writers. There were, doubtless, many emendations on the LXX. version 1 Jowett's Eputlet of St. Paul, i. 401. 140 PROOF FROM THE USE OF THE SEPTUAGINT OF THE current in Palestine. Those scholars whose duty it was to study the original would suggest such im- provements; and they would come to be known among the people, just as corrections of the common English translation circulate among ourselves. And thus we naturally account for the few cases in which the sacred writers depart from the rendering of the LXX., and give a Greek version more correctly repre- senting the original. It would be contrary to the facts already estab- lished to suppose that men like Peter or John, who were technically " unlearned and ignorant," should have formed a translation for themselves from the ancient Hebrew ; but there is no difficulty in conceiving that they took advantage at times of emendations on the current Greek version, which had been suggested by those who studied the original text. 1 If we now glance at the evidence furnished by the early Christian writers, we find that Justin Martyr,* Irenaeus, 8 and Tertullian 4 all contain statements which clearly testify to the habitual use of the version of the LXX. among the Jews. The truth is 1 Some writers (e.g. Bleek, Einl. p. 276) have maintained that, whenever St. Matthew himself quotes a test from the Old Testament to prove the fulfilment of prophecy, he translates directly from the Hebrew, while in passages quoted in his narrative the LXX. is followed. But facta do not bear out the former of these assertions (comp. chap. i. 23 with LXX.). BBhl affirms (Forsch. p. 187) that only one of St. Matthew's quotations, viz. chap. ii. 15, corresponds exactly to the Hebrew, and adds that "all the others are at least moulded after the Septuagint." There is, however, a wide departure from the existing text of the LXX. at chap. viii. 17 and chap. xiii. 35, to lie accounted for by the considerations stated above. * Hody, De Text. p. 226. » Adv. liar. iii. 21. 3. t Apol. chap, xviii. ;t M l PREVALENCE OF GKEEK IN PALESTINE. 141 that, until the time of Jerome, none of the Fathers of the Church imagined that the Old Testament circulated generally among the Jews of the apostolic age in any other form than that of the LXX. trans- lation. Jerome allowed himself to make some very baseless and erroneous statements on the subject of the New Testament citations ; and the groundlessness of these has been excellently exposed by several writers, such as Morinus and Father Simon. 1 There is a very thorough discussion of the views of Jerome in the third of the Exercitationes Biblicce of Morinus; and his inconsistencies are set forth in the most telling and effective manner. But, indeed, his own pupils sometimes showed him how untenable were his positions. It was, for instance, a favourite doctrine , of his that the apostles never cited the LXX. unless that version were in perfect concord with the Hebrew text. But his illustrious female disciple, Eustochium, staggered him by referring to Rom. iii. 10-18, in which St. Paul quotes freely from the LXX, without regarding the Hebrew at all. Upon this discovery, J erom e was deeply agitated, and expressed himself as follows : " Quod cum f audissem, quasi a fortissimo pugile percussus essem, ccepi tacitus sestuare, et stuporem mentis vultus pallore signare : Hebraeus, inquam, ex Hebraeis, secundum legem Pharisaeus, eruditusque ad pedes Gamalielis, aut ignoravit haec, aut eorum qui lecturi erant abusus est ignorantia." The worthy Father might have been saved all this painful excitement, if he had only, like others, admitted the simple and obvious fact, that the LXX. was the Bible of St. 1 Grit. Hist. chap, xx , comp. Hody, ut tup. p. 260. 142 PROOF FROM THE USE OF THE SEPTUAGINT OF THE Paul, as well as of the other writers of the New Testament. In reality, Jerome himself is compelled to own in several passages that such was the case. Morinus notices this in the following pungent words: "Ipse fatetur, et res ipsa clamat Paulum ad ipsos Hebraeos scribentem testimonia a LXX. usur- passe, nunquam vero Hebraica. Quando igitur illis usus est? Non debuit ad Graecos scribens, non fecit cum Hebraeis scriberet." 1 Thus, laying aside all presuppositions, and follow- ing simply the evidence of facts, we are led to the conclusion that the Greek translation of the LXX. was the Bible of our Lord and His apostles. Let us now glance at some of those strange vagaries of opinion into which scholars have been led, from failing to perceive, and rest in, this conclusion. The very learned Bishop Walton, well aware that it would have been useless to read ancient Hebrew to those frequenting the synagogues of Palestine in the daj's of our Lord, says, with a curious mixture of truth and error, that Christ made use of the Greek version in the synagogue at Nazareth, and then translated the passage read into the vernacular Syriac! 2 Vitringa, again, is distressed that any place should be allowed to the Greek version in the synagogues ; while, remembering that the Hebrew of ' the Old Testament was then a dead language to the people, he tells us that there was always present 1 Exercitatione* Biblical, p. 1 43. 2 After quoting Luke iv. 18, 19, he remarks : " Hie videmus verba Evangelistue ab Hebneo textu differre : quae tamen cum Interpreta- tione Gneca exacts congruunt. Unde videtur colligi posse, Dominum Yersioneni Gracam in Synagoga usurpasse ; quam postea lingua vernacula, Syriaca, populo explicavit." Proleg. ix. § 15. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 143 P I some one " qui Scripturam praelectam in vernaculum idioma transferred" But if so, it is somewhat stum- bling that we find no reference to this important personage in the pages of the New Testament ; as Vitringa himself admits when he says: "Hujus vero sacri ritus interpretationis lectae Scripturae nulla, quod sciam, exerta mentio occurrit, in scriptis novi foederis." ' Dean Milman seems to acknowledge that there is really no evidence for the existence of an interpreter in the synagogues of Palestine, when he tells us that " there was an officer in the synagogues out of Palestine, and probably even within its borders, called an interpreter, who translated the law into the vernacular tongue, usually Greek in the first case, or Syro-Chaldaic in the latter." 2 Such are the assumptions made and the uncertainties intro- duced* by disregarding the fact already established, that the Greek Bible was then universally in use among the Jews, both within and without the boundaries of Palestine. But if it has been proved that the Septuagint ver- sion was the Bible constantly quoted and referred to by Christ, the question is surely settled as respects the language made use of in His public addresses to the people. Here then; again, we have a crucial test. Is it granted that the Old Testament, in its ancient Hebrew form, could not have been the Scriptures so frequently and familiarly quoted by our Lord and those around Him ? Is it granted that neither could 1 De Syn. Vet. p. 1021. a Hut. of Jews, ii. 464. 8 Hausrath thinks that the Hebrew was rendered into Greek in at least some of the synagogues. " In einzelnen Synagogen scheint die Paraphrase sclion damals griechisch gewesen zu sein, weil denn iiber- haupt das Volk sclion meist griechisch verstand." Neut. Zeitg. i. 74. 144 PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. a written Aramaic version have constituted these Scriptures, since there is no reason to Jbebeve that any such version ever existed ? Then the conclusion is surely evident. If it was, of necessity, to the Greek Scriptures that reference was so often made by Christ on the one hand and the Jewish people on the other (Matt. xxi. 42, xxii. 29 ; Mark xii. 24, xiv. 49 ; Luke xxiv. 32 ; John vii. 42, etc.), then there can remain no doubt that Greek was the language which a public instructor naturally employed, and the language in which the people habitually expected to be addressed. t »r / CHAPTER. VI. SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE GOSPELS THAT GREEK WAS THE PREVAILING LANGUAGE OF PALESTINE IN THE TIMES OF CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES. Here I begin by asking — In what language was the Sermon on the Mount delivered ? Most readers will doubtless be inclined at once to answer, that it was in Aramaic. This is the almost universal opinion. The ablest and most elaborate works on this portion of Scripture, while touching upon every other question concerning it, assume for the most part, without a word on the subject, that its original language was Hebrew. I humbly venture, how- ever, to maintain the contrary, and to affirm that the language now employed by our Lord was Greek, influenced, in doing so, by the following considerations. To whom was that discourse addressed? This question has obviously a most important bearing on the other as to the language in which it was spoken. Our Lord, of course, intended that all His hearers should understand Him. He did not, therefore, employ a form of speech which, while it might be understood by some, would be unintelligible to others ; but, ignoring provincial or local peculiarities 146 SPECIAL PROOFS FKOM THE GOSPELS OF THE of dialect, addressed them all in one common lan- guage. Let us look, then, at the composition of His vast audience, as it is suggested to us by St. Matthew. In the introduction to the great discourse recorded by that evangelist, we read as follows (chap. iv. 23-25) : " And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness, and all manner of disease, among the people. And His fame went throughout all Syria ; and they brought unto Him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were pos- sessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy ; and He healed them. And there followed Him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jeru- salem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan. ' And then we immediately read (chap. v. 1, 2), that/ "seeing the multitudes, He went up into a moun- tain ; and when He was set, His disciples came unto Him : and He opened His mouth, and taught them, saying," etc. There can be no doubt that the dis- course was addressed to the whole assemblage, so far as the mere hearing of it was concerned. Several passages, indeed, such as chap. v. 13, vi. 9, vii. 6, indicate that our Lord spoke more immediately to His disciples. But it is also plain from other passages, that He spoke so as to be heard and understood by the multitude at large; for we are told, chap. vii. 28, that "when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people (ol Bfooi.) were astonished at His doctrine," thus proving that they had all PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 147 been addressed in His discourse, and had all listened with some degree of intelligence to the instructions which He delivered. 1 Now, have we any reason to believe that the inhabitants of Decapolis understood Hebrew ? Is it not, on the contrary, well known that the ten cities which gave name to that region were thoroughly Greek, and that vast numbers of the population were not even Jews by religious profession, but heathen ? * It is difficult to ascertain with exactness the parti- cular ten cities which were included in the district ; and not improbably, the name continued, while some of the cities, once comprehended under it, had sunk into decay. Different lists of these cities are given by ancient writers. Pliny, expressly noticing this diversity, mentions the following : Scythopolis, 1 Tholuck gives a very good account of this matter : " The import of Matt v. 2 is the following : ' The sight of 'the great concourse of people induced Jesus to withdraw, in order to impart instruction to His dis- ciples. He accordingly ascended a mountain there, that He might teach His disciples ' (Meyer on Matt. v. 2). No doubt the multitude must be regarded as hearers (v. 1, vii. 28 ; Luke vii. 1). But such expressions as vers. 12-16 seem to presuppose that in those addressed the life of faith had already begun ; and again, expressions such as ver. 12, where those addressed are viewed as occupying the same footing with the prophets (comp. hi£*ti, ver. 19 and vii. 6), evidently refer to teachers. Hence we must consider the discourse as addressed primarily to the disciples, and secondarily to the people ; and the degree of its bearing upon these different classes as expressed by the relative posi- tion of the hearers to the speaker. Thus the twelve formed a circle in the Saviour's immediate neighbourhood ; farther off stood the ftutnrcti, whom St. Luke vi. 13, 17, distinguishes from the kxandhat ; and beyond them stood the crowd." — Tholuck's Sermon on the Mount In- trod. p. 14 ; Clark's For. Theol. Library, Edin. 1860. * Winer, R. W.B., describes Decapolis as follows : " Em District von 10 Stiidten rait wesent'ich heidnischer Bevolkerung," art. "Decapolis." To the same effect, Archbp. Trench remarks that "a great part of the population of Decapolis was certainly Gentile." Notes on the Miracles p. 174. 148 SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE GOSPELS OF THE Hippos, Gadara, Pella, Philadelphia, Gerasa, Dion,' Canatha, Damascus, and Kaphana. Josephus again, by stating ( Wars, iii. 9. 7) that Scythopolis was the largest city of Decapolis, seems plainly to exclude Damascus from the number; and yet other slight variations occur in the lists which have come down to us from antiquity. 1 But there is no doubt about the leading cities in the district, which were Gadara, Gerasa, Philadelphia, Hippos, Pella, and Scythopolis. And the important point to be noticed is that, as Josephus informs us, these were thoroughly Greek cities. He expressly gives that name to Gadara and Hippos; 2 and he refers to the others in such terms as leave no doubt that the Greek element also prevailed largely among their inhabitants. 8 This has been fully acknowledged by Schurer in his recent excellent work, entitled, A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ. After describing a number of the Greek towns referred to above, he says : " Almost all of them had a chiefly heathen population, which, after the third century before Christ, became more and more Hellenistic in its character." 4 Nothing, indeed, is more certain, or more generally agreed upon by critics, than that this region of Decapolis was occu- pied almost exclusively by heathen settlers, or Hellenizing Jews; and it follows therefore that, as the Sermon on the Mount was intended to be under- stood, and actually was understood by inhabitants 1 See Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, art "Decapolis," for a state- ment of these variations. ' Yahttpct Kctl'I-riroi 'Exxi)»/2(f «/«) wo'xi/f. Joseph. Antiq. xvii. 11. 4 ; see also Wars, ii. 6. 3. * Joseph. Wars, ii. 18. 1. « i. 121. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 140 of that district, it must have been delivered in the Greek language. This conclusion, derived from a consideration of St. Matthew's Gospel, is greatly strengthened when we turn to the parallel passage in St. Luke. Without entering on the difficult question as to the identity of the discourse contained in Luke vi, 20-49 with that recorded in Matt, v.-vii., — a point immaterial to our argument, — let us mark the language which St. Luke employs with respect to the persons to whom the sermon which he reports was addressed. At chap. vi. 17 we find these described by the evangelist as follows : " And He came down with them (the apostles), and stood in the plain, and the company of His disciples, and a great multitude of people out of all Judwa and Jerusalem, and from the sea-coast of Tyre and Sidon, who came to hear Him, and to be healed of their diseases." We thus learn that among our Lord's audience on this occasion there were the inhabitants at once of Jerusalem and of Tyre and Sidon. In the discourse which follows, it is manifest that while, as in Matthew, some passages are specially applicable to the apostles, the whole multitude was simultaneously addressed ; and that, of course, in a language which all understood. What, then, was that language ? Will any one maintain that it was Hebrew in the face of that clear evidence which we possess, that Greek was the only language then generally employed in the region of Tyre and Sidon? Josephus has preserved an edict of Mark Antony addressed to the people of Tyre, which begins as follows: "M. Antony, imperator, to the magistrates, senate, and people of Tyre, sendeth 150 SPECIAL PROOFS FnOM THE GOSPELS OF THE greeting. I have sent you my decree, respecting which I will that ye take care that it be engraven in the public tables, in Roman and Greek letters, and that it stand engraven in the most conspicuous places, so as to be read by all." ' It is plain from this that Greek was the language of the district, and that no other was regularly employed, since (in addition to the official Latin) Greek was the only tongue in which the edict was commanded to be published. In like manner, we read respecting Sidon that Julius Csesar sent a decree to its inhabitants, which contained the injunction that it should be " publicly set forth on a tablet of brass in the Greek and Latin languages." ' Again, we are told in general of the cities, Tyre, Sidon, and Ascalon (the last of which, it is worthy of remark, was situated in Palestine itself), that a decree of the same Eoman magistrate was ordered to be published at each of them in the Greek and Latin languages. 8 It seems too plain, from all this, to admit of any denial that Greek was then the only language commonly employed for public purposes by the natives of the sea - coast of Tyre and Sidon ; * so that a discourse intended to be understood by them must of necessity have been delivered in the Greek language. - 1 Joseph. Antiq. xiv. 12. 6. * Ibid. xiv. 10. 2. * Ibid. xiv. 10. 3. 4 This conclusion is still farther confirmed by two inscriptions found at Puteoli, the one being the copy of a letter which the inhabitants of that place addressed to the people of Tyre, and the other a copy of the answer which the Tyrians returned, both of which are written in the Greek language. See Gruteri, Intcriptionet antiqiue totiu* Orbu Romam, torn. ii. p. 1105. Binterim remarks, "^Egyptios a tempore PtoL Lagi Grrecam linguam locutoa fuisse, ticut et Phomicos constat." De Lingvo, etc., p. 169. ! PEEVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 151 Bat if this conclusion be admitted, the whole controversy may be regarded as settled. Conceding that the Sermon on the Mount, as reported by St. Matthew, or the analogous discourse recorded by St. Luke, was spoken by our Lord in Greek, it will be difficult any longer to deny the validity of the pro- position of this work, that Greek was the language which He commonly employed. There were on the occasion or occasions referred to, the inhabitants of Judaea and Jerusalem, no less than of Decapolis, and Tyre, and Sidon, among His hearers ; and it is quite evident, from the evangelic narratives, that all equally understood Him, and were therefore all perfectly familiar with the Greek language. There are just two views which can be taken of the question we are now considering. The sermon (or, if you will, sermons) referred to was spoken either in Hebrew or Greek. If any one says Greek, then he admits all for which I plead. If, on the other hand, any one maintains that it was Hebrew, he is bound also to maintain that the inhabitants oi Decapolis and Tyre and Sidon then understood that language. In that case, I beg to demand the proof of such an allegation. I venture humbly, but con- fidently, to affirm that no proof of the kind can be produced ; and that, as has been already shown, Greek was then the language of these districts. Assumptions may, no doubt, be met with in several writers, to the effect that what they call a Syro- Phoenician dialect was, rather than Greek, then prevalent in these regions ; but not a vestige of evidence to that effect is presented. On the con- trary, all who*have made a special study of the 152 SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE GOSPELS OF THE PREVALENCE OF GBEEK IN PALESTINE. 153 question agree in the opinion that while, as in Palestine, there may have been a Shemitic patois in use among the people, Greek was the prevailing language, and the language exclusively of public life. Sperling, referring to the fact that all the Tyrian coins of the period bore Greek inscriptions, remarks, in explanation of this point, "For, after the suc- cessors of Alexander the Great and the Greeks took possession of Syria, they both spoke Greek in that region, and wrote only in Greek, while they managed everything according to the practices of the Greeks, and among other things, their coinage, so that all the old Tyrian or Phoenician form of writing and inscribing disappeared and perished." 1 In like manner, Schroder writes : " The Greek had already become the prevailing language of Phoenicia at the beginning of the period of the Koman supremacy in the towns, and especially in those upon the coast," 2 as were Tyre and Sidon. Gesenius also states, in his elaborate treatise on the ancient language of Phoenicia, that from the time of Alexander downwards, it was gradually encroached upon by the Greek, until at length it became altogether extinct. 8 He thinks, indeed, from the evidence of a few coins of uncertain date, that it continued to be used "aliquo modo" down to the times of the Antonines ; but is very far from suggesting that it was generally employed timong the people in the days of our Saviour. And, even granting that this was the case, it would still 1 De Nummit non cutis, p. 51. * Die Phtinizische Sprache, p. 36. 8 " Quo tempore prisci sermonia usus in Phoenicia interciderit Gne- coque cesserit, accurate definiri non potest, quanquam post Alezandri tempora et vigente Seleucidarum tempore id sensira accidisse debet.'' Gesenius, Scriptural Linguotque Phoenicia Monumenta, p. 339. \t remain to be shown that the Syro-Phcenician and Syro-Chaldaic dialects were identical ; or, if different, which of them was now adopted by our Lord, since He had hearers at once from Tyre and Jerusalem. So far as we can judge, it by no means followed that those who understood the one dialect would also understand the other. Some idea of this may be formed by comparing the famous Phoenician passage in the Pcenulus of Plautus r with the language of the Mischna, or of the most ancient Targums or what- ever else may be supposed best to represent the Hebrew spoken in Palestine at the time of Christ. But the truth is, as I trust has been sufficiently proved, that neither the one nor the other was employed ; but that the very Greek, in substance, which is still preserved in the Gospels, — the peculiar, orientalized Greek of Syria and Palestine, bearing throughout such a strong Shemitic colouring, and embalming, so to speak, some such Aramaic terms as Raca and More, which had, most naturally, forced their way into the language, — was made use of by our Lord in this, the solemn and impressive commence- ment of His public ministry. But then, as I have already remarked, this is a ruling case with respect to the question under discus- sion. If our Lord spoke in Greek on the occasion referred to, it is certain that the inhabitants of Judaea and Jerusalem were thoroughly familiar with that language ; and it would therefore be quite arbitrary to conclude that the Saviour ever employed any other in addressing them, unless a special intimation to 1 See the passage «a restored and commented on by Schroder, ut tupra, pp. 286-321. 154 SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE GOSPELS OF THE that effect is made by the evangelists, or some circumstances present themselves which render it probable that a departure from His usual practice did at any time take place. And here I cannot but observe that very many of the proofs adduced in this and the following chapters from the New Testament, must be held decisive of the controversy, unless these proofs can all be repelled as unsatisfactory. If it be once granted that our Lord inaugurated His public work as a teacher by delivering a long discourse to a promiscuous auditory in Gveek, the conflict is virtually at an end ; and we expect only in future to find everywhere confirmatory evidence of the conclusion which has already been reached. And so with not a few of the examples about to be noticed. The argument is of a strikingly cumulative character. Each separate part of it gives strength to all the rest. Every fresh passage, as it adapts itself to the conclusion already reached, not merely adds to the evidence, but multiplies it. And any one of the proofs, that our Lord employed Greek on ordinary occasions, being admitted as satisfactory, goes far to establish that point with respect to other cases, which in themselves misht have been regarded as doubtful. Desiring the reader to bear this remark in mind, and to excuse that embarras des richesses which is almost the only difficulty that besets us in the further prosecution of our argument, let me now direct attention to the account which is contained in the fourth chapter of St. John's Gospel of our Lord's conversation with the woman of Samaria. Was that discourse carried on in Hebrew or in Greek ? Here, PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 155 again, most readers will probably be inclined to say at once that it was Hebrew, influenced unwittingly by the prepossessions which prevail upon the subject. But I have no hesitation in maintaining the con- trary opinion, and affirming that the conversation was conducted in the same language in which it has been preserved by the evangelist. I do so, both on account of what we may infer from other sources, respecting the prevailing language of Samaria at the time, and what we are led naturally to gather on the point in question from the discourse itself. \/ It appears very evident, both from the second Book of Maccabees and from Josephus, how eager the Samaritans were to yield to those Hellenic influences which were so powerfully at work in Palestine for some generations before the birth of Christ. We are told (2 Mace. vi. 3) that in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim was dedicated to Jupiter Xenius, " according to the wish of the inhabitants of the place." And the Jewish historian, referring to the same event, gives a full account (Antiq. xii. 5. 5) of the revolt of the Samaritans at that time from all that was peculiarly Jewish. They addressed Antiochus in the most adulatory and even idolatrous terms, entreating the king to regard them as " aliens from the nation and customs of the Jews," and begging that their temple, which, they declared, had as yet no name at all, should be denominated after ' Jupiter Hellenius. To this memorial, as was to be expected, Antiochus returned a gracious answer. He readily granted th^ request they had made respecting 156 SPECUL PROOFS FROM THE GOSPELS OF THE their temple ; l and in his answer spoke of them as " desiring to live according to the customs of the Greeks." It thus appears that, from the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, the inhabitants of Samaria had become thoroughly Hellenized ; and it cannot be doubted that, as an essential part of their Hellenism, they readily adopted the Greek language. Like the other natives of Palestine, they became bilingues, their national dialect still continuing to exist, 2 but being overshadowed by the more pre- valent tongue of Greece. In these circumstances, it is easy to see that the Jews, in any necessary inter- course which they had with the Samaritans, would not be likely to employ the form of speech peculiar to either people, but would make use of that one which was common to both ; so that the conversa- 1 It will be noticed that there ia a slight discrepancy between the statements made in the second Book of Maccabees and by Josephus respecting the name which was given to the Samaritan temple. According to the one authority it was called Jupiter Xenius, accord- ing to the other Jupiter Hellenius. But both agree as to the essential fact, which indicates the decided Greek and Gentile tendencies then prevalent among the Samaritans. 2 The Samaritan dialect, like the Jewish, consisted of a mixture of the Aramaic and Hebrew languages (Fiirst, Lehrg. der arum. Idiom., p. 16). The only specimens of it extant aro furnished by the transla- tion of the Pentateuch (of which the date is unknown), and some sacred poetry. See Gesenius, ut nip. § 24, and De Wette, § 33, 63. Benau observes on this point : " La version du Fentateuque, le plus ancien des Merits Samaritains que nous restent, version que la plupart des critiques rapportent au l er siccle de notre ere, et oil se trahit l'influ- ence du Targum d'Onkelos, prcseute de si noiubreux Arabismes, qu'on est force' d'admettre qu'elle a subi retouche aprca l'lslamisme. Un savant (M. Frankel) a mcrae osd soutenir, et non sans de bonnes raisoDs, qu'elle n'avait 6t6 composce que depuis cette dpoque." Eenan, ut tup. p. 232. He adds the caution : " II ne faut pas confondre cette version avec le text He'breu du Fentateuque en caractcres Samaritains, que possvdent aussi les Samaritains." PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 157 tion which our Lord now entered into with a woman of Samaria, would be carried on, neither in the Galilean nor Samaritan dialect of Hebrew, but in the Greek language. Turning now for a little to another part of the Gospel of John, we read (chap. xii. 20, 21) as follows: " And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast : the same came therefore to Philip, who was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus." It cannot be doubted for a moment, that these Greeks ("EXKqve?) spoke the Greek language. And it can as little be doubted that one at least of the disciples of Jesus understood them when they thus addressed him. Nor have we any reason to suppose that this constituted a peculiarity in the case of Philip. Beth- saida was the native place of Andrew and Peter, no less than of Philip ; while the whole of the apostles probably belonged to Galilee. And if, as seems to . me almost unquestionable, the request of these Greeks was, at least in substance, granted, 1 and they were now admitted for the moment to share in the privi- 1 It is doubtful what was the exact object of the desire which these Greeks expressed " to see Jesus." Some, like Alford (in Inc.), have held very decidedly that it was a private interview which they requested ; and if so, that certainly was not granted. But be this as it may, it seems to me altogether opposed to our Lord's habitual conduct towards the inquiring, to suppose that He did not, in some way, grant their earnest and respectful desire. If their words be regarded as pointing to a private interview with Jesus, their object in seeking it could only have been to inquire into the bearing of His work on the Gentile race to which they belonged, and to obtain some information as to the way in which, without being Jews, they might profit by His instructions. If this was, in truth, the motive which prompted their request, it is interesting to observe, in the following discourse of Jesus, how He who " knew what was in man " suited the words which He uttered to the wishes of their heart). 158 SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE GOSPELS OF THE leges of Christ's disciples, the discourse which followed must have been spoken in the Greek language. But, let the conclusion to which such a supposition neces- sarily leads be observed. Jesus was then in Jeru- salem, surrounded by a multitude of the inhabitants of the city. These evidently understood, with the greatest ease, the words which He now spoke, when He proceeded in their hearing to tell of His approach- ing death, and of the effects which it would accom- plish. And conceiving of both Jews and Greeks as listening to the discourse which was then delivered (vers. 23-36), a great additional significance seems to be imparted to some declarations which it con- tains. It sets forth concisely, but clearly, the necessity of Christ's sufferings — the abundant fruit which these would produce — the happiness and honour insured to all who should follow Him — the devotedness to the Father's will which characterized all that the Son endured — the victory which was speedily to be gained over Satan — the extension of the blessings of salvation to men of every country and condition upon earth — and the happiness of those who rightly improved the privileges with which they were favoured. Nothing could be imagined more congruent to the circumstances of the case, if these Greeks, as the representatives of the heathen world, then formed part of the audience who listened to the words of our Saviour. They thus received a gracious answer to those questions which perhaps they desired to put to Him ; they heard from His own lips that the results of His great work were to be enjoyed by all nations ; and they received hints which might suffice to convince them of its sublime o PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 159 and majestic scope, both with respect to heaven and earth. The question then recurs — Were they present on this occasion, or were they not ? It is, I believe, almost incredible that they were not ; and that thus they alone of all that ever addressed the Saviour, received no answer whatever to the request which they had preferred. It was not thus that He acted, of whom it was written by the prophet, as the words are applied by St. Matthew (chap. xii. 20, 21), "A bruised reed shall He not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till He send forth judgment unto victory; and in His name shall the Gentiles trust." But then, if these Greeks were present at this time, the Saviour undoubtedly spoke so as to be understood by them, that is, in their own language. 1 Yet, in doing this, He was evidently well understood also by the inhabitants of Jerusalem (ver. 34, direicpidr) ainv\au, 1 Mace. v. 15), and in the Gospel itself, " Galilee of the Gentiles" (raXiXaia t&v idv5>v, Matt. iv. 15). 2 In that region, full of well-known Greek cities, such as Gadara, Tiberias, and Csesarea Philippi, the Saviour spent by far the greater portion both of His private and public life. There He chose His first disciples, Andrew and Peter, and James and 1 The argument which I have derived from this passage has been pointed at even by some of those who incline to the views of Pfann- kuche on the general question. Thus says Rohr (Pnliistina, Clark's Bib. Cab., Edin. 1843, p. 92), " Mary, in her conversation with Christ, appears to have spoken Greek, until she understood that He was risen from the dead, when she addressed Him in the more common Ara- ratean, saying, Rabboni." This writer, like many others, does not see that the admission which he here makes is fatal to the theory which he maintains ; for surely if the Aramaean had been more common in public intercourse among the Jews of that period than the Greek, it would at once have been used by Mary in addressing one whom she supposed to be "the gardener;" and there would have been no indica- tion in the narrative that any other language was generally employed by the Saviour and His disciples. 2 Compare Strabo, Geog. lib. xvi. 34. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 173 H John ; and there both He and they must have become familiar with the Greek language. Next we find our Lord opening His public ministry by a discourse delivered in Greek ; and then we see Him employing that language in His conversation with the woman of Samaria ; in the discourse which He delivered in presence of those Greeks who sought an introduction to Him at Jerusalem ; in the inter- course which He held with Pilate ; and in the interview which He had with one of His disciples immediately after His resurrection. These points have, I believe, been proved ; and if so, all is proved for which I contend. The Gospels bear witness from beginning to end that Greek was the language generally employed by our blessed Saviour ; and we have next to inquire how far this conclusion is confirmed by. the succeeding book of the New Testament, what testimony is borne by it as to the question whether the language, for the most part employed by Christ, was that also habitually made use of after His departure by His disciples. > * CHAPTER VII. SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES THAT GREEK WAS THE PREVAILING LANGUAGE OF PALESTINE IN THE TIMES OF CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES. The next portion of Scripture which we propose particularly to examine, is that very interesting and precious book which contains a brief account of the sayings and doings of some of the followers of Christ for the first thirty years after His ascension. It records a considerable variety of addresses which were delivered by them in Jerusalem, and thus presents a supply of materials for testing, as well as illustrating, the truth of that position which it is the design of this work to establish. The testimony which it bears in favour of the conclusion already reached on other grounds is, I believe, very abundant and conclusive. In fact, it may be shown that there is not a single chapter in the whole book having any reference to Palestine but lends its aid in confirming our pro- position that Greek was then the language generally employed on all public occasions by the inhabitants of that country. As a presumptive evidence of this it maybe noticed, first of all, that it seems to be the habit of the writer expressly to mention when any other language than f PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 175 i I Greek was employed. There are two occasions on which he informs us that the Hebrew or Aramaic tongue was made use of by those of whom he writes. In the account which is given of St. Paul's address to the excited multitude at Jerusalem, the historian tells us (chap. xxi. 40, xxii. 2) that the apostle spoke to the Jewsjlin_th^%brewdmlect," that is, in the ordinary" Aramaic of "the country. And in that narrative of his conversion which Paul gives before Agrippa, as recorded in the twenty-sixth chapter, we find him stating (ver. 14) that the words which, at that solemn crisis in his history, fell upon his ears from heaven, were also spoken " in the Hebrew dialect," that is, doubtless, as before, in the common everyday dialect of Palestine. These are the only two occasions throughout the book on which Hebrew is spoken of as being employed. And it would seem • to follow from the very fact that its use on these occasions is expressly mentioned, that it was not the ordinary form of speech then employed in public intercourse among the Jews. I do not, indeed, maintain that this presumption amounts to more than a slight probability. Remembering that St. Luke in his Gospel (chap. viii. 54) gives the words addressed to Jairus' daughter in Greek, without any intimation thaj; they were really spoken in Hebrew, and that he does not notice, in his first account of St. Paul's conversion (Acts ix.), that it was in Hebrew the Saviour spoke on that occasion, we are not to attach a great deal of importance to the point now under consideration. Still, the entire absence through- out the book of any hint to the effect that another language was used than the Greek, except on the two 176 SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE ACTS- OF THE occasions which have been specified, is certainly so fur in favour of our proposition. It throws the burden of proof on such as maintain that there were times, other than those specially mentioned by the historian, at which a different language was employed. If so, let them show it ; and if no proof of any kind can be produced, we naturally rest in the conclusion that the language in which the historian reports the various discourses was that in which they were actually delivered. But let us now descend to particulars, and inquire if more definite and positive proof may not be found in our favour. Let us proceed to a consideration of the special circumstances in which the sermons and other addresses reported in this book were spoken, as well as the literary character with which they are severally impressed ; and we shall find, I believe, most clear and conclusive evidence that Greek was the language habitually employed by the apostles in proclaiming their message, whether at Antioch or Athens, at Jerusalem or Rome. Beginning, then, with a reference to the second chapter of the Acts, 1 let us reflect for a little on the statements made by the sacred writer in connection with the events, related to have occurred at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. There are several points to be noticed in this narrative which serve to confirm our affirmation, that Greek was then familiarly known and commonly used by almost all Jews, whether dwelling in or beyond Palestine. We read as follows respecting the multit^dethen assembled in Jerusalem (chap. ii. 5-11) : " And there were dwelling at Jeru- 1 The first chapter is specially noticed afterwards in chap. xv. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 177 salem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now, when this was noised abroad " (or rather, " when this sound was heard "), " the multi- tude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed, and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galileans ? and how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born ? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopo- tamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God." With regard to the phenomenon thus described, it is. plain, I think, in the first place, that the sacred historian means to convey to us the idea, that by a miraculous power then conferred upon the apostles, tHe various representatives of so many different nations then assembled in Jerusalem did all hear themselves addressed in their own verna- cular languages. In some cases probably there were only differences of dialect among them ; but at any rate,, each nation heard itself addressed in what was deemed its own peculiar tongue. I believe, in spite of all the efforts which have been made by a certain school of critics, both at home and abroad, to explain away the miracle, 1 that if the fact just mentioned is not implied in the words of the writer, it is impos- 1 A comprehensive account of these various attempts by foreign critics (followed by some in this country) is given by De Wette, Exeget. JIandbuch Apoitg. pp. 18-26. The various arguments there enume- M 178 SPECIAL PROOFS FEOM THE ACTS OF THE sible to convey it by means of any words whatever. But while fully admitting and earnestly contending for this, it is, I think, equally plain, in the second place, that it was not for the purpose of enabling them to proclaim to these people the way of salvation that the apostles were now endowed with the power which has been mentioned. This was formerly shown from the nature of the case, and from the facts of subsequent apostolic history ; but it also appears from the point now more especially soliciting our attention, that all these different tribes did in truth possess a common language. Two facts recorded in the narrative seem to make this undeniable. It appears first from the incidental remark of the histo- rian, that they all expressed astonishment among themselves on account of the wonder which had just been witnessed. " They were all amazed," we are told, " and marvelled, saying, Behold, are not all these which speak Galileans ? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born ? . . . We do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?" their previous questionings having led to no. satisfactory explanation. 1 Now it seems a fair and necessary inference from this account, that rated seem amply sufficient to prove that the object of the miracle was certainly not to enable the apostles to preach the gospel, but are very far from invalidating the reality of the miracle as formerly explained. 1 Prof. Neubauer completely misses the point when he asks, " Why should the men of Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, etc., be astonished that the apostles spoke Greek, if it had been their usual language?" Studio Biblica, p. 54. The wonder was not felt at the apostles speaking Greek, but at their Ming able to address all these nationalities in their " own tongue." f PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 179 they all possessed a common language. Two or more men of the same nation would not have expressed their mutual wonder in such terms as are here employed ; and the multitude in general, to whom the words which have been quoted are evidently to be ascribed, could not have expressed such wonder, unless they had possessed a common medium of conversation. It is plain, then, that, in addition to the knowledge of their own proper language or dialect which the various tribes possessed, they must also have known Greek^tiie_worjdJs_Janguage, and thus been able to communicate with one another. But again, the same conclusion is derived from the fact afterwards stated, or at least to my mind clearly implied, that Peter addressed the whole multitude at one time in the same language, and that they all understood him. His sermon, which immediately followed the scene just described, must have been delivered in the Greek language. Had he spoken in Hebrew, he would have been intelligible to only the merest fraction of his hearers ; but since it was proved by the result — the conversion of no less than three thousand — that they had all understood him, it is plain that lie must have used a form of speech farnifiar to them all, and that could only be the Greek language. Here, however, opposition is presented. I have said above, oftener than once, that the language common to all then addressed by the apostle could be no other than Greek. But singularly enough, as appears to me, some have ventured to assert that the common language in question was the Aramaic. Thus Pressense^ while taking much the same view 180 SPECIAL PROOFS FBOM THE ACTS OF THE of the gift of tongues as has been given in this work, makes the following remark : " One does not i perceive at first the object of the miracle, for the | stranger Jews who were then in Jerusalem all under- stood the Aramaic language." 1 To the same effect Lechler declares : " Peter doubtless addressed them in the Aramaic language, which was likewise under- stood by all." J Was it then, let us ask, the Greek or Aramaic which was really the language common to all those "Jews out of every nation under heaven" ? This is surely a question which it is not difficult to answer. I should think that, if any argument be required at all on this subject, it must be enough to convince every one that Aramaic could not have been the language in question that we find in the list of those then addressed by the apostle, "men of Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and 'prose- lytes." Will any man maintain that these persons, some of whom were actually converts from heathen- ism, understood or employed Hebrew ? This appears to me conclusive, but Professor Neu- bauer has recently endeavoured to turn the tables upon me with reference to this subject. He seems to think it impossible that any one could venture seriously to maintain that St. Peter spoke Greek when he addresses himself to the " men of Judea and all them that dwell in Jerusalem," and asks : "How would the Medes, Elamites, and Arabians have understood if he had spoken Greek?" 8 Let us see, then, what was the linguistic condition of these nations. First of all, Bernhardy has remarked 1 Hitioire de* Troit Premier* Siecles, i. 486. * Comm. on Act*, in loo. (Eng. trans.). s Studia Biblica, p. 54 PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 181 ' generally : " Alexander the Great built, so to speak, the bridge by which Hellenic culture spread from its own narrow home into every nook and corner of the formerly Persian empire." * More particu- larly, he remarks that the result of the campaigns of Alexander in the East was the formation of a number of populi bilingues, who acquired a know- ledge of Greek, while they continued at the same time to make use of their own vernacular tongues. He quotes Plutarch to the effect that " the boys in Persia, Susiana, and Gedrosia were accustomed to sing the tragedies of Euripides and Sophocles." 2 He also refers to the Arabians as having come under strong Hellenic influence ; 3 although there can be no doubt, I think, that Aramaic was then the vernacular tongue of the Jews in Arabia and the adjacent regions. As to Parthia, we are expressly told by Plutarch 4 that Hyrodes the king (under whom Crassus was defeated and slain) " was not ignorant of the Greek language and literature ;" while the same writer informs us respecting Arta- vasdes, the contemporary king of Armenia, that he " was so well versed in the Greek language, that 1 he wrote tragedies, orations, and histories in it, some/ of which are still extant." Nay more, we are told' that when the head of Crassus was brought to the Parthian king, he was listening, along with others, to an actor who was reciting a passage from the Bacchse of Euripides, and that the actor applied the words of the play to the event which had just 1 Orundritt der Griechitchen Lilteratur, i. 485. * Ibid. p. 498. » Ibid. p. 593. * Life of Crattus, tub Jin. 182 SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE ACTS OF THE occurred, with so much address as to give great delight j to the whole company. We cannot but infer from | all this that Greek was then so generally known in these regions, that the Jews who came from them to Jerusalem possessed in it a medium by which | they could converse with their brethren from many 1 other parts of the world. But it is not necessary to dwell longer on this point, as Professor Neubauer himself makes a state- ment which seems completely to destroy his position. He remarks: 1 "Philo, it can be proved to demon- stration, knew very little Hebrew, if indeed he knew any at all. In Asia Minor, Jewish congregations are mentioned in all parts, in Bithynia, Cilicia, Pamphylia, Cappadocia, Lycaonia, Phrygia, Lydia, Galatia, and Pontus. Cyprus, Rhodes, and Crete had also many Jews. They are likewise mentioned in Greece itself, in Macedonia, Thessaly, Bceotia, Attica, and the Peloponnesus. All these Jews, far away from Palestine, spoke only Greek, with the excep- tion of the few who learnt Hebrew in the schools of Jerusalem, like St. Paul, or others who were but recent immigrants from Palestine, and with whom the apostle conversed in vernacular Hebrew. . . . From inscriptions in the synagogues and epitaphs published by Stephanie in the Memoirs of St. Peters- burg, we see that they used freely and exclusively the Greek language." 2 This is exactly such a statement as I would myself make ; but how can it be regarded as consistent with the assertion that 1 Studia Biblica, p. 69. 1 I am indebted for this reference to an able article on Studia Biblica, by Professor T. K. Abbot of Dublin, in The Clatsical Review, July 1887. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 183 Jews from Cappadocia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, who "spoke only Greek," were not addressed in that language on the day of Pentecost % x In entire consistency with this conclusion, we find that the quotations from the Old Testament, intro- duced by the apostle into his discourse, agree for the most part with the phraseology of the Septuagint, presenting only those slight variations, omissions, and additions which would naturally occur in the case of one quoting from memory, and which are generally found in the citations made by the writers of the New Testament. There is, I believe, no reason to doubt that the citations from the Old Testament, here imbedded in St. Peter's speech, were actually made as still set before us by his inspired reporter — that he used the Greek version as alone intelligible to the vast majority of his hearers, and that the whole sermon which he at this time delivered was spoken as we still possess it — in the Greek language. Nor can there be the least doubt that both the native and foreign Jews were simultaneously addressed on this occasion. This appears very plainly, among other proofs, from the exordium of the apostle. He begins his address thus : " Ye men of Judea (^AvSpei 'IovSaloi), and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem (icai ol KarotKOvvres 'lepovffaXrjp, airavreo? tows 'EXX^wo-ra?, — but they went about to slay him") that the terms in question were used among the Jews themselves ; and very probably, like some other party distinc- tions, the term Hellenist, while meant at first as an epithet of reproach, had in course of time lost its opprobrious character, and been willingly accepted by those to whom it was applied. II. Advancing now to the Christian Church itself, we find the same distinction still existing among its members as has been already shown to have had a place among the Jews. The term 'EWrivtaral, which, implying its correlative 'EPpaloi, is applied in the ninth chapter to those still outside of Christianity, is in this sixth chapter given to a party within the Church. The two tendencies of opinion, which had for long existed among the Jews as a nation, con- tinued strikingly to appear among those of them who were converted to the faith of Christ. There was 1 See for an illustration of the liberal spirit prevailing among this class, the sentiments of the Hellenist Josephus, as expressed by him- self, Life, chap. 23. 192 SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE ACTS OF THE a large party who, after having received the gospel, nevertheless still clung with the greatest tenacity to the restrictive spirit and the distinctive rites of Judaism. These were the Hebrews referred to in this passage. They were undoubtedly for a long time very powerful in the mother-church at Jeru- salem. This appears afterwards, among other proofs, from the language addressed to St. Paul by St. James and others when they said to him (chap. xxi. 20, 21), " Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe ; and they are all zealous of the law, and they are informed of thee that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs." But although the word all is here used generally of the believers in Jerusalem, that word as often must not be strained to its utmost possible significance. It is certain that almost from the beginning there was a liberal party in the Church, who did not imagine that the peculiar forms of Judaism were to be preserved under the gospel, or that any restrictions were to be attended to in pro- claiming the blessings of Christianity. We find, accordingly, that the accusation presented against Stephen before the Sanhedrim by the false witnesses suborned for the purpose, is expressed in these words (chap. vi. 13, 14): "This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place and the law : for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us." Although these men are styled " false witnesses " in the narra- PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 193 tive, and really were so, yet their falsity did not consist in fabricating a story which had no founda- tion whatever to rest upon, but in perverting and misrepresenting the language which Stephen had really been accustomed to employ. And it is observ- able that no such charge as that to which he had to answer is ever brought against any of the apostles, until Paul, carrying out the liberal views which seem to have been first enunciated by Stephen, found him- self on this account not only hated with the greatest intensity by his unbelieving countrymen, but even compelled to differ with some of his most esteemed colleagues in the apostolic office. The leading men in the Church seem all at first to have belonged to the Hebrew party. Hence we find (chap. v. 28) that u the indignant language addressed by the high priest, sitting in council, to the apostles, involved no such element of accusation as that urged against Stephen, but was simply as follows : " Did not we straitly command you that you should not teach in this name? . And, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us." And Peter, speaking in the name of all the rest, clearly shows by the tenor of his reply that the truth, so fearlessly proclaimed by Stephen, had not yet dawned upon their minds. " Then Peter," we are told (vers. 29-32), " and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew, and hanged on a tree: Him hath God exalted with His right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and for- giveness of sins. And we are His witnesses of these N V i I 194 SPECIAL TROOPS FROM THE ACTS OF THE things ; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey Him." * It seems to me manifest from these words, that St. Peter and his brethren in the apostolate, were still possessed with the idea that the redemption purchased by Christ was to be limited to those who observed the institutions of Moses ; that they were very far from sharing any Hellenistic tendencies themselves, how- ever forbearingly they might deal with them in others ; and that they did, in fact, all belong to the party denominated Hebreios. Their view was, that salvation was to be preached only to the Jews ; and that if its blessings might be enjoyed by others than the seed of Abraham, that could only be through their conformity to the special usages of Judaism. This was a sentiment on which they continued for a considerable time to act, and which it proved 1 Dr. Alexander, of Princeton, U.S., in his admirable work On the Acts of the Apostles, makes the following remarks on the word Israel, as employed by St. Peter in the passage quoted above : "The express mention of Israel as the object of this favour is not intended to restrict it to the Jews ; but either to intimate the priority of the offer made to them (see above, iii. 26), or to embrace the spiritual Israel, the entire Church of God's elect (see Rom. ix. 6), or, more probably than either, to assure the contemporary Jews who had been implicated in the murder of their own Messiah, that even this most aggravated sin was not beyond the reach of the Divine forgiveness, if repented of; to bestow both which gifts, i.e. repentance as the means, and forgiveness as the end, was the very purpose for which Christ had been exalted as a Prince and a Saviour." I cannot but think that the excellent writer here illustrates a tendency against which expositors of Scripture must ever carefully guard, that of attaching such a meaning to a passage as they conceive it should or must have, instead of simply bringing out the natural import of the words. Let the term Israel have its fair interpretation, and it clearly suggests to us that Peter and his fellow- apostles as yet thought the blessings of salvation were only to be enjoyed by Jews and proselytes, that is, only in connection with the distinctive rites of Judaism. ,; PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 195 indeed very difficult to eradicate from their minde. Accordingly, we learn from the subsequent narrative that the apostles did not proprio motu take any steps for introducing the Gospel even among the Samaritans. It was the Hellenist Philip who took the lead in seeking to evangelize that people (chap, viii. 5) ; and the twelve at Jerusalem merely followed up what seemed the design of Providence in the blessing which accompanied his labours. It is plain, in short, that the strict or so-called Hebrew party was at this time by far the larger and more influen- tial in the Church; but it is also plain that there was from the first a liberal party, the so-called Hellenists, who were already dimly conscious of the world-wide influence to be exerted by Christianity, and were earnestly feeling their way to those en- lightened and comprehensive principles afterwards so zealously and eloquently expounded by the great apostle. Taking this view of the relation of the two parties to each other, we easily understand the cause of that disturbance of which we read in the chapter now more immediately under consideration. " The daily ministration," in which the Hellenists complained that their widows were neglected, doubtless had reference to the daily distribution of food. It was in their social repasts, which were at the same time religious meetings, that the benevolence of the early Church was chiefly displayed. And that the neglect here complained of had reference principally to such gatherings, seems plain from the language made use of by the apostles in the second verse. Havino- assembled the disciples, they said unto them, " It is 196 SrECIAL PROOFS FROM THE ACTS OF THE not reason" (or rather, "is not agreeable to us ") "that we should leave the word of God and serve tables," an expression which it seems possible to understand in this place only or chiefly of waiting upon those who were met together for the purpose of partaking of food. 1 But we learn from a subsequent part of the book how particular the Jews were in having any such intercourse with the Gentiles. St. Peter de- clares (chap. x. 28) to those assembled in the house of Cornelius : " Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company or come unto one of another nation ;" and the context seems to show that the apostle is specially referring in these words to such intercourse as is held by those who partake of the same food. Now, if such were the feelings entertained by the 'IovSaiot in general towards the "E\\ijve<;, there can be little doubt that some portion of the same spirit would be shown by the 'Efipaloi towards the ' EWnvurral, And thus we seem to find an explanation of the fact that the " widows " of the Hellenists (xw ot perhaps representing their poor generally) J were overlooked or passed by in the distribution of food, which took place daily to the poorer members of the Church. The Hebrews, in whose hands exclusively the service appears hitherto to have been placed, attended to the needy members of their own party, but neglected • " (Ministrare mentis), ix. Ccenis quas dyixac vocabant, quarum nomine Diaconi instituti, ne Apostoli, si ministeriis tij>icti)i**f. This read- ing has been adopted in the Revised English Version, and may now be regarded as conclusively established. 204 SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE ACTS OF THE Instances may indeed be found in which the verb means " to speak Greek," but it is the context only which shows such to be its signification, and its normal meaning (as in the case of the analogous verba mimetica MrjBl^a, 'Pa>f/.ai£<0, etc.) is simply " to favour the interests " or " to follow the customs of the Greeks," in whatever way, or to whatever extent, such a tendency may be indicated. We conclude, therefore, that the term Hellenist, as applied to a Jew, meant one who did not hedge himself round by the peculiar usages of Judaism, but yielding, less or more, to the spirit of the age in which he lived, was ready in various ways to adopt and observe the opinions and practices of the Gentile world. The term 'Efipaioi, again, as used in opposition to ' EXkijvtarai, has manifestly lost the wide significance it Once had in embracing the whole Jewish race, and is restricted to a particular part of it. And the ex- planation already given of its antithetical expression enables us to reach the special meaning which is now to be assigned to it. If Hellenists denoted those Jews who had relaxed in the stringency of their Judaism, Hebrews will be those who adhered more rigidly to the forms of their ancient faith. We have already seen how exactly this explanation of the term suits all the passages in which it occurs in the New Testament, and we may now go a little farther, and observe that such suitableness is not apparent with regard to the meaning usually put upon the word when it is conceived to have a special reference to language. Can it be supposed that when St. Paul describes himself (Phil. iii. 5) as " an Hebrew of the Hebrews," or when he exclaims with reference to the PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 205 It boasts of the Judaizers at Corinth (2 Cor. xi. 22), " Arc they Hebrews ? — so am I," he makes any allusion to his knowledge or employment of the Hebrew language ? And, again, it is palpably absurd to imagine that an Epistle written in Greek would have been addressed to those whose very name, inscribed on its front, implied according to the prevalent opinion that they employed the Hebrew language ; whereas, on the ground maintained in this work, it was perfectly natural that they should be addressed in Greek; and the contents of the Epistle acquire a special significancy when regarded as meant in the first instance for those who still required to be taught that all that was distinctively Jewish had been virtually abolished by the promul- gation of Christianity. To sum up. There seems to be no reference what- ever to language in the antithetical terms "Hebrews" and " Hellenists," which occur in this passage. It is a difference of principle and tendency which is pointed to ; and while it might have been thought a priori that the strictly Jewish party would among other things be distinguished by their avoidance of the Hellenic language and literature, and their exclu- sive use of the ancient vernacular tongue, yet facts which are irresistible will not permit us to entertain such an opinion. And we see that it by no means followed that those who were Hellenistic in speech should also Hellenize in principle or tendency. 1 Circumstances which could not be helped or con- 1 Amid much that I humbly conceive mistaken, the possibility or rather certainty of this distinction existing in many cases is indicated by Conybeare and Howson, Life and Eputlet of St. Paul, Original Edition, p. 44. 206 SPECIAL PROOFS FEOM THE ACTS OF THE trolled, had compelled the Jews in general to become familiar with the Greek language. Political and social causes had long been at work in Palestine which necessitated its employment, even by those who were most opposed to Gentilism. And while, beyond doubt, as the 'Efipaioi — the strict, preten- tious, and sometimes fanatical Jews — were principally found among the natives of Palestine, most of those who understood either ancient Hebrew or Aramaic belonged to that party, yet there were few, if any, among them who did not also understand and em- ploy Greek. In a word, the Hellenists were the liberal, and the Hebrews the bigoted party among the Jews, whether within or without the Church ; the most of those who understood Aramaic belonged to the party of the 'E&paioi, though some of the 'EWriviaral, such as St. Paul and the Jewish historian Josephus, could also employ it; but both parties, Hellenists and Hebrews, were familiarly acquainted with Greek, held such intercourse with each other as is implied in the sixth chapter of the Acts in that language, and generally employed it for all literary purposes, and on all public occasions. Proceeding now to the seventh chapter, we come upon ground which can hardly be disputed. Even those who are still far from holding the views set forth in this work, have felt themselves almost com- pelled to admit that the speech of Stephen before the Sanhedrim was delivered in the Greek language. 1 1 " It seems most probable that he spoke in Greek." — Alf. in he. Even Bishop C. Wordsworth admits that the language of this speech "may perhaps have been Greek." But he prefers the other supposi- PREVALEKCE OF GHEEK IN PALESTINE. 207 The reasons for holding this seem to me very obvious and decisive. It may be noticed (l) that the ac- cusers of Stephen were unquestionably men to the majority of whom the Greek language only was ver- nacular. They consisted of Cyrenians, Alexandrians, and others (chap. vi. 9) — foreign Jews accustomed to make use of Greek, and to whom, as a rule, Hebrew was utterly unknown. If, then, these men were present, as many of them would needs be, when Stephen was now arraigned before the Sanhedrim, the speech which he delivered must have been in Greek, else it would have been to them unintelligible. Again, (2) it is a necessary inference from the verse which has been referred to, that Stephen was himself one who was in the habit of employing the Greek language. He doubtless belonged, as we have seen, to the liberal or Hellenistic party in the Church, and was thus brought into collision with those Jews who, though speaking Greek, were identified with the bigoted section of their countrymen, and had on this account so vehemently accused him. It follows that as he and they had been accustomed to dispute together in Greek, the speech which* he now delivered would also be in the Greek language. And again, (3) if we look at the address itself, we find that it bears plain evidence of having been spoken in Greek. It consists in substance of a cento of extracts from different parts of the Septuagint, strung together in a loose yet masterly manner. And nothing surely could be more improbable than tion, so fruitful of difficulties, that it was Hebrew. See his Comm. in loc. Mr. Grinfield thinks that " there are not less than twenty- eight distinct quotations " from the LXX. in this address of Stephen. — Apology, etc. p. 32. 208 SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE ACTS OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 209 either that Luke adopted the version of the LXX., so often in this chapter differing from the Hebrew, 1 while Stephen really made his quotations from the original Scriptures ; or that Stephen himself, in quoting the Hebrew, altered it as we find in the Greek version of his words. One or other of these improbabilities must be maintained by all who hold that Hebrew was used by the proto-martyr on this occasion ; and there are probably few readers who will be inclined to adopt either of the alternatives iu preference to the natural conclusion, reached on other grounds, that Stephen now made use of the Greek language. Here then, again, we have a decisive case. We find that a long and important speech, addressed to the most national and distinctive of Jewish courts, was delivered in Greek. There can be no doubt that it was an open assembly in which Stephen now pleaded — that vast multitudes of the common people were present — that he addressed himself to them all (ver. 2, avhpK, aBe\nX, the tabernacle of congregation. discourse of Peter regarding it, and of the preaching of the truth in other villages of the Samaritans. For reasons formerly assigned, I believe it must be held that the inhabitants of Samaria then generally em- ployed Greek, so that on this ground, as well as from the fact that Philip was undoubtedly accustomed to its use, we are led to conclude that the addresses here spoken of were delivered in that language. The ninth and tenth chapters principally refer to transactions which took place at Damascus, Joppa, and Csesarea, and therefore have no direct bearing on our argument. After what has been already proved, most readers will probably admit that the addresses of various kinds contained in these chapters were originally spoken in the language in which we still possess them ; and thus the continuity still remains unbroken, which we have traced from the beginning of the book, in regard to the employment of the Greek language. In the eleventh chapter we are again introduced to the Church at Jerusalem. A report of what had happened at Caesarea having been carried to Jerusa- lem, caused no small excitement among the brethren'; and when Peter himself came up to explain the matter, he found that "they of the circumcision" were not a little offended with the liberty he had used in having such intimate relations with uncir- cumcised Gentiles. Peter therefore " rehearsed the matter from the beginning," explaining to them in words almost identical with those employed before (chap. x. 11-16) in narrating the same events, how it came to pass that he had acted in the way he had done. That the apostle now spoke in Greek, accord- o 210 SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE ACTS OF THE ing to his usual practice, seems implied in the fact 3tated (ver. 12), that the six brethren who had accompanied him from Joppa to Csesarea were pre- sent on this occasion, and were apparently referred to as witnesses of the events which he related, so far as they were acquainted with them. The speech of the apostle therefore must have been delivered in a language which they understood ; and if it be admitted, as I suppose it will, that Greek was then the prevalent language in Joppa, 1 as in Csesarea and the other sea-coast towns of Palestine, it follows that the address of Peter at this time was, as usual, in the Greek language. In the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth chapters, there is nothing which bears directly on the point as to the prevailing language in Palestine. It is beyond question that the oration of Herod Agrippa at Caasarea (chap. xii. 21), delivered in the hearing of the people of that city, and of deputies from Tyre and Sidon, was in Greek. With respect to the long discourse of St. Paul in the synagogue at Antioch in Pisidia (chap. xiii. 14-41), it is only, I believe, the influence of a strong prejudice which can prevent any one from seeing that it was delivered in the Greek lanTo<:, employed by St. Luke, to the official title which he bore, Upwro? Mektramv. All this shows that the inhabitants could not have been ignorant of the Greek language. The apostle at length arrived in Rome ; and we have 1 Wordsworth's New Testament, in loc. This able scholar, misled by the opinion he has adopted respecting the gift of tongues, erron- eously finds in this passage " another silent evidence of power, in the apostles and evangelists, to understand and speak languages which (hey had not learnt, and were not supposed to know, just as they understood what was said in the Lycaonian dialect, and spoke it to the people at Lystra." 2 Cicero in Verrem, ii. 4. 18. See the commentators on the passage. 224 SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE ACTS OF THE an account, in the concluding portion of the chapter, (vers. 17-28), of several interviews which he had with his countrymen in that city. It needs no argument to prove that the language employed on these occa- sions was Greek. The Epistle to the Romans furnishes sufficient evidence on that point ; and we cannot doubt that, as the apostle had formerly written to them, so now he would converse with them, in the Greek language. We have thus gone through the whole book of the Acts, with a view to ascertain what evidence it bears respecting the question under consideration. And it has uttered no uncertain sound. From beginning to end'wehave found demonstrative proof of the constant and familiar use then made of the Greek language by the Jews of Palestine, as well as their brethren in other countries. There are four occasions especially to which I would direct the reader's attention as absolutely decisive of the question at issue. Even when viewed separately and independently, these ap- pear to me conclusive ; but when taken together, and in connection with the results already obtained from Josephus and the Gospels, the evidence they furnish seems nothing less than overwhelming. The first is the sermon of St. Peter on the day of Pentecost ; the second, the address of St. Stephen before the Sanhedrim ; the third, the speeches delivered by the various speakers in the council at Jerusalem ; and the fourth, the outcry raised by the Jews of Asia against St. Paul when they met with him in the temple.' Let the arguments brought forward to show that on all these occasions Gbeek was the language used be PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE 225 1 either refuted, or let the conclusion to be derived from that fact be admitted. That conclusion, I humbly think, is not over-stated when it is expressed in the terms of the proposition contended for in this work, that "Greek was widely diffused, well understood, and commonly employed for all public purposes in Palestine in the times of Christ and His apostles." Sor> 1 CYl ii' ' CHAPTER VIII. PROOF FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE IN THE TIMES OF CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES. More controversies have perhaps been waged respect- ing the Epistle to the Hebrews than any other book of the New Testament. All admit that it is a noble composition. In a mere literary and artistic point of view, it takes the very highest place among the books of Scripture. In no other is the language so copious and flowing, or the march of the argument so stately and imposing. The Epistle to the Romans may, indeed, vie with it in point of doctrinal importance, and may not be inferior in regard to the skill with which the reasoning is articulated, and the various portions of the argument made to converge on one grand conclusion. But in manner and style the Epistle to the Hebrews is peculiar. The sonorous character of its diction, the rhythmical balancing of its clauses, the regular construction of its sentences, and the frequent and elaborate illustrations which it contains, serve to mark it out especially from the acknowledged Epistles of Paul, and distinguish it, less or more strikingly, from all the other books of the New Testament. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 227 I ! It follows at once from the fact that this very peculiar composition is anonymous, that the question of its authorship must furnish a problem of no easy solution to the biblical student. Had its character- istics been those of the generally-received Epistles of Paul, there might have been little difficulty in acquiescing in the conclusion which associates it with his name. But, as is at once evident, the differences are many and great. No reader of the New Testa- ment can pass from a perusal of the Epistle to the Romans to the Epistle to the Hebrews, without feel- ing as if he had entered an entirely new realm of thought, and were brought in contact with a mind of quite a different order and cultivation. Accord- ingly, from the days of Origen downwards, all critical students of God's word have been greatly perplexed by this question of authorship. On the one hand, the transcendent excellence of the Epistle seems of itself to suggest its apostolic origin. No one who compares it with any of the sub-apostolic writings can fail to be struck with its immense superiority. The jejune character of even the best remains of the apostolic fathers, the utter want of original or seminal thoughts which appears in them, and the not un- frequently silly or superstitious remarks in which they indulge — all form a very marked contrast to this Epistle, and all seem necessarily to suggest its divine authority and inspiration. But then, on the other hand, to what one of the apostles or their associates is it to be ascribed ? That is the question which, above all others, agitates, from age to age, the minds of biblical scholars in connection with this Epistle, and which continues to receive, from dif- 228 PROOF FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS OF THE ferent inquirers, the most varied and contradictory answers. Other questions, moreover, remain behind. There is not, indeed, a single point connected with the Epistle that has not been made the subject of controversy. Whether it be an Epistle or a treatise — whether its original language was Hebrew or Greek — whether, if St. Paul was not its sole author, he had any part in its composition — whether, if the Pauline origin must be altogether set aside, the work is to be ascribed to Luke, or Barnabas, or Apollos — and whether it was to the inhabitants of Palestine that it was primarily addressed, or what other community of Christians is to be fixed upon as its original recipients, are all points which have been keenly discussed, and which still divide, to a considerable extent, the opinion of the learned world. Under the influence of the many important ques- tions thus suggested, the Epistle has been subjected to the most elaborate and searching criticism. A large library might be formed of the literature bear- ing upon this subject. There is not a hint or allusion contained in the Epistle, not a phrase or idiom em- ployed, but has been seized upon by industrious and keen-eyed critics, and made to tell favourably upon their own hypotheses, or unfavourably upon those of their opponents. Thus, if it cannot be said that the oft-repeated study of this Epistle, and of the various notices respecting it which are to be found in ancient writers, has yet led to a positive settlement of all the questions connected with it, it may certainly be said, that we possess a far more intimate acquaintance with every point, internal and external, belonging to PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 229 this portion of Scripture, than we would or could have done, but for the many and serious difficulties surrounding it. It is only to the last of the inquiries referred to above that we are here called to direct special atten- tion. The question concerning the readers for whose benefit especially the work was written, has manifestly a very important bearing on the controversy respect- ing the language then prevalent in Palestine. And to contribute to the settlement of that question is the ultimate object contemplated in this chapter. It seems to be necessary, however, before proceeding to the examination of this point, to say a few words in regard to the other questions which have been men- tioned, since the determination of one has some influence on the conclusion -we are likely to form concerning another. That the writing is an Epistle, and not a disserta- tion or treatise, as some have maintained from the want of the usual introductory formula, I believe, with almost all recent critics^ to be too plain to require any lengthened argumentation. There are numerous personal appeals contained in it ; the con- clusion is in the regular epistolary style of salutation and benediction ; in short, the notion that it is not an Epistle, but a homUy or general discourse, is just one of those fanciful hypotheses, which have too frequently found their way into biblical science, but which scarcely deserve or call for any elaborate refutation. As to the language in which the Epistle was origi- nally written, many considerations tend to prove that it was Greek. The testimony of antiquity, in- 230 PROOF FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS OF THE deed, rather points to a different conclusion. Clement of Alexandria, the very first writer who refers expressly to the authorship of the Epistle, declares that it "was written to the Hebrews, in the Hebrew language." Eusebius, who has preserved to us this statement of Clement, also gives it as his own opinion, that the Epistle was addressed " to the Hebrews in their native tongue ; " though, as in the analogous case of St. Matthew's Gospel, he afterwards falls into inconsis- tency, and reasons as if he believed the original language to have been Greek. Jerome, in like man- ner, affirms that Hebrew was the original language of our Epistle. Referring in one part of his works (Catal. Script. Eccl, chap. v. Paulus) to the various opinions entertained respecting its authorship, he seems, upon the whole, to ascribe it to St. Paul, and then expressly declares, "Scripserat autem ut Hebraeus, Hebraeis, Hebraice." The same statement is made by Theodoret, Theophylact, and others of the Fathers, and has been adopted by some learned writers in modern times. But the great majority of biblical scholars at the present day agree in be- lieving, on the ground of internal evidence furnished by the Epistle, that the ancients were in error on this point, and that the original form of the writing was just that in which we still possess it. The next question which occurs is that which re- gards the authorship of the Epistle. It is with much hesitation that I here touch upon this famous problem, as, however inadequately discussed, it must, I am afraid, if referred to at all, keep us too long from the subject which more immediately requires our atten- tion. But since the two questions respecting the PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 23 1 authorship and the destination of the Epistle seem at some points to be vitally connected together, I shall trust to the reader 's indulgence while dwelling some- what longer on the former point than may, perhaps, seem called for by the special purpose contemplated in this work. According to some, internal evidence is all that we have to guide us to a conclusion respecting the authorship of this Epistle. The ancients, with all their statements, hypotheses, and conjectures, furnish us with no assistance. We may, if we choose, hear what they have to say on the subject ; but, after listen- ing to the confused sounds in which they address us, we shall feel that we have got no hint which can be of the slightest value in settling the controversy. All that they can teach us is simply that they know nothing of the matter. And all the advantage which we can derive from looking into their remaining works in quest of information on this subject, is merely to learn that they leave us entirely to our own dis- cretion, and that we are at perfect liberty, if our judgment should so incline us, to ascribe the Epistle to one whose name never occurred to them as its possible author. Thus, Dean Alford (to whose discussion of this question, as one of the most able and impartial, I shall especially refer in the following remarks) observes with regard to the external evidence : " It simply leaves us, unfettered by any overpowering judgment of antiquity, to examine the Epistle for our- selves, and form our own opinion from its contents " (Greek Testament, vol. iv. part i., Proleg. p. 12). 232 PROOF FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS OF THE Again : " What we require is this : that we of this age should be allowed to do just that which the «px a ' 04 ai/Spe? did in their age, examine the Epistle simply and freely for and by itself, and form our conclusions accordingly, as to its author, readers, and date ; having respect, indeed, to ancient tradition, where we can find it, but not, where it is so broken and inconsistent with itself, bound by any one of its assertions, or limited in our conclusions by its extent " (ibid. p. 40). Once more : " In freely proposing to ourselves the inquiry, "Who wrote the Epistle ? as to be answered entirely from the Epistle itself, we are not setting aside, but are strictly following, the earliest and weightiest historical testimonies respect- ing it, and the references to be deduced from them. And if any name seems to satisfy the requirements of the Epistle itself, those who in modern times sug- gested that name, and those who see reason to adopt it, are not to be held up to derision, as has been done by Mr. Forster, merely because that name was not suggested by any among the ancients. The question is as open now as it was in the second century. They had no reliable tradition ; we have none. If an author is to be found, av-rb Sdljei " (ibid. pp. 49, 50). Now, without professing to attach very great im- portance to the mere dicta of the early Fathers on any point, historical or theological, I cannot but think that Alford here estimates somewhat lightly the statements they have left us with respect to the question under consideration. It is, I hold, a very sound rule, in dealing with the opinions or assertions of early ecclesiastical writers, to follow them as far as indubitable facts will possibly permit us. And PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 233 very often, in acting on this principle, we shall find reason to conclude, that even their errors are not all errors, but that there is an ingredient of truth in the mass of erroneous statements which they make. The ore may often be of a very impure and inferior character, but still it is golden ore, and for the sake even of the few grains of precious metal which it contains, is not to be at once and contemptuously thrown away. Thus I believe the case stands with reference to the external evidence bearing upon the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews. There is a certain value to be attached to the many statements which have come down to us from antiquity in favour of its Pauline origin ; although these statements are often confused and contradictory. Nothing certain, I be- lieve can be founded on the celebrated passage of the New' Testament itself (2 Pet. iii. 15, 16) in which allusion is made to the Epistles of Paul. It cannot be proved that St. Peter there refers to the writing before us, and we must pass beyond the confines of inspired Scripture before we find anything which can be shown to bear clearly and decidedly, either on the authority or authorship of the Epistle. But the very first step out of the canon of Scrip- ture introduces us to an author who makes the most copious use of the work under consideration. Cle- ment of Kome, whose Epistle to the Corinthians was probably written before the close of the first century, has quoted very largely from the Epistle to the Hebrews. His own writing, indeed, seems, in many passages, just an echo of our Epistle. He appears to have ascribed to it the authority of inspiration, 234 PROOF. FEOM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS OF THE although, of course, we do not find him referring to it in those technical terms which afterwards came to denote canonicity. He is silent respecting the au- thorship ; and, if himself acquainted with the name of the author, must for some reason or other have abstained from mentioning it, 1 since we find uncer- tainty prevailing on that point in the Western Church down to about the middle of the fourth century. At that date the practice begins among Latin writers of quoting the Epistle as St. Paul's ; and, in spite of lingering doubts, the habit of ascribing it to him became more and more established. Long before this date, the tradition which assigned the Epistle to Paul had been acknowledged in the Eastern Church as embodying a certain amount of truth. Pantaenus, head of the catechetical school at Alexandria, in the middle of the second century, ascribed the Epistle to St. Paul (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vi. 14). J This testimony, with some modifications which are important, as pointing, I believe, to the right conclusion on this perplexing subject, is repeated by Clement himself. His view is (Euseb. ut sup.) 1 There seems to be some force in the remark of Dr. "Wordsworth (Greek Test., Proleg. to Hebrews) : "The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, whoever he was, had written anonymously, and doubtless he had good reason for doing so. If the writer was St. Paul, then St. Clement, who was an intimate friend of the apostle, and wrote soon after his decease, would know and respect those reasons, and would be guided by them." This observation is equally applicable to the modi- fied as to the absolute view of the Pauline authorship ; but it seems utterly impossible to give any explanation of the silence of Clement, if the Epistle were written by A polios, and addressed, as Alford believes, to the Church of Borne. 4 1 here assume, as is generally done, that by the expression /***<*- fioi TtfiiofivTiptf employed by Clement (loc. cit.), he means Pantaenus, although Credner remarks on this point (Einl. § 189), that it is " kein- esweges so sicher als angenommen wird." PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 235 that the Epistle was Paul's, but written by the apostle in Hebrew, and carefully translated by Luke into Greek — whence he accounts for the similarity of diction which it presents to the Acts of the Apostles. And then his great disciple Origen follows. He habitually quotes the Epistle as St. Paul's ; and in one part of his writings distinctly attributes fourteen Epistles to that apostle. It is true that when he comes to give his own opinion respecting the Epistle, he introduces, as Clement had done, some modifications into his ascription of it to St. Paul, and, still more correctly than his master, furnishes us with the hint which seems sufficient to harmonize all the facts con- nected with the Epistle. His words are (Euseb. H. E. vi. 25) : " Expressing my own view on the question, I would say that the thoughts belong to the apostle, but that the style and composition are due to one who put on record the apostolic ideas, and, as it were, commented on the expressions employed by his master. If any Church, therefore, holds this as the Epistle of Paul, let it by all means be commended for so doing. For not without reason have the ancients handed it down as Paul's. But who wrote the Epistle, God alone truly knoweth. The report which has reached us is twofold : some saying that Clement who was bishop of Rome wrote it ; and others, that Luke was the writer, the same who wrote the Gospel and Acts." Alford's comment on this important passage is as follows {ut sup. p. 7): "Who the ipx*™ «"%* were, it is impossible for us to say. Possibly, if we confine our view to one Church, no more than Pantaenus and Clement, and their disciples. One 236 PROOF FROM THE EWSTLE TO THE HEBREWS OF THE thing is very plain, that they cannot have been men whose irapdSoaKs satisfied Origen himself, or he would not have spoken as he has. Be they who they might, one thing is plain, that their irapdZoavi is spoken of by him as ovk elicfj, not as resting on external matter of fact, but as finding justification in the internal character of the Epistle ; and that it did not extend to the fact of St. Paul having written the Epistle, but only to its being in some sense his." To my mind this seems a very inadequate representation of Origen's meaning. In the first place, the attempt to limit the expression "the ancients" to Origen's own teacher and his predecessor at Alexandria, is so plainly inadmissible as to require no remark. 1 And then the further assertion, that the TrapdBoa-^ spoken of by Origen is to be regarded as resting on the internal character of the Epistle, is, as appears to me, to miss the point altogether. Had Origen meant any such thing as Alford maintains, he would surely not have used the expression " handed down " (wapa- fchwicaai) at all, but would rather have said that " the ancients not without cause supposed or affirmed the Epistle to be Paul's." The obvious meaning of the passage seems to be this. Origen informs us that there was an ancient .tradition connecting our epistle with the Apostle Paul. He also acknowledges the validity of this tradition, so much so as to approve of the conduct of any Church which attributed it pur ct simple to the apostle. But then he believed that 1 Hug gives the expression cifx»Ui Anlptc no more than its natural import when he says (Introd., Fosdick's translation, ii. § 147) : "This expression, used by a man in the third century, has a very important meaning, and would seem to carry us back near to the times of the apostles." t- > PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 237 the tradition left room for some modification of this idea respecting the Pauline authorship. He was inclined, on internal grounds, to attribute the thoughts to Paul, the composition to another. That other he does not definitely fix, but mentions Clement and Luke as both having been named in connection with the writing (the secondary authorship) of the Epistle. 1 How far the report which had thus reached him was true, he does not undertake to decide. But he leaves, as I humbly think, the tradition which, in some sense, ascribed the Epistle to St. Paul, on ground which is unassailable. And it is, I believe, to take up a posi- tion entirely different from that of Origen, when any one imagines himself, as Alford does, at liberty to cast aside the external evidence altogether, and to support the claims of any name different from that of the apostle, to the sole authorship of the Epistle. The result, then, of our inquiry into ancient testi- mony on the question now before us, is that we pro- ceed to the investigation of the contents of the Epistle itself with a decided leaning towards Paul as being, in some sense, its author. It may turn out, on an examination of the internal evidence, that we find reason to yield fully to this leaning, and accept of the apostle as the sole authojjpf the Epistle ; or that we now) ;4f, a are compelled to resist tc, and deny that he had any 1 That the much controverted clause ri'i ii i ypd^/u; tiJ» is-wToA^n, to u^nOi: ho; oiocv, refers not to the mere scribe on the one hand, or to the author of the niftetT* on the other, appears to me manifest from the scope of the passage. Origen expresses no doubt, so far as he was himself concerned, as to the author of the substance of the Epistle ; his only doubt refers to the person who gave it its special character and form. Alford, therefore, appears wide of the mark when he states, as one of his inferences from the passage («< sup.), " that the authorship of the Epistle was regarded by Origen as utterly unknown." 238 PROOF FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS OF THE hand whatever in its composition ; or, finally, that we are led to rest in some such conclusion as Origen, ascribing the thoughts and subject-matter to Paul, while we attribute the peculiar character and style of the Epistle to another. I proceed then briefly to con- sider the internal evidence as it bears on these three positions ; and let us look — First, at the hypothesis of the exclusively Pauline authorship. As may have been gathered from what has been already said, I cannot acquiesce in this conclusion. It seems to me opposed by the whole character and style of the Epistle. I do not, however, quite see the force of some of the objections which have been brought against this hypothesis. No insuperable difficulty appears to me to arise from the passage (chap. ii. 3) in which the writer speaks of himself as, with his readers, having received the gospel at second-hand, and not directly from Christ, as Paul earnestly claims for himself in other Epistles. Luther, Calvin, and many other eminent critics have deemed this of itself decisive against the Pauline authorship. They have also dwelt very much on the absence, in this Epistle, of personal allusions to the writer's own position and history; and have found in this, as contrasted with the well-known habit of St. Paul, a reason for denying that he could have been the author of this Epistle. 1 1 Both objections are put very strongly by Dean Alford. With respect to the former, he says (p. 44) : " That an apostle, who ever claimed to have received the gospel, not from men, but from the Lord Himself, — who was careful to state that when he met the chief apostles in council they added nothing to him, should at all, and especially in writing (as the hypothesis generally assumes) to the very Church where PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 239 Now, in my judgment such arguments as these proceed to a great extent on forgetfulness of the special character which ex hypothesi attaches to the Epistle. Supposing it Paul's, it is designedly anonymous. He feels from the first that there are special circumstances attending the composition of this work. He sits down to it with the resolution not, as in his other Epistles, to begin with the men- tion of his name, or the assertion of his apostolical authority. And having begun in this manner, it would have been to run counter to his own design had he afterwards violently obtruded his personality on the attention of his readers. While he manifestly did not wish absolutely to conceal his identity, as appears from the end of the Epistle, he as manifestly did not wish strongly to suggest it, as is plain from the beginning. And in such a case, the fact that he quietly identifies himself with his readers in chap, ii. 3, and the absence of marked individual traits throughout the Epistle, seem to me in no degree to tell against its Pauline origin. All the characteristic tendencies of the apostle must of necessity have been kept in check throughout, else he might as well have begun at once with a declaration of his name, and the influence of those other aposUes was at its highest; place himself on a level with their disciples as fa^ne reception of the gospel from them, is a supposition so wholly improbable, that I cannot explain its having been held by so many men of discernment, except on the supposition that their bias towards the Pauline authorship has blinded them to the ' well-known character and habit of the apostle." Again, in reference to the other objection, he remarks (p. 45) : " Much stress has been laid, and duly, on the entire absence of personal notices of the writer, as affecting the question of the Pauline authorship. This is so inconsistent with the otherwise invariable practice of St. Paul, that some very strong reason must be supposed which should influence him in this case to depart from that practice." Comp. also p. 47. 240 PROOF FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS OF THE an assertion of his status as an apostle, as we find him doing in his other Epistles. But while I cannot attribute to the above argu- ments that weight which many eminent critics have assigned them, I am still led, on other grounds, to say with Calvin, " Ego ut Paulum agnoscam autorem adduci nequeo." The reasons which specially weigh with me in forming this conclusion are just those which so greatly impressed Origen of old. " Every one," says that learned Father (Euseb. ut sup.), " who is capable of noting differences of style, will admit that the character of the diction of the Epistle to the Hebrews does not possess the uncouthness of the apostle (who confessed himself rude in speech, that is, in style), but that it is more purely Grecian in its composition." The same fact has been dwelt upon by many distinguished scholars in modern times. Erasmus, for example, remarks, after noticing other reasons which induced him to deny the Pauline origin of the Epistle : " Restat jam argumentum illud, quo non aliud certius, stilus ipse et orationis character, qui nihil habet affinitatis cum phrasi Paulina." This argument, indeed, of difference of style, has often been pushed to a ridiculous excess in judging of the authenticity of several books of the New Testament. There has been an absurd and unnatural attempt made by certain critics to tie down the writers of Scripture to the use of a stereotyped style, however different the moods in which they may have written, and even to the employment of the very same vocables, however diverse the subjects of which, at different times, they treated. But still the argument from style, in any question bearing upon authorship, a PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 241 i ! i s is necessarily a strong one (" quo non aliud certius," as Erasmus puts it), and this is specially the case in writings so much distinguished for their naturalness as are those of the New Testament, — writings in which, as was formerly noticed, the individuality of the several authors so strikingly appears. I believe, then, that the hypothesis of the ex- clusively Pauline authorship of our Epistle must be abandoned. The character of the writinar itself is decisive of this point. It seems impossible, on grounds confirmed by universal experience, that such a composition could have proceeded from the same pen that wrote the Epistle to the Galatians, or the Epistles to Timothy and Titus. And if a candid examination of the Epistle must convince every com- petent judge of this fact, as it has convinced the most learned of the Fathers, the most illustrious of the Eeformers, and the great majority of eminent biblical scholars in modern times, no considerations of authority, prescription, or expediency must be allowed to interfere with the conclusion. It is curious to observe that although both Luther and Calvin, as well as Erasmus, expressed themselves strongly, at the epoch of the Reformation, against the Pauline authorship, there has been since then, as Alford remarks (p. 38)^a growing disposition, both in the Romish and in the Reformed Churches, to erect into an article of faith the Pauline origin, and to deal severely with those who presumed to doubt it." l As was to be expected, this tendency has displayed 1 The reason of this has doubtless been that the questions of the authorship and canonical authority of the Epistle have been con- founded. But the true position is that indicated in such words as the following :— Calvin et Luther avec leurs adherents imme'diats Q 242 PROOF FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS OF THE TKEVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 243 itself most strongly among Romanists. With them, of course, ecclesiastical authority is everything. If the Church has settled any disputed point, then reason must be silenced for ever. And it is lamentable to notice the shifts to which thinking men within the Romish communion are thus not unfrequently reduced. What could be more mournful, for instance, than the way in which a scholar like Erasmus felt himself constrained to write with respect to this very question ? Having ventured, as we have seen he did, to deny the Epistle to be Paul's, the doctors of Paris assailed him with the greatest virulence, and accused him of having written " arroganter et schismaticfe," as presuming to doubt what so many divines, councils, and popes had already determined. Erasmus was frightened by this thunder, and in his reply to these vehemently - orthodox champions, declared that while " juxta sensum humanum," he could not believe the Epistle to be St. Paul's ; yet, if the Church had really determined the question, he would yield all to her authority. " Id si est," he says, " if she requires us to hold not only that what is contained in the canonical books is true, but also that the persons to whom they are ascribed certainly wrote them," then, " damno ac rejicio dubitationem meam ; plus apud me valet expressum Ecclesiae judicium, quam ullae rationes humanae ! " It is matter for thankfulness that the spirit of these Sorbonne divines, who thus violently repressed dcclarcrent ne pas pouvoir reconnaltre Paul pour aiiteur de cet dcrit ; et les confessions de foi de l'Allemagne luthdrienne et de la France refornuSe consacrerent implicement cette opinion, sans renoncer pour cela a citer 1'epitre comme une autorite* apoBtolique. — Eeuss, Hut. i ? \ i i i the intelligent convictions of one infinitely better qualified than any among them to give a judgment on the point in question, has to a great extent dis- appeared, at least in Protestant Churches. A better disposition has happily begun to prevail. Truth' alone is now acknowledged worthy of absolute homage, and in the conviction that rational and reverent inquiry can never injure its authority, " we have at last," says Dean Alford (p. 62), " in this country begun to learn that Holy Scripture shrinks not from any tests, however severe, and requires not any artificial defences, however apparently ex- pedient." We now proceed to consider — Secondly, The hypothesis of the exclusively non- Pauline authorship of our Epistle, The possible names that present themselves to us on this supposition are those of Barnabas, Luke, Clement, Mark, Titus, Apollos, Silvanus, Aquila. Of these, Barnabas is supported by the testimony of Tertullian, who, quoting Heb. vi. 1, expressly styles our Epistle " Epistola Barnabae." But this opinion, though accompanied by no doubtfulness on the part of Tertullian, 1 seems never to have prevailed to any great extent in the Church. It is certain that if Barnabas wrote thatj^ustle which is current under his name, he could not also have written the Epistle to the Hebrews. The two are in many respects 1 It has been adopted by Wieseler in his Chronologie des Apos- tolischen Zeitalten, p. 604, etc., as what he deems the best supported of all the traditions, and is favoured by Conyb. and Howson, ii. p. 531 etc. Dr. Salmon seems also inclined to it (IiUrod. p. 4-18), but has hardly, I think, done justice to the theory of the secondary Lucan authorship suggested in the following pages. • ill 244 PROOF FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS OF THE diametrically opposed to each other, and cannot with any probability be ascribed to the same author. And even though this objection to Barnabas being the writer of our Epistle be set aside, by supposing (as is almost certainly the case) that the Epistle bearing his name is spurious, we cannot see why, if he had written the Epistle to the Hebrews, it should not have been generally ascribed to him. We know of no plausible reason which, on the hypothesis of his being the author, can be assigned for its anonymous- ness, or for the almost complete silence respecting his name which is observed by antiquity. On the whole, while the supposition in question is one which it is difficult to refute, from the very little we know of the mental capabilities and characteristics of the person referred to, it has hardly any positive evi- dence on which to rest, and cannot, I believe, maintain its ground against the tradition which, in one form or another, ascribes our Epistle to St. Paul. The hypothesis again, that Luke was the independent writer of the Epistle, is to my mind sufficiently negatived by the fact that the personal notices which it contains, and the tone of authority, however gentle, which it exhibits, do not tally with such a supposition. How far Luke was, in our view, con- cerned in the composition of the Epistle, will appear afterwards. It is certain, again, that Clement could not have written this Epistle, and also the Epistle to the Corinthians which we possess under his name ; and as the authenticity of the latter is unquestion- able, the hypothesis of his being the writer of the former is at once proved untenable. These three names then being set aside, there are PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 245 f none of the others which were enumerated that seem to have any plausible claims to the authorship, with the exception of that of Apollos. It is well known that Luther was led to hazard the conjecture that, in this eloquent Alexandrian teacher, we may find the much-sought writer of our Epistle. This hypothesis of the Reformer has been embraced by not a few eminent critics, and among these are some of the very highest rank in modern times. Credner, Tholuck, Bleek, De Wette, Alford, and others, all agree in holding that to Apollos probably is the authorship of the Epistle to be ascribed. And, as such names are of themselves sufficient to indicate, much plausi- bility can be imparted to this supposition. The account of Apollos which Luke gives us in the Acts • of the Apostles, when he describes him as "a certain Jew born in Alexandria, an eloquent man, mighty in the Scriptures," may certainly be regarded as har- monizing with the characteristics presented by our Epistle. Alford makes the most of the probability thus imparted to his hypothesis, and seems to find support for it in some very fanciful coincidences. 1 All we can admit in reference to Apollos, as the supposed author of the Epistle, is that its literary character suits very well with the hypothesis. The 1 He remarks respecting folios (p. 58) : " He is- described as ixi- ordfj.ii/oc fioKw to pxffTiofic&nu laawov, but being more perfectly taught the way of the Lord by Aquila and Priscilla. No wonder, then, that a person so instituted [instructed ?] should specify \%*vnnnu» 'hiha-^n as one of the components in the Dtfiihiov of the Christian life (Heb. vi. 2).'' Here we seem to find an illustration of the ease with which fancied sup- port may be found for a hypothesis already assumed as true. Although Apollos is described as " knowing only the baptism of John " when lie was found by Aquila and Priscilla, yet that does not surely imply that the doctrine of baptism was a thing on which his mind specially dwelt) or that when these better-instructed Christians " expounded unto him 246 PROOF FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS OF THE eloquence attributed to him by St. Luke, and the large and powerful use which he could make of the Old Testament Scriptures, might certainly be regarded as illustrated in its contents. But when we have admitted thus much, all has been said which can be specially urged in support of the authorship of Apollos. Acquaintance with Paul, which is mentioned by Alford as another reason in his favour, was shared by many others, such as Barnabas and Luke, and therefore proves nothing. The Alexandrian character of the Epistle, again, which has been much insisted on by some, even though admitted to all the extent con- tended for, really imparts little, if any, additional plausibility to the theory under consideration ; for it cannot be doubted that Barnabas as a native of Cyprus, which was closly connected with Alexandria, and Luke as a man of general culture, who could hardly fail to be acquainted with the writings of Philo, might easily have displayed such familiarity as the Epistle suggests with Alexandrian modes of thought and literature. And any presumption which may be supposed to arise in favour of Apollos from the style of the writ- ing, speedily gives way, I believe, when confronted with some other facts connected with the Epistle. In the first place, his name was never associated with the way of God more perfectly," they were particularly anxious to im- press upon him the nature of Christian baptism as distinguished from that of John. The meaning of the passage simply is this, that when Apollos met with Aquila and Priscilla, he had not obtained fuller or clearer views of the gospel than the forerunner of the Saviour had announced, and that they were instrumental in conveying to him that complete evangelical knowledge of which, till now, he had been destitute. Still more fanciful is Alford's argument in the same passage from the use of the term t«^h»/««£i»0»/ by St. Lute in the Acts, and the occurrence of the word va^tttiaf in chapter iii. 6 of this Epistle. : ■i PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 247 . its authorship by the ancient ecclesiastical writers. Alford makes very light of this objection, but it appears to me of itself fatal. Had there been the least ground for attributing the Epistle to an Alex- andrian Jew, for such Apollos was, surely we should have found some conjectures or affirmations tio that effect in the Church in Alexandria. But, as we have seen, it is exactly there that no room is left for such a supposition. It is at Alexandria that the tradi- tion as to the Pauline origin is most speedily and specially prevalent ; and among the modifications of this opinion mentioned by Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen, the name of Apollos is never whispered as having the slightest connection with the Epistle. This total silence appears unaccountable on the hypo- thesis of the authorship by Apollos, and seems of itself to render such a theory untenable. And then, in the second place, the tone of the Epistle is such as does not harmonize with the supposition of Apollos being its author. This is the case even granting that it was addressed to the Church at Rome. The o^ofia,. ilia* (chap. xiii. 23), as Alford himself admits, "has a tinge of authority about it which hardly seems to fit " such a person as Apollos. The same is the case with the words a-rroKwraataQUi vfuv (chap. xiii. 19), which seem to imply such a relation subsisting between the writer and the^aders as we have no reason to believe existed between Apollos and the Church of Rome. The objection arising from these personal references is, of course, much stronger, if we regard the Epistle as having been addressed to the Church of Jerusalem ; and thus we feel ourselves once more constrained entirely to set aside the hypothesis that 248 PKOOF FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS OF THE Apollos was the author of the Epistle. Again, in the third place, it seems impossible on such a theory of the authorship to assign any satisfactory reason for the anonymousness of the Epistle. We find Dean AlfOrd, indeed, not only not admitting that there is any difficulty to the adoption of his hypothesis in this fact, but even reasoning as if it actually favoured it. He tries (p. 60), in a manner which I must con- fess appears to me more ingenious than convincing, to bring out " the self-denying modesty of Apollos " with respect to the Church at Corinth ; and then, after concluding (p. 61) that "the same spirit of modest self-abnegation would hardly be wanting in Apollos, to whatever Church he was writing," ho expresses himself (p. 71) as follows: "Supposing, as we have gathered from the notices of Apollos in First Corin- thians, that he modestly shrank from being thought to put himself into rivalry with St. Paul, and that after the death of the apostle he found it necessary to write such an Epistle as this to the Church in the metropolis, what more likely step would he take with regard to his own name and personality in it than just that which we find he has taken, viz. so to conceal these as to keep them from having any pro- minence, while by various minute personal notices he prevents the concealment from being complete ? " In my humble judgment, this is ingenuity completely thrown away. Why Apollos should conceal his name to avoid all risk of being thought to enter into rivalry with St. Paul, after that apostle was dead, I am some- what at a loss to conceive. And what danger there was of any such person as Apollos, however eloquent or eminent, succeeding in drawing too much of the !■' PREVALENCE OF GKEEK IN PALESTINE. 249 \ , ti respect of the Eomau Church, and thus detracting from the high esteem in which the great apostle, now also reverenced as a blessed martyr, was held, I am quite unable to comprehend. Had such an idea as this entered into the head of Apollos, and led him to write anonymously to the Eomans, I should h'ave been inclined, for my own part, to think him animated by a very different principle from that extreme modesty for which Dean Alford has given him credit. Surely, if he wished to disclaim all rivalry with the Apostle Paul, nothing would have been easier than for him to say so ; and we might have looked in his Epistle for some such warm tribute of homage and affection to " our beloved brother Paul " as we find embodied in the Second Epistle of Peter. The ex- planation, then, of the anonymousness of the Epistle which is suggested by Alford will not stand ; far less can it be supposed to give any countenance to his hypothesis. He does not, so far as I can see, at all succeed in removing the difficulties which immediately spring from the ascription of the sole authorship to Apollos ; and thus we conclude that every form, even the most plausible, in which the exclusively non- Pauline origin of our Epistle has been maintained, is unsatisfactory, and must be dismissed. Nothing remains, £jrt!refore, but that we adopt — Thirdly, The hypothesis of a twofold authorship of the Epistle — Paul supplying to a large extent its matter, and setting his seal on its authority, while another actually composed it, and thus imparted to it the special style and character which we find it to possess. 250 PROOF FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS OF THE As already hinted, this is the only theory which seems to me to afford any tolerable solution of the many difficulties connected with this Epistle. It cor responds exactly with the prevailing tradition in the early Church regarding it. The ancient testimony which ascribed the Epistle to St. Paul is satisfied. The anonymousness of the Epistle is also naturally explained. For while, according to the view pro- posed, ib is quite justifiable to style the Epistle St. Paul's, as is so generally done by the Fathers, and is popularly done at the present day, yet it plainly would not have been proper that it should have borne his name, as is the case with all his other Epistles. And, approaching the more special point to which our investigations are directed, we may easily conceive that St. Paul would not deem it expedient to obtrude his personality in writing to the Church of Jerusalem. He was known as the apostle to the Gentiles. Yet, though such was his official designa- tion, he had always retained a very warm interest in his brethren in Palestine. As Delitzsch beautifully remarks, "It is one of the finest features in the character of the Gentile apostle, that, as desire after Jerusalem was not restrained by the prospect of bonds there awaiting him, so now it was not weakened by the endurance of bonds coming upon him from that city." 1 He gladly took an opportunity during his last imprisonment of instructing, stimulating, and warning the Christians of Palestine, to whom he now courteously gives the title of Hebrews, though he had formerly refused to acknowledge the right of the Judaizers at Corinth to appropriate that designation. 1 Commtntar zum Brief e an die HelrUer, p. 703. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 251 At the same time, while looking back upon a former period of intercourse with his Palestinian brethren, and forward to the time when that intercourse might be renewed, he did not, as in his Epistles to the Gentile Churches, judge it becoming or expedient that he should directly address them in the tone and with all the authority which pertained to an apostle. Adopting, then, the view sanctioned by antiquity, that the Epistle is in substance Paul's, but not his immediate production, we have next to seek from among his usual attendants one to whom its second- ary authorship may be ascribed. As we have already seen, there are three of these referred to in this con- nection by the ancients — viz. Barnabas, Clement, and Luke. And if one of these is to be chosen, I have no hesitation in fixing upon St. Luke. It is absolutely certain that he was long and intimately connected with the apostle. He is spoken of (Philem. ver. 24) as one of the awepyoi of Paul, and we learn afterwards (2 Tim. iv. 11) that the evangelist con- tinued with him when many others had forsaken him. Indeed, Luke seems to have been one of the most faithful and beloved of the apostle's friends, and to have remained in attendance on him to the very last. If, then, other particulars will suit, we seem to have found in him exactly the person most likely to be employed in the composition of this Epistle. His relation to Paul is^tltogether such as would mark him out for the writer of whom we are in quest ; and we have now to inquire whether or not the character- istics of the Epistle are of a kind to harmonize with this hypothesis. That the phraseology is in striking harmony with 252 PROOF FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS OF THE such a supposition is generally admitted. Grotius (Prolog, in Ep.) suggests for comparison the following passages : Acts xxiii. 20 with Heb. v. 7 ; Luke xiii. 1 1 with Heb. vii. 3, 23 ; Acts vi. 3 and xvi. 2 with Ileb. vii. 8 and xi. 2, 5, 39 ; Luke ii. 2G "and Acts x. 22 with Heb. viii. 5 ; Luke xxii. 26 with Ileb. xiii. 7, 17 ; Acts iii. 15 and v. 31 with Heb. ii. 10 andxii. 2. And Alford himself observes (p. 53) : " The students of the following commentary will very frequently be struck by the verbal and idiomatic coincidences tvith the style of St. Luke. The argument, as resting on them, has been continually taken up and pushed forward by Delitzsch, and comes on his reader fre- quently with a foroe which at the time it is not easy to withstand." Of course, Alford, with the views which he has adopted, finds it necessary to " with- stand " the evidence which is thus acknowledged so weighty, and tries to account for the Lucan phrase- ology of our Epistle on other grounds than the natural . one of its having been written by the evangelist. The positive objections which he brings against this view, appear to me both weak in themselves, 1 and to 1 For example, we read (p. 45) : " Within the limits of the same heavenly inspiration prompting both, St. Luke is rather the careful and kindlier depicter of the blessings of the covenant ; our writer lather the messenger from God to the wavering, giving them the blessing und the curse to choose between : St. Luke is rather the polished Christian civilian, our writer the fervid and prophetic rhetorician." With the sincerest respect for the learned writer's critical acumen, I cannot but think that it is here considerably astray. There is surely no psychological law which can prevent an author from being at one time the messenger of peace and at another time the herald of judgment ; neither is it true that a uniform tone of sternness pervades our Epistle, as the words of Alford just quoted might lead us to suppose. On the contrary, there are passages in it (ii. 14-18, iv. 14-16, xii. 9-13) which are unsurpassed in tenderness within the whole compass of the New Testament ; while, on the other PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 253 derive any seeming strength which they possess from the supposition that Luke is maintained to have been the independent author of the Epistle. With regard to the difference of style which may be thought to exist between Luke's other writings and this Epistle, we must remember that he had evidently a great command of the Greek language — that his style varies in its character much more than that of any other New Testament writer — that there is certainly as great difference between the Preface to his Gospel and other parts of his acknowledged writings as there is between this Epistle and any portions of the Gospel which bears his name, or of the Book of Acts ; and that therefore, considering the mastery which he possessed of the beautiful and flexible tongue of Greece, we need have no difficulty, so far as style is concerned, in regarding him as the writer of this Epistle. In short, though I am very far from asserting that absolute certainty has been reached in the mat- ter, I cannot but believe, with Delitzsch 1 and some other critics, that the view now given of the origin of our Epistle furnishes an explanation of many facts hand, there are passages in other parts of Luke's writings (e.g. Luke xxiii. 20-31 ; Acts xiii. 40, 41) which embody at least as severe announcements as any to be found in our Epistle. 1 As a specimen of what ingenuity can do in favour of our hypothesis, I may mention that Delitzsch argues in its support from the fact of Luke having been &aj0ician (Col. iv. 14). He thinks this in striking correspondence with the contents of the Epistle. It contains, bo to speak, an anatomic portion (chap. iv. 12 seq.), a dietetic portion (v. 12-14), and a therapeutic portion (xii. 12 seq.). Also, incidental expressions in it, such as vaifi;, Ppaftarx km to(*oitu, which occur in Hippocrates, suggest a writer, he thinks, who was familiar with that great medical authority in the ancient world. These may be fancies, but are not altogether unworthy of consideration. 254 PROOF FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS OF THE which are otherwise unaccountable, and that the objections which may be brought against it are un- important. It falls in exactly with the prevailing tradition of antiquity. It accounts naturally for the markedly Pauline and Lucan characteristics which are both presented by our Epistle. It suggests reasons for the anonymousness of the writing, which seem quite satisfactory. It helps us to explain why, while Clement of Rome ascribes so much authority to the Epistle, neither he nor any of his successors for a considerable period refer it to any particular author. And lastly, it seems exactly to suit the personal notices which are contained in the Epistle, and which almost of necessity suggest St. Paul as the person to whose position and circumstances alone they can be accommodated. 1 And here, perhaps, I may be allowed a conjecture which has already in a somewhat different form been offered by others. It seems to me probable that the closing verses of the Epistle are from the apostle's own hand. Supposing that Paul had any share in its composition, this was to be expected, for he says (2 Thess. iii. 16, 17) in language which will imme- diately strike every one as bearing a close resemblance to that employed in our Epistle, " Now the Lord of peace Himself give you peace always by all means. The Lord be with you all. The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every Epistle: so I write." We would expect, then, in the close of our Epistle to find some indication of its 1 It has been thought that an obscure fragmentary allusion in the Canon of Muratori tends directly to support the above view of the authorship of the Epistle. Conip. Oausseu on the Canon, p. 190. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 255 Pauline origin, if it at all proceeded from the apostle. And, as is obvious, its concluding verses are very similar to those with which he winds up several of his acknowledged Epistles. But then, how are we to mark the point at which the directly Pauline portion begins ? Some have supposed the transition to be made at the 17th verse, and that thus the last nine verses of the Epistle are to be ascribed imme- diately to the apostle. There does not appear any insuperable objection to this supposition, but I am not quite inclined to adopt it. I would rather suppose that the transition occurs at the 19th verse, in which it will be observed that the first person singular is employed. 1 I conceive that St. Luke having said in the 18th verse, "Pray for us, for we are confident we have a good conscience, desiring in all things to act becomingly," laid down the pen, and that then St. Paul himself taking it up, repeated in his own person the exhortation with which his friend had concluded, saying, "And I the more earnestly (or abundantly) entreat you to do this, that I may be restored to you the sooner." I make this suggestion with great deference, yet cannot help thinking it worthy of some consideration. And it appears to me supported by the expression •n-epicraoTepax;, which would thus be the first to rush from the glowing pen of the apostle. This is peculiarly a Pauline word. 1 It may be remarked that, properly speaking, the singular pronoun occurs here for the first ticie in the Epistle. The reading at chap. x. 34 should be roi; Ity^i';, and not roif Itofioi; ftov, as in the Text. Eec. ; while it is a mere rhetorical use of the first person singular which occurs at chap. xi. 32, corresponding to the French On, or the German Man. The plural is used in all the other passages in which the first person is employed, chap. ii. 5, v. 11, vi. 9, 11, xiii. 18,— a fact hardly without significance. 258 PROOF FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS OF THE to the readers to whom the Epistle was primarily addressed. It has already been incidentally stated in the previous discussion, that, in my judgment, these were specially the inhabitants of Jerusalem. The great peculiarity of the Epistle — its anonymous- ncss — seems most easily explicable on this supposi- tion. For if Paul had any hand in its composition, as we have seen reason to believe, we can easily perceive why he should not desire to force his name very prominently before his brethren in Palestine. It certainly is quite in harmony with the apostle's generally wise and conciliatory conduct, that, while he now felt himself called upon to address that portion of the Church with which he had always had the least sympathy, he should gladly make use of the services of his faithful associate as a means of avoiding those peculiarities of style by which his own writings were so markedly distin- guished, and should abstain from mentioning his own name in the course of the Epistle. Thus, the Pauline origin of the Epistle in any sense being established, the fact of its being anonymous seems to me at once to suggest that its primary destination was Palestine; but we must now inquire more particularly into the reasons which may be assigned for this conclusion. The title of the Epistle as it stands in the best manuscripts is simply Ilpbs 'EppaLov?. It has been doubted by some whether even this had existed in the autograph of the writer, though if it be admitted that the composition is an Epistle, it must also be allowed to have had a special designation from the first, and that could hardly have been simpler or I PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 259 shorter than the title quoted. But then, after the epistolary character of the writing is acknowledged, and after its inscription to the Hebrews is also admitted, the question arises — Who were the Hebrews intended as the primary readers of the Epistle ? I have already had occasion to state and illustrate the meaning which I conceive ought to be attached to the term 'Efipaloi in the New Testament. We saw that these as distinguished from the 'EWrjviaral denoted the strictly national party among the Jews, and that, as was to be expected, these were prin- cipally to be found in Palestine. In consistency with this view, I believe that the Epistle before us was primarily addressed to the Church of Jerusalem, though intended, of course, to have an influence upon all "Hebrews" throughout the world. It is not necessary, therefore, on our ground to attach any other meaning to the term 'Efipaioi, .as used in the superscription of this Epistle, than what was formerly assigned it. But very different* is it with those who imagine that the Hebrews of the New Testament were those who employed the Hebrew language. On that supposition it is necessary to suppose either that this Epistle was written in Hebrew, or to give here a different explanation of the appellation in question from what was formerly- adopted. Neither of these alternatives is very plea- sant to a biblical scholar ; but one or other of them must be chosen by all who maintain that the Hebrews referred to in the Acts of the Apostles were so called Especially on account of their employment of the •Hebrew language. On looking into the Epistle itself, we seem at once 260 PROOF FROM THE EriSTLE TO THE HEBREWS OF THE to find strong confirmatory evidence of the justness of the conclusion, already suggested by the title, that its primary destination was Palestine. The familiarity which it takes for granted, on the part of its readers, with the temple services, and with the whole enact- ments and observances of the Levitical economy, as well as the danger, which it constantly assumes they were in, of attaching an undue importance to the peculiarities of Judaism, harmonize exactly with the conclusion which has been stated, that the Epistle was originally addressed to Palestine. And this accord- ingly has, in spite of one great difficulty to be imme- diately noticed, been the opinion of the vast majority of biblical critics. The ancients with one voice acquiesced in this conclusion. Clement of Alexan- dria, Jerome, Chrysostom, and others all suppose the Epistle to have been addressed to the Christians of Palestine. And in our own day, Hug, Tholuck, Bleek, Delitzsch, with many other eminent scholars, are of the same opinion. 1 The whole complexion of the Epistle is generally felt to be such as necessarily suggests that it was at first intended for such readers as Palestine, or more properly Jerusalem, could alone specially produce ; and particular allusions, such as that found at chap. xiii. 12 (e£w t?}? 7rv\^?), seem to lead naturally to the same conclusion. But then, this Epistle having been written in 1 Tholuck, while remarking that " the most specious objection " to the belief that the Epistle was primarily intended for Palestine was derived from the language in which it was written, nevertheless adds, " The latest clitics (circ. 1840) have been unanimously of opinion that the receivers were Christians of Palestine, an opinion which prevailed also in the ancient Church, as with Clement, Eusebius, Jerome, Theodoret, etc." Comvi. on Heb. i. 74 (Eng. trans.). PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 261 Greek, how could it have been addressed to the inhabitants of Palestine, or still less, specifically to those of Jerusalem ? Was not Aramaic their ordinary language, and could they have understood any other ? Or, supposing that Greek was to some extent intelligible to them, would any one who desired to obtain a favourable hearing from them have addressed them in that language? Surely their vernacular tongue would have been employed in such a case a3 that of our Epistle, which must, on many accounts, from its obvious purpose and express declarations, have been peculiarly distasteful to them ; and we must therefore conclude that the Hebrews here addressed were not the inhabitants of Palestine, but some other community of Jewish Christians to be sought for in a different part of the world. Such is the great difficulty which has weighed with many modern critics, and induced them, in defiance of some very obvious considerations, to look about for some other body of Judaic Christians to whom the Epistle might be supposed to have been sent than the Church in Palestine. The various devices which have been tried to escape the difficulty are all, to my mind, utterly unsatisfactory. In ancient times most of the Fathers avoided the per- plexity which has been felt by modern biblical scholars by first supposing, and then asserting, that the Epistle was not originally written in Greek, but Hebrew. This hypothesis (for it is nothing more) is certainly an easy way of escaping the difficulty. But then it is almost universally admitted at the present day to be untenable. Michaelis, indeed, adopts it, and thus avoids the hard problem forced 262 PHOOF FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS OF THE upon other critics, only, however, to be opposed at nil hands by the phenomena presented by the Epistle itself. 1 Moses Stuart finds a sort of compromise between the difficulties connected with the question by conceiving that the Hebrews addressed were those of Csesarea. He cannot deny that the work bears evident marks of having been intended for Pales- tinian Christians ; but as Jerusalem, according to the common view, could not have furnished readers capable of understanding it, he has recourse to the political capital of Judaea as a place in which the Greek tongue may be admitted to have been well understood. Conybeare and Howson, again, argue that " a letter to the Church of Palestine wotld surely have been written in the language of Pales- tine," and think that, while this consideration, above all others, serves "to negative the hypothesis that this Epistle was addressed to a Church situated in the Holy Land," there are several circumstances connected with it which " point to another Church for which we may more plausibly conceive it to have been intended, namely, that of Alexandria." 2 And Alford (ut supra, p. 64) expresses himself against the Palestinian designation of the Epistle on various grounds, the first mentioned of which is as follows : " The language and style of our Epistle, if it was addressed to Jews in Jerusalem or Palestine, is surely unaccountable. For, although Greek was commonly spoken in Palestine, yet, on the one hand, no writer who wished to obtain a favourable hearing with Jews 1 1 deem it needless to take up any space with the illustration of this statement. Every one admits its force, as may be seen in any of the recent critical works on the Epistle. * Life and Epittle» of St. Paul, vol. ii. p. 512, orig. edit. ( PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 263 j2 there on matters regarding their own religion would choose Greek as the medium of his communication (cf. Acts xxii. 2). . . . And, on the other hand, not only is our Epistle Greek, but it is such Greek as necessarily presupposes some acquaintance with litera- ture, some practice not merely in the colloquial, but in the scholastic Greek of the day. And this surely was as far as possible from being the case with the Churches of Jerusalem and Palestine." He is led, therefore, on this among other grounds, to deny that the Hebrews of our Epistle were the inhabitants of the Holy Land, and by a chain of reasoning which few readers, I venture to think, will deem satisfactory, he appears to himself to find them among the Jewish Christians of Rome. Such are some specimens of the mazes of specula- tion in which biblical critics have been involved by supposing that it was necessary to seek for the readers specially addressed in this Epistle somewhere out of Jerusalem. On the one hand, it is obvious that none but Judaic Christians could have been primarily in the eye of the writer, and that the designation which the Epistle bears on its front, as well as several of the references which it contains, seem to point naturally to the Church of Palestine. But, on the other hand, the Epistle is written in Greek, and that of such a kind as to argue familiarity with that tongue on the part of its readers ; and the Old Testament quotations are taken from the Septua- gint, even when that version differs materially from the Hebrew. These facts excite no surprise, and create no difficulty, if the conclusion which I humbly think has been established in the preceding chapters 264 PROOF FEOM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS OF THE of this work be admitted. On the contrary, they harmonize with it exactly, and readily lend their aid to illustrate and confirm its correctness. But, on the common supposition with respect to the prevail- ing language of Palestine at the time, the facts which have been mentioned at once prove exceedingly troublesome; and being deemed incompatible with the belief that the inhabitants of Jerusalem could have been intended as the primary recipients of this Epistle, necessitate a search for the persons especially addressed in some other portion of the world. The dilemma thus presented to biblical scholars is undoubtedly formidable in both its aspects. As experience has proved, it is certainly a very difficult thing to find a community of Christians anywhere out of Palestine, to whom this Epistle can, with any preponderating probability, be viewed as having been originally sent. Every Church almost, which had any connection with Paul and his associates, has been fixed upon by different writers. Various lists of these may be found in the critical works on our Epistle, and are so comprehensive as almost to exhaust the geo- graphical notices which appear in apostolic history. The following is the list presented by Alford (p. 66) : — " Wall believed the Epistle to have been written to the Hebrew Christians of Proconsular Asia, Mace- donia, and Greece; Sir I. Newton, Bolten, and Bengel, to Jews who had left Jerusalem on account of the war, and were settled in Asia Minor ; Credner, to those in Lycaonia ; Storr, Mynster, and Rinck, to those in Galatia; Lyra and Ludwig, to those in Spain ; Semler and Nosselt, to those in Thessalonica ; PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 26; Bohme, to those in Antioch ; Stein, to those in Laodicea ; Roth, to those in Antioch ; Baumgarten- Crusius, to those at Ephesus and Colossse." It can scarcely be said that any one of' these hypotheses possesses much advantage in point of evidence over ,the others. As their variety suggests, they have been adopted more from caprice than on any solid grounds of argument. And, as Alford justly ob- serves, " If it was to any one of these bodies of Jews that the Epistle was addressed, we know so little about any one of them, that the holding of such an opinion on our part can only be founded on the vaguest and wildest conjecture. To use arguments against such hypotheses would be to fight with mere shadows." But if too little is known of the circumstances of the several Churches mentioned above to render the supposition that our Epistle was addressed to any one of them more than the most fanciful conjecture, I am afraid that, too much is known of the condition of that Church, the pretensions of which Alford himself up- holds, to permit us to entertain his hypothesis. After Wetstein, and a very few other scholars, he supposes, as has been already noticed, the destination of the Epistle to have been Rome. This idea must be ad- mitted, I think, to be a prion improbable ; and when we come to examine the circumstances of the case, it appears to me utterly untenable. Not to mention other objections which might be brought forward, a careful comparison of the Epistle to the Romans with that to the Hebrews seems to render the fact as plain as need be desired, that the two Epistles were not directed to the same Church. Even supposing that 266 PUOOF FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS OF THE Paul had nothing to do with the composition of our Epistle, and that its sole and independent author was Apollos, we cannot conceive that, within a few years (at most, ten or twelve), two apostolic men should have drawn such different pictures of the condition of the same Church as are set before us in these two passages : — Eom. xv. 14. Heb. v. 11,12. "And I myself also am per- "Ye are dull of hearing. For suaded of you, my brethren, that when for the time ye ought to be ye also are full of goodness, filled teachers, ye have need that one with all knowledge, able alto to teach you again ■which be the first admonish one another." principles of the oracles of God." The strong antithesis presented by these two passages seems wholly to have escaped the notice of those very few critics who have favoured the hypo- thesis of Alford, and appears to me abundantly suffi- cient, without another word, to refute the opinion that the original destination of our Epistle could by any possibility have been Rome. The only other hypothesis which requires to be noticed, is that which supposes the Epistle to have been addressed to the Church of Alexandria. A good deal may certainly be said in favour of this supposition. There was a Jewish temple at Leonto- polis in Egypt, to which, as Wieseler has argued, the allusions contained in our Epistle more exactly correspond than to that at Jerusalem. But this is an assertion which cannot be made good. Even Philo, Alexandrian as he was, when at any time he speaks of the temple, always refers to the sanctuary of God on Mount Zion. And then, had the Jews of Alexandria been intended above others, they surely PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 267 would not have been addressed under the general appellation of Hebrews. Whether the common ex- planation, or that which I have suggested, be attached to that term, it would, as applied to Alexandrian Jews, have amounted to a misnomer. They neither employed the Hebrew language, nor were they dis- tinguished for their strict adherence to the exclusive character or peculiar observances of Judaism, but were Hellenists in every sense of the word. The utter absence also in the early and frequent references which are made to our Epistle by Alexandrine writers, of any hint that it was originally addressed to the Church in that city, furnishes a negative proof, which is to my mind conclusive, that the place of its desti- nation was certainly not Alexandria. We rest, then, in the ancient opinion that this Epistle was addressed to the Jewish Christians in Palestine. In maintaining this position, I do not, of course, mean to assert that the Epistle was intended to be confined to any particular Church. Like all the other Epistles, it was meant to have an encyclical character, and to possess an enduring value. The Church of Jerusalem, I believe, first received it, as it was there the Hebrews were specially to be found. But it was intended for the instruction of Christians throughout the world, and especially for all those who, as Jews by birth, were in danger of keeping up the Judaic spirit within the Christian Church. 1 It was also meant to be serviceable to the end of time, 1 If the special designation of the Epistle be admitted, a point which seems to me certain from the particular allusions which it contains, the words of Euthalius exactly express the view given above. He says of St. Paul that, " having written to all the Gentiles," he also at last wrote " xiai nils f* xipiTOfiii; TinTi&octtiii) ' Efipst.'oii." 268 PROOF MOM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS OF THE and is indeed felt by all readers of the New Testa- ment at the present day to be one of the very richest portions of the apostolic writings. But all this has no influence on the question now under consideration. That question simply is — " Who were its original readers?" and the answer which, following ancient testimony and internal evidence, I give to the ques- tion is, that it was primarily addressed to the Church of Jerusalem. Leaving out of sight, in the meantime, the sup- posed difficulty which rises up against this opinion from the language of the Epistle, all the other objections which have been brought against its Palestinian designation appear to me rather to favour that conclusion. As has been already observed, the relation between St. Paul and the Church at Jerusalem seems to have been exactly that which will alone account for the anonymousness of the Epistle. The salutation in chap. xiii. 24 (a the va g ft ries of criticism respictincr ' » original Gospels in Hebrew, and translations of thest ■ Piecemeal into Greek; the labyrinths of speculation ' into which, in the pursuit of such phantoms, eminent' scholars have been led; and the scepticism or infi-( 286 FUUTUIilt PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT OF THE f delity which has thus too frequently been engendered ' arc things well known to all that have looked into the history of this question, and are all quashed and set at rest for ever by the simple truth which it is the object of this work to establish, that both Christ \ and His disciples habitually made use of the Greek /language. But passing from this point as to the origin of the Gospels, which will be found discussed at some length afterwards, I next remark that the very existence of what is known as the Hellenistic dialect of Greek, seems to point to, and certainly fits in exactly with the conclusion which is here sought to be established. A somewhat futile disputation was formerly carried on among scholars respecting the proper name of this dialect, supposing its existence admitted. As the controversy was conducted between such illustrious scholars as Salmasius and Heinsius, it may now be clearly seen to have been a mere strife about words. 1 No one can read the Greek New Testament without perceiving that it is written in a peculiar kind of Greek. He may indeed refuse to allow that it ought to be styled a dialect in the same sense in which that term is applied to those varieties of language which were employed in different parts of Greece and her dependencies ; but that it had its own characteristics, as much as any of the recognised dialects of classical > Salmasius, while admitting the marked peculiarities of the New Testament Greek, denies, on some technical grounds, that ,t ought to 1* styled a dialect. See his treatises De Lingua JMlciuUm and FumL Ling. Hell. Heinsius, on the other hand, contends, with undue ea-erness, that the Greek of the New Testament had the same tit e to be°called the Hellenistic dialect as any of the classical dialects to bear their peculiar designations. See his Exerc. de Ling. HM. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 287 Greek, is evident from the slightest inspection of the Gospels and Epistles. Not more manifestly does Herodotus differ from Xenophon, or Theocritus from Sophocles, than St. Matthew or St. Paul differs from all. The language in which the apocryphal books of the Old Testament, and the canonical books of the New Testament are written, is as peculiarly sui generis as is the style of the Attic and Ionic poets or his- torians of Greece. Now, how did this peculiar dialect arise ? And how did it come to be so widely used, that we have many more works extant in it than we possess in some of the classical dialects of the Greek language ? Allow the common view as to the pre- vailing language of Palestine in the time of Christ to stand, and these questions appear utterly insoluble. Syro-Chaldaic, it is said, was the language of the country, and " all that the Jews in Palestine learned of Greek, so far as we can judge, was at most a few sentences." * How, then, did the dialect used by the human authors of the New Testament arise ? and how did it reach that maturity which manifestly appears in their employment of it ? Could the use of Greek by a few scholars accustomed for the most part to write in Hebrew, or in a few cities, which by their very employment of such a language were, on the hypothesis in question, cut off from all intimate sympathy with the great body of the Jewish nation, have led to its existence and cultivation ? It is not thus that dialects are usually formed. They spring up, not in the libraries of the few, but in the homes of the many — not from the practice of learned and elaborate writers, but from the rough and ready 1 Stiidia Biblica, p. C6. 288 FURTHER PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT OF THE utterances of those who meet at church or market, and are there accustomed to address each other in language which is naturally tinged by national characteristics and habits. No sort of saltus could have been made by Jews, accustomed to the almost exclusive employment of the Hebrew language, to the use of such Greek as appears in the New Testa- ment. The very fact, therefore, that the inspired writings exhibits such a formed and distinct species of diction, seems necessarily to presuppose the general and long - continued use of the Greek lan- guage among the people at large. A learned writer like Josephus could have given little or no help to the formation of such a dialect as appears in the New Testament ; for, as is evident on an inspection of his works, and as he expressly tells us, he took care to avoid national and provincial peculiarities, and to write as much as possible in the style and character of the accepted models of Greek composition. It is to be observed, moreover, that it is by natives of Palestine, almost exclusively, that we find the so- called Hellenistic dialect employed. The writers of the New Testament (if we accept St. Paul and St. Luke) all belonged to that country. And even the two sacred writers excepted had lived so much in Palestine, that, on this ground alone, we naturally expect to find them composing their works in the style of Greek there prevalent. But, of course, the causes which had given rise to the Hebrajo-Greek dialect of Palestine also operated, to some extent, among the Jews throughout the world. These were all accustomed to Hebrew modes of thought, and to the Hebraized diction of the Septuagint translation. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 2S0 At the same time, they were more free from the in- fluence of national peculiarities, and more likely to make an approach towards pure Greek composition, than could m general be the case with inhabitants of Palestine Hence we find such a writer as Philo among the Jews of Alexandria in the first century of our era Josephus, a Palestinian Jew, may make an approach towards the purity of his Alexandrian con- ^mporanes; but, a. he confesses, it is not without much labour and difficulty. And St. James, though resident in Jerusalem, may write in a style of com- parative elegance and freedom from Hebraistic idioms- but this, too .is a somewhat rare exception to the' diet™ usually employed, and is to be accounted for on the grounds formerly mentioned. The true type of Palestinian Greek is to be found in the other writings of the New Testament. The Epistles of St. Peter, and the Gospels of St. Matthew and St Mark above all, perhaps, the Apocalypse of St. John' furnish specimens of the Greek which inhabitants of Palestine, who had passed through no scholastic training, then naturally employed. The writings of the New Testament exhibit this dialect in various degrees of cultivation ; but they are all so closely and, as it were, organically connected together by the common possession of its peculiarities, as to be necessarily assigned to writers who had been subject to the same influences, and lived in the same age and country. 1 And it may be observed, that if St angehoten, sondern welches e v£ ' 8 eL Tol'f *"?** eigenthii m lich „nd «* in alien seine T ££ LXZl^ *r Ong.na.itUt, dasa der wahre Erfo^her der %£££££ 290 FURTHER PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT OF THE Luke and St. Paul, in some portions of their writings, particularly in the concluding chapters of the Acts and in the Epistle to the Hebrews, depart more than any other of the sacred writers from the type of Greek generally exhibited in the New Testament, this is just what was to be expected in the case of such as had travelled so much, and enjoyed such various culture, as was certainly the case with both these writers. But it may be said that the dialect in question was founded upon the Septuagint ; and we may to a certain extent admit that this was the case. There can be no doubt, I believe, that all the sacred writers were thoroughly familiar with the version of the LXX., and that its style had no little influence on the diction which they themselves employed. But I cannot allow that a mere acquaintance with the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures furnishes any adequate explanation of the point under con- sideration. If, indeed, it be acknowledged that the Septuagint was in such common use among the in- habitants of Palestine as to form in fact the Bible which they generally employed, all is granted for which I contend ; and I care not to discuss the point whether this common use of the LXX. implied, on other grounds, the existence of the dialect in question, or was itself the means of giving it currency through- out the country. But if it be said that Peter and John and Matthew wrote in the peculiar Greek unci Beobachter verschiedenartigen Gestaltung des Styla, allerdings die bedeutsamsten Kriterien der Aechtheit dieser Werke im Gantzen darin zu entdecken vermag." — Vtrtuch zur Herttcllung de* kixtoruc/ten Slandpunkti Jiir die Kritik der neutettamentlichen Sc/triften, Erlangen 1845. p. 43. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 2 9 1 exemplified in their works, simply because they followed the model presented by the Septuagint 'I must deny the sufficiency of the cause assigned! The e ad f n X tatl °\ 0f ^ ? Ie ° f a ™* »* derail; read in the country, could never have given rise to the dialect which we find to have so generally pr ! vaded, even though it were possible to suppose that sufficient motive otherwise existed to leadT su h a £*£ imitation. The influence of the Septua^ wrl^t cTuH f0ngIy f hj ^ NeW Tc " writers, but could never have led them to compose n 7Z ^ diCti ° n WHch th68e exh ^ had not that, on other grounds, been the character of the language which they habitually employed - Besides, it is certain that the Septuagint was uTr wl e r?i72 y the t Jews of *» y* 2 uu«tK, writers of that country were verv for f™™ S'",™ & ™«'y *ow„, depended entirely for Z^T f ° f the ""*>•* ^p'^s up™ rZ Greek translation, yet his writing are f J™ l the etaieal and not the HeUenistif imiel Z the J™' *»* - *™ of the fragments wlicu have eome down f, us of the works of otber Jadmo _ s ™™ writers belonging to this period. Pab«in7Tl can be said to be the eountry i„ whid t be d ,t°t exhibited in the New Testament »^a \^ Thus Thiersch, ut sup. n 5ft wn „., i -any other write™. BlSof ^ofiCS " ^ defi ^, humbly conceive to set forth truth Jlh 7 ' ", ^ gUage which * ;' Greek waa the language to wlS all ll L °? ^^ ° f e ™ = "..Palestine or elsewhere, became bJ^'Z ^ wlletl »* «*„„ translation of their ancient ScrTpZe^ i lto that ? T ""* "' th ° *up. p. 18. V M " lt0 that tongue."— Sermon, ut 292 FURTHER HtOOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT OF THE native land did the apostles learn the style of Greek in which their writings are composed ; though, of course, subsequent practice and travel in other Greek- speaking countries somewhat modified the diction which they employed. With far greater reason, therefore, might the Greek of the New Testament be styled Hebraic, or Palestinian, than Hellenistic — a term which is in every respect inappropriate ; and the vigorous existence of such a dialect in Palestine, in the days of Christ and His apostles, can only, I believe, be accounted for on the ground that it was then the prevailing public language of the COUNTRY. 1 Again, let us revert for a little to the use of the Septuagint made by the sacred ivriters. We formerly saw that the Greek version was really the Bible of Christ and His apostles — constituting, in fact, the ypaipal so often referred to in the New Testament. But we have now to consider more particularly in this place the varying forms in which citations from the Old Testament are presented by the sacred writers. Some authors have attempted to classify the quotations under distinct heads, according as they appear to agree most with the Hebrew or the Greek ; but this effort has not been attended with much success. The only clear result has been a demonstra- tion of the vast preponderance of the citations manifestly made from the Greek over those which can be supposed to have been taken directly from the 1 No attempt has been made to meet the above argument as to the vigorous existence of a Greek dialect in Palestine, and I believe that the argument is, in fact, unanswerable. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 293 Hebrew. Other writers, such as Surenhusius, 1 have sought to lay down rules by which from the introduc- tory formulae we might infer a priori the degree of accuracy with which the writer intended to quote. But this attempt also has proved a failure. Even the simple and common supposition that the New Testament writers were accustomed to quote from the Septuagint, except where it failed to represent correctly the original text, is one which cannot be maintained. 2 All that can be said is, that, beyond contradiction, the Greek version of the LXX. was the great source whence the evangelists and apostles derived their citations from the Old Testament. But that we may deal fairly with the subject, it is necessary to go a little further into detail. There is manifestly an important difference in regard to this matter between the quotations which occur in the Epistles, on the one hand, and those which are found in the Gospels and some passages of the Book of Acts, on the other. The Epistles being universally acknowledged as original compositions, there can be no doubt that the quotations were made by the writers exactly as we still possess them. But on the supposition that Hebrew was the language generally ■ employed by our Lord and His disciples, it is different with" those quotations which occur in the Gospels, and in some portions of the Acts of the Apostles. Wherever Hebrew or a kindred language 1 See his B//3Ao f KaTet\x»y^ ; , preliminary observations ' Why the writers occasionally had recourse to the Hebrew is a* difficult question to answer. Did they resort to it whenever the Greek was so incorrect as not to give the true sense 1 So it might be thonjjht by such as reason h priori. But there are phenomena adverse to that by P othesis.»-Dr. Davidson in Home's Introduction, ut tup. 294 FURTHER PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT OF THE was used by the speaker, his citations would not, of course, be made from the Greek version, but from the Hebrew original. We may reasonably suppose therefore, that, on this ground, we will perceive a difference in the citations as they appear in the Gospels and as they are found in the Epistles : we may expect to find something to indicate that, in the former case, we do not have the quotations in the same language in which they were made ; while, in the latter, we do possess them in the very form in which they were adopted and applied by the sacred writers. Looking, then, at the Gospels, and such portions of the Acts as may be thought to belong to the same category, we naturally anticipate, in the first place, that, on the supposition of Hebrew having been employed by Christ and the various other speakers whose words are preserved in the narrative, the quotations will be seen exactly to harmonize with the original Hebrew text. But we soon find that this is not the case. Many of them, we discover, agree verbatim with the Septuagint, and that even in cases in which that version differs materially from the Hebrew. Our next supposition will then be, that, as the writers of the Gospels and Acts intended their works for the world at large, in which the Septuagint version only was known, they preferred giving the quotations from the Old Testament, not in the form in which they were literally made by our Lord and others, but in the words of the LXX. Admitting this principle, we might have a tolerable explanation of the variations from the Hebrew text observable in the passages referred to ; although it must be owned ffi PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 295 that, in some cases, not a little liberty would thus have been taken with the words which were actually employed by the different speakers. 1 But then we expect, of course, that if this was the principle on which the writers proceeded, it will be found con- sistently adhered to, so that by an application of it we may be able to explain the phenomena presented by their works. If they preferred using the version of the LXX., even where that differed from the Hebrew, to giving an exact rendering of their own of the Hebrew words which were actually employed, then we cannot but suppose that they will use that version throughout, and not adopt and depart from it in any apparently random or capricious manner. But, again, facts prove hostile to our conclusion. We find that both in the Gospels and Acts, no less than in the Epistles, quotations from the Old Testament are given with all sorts and degrees of variation, both from the Greek and Hebrew. And thus we are thrown back on the supposition that they were actually made as they have been preserved. No principle can be discovered which will account for the phenomena presented by those parts of the New Testament under consideration, if it be maintained that the citations referred to were originally made, 1 Let me give a single illustration of this statement. Dean Alford, referring to the difficulty which has been felt in explaining the phrase, *vo*t ret; ulh*c tou Icwcnov (Acts ii. 24), remarks (in loc.) : " The fact seems to be, that Peter used the Hebrew words JT[D~v3n, Ps. xviii. 6, ' the nett or bands of death,' i.e. the nets in which death held the Lord captive ; and that, in rendering the words into Greek, the LXX. rendering of the word in that place, and Ps. cxiv. 3, viz. aline, has been adopted." It is thus supposed that the apostle's meaning has been to some extent misrepresented, by adopting the LXX. version instead of giving an exact translation of his words. 296 FURTHER PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT OF THE not in the Greek, but in the Hebrew language. The only easy and satisfactory explanation of the extremely varied and complicated form in which they present themselves, is that they were at first made as they still exist — sometimes verbatim from the Septuagint — sometimes in substantial accordance with that version, and manifestly derived from it, but altered according to the intention of the speaker, or differing slightly as memoriter quotations will necessarily do — and sometimes representing what had come to be generally accepted as a more accurate translation of the Hebrew original. 1 In what language, I shall now venture to inquire, was the hymn of the Virgin Mary (Luke i. 46-55) originally composed ? No doubt some will scarcely have patience for a moment to consider this question, but will at once reply that it was, of course, in Hebrew. . Nevertheless, this does not appear so certain as might be thought. It has been noted by some of those who are very far from agreeing with 1 The various reasons which may be assigned for the differences often observable between the passages quoted by the New Testament writers and the text of the LXX., are well given by the late Dr. Alexander of Edinburgh, in his learned and useful work on 'J'h PapPdpoi?, at first published his History of the Jewish War in Hebrew. And the same or a similar object may have been contemplated by St. Matthew in writing his Gospel. This supposition has, in fact, been made by Isaac Vossius, who, strongly as he contends for the prevalence of Greek in Palestine, still thinks, as his views are stated in his treatise entitled Ad Tertias Simonii Objectiones Responsio, that St. Matthew wrote his Gospel "Hebraice in usum Gentium in Parthica viventium ditione, quibus Pabylonius seu Chaldaicus sermo erat vernaculus." It remains, therefore, that we examine both the Gospel itself and the ancient testimonies which have been handed down regarding it, in order to discover whether there is yet any ground for conceiving that it was originally written in Hebrew, and that the existing Greek is but a translation from that long lost docu- ment ; or whether there is reason to believe that the evangelist published two editions of his Gospel, of which the former, in Hebrew, speedily perished, while the latter, in Greek, continues in our hands at the present day. I proceed, then, to set before the reader some of those considerations arising from the character of the Gospel itself, which seem to me harmoniously to combine in illustrating and establishing its originality in the form in which we still possess it. And in entering on this portion of the argument, I may remark, — ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 315 I. That on a complete and thorough examination of the Greek Gospel of St. Matthew, it is seen every- where to possess the air and character of an original, and not a translated work. The maintainers of the Hebrew original pretty generally allow that this is the case. Dr. Tregelles, in particular, makes the admission as fully as could be desired, and simply denies that, on this one account, it is necessary to abandon the idea of a Hebrew original. " It is granted," he says, " that St. Matthew's Gospel in Greek does not seem like a translation ; that the language does not seem less original than the other New Testament writings ; and that, unless we had external testimony, we should probably not have imagined it to be a version ; but all this does not prove the contrary." 1 I maintain, however, that the fact of its being unlike a translation tends powerfully to support the opinion that it is no translation. For why, it may be well asked, should this immunity belong to it ? Why should it be distinguished among all other works of the same kind, by wanting the marks of what, on the supposition, it really is — a close and accurate version of a previous Hebrew work ? How has it happened that in this case, and in no other, the obvious inherent evidences of such translations have been escaped ? And by what strange art (truly in this instance an ars celare artem) has .this one trans- lator succeeded in entirely concealing the real nature of his work, and in imparting to it the whole appear- ance and impress of an original. Every one who has tried his hand at translation 1 Tregelles, ut sup. p. 15. 316 GREEK THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF knows how difficult it is to approach perfection in such a work. There are two things at which every good and faithful translator must aim. He must endeavour, in the first place, to come as near to literal exactness as possible ; and he must take care, in the second place, not to sacrifice the idiom of the language into which his version is made. It must he his effort to give neither more nor less than the meaning of his author ; to preserve the special characters of style and thought which appear in the original ; and, at the same time, to do no violence to the genius of the language into which he transfers it. And who has ever succeeded for any length of time in perfectl)- accomplishing these two objects ? What translator has not felt himself compelled at times to give a paraphrase rather than an exact version of his author, in order that he might avoid the intoler- able awkwardness which a literal version would have caused ? But nothing of this, as is confessed, appears in our existing Gospel of St. Matthew ; it is allowed to possess all the characteristics which belong to an original work ; and if, notwithstanding, it must be accepted as a translation, it can only, in that case, be regarded as a sort of literary miracle, and one which is as unique as it is amazing, as solitary in kind as it is exalted in degree. II. I shall next refer, in support of the proper originality of our existing Gospel, to the manner in which citations from the Old Testament are made in it.. St. Matthew is rich in quotations from the Old Testament. There are thirteen passages quoted from the Pentateuch, some of them oftener than ST. MATTHEW S GOSPEL. 317 once. There are nine citations from the Psalms. There are sixteen passages from the prophetical books, eight of these from Isaiah, one from Jeremiah, and seven from the minor prophets. Now, if St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew, he would, of course, make his citations directly from the Hebrew text. And if his work was afterwards faithfully translated into Greek, the passages quoted would naturally be given in the form in which they stand in the Hebrew Bible. Such is unquestionably the course which we should expect a scrupulously honest translator to have followed. And if we find any reason to suspect -that he tampered with his author in regard to citations, we lose all certainty that he may not have used the same liberty in other respects. The applications of Old Testament statements made in the evangelic narratives necessarily form a most important part of their contents. They often bear upon such essential points as the Messiahship, the divinity, and the redemptive work of the Saviour. It is then a very serious matter if there be ground to believe that we do not in this Gospel possess the Old Testament quotations as they were really made by the apostle. If his translator has ventured to change or modify these according to his own judgment or fancy, then, unless it can be proved that he was himself inspired, we have no safeguard whatever against his great and wilful dishonesty. There is indeed one supposition which may be regarded as saving his good faith, although we do find that the quotations, as he has given them, vary from the Hebrew Scriptures. He may have preferred adopting the Septuagint transla- tion which was already current, to venturing on an 318 GKEEK THE ORIGINAL* LANGUAGE OF independent translation of the apostle's words. This course might have perhaps been pardonable. But if he followed it, we would at least expect to find him consistent throughout, and that, by an appli- cation of this principle, we could explain all the variations which might appear in our present Gospel from the text of the Hebrew Scriptures. How, then, stands the case ? As every one may see, on examining the Gospel and comparing the quotations which it contains with the Hebrew original and the Septuagint translation, these are so made that, if our Greek Gospel be a version from the Hebrew, it is utterly impossible to explain them in consistency with the accuracy and fidelity of the translator. In some passages there is an exact verbal accordance with the LXX, as in chap. xxi. 16. This is the case at times even when the Greek trans- lation differs to some extent from the Hebrew, as at chap. xix. 5. In other passages, and those by far the most numerous, there is not a literal agreement with the text of the LXX., while its phraseology is nevertheless substantially adopted, as in chap. xv. 8. And there are other passages still, such as chap, xii. 18-20, in which there is not an exact accordance with either the expressions or the apparent meaning of the original statement ; but an intensity is im- parted by the evangelist to the idea which he desires to bring out, and a somewhat different turn is given to the import of the words from what they appear to have either in the Greek or Hebrew text. 1 1 Credner enters very fully, in the second vol. of his Beitrilge, into an examination of the Old Testament quotations which occur in the Gospel of St. Matthew ; and the result of his investigations is thus repeated in his Einleitung, § 46; "Hatthaus citirt frei und halt ST. MATTHEW S GOSPEL. 319 There appears to me, then, a strong and almost irresistible argument for the proper originality of the existing Gospel of St. Matthew, in the manner in which quotations from the Old Testament are pre- sented in it. This feeling has been shared by many eminent critics. Professor Hug, for example, remarks that " the Greek dress of the passages from the Old Testament is so managed, that their appearance must be ascribed to the author, and not to any translator." 1 Some have even been so deeply impressed with this consideration, as to deem it of itself absolutely con- clusive. Thus Guericke declares, after attaching, as I humbly conceive, an exaggerated importance to the sich bei der Anfiihrung alttestamentlicher Stellen durchaus an die Griechische Uebersetzung, aber nach einem Texte, welcher bei den messianischen Beweisstellen, und einzig nur bei diesen, mit dem Hebraischen Texte, oder, wie schon Gesenius (Comment, zu Jes. i. § 64) von einigen Stellen richtig bemerkte, mit einem al ten Targum verglichen und nach ihm geaiidert war." I cannot agree with Credner in his approval of the hypothesis of Gesenius here referred to, because there is no proof that any such ancient Targums were then in existence. But it is not a little valuable to have such a distinct opinion as the above, with regard to the source of the O. T. citations in Matthew, from so competent and clear-sighted a critic as Credner. He holds decidedly that these quotations are derived exclusively from the LXX., whatever appearances to the contrary some of them (e.g. ii. 15) may present. All just argument, I believe, tends to this con- clusion. Nothing could be more baseless than the assertion of Jerome (Cat. de vir. Ulut. c. 3), " quod evangelista, sive ex persona sua, sive ex persona Domini Salvatoris, veteris Scripturoe testimoniis abutitur, non sequitur septuaginta translatorum auctoritatem, sed Hebraicam," or the parallel statement of Eichhnrn, that in the citations made by St. Matthew there is "keine Spur vom Gebrauch der Septuaginta " (EM. in das N. T. p. 612). It is somewhat curious to find Credner, in face of his express opinion quoted above, apparently referred to by Lange (Life of Christ, Eng. edit. i. 176), in support of the vague and untenable notion that " important quotations from the 0. T. are generally not taken from the Septuagint, the current Greek translation, but are fresh translations of the Hebrew text." 1 Fosdick's Hug, ii. § 12. 520 GBEEK.THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF statements of antiquity in favour of the Hebrew original, — " Our existing Greek Gospel, however, certainly bears in itself also the sure sign and. stamp of originality. This appears especially from the fact that the citations which occur in it from the Old Testament do not harmonize throughout, all and wholly, either with the Hebrew text or with the Septuagint, but are given with so much freedom and peculiarity, that they cannot be regarded as having flowed from a mere translator, nor can be explained on such a supposition." l III. I may now notice, as another corroboration of the originality of our present Gospel — those ex- planations of Hebreiv words and phrases which occur in it. We read (chap. L 23), " Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel ; which, being interpreted, is, God with us." And again (chap, xxvii. 46), " And about the ninth hour, Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani ? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me t " An obvious difficulty arises from these explanatory clauses against the hypothesis that the Gospel was originally written in Hebrew. They present the very same forms of expression as do analogous passages in the other Gospels, of which the Greek original is not disputed. Thus we read in St. Mark's Gospel (chap, xv. 22), " And they bring him unto the place called Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull." And in St. John's Gospel (chap. i. 42), " And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus 1 Guericke, Itagog. § .14. ST. MATTHEW S GOSPEL. 321 beheld him, He said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona ; thou ah alt be called Cephas, which is, by interpreta- tion, A stone." These passages are exactly similar to those which occur in St. Matthew's Gospel ; and viewing the first Gospel as being, like the others, an original composition in Greek, the same reason will account for such explanations occurring in it as in the rest. But what shall be said of the clauses in question, on the supposition that our first Gospel is a translation from the Hebrew ? I have noticed three different ways in which the upholders of that opinion seek to account for the clauses under con- sideration. The first is that of Dr. Tregelles, and, so far as I know, is peculiar to that eminent critic. He says : " It is needless to regard as additions many of those things which have been specified as such : thus, ' they shall call His name Emmanuel ; which, being interpreted, is, God with us : ' why should we regard this last clause as an addition? It is not a bare translation, but an authoritative statement, that Emmanuel was not a mere name, signifying only God is with us, but a divine declaration that the Lord Jesus was really and truly God with us." * It is thus supposed that the clauses in question existed also in the imagined Hebrew original, and are to be regarded as comprising something more than a mere version of the Aramaic words. Every reader will be able to judge for himself of the validity of such an explanation. For my own part, I must, with all deference, confess that it seems to me to border on absurdity. Can any reader of the Gospel imagine that a dogmatic announcement is intended to be 1 Tregelles, ut sup. p. 87. X 322 GREEK THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF made, when he is told respecting the name " Em- manuel," that, being interpreted, it is, " God with us," or still less that any point of doctrinal importance is involved, not in the words themselves, but in the mere explanation which is given of the words, when he is informed that our Lord exclaimed on the cross, " My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me ? " The second account of this matter which may be mentioned is that suggested by Dr. Cureton, and is diametrically opposite to the one just considered. While Dr. Tregelles imagines that the explanatory clauses under consideration may have existed also in the fancied Hebrew original, Dr. Cureton is doubtful if they have a valid claim to be regarded as forming genuine portions even of the Greek Gospels in which they occur. Thus, in his remarks on John i. 39, he says : " The explanation in the Greek, & Xeyerai fie0ep- pr)vev6fievov Athacricdke, was unnecessary to the Syriac reader, who knew the meaning of the term, and is therefore omitted, if, indeed, this and similar ex- planations be not marginal notes which have found their way into the text subsequently to the time when this version was made." l This supposition of the learned writer is opposed by the almost unanimous authority of all existing MSS. and versions, in which the words which he would relegate to the margin continually appear as an integral part of the sacred text. Such is the case even in that Syriac version of St. Matthew which he rates above the Greek, for at chap. i. 23 it reads, "His name shall be called Emmanuel, which is interpreted, Our God with us." 1 Cureton's Syriac Gotpeh, p. xlvi. st. Matthew's gospel. 323 But the third, and by far most common explana- tion given of the clauses in question by the defenders of the Hebrew original is, that they were inserted by the Greek translator of the Gospel for the benefit of his readers, who could not otherwise have guessed the meaning. This is agreeable to common sense, and might not perhaps be deemed beyond the privilege and right belonging to a strictly conscien- tious translator. But, unfortunately, there are other terms occurring in the Gospel, at least as difficult to be understood as those to which an interpretation is appended, yet left untranslated. Thus every one knows how obscure is the meaning of those expres- sions Raca and More which occur in the Sermon on the Mount. It is with difficulty even at the present day that scholars can agree as to their significance. And if it be supposed that the Gospel of St. Matthew was primarily written in Hebrew, and that its Greek translator thought it necessary, when retaining any of its original expressions, to add to these an inter- pretation, there are no words which could be regarded as more standing in need of such an explanation than those which have been mentioned. This third hypo- thesis, then, proves equally insufficient with those already considered. The only satisfactory account of the matter is, that St. Matthew himself wrote the Gospel in the form in which we still possess it. There can be no doubt, as was formerly noticed, that he had special reference in its publication to the wants of his Jewish countrymen. But there can be as little doubt, I believe, that he also intended his work for the whole world. This appears not only from those explanatory clauses now under consideration, but from 324 GREEK THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF passages having a universal reference (xxvi. 13, xxviii. 17), which all must admit to have formed part of the Gospel from the first ; and from such explana- tions of Jewish customs as are occasionally inserted Thus it would have been evidently absurd to state for the information of Palestinian readers (xxvii. 15), that " at the feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would," and to remark (xxviii. 15) that "this saying is com- monly reported amongst the Jews until this day." The Gospel, then, having been intended for others than the Jews of Palestine, could not possibly have been written in Hebrew, but its author having in view Gentile no less than Jewish readers, added the ex- planations in question, while occasional Aramaic expressions, which had established themselves in the current Greek of the country, were naturally left untranslated. IV. Several Latinistic forms occur in our Greek Gospel which it seems in the highest degree improb- able that a translator from Hebrew into Greek would haxie adopted. Thus at chap. v. 26 we find KoZpdvrq'i, that is, the Latin quadrans; and at chap, xxvii. 26 there occurs parye\\6a (Matt, xxvii. 26), " If St. Matthew composed his Gospel first in Hebrew, he would not affect to Latinize his own tongue, but would declare the indignity suffered by Christ as He had predicted it, which was certainly by a Hebrew word, when He said, 'They shall deliver Him to the Gentiles to mock and to scourge and to crucify Him.'" This appears quite decisive against those who believe, as Dr. Davidson does, that our Lord usually spoke in Hebrew. Certainly, in that case, St. Matthew, writing in the same language, would have used the Hebrew term which Christ Himself employed, and would not have had recourse to a foreign tongue. " And who else," adds Townson, " would think of recurring to the Latin, when his business was to turn the Gospel into Greek, if it afforded him a proper term ? But fiaanyovv is em- ployed for scourging as a Roman punishment, both 1 Introduction, to the New Testament, i. 66. 326 GltEEK THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF by secular authors and by the evangelists, as St. John in the corresponding history, and by St. Mark, St. Luke, and even St. Matthew, in reciting the predic- tion here mentioned. It seems, then, evident that 4>pay€X\6w is not from the hand of a translator, but immediately of St. Matthew himself, whose intercourse with the Romans had made a word, which the Greeks did not acknowledge, familiar to him." ' The same remarks will apply to several of the other Latin ex- pressions which occur in this Gospel. Some of them are, no doubt, to be met with under different forms in the Rabbinical Hebrew of later times, 2 but of others there is no example to be found except in the Greek New Testament. And I cannot but reckon it very improbable that, had St. Matthew written originally in Aramaic, he would so largety have had recourse to such terms, while it is at least equally improbable that a translator of his work, writing professedly for the benefit of Greek readers, would so frequently and needlessly have adopted them. 8 V. Again, every careful reader of the Greek text of St. Matthew must have noticed the very frequent use of the imperfect tense which occurs in it, and the peculiar delicacy of meaning which is thus oftentimes conveyed. Examples of this usage might be quoted 1 Townson's Discourse* on the Gospel*, i. 172, 173. * KoipxvTv;, e.g., is found in the Talm. Hieros. under the form DDJ'-np, and in a different form in the Talm. Bab. See Buxtorf s Lexicon, sub voce. 3 A list of the Latin words occurring in the New Testament is given in GJassii Pkilologia Sacra, p. 152. The following are quoted from Matthew : — 'Asaipm, x. 29 ; Innapion, xviii. 28 ; xwaot, xvii. 25 ; KolpinTvi, v. 26 ; jtovaraltct, xxvii. 65, 66 ; x»ywv, xxvi. 58 ; (ti\i»r, v. 1 ; ftoiiof, v. 15 ; irpairiipiDP, xxvii. 27 ; ifpiyi'khtvii, xxvii. 26. ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 327 from every chapter, but let the following suffice. At chap. iii. 14 we read of John, with respect to Jesus, when the Saviour sought to be baptized by the hands of His forerunner, that he huicuikvev airov, that is, he not only "forbade Him," as it is in our English ver- sion, but rather, bringing out the force both of the preposition and the imperfect, "he continued earnestly to hinder Him." At chap. xiii. 34, we find within the compass of one verse two tenses of the same verb, \a\ea,, employed with a beauty and precision which should not be overlooked. The evangelist, referring to the instructions of Jesus which he had just re- ported, first uses the historic aorist, eXaX^ow, " All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in para- bles ; " and then, referring to His customary practice, he employs the imperfect, e*\a\«, "and without a parable was He not accustomed to speak unto them." l Again, at chap, xviii. 30, we have a beautiful instance of the use of the imperfect, which is in thi8 case also all the more marked, because it is immediately fol- lowed by the aorist. The unmerciful servant was not willing (owe r}0eXev) to show compassion to his fellow- servant, — such was his continuing state of mind, — but he went out and cast him into prison, the tense here employed being the aorist (epaKev), and denoting an action at once definitely accomplished. Now, it is no doubt true that both in Hebrew and Syriac there is a means of expressing the imperfect by a circumlocution with the substantive verb. But, as might be expected from the want of a proper tense, i This precision is lost in the English version by the use of spake in both clauses, and is in general unnoticed by commentators. Difficulties have therefore needlessly been found in the verse. Compare Alexander on St. Matthew's Gospel, p. 370. 328 GREEK THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF its use is much less common in these languages than in Greek. Even the Peschito, which is in general so faithful, not unfrequently fails to bring out the delicacy of meaning conveyed by the use of the im- perfect in the Gospels. This is the case, for instance, with respect to the passage last referred to in the Greek of St. Matthew. Both the imperfect and aorist are at xviii. 30 represented by the preterite in the . Syriac version. 1 We may regard it, therefore, as in the highest degree improbable that, had the evangelist written his Gospel at first in a dialect of Hebrew, we should have found the imperfect tense so often and so appropriately employed as it is in the Greek, — whence we again conclude that this is no transla- tion, but proceeded immediately from the pen of the apostle. VI. Finally, it may, in my judgment, be urged as a strong proof of the proper originality of the Greek Gospel of St. Matthew, that unusual expressions occur in it which could not have been given in Hebrew, or in the cognate dialects, except by means of a circumlocution. Thus, at chap. v. 33, we find the verb eVto/j/ce'w employed to denote the complex idea of swearing falsely. There is no answering expression to this in the Hebrew or the Syriac. The Peschito renders the single Greek verb by two separate words, " Thou shalt not be false in thine 1 Oi* t)hM> is rendered in Peach, by |Ot (J, and in the Syriac » version, published by Dr. Cureton, by a paraphrastic translation, in which the force of the imperfect in Greek is also lost. In the other two passages cited above, the imperfect is preserved by the Peschito in both cases ; by the Curetonian only in the second. Com p. also with the Syriac texts the following passages, Matt zv. 25, xxv. SO ; Mark xiii. 3, xiv. 4 ; Luke xiii. 13, xv. 28, etc. ST. MATTHEW S GOSPEL. 329 ; \ i ,1 oaths;" 1 the Syriac of Cureton has, "Thou shalt not sivear an oath of lying." The same is to be observed at chap. xix. 28, with respect to the striking term waXiyyeveffta. The amalgamated idea contained in this single Greek word could be expressed only by two or more in Hebrew or Syriac. We find, accord- ingly, that the Peschito and Curetonian Syriac, while differing somewhat in their renderings, both agree in breaking up the one compound Greek term, and in seeking to convey its meaning by separate simple words. Now, the repeated occurrence of such cases 3 appears plainly enough to indicate that our Greek Gospel is an original work. It is hardly conceivable that any translator should have condensed the more diffuse expressions of his original into the uncommon Greek terms which have been quoted. The tendency of every translator is much rather towards expansion than condensation. This is one of the necessities attending such a work, and will be found charac- teristic of every known translation. As then has been inferred regarding the Epistle to the Hebrews, that it must in its present form be an original work, from its containing Greek expressions which could only be expressed by a circumlocution in Hebrew, so, for the same reason, we may conclude, respecting our Greek Gospel of St. Matthew, that it is an original and not a translated work. 1 y^ V > f)V)Q ^\t?^- 5 the Curetonian is still more diffuse, as is in general the case. 2 In addition to the above-mentioned passages, the reader may com- pare with the Syriac texts the Greek terms, iTHttnivtm, v. 31 ; irvfimav- can, viii. 14; cUixkoi, x. 38 ; irxpstKovot), xviii. 17 ; lirovxtoiiifn, xix. 12, etc. : in all which passages there is a conciseness in the Greek which is necetaarihj wanting in the Syriac. 330 ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. Altogether, it seems impossible to demonstrate any work to be original, if that has not been done with respect to our present Gospel of St. Matthew. Every internal characteristic points, as we have seen, to that conclusion. The general character of the work — the manner in which citations occur in it — the several special features which may be marked in its structure and phraseology — all combine in furnish- ing evidence of its originality, which it seems hardly possible to resist. It will be strange indeed if a work thus clearly shown on internal grounds to be original, should be destitute of external evidence to the same effect. We shall in the following chapter inquire whether or not that is the case. Meantime, I feel justified in saying, after the evidence which has already been adduced, that, for my own part, I should as soon be persuaded to believe that the JEneid of Virgil came not, in its present Latin dress, from the hands of its author, or that the Paradise Lost was really stolen by Milton from a poem in another language, as that our present Greek Gospel of St. Matthew issued not, in the form in which we now possess it, from the hands of the apostle whose name it bears. CHAPTEE XL GREEK THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL — EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. If we were to judge by the assertions which some of the defenders of the Hebrew original have made on this point, we should here feel ourselves utterly helpless. According to them, there is no external evidence that St. Matthew wrote a Gospel at all, unless it be admitted that he wrote in Hebrew. Thus says Dr. Tregelles : " On what ground do we believe that St. Matthew wrote a Gospel at all ? Because we learn it from ancient and competent witnesses. But the same witnesses affirm that he wrote in Hebrew ; and if endeavours be made to cast doubt on this part of their testimony, the whole (to say the least) is weakened." 1 Such statements occur very frequently in the writings of Dr. Tregelles, but with all due deference to his well-earned reputation as a biblical scholar, I have no hesitation in saying that they are utterly without foundation. So far are they from giving a true account of the state of the case, that I propose in this chapter to prove all for which we need care in connection with St. Matthew's Gospel, without refer- 1 Ut tup. p. 19. 332 GREEK THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF ring to any of the toitnesses for the Hebrew original at all. I do so, however, with a protest against the unfairness of the course to which Dr. Tregelles endeavours to shut up the maintainers of the Greek original. He attempts to frighten us from assigning their true historical value to the words of Papias and others, by declaring that, if we should in any measure discredit them, the consequences will be disastrous. We dare not, as he puts it, question the correctness of these writers on one point, lest we destroy their general trustworthiness, and thus invalidate the authority on which other important conclusions rest. Now, I strongly protest against being fettered in this manner. We ought to hold ourselves at perfect liberty to use the statements of the Fathers just as we do those of other ancient writers. We may, and must, discard all that we find in them which can be proved inconsistent with other known facts, and yet at the same time we may gratefully make use of them as positive witnesses to what there is otherwise no ground to question. No reason can be alleged why we should refuse to accept the statement of Papias, that St. Matthew was the writer of a Gospel. And we may surely receive his testimony to that fact, without being compelled also to believe, on his authority, that the Gospel in question was written in Hebrew. It is utterly un- philosophical to demand, that, if we refer to him at all, we must submit to his assertions or opinions on every point connected with the subject. Totally accept, or totally reject, cannot with any fairness be urged as the rule which is binding in such a matter. It is not the rule adopted with respect to the ST. MATTHEW S GOSPEL. 333 ! declarations of other ancient writers ; and it is manifestly not the rule by an application of which any question that rests upon historic evidence can ever be settled. Who shall demand, for instance, that we must either accept or reject in toto the statements con- tained in the first book of Livy's Roman Histo?y f Are we bound to deny that there ever was such a man as Romulus, if we refuse to believe the marvel- lous incidents which have been recorded of his birth and death % And may we not fully credit the general opinion that Numa Pompilius was a wise and saga- cious prince, without believing that he acted under supernatural direction ? May we not accept those statements of Livy which appear to be of a true historical character, without, at the same time, admitting all the legendary and mythical stories by which they are accompanied ? The notion to the contrary is preposterous, and yet it is substantially this doctrine which Dr. Tregelles lays down with respect to Papias and other ancient ecclesiastical writers. We must receive everything which they tell us, else we can avail ourselves of nothing. We must admit on their authority that St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew, or incur the penalty of not being able to learn from them that St. Matthew wrote at all. 1 If this plan of dealing with ancient testimony were adopted, we might abandon as vain all attempts to distinguish between fact and fable, or to construct for ourselves, from the records of the past, a trust- 1 A writer of a very different stamp affirms in the same uncritical spirit : " If it be denied that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, it cannot be asserted that he wrote at all." Supernatural Religion, i. 475. And so multitudes of others. 334 GREEK THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF worthy account, either of human opinions or achieve- ments. I hold, then, that the maintainers of the Greek original are perfectly entitled, if they choose, to avail themselves of the testimony of Irenseus, Papias, and others, to the effect that St. Matthew did write a Gospel, although they reject the statements of these writers as to the language in which that Gospel was composed. There may be no reason whatever for questioning the one statement, but every reason for receiving it. There may be, and, as we have seen, there is, the plainest necessity for rejecting the other. But to prove how groundless is Dr. Tregelles' allegation, I purpose, as has been said, to dispense entirely with the aid of the authors usually quoted in support of the Hebrew original, and, independently of these, to show that we have external evidence that St. Matthew wrote our present Greek Gospel. I shall first bring forward evidence of the authority, and then of the authorship : showing that it may both be proved that the Greek Gospel we now possess was always esteemed part of inspired Scripture, and that it was invariably attributed to the Apostle Matthew. In reference to the first point, I cannot do better than quote a passage from Dr. Tregelles himself. He says : " Even if we look at the Greek copy of Matthew by itself, we see that it must belong to the apostolic age. The line of early writers who cite and use it, carry us back in the same way as they do with regard to Mark, Luke, and John. The lan- guage, too, shows its origin as plainly as does that of the other three Gospels. ... As to the canonical st. Matthew's gospel. 335 authority of the Greek Gospel which we possess, no further proof need, I believe, be given ; we have the same evidence for this Greek translation which we possess for the original documents written by Mark, Luke, and John. All four were used together by the Church from the earliest days ; all four have the same sanction." l We could not desire more than this with regard to the position of authority assigned to our present Greek Gospel. It has been transmitted to us as canonical Scripture from the earliest times. We can trace it to the apostolic age. It occupies exactly the same footing as the other acknowledged books of the New Testament. All this Dr. Tregelles contends for in regard to our Greek Gospel viewed by itself, and yet he maintains the somewhat paradoxical position, that if we deny that St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew, we have no proof that he wrote at all ! We have proof at least that the Greek Gospel which goes under his name is an apostolic document. That much, it is granted, may be proved independ- ently of the statements made as to its Hebrew origin. Papias, the first writer who speaks of the Hebrew Gospel, does not carry us quite to the apostolic age, and would not be sufficient to bear out the claims of our Greek Gospel as these are stated above by Dr. Tregelles. But beyond him, we can appeal to Polycarp and Ignatius, who both contain evident quotations from the Greek Gospel which we now possess.' Its authenticity, then, as canonical scrip- 1 Tregelles, ut sup. p. 84. 1 See the passages fully considered in Lardner's Credibility, etc., or in Jones On the Canon ; and, more or less fully, in the ordinary Introductions to the New Testament. 336 GHEEK THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF ture, is clearly and confessedly established, without the slightest aid being derived from those ancient writers that speak of its Hebrew original. And, next, as to its authorship. Here, too, we have the most satisfactory evidence without calling upon any of the assertors of the Hebrew original to bear their testimony. This Greek Gospel of ours, acknowledged to be, in its present form, apostolic, has always, in that form, borne the name of St. Matthew. There is not a whisper in all antiquity of any rival claimant. In every existing manuscript, the most ancient as well as the most modern, the same name appears on its front. It is Matthew always, and Matthew only. The same thing holds with respect to every version of the New Testament, ancient or modern. One name is always prefixed as that of the human author of this portion of Scripture. It is continually announced as the work of the Apostle Matthew. This is especially distinct in the most ancient version of all, the Peschito, which, as abundant evidence proves, must have been formed not later than the second century. 1 In this truly venerable and admirable translation, which thus approaches the apostolic age, if indeed it does not completely reach it, the title of the first Gospel is, " The Holy Gospel, the preaching of 1 The extreme antiquity of the Syriac Peschito version is to my mind unquestionable. Attempts have indeed been made to render this point doubtful, but in vain. The single fact that this version did not originally contain those books of the New Testament which were for a time doubted of, is sufficient evidence of its high antiquity. Marsh assigns it to the middle of the second century, while Michaelis places it even in the first. See a very complete and satisfactory argu- ment in behalf of its almost apostolic antiquity in Jones On the Canon, i. 86-107. t ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 337 Matthew the Apostle." 1 It will be observed that, in this inscription, there is no room left for those doubts which have sometimes been expressed with regard to the titles of this and the other Gospels, as they usually stand in the ancient MSS. It can only be interpreted as implying that the first Gospel proceeded from the pen of the apostle, that it was his in the strict sense of being his proper authentic production. And thus, as it is almost universally admitted, and indeed cannot without contradicting the clearest evidence be denied, that the Peschito version was made directly from the Greek, we have the surest testimony both to the apostolic antiquity of our existing Gospel of St. Matthew and to the fact that, from the very first, it was attributed to that apostle. Are we not then justified in styling the statements of Dr. Tregelles on this point with- out foundation ? By a chain of the clearest testi- mony, we can demonstrate both the authority and the authorship of our first Gospel, without once referring to those Fathers who assert its Hebrew original. How groundless then the allegation which Dr. Tregelles is so fond of making, " that if there is any evidence that St. Matthew wrote a Gospel at all, it is proved that he wrote it in what was then called Hebrew ! " * And may not even a somewhat stronger 1 The authority of such a statement is manifestly different from that which belongs to those which occur at the end of the Gospels. A title must have existed from the first, so that the words above quoted are, in all probability, to be ascribed to one almost contemporary with the apostles, while, as has been remarked, " these postscripts are not the testimonies of the translators. They proceed merely from the conjecture of some transcriber, but when written, or by whom, is equally unknown."— Campbell's Preface to St. AfarV* Gospel, § 4 ' Journal of Sacred Literature, January 1869, p. 410. Y 338 GREEK THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF epithet be applied to such language as the following, which he is fond also of repeating ? He says : " Su ppose it could be shown that we have no sufficient proof that St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew, would it follow that he must have written in Greek ? This has been assumed by the advocates for a Greek original, but in fact if we get rid of early testimony, we are quite left in the dark as to the language. Why should not a claim be put in for other tongues besides Greek ? Why not Latin or Coptic, etc ? " * The zeal of the learned writer seems here to betray him into such utter recklessness as carries in itself its own refutation. And I cannot but observe that it is a complete misrepresentation to insinuate, as he does, respecting the defenders of the Greek original, that it is either their wish or endeavour to " get rid of early testimony." No such thing. They neither undervalue, nor do they, in fact, abandon it. They simply appeal from its mistakes to the evidence of unquestionable facts. And they gratefully accept of it and follow it, so far as it is not proved either self- contradictory, or opposed to what is otherwise indis- putable. They gladly welcome all its statements, but they expect not to find these unmixed with error. They think themselves justified in sifting and trying all the declarations of the Fathers by the principles of historical criticism, just as they do those of other ancient writers. To treat them otherwise is not, in truth, to yield them a becoming respect, but to be guilty towards them of a childish super- stition. There is nothing peculiarly sacred in their character as witness-bearers ; they have no special 1 On the Original Language of St. Matthew's Gospel, p. 19. ST. MATTHEW S GOSPEL. 339 I I claim to infallibility. And as we scruple not to convict of error a Thucydides or Tacitus in particular statements which they make, while at the same time we by no means slight or question their general testimony, so we are not to be accused of setting aside or seeking to disparage the testimony of the ancient Fathers simply because we refuse to pin our faith to every assertion which they make, and will not shut our eyes to the evidence of other undoubted facts in order that we may quietly rest in every one of their conclusions. Now, as will be shown in the following chapter, there is some amount of obvious error involved in the statement made by Papias respecting St. Matthew's Gospel. But while believing that this can be fully proved, I still hold that there is a certain value in his declaration. It may unquestionably be regarded as a positive testimony to the fact that St. Matthew did write a Gospel. That truth remains after all the error contained in the statement has been set aside ; and while we receive not the whole as pure uncor- rupted truth, we may yet rejoice to find in it some- thing which is really valuable, and are not called to reject the whole as absolutely and entirely without foundation. Let us accept, then, on this as on other points, every declaration of antiquity which stubborn and resistless facts do not compel us to question. And acting thus, we find that by successive links of such testimony as there is no cause to question, we are able to trace up our existing Greek Gospel of St. Matthew to the very verge of the apostolic age, discover that it was always esteemed part of canonical 340 GREEK THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF Scripture, was quoted as the inspired and infallible word of God, and was with unanimous voice attri- buted to the author whose name it still bears. So far, therefore, from admitting that there is any force in the allegation so frequently made, that, unless we believe St. Matthew to have written in Hebrew, we have no proof that he ever wrote at all, I should be inclined to lay down the exactly counter-proposi- tion. Supposing it were impossible to prove his authorship as regards the Greek Gospel, which is now, and always has been, in the hands of the Church, then I maintain that, judging of the matter by the most rigorous principles of historical criticism, it would be impossible to prove that he ever wrote a Gospel at all. For what, on these principles, is neces* sary to make good the assertion that he did write in Hebrew, and what then appears the value of that evidence which is actually producible in support of that alleged fact ? Let us answer the first of these questions in the following words of a very able writer, and we shall not experience much difficulty in disposing of the second. " Historical evidence," says Sir G. C. Lewis, "like judicial evidence, is founded on the testimony of credible witnesses. Unless these witnesses had personal or immediate perception of the facts which they report; unless they saw or heard what they undertake to relate as having happened, their evidence is not entitled to credit. As all original witnesses must be contem- porary with the events which they attest, it is a necessary condition for the credibility of a witness, that he be a contemporary, though a contemporary is not necessarily a credible witness. Unless, therc- ST. MATTHEWS GOSPEL. 341 fore, a historical account can be traced by probable proof to the testimony of contemporaries, the first condition of historical credibility fails." 1 Now, it humbly appears to me that, not without some difficulty, will the upholders of the Hebrew original be able to show that any one of their wit- nesses fulfils these conditions. Papias is the first who speaks of the Hebrew Gospel, and he certainly was not contemporary with the Apostle Matthew. Nor does he affirm that he ever saw the Gospel in question. He simply makes a statement which, whether originating with himself or derived from another, at once appears opposed to other indisput- able evidence. He tells us that St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew, but the Greek Gospel which we possess under that apostle's name immediately rises up to contradict that assertion. Let it be remembered, too, how such an assertion appears in the light of the conclusion reached in the previous chapters of this work. I claim to have proved that Greek was habitually employed by Christ and His disciples, and if so, how utterly improbable does it appear that St. Matthew should have written to his fellow-country- in Hebrew I It seems necessary to the maintenance of such an opinion either to convict of insufficiency the arguments which have been brought forward in the preceding pages, or to suppose with Vossius that St. Matthew's Gospel was not originally intended for inhabitants of Palestine. Besides, none of the sub- sequent writers quoted in support of the Hebrew original declare positively and unambiguously that they had ever seen that document ; so that, if we 1 Credibility of Early Roman Hiitory, vol. i. p. 15. 342 GREEK. THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF had no Greek Gospel of St. Matthew at the present Jay, and none of that abundant evidence which we possess that the Fathers were intimately acquainted with it, I venture to maintain that, in spite of all which is said by the ancients in regard to the Hebrew writing, it would be impossible to make out, on the ■strictest principles of historical inquiry, that St. Matthew ever wrote a Gospel at all. All the irre- fragable proof of that fact gathers round our existing Greek Gospel. Evidence which cannot be questioned of the authorship by St. Matthew is found, as we have seen, in the most ancient MSS., the most vener- able versions, and the unbroken chain of quotations from, and references to, his Greek Gospel, which carry us up to the very verge of the apostolic age. Here I might safely stop; but, at the risk of parting eompany with some who have hitherto admitted the validity of the argument, I cannot help advancing a step farther. I am firmly convinced that the Greek Gospel of St. Matthew, as well as the other two synoptical Gospels, possesses direct apostolic sanction. It appears to me certain, from a careful examination of the evidence, both internal and external, that the Apostle John saw the other three Gospels before writing his own, and that by the nature of his own work he has implicitly and intentionally sanctioned those of the three other evangelists. I am well aware that this is strongly controverted by some modern critics. But on looking into the Gospel of St. John, the evidence appears to me plain and irresistible. On no other supposition, I believe, can we give any possible account of the special ST. MATTHEW S GOSPEL. 34a character which that Gospel possesses. The apostle manifestly did not write for the purpose of furnish- ing us with a full history of the life of Christ, for many of the most important facts are altogether omitted, and, in not a few instances, these are pre- supposed as already well known. He takes no notice of the birth, the baptism, the transfiguration, and many of the miracles of Christ recorded by the other evangelists ; while, at the same time, he assumes these things as quite familiar to his readers. Thus, in chap. i. 32, there is a reference to the baptism of Christ, as reported by Matthew and Luke. In chap, ii. 1, the mother of Jesus is mentioned as a well- known person, although John himself has not pre- viously noticed her. At chap. hi. 24, a parenthetical clause is inserted, apparently to guard against an error which might have arisen from the narrative of Matthew respecting the Baptist. And at chap. xx. 1 , the stone at the grave of Jesus is referred to, although John has not previously mentioned it ; he says of the women, that they saw " the stone taken away," evidently supposing that his readers had learned from the other evangelists, regarding the tomb of Jesus, what he himself specially mentions of that of Lazarus, that "it was a cave, and a stone lay upon it." The question then arises how St. John could have written in this manner, — on what ground he based the assumption which he so manifestly makes, that both the facts which he has entirely omitted and those to which he merely alludes were quite familiar to his readers. Various opinions have been enter- tained on this subject. Eichhorn imagines, of course, 344 GREEK THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF that the apostle wrote with an eye to the Urevan- gelium, and with the view of supplying its deficiencies. Liicke, Bleek, and Alford suppose that he took for granted the commonly-received oral accounts. De Wette, again, says that St. John not only presupposed oral traditions, but also most probably the existence of at least the Greek Gospel of St. Matthew. And with this latter view external testimony is coincident. I know of no reason why the state- ments of the ancient Fathers on this point should be rejected. They are, no doubt, mixed up with errors ; but, after these have been set aside (and errors plainly demonstrated to be such are all in ancient testimony, that I would ever set aside), there seems to remain substantial and satisfactory evidence to the fact, that St. John saw the first three Gospels before writing his own. There are, as Hug has remarked, "internal evidences in the books of Matthew, Mark, and Luke that they were ante- cedent to the Gospel of John ; and there are refer- ences in the latter which show that the writer was acquainted with the contents of the three other Gospels. Now, if the declarations of ancient writers coincide with this conclusion, they do not deserve to be so summarily rejected as they have been." * And, as has just been said, the external is on this point in perfect harmony with the internal evidence. Indubitable facts as to the lengthened period to which the Apostle John was spared upon the earth, and express testimonies of ancient writers as to the object which he had in view in writing his Gospel, tend to confirm the opinion which we derive from 1 Introduction, ii. § 55. i : S st. Matthew's gospel. 345 ■4 i an Inspection of the work itself. "The beloved disciple," says Dr. "Wordsworth, " was providentially preserved to a great old age, not only to refute the heretics who denied the Lord that bought them, and to convince us of the divinity of the uncreated Word, who was in the beginning with God, but also to complete the witness of the written word, and to vindicate its inspiration from the forgeries of false teachers, and to assure us of its fulness and divine character. In confirmation of this assertion, let us now refer to a fact attested by ancient and unexceptionable witnesses (Clem. Al., apud Eus. vi. 14; Eus. iii. 24, etc.). Towards the close of his long life, copies of the three Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, which at that time, we are informed, had been diffused throughout Christendom, were publicly brought to St. John in the city of Ephesus, of which he was the metro- politan, by some of the bishops of the Asiatic Churches; and, in their presence, St. John openly acknowledged these three Gospels as inspired, and at their request composed his own Gospel, in order to complete the evangelical record of the life and teaching of Jesus Christ." l Such, I believe, is the conclusion to which all evidence leads on the point in question. But that conclusion has nevertheless been strongly contro- verted. Dean Alford, for example, takes a view exactly opposite to that stated above. I have said that unless it be supposed that John knew of the other Gospels, no account can be given of the 1 Wordsworth on Inspiration, p. 169. Compare EUicott'3 Historical lectures on the Life of Christ, p 15, n. 346 GREEK THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OV peculiar character attaching to his own; Alford, on the contrary, believes that, " on such a supposi- tion, the phenomena presented by his Gospel would be wholly inexplicable." He grounds this opinion on those parts which this Gospel has in common with the other three. " And though," he remarks, " these are not so considerable in extent as in the case of the three Gospels, yet they are quite important enough to decide this question." 1 But it "should be noticed that, in every part of the history in which John goes over the same ground with the other evangelists, it is with quite a different purpose from theirs, and with the view of giving prominence to different incidents. Take, for example, chap, xiii., and compare it with the parallel passages in the other Gospels. Does it not manifestly take these for granted, inasmuch as it entirely omits all mention of the Eucharist, and leads us to con- template the whole scene, as it were, from a different standpoint? And is not this quite in harmony with the opinion that the writer was acquainted with the other Gospels, and had it in his view to supplement them ? John, then, saw and sanctioned the other Gospels. Of that, both on internal and external grounds, there is every reason to be convinced. And thus, passing beyond Papias, the most ancient authority to whom the advocates of the Hebrew original can appeal, we carry our cause into the very presence of the beloved disciple. We ask the aged and venerable John, who has survived all his brethren in the apostleship, what testimony he bears respecting those Gospels 1 Greek Test, vol i. p. 56. i st. Matthew's gospel. 347 which had already been given to the Church. And, in answer, he points to that inestimably precious work which, as supplementary to these, he left as his great memorial to all coming generations. In his own Gospel he sets his seal upon those which had preceded it ; he proceeds on the supposition that they are truthful and infallible records ; and thus he affixes to all the three the stamp of his apostolic authority, and to the Greek of St. Matthew among the rest. CHAPTER XII. GREEK THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL OPPOSING STATEMENTS OF ANCIENT WRITERS. We have seen that our present Greek Gospel of St. Matthew has been quoted as inspired Scripture from the apostolic age, and that it has always been attri- buted to the person whose name it now bears. We have also seen that there is demonstrative evidence in the Gospel itself that it is an original, and not a translated work — coming as certainly in its present form from the hands of St. Matthew as the other two synoptical Gospels issued in their present form from the hands of St. Mark and St. Luke. If these points have been established, as I believe, on grounds which cannot be set aside, the hostile assertions of either ancient or modern writers need cause us very little trouble. Facts, once ascertained, remain facts, however much they may be mistaken or controverted ; and it matters nothing how weighty may be the authorities that question them, or how numerous the writers who contradict them. No one, for example, thinks it worth while, at the present day, elaborately to refute the assertions of early heathen writers respecting the manner in which the worship of the primitive Christians was conducted ST. MATTHEW S GOSrEL, 349 i Though Tacitus evidently believed the stories in circulation on this point, and lent them the sanction of his great name, the facts of the case are too well known to us from other sources to allow these assertions, numerous as they are, and weighty as is the authority of some that make them, to produce any impression upon our minds. The most that we deem it necessary to do is to give some probable explanation of the manner in which they may have arisen. And whether we succeed in effecting this or not, the conclusion already formed as to their erron- eousness cannot be shaken. That rests on indepen- dent and irrefragable evidence. It is implied in all that proves Christianity to be from God ; and, as long as that fact is admitted, it is rather a curious question about the vagaries to which the human mind is liable, than any inquiry of moment to us as Christians, while we seek to trace to their origin these mistakes of heathen writers. And so with regard to the passages usually quoted from the Fathers in opposition to the proper originality of our Greek Gospel of St. Matthew. If that point has already been made out by evidence of its own which is completely sufficient, we have simply to offer some possible explanation of the counter-statements that have been made upon the subject. And whether we succeed in showing these statements to be in themselves palpable errors, or to be the fruit and consequence of other errors ; or whether we fail in revealing such as their true character, in either case the fact already proved will remain as certain and immovable as ever. Unless, therefore, that reasoning can be impugned, 350 GREEK THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF by which I have endeavoured in the preceding chapters to evince the true originality of our existing Greek Gospel, the utmost that any testimonies from the Fathers can possibly prove is, that St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew as well as Greek. However numerous and strong these testimonies may be, they cannot exclude the originality of the Greek, unless the argu- ments already brought forward in its favour have first been answered. As was formerly remarked, and as will afterwards be more particularly noticed, some have felt the patristic evidence in support of the Hebrew original so strong as to deem it equivalent to that which exists in favour of the Greek, and have therefore adopted the hypothesis of a twofold original. For my own part, I cannot allow it any such import- ance. It seems to me of a nature, whatever its amount, on which no certain dependence can be placed ; and, in giving my reasons for thus judging, I beg the reader's attention to one or two general observations on the statements to be found in the writings of the Fathers, before proceeding to consider the chief of these in their several parts. It must of necessity be admitted by all, that the early ecclesiastical writers are very often clearly in error on points such as that now before us. Thus we have already seen Eusebius maintaining that the apostles naturally understood no language except Syriac, and Chrysostom declaring that the Apostle Paul was acquainted only with Hebrew. And in a question still more analogous to that now under discussion, we find the early Fathers, both of. the Eastern and Western Churches, decidedly affirming the Hebrew original of the Epistle to the Hebrews. ii ST. MATTHEW S GOSPEL. 351 This opinion ruled in the Church until the science of biblical criticism awoke at the epoch of the Reforma- tion, when the notion sanctioned by so many ancient authorities was proved untenable, and is now univer- sally abandoned. We must, then, beware of attaching to those state- ments which occur in the Fathers, respecting the original language of St. Matthew's Gospel, any immediate critical value. As in every like case, they must be tested and estimated by other extant evidence. And the mere number of those who make such statements cannot be held of itself to prove them accurate. If it is admitted that the asser- tions of Jerome, Euthalius, Eusebius, and others respecting the original language of the Epistle to the Hebrews are unquestionably erroneous, then the un- certain character of such testimony is acknowledged, and the statements of other Fathers respecting St. Matthew's Gospel cannot, as a matter of course, be regarded as conclusive. 1 Their real critical worth must be considered. We must examine the circum- stances in which they originated, the form in which they appear, the character of the persons who make them, and their consistency with other undoubted facts ; and, in now proceeding to do this with respect to the well-known passages, in the most ancient Fathers, which bear upon the question before us, I venture to affirm that there is not one of them but 1 " Utor pennisao, caudseque pilos ut equinse Paulatim vello ; et demo unum, demo etiam unum ; Dum cadat elusus ratione mentis acervi Qui redjt ad faatos, et virtutem eestimat annis, Miraturque nihil nisi quod Libitina sacravit." Hor. Ep. ii. 45 seq. 352 GREEK THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF may be shown to be either absurd, ambiguous, doubtful in point of authority, or contradictory to other declarations of the writer in which it is found. Beginning, then, with the famous saying of Papias, preserved by Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. iii. 39), we find it stated that " Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew dialect, and each one interpreted them as well as he could." * This is the very corner-stone in the argument of those who plead for the Hebrew original. Papias was Bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, in the early part of the second century, and is thus a witness of undoubted antiquity. But we must receive all that he says with caution, for the very writer who has conveyed to us an acquaint- ance with some of his sentiments, does so with the accompanying statement that he was v) that the apostle wrote in Hebrew. The same remarks will apply to Eusebius. Some- times he seems quite to forget that there was any report current as to the Greek Gospel of St. Matthew being a translation from the Hebrew. At other times he recalls the tradition which prevailed to that effect, and writes accordingly. Referring {Comrn. in Psal. lxxviii. 2) to the peculiar manner in which a quotation from the Hebrew is made by the evan- gelist (Matt. xiii. 35), he tells us that " Matthew being a Hebrew, made use of his own interpretation 1 1 1 am perfectly aware of the different viewB which have been taken of the word i*iw/f employ ed by Eusebiua in this passage. Davidson 364 GREEK THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF of the original (ipev^o/iai, etc.), instead of adopting that of the Septuagint (6iy^ofiai, etc.)." Much re- spect cannot be claimed for the critical judgment of Eusebius. We have had some specimens of his errors in the preceding pages, and others of a still more' serious nature (Hist. Eccl. i. 13, etc.) might easily be produced. While, therefore, we are deeply grate- ful for his labours as a historian, we are not bound to yield much deference to his judgment as a critic. It adds little to the weight of the evidence for the Hebrew original of St. Matthew, that he repeats (II. E. iii. 24) the prevailing tradition regarding it ; and, on the other hand, we need by no means adopt his explanation of the variation observable between the Greek text of the first Gospel and the Septuagint in the passage just quoted, unless otherwise satisfied with it. But it seems at least clearly implied in the explanation which he offers, that, for the moment, he regarded St. Matthew himself as being the author of our present Greek Gospel, while at another time (Ad. Marin, qusest. 2) we find him attri- buting a particular Greek expression which occurs in it (oyfre aaPfiuTov), not to the apostle, but to the person who translated his work from the Hebrew. Now, such confusion of thought and statement on this subject is quite compatible with the idea that there was a tradition widely diffused in the Church that St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew, but seems inex- assigns it the meaning " recension ; " but that this is incorrect, and that *' translation " is its true rendering, appears from the words of Eusebius himself in the very same passage. He immediately uses Ulilaxtii in the sense of " translated," and this is quite sufficient t j fix the meaning of ixiotn as given above. ST. MATTHEW S GOSPEL. 3C5 plicable if that tradition were accepted as embodying an indubitable truth. Impressed at times, as would appear, by the striking evidence of originality which the Gospel itself contains, the Fathers express them- selves as if they had never heard it was a translation ; and then, again, falling under the influence of the pre- vailing tradition, they write as if they did not regard our present Greek Gospel as an original, while at the same time they continue to quote it as inspired and authoritative Scripture. It is almost needless to devote any attention- to the statements of later writers, 1 but for special reasons we must glance for a moment at the position occupied by Jerome in this controversy. And here we find " con- fusion worse confounded." At one time Jerome writes as if he had actually seen the long-hidden Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew. He says (De Viris Illus. 3) : " Ipsum Hebraicum habetur usque hodie in Caesariensi bibliotheca, quam Pamphilus martyro studiosissime confecit. Mihi quoque a Nazaraeis qui in Bercea urbe Syriae hoc volumine utuntur, describendi facultas fuit." But again he says (Comm, in Matt, ii.) : " In Evangelio quo utuntur Nazaraei et Ebionitae, quod nuper in Graecum de Hebraeo sermone transtulimus, et quod vocatur a plerisque Matthaei authenticum." And as the latest testimony which he bears on this subject, he says (Adv. Pel. iii.) respecting this same Gospel that was in use among the Nazarenes, that it was entitled " Secundum Apostolos, sive ut plerique autumant juxta Matthaeum." 1 The words of Dionysius Bar Salibi, a Syrian bishop of the twelfth century, to which such an importance has sometimes been attached, will be found noticed in the following chapter. 366 GREEK THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF Now, without entering at any length into the cod- sideration of these and other passages in Jerome, it is plain that the longer that Father investigated the subject, the more doubtful he became as to the claims of the Gospel of the Hebrews to be regarded as the original work of the Apostle Matthew. He found that the canonical Greek Gospel and the existing Hebrew one varied very materially in a multitude of passages. So great, indeed, was the diversity be- tween them, that Jerome thought it worth his trouble to translate the Ebionite Gospel into Greek. 1 This one fact demonstrates the essential difference which must have existed between the pretended Hebrew original of Matthew and the Greek Gospel which has always gone under his name. And the accounts which have been transmitted to us of that Hebrew Gospel, as well as the specimens which have been preserved of its contents, prove that it would be an abuse of language in any sense to identify it with our existing Gospel of St. Matthew. It both wanted much which was found in the Greek, and contained much which that does not possess. As an example of its omissions, it is sufficient to state, on the authority of Epiphanius, that (in some copies at least) the first two chapters were entirely wanting ; a3 ah example of the additions which it contained, I may give the following, which Jerome quotes from 1 Araonc other very just, remarks which Baur makes in reference to the relation of our canonical Gospel to the Gospel of the Hebrews, he rightly asks respecting Jerome how, on the supposition of the two Gospels being substantially identical, he should have resolved "das Hebriier-Evangelium in das Griechische zu Ubersetzen, wenn doch unser griechisches Matthaus-Evangeliura selbst schon eine Ueber- setzung des Hebraer-Evangeliums war ? "— Evangdien, p. 675. ST. MATTHEW S GOSPEL. 367 v<; ; whereas Sva/eoXw?, when it occurs in the classics, means " peevishly," or " morosely." And it has been observed, that the adverb thus peculiarly made use of by all three evan- gelists is found nowhere else, either in the New Testa- ment, the Septuagint, or the Greek apocryphal books. 1 Further, they all employ the striking phrase ov fti] yeuo-oprat davdrov (Matt. xvi. 22 ; Mark ix. 1 ; Luke ix. 17), though they differ from each other in the rest of the sentence in which this expression occurs. And, to give only one other example of their striking coin- cidences, they all agree in the citation KanaaKtvaau t)]v 6B6v An account is given in Sludia Biblka of " the latest contribution on the subject." But of the theory described the writer says, "it scarcely seems to require detailed criticism at our hands."— Pp. 75-88. ORIGIN OF THE GOSPELS. 399 had access, at the same time, to common sources, — ■ critics still labour at the Sisyphian toil of construct- ing theories, in order to solve this obstinate and perplexing problem. In our own day, De Wette, Hug, Ewald, Guericke, Gieseler, Norton, Davidson, Thiersch, Alford, Smith of Jordanhill, and many others, have all proposed their several schemes of explanation and agreement ; but, as Dr. Tregelles remarks, " the more recent theories on the subject of the harmonizing Gospels, are in general only repetitions of former schemes with or without new modifications." l And after all the attempts which have been made, the problem appears at this moment to remain as far from solution as ever. 2 In these circumstances, it is with no small diffi- dence that I presume to make another contribution to the chaos of opinions that have already been collected on this subject. But the argument pursued in the preceding pages does, I believe, clearly point to the much-desired solution. I am firmly convinced that, as in the Ptolemaean system of the heavens, it was human speculation which had introduced diffi- culty and complexity among God's works, while, in truth, their motions were all regulated with a beauti- ful simplicity, so here it is criticism itself which has caused the complexity in connection with the divine 1 Home's Introduction, iv. p. 664. 9 Credner, after reviewing, with his usual fulness and clearness, the various leading hypotheses, and expressing himself dissatisfied with every one of them, adds : " Bei vielen hat die Ansicht Eingang gef lin- den, dass das genetische Verhaltniss unserer drei Evangelien iiberall unerklarlich sei, ja, Manche haben sogar ein Werk der Vorsehung in dieser Unerklarbarkeit erkenuen wollen. Andere begniigten eioli, die buherige Versuche, dieses Verhaltniss zu erklaren, als unbefriedigeud zu bezeichnen." — Einl. § 73. MS 400 PREVALENCE OF GKEEK IN PALESTINE. ORIGIN OF THE COSPEL3. 401 word, while, in fact, the phenomena which it presents may all be explained in the easiest and simplest manner. With this conviction, I venture to offer another hypothesis on this much- vexed subject ; and, in doing so, it is no small satisfaction to reflect that the theory about to be stated is distinguished, at least, by its simplicity, that it needs no algebraic signs in order to make it intelligible, but that it may be set in a single short sentence before the reader, with the assurance that he cannot fail to understand it, whether or not he may also be induced to adopt it. My hypothesis, then, is simply this : T/ie Lord Jesus Christ spoke in Greek, and the evangelists independently narrated His actions and reported ■ His discourses in the same language which He had Himself employed. This theory I propose as adequate to account for all the phenomena presented by the first three Gospels, and thus, as marked out by its sufficiency no less than by its simplicity, from all those that have preceded it. However ingenious some of these may have appeared, they have neither been simple nor sufficient ; and while, from their complexity, destitute of all prima facie probability, the least practical application which has been made of them has shown that they could not meet the requirements of the It will be observed that two perplexing elements, which enter into the statement of the problem as most have dealt with it, are at once eliminated from it by the theory which I have proposed. These are, first that our Lord spoke usually in Hebrew, so that m our present Greek Gospels must, for the most part, be regarded as containing translations of His words ; and, secondly, that St. Matthew wrote originally in Hebrew, and that accordingly the existing Greek Gospel which bears his name must be dealt with as a version of his work. The complexity thus intro- duced into the question is enormous, and we cannot wonder that, with these two ideas assumed as facts, and admitted as elements in the problem to be solved, critics should have been so sorely puzzled by the data with which they were fur- nished, and should scarcely, in any case, have been able to do more than demolish the theories of their predecessors, without in any measure succeeding in establishing their own. The hypothesis which I have announced, and which I now proceed to illustrate, simple and obvious as it appears, has^ never, so far as I am aware, been here- tofore suggested. This fact increases the hesitation which I feel in proposing it, and suggests the fear that, like many others which have preceded it, it may possess attractions and advantages only in the esti- mation of its author, while none but he will be blind to its imperfections. I do, in truth, find it almost impossible to believe that I should have the honour of making any approach to the solution of a problem which has perplexed and confounded so many illus- trious scholars. But it is with some confidence, nevertheless, that I submit my theory on the question to the candid consideration of all that are interested in this important subject. No small vantage-ground' in its favour has been gained in the preceding chap - ters, if I have there succeeded, on other grounds, in 2 c 402 PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. ORIGIN OF THE GOSPELS. 403 proving that our Lord did, for the most part, make use of the Greek language ; and if, now, we find that the theory of the origin of the Gospels which assumes that fact explains difficulties which cannot otherwise be removed, we may, in that case, not only regard the hypothesis itself as established, but may view it as, in a new and very striking manner, imparting to the leading proposition of this work all the force and evidence of demonstration. There are two conditions which must be fulfilled by any theory proposed on this subject before it can be deemed successful; it must afford it satisfactory explanation, both of the coincidences and the differ- ences observable in the first three Gospels. It is quite possible to effect the one object while overlook- ing or missing the other ; but unless both are aimed at and attained, the real difficulties of the case have not been faced, and the problem must still be regarded as unsolved. The coincidences naturally first attract our notice ; and by these, therefore, in the first place, I shall endeavour to test and illustrate the value of my hypothesis. As every one knows, these coincidences are very numerous and striking. They are perceptible in every part of the first three evangelists, so far as the writers deal with the same topics, or cover the same ground. But it is to be observed that they are most notable by far in reports of what was said either by the Saviour or others. And this is a point to which I beg to direct special attention, as bearing very materially upon the success of our present argu- ment. The fact itself has often been remarked, and is indeed generally referred to by writers on the i subject ; but its great importance in the question now under discussion warrants and requires that it should here be somewhat more fully considered. Before proceeding, therefore, to the application which I mean to make of it, I shall state it in the words of two eminent critics, and shall bring forward some of the examples in proof of it which are to be found in the writings of the evangelists. " All the three," says Credner, " frequently agree in their expressions, and that in such a manner that sections whieh at the beginning manifest much diver- gence, become more and more alike as they approach the principal topic ; while in regard to this leading subject they exhibit a verbal identity, particularly in the ivords of Jesus, and, most of all, in pro- phecies or maxims, and then begin again to diverge more or less from one another." In illustration of what is here stated, I may quote the following passages : — Matt. viii. 2, 3. Kal iSov, X«7rpos ik- 6i>v irpoo-tKvvti aimS, kiyiav" Ki'pif, iav 6i- krji, Svvaxral p.t KaOa- piffai. Kal ixTtivat rrjv X"P a ) ij^wo av- toO 6 IijcroCs, Aeyaiv" ®fku>, KadapicrOr/TL. Kal ivdiuii ixaOa- pivdrj avrov r) kiirpa. Mark i. 40-42. Kal ip^trai irpbs av- rov ktirpbs, Tra.pa.Ka.- klov avrov, Kal yovvirt- ruiv avrov, Kai kiymv aunp' On iav Oikrjs, Svvao'at /it KaOapiaai. O 8e Iijo"ouj o~irkay- XyiV TOV 'IrjtTOVV, 3T£- crutv (TTl TTp6(TU>irOV, tStrjOr] avrov, kiyiav' Kvpit, iav 6ikys, 8v- vao-ac p.t KaOaptaat. Kat CKTttVas tj;v ^ct- pa, tjif^aro auTov, ti- TTtitv' &i\u>, KaOapC (TOrjTU Kai cude'tuf r) kiwpa i.7r?ik$tv aw' 404 PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. Matt. ix. 5, 6. Ti yap itrrtv cvko- irutripov, tariiv" 'Ai- otvrat orov at dpaprtat' ■q t'nrtiv' "Eytipai Kal irtptjraVtt ; 'lea St tl- SijTt on i(ovl&os SttX- 6flv, rj irXovo~iov tis tijv fiao-iXtiav rov ®tov flo-tX6tiv. Mark ii. 9-11. Ti (o-rtv ivKoirwre- pov, tlirtiv Tip irapaXv- TlKtf A(tovrat o-ov at afiapriaf rj tariiv Eytipai, Kal apov crov rov Kpafifiarov, Kal ■fffpinaTu ; '\va Si tiSyrt ort i£owrtav i\ tl o vios tov avQptli- irov aitvai inl tt}s yf/S afiaprCas' (Xt'ytt tu irapaXirrtKcp") joi Xtya>, tytipat, Kal apov rbv KpafifiaTov oxiv, koi vn-ayt tts top oTkoV (u>v- t f « / Tat o"oi at apxipTiai o-ov' ij dirtiv' "Eytipai Kai irepiirarti ; 'Iva Si ti&rJTi oti l£ovo-iav t^ti 6 vios tov avOpia- 7TOV C7TI t^s y^s d<^t- cVat a/iapTiat, (live Ttji TrapaXiXv/ifvia') Sot Xcyu, cy«pat" koi apas to kXiWSioV o-ov, TTOptvOV tU TOP oTkoV O"0V. Luke xviii. 24, 25. lSu)i' St avroi' 6 I»70-ovs irtpiXvirov yt- vofitvov, ft-irt' IIus Svo-koXus ot Ta xp>/- yuoTa Torres cto-- cXtVO-Ol/Tat €IS TTjV fiao-iXtiav tov ©tov. EvK07ra)Ttpov yap &rri Kdp.r)Xov Sta Tpv/aaX- tas paipiSos €L- crtyrov, it iv TOiria ayt'o)' (6 avayivuicricuiv vo€i- Tu)') Totc ot iv TJJ IovSata f\ry£Twcrav tin to op?; o iiri TOV Scu/xarof, p.^ Karafiai- VtTIti apai Tt ^k T»}s oiKtas avrov. Mark xiii. 14, 15. "Oral' 8e tS^Tt to fiStXvyfia Ttjs ipTjfiw- 0"CO)S, TO pT/Biv V7TO Aai/t^X tov 7rpoivytTU>o-av apat Tt Ik •n/s oiKtas avrov. Luke xxi. 20, 21. 'OTav St tS?7Tt KV- KXovp.ivr)V vrro o-Tpa- ToiriSiav ttjv 'Itpovo~a- X^p., TOTt yvfurt on ^yytKtv 17 iprjpMO-is avr^s. Tort ot iv t-q 'IovSata evy£T(DO~av tis to opiy* koi 01 iv ptVu) avrr/s tK^iuptt- T(i)0"av' Kai ot iv Tats Xupai;, pr) turtpxv do with one another. The first evangelist, again, as being himself an apostle, and the second as the associate of St. Peter, had the best means of knowing and being able to report the ipsissima verba of bur Saviour. Compare, in illustration, the last example of coincidence quoted above. 410 PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. ORIGIN OF THE GOSPELS. 411 Toil? -jrivre aprovs /rat Toim Bvo l^0vael of which I find it necessary to con- ceive, is the teaching of our Lord Himself, as soon moulded into a special form, and limited to such a concise yet comprehensive account, as we find con- tained in the first three evangelists. But what, let us now ask, is to be said of the divergences which occur in the first three Gospels, on the theory that the evangelists made use of each other's works, — a theory to which, as one of two alternatives, the advocates of a Hebrew original of St. Matthew's Gospel are, by their own confession, compelled to have recourse? It has been clearly shown by several recent writers, that no satisfactory account can be given of the differences in the Gospels, if it be supposed that the writers copied from one another. "There is," remarks Professor Norton, 1 " no reasonable principle of selection on which they can be supposed to have proceeded. They were all of them, as preachers of Christianity, well acquainted with the transactions which it was their purpose to record ; their independent knowledge of them appears in the Gospel of each ; they had therefore no occasion to copy one from another ; and it is a fact, obvious simply upon inspection, that far the greater part of each Gospel was not thus copied. And lastly, their Gospels generally, and even those very passages on which this theory of transcription has been founded, present numerous diversities of such a character as the evangelist, whichever may be supposed the copyist, would not have made with the text of his 1 Uaiuineneu of the Gotpclt, i. pp. 251-263. predecessor or predecessors before him as an arche- type." It might suffice to refer, in proof of the truth of these remarks, to the passages of the Greek Gospels formerly quoted ; but I may here adduce the fol- lowing additional illustration from the narrative of the transfiguration as given by the three evangelists (T.R.):- Matt. xvii. 4. KiroKpiOw 8c 6 IIc- rpos, €i7re tc3 lrjrrov' Luke ix. 33. Ka Makk ix. 5, 6. Kai airoKpiBii? 6 A.ai iyevtro iv to> IleYpot, Xe'ytt t<3 'Itj- 8ia)(u>pi£«r9ai aurois Kvpic, KaXov ia-Tiv crou- 'Pa/3/3\, koXov air avrov, tlvtv 6 r/fiai ILSt eTyar ti 8t- irroi ; and I entertain no doubt that, as in the instances quoted above, they often found it both convenient and agreeable to employ their national language. But the admission of this fact does not in any way controvert the thesis of this work. Both truths rest on their own appropriate evidence ; and the many proofs which may be brought forward to show that the Jews were then acquainted with Hebrew, and often made use of it, stand in perfect harmony with the parallel proofs which have been 1 Greswell'a Harmony of the Ootpeh, iii. 347. .«: adduced to evince that they were equally well ac- quainted with Greek, and generally employed it for all public and literary purposes. There are, however, some passages contained in Josephus, the rabbinical writers, and the New Testa- ment, which are thought to run directly counter to our proposition. They are deemed altogether incon- sistent with the belief that Greek was so commonly known or so generally employed in Palestine as I have maintained, and are supposed to prove that that language could not have been usually employed by our Lord and His disciples. It is necessary, there- fore, more particularly to examine them ; and, if the truth has already been reached, no fear need be felt for the result. Many, indeed, of the fancied objec- tions will be found, as might be expected, when fully examined, not only to harmonize perfectly with the proposition of this work, but still more clearly to illustrate and establish it. And the support thus derived from seeming difficulties is a very convincing sort of evidence. To quote the words of Sir John Herschel : " The surest and best characteristic of a well-founded and extensive induction is when veri- fications of it spring up, as it were, spontaneously into notice from the quarters where they might be least expected, or even among instances of that very kind which were at first considered hostile to them. Evidence of this kind is irresistible, and compels assent with a weight which scarcely any other pos- sesses." x I shall begin by a consideration of some statements which occur in the writings of Josephus. The first passage calling for remark is found in ' Ditcourte on the Study of Natural PhUotophy, p. 180. 442 PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. the preface to his history of the Jewish war, and may Ite rendered in English as follows : " I have devoted myself to the task of translating, for the sake of those who live under the government of the Romans, the narrative which I formerly composed in our national language, and transmitted to the barbarians of the interior." l The exact meaning of this passage has been disputed. A question has arisen as to the persons intended by the appellation tok dva> /8ap/3a/>ot?. But it is now generally agreed that Josephus here refers to the " mediterraneis barbaris" — that is, the Jews of Babylonia and the distant East. 2 The historian himself seems to make his meaning plain in the following section, when he declares again, that the object which he had in view in rewriting his history was that the Greeks and Romans, as well as " the Parthians, the Babylonians, the furthest Arabians, and the Jews beyond the Euphrates," 3 might have access to a true narrative of the events. And thus, as appears to me, little difficulty is left with respect to the meaning of the antithetical clause, Tot? Kara rrjv 'Pa/iatav Tjyefiovlav. Diodati restricts the meaning of these words to the Jews living under the sovereignty of Rome, — that is, the Jews of Palestine. Others, on the contrary, 1 "Ilpovifftnii iyu roil /card riiii ' Pupctiav fiylfioutxi), 'EXX«8i •/Kutat) ptrafictKuii, a rtii; &vu fietpfiapoif t>, ■sa.Tpitp avuri^et; dtiirtfitj/cc Ttpiripo; ei$r,yviir*oieti." * The writer of the art. "Gospels," in Encyc. Brit. (9th edit.), unjus- tifiably says, " It is to be presumed that he wrote in Aramaic, partly for his countrymen in Judaea." The learned writer's treatment of the whole question as to the " Language of the Original Tradition " is meagre and unsatisfactory. 3 As we formerly saw, a knowledge of Greek existed dven among these, but there can be no doubt that Aramaic was the prevailing lan- guage. In this they differed widely from their brethren in Palestine. CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS. 443 think that the words exclude all Jews, and rcfrr only to the inhabitants of Greece, and such others in the Roman Empire as were acquainted with the Greek language. In my humble judgment, both views miss the natural import of the words. Jose- phus, in composing his history in Greek, intended it for the use generally of those who lived under the government of the Romans — manifestly therefore, though not exclusively, for those of his brethren still remaining in Palestine. The same thing appears from his not enumerating the Jews of Palestine among those for whom the Hebrew edition of his narrative was designed ; and thus, in full accordance with the views maintained in this work, we are led to infer from the passage in question, that a history intended for the natives of Palestine, among others, would naturally be composed in the Greek language. There are two other passages in Josephus which are much insisted on by those who deny the prevalence of Greek in Palestine at the period in question. These are — (1) Antiq. prooem. 2, and (2) Antiq. xx. 11. 2, to both of which passages we shall now direct our earnest attention. In the first passage referred to, Josephus speaks of the weariness which had crept over him as he pursued his task of transferring an account of the history and usages of the Jews " into a form of language which was strange and foreign " ' to him and his country- men. Now, what is the meaning of these words? Many have inferred from them that Josephus meant to say that Greek, as such, was an unknown tongue to the inhabitants of Palestine. But this opinion 1 " E/f ciA*c}«T>jr qftiy ku'i Jj'my haUKTOU w*4til*t." 444 PREVALENCE OF GKEEK IN PALESTINE. is now universally abandoned. Even the stoutest opponents of my views admit that " there is no question that the Jews of our Lord's time were prac- tically bilingual," 1 and that "no fairly well-read scholar would deny that Greek was largely spoken in Palestine at the time of our Lord." 2 Josephus, then, like the rest of his countrymen, was, as a matter of course, acquainted with a kind of Greek — the Hebraic Greek spoken in his native land. He had no trouble about that — it came to him as a matter of inheritance ; and, had he been content to compose his works in the dialect with which he was thus familiar, they would have caused him none of that difficulty which he tells us he felt in writing them. But his object was very different. It was his ambition to write in the style of the classical writers, and that he found a matter most difficult of attain- ment. He had then to deal with a l-ivy koI aWoBa-n-ii StdkeKToi, just as we formerly saw was the case with Scotch authors of the last century in their attempts at writing correct and idiomatic English. To them English was substantially " a foreign tongue," as Josephus felt it to be with himself in regard to classi- cal Greek. Yet his desire was to write in the style of the best authors, and his assiduous efforts to this effect were not in vain. " Josephus," says Ernesti, " imitates, with great care and considerable success, the writers of pure Greek, especially Polybius, both in single words and in the turn of his sentences ; inter- mixing but few Hebraisms, and therein, as he himself says, departing from the custom of his fellow-coun-i 1 Dr. Sanday in The Expositor, vol. vii. p. 81. 1 Ibid. p. 81 CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS. 445 trymen." ' This, then, is the simple explanation of that passage in the Jewish historian which has proved so misleading, and which has blinded the minds of many to the clear evidence which, as we formerly saw, his writings bear to the fact that Greek was then the language of public intercourse in Palestine. I have said that there would have been nothing strange or difficult in the fact that Josephus wrote a certain kind of Greek-Hebraic or Palestinian Greek, such as meets us in the New Testament. The difficulty and strangeness consisted in his writing such Greek as that in which his works are composed. Let me, by way of illustration, refer to an analogous case among the Romans. Pliny the younger, writing to his friend Antoninus, compliments him on the truly classical air of his Greek compositions. He exclaims, " Quantum ibi humanitatis, venustatis ! Quam dul- cia ilia ! quam antiqua ; quam arguta ; quam recta ! Callimachum me, vel Heroden, vel si quid his melius, tenere credebam. . . . Hominemne Romanum tarn Greece loqui. Non me, dius fidius, ipsas Athenas tam Atticas dixerim."* Here the point that excited Pliny's admiration was not that his friend could write Greek,— that was a perfectly common accom- 1 Institutes, ii. 184. 2 Eputoke. iv. 3. Corop. Schbttgen, who, referring to Jews and Gentiles of the period in question, says, " Utrique callebant linguam Grtecam, sed tamen cum insigDi differentia. Priores earn multis Hebraismis contaminaverant." — Horce Ilebraica, i. 427. Mr. Broughton long ago justly remarked respecting the language of Josephus quoted above : "The painful attention which he represents as necessary, must have been exclusively bestowed upon his style, and his difficulty could arise only from his earnest care to weed out all Hebraisms and foreign idioms, and to present a finished model of pure Greek composition." — Eraminativn of Palaoromaica, p. 1C8. 446 PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. plishment among the Romans, — but the wonder sprang from the fact that a Roman could so express himself in Greek — that he could imitate with such skill the great models of Greek composition. And so in the case of the Jewish historian. It was nothing at all for him to speak and to write a kind of Greek. Fishermen, like St. Peter, could do that. But the difficulty was, in spite of all national hindrances, to acquire something like a correct and classical style. That was what Josephus aimed at, and what, as he tells us (for otherwise his words have no meaning), it cost him so much labour to secure. 1 The other passage in Josephus specially referred to was formerly explained, 2 but, from the importance which some have attached to it, may here receive a little further consideration. Dr. Sanday has described it as one of two passages which " alone would be sufficient to overthrow the paradox main- tained by Dr. Roberts." He says, it " should be given entire, in order that the full force of it may be appreciated." Let us then have it as he presents it, and let us see what he builds upon it. His transla- tion and argument are the following : "I am so bold as to say, now that I have completed the task set 1 I may again refer to the analogous case of Scotch writers in the last century. Drs. Beattie, Campbell, and others frequently complain, iii language very similar to that of Josephus, of -the pains which they had to take in order to avoid "the barbarisms of our native dialect " (Life of lieallie, i. 376). An amusing example is furnished by Sir Walter Scott in the Heart of Midlothian, of the dialect spoken by the magistrates of Edinburgh in 1736. The provost, in examination before the House of Lords, talked of dukes and fools instead of duels and fowls, and got into some trouble in consequence. This illustrates, to some extent, the difficulty felt by Josephus in securing accuracy v.o\ Ttv TpaQopxy in Greek. * See above, p. 77. CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS. 447 before me, that no other person, either Jew or Greek, with whatever good intentions, would have been able to set forth this history to the Greeks as accurately as I have done ; for I am acknowledged by my coun- trymen to excel them far in our national learning. I also did my best to obtain a knowledge of Greek by practising myself in the grammar, though native habit prevented me from attaining accuracy in its use. For it is not our custom to honour those who learn the languages of many nations, and adorn their discourse with smoothly turned phrases; because this is considered a common accomplishment, not only to any ordinary freeman (i\evde P o,v to?? tv X ovo-c), but also to such servants as care to acquire it; 'while those only are accounted wise who are well versed in our law, and are skilled in interpreting the meaning of our sacred books. It has thus happened that* though many have taken pains to obtain this learn- ing, only two or three have succeeded, and they were not long in being rewarded for their trouble." The statements of this passage are remarkably definite A knowledge of Greek was common enough anion- the middle and lower classes (i.e. the classes that would naturally be engaged in traffic, either with the Hellenistic Jews or with foreigners) : among the upper classes (except, we should probably have to say, the Herodian court and party) it was rare, and few spoke it correctly ; but the idea that Greek was the current language of the country, is contradicted m every line. 1 The learned writer here reaches conclusions which will probably be somewhat startling to the majority 1 The Expositor, vol. vii. 98. 4 IS PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. of readers. " A knowledge of Greek," says Dr. Sunday, "was common enough among the middle and lower classes ; . . . among the upper classes it was rare;" but Renan, Grinfield, Scluirer, nnd a host of others loudly exclaim against such a statement, and maintain the very reverse. I have, while seeking to uphold my theory, been constantly met with the objection that, though the highly educated among Jews of the period may have understood Greek, it is absurd to believe that that language was known to the humbler orders of the people. But now comes Dr Sanday with the declaration that, while "a knowledge of Greek was common enough among the middle and lower classes, among the upper classes it was rare." 1 He tells us, at the same time, that " the idea that Greek was the current language of the ,-ountry is contradicted in every line " of the passage ouotcd from Josephus. And yet, as we learn from Ids version of it, that language was accessible even to wrvants, and as being so common an attainment, was not deemed a thing for any learned Jew to pride himself upon. The truth is, that Josephus has already taught us in many parts of his writings that Greek was then in habitual use by the whole people of the Jews; and the very passage before us, instead of contradicting that conclusion, only serves to illustrate and confirm it, by the statement which . I e-ui hardly imagine that a scholar like Dr. Sanday will, on a , aThare to the above statement. A very clear and able reflect*,., adhere o t^abo ^ ^ mUnnderrtoodt T, The haTbeen -pS-d U, say that those of high rank did not r 2 Sreek WW i is, that a knowledge of foreign languages kn0W ° mn lUhment in "which they took no pride, it being one pos- rerxr fit ci ii *— . i* ™ ** *~--*- s * im - Inlrod. to A T . T. p. 188. CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS. 449 it makes, that a knowledge of that language had then extended to the very humblest members of the community. Other passages in the writings of Josephus which are frequently referred to, are those ( Wars, v. 9. 2, vi. 2. 1) in which he speaks of himself as having, by the command of Titus, addressed his besieged country men rj} varpl^ y\u>v. Diodati has tried to maintain that these expressions may be so interpreted as to imply that, on the occasions, men- tioned, Josephus spoke in Greek. But this is to do violence to the plain import of the words. They manifestly acquaint us with the fact that Josephus then made use of Hebrew. And, however fatal such an admission might be to the theory of Diodati, it is not in the least opposed to that which I have main- tained. Nothing could have been more natural in the circumstances in which the Jews were now placed, than that they should have fallen back, as much as possible, on the employment of their national lan- guage. But had not Greek formerly been generally current among them, there seems little reason why Josephus should have mentioned that he now spoke to them in Hebrew. And the very fact that he so particularly notices this, seems to indicate that another language might even yet have been employed. There were, however, urgent reasons why their national tongue should now be adopted by any one who wished to obtain a favourable hearing from them. Their state was now very different from what it had been during the comparatively peaceful period which our Lord spent upon the earth. A tremendous outburst of national fury had taken place. They were in arm3 2f 450 PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. against their Roman invaders, and we know that the greatest fanaticism then prevailed among them. There was a violent recoil from all that savoured of Gentilism, and this feeling would be sure to display itself with regard to language as in other particulars. Just as the sacrifices which used to be offered in the temple at Jerusalem for Gentile princes and peoples were discontinued during the revolutionary period, 1 so was it, to some extent, with respect to the use of the language of the Gentiles. In fact, as was formerly mentioned, we find a statement in the Mischna to the effect that the employment of Greek for certain purposes was formally prohibited during the war with Titus ; * so that we have no difficulty in understanding why, on the occasions referred to, Josephus should have made use of the Hebrew language.' 1 There is, however, one passage in the works of this writer which, if it is to be accepted in the sense which Greswell and others put upon it, appears, I confess, altogether inexplicable. I refer to the statement which Josephus makes (Cont. Ap. i. 9), when, insist- 1 Joseph. Wart, ii. 17. 2-4 ; see the comments of Schiirer, i. 801 ff. 3 Gitt. ix. 8 ; Surenhuaius, iii. 304. It should, however, be observed that some of the passages which are often quoted as interdicting the Greek language refer only to the Greek philosophy. This has been clearly brought out by the learned Selden, who cites the words of the Mischna bearing upon the subject, and translates them as follows : " qui nutriebat porcum, et eum qui filiuni suum doceret Sapientiam, (nD3n) Gnecanicam." He also quotes a statement of the Mischna to this effect : " In bello Titi, decreverunt ne quis filiuni suum Gra-ce doceret;" but adds: "quod tamen de Sapientia seu disciplinis sive Romania, veluti eorum Theologia, Philosophia ct quae hisce cognabe sunt, non de ipsa Lingua Graeca sumunt Magistri ibi." — De Synedriis, p. 788. 3 Comp. Hug, Introd. ii. § 10. CONSIDERATION OP OBJECTIONS. 45! ing on the peculiar advantages which he had enjoyed for becoming accurately acquainted with the events of the Jewish war, he declares that « bein* an eve- witness of what occurred in the Eoman °cam P he wrote it down carefully, and was the only £Z who understood~^ v ^ the reports b &* ™ deserters from the city." Josephus is tlj suZsel to affirm that, of all in the Eoman camp, he wT he ZlT^ UnderSt °° d HeW ' or who, knowing both that ]anguage and the ^^ g acting as interpreter between the Jewish deserters tTnume^ 118 - ** ** " in *»* COnt » to numerous accounts contained in his own writing which imply that there were many besides himself hn m the of Titus> who w J q "^ the common Hebrew of the country, as well as the no less common Greek.' Besides, It is cert i frot many passages that the Jews and Romans during the siege communicated directly with one another? t « S that M the °^ ***«**« of thl passage which would prove inconsistent with the views of this work, is one that cannot be main Id « contradicting the well-known facts of the Ze' Let us inquire, therefore, if a more satisfactory W of the passage cannot be obtained. JoseoL Z ■setting forth the special advantages whS ne L sessedove rot hers for being an accurate historian of the war. These" were of a twofold character. First he was an eye-witness of all that took place in he Roman camp; and, secondly, he was the only man who became acquainted with the information biou^ht J See, e.g ., Wars, iv. 1. 5, v. 13. 7, etc. ««« )V .7.4,vi.2. 10, etc. L .-,-■? PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. by the deserters from the city. Instead of translat- ing avvlvv, " understood," in the sense of compre- hending the language of the deserters,— a meaning which, as we have seen, introduces confusion and contradiction into the passage —I render it by " had intelligence of," or " knew the nature of" their com- munications. In other words, Josephus here tells us that he was the only one admitted to the confidence of Titus with respect to the reports brought by deserters from the city. This exactly harmonizes with what he elsewhere tells us {Life, § 75) as to the relations subsisting between him and Titus, and renders the passage coherent with all the other ascertained facts. Of course, whatever meaning may be assigned to the clause, it has not a feathers weight in the controversy as to the knowledge of Greek then possessed by the Jews, after what has already been proved; but it is satisfactory to be able to explain it in a manner which frees the historian from being guilty of an inexcusable contradiction.' We find nothing, then, in the works of the Jewish historian that is at all opposed to the views already established ; but a. great deal, as was formerly shown, which tends to confirm them. Ihere can be no doubt that he styles the Hebrew irdrpto, 7 Xe^, just as a native of Lystra would doubtless i That .„;, may well bear the meani ng I have gven jt» ■*£ from the follow., mjj-.j- . * ^ , J ^ r „ ; , C!) , cl , The *?*»} " C °Z « oL5 '' fa Enctjc. Brit. (Oth edit.) says that the 71 t «? o ephostnder onsideration "must be regarded 8tatC TL/r»Zt he nevertheless proceeds to base upon it the piece of bombast but he nevert P ^ ^ ^ rr^rs^H^teU « ^ - ^ .• ^ understanding and employing that language I CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS. 453 have done with respect to the language of Lycaonia. Yet, as the men of Lystra thoroughly understood Greek, and habitually employed it in public inter- course, so we have found abundant reason to believe it generally was (until the spirit of fanaticism was excited during the siege of Jerusalem) with the inhabitants of Palestine. It is next contended that there is no evidence of the Septuagint translation having ever been used in the synagogues of Judaea, as might have been expected if the Greek language prevailed in that country. This objection has been strongly pressed by many learned writers, and in a tone of triumph which seems to indicate that it is deemed unanswer- able. Nevertheless, to my mind every available source of evidence, which is worth anything, points to the conclusion that the Greek translation of the Old Testament Scriptures was then regularly used in the synagogues of Palestine. This might, indeed, simply be appended as a corollary to what has already been proved, that the Septuagint was then the Bible of Palestine. But it may still be well to notice some reasons which have been thought by many effectually to debar us from coming to any such conclusion. We are told that the Jews of Palestine despised 1 their Greek-speaking brethren, and that they care- fully shrunk from the use of any other than the Hebrew text in their synagogues ; that it was only as a matter of indulgence the Greek version was 1 See, e.g., Biscoe, On the Acts, 2nd ed. p. 83, for a statement to this effect ; and his words have been adopted by many subsequent writers, such as Milman, Hampton Lectures, p. 180 ; Alford on Acts vi. 1, and a multitude of others. 454 PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE permitted to be used by the Hellenists, and that the stricter Jews looked upon its employment as little less than a profanation ; with other statements of the same sort. One critic repeats after another such declarations as have been quoted ; while some, by attempting to combine these with what I humbly reckon the truth on the subject, render their account of the whole matter a strange mass of inconsistency and error. 1 The whole confusion and inaccuracy have arisen from too readily transferring some statements of Jewish writers, who lived centuries after the com- mencement of our era, to the days of our Lord and His apostles. Great injury has, I believe, been done to the interpretation of the New Testament by the undue importance which Vitringa, Lightfoot, and 1 Who, e.g., could form any clear and definite judgment on the question from the following sentences of the learned German critic Fritzsche 1 After observing that Josephus is principally, and Pliilo entirely, dependent on the LXX. for their quotations from the Old Testament, he adds : "Anders die palastinischen und strengern Juden. Zwar dass auch bei solchen sie in Synagogen, wenn schon nicht ohne Widerspruch, gebraucht wurde erhellt deutlich aus jer T. Megilla 10, Justinian's Nov. 140, allein es war dies nur ein nothgedrungenes Zugestiindniss. Auf ilirem Standpunkte konnten sie in der Uebers. nur Profanation, in ihrem gottesdienstlichen Gebrauche nur Gefahr fur das Judenthum erblicken ; dnzu stellten sich ja auch wichtige Differenzen vom Grundtexte heraus und bald trat der Conflict mit den Christen hinzu, vgl. Justin M., Dial. c. Tryph. 68, 71. So erscheint nach dem Sinne dieser llichtung, in der jiidischen Sage der Tag der Uebers. als ein Ungluckstag wie der, wo das goldne Kalb gemacht wurde (Tract. Sopher. 1) von welchem am 3 Tage Finsterniss iiber die Welt kam (Meg. Taquith, f. 50, c. 2). Dennoch hat die Vorstellung von ihrer In- spiration in den Talmud Eingang gefunden." — Herzog/s Real-Encyc, nrt. " Alexand. Uebers." I attach very little importance in the question under consideration to the edict of Justinian here mentioned, and of -which so much has been made. It belongs' to an age by far too late (a.d. 541) to throw any light upon the point in controversy. Comp. Zunz, Vortruge, p. 10. CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS. 455 their followers have attached to the statements of the Talmud. They have applied passages which reflect the feelings and opinions of a much later age to the epoch of our Lord and His disciples, and have thus been betrayed into some very serious errors. Many indeed of the delusions, which were once accepted on Talmudical authority, have now passed entirely away. The fable formerly noticed, as to the annual fast held by the Jews on account of the formation of the version of the LXX., has come to be rated at its proper value. And many eminent scholars are now very far from joining in the opinion that the Jews of Palestine despised or condemned the use of the Greek language. Zunz, resting on the best and earliest Eabbinical authorities, declares, on the contrary, that they held Greek in the highest esteem. 1 In this opinion he is joined by the learned Jewish writer Frankel, who affirms that even in the Talmud itself the Septuagint is habitually referred to in terms of the greatest respect.* There are indeed some passages of comparatively late date to be met with, which speak with contempt and bitterness of the Greek language and literature. But these are in clear opposition to other statements of the Rabbinical writers." We find, in fact, as is noticed by Fritzsche, in the passage just quoted below, that they even 1 " Die Sprache von Hellas war selbst in das aramiiische und hc- braische eingedrungen, und stand bei den jiidischen Weisen Palastina's in hohem Ansehen." — Vurtriige, etc, p. 10. a " In Talmud selbat wird, wie § 4 erwahnt, der Septuaginta nur ehrenvoll gedacht." — Frankel'a Vorttudien zu der Septuaginta, p. 61. We need not dispute with this writer whether or not the ancient Jews ever esteemed the version of the LXX. as canonical. 8 The inconsistency observable on this point in the statements of the Talmudists was pointed out by Paulus in a work (which I know 456 PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS. 457 attributed divine inspiration to the Greek version of the Old Testament ; J and this fact of itself seems to suggest that, instead of being undervalued, it was rather over-estimated, and might accordingly have been employed for the most sacred purposes. But, in truth, I do not attach much importance to the statements made by even the most trustworthy of these Jewish writers. In my humble judgment, they have been greatly overrated as authorities on many points of New Testament criticism. Lightfoot himself bears witness to the teeming absurdities of their writings (nugis scatent); and the least acquaintance with them is sufficient to verify the statement; 2 so that they must be used with great caution, merely as illustrative of the Judaic usages referred to in the New Testament ; 3 and as indepen- only from a French review of it in Millin's Ma : ;a»in Encyclop4dique, 1805) entitled, "Verosirailia de Judseis Palaestin-nsibus, Jesu atque etiara Anostolis non Aramsea dialecto sola, sed Graca quoque Aramai- zante locutis," Jense 1803. The reviewer says (p. 131), " Notre auteur discute assez longuement cea autoritcs ; il fait voir que ces prohibitions ont pour objet la philosophie des Grecs, et non leur langue, et oppose a ces passages d'autres citations des Talmuds, qui semblei>t,au contrairc prouver l'usage de la langue Grecque parmi les Jurfs de la Palestine, et lcgitimito reconnue de l'ctude de cette langue." Comp. Meuschen, Jfov. Test, ex Talmude Mwtratum, pp. 9, 10. » Bishop Walton well remarks with regard to the different estimates of the LXX. formed by the earlier and later Kabbis : "Licet ante Ohristi tempora earn magni sestimabant, posteriores, qui Gentium ad fidem conversioni invidebant, omnibus modis depnmere conati sunt. —Prolcg. ix. $ 16. , , a The English reader may consult Polano's Selections from, the Talmud, and he will find in that work quite enough to justify the language of Dr. Lightfoot. „ t j.-« » Winer well remarks, It. W.B., art « Synagogen » : « Ueberhaupt darf nicht Alles. was in der Gemara nnd bei Kabbin. von Synag. bericl.tct wird. auf die im Zeitalter Jesu gewOhnlichen Ubergetragen werden. Comp Ernesti (Institute*, ii. 308) on the exaggerated importance which has been attached by Vitringa to the later Jewish writings. i dent sources of information with respect to the state of matters existing in our Saviour's day, they can hardly be regarded as possessed of any authority whatever. The fact is, that in this special question respect- ing the use which was made of the Septuagint by the Jews of Palestine in our Lord's time, as in other similar inquiries, our only certain information is to be derived from the New Testament itself. And, when we look into it with an unprejudiced eye, there seems little possibility of hesitation as to the conclusion to be formed. We see our Lord entering the synagogue at Nazareth and having a book put into His hands, from which He reads in the hearing of the people. In what language, then, was that book composed ? This question, if it can be answered, is decisive of the point under discussion. Nor does there seem much difficulty in answering it. We. know, beyond all dis- pute, that the ancient Hebrew could not have been the language of the book ; for, as was formerly shown, that was then altogether unintelligible to the people. The ground is narrowed, then, to the old question between the Septuagint translation, which was cer- tainly then in existence, and a written Chaldee paraphrase which is summoned into being for the occasion. One should imagine that if there is any- thing required to decide between these competing claims, enough is found in the fact previously noticed, that no proof can be brought from the New Testament that even an oral Chaldee paraphrase was then usually given in the synagogues of Palestine, and that the passage in question is preserved by the evangelist in almost the exact words of the LXX. 458 PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS. 450 version. Is more needed to prove the groundlessness of the objection which has been mentioned ? The existence of the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan has also been appealed to as an objection against the prevalence of the Greek language in Palestine. But nothing whatever can be founded on these ancient Jewish paraphrases of parts of the Old Testament. Much doubt rests upon the time at which they were composed, but they are generally placed about the second century after Christ. Some have assigned them an earlier, and others a much later origin ; but it is at all events certain that neither the one nor the other existed before the first century of our era. They are entirely ignored both by Josephus and the writers of the New Testament, to whom may be added the ancient Fathers of the Church, even Origen and Jerome, who were acquainted with the Hebrew language. The Targums are written in Chaldee, the language of Onkelos being very pure, while that of Jonathan is more corrupt. Now Clialdee was certainly not a familiar language to the Jewish people in the time of Christ. Some of the most eminent Oriental scholars, both at home and abroad, are agreed on this point, although it is common enough to find vague statements in the works of popular writers, to the effect that Chaldee was then the prevailing language of Palestine. A learned German writer has brought out very clearly the fact that the language neither of Onkelos nor Jonathan represents the vulgar tongue of the inhabitants of Palestine in the times of Christ and His apostles. 1 ' " Die Sprache der Paraphrasen, die nicht die Volkssprache der ge- wohulichen Juden reprasentirt, iat aramaisch, wie es auch ausscrhalb In this opinion he is followed by M. Kenan, 1 and was, indeed, long before anticipated by our own Lightfoot, as will be plain from the following sen- tences from the writings of that illustrious Hebrew and Rabbinical scholar. Having stated " that Jonathan the son of Uzziel, a scholar of Hillel, about the time of Christ's birth, rendered all the Prophets into the Chaldee language," and given some reasons why this translation was not made into Syriac, he adds : " None knew the (ancient) Hebrew but such as learned it by study. However, therefore, all the Jews inhabiting the land of Canaan did not so readily understand the Chaldee language as the Syriac, which was their mother-language, yet they much more readily understood that than the Hebrew, which to the unlearned was not known at all. Hence it was not without necessity that the Prophets were turned into the Chaldee language by Jonathan, and the Law not much after by Onkelos, that they might a little be understood by the common people, by whom the Hebrew original was not known at all." 2 Babylonien zu finden war. Die gewbhnliche jiid. Sprache war weder in Babylonien noch in Palastina, die rein-aramaische, sondem in Palas- tina die palastinisch-aramaisch-hebraische und in Babylonien die babylonisch-aramaisch-hebraische (in welchen beiden die Talmuden geschrieben sind) und liberhaupt ist kein babylonischer, von dem syrischen verschiedener Dialect fiir jene Zeit erwiesen." — Fiirst's Lehrgebilude der aramHischen Idiome, p. 5. 1 " On admettait gcndralement jusqu'ici que la langue des Targums representait a pen pres la langue vulgaire de la Palestine & l'dpoque du Christ. M. Fiirst a 6\ev6 contre ce sentiment d'assez graves difficult^. En effet, la paraphrase d'Onkelos est le plus pur monument que nous ayons de la langue arameenne ; or il est difficile de croire que le peuple de la Palestine parlat un idiome aussi degage' d'Hdbrai'smes." — Kenan, Hist, des Lang. Sem. p. 220 ; comp. pp. 226-7. s Lightfoot's Horce Hebraicce, ii. p. 20, Gandell's edit., Oxford 1859. It will be observed that Lightfoot speaks in this passage of 460 PREVALENCE OF GTtEEK IN PALESTINE. CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS. 461 Moreover, it is almost certain that these Targums are of Babylonian, and not Palestinian origin. Some, indeed, have endeavoured to maintain the contrary, but, so far as I can judge, without success. 1 The general ojrinion of scholars is that they were com- posed in Babylonia some time after the destruction of Jerusalem. For my own part, I should date their origin in one of the generations immediately succeeding that event, both on account of internal evidence, and because we know that Babylon then became more than ever the headquarters of the Judseo - Chaldaean language and literature. 2 . On Syriac as having been the popular language of Palestine in the time of Christ. His authority on all points of Hebrew learning stands deservedly high, and has been greatly deferred to by biblical critics in this country, but they have completely departed from his views respect- ing this matter. Instead of saying with him that Chaldee was but " a little understood" by the Jews of our Saviour's day, they "have even identified that language with the Hebrew referred to in the New Testa- ment as made use of by the inhabitants of Jerusalem. (See, e.g., Cunyb. and Howson, vol. i. 38 ; Alford on Matt, xxvii. 46, and many others.) Yet, -while we are told by these writers on one page that Chaldee was the " Hebrew " of the Testament, we read on another page that Syro-Chaldaic constituted the language in question. (Comp. Conyb. and Howson, vol. i. 3 ; and Alford on Acts xxi. 40.) The truth seems to be, that neither the eastern branch of the Aramaic language (Chaldee), nor the western branch (Syriac), but a mixture of both tliete dialects with the ancient Hebrew, formed the popular " Hebrew " of our Lord's time ; and that, therefore, no translations of the Old Testament, either in Chaldee or Syriac, would have been more than, as Lightfoot remarks respecting versions in the former language, "a little under- stood " among the people. Some have maintained that the Syriac and Chaldee languages were all but identical. See, e.g., Abhandlung ron der tyrischen Sprache, by J. D. Michaelis, p. 52 ; but comp. with the above remarks, Reuss, Gueh. der heil. Sch. N. T. § 40. 1 Winer lias sought to controvert the prevailing opinion on this point in his work, De Onttloto ejwjiu I'araphrati Chaklaica, § 1, Lips. 1820. * "Apres la destruction de Jerusalem, Babylon devint plus que jamais le centre du Judai'sme, et le Chaldden continua d'etre la langue vulgaire des Juifs disperses dans tout l'Orient."— Kenan, Histoire dti Langue) Se'mitiques, p. 225. account, therefore, of their probable date— first or second century after Christ,— of the region in which they were produced— Babylonia, of the language in which they were written— Chaldee, and of the people for whose use they were primarily designed— Jews of Mesopotamia, their existence scarcely appears to have any bearing whatever on the question we have been considering as to the dominant language of Palestine in the days of our Lord and His apostles. Advancing now to a consideration of the objections derived from the New Testament itself, I shall notice, in the first place, thpse Aramaic words and phrases which occasionally present themselves, and on the occurrence of which not a little is often based. In fact, the few Hebrew words which are found in our Lord's discourses have been frequently referred to as decisive of the whole question at issue. The fallacy involved in such a mode of argument was formerly pointed out. It was remarked that nothing could be more natural than that such terms should from time to time occur, if the relation of the two languages were such as is here supposed. It was also shown how difficult it is to account for the retention of these few words in their original form, on the hypothesis that the language employed by our Lord and His disciples has, for the most part, been translated. Thus far, in reference to the objection generally considered. Instead of proving hostile to our views, it tends rather to support them; and instead of aiding opponents, it serves only to embarrass and confute them. 4G2 PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. But there is one such Aramaic term which demands special notice, as it is particularly relied on by those who uphold the prevalence of Hebrew. I refer to the word Aceldama, which occurs in the narrative con- tained in the first chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. "We read (vers. 15-22), "And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said (the number of the names together were about an hundred and twenty), Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost, by the mouth of David, spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity ; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem ; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue Aceldama, that is to say, the field of blood. For it is written in the Book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein : and his bishopric let another take. Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John unto that same day that He was taken up from us, must one be ordained to 1)0 a witness with us of His resurrection." ' Now, it is argued that in this passage " a peculiar dialect or tongue is said to characterize Jerusalem, 1 I have quoted this passage in full because it is important, as will immediately appear, that the reader should have the disputed verses lmfore hiiu, with the connection in which they occur. The Authorized English Version has been used as sufficiently accurate for our present purpose. CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS. 4G3 and consequently the country of which it was the capital. The term which Luke adduces from this dialect is Aramaean, showing the prevalent language." 1 But there is more to be said on this passage than most of those who build such an argument upon it seem to imagine. It is necessary to inquire first of all, whose are the words in the 19th verse to which so much importance is attached. Those who argue from them as to the prevalence of Hebrew in Pales- tine, maintain, as a matter of course, that they are an interpolation of St. Luke's, in the speech of the apostle here reported. This is perhaps a possible, I'Ut will, I think, be admitted by every reader to be a somewhat unnatural view .to take of them Peter is formally introduced as speaking, and we naturally conceive that all included within the limits of the speech was really uttered by the apostle. It seems a very awkward supposition, and one quite at variance with the orderly character of Luke's narration, that without a hint to that effect, he should break the thread of the apostle's address by some explanatory statements of his own. Moreover, the whole style and connection of the passage are against the idea of such interpolation. The compound connective par- ticle & ol„ in ver. 18 clearly forbids such a suppo- sition with respect to that verse. 2 And if not ver 18 neither can ver. 19 be regarded as a note inserted by the historian; for, as must be evident to every one, 1 Davidson's Introd. to the New Test. i. 40. * "This verse cannot be regarded as inserted by Luke ■ for (1) «... 464 PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. the two verses are inseparably connected together. This is admitted by most modern critics ; and indeed, but for the prepossessions which exist respecting the language of Palestine at the time, it seems scarcely credible that, in opposition to the whole tenor of the narrative, any one would ever have thought of dis- covering a comment of St. Luke's in the very heart of a speech purporting to have been delivered by St. Peter. 1 Assuming, then, as everything warrants us in doing, that the disputed verse, or verses, formed part of the address of the apostle, 2 let us see how, in this point of view, the statements made bear upon the question of language in Palestine : " It became known," says Peter, " to all the dwellers in Jerusalem, so that the field is called in their proper tongue Aceldama, that is to say, the field of blood." We cannot hear these words falling from the lips of the apostle without immediately drawing some inferences from them, which, instead of being adverse, are emi- 1 One of the moat unjustifiable things in the Revised English Ver- sion of the New Testament is the enclosing within brackets of vers. 18, 19. I took every opportunity offered of protesting against this, and was patiently listened to, in accordance with the habitual courtesy shown by the company. But I well remember that on the last occa- sion on which the point was discussed, one of the leading members urged the necessity of regarding the verses as a parenthesis, since, if that were not done, it would follow that St. Peter was at the time speaking in Greek ! 2 Dr. Lange, while far from seeing or acknowledging the inference* which, as above shown, follow from this admission, remarks : " Olshau- sen maintains that vers. 18 and 19 are to be considered as a historical addition by Luke, so that ver. 20 must have immediately followed ver. 17 in Peter's address. But the necessary explanations would then be wanting, for the address in ver. 20, without taking into account that the tin fknpoiiiHti would then have to be referred to the fall of Judas himself, and not to his lot."— Lange's Life of Christ, Eng. ed. v. 156. CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS. 4G5 iZto mS t0 .° Ur P r °P° sition - They clearly t:i } T tt St - Peter was at the time 9*«*4 n Greek. The contrast which he suggests between e 16 c lls^r WhiCh ^ ^ then em ^' «* -" he calk, the proper or peculiar tongue of the inhala- nts of Jerusalem, manifestly proves that tins was the refened to an Anunnic dialect prevailing at Jerusa- lem, as distinct from that of Galilee. But sever-,1 reasons combine to show that this opinion is incorrec't Ihe compound term Aceldama which he quoted is ••oinpoBed of two common Aramaic words L fen) Tntt- '"If V" ' ,een e ^ U y Wel1 k»»™ to all speakmg the language. And considering the mere ortTtl ™ iati ° h WM » Relieved to Zl termed the chief dwtinetion between the dialect of the capital and that of the provinces, it seen s im possible to imagine that, had Peter alluded Tlyt he apostle directed the thoughts of his heai," wl t ' efernng to the natives of Jerusalem, he spok of the, proper tongue ; " and this • ^ ^ * ^ at the fame speahnr, m the Greek language. A^ain ltr~ {) fr ° m thiS PaSSagG that Gr ^ as we i ; Hebrew was commonly employed in Jerusalem 11ns appears from the fact just noticed, that Pet" was at the time speaking in Greek within the holy «ty and mall probability had among his hundred a c I tw enty hearers some who were native o he Place Ihe same thing may be inferred from 1 4GG PREVALENCE OF OREEK IN PALESTINE. tongue, in referring to the inhabitants of Jerusalem ; for had they not been in the habit of making use of (mother language, such an epithet, or ;iny epithet at all, would have been wholly unnecessary. And it seems also to be implied in this passage — (3) that Aramaic was far more prevalent in Jerusalem than in other parts of Palestine. It might be known and used to some extent throughout the whole land, but in such a district as Galilee, Greek was far more commonly employed for all purposes. Hence we explain the fact that St. Peter, speaking for himself and his Galilean colleagues, denominates the Aramaic in reference to -the dwellers in Jerusalem their proper tongue, instead of saying our, as he would naturally have done had Hebrew in any form been the common language of Galilee. It thus appears that, so far from suffering any damage, our proposition rather derives additional support from a careful consideration of this passage. As was to be expected, the narrative, naturally in- terpreted, fits in with and confirms what we have already seen abundant reason to regard as truth in the question under discussion. 1 And the same thing will be found to hold good in respect to some of the 1 I may ipote the following sentences from Dean Alfonl (in loc.) to «how the difficulty in which he is involved by this passage. He any* mi ver. 19 : " It is principally from this verse that it has been inferred that the two verses, 18, 19, are inserted by Luke. But it is impossible to separate it from ver. 18 ; and I am disposed to regard both as belonging to Peter's speech, but freely Gracized by Luke, inserting into the speech itself the explanations tij thief ?>i*h. uvr. and Tovrinrir x- u'iu., as if the speech had been spoken in Greek originally. This is much more natural than to parenthesize these clauses." Whether it ]xi not more natural still to believe the speech to have been really spoken as the record of it seems to indicate, I leave to the judgment ' of the reader. CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS. 4 G 7 uig ote on the passage as it stands in the orhn lvl] ■ By Hebrew, the author no doubt means that w ' «t«rieut Hebrew as well • aid f 1 T 1 Undewtoo 'l I'im in the hnauZnf T * W S P° ke,J *' addressed him in tW l '^emy that He had -«^:cax f 1 ,,is w - the country had l,«a uJ ,„,, « g "" g0 "'' Pfannknche, and most other write,, holding h is vlW , 468 PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. seems to follow that Paul on this occasion was ad- dressed in ancient Hebrew." We arc obliged to the translator on this and several other occasions for pointing out to us the weakness of his author's posi- tion • but it is not difficult here to expose the equal weakness of his own. It is quite true, as he remarks, that Paul would never have thought of particularly noticing the fact that Christ addressed him in Hebrew had that been the ordinary language of public inter- course in the country ; but to attempt to escape from this difficulty by supposing that the Saviour then spoke in ancient instead of modern Hebrew, is just to exchange one improbability for another. The expression' employed in the original is 'Eftwffi* Bva- \iKT Edinburgh Rtvietr, July 1805, p. 105. CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS. 473 aware of this fact, and, in consequence, hastily in- ferred that, as Aramaic had, for his own purposes, been made use of by this Egyptian Jew, he knew no other language. When, therefore, Paul addressed him in Greek, the chief captain concluded that he could not be the notorious Egyptian, who was known to have used Aramaic. Such is the explanation I suggest ; but whether regarded as satisfactory or not, the passage has little or no bearing on the language then prevalent in Palestine. 1 Again, it is objected that we read (Matt. xxvi. 73 ; Mark xiv. 70) that Peter was discovered to be a native of Galilee by the dialect which he employed, and must therefore have been speaking in Hebrew. Granting that this was the case, it proves nothing against the proposition of this work. It is, on the contrary, in the closest accordance with the view which has been exhibited of the relation subsisting between the two languages. It was exactly in such circumstances as those referred to that we would expect the vulgar tongue of the country to be em- ployed ; and it is surely nothing strange that the dialect of it which Peter was accustomed at times to speak in Galilee, should now be stated to have been found different from that generally prevalent in Jerusalem.' 1 Prof. Neubauert question flies wide of the mark when he iisks, "Why should the chief captain wonder that St. Paul could speak Greek, if the Jews were generally known to be familiar with it 1 " Studia Biblicu, p. 54. The obvious answer is, that Lysias did not yet know that St. Paul was a Jew. 2 Lightfoot and others have given several examples from the Rab- binical writers of the difference which existed between the dialects of Jerusalem and Galilee. I may mention, while resting in the explana- tion given above, that some have questioned whether it was a Hebrew 474 PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. It is not needful, after what was formerly said, to do more than notice the objection brought forward by some, to the effect that " it is scarcely credible that the poor woman who came out of the coasts of Tyre and Sidon could have uttered her cries and lamentations in Greek. She spoke the native language of her country. It was Syro-Phenician, or Syro- Clialdiiic, and the same mixed language, with some variety of dialect, prevailed at that time over Judea, Samaria, and Galilee. There seems the highest pro- bability that most of our Saviour's conversation with the scribes and Pharisees, and that all His addresses to the common people, were spoken in this vernacular tongue. But when it was subsequently ordered that the New Testament should be composed in Hellenistic. Greek, they were enabled by that divine power which we term Inspiration, to convert this provincial and transient dialect into its present fixed and enduring form." 1 In answer to the statements contained in this passage, I merely refer to what has been proved above. Few, I conceive, will be dialect at all which was spoken on the occasion in question. On this point Binterim (with much truth, as ap]>eai-s to me, in regard to the little value which he attaches to Rabbinical statements) observes : " Sed quod maximum nostra indagationis eat negotiuni, cujus originis li.i'C erat Galilueorum locutio ; Chaldaicie, an Syriacie, an Grmcft, an Latime 1 Hoc ultimum nemini in mentem venit. Et si Talmudicix uredamus, lis est decisa, earn fuisse Chaldaicte originis: hos sequuntur nounulli ex Christianis. At Rabbinoruin ineptias dudiim detexemnt nasuti critici, nosque docuerunt, nullius esse ponderis Talmudicorum asserta, et posterioris ictatis. . . . Probabilius milii videtur earn Green- fuisse originis." l)e Lingua, etc. p. 167. Mr. S. G. Green, in his excellent Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek Testament, expressly maintains that " the dialect of Galilee (Matt. xxvi. 73) was not n corrupt Hebrew, but a provincial Greek," p. lf>6. After what 1mm been already proved, this view seems to me highly probable. 1 Griniield, Apology, p. 12. CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS. 47.1 inclined to attribute the Greek of the New Testament to inspiration, if it can be accounted for on natural grounds ; and equally few, I trust, will find any difficulty in believing that a woman of Tyre and Sidon, who is expressly styled by St. Mark 'E\\ vv h, addressed her petition to Christ through the medium of the Greek lancuao-e. o o The only remaining objection, or quasi-objection, which I have met with, is derived, strangely enough, from the languages in which the accusation placed over the cross of our Lord was written. Some have argued that Hebrew was employed, because that was the only language known to the inhabitants of the place, while Greek was used merely for the sake of those Gentiles or foreign Jews who were then present in Jerusalem. Hardouin, again, imagines that he finds in the statement that Latin was used, support for his peculiar views as to the then prevailing lan- guage of Jerusalem. But such arguments have no real foundation. The statement made (Luke xxiii. 38) that the superscription over the Redeemer's cross " was written in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew," « does, in fact, form an excellent illustra- tion of the views set forth in this work, as to the relation then subsisting between the languages of Palestine. There was, first of all, the Greek, Smost universally understood and employed, especially for all literary purposes, and on all public occasions. There was, next, the Hebrew or Aramaic, commonly made use of in familiar intercourse by the natives » Casaubon argues that St. Luke preserves the real order in whirl,, the three languages were employed, the Greek holding the first place ns might be expected. Exeix-it. xvi. ad Iiaron. A mini ,, rm ' 47G PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS. 477 of the country, but the employment of which was scarcely a matter of absolute necessity to any. And there was, last of all, the Latin, a tongue scarcely ever heard among the Jewish inhabitants, but employed by their Roman rulers, as being the imperial language, for all official purposes. 1 It has been proved then, 1 believe, beyond the reach of all reasonable objection, and from the unde- niable: facts of the New Testament history, that Greek, and not Hebrew, was the common language of public intercourse in Palestine in the days of Christ and His apostles. And if this has been done, we may be allowed to express some gratification at the thought, that in our existing Greek Gospels we possess, for the most part, the very words of Him to whom the illustrious testimony was borne, " Never man spake like this man." He spoke in Greek, and His disciples did the same while they reported what He said. Their inspiration consisted not, as has been thought, in being enabled to give perfect translations, either of discourses delivered, or of documents written in the Hebrew language, but in being led, under divine guidance, to transfer to paper, for the benefit of all rominji; ages, those tvords of the Great Teacher which 1 Although three languages were employed on this occasion, it seems to me evident that, for all practical purposes, Greek alone would havo been quite sufficient. Many similar cases might be quoted. Thus, we are told that when the youthful son of James II. was acknowledged by Louis XIV. as the heir of the crown of England, this was done " in Latin, French, and English."— Macaulay's History of England, vol. v. 2!I4. On this occasion, French alone would probably have served every practical purpose, but, as in the case of the inscription placed upon the cross, there were formal reasons why the three languages should be used. they had heard from His own lips in the Greek tongue ; which had in that form been imprinted on their affectionate memories ; and which were by them, in the same language, unerringly committed to writing, while they literally experienced a fulfilment of the gracious promise, — " The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever i have said unto you." CHATTER XVI. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IX PALESTINE. — APPLICATIONS AND RESULTS. In this chapter I propose briefly to review the con- clusions which have been reached in the preceding pages, and consider them in some of their practical applications and results. I do so, of course, without the remotest design or desire to influence the reader in judging of the validity of those positions which 1 have sought to establish. These must be accepted or rejected according to the evidence and arguments already adduced in their behalf. And if I did not believe them possessed of the authority of truth, no apparent advantages resulting from their acceptance could persuade me to adopt them. But as I am persuaded, rightly or wrongly, that they have been established on grounds of argument which cannot be invalidated, I trust I may be permitted, without being suspected of any wish to tamper with the critical judgment of the reader, to indicate some of those important practical issues which appear to be connected with them. This procedure will not, I hope, be deemed other than a natural and fitting termination to the investigations in which we have been engaged. APPLICATIONS AND RESULTS. 479 The first point which 1 claim to have established is that our Lord and His apostles habitually made use of the Greek language. I must repeat that it is not enough to say, in face of the evidence set forth in the preceding pages, that Christ sometimes, or even frequently, spoke in Creek. The conclusion which I claim to have made good amounts to this, that throughout the whole of His public ministry, in Jerusalem as well as Galilee, on the public highway when addressing the individuals around Him, whether these were poor and ignorant lepers (Matt. viii. 3, etc.) or rich and educated rulers (Luke xviii. 19, etc.), no less than when proclaiming, as from the Mount of Beatitudes (Matt, v., etc.), the word of salvation to assembled thousands: in the house, of Martha at Bethany (Luke x. 38, etc.), when dis- coursing probably to a simple rural audience, as well as in the city, when He spoke so effectively (John vii. 46, etc.) to the crowds that gathered round Him, — our blessed Lord continually made use of the Greek language. Now, if this conclusion has been established, it appears to me, as I believe it will appear to most readers, a point of the very highest interest and importance. Some writers, indeed, have spoken of the question as to the language usually employed by our Saviour, as if it were not only destitute of practical importance, but of general interest, and could attract attention only as a matter of fruitless historical curiosity or dry antiquarian research. But few, I am convinced, will be disposed to view the question in this light. To me at least, it seems in itself, and independent of all practical purposes, a 480 PREVALENCE OF GltEEK IN PALESTINE m APPLICATIONS AND RESULTS. 481 most interesting subject of investigation. To ascer- tain the language which the Son of God spoke when He dwelt upon the earth— to fiud out, it may be, that in our existing Gospels we have the very words which He employed, and can reproduce to ourselves the tones in which He uttered them—this appears to me a matter interesting to far more than the anti- quary, and to appeal to the heart of every earnest lovincr Christian. Who would not feel a new interest in the beautiful words, " Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest," or the sublime words, " I am the resurrection and' the life ; he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live," if he ascertained beyond a doubt that these words, as they stand in our Greek Testaments, were the very words which proceeded out of the Saviour's mouth ? It may be ridiculed by some as a sentimental weakness; but, for my own part, I am not ashamed to confess that when I read the Gospels, and reflect that in these the ipsisdma verba of the divine man have been recorded the book is invested with a new interest ; and I am able more vividly to feel as if introduced within the very circle of the Saviour's hearers, who, it is said, " all bare Him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of His mouth." ° But, in truth, everything associated with our blessed Lord rises far above any merely sentimental or antiquarian interest. Whence, for instance, that attraction which the land of Palestine has possessed for Christians in every century of our era ? Why is it that those crowds of pilgrims and travellers have flocked to it ? And how comes it to pass that then- tale, though a thousand times repeated, still finds eager and listening ears ? Is it from the antiquarian curiosity which prevails with respect to the ruins of that country ? Is it any motive of that kind which leads the temporary sojourner in that land to peer so anxiously into Jacob's Well, or to gaze so intently on the Mount of Olives ? Nay ; it is because the land is so closely associated in the minds of all Christians with Him they love. It is on that account that the tourist observes with so much earnestness, and the reader listens to his tale with so great avidity. It is because He once trode them that even the narrow repulsive streets of Jerusalem have, an interest which none else on earth can equal : it is because He once dwelt there that the unpretending Nazareth has power to stir so deeply the hearts of its many visitors. And if even the soil on which He trod, and the localities with which he was connected ' — things utterly extraneous to Himself — can thus attract and affect the Christian, shall it be said that the question respecting the language which He used — the words which He uttered — the medium He employed for laying bare to us His heart, for making us acquainted with His truest self — is one of mere antiquarian interest ? Surely such is a very low and unworthy view to take of it ; and although no utili- tarian purpose whatever be served by the inquiry, it is still one which may well stimulate to diligence in its prosecution, and which will be felt amply to reward pains and industry in its settlement. It has accordingly been generally felt, that to become even approximately acquainted with the ipsissima verba which lingered on the lips of our 482 PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. divine Redeemer, is to reach a source of great and hallowed satisfaction. This has given a charm to the study of the Syriac and Chaldee languages which it would not otherwise have possessed. The belief has prevailed, that in a dialect kindred to, and almost identical with, these languages, our Saviour's inter- course with others was conducted. A peculiar fasci- nation has thus been imparted to the form of speech which it is believed the Son of God ennobled by His employment of it upon earth. " The Palestinian Syriac," it has been said, "is a language pre-emi- nently interesting to the Christian. It was sanctified by the lips of the divine Redeemer. In those forms of speech He conversed with the virgin mother, instructed His disciples, and proclaimed to myriads the promises of eternal life." ' To the same effect Widmanstadt, the first who published the Syrmc New Testament in Europe, describes in his preface the Syriac as " hanc linguam Redemptoris nostri ortu, cducatione, doctrina, miraculis, corporis et sanguinis sui confectione Eucharistica, ac patris etiam seterni voce bis ccelo ad eum emissa, consecratum." And, to quote only one other example, the learned Walton says of the Aramaic language, as supposed to have been continually employed by Christ : " Hanc sacro ore consecravit, in hac doctrinam Evangelicam tradi- dit, in hac preces ad Patrem obtulit, mysteria mundo abscondita aperuit, Patrisque de ccelo vocem audivit ita ut dicere possimus — ' Lingua hominum est lingua nobilitata Dei ; ' et ut quidam cecinit de Syro Lexicographo, ' Nos docet hie unus Numinis ore loqui.' " a 1 Etheridge'a Horn Aramaica, p. 9. * Prolegomena, xiii. p. 631. APPLICATIONS AND RESULTS. 483 Now, if I have 8Ucceeded in the , t^7:Y\ the inte r which h - tii™ n" ua l TH, /" aC T % bel0 ^ S to the <*** •mguage That finest of tongues had the peculiar honour of eing selected and employed by ^t ot God. Ihe Creator availed Himself of the best vehicle which the genius of man has ever devise f* the conveyance of thought, when He Himself i human form held communication with ffii Tcreltm" world ', ^ ^"^ graCi0Usl ? «™ to ieveal ,1 a n r °; der *?' ** **&* ***** a *™ -d reveal a religion destined to bless all nations He S? the H ? ^ r T iCte(I ° r *»*«* ^ wond! /i 6W ' ^ thG meilium of ^osing°thJ wonders of His grace, but, adopting the world's SSTr"/ t0 , T gg6St that for the ^M«C He both lived and died, it was the tongue of GreeS ^o which, from His infancy, He was acfustomed, a c which He almost invariably used in the course of Hi, public ministry. If this be admitted to have been the case few I ofTch W a U feiI 1 t °- PerCeiVe thC eXC6ed ^ ^ of such a conclusion. In addition to all the iterary glories which have gathered round the language of Greece its crowning glory cannot but e T t0 f h * ; n J* ^ving been employed by And L , ;\ WhlIe HC Clwdt U P - "he car/ And, instead of having to study a comparatively poor and unattractive language like the fe i" order to have the sanction of becomW acquainted with something like the express employed by our Redeemer, we have onlyCTn our Greek New Testament to find still ^JZ 484 PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. to us, in living reality, the very words which issued from His lips. 1 But let us now glance at the practical importance of that conclusion which I have sought to establish as to the language generally employed by Christ. There are several respects in which this may be shown, before adverting to the two most important of all, already indicated in connection with the questions concerning the original language of St. Matthew's Gospel, and the origin of the Gospels. We may, for instance, sometimes derive no small advantage in reading the Gospels from noting the delicate shades of meaning which are suggested in the discourses which they contain, by the employment of different Greek words or tenses. Strangely enough, and some- what inconsistently, as was before hinted, this has been observed and dwelt upon by several writers, who, after all, believe that our Lord and His disciples habitually made use of Aramaic. Thus, Abp. Trench remarks on Martha's words addressed to our Lord (John xi. 22), " But I know that even now, what- soever Thou wilt ask of God, God will give it Thee," » She uses the Word ahelv (o I may be allowed to say in a note that I have in my possession a letter from the late eminent Isaac Taylor, in which he states that, after considering my argument as formerly presented, and being convinced by it, he felt,. on reading the Greek Gospels a sense of nearness to Christ, which he had never possessed while these Gos,>eU were regarded as a translation. And in one of many kind letter* which the late Lord Lytton wrote to me on the subject, he says : Jo my mind, our reverence for the Gospels, and even the resect with which a Deist of 6ne understanding would view them, are increase, bv all that tends to render it probable that we are not reading that mraphrase which words rendered into another language from that ... which they were spoken could scarcely fail to be, but viewing th. mind that spoke in the language it employed. ' APPLICATIONS AND RESULTS. 485 never used by our Lord to express His own asking of the Father, but always eptoTav — for there is a certain familiarity, nay, authority, in His askings, which this word expresses, but that would not." l Now there is, I believe, great propriety and force in this observation, provided it be admitted that both our Lord and Martha spoke in Greek, and actually used these very expres- sions ; but if it be supposed, as is generally done, that Aramaic was the language which He and His disciples employed, it is difficult to see on what the learned writer's remarks can rest. It will scarcely be main- tained by any, that precisely equivalent expressions to alria and ipotraw were used in the Aramaic tongue, and that the Holy Spirit led to the choice of these Greek words in order exactly to represent the original expressions. It is hardly possible that the .fine dis- tinction noted by the Archbishop as existing between the two Greek verbs should be found in precisely the same degree in any other language. The distinction is utterly lost in English, although we have many words nearly synonymous with " ask ; " and in like manner, although there certainly were several terms in use in the Aramaic to express the idea of asking, it cannot be affirmed that any two of them were capable of representing the exact shades of meaning which have been pointed out as distinguishing the two Greek expressions. 2 So also with regard to the 1 Trench, Jfirachi, p. 401. 8 It is true that a different verb is used in the Peschito to translate atria, in the verse here referred to, from what is employed to represent ipuraa as used by our Lord in chap. xiv. 16, xvii. 9, etc. But at chap. xvi. 23, iu which verse a clear distinction seems to be suggested by the use of the two different words in the Greek, we find the same Syrinc verb ^(-* employed to translate both iparwrt and uhitim. 486 PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. distinction which the same writer notes between ayairSt and iX3> (John xi. 3, 5, xxi. 15-17). 1 We can easily see such a propriety as Dr. Trench points out in the change of terms which occurs in these passages, pro- vided it be granted that our Lord and His disciples actually made use of the words in question ; but if we suppose them to have spoken in Aramaic, and these to be merely translations of the terms which they employed, it can scarcely be held that there is any real foundation for endeavouring to fix such subtle distinctions between them.* Again, nothing is more common than to find Pro- testant writers insisting on the distinction between ttct/jo? and 7reT/ja, in the words addressed by our Lord to Peter (Matt. xvi. 18). And granting that these words were spoken in Greek, of which, I believe, there is no doubt, the contrast clearly indicated between them cannot be overlooked. It could not be without an important significance that the Saviour mode such a marked change in the terms which He employed when He said to His disciple, Zi> el verpo't, kcu errl Tavrrj rij trirpa olxoSofi^o-co p.ov rrjv iicic\i)o-lav. 1 Trench, ut sup. p. 393, and p. 465. So Cremer, W'OrterbueA, j>. 11, and many other writers. In the first case the distinction noted between dyenrti and 0A*i may be regarded as preserved in tlm Peschito ; but in the second, one Syriac verb v.q^} is employed throughout the passage. * The same writer (Syn. of New Test. 2nd series, p. 147) lays great stress on the words ivtl voXKat (Matt. xx. 28), as proving the truly vicarious character of the death of Christ. But there is no force in the remark, unless it be granted that our Lord really employed these Greek words. The Syriac language does not furnish means for distinguishing between ivlp and dni, the same preposition <*\»* being used indiscriminately for both. Compare Matt. ii. 22 ; 9 John x. 11, 15 ; Rom. v. 8, etc. APPLICATIONS AND RESULTS. 487 The first term irerpos means a stone, and the second irerpa a rock, the distinction between the two being strictly observed by all Greek writers. If, then, these words were really employed by our Lord, it is perfectly fair, or rather imperative, on the principles of a just exegesis, that the distinction between them should be clearly brought out in interpreting the passage. But on the usual supposition, that the Saviour spoke in Aramaic, there is not the slightest ground for pressing the difference between them. The distinction entirely vanishes in Syriac. That language affords no means of marking the contrast between the two Greek words, so that even the accurate Peschito uses the same term in both clauses. 1 Only, therefore, on the ground which I maintain, as to the language both now and generally employed by our Lord, can the argument so often and so forcibly made use of by Protestant writers, in dealing with this passage, be shown to rest on any solid foundation. It is also very usual, among recent exact inter- preters, to attach considerable importance to the employment of the aorist by the evangelists. As might be expected, in the case of so accurate and painstaking a scholar, this is often done with admir- 1 \s>\o is the word employed twice, both in the Peschito and Cure- tonian Syriac. Dr. Schaff remarks, in reference to this passage, and against the distinction usually pressed by Protestant writers as existing between the two Greek expressions : " The Greek word must in both places correspond to the Aramaic Cephas, which always means rock, and is used both as a proper and common noun." — Apostolic History, ii. p. 5. It is hardly correct to say that the Syriac term in question always means rock ; we find it used in one verse (Matt, xxvii. 60) to denote both a rock and a stone, the distinction between the two, there clearly indicated in the Greek, being utterly lost. 488 PREVALENCE OF GBEEK IN PALESTINE. al)le effect in the writings of Bishop Ellicott. In one passage, for example, he remarks : " The message (of the sisters at Bethany) only announced that Lazarus was sick ; but the supposition in not improb- able, that by the time the messenger reached our Lord, Lazarus had died. It may be observed that, two days afterwards, when our Lord spoke of the death of Lazarus, He uses the aorist dvedavev (John xl 14), which seems to refer the death to some period, undefined indeed, but now past." l Did, then, our Lord really make use of this very word and tense ? If so, there is a basis for the consideration built upon it, and for the similar remarks which may frequently be found made on other passages in which the aorist is used. But if the Saviour spoke in Aramaic, there seems no ground for resting any- thing on a mere peculiarity of the Greek language, into which His words are supposed to have been translated. A very important application of the conclusion we have reached as to the prevalent language of Pales- tine in the times of Christ and His apostles, may, I think, be made in reference to the difficult question concerning the authorship of the Apocalypse. There is no book of Scripture to which earlier or ampler testimony is borne than this one. Traces of it are to be found even in the first century. And the fullest evidence of its antiquity is contained in the writings 1 Historical Lecture* on the Life of Christ, p. 267 ; corap. also p. 327. The same writer observes, in his Essay on the Interpretation of Scri|>- ture : " The great exegetical difficulty in John xx. 17 appears modified, if not removed, by taking into consideration the tense of the verb Zmov (not &+»)."— Aids to Faith, p. 429. Surely, then, our Lord must be supposed to have spoken in Greek. i APPLICATIONS AND EESULTS. 489 % of Papias, Justin Martyr, and Irenseus. 1 But while the early origin of the book is universally acknow- ledged, much doubt has been thrown upon the belief that the Apostle John was its author. In fact, the conclusion of modern scholarship has been very strongly against this opinion. It has been maintained, on internal grounds, that no point in New Testament criticism is more certain than that the Apostle John, if he wrote the fourth Gospel and the Epistles bearing his name, could not have been the writer of the Apocalypse ; or, alternatively, that if he be regarded as the author of the latter work, he could not pos- sibly have written the former. 8 Accordingly, the majority of eminent foreign critics, such as Credner, De Wette, Liicke, and others, have attributed it -to John the Presbyter. In our own country, Dean Alford, while adhering to the opinion in favour of its apostolic authorship, gives strong and repeated expression to the difficulties which appear to beset such a supposition. 8 These difficulties arise largely from the marked difference of style which exists 1 See the passages in Kirchhofer, Qucllensammlung, pp. 296-828. He remarks on the accumulated testimonies : " Aus diesen Zeug- nissen ergibt sich, dass man schon im ersten Jahrhundert Spuren der Apocalypse findet, dass aie gegen das Ende des zweiten Jahrhunderts achon in Asien, Europa und Africa verbreitet war, dass die meisten mid wichtigsten Schriftsteller ihr giinstig waren, dass vor dem dritten Jahrhundert keine Zeugen gegen sie auftraten, von da an aber in den verschieden Kirchen einzelne Bestreiter sich zeigten." — P. 297. Com]). Credner, Oesch. des Neut. Kanon, § 33. * " Man geradezu behauptete in der neutestamentlichen Kritik stehe nicht8 so fest, als dass der A]x>stel Johannes, wenn er der Verfasser des Evangeliums und der Briefe ist, die Apocalypse nicht geschrieben haben, oder wenn diese sein Werk ist, nicht Verfasser der andern Schriften sein konne." — Kirchhofer, p. 297. 3 Alford's Greek Testament, vol. iv. part ii. Proleg. pp. 224, 229, etc. 490 PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. APPLICATIONS AND RESULTS. 491 between the Apocalypse and the other writings of John. No candid and competent scholar can deny that this difference is very great. The rugged- ness of the Apocalypse contrasts very strongly with the smoothness of the Gospel ; and the solecisms in grammar, which not unfrequently occur in the one, find nothing at all corresponding to them in the other. At the same time, there are manifestly several links in the Apocalypse and the other Johannine writings which seem to bind them all together. The same deeply Hebraic style of thought is visible in every one of them. Their author was evidently one who was thoroughly familiar with the old economy, and intimately acquainted with its varied adumbra- tions of gospel blessings. This appears as strikingly in the writer of the Apocalypse as in the Gospel ; and when we add to this consideration the further facts, that peculiar expressions, such as 6 X070? applied to Christ, John i. 1, 1 John i. 1, Apoc. xix. 13, occur in these three writings, and nowhere else throughout the New Testament, and that ancient testimony on the whole points decidedly to the Apostle John a« the author of the Apocalypse, we cannot but feel that there is much to lead us to acquiesce in that conclusion. What opinion, then, are we to form in face of these perplexing facts ? Must we, like many learned critics, account the diversity of style so great that it is im- possible to believe the Apocalypse and Gospel to have proceeded from the same pen ? Or while, like Dean Alfofd, accepting the Apocalypse as the work of the apostle, must we declare ourselves, with him, 1 "far from satisfied with any account at present given of the peculiar style and phenomena" 1 which that writing presents ? It humbly appears to me that there is no necessity for coming to either of these conclusions. Admitting the early date of the Apocalypse and the late compos? tion of the Gospel, the difference of style between the two seems hardly to present any difficulty. It is rather just what was to be expected. If the Apo- calypse was written about a.d. 68 or 69, to which period it is now generally ascribed, and the Gospel was composed towards the end of the first century, a point almost unanimously agreed upon by biblical scholars, some twenty years or more elapsed between the composition of the two documents. And now, if we remember that, according to the conclusion reached in this work, Greek of a certain kind was vernacular to John as to the inhabitants of Palestine generally, but that he possessed in his youth no great educational advantages (Acts iv. 13), all the phenomena presented by his works seem exactly such as would naturally belong to them. We find in the Apocalypse that rugged type of Greek which was generally prevalent among the lower orders in Pales- tine ; while the style of the Gospel and Epistles, written after the apostle had been long resident at Ephesus, is naturally marked by far greater correct- ness, and even by a kind of Ionic smoothness. Thus, resting on the conclusion made good in the preceding pages,— that the apostle possessed, as a matter of course, from his birth and residence in Galilee, an acquaintance with the popular Greek of 1 Alford, ut tap. p. 229. 492 PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. the country, — every fact connected with his writings seems exactly such as there was reason to anticipate. The very early and frequent notices of the Apoca- lypse which occur in the Fathers, and the compara- tively late and meagre allusions which are made to the Gospel, find an easy explanation in the supposi- tion of the one work having been published long before the other ; and this conclusion at once explains, while it is confirmed by, the diversity of style ob- servable in the two compositions. So far from any real difficulty arising from the difference in question, the fact of such difference existing seems rather, when viewed in connection with the circumstances of the apostle's history, one of the many natural traits which appear in Scripture, and which tend so powerfully to support its authenticity and genuineness. Had the Apocalypse and Gospel of John presented no marked diversity of style, then, apart altogether from the psychological reasons which, of themselves, must have had some influence in giving rise to such difference, a real difficulty would have sprung up in the mere period of time which elapsed between the composi- tion of the two works. The rough Greek of the Palestinian fisherman could not have continued to flow from the pen of the aged apostle after a lengthened residence in such a city as Ephesus. But, as the case really stands, in the light of that conclusion reached in the previous pages as to the linguistic condition of Palestine in the days of our Lord, the diversities, no less than the similarities existing between the two writings, appear strongly to support the Johannine origin of both works. The following observations of a learned writer, not ■i >i APPLICATIONS AND RESULTS. 493 } himself holding the views which I have endeavoured to establish, will illustrate their importance generally, in reference to the interpretation of the Gospels. " It was," says Dr. Black, 1 " in the so-called Hebrew, or popular language of the nation, that Paul addressed the multitude assembled in the streets of Jerusalem beside the castle, though they were evidently pre- pared to listen to him with intelligence when they expected him to address them in Greek. But it w;is in Greek that his discourses were generally spoken ; and the Greek student of the New Testament, by placing himself in the position of those to whom these discourses were addressed, and realizing to himself what may still be ascertained of the very tones of the voice with which the words were uttered,, will be in possession of an important exegetical principle for obtaining more vivid conceptions of the depth of meaning conveyed by the voice of the speaker." He refers, in illustration of this remark, to John vii. 28, where our Lord repeats the words of the people, and which, he says, " should be marked as interrogative, or quasi-interrogative." But, un- fortunately, Dr. Black also adopts (though apparently with some reluctance) the common notion that our Lord usually spoke in Aramaic, and thus deprives himself, to a great extent, of "the important exegetical principle " which he acknowledges. " The addresses of our Lord," he says, " seem, from the examples given of some of the words that He spoke, to have been delivered in the common Aramaean of the age and country ; but the Greek form in which they have been transmitted in the Gospels, by the 1 On the Study of Exegetical Theology, p. 68, Edin. 1856. 494 PKEVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. evangelists who recorded them under the guidance of inspiration, still puts it in the power of the student substantially to listen to the voice of Him who spake as never man spake." I find it somewhat difficult to form an idea of what is here meant by listening substantially to the voice of Christ in the Gospels, if we do not so in reality. In every faithful translation we have the substance of our Lord's words preserved. The only difference (and in some points of view, doubtless, vitally important difference) between the Greek version of them and all others is, that in the one case the translation was made by inspired men, while, in other cases, the translators simply employed their natural powers. But this does not touch the point at present under consideration. Inspiration cannot effect impossibilities. It cannot make a translation of our Lord's words to be the very words which He spoke. And, so far as " listening substan- tially " to His voice is concerned, I confess myself unable to see how the reader of His sayings in Greek occupies any position of advantage over the reader of the same in English, unless, as I am firmly con- vinced, and have endeavoured to show, we do in very deed listen, in the Greek of the evangelists, to the identical words which proceeded out of our Saviour's mouth. But I must here briefly touch upon another point. While it is most satisfactory to know that we have in the Greek Gospels the very sayings of Christ, so far as these have been fully reported, we are, at the same time, taught by one of the results reached in the preceding pages, to beware of attaching undue importance to the mere letter of Scripture. The APPLICATIONS AND RESULTS. 405 Septuagint translation was, as we have seen, the Bible of Christ and His apostles. Now, as need hardly be said, the Greek version of the Old Testa- ment, like all versions, is not free from errors. Even if we could recover its text exactly as it was read by Christ, that text would, nevertheless, be found in multitudes of passages to differ from the Hebrew original. The translation would, in fact, be seen to contain numerous mistakes of a less or more serious character. It did so when it was quoted by Christ : it had done so from the beginning. All that could at any time be claimed for it would be, that it was substantially accurate. And, simply as being such, and nothing more, it was habitually used and quoted by our Lord and His apostles. 1 Now, what are we to say in the presence of these facts 1 Shall we, like many of the ancient eccle- siastical writers, claim divine inspiration for the Septuagint ? St. Augustine expressly does so, and on that ground vindicates its authority even when it differs widely from the Hebrew. 8 But this opinion as to the inspiration of the LXX. is probably held by no one at the present day. That ancient version is allowed on all hands to have been formed under the conditions attaching to every merely human production, and, like all the other works of men, to bear in itself evident marks of imperfection. And, of course, if it was not at first inspired, the mere fact of its being quoted by Christ and His apostles could 1 Hausrath, while holding that St. Paul sometimes corrected the LXX., states that, as a rule, the apostle adheres to the Greek version, even where it differs from the Hebrew, and refers in proof to 2 Cor. iv. 13; Gal. iii. \6.—Neututamentliche Zeitgeschichte, ii. 407. ' De Cioilale Dei, xviii. § 43. 496 PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. not impart to it inspiration. If it was not, in all places, a correct translation of the original, its cita- tion in the New Testament could not convey to it correctness. All that can be said of it is, that our Lord and His apostles were satisfied with it, and were content to quote it, as supplying a sufficiently accurate representation of the meaning of the original. The longer, therefore, I have reflected on this subject, the more I have been led to attach import- ance rather to the spirit than the letter of Scripture. The great Master Himself seems to have taught us that lesson. He had no scruple, as we have seen, in quoting from a version which is often far from being in strict accordance with the original. As a whole, the work of the LXX. cannot be regarded as very successful. It often presents inadequate and inac- curate, yea, sometimes almost unintelligible, transla- tions of the Hebrew text. Yet Christ deemed it good enough for habitual use, and His apostles did the same. It is plainly our duty, instead of shutting- our eyes to this fact, as so many have done, readily to accept it as a fact, with all the lessons which it teaches. And one of the most important and far- reaching of these lessons seems to me to be, that we should guard against attaching an exaggerated im- portance to the mere letter of Scripture, and should value rather the spirit which pervades it. 1 1 Gomp. Stanley's Essays on Church and Stale, p. 54 (note), or the same in Edinburgh Review (April 1861, p. 483). It might easily be shown, were this the place for it, what evil consequences have, in many ways, flowed from the regard paid to the letter of Scripture in particular passages, while its broad general teaching was over- looked. APPLICATIONS AND RESULTS. 497 *~4 The second great question discussed, and in my humble judgment settled, in the previous pages, is that which respects the original language of St. Maith^sGospel. This is a question which meeTs the critical student of Scripture at the very threshold of the New Testament; and he will soon perceive Ar_ reason to conclude that it is not only first in the I, order in which it occurs, but first also in many respects M"-^ m the importance which belongs to it. It involves M^ xJ , m its settlement some very momentous conse-K 6w< quences ; and, on this account, while truth alone is to be sought in our investigations, it demands to be] considered with a solemn feeling of responsibility and reverence. J The result to which the hypothesis "of a Hebrew original leads has been brought out in its plain colours by several writers. Some of these certainh evince a far less reverent spirit than does, e.g. Dr Tregelles, but they reason far more logically on the\ premises with which he furnishes them. Thus it was long ago said by Michaelis : « If we have really lost the original work of St. Matthew, and p ossess j nothing except a Greek translation, we certainly can ascribe to the words no such thing as inspiration it is even possible that here and there the true meaning of the apostle has been mistaken by the translator » * To the same effect Jones (a writer of a very different school from Michaelis) expresses himself Is foUow with regard to the hypothesis that our existing Gospel keineWhe *£S£Z£^™JS™ daa a an ein verfehlet isV'-EM^fw ** * von de *> Uebersetzer 9. T 498 PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. is a version from the Hebrew :(" For all we know to the contrary, it may be a very false and corrupt translation ; it may be done by a person no way qualified for such a work ; and does not this now make its authority dubious and uncertain ? For my part, I freely own, if I believed it to be a translation- made by a person I knew nothing of, I could not yield it that same respect, and have that same value for it, as the other parts of the sacred writings." *) If this be the logical consequence of maintaining the exclusive Hebrew original of our first Gospel, let the reader now consider for a moment the very dif- ferent result which follows from the adoption of that hypothesis which it has been my endeavour to establish. Ihave tried to show that the evan gelist Matthew wrote his Gospel in Greek only , and that this inspired account of our Lord's actions and dis- courses we at the present day possess. If this has been effected, we may be allowed to congratulate ourselves on the result. The work of St. Matthew is in our hands, entire and perfect, as it proceeded from his pen, excepting only those slightly erroneous readings which have of necessity crept into this, as into the other Gospels, with the lapse of time. These it is the object of textual criticism to correct ; and these all must be strongly stimulated to remove, who believe that in seeking after the genuine Greek expressions we are in quest of words originally written by an apostle of Jesus Christ. A third result, which to some may appear the most important of all, has also been attained in the prc- 1 Jones on Tlit Canon, iii. 250. ( APPLICATIONS AND RESULTS. 49 Q probaMe » ceo! nt ofl^Z r °°l *" * «*" "7 a sort of despair 1...1 i ? U seem3 *™ *> if effort, w,Uc7w rol« Z f ^ « th ° 8e ™ fe "' By the time JVT P"' f f >' «" 'Ws direction. b- produced ' £"£ £jf »* • deling had tradictory hypothes es Z°l tjZtT" f? ^ countrymen on this subject ho i^ , 7 ^ occasion to have J3Tv « reported on one «. so to apeak L S 5 h ' m8elf " m °™ ■ " It any one ZtoJlC71 iT^ » "« • fo r critical inveatigataof this ! n" " ^^ M « better that onefhouldwi hi?" ^ * k *»*» to what i8 realI before himt rt n ' "^ din « fen, it f 0I bb»Lf wCt Jta^ ?* **» own moral cultivation ,L , f^ e me of fo r his great German, m^Z^Xt"'" ^ rebel against such intricate f L ° mm0n seM e bribed, and says : "t ^ZVZ -^ enough to prevent m „ e 7 P ' ' ™d it quite onrfirstthSpcr' m , C ° nCei ™« the <*&<* tnatlam to pgZ to^K^' 3 '^ry, surrounded by five or 2 ,?°° d eva ngelists ** too, in yr fo„ r:: r * or ^ «» from one into another a„Tf! 1- ^ ^ tu ™s *» them, I fancy m y", f ™ i " C ° mpi,ati °" the eighteenth or nbeZth ? > ™ an ' tvd y of the primitive age of CW ?" X Iather ""» in Hance diminiahl ^t ''^ anJ * "is resem- . Wni having suSes^^to^rS 500 PKEVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. in the construction of his hypothesis, it renders it the less possible for me to believe that such was the actual state of the case." l A recent writer among ourselves expresses himself as if he believed there was no possible means of settling the question ; and, while giving a sketch of the various theories which have been proposed, makes known his opinion regard- ing them, as follows: "I am far from insinuating that the several hypotheses are on a par in point of ingenuity or of literary merit ; but it can scarcely be asserted that any among them possesses much supe- riority over its fellows on the score of probability." 2 Now, if I have succeeded in the previous argument, this vexed question may be regarded as being, in its main features, settled. We are able, on the ground maintained in this work, to give an easy and natural account of all the phenomena presented by the Gospels. According to the hypothesis which I have proposed, both the coincidences and diversities ob- servable between the evangelists are altogether such as were to be expected. They agree because they were well acquainted with the subjects of which they treated, and because they all wrote in the same language that our Lord had spoken. They differ because they were all independent writers, and natu- rally expressed themselves in their own individual manner and style, according to their several disposi- tions and acquirements. This last proposition as to the independence of the first three evangelists may now be said to be pretty 1 The Gospel of St. Luke, p. 6. Schleiermacher's own theory will be found described in Home's lntrod. iv. 653, and is quite as unsatisfac- tory as any that preceded it. 3 Lee on Inspiration, p. 662 ; see also p. 324. APPLICATIONS AND BESULTS. 5Ql ra££ ^-leading Meal scholar, **>red crife th„ Tl ■ 8 ° ° ften re ^ fe *, reno „ ^raLsr^r 401 "'• • sistent with th*> ;«<•<, i , iound mcon- *<^£Z?Lt££r presented by acceptance which it met with from th. v 1 " g -lo^cot; f ZeZrttr A Wd - flowed in this J^ T ^ haS ^ dence is allowed to decide L° T*' %ntenal evi ' words of Jerome for oth er T ^ * ** ^ The like those of Zm-1 Z } ? PeC o tmg St Matthew > M, but the verbal T^ 8 Sfc Mark ' are > ^ Germans calthlwhirr ^^ as the option in the ell! t : o \ h o r h T , aI1 7 ed t0 ^d one as well as the othe to b f h I ^ ° UgH the ing test of the intern!]' ^ br ° Ught to the e ^ur- thmselves ZT T h rt ^ WMch thG Gos P^ with respect" I the sayL f ^ ^ * °*™ consequence has LXV ^^ and the 502 PKEVALEMCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. respect to their origin, which explains all fancied difficulties and accounts for all actual facts. And if that theory be accepted, the hard question proposed by Professor Jowett melts completely and for ever away. " There was," he says, " if we may use an expression which sounds almost like a contradiction in terms, a Hebrew Christianity yet earlier than the New Testament, the memorials of which are preserved to us in the translation only. How did this Hebrew or Syriac Christianity pass into a language so dif- ferent as the Greek V' 1 Certainly, a considerable time must have elapsed ere the process conceived of could be completed — time quite sufficient to allow of the formation of those myths and legends which so many have regarded as commingled with the veritable gospel history. But, as I have endeavoured to prove, no such gulf as that imagined lies between us at the present day and the Christianity which was proclaimed by Christ Himself. Our existing Gospels represent the first form which the history of our faith assumed. They are the primary authentic records of the life of Jesus. All possibility of myth or legend is thus excluded. There was neither time nor opportunity for its formation before our Gospels were composed. These introduce us to the immediate presence of Christ, reporting His very words, and often describing His looks and gestures, so that we may feel that the divine Re- deemer is yet speaking to us in the same tones in which He addressed His contemporaries, and in which He will continue to teach, quicken, and console all succeeding generations. 1 Epistles of St. Paul, i. 451, 2nd e«l. INDEX. JV°" rea8 °mng on language of Palestine, 14, 16, 432. Aceldama, argument from the word, Acts of the Apostles, argument from the use of Greek in Palestine, 174- Ailler referred to, 298. Aids to Faith quoted, 488. Akerman on coins of Palestine, 50. Alexander the Great, influence of his conquests, 31, 48. Alexander, Dr. Add., on gift of tongues, 87 ; on meaning of word Israel, 194 ; on speech of St. James in Jerusalem, 213; on letter of Claudius Lysias, 214. Alexander, Dr. Alex., on twofold original of St. Matthew's Gospel, OOO. Alexander, Dr. W. L., on variations of N. T. quotations from Hebrew texts, 296. Alexandria, the supposed destination of Ep. to Hebrews, 266. Alford, Dean, on language of Pales- tine, 12 ; on gift of tongues, 86 ; on Ep. of James, 92, 275; on ureeks Beekmg to sec Jesus, 157 • on mockery of Christ by the Jews, Jo„ ' on HeHim'sk and Hebrews, 189 ; on circumcision-party, 199 • on language of St. Stephen's speech' 206 ; on speech of St. James, 213 • ° n _ authorship of Ep. to Hebrews' III ff - ! °n primary destination of, £65 ; on a passage in speech of St Peter, 295 ; on St. John's Gospel, 345 ; on copying hyjiothesis, 426; on the word Aceldama, 466 ; on authorship of Apocalypse, 489 Ancient writers, how their statements should be dealt with, 232, 361 ntiochns Epiphanes, his policy to- wards the Jews, 40 ; stations Greek soldiers in Jerusalem, 61 ; holds intercourse with Jews in Greek, 63 ; is entreated by the Samaritans to regard them as Hellenists, 155. Aorist, remarks on use of, in N T 488. "' Apocryphal books of 0. T., 54 ; their evidence as to spread of Greek in Palestine, 56-65. Apollos, the supposed author of Ep. to Hebrews, 245 ; his claims dis- proved, 246-249. Apostles, their natural use of Greek 90. ' Aramaic expressions in Gospels, argu- ment from, 96, 171 ; how explained, 102, 109, 461. Aramaic Gospels in early Church, no evidence for, 389. Aramaic language, its relation to the Greek in Palestine, 4, 23, 433, 439. Aramaic version of O. T. did not exist, 123, 132. Aristotle quoted, 274. Asseman referred to, 56. Atlienanim on language of Palestine, 24 ; on verbal coincidences among writers, 412. Augustus Cresar used Greek, 86. Bacon, Lord, quoted, 15. Bar-Salibi referred to, 56 ; on Syriac Gospel, 378. Barnabas supposed to be the author of Ep. to Hebrews, 243. Baruch, book of, 58. Baumgarten-Crasius on destination of Ep. to Hebrews, 264. Baur on Jerome's statements respect- ing St. Matthew's Gospel, 866 ; on theories of origin of Gospels, 392. Beattie, Dr., on Scotch writers of lost century, 78, 446. 504 INDEX. ISDEX". 505 Beelen on Targums of 0. T., 124. Bel and the Dragon, 59. Bengel on destination of Epistle to Hebrews, 264 ; on twofold original of St. Matthew's Gospel, 380. Beruhardy on language of the East, 181. Bertboldt on original language of N. T., 82. Beza on gift of tongues, 85 ; on Eloi, etc., 109. Bible, its literary character, 89. Bilingual peoples, 2, 181. Bintcrim refutes Molckenbulir, 9 ; on language of Phoenicia, 150. Biscoe on the Acts referred to, 453. Black oft original language of N. T., 9 ; on supposed loss of Christ's words, 280. Black, Dr., on importance of know- ing what was the language of Christ and His apostles, 493. Bleek, Prof., on reasoning of Pfann- kuche and De Rossi, 63 ; on disuse of ancient Hebrew among the Jews, 117 ; against Aramaic versions of 0. T., 124; on St. Matthew's quotations of O. T., 140 ; on authorship of Ep. to Hebrews, 245 ; on primary readers of, 260, 271 ; referred to respecting error of Papias, 370 ; on Gospel of the Hebrews, 372. Bolil, Dr., referred to, 20 ; on St. Matthew's quotations of O. T., 140. Bbhtne, on original destination of Ep. to Hebrews, 265. Bolingbroke on influence of writers on each other, 358. Bolten on original destination of Ep. to Hebrews, 264. Broughton's answer to Black, 10 ; on words of Josephus, 445. Buchanan, Dr. C, on original lan- guage of the Gospels, 282. Bnckle referred to, 359. Bunsen referred to, 38. Burckhanlt on Greek inscriptions in Palestine, 50. Burgess, Bp., answers Black, 10. Buxtorf on Neh. viii. 8, 116 ; his lexicon referred to, 326. Cesar, Julius, on spread of Greek, 32. Calvin on authorship of Epistle to Hebrews, 240. Campbell, Prin., on loss of Christ's words, 281 ; on postscripts of the Gospels, 337 ; on twofold original of St. Matthew's Gospel, 383. Casaubon on inscription on cross, 475. Catherine of Russia, 6. Chaldee, translations of O. T. in, 459 ; supposed to have been the language of Christ, 460. Chalmers, Dr., incident in his life referred to, 103. Channel Islands, linguistic condition of, 3. Children among Jews knew Greek, 76. Christ, His habitual use of Greek, 173, etc. Chrysostom on the language used by the apostles, 27 ; on the Hellenists and Hebrews, 187 ; on the original destination of Epistle to Hebrews, 260. Church Quarterly Review referred to, 16, 91 ; on Aramaic expressions in Gospels, 104 ; asserts general knowledgo of ancient Hebrew among Jews in time of Christ, 118 ; affirms knowledge of Aramaic at Cyrene and Alexandria, 202. Cicero on spread of Greek, 36. Circumcision-party, what, 197. Classical Review on apocryphal books of 0. T., 55 ; referred to, 182. Clemens Alex., on authorship of Ep. to Hebrews, 235 ; on original destination of, 260. Clemens Rom., wrote in Greek, 37 ; his copious use of Ep. to Hebrews, 233 ; his supposed authorship of, 244. Coincidences in synoptic Gospels re- ferred to, 402 ; exemplified, 404 ; accounted for, 409. Concision, the, referred to, 200. Conder and Kitchener referred to, 50. Contempt, supposed, of Hebrews for Hellenists, 453. Conyboare and Howson referred to, 40, 87, 205, 213. 220, 243 ; on original destination of Epistle to Hebrews, 262. Cook, Canon, on language of Lystra, 21. Credner on spread of Greek, 86 ; on its use by the Jews, 45, 92 ; on language of Christ, 46 ; referred to, 82 ; on the intercourse of Christ with Pilate, 160 ; on authorship of '*. Ep. to Hebrews, 245 ; on original destination of, 264; on Ep. of James, 275, 278; on quotations from O. T. in St. Matthew's Gos- pel, 818 ; on Jerome's conclusion respecting the Gospel of the Hebrews, 368 j on twofold original of St. Matthew's Gospel, 383 ; on theories respecting origin of Gos- pels, 399 ; on coincidences in synoptic Gospels, 403. Cureton, Dr., on Hebrew terms and their explanations in St. Matthew's Gospel, 822 ; his Syriac Gospels . considered, 376 ; their claims re- fated, 377 ; his view of coincidences m synoptic Gospels, 414, 427. Davidson, Dr. S., on apocryphal books of O. T., 59; on correspond- ence of Lacedaemonians with Jews, 60 ; on meaning of statement of Papias, 354 ; on coincidences in synoptic Gospels, 422 ; his theory unsatisfactory, 425 ; on Aceldama, 463. ' De Qqincey on population of Rome, 35. De Rossi on language of Palestine, 7 ; his erroneous opinions and reason- ings, 63, 57. De Saulcy referred to, 60. De Sola and Raphall, Eng. edit, of Mischna by, 62. De Wette on spread of Greek, 29 ; on disuse of ancient Hebrew, 117 ; reference to Targum, 132; on Hellenists and Hebrews, 189 ; on authorship of Ep. to Hebrews, 245 ; on St. John having seen St. Matthew's Gospel, 344 ; on two- fold original of St. Matthew's Gospel, 883 ; on Eichhom's hypo- thesis, 415 ; on authorship of Apocalypse, 489. Decapolis, language of, 148. Delitzsch on authorship of Ep. to Hebrews, 260, 263 ; on original destination of, 260. Deutsch on Targums, 130. Dialect of Greek in Palestine, 287 ; its vigorous character, 292. Dio Cassins on wide use of Greek. 33 36. Diodati on language of Christ, 6 ; referred to, 50 ; on Hellenists and Hebrews, 138; on soldiers in Pales- tine, 299. Dionysius Bar-Salibi referred to, 56, 365 ; on origin of a Syriac Gospel, 378. Dispersion, Jews of, who, 92. Distinctions to be noted between Greek terms in the Gospels, 486. Diversities in synoptic Gospels ac- counted for, 416. Dobbin, Dr., his edition of Diodati, 6 ; on original language of N. T.. 308. Dogmatic prepossessions, influence of, 242. Dbllinger on spread of Greek, 32. Droysen referred to, 48. Dnuds of Gaul made use of Greek, 32. Ebionites, who, 371. Ebrard on Hebrew as language of Christ, and of St. Matthew's Gos- pel, 311. Ecclesiasticus, book of, 58. Edersheim, Dr., on cost of Hebrew 7 MS8., 119. Edinburgh Review referred to, 109, 496 ; on Gospels in Aramaic, 386 ; on question of chief captain, 472. Eichhorn on original language of St. Matthew's Gospel, 807 ; his theory of the origin of the Gospels, 395, 897. Ellicott, Bp., his remarks on the use of the aorist in the Gospels, 488. Eloi, Eloi, etc., how explained, 109. Encyclopedia Britannica on language of Ionian Islands, 4 ; on the object of Josephus in writing in Aramaic, 442 ; on knowledge of Greek in Jerusalem, 462. Ephesus, Jews of, used Greek, 217. Ephphatha, its occurrence explained. 106. L Epiphanius on Hebrew Gospel, 366. Epistles of N. T., their general testi- mony to spread of Greek, 91. Erasmus on gift of tongues, 85 ; on Aramaic expressions in Gospels, 90 ; on authorship of Ep. to Hebrews, 240, 242. Erncsti on exaggerated importance attached to Rabbinical writings, 456. Esdras, books of, 56. Essay* and Reviews referred to. 27. Esther, apoc. additions to, 67. Etheridge on Palestinian Syriac, 482. 506 INDEX. Hiiergeten, argument from the word, 299. Enscbius on the language of the apostles, 27 ; on the original lan- guage of St. Matthew's Gospel, 363 ; his character as a critic, 364. Euthaliiis ou destination of Ep. to Hebrews, 267. Ewald, Prof., on languago of Christ, 11 ; on advances of Hellenism, 40 ; on date of book of Judith, 57 ; on the dying out of ancient Hebrew among the Jews, 116 ; on Cureton's Syriac Gospels, 377. Fabricius, his Codox Pscudep. re- ferred to, 56 ; on different opinions as to Hellenists anil Hebrews, 188. Facts, how to be dealt with, 79, 112, 348, 437, 495. Falconer, Dr., answers Black, 10 ; on spread of Greek, 74. Fathers, statements of, how they should bo treated, 232, 332, 857; their errors on critical questions, 27, 351 ; knew nothing of an Aramaic version of O. T., 132 ; their assertions with respect to original language of Ei>. to Hebrews and of St. Matthew s Gospel ac- counted for, 369. Form in which 0. T. was read by Christ, 111. Frankel on Samaritan Pentateuch, 156 ; on respect for LXX. expressed in Talmud, 455. Fritzsche, 0. F., Dr., on Apocrypha of O. T., 69 ; on use of LXX. by Jews of Palestine, 454. Fiirst on language of Samaria, 156 ; on Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan, 458. Galilee, language of, 172. Gaussen on the canon referred to, 254. Gentiles, gift of tongues to, 88. Gcsenins on Josephus's knowledge of Hebrew, 67 ; on meaning of Neh. viii. 8, 115 ; on language of Phoenicia, 152. Gift of tongues, what, 86. Goethe on origin of Gospels, 499. Gospels, their general testimony to spread of Greek, 95 ; theories of origin of, 392 ; theory of this work, Greek' language, its character, 29 ; diffusion of, before the birth of Christ, 32, 34 ; its spread in Palestine, 38, etc. Greek MSS., cost of, 120. Greeks seeking Christ, language of, 157. Greswell on languago of Palestine, 64, 439 ; on gift of tongues, 84 ; on coincidences in synoptic Gospels, 423. Grimm, Dr. W., on Apocrypha of O. T., 59. Grinfield on speech of St. Stephen, 208; on hymn of Virgin Mary, 297. Grotius on style of Ep. to Hebrews, 252. Grutcri Inscriptioncs referred to, 150. Hackett, Prof., on incident at Lystra, 22. Hales, Dr., on Bp. Marsh's hypo- thesis, 397. Hamburger, Dr., on the Jews' love of Greek, 18. Hardouin on language of Palestine, 8 - . . Hansratli on use of Greok m syna- gogues, 143. Hebrew, so called in N. T., what, 114 ; ancient, unknown to the common people of Jews in time of Christ, 117. Hebrews, Gospel of, its character, 363 ; its origin, 371. Hebrews, who, as distinguished from Hellenists, 189. Hebrews, Ep. to, argument from, to prevalence of Greek in Palestine, 261, 272. Hegesippus on St. James, 279. Hefnsius on Greek of N. T., 286. Hellenists, who, 189. Helvetii employed Greek, 32. Hengstenberg on disuse of ancient Hebrew among the Jews, 436. Herod the Great habitually spoke in Greek, 69. Herschel, Sir John, quoted, 441. Hilgenfield on Gospel of Hebrews, 3"2 Historical criticism, principles of, Hody,' Archdeacon, on Septuagint, 17. Hug, Prof., on Origen's language respecting Ep. to Hebrews, 236 ; on original readers of the Epistle, 260 ; on St. John having seen the other Gospels, 344. INDEX. 507 i ? Iunatiub wrote in Greek, 37. Importance of original inquiry on biblical topics, 26 ; of question as to original language of St. Matthew's Gespel, 497 ; of ques- tion respecting origin of Gospels, 498. Independence of Synoptics, 400, 500. Inductive reasoning as to language used by Christ, 19. Inscriptions, Greek, in Palestine, 49 ; inscription on cross, 475. Ionian Islands, former linguistic con- dition of, 4. Ircnaius wrote in Greek, 37 ; on original language of St. Matthew's Gospel, 356. James, St., his use of Greek, 84; elegant style of his Epistle, how accounted for, 277. Jeremiah, letter of, 59. Jerome, St. , erroneous statements as to ubo of LXX. by Jews, 1 41 ; on persons to whom alone supposed Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew was intelligible, 355 ; his statements regarding original language of St. Matthew s Gospel considered, 366. Jerusalem, language used in Council of, 211. Jerusalem-Syriac version of Gospels, 298. Jew's, modem, argument against the Gospels, 412. Jews of Christ's day bilingual, 1, 23, 43, 63. John, St., was acquainted with the Synoptics, 342. John the Baptist used Greek, 29.8. John the Presbyter, 352, 489. Jonathan, Targum of, 458. Jones on authority of supposed Greek version of St. Matthew's Gospel, 497. Joppa, language of, 210. Josephus, numerous speeches recorded by, 69 ; inference from his writings as to prevalence of Greek in Pales- tine, 79 ; his testimony to language of Tyre and Sidon, 149 ; ground- lessness of objections derived from his works as to general use of Greek in Palestine, 439 If. Jowett, Prof., on spread of Greek, 47 ; on St. Paul's quotations of O. T., 138 ; on origin of Gospels, 602. Judith, book of, 57. Justin Martyr wrote in Greek, 37. Juvenal on spread of Greek, 34. Keim on ancient Hebrew, 117. Kirchhofer on statement of Pantsenus, 361 ; on authority of Apocalypse, 489. Lacedemonians, correspondence of, with Jews, 60. Lamina against Hardouin, 8 ; on Aramaic expressions in Gospels, 101. Lange on tho widows of tho primitive Church, 196 ; on Aceldama, 464. Languages, gradual changes in, 433. Latham on use of English language abroad, 8. Lechler, strange assertion of, as to language of Galilee, 165 ; thinks St. Peter spoke in Aramaic on day of Pentecost, 180. Lee, Dr., on twofold original of St. Matthew's GoBpel, 381 ; on theories of origin of Gospels, 500. Lewis, Sir G. C, on historical evi- dence, 341. Life of Christ, expression remarked on, 419. Lightfoot on spread of Greek in Palestine, 52 ; on the character of the Rabbinical writings, 456 ; on ignorance of ancient Hebrew among Jews, 459. Lticke on authorship of Apocalypse, 489. Luke, St., his account of Sermon on Mount, 149 ; his connection with authorship of Ep. to Hebrews, 254 ; his nationality, 256. Luther on authorship of Ep. to Hebrews, 245. Lystra, linguistic condition of, 21. Macaulav's, Lord, history quoted, 476. Maccabees, first book of, 69 ; second, 62. Madden 's Coins of the Jews referred to, 60. Mai, Cardinal, quoted, 376. Maltby, Bp., answers Block, 10 ; on original language of N. T., 82 ; on influence of LXX. on writers of N. T., 291. 508 INDKX. Manassch, Prayer of, 69. Mark, St. , ancient error as to original languago of his Gospel, 871 ; sup- posed order of date in relation to other Gospels, 422. Marsh, Bp., on date of Peschito, 336 ; oh origin of Gospels, 395. Martial on use of Greek, 34. Mary the Virgin, her song composed in Greek, 296. Mary Magdalene, her conversation with Christ carried on in Greek, 170. Matthew, St., opinions respecting original language of his Gospel, 300 ; internal evidence of origin- ality of the Greek, 315 ; external evidence, 334 ; opinions of ancient writers as to its original language, 352 if. ; origin of the error regard- ing, 369 ; arguments against a twofold original, 880 ; importance of question, 497. Mcuschcn on Talmud referred to, 456. Michaclis on original language of Ep. to Hebrews, 82 ; on dato of Peschito, 336 ; on authority of supposed Greek translation of St. Matthew's Gospel, 497. Migne referred to, 97. Mill on coincidences in synoptic Gospels, 413. Milman, Dean, on language of Palestine, 10 ; on correspondence of Lacedemonians with Jews, 60 ; on supposed interpreter in syna- gogues, 143 ; on Hellenists, 189 ; erroneous assertion of, 471. Mischna, evidence of, as to use of Greek in Palestine, 18, 52. Molckenbuhr supports Hardouin's views, 8. Moriuus on baseless statements of St. Jerome, 141. Mullach, Dr., on language of East, 183. Miiller, Max, Prof., on linguistic condition of Rome, 35 ; on pro- gressive changes in languages, 434. Mynster on original destination of Ep. to Hebrews, 264. Nakes on copying hypothesis referred to, 422. Nazarenes, who, 371. Neander on natural use of Greek by the apostles, 90. Ncubaner, Prof., referred to, 55 ; on quotations in Gospels, 131 ; on language of St. Peter on the day of Pentecost, 180 ; is inconsistent with himself, 182. New Testament, chief source of evi- dence as to language of Christ and the apostles, 27. Newton, Sir I., on original destina- tion of Ep. to Hebrews, 264. Norton, Prof., on coincidences in synoptic Gospels, 406 ; opposes copying hypothesis, 420 ; yet is compelled to some extent to adopt it, 422. Nosselt on original destination of Ep. to Hebrews, 264. Numismatic evidence as to spread of Greek in Palestine, 50. Olshausek on supposed mockery of Christ by the Jews, 168. Onkclos, Targum of, 12!), 458. Origcn on authorship of Ep. to Heb- rews, 235 ; on original language of St. Matthew's Gospel, 361. Origin of synoptic Gospels, true theory of, 400 ; importance of the question, 498. Ovid on use of Greek, 34. PcUasoromaica, 9. Palestine, general use of Greek in, 38, 79, etc. Pantrenus on authorship of Ep. to Hebrews, 234 ; his statement re- garding St. Matthew's Gospel, 359. Papias on original language of St. Matthew's Gospel, 352. Paul, St., wrote in Greek to the Romans, 37 ; his liberal spirit, 215; his use of Greek at Jerusalem, 219 ; his connection with Ep. to Hebrews, 256 ; narrative of conver- sion, 467 ; why ho spoke on one occasion in Hebrew to the Jews, 469. Paulus, Dr., on origin of error of Fathers respecting original languago of St. Matthew's Gosnel, 369 ; on use of Greek in Palestine, 465. Pentecost, miracle of, what, 85, 178. People, common, of Palestine habitu- ally used Greek, 77, 120, etc. Peschito Syriac on meaning of Hel- lenist*, 187 ; reading of, at Acts INDEX. 509 % i i xi. 20, 203 ; renders soldier* by Soman*, 298 ; its testimony in favour of the authenticity of St. Matthew's Gospel, 336. Peter, St., spoke in Greek, 184, 465. Petronius conversed with Jews in Greek, 72. Pfannkuche, Dr., on language of Palestine, 7 ; erroneous statements of, 61, 53, 64 ; on Aramaic expres- sions in Gospels, 98 ; on Hellenists and Hebrews, 189 ; on the languago in which St. Paul was addressed by Christ, 467. Philip the ovangolist, 195, 208. Philo on Hellenism, 48 ; character of his works, 63; his ignorance of ancient Hebrew, 66. Pilate spoke Greek in his intercourse with Christ and the Jewish people, 159. Pliny on use of Greek, 446. Plutarch on influence of Alexander the Great, 48 ; on use of Greek in Parthia, 181. Pcenulus of Plautus referred to, 153. Pressense affirms that foreign Jews understood Aramaic, 180. Protestants, the distinction which they make between rirpt and wirfx remarked on, 486. Providence, divine, illustrated in spread of Greek language, 94. Quotations from O. T., in what language mode by Christ, 113 ff. ; by the common people of the Jews, 120 ; how they appear in St. Matthew's Gospel, 316. Rabbinical writers on Jews' love of Greek, 18 ; on LXX., 27, 455 ; on disuse of ancient Hebrew among Jews, 115. Kenan on language of Christ, 10 ; on ignorance of ancient Hebrew shown by Philo and Josephus, 66 ; on Samaritan Pentateuch, 166 ; on language of Targums, 469. Reuss on spread of Hellenism, 49 ; on En. to Hebrews, 242. Revised Version, English, unwarrant- able change in, 464. Robinson on statement of Ireneus respecting St. Matthew'* Gospel, 357. Riihr on language used by Christ and Mary Magdalene, 172. Roman soldiers used Greok, 34, 218, 302. Rome, ancient, its linguistic condi- tion, 34. Salmakius on Greek of N. T., 286. Salmon, Dr., on language used by St. Peter on day of Pentecost, 184 ; on statement of Papias, 370 ; on mean- ing of Josephus, 448. Samaria, language of, 155. Sanday, Dr., on hatred of Greek by Jews, 19 ; on Targums, 131 ; on knowledge of Greok among the Jews, 448. Sanhedrim, derivation of word, 299. Saturday Review on age of Talmud, 128. ScharT, Dr., on Syriac word for rock, 487. Schleiermacher on theories as to origin of Gospels, 499. Schlosser on spread of Greek, 36. Scholtz on additions to book of Esther, 68. Schroder on language of Phoenicia, 162. Schiirer, Dr., on language of Christ, 10 ; on Decapolis, 148. Scotch writers of last century, style of, 78, 446. Seetzen on Greek inscriptions in Palestine, 50. Seidell, 19, 299. Seleucidte encouraged use of Greek, 61. Semler on original destination of Ep. to Hebrews, 264. Seneca on spread of Greek, 32. Septnagint Version, the Bible of Christ, 133; constantly quoted from in N. T., 135 ; why the N. T. writers sometimes differ from, 139 ; read in synagogues of Palestine, 453. Sermon on the Mount delivered in Greek, 153. Simon, Father, exposes errors of St. Jerome, 141 ; why the ancients believed in Hebrew original of St. Matthew's Gospel, 311 ; on ques- tion of chief captain, 471. Slaves among Jews knew Greek, 77. Song of the Three Children, 69. Sources of evidence as to language of Christ, 25. 510 INDEX. Spanheim on evidence from ancient coin!), 61. Sperling on language of Phoenicia, 152. Stanley, Dean, acknowledged error of, as to use of Hebrew text in syna- gogues, 114. Stapler, erroneous statements as to Jews of Palestine, 159. Stephen, St., chargo against, 192; spoke in Greek before Sanhedrim, 207. Stuart, Prof., on original destination of Ep. to Hebrews, 262 ; referred to on Gospel of Hebrews, 372. Stylo of sacred writers, 89. Suetonius on use of Greek, 34. Hupernatural Relit/ion on original language of St. Matthew's Gospel, 307, 333. Surcnhusius, Mischna by, 52 ; on principle of quotation in N. T., 293. Susanna, Story of, 59. Synoptical Gospels, coincidences of, 402 ; diversities in, 416. Syriac priest, argument of, 282. Tacitus on use of Greek, 36. Talitha Cumi explained, 104. Talmud, exaggerated importance attached to it, 456. TargumsofO. T., 125, 458. Tertullian on authorship of Ep. to Hebrews, 243. Tertullus, speech of, 220. Thiersch on language of Palestine, 10 ; on Hellenists and Hebrews, 189 ; on Ep. of James, 275 ; on Greek of N. T., 289. Tholuck, Dr., on love of Greek among the Jews, 19 ; on Sermon on Mount, 147 ; on authorship of Ep. to Hebrews, 245 ; on original destination of, 260. Thomson, Abp., on language of Christ, 304. Time* quoted, 103. Tobit, book of, 56. Towuson on original language of St. Matthew's Gospel, 308 ; on Latin- istic forms in, 325. Tradition often fallacious, 26 ; must give way to truth, 112 ; how to be judged of, 357. . Tregellcs, Dr., on original language of St. Matthew's Gospel, 307 ; on coincidences in Synoptic Gospels, 128. Trench, Abp., on" Aramaic expres- sions used by Christ, 99 ; on population of Decapolis, 147 ; on distinctions to be made between Greek terms in the Gospels, 484. Ur - evanorlium in Aramaic, no foundation for, 389. Vaillant on spread of Greek in Syria, 61. Valerius Maximus on use of Greek, 33, 36. Varus, the Roman governor, spoke in Greek, 69. Vatican MS. referred to, ."576. Virgin Mary, hymn of, composed in Greek, 296. Vossius, Is., on language of Pales- tine, 10, 44 ; on supposed object of St. Matthew's Gospel, 314, 341. Waul on Hellenists and Hebrews, 189. Wolcliius on original language of Irenreus, 37. Walpole on use of Greek, 37. Walton, Bp., on policy of conquerors, 42 ; on disuse of ancient Hebrew among the Jews, 115 ; on language used in synagogues of Palestine, 142; on language of Christ, 482. Westcott, Dr., on Apocrypha of O. T., 55 ; his position in regard to tho thesis of this work, 303 ; on origin of Gospels, 428. Wentmiiwter Review quoted, 13. Wetstein referred to, 300, 359, 372. Wieselor on authorship of Ep. to Hebrews, 243 ; on original desti- nation of, 266. Winer on language of Palestine, 12, 97 ; on Decapolis, 147 ; on Ep. of James, 275 ; on incorrectness of applying later Jewish usages to the times of Christ, 456. Wisdom, book of, 58. Wiseman, Card., on use of Greek by slaves in Palestine, 78. Wood, Rob., on Greek inscriptions in Palestine, 50. Words of Christ, interest and im- portance of, still possessing them in our Greek Gospels, 482, 487. INDEX. 511 i Wordsworth, Bp. Chris., on language of Lystra, 21, 223 ; on spread of Greek, 31 ; on gift of tongues, 87 ; on language of St. Stephen's speech, 206 ; on authorship of Ep. to Hebrews, 234 ; on St. John's Gospel, 345. Wordsworth, Bp. John, suggests an Aramaic original of Ep. of St. James, 277. Xenius Jupiter, name of Samaritan temple, 155. Zkdi.er on St. Matthew's Gospel, 374. Zunz on Targums of O. T., 124 ; on high estimation in which Greek was held in Palestine, 455. THE END. t i ItOBBISON AND OIBB, EDIKBUBOH, PJUNTIBS TO HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY orriCC "M CONTRIBUTORS TO THE EXPOSITOR. The Very Rev. the Dean of Canterbury. Rev. Canon Farrar, D.D., F.R.S. Rev. Canon Perowne, D.D. Rev. Professor Plumptre, M.A., D.D. Rev. W. Sanday, M.A. Rev. J. Rawson Lumby, B.D. Rev. Rayner Winter both am, M.A., B Sc. Rev. Professor Stanley Leathes, M.A. Rev. Principal Tulloch, D.D. Rev. Professor Alex. Roberts, D.D. Rev. James Morison, D.D._ Rev. J Oswald Dykes, D.D. Rev. Professor A. B. Davidson, M.A. Rev. Professor A. B. Bruce, D.D. Rev. Professor W. Milligan, D.D. Rev. Professor W. Robertson Smith, M.A. Rev. Professor A. M. Fairbairn. Rev. Professor D. W. Simon, M.A. Rev. Professor H. R. Reynolds, D.D. Rev. Henry Burton, M.A. Rev. R. W. Dale, M.A. Rev. A. Maclaren, D.D. Rev. Henry Allon, D.D. Rev. Alex. Raleigh, D.D. THE EXPOSITOR EDITED BY THE REV. SAMUEL COX. VOLUME VI. THIRD EDITION. STonboit : HODDER AND STOUGHTON, 27, PATERNOSTER ROW. MDCCCLXXXI. •8o 4 CHAPTER OF GOSPEL HISTORY. •of Christ's tone for wilfulness or misanthropy. How far the Son of Man and the Son of God was from these vices we may see from what follows. " Come unto me." Where can we find, even among the words of Jesus, anything more humane, more tender, more gracious, more philanthropic ? Jesus may be disappointed, sad, even stern; but He has not ceased to be the well-wisher of the ignorant, the sorrowful, the mentally perplexed, the guilty. He has not even grown weary in well-doing, or yielded in the smallest degree to the temptation to abandon the task of illuminating the dark world in despair. He utters the affectionate, most moving, invitation with which the Chapter closes, as if for the purpose of letting that be seen. In spite of prevailing unbelief, He proclaims aloud to the world his unabated de- sire to be the Friend of man in every possible way ; .giving light to those in spiritual darkness, rest to. the weary, peace to the guilty, comfort to the afflicted. ALEX. B. BRUCE. THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK. It has been the almost universal opinion of Biblical scholars that our Lord Jesus Christ spoke a kind of Hebrew patois, which is variously denominated Ara- maic or Syro-Chaldaic. ' On that hypothesis, nearly all the words which He really uttered have been lost for ever. The few scattered expressions, like Raca, Cephas, and Ephphatha, to be found in the Gospels, are the -only, relics of the language which did, in truth, proceed out of his mouth. The whole of the Greek is a translation. We have nothing more than a few brief sentences which the Son of God positively uttered when He dwelt with men upon the earth. The thesis which I venture to maintain on this the most interesting of all literary questions is the exact converse of that usually held. While it is generally said that Christ, for the most part, spoke in Aramaic, and only on some rare occasions in Greek my contention is that He almost always made use of Greek in his public discourses, and only now and then, for special reasons, had recourse to the ver- nacular Hebrew. In this point of view, we still possess in the existing Greek Gospels— so far as the language is concerned, and so far as strict accuracy in reporting has been observed — the ipsissima verba which proceeded out of our Saviour's mouth. AUGUST, .1877. ■ 6 VOL. VI. 82 THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK. I have said that the controversy as to the language really made use of by Christ involves the most in- teresting of all literary questions. And probably every one will admit this. It is related of the illus- trious Christian philosopher Boyle, that towards the end of his days he sought to master Syriac, with the view of thus coming as near as possible to the actual language which it was supposed our Lord employed. I have in my own possession a letter from the late eminent Isaac Taylor, in which he states that, after considering my argument and being convinced by it, he felt, on reading the Greek Gospels, a sense of nearness to Christ which he had never possessed while these Gospels were regarded as a translation. And in one of many kind letters which the late Lord Lytton wrote to me on the subject, he says : " To my mind, our reverence for the Gospels, and even the respect with which a Deist of fine understanding would view them, are increased by all that tends lo- render it probable that we are not reading that para- phrase which words rendered into another language from that in which they were spoken could scarcely fail to be, but viewing the Mind that spoke in the language it employed." It is now fifteen years since my views on the Lan- guage of Christ were presented to the world. That is truly, as Tacitus remarks, "grande mortalis sevf spatium ; " but it could not reasonably be regarded as. long enough to secure acceptance for views (even supposing them correct) so entirely opposed to pre- vailing opinions as those which I ventured to present. I am, therefore, not surprised that the old conceptions on the subject referred to still hold the ground. We THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK 83 I find the most recent writers on questions connected with the Gospels proceeding, without a word, on the assumption that Hebrew, in the form of Aramaic, was the language constantly employed by Christ. As I still firmly maintain the contrary, and have no doubt of the ultimate acceptance of truth on this as on all other questions, I gladly avail myself of an in- vitation to give an outline of my argument in the pages of The Expositor, leaving it to any who may become interested in the question to seek a further acquaintance with all its bearings in the work to which allusion has already been made. 1 The position which I endeavour to make good is this. I believe that the Jews of our Saviour's time were bilingual, their old ancestral tongue still sur- viving among them in a corrupted form, and being, for the most part, employed in familiar domestic in- tercourse, while the Greek existed side by side with it, and was usually made use of for all public and literary purposes. Many analogous cases will at once, occur to the reader. It may be sufficient to refer to Wales, or the Highlands of Scotland, in nu- merous districts of which both the Celtic and English tongues are in constant use, the one being the lan- guage of homely private life, and the other being made use of as the language of literature, and on almost all public occasions. Every one acquainted with the facts of the case will grant how wide-spread the Greek language had become before the commencement of our era. It was 1 "Discussions on the Gospels, in two parts. Part I. On the Language employed by our Lord and his disciples. Part II. On the Original Language of St. Matthew's Gospel, and on the Origin and Authenticity of the Gospels." Macraillan and Co. . ' 6* 8 4 THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK. in truth the common medium of intercourse through- out the whole civilized world. Cicero, bringing but this, point by contrast to his native tongue, declares in well-known words, " Graeca leguntur in omnibus fere gentibus, Latina suis finibus, exiguis sane, con- tinentur." l This statement, if true in the great orator's day, became far more emphatically so some generations afterwards. The knowledge and use of the Greek language continued to spread with great rapidity during the century which followed the death of Cicero, and it retained its supremacy for several ages as the language of the Christian Church. Let me refer only to the following facts. The Apostle Paul wrote to the Romans and Galatians in Greek ; Latin writers both in prose and verse 2 testify to the constant use which was made of Greek in the Im- perial City at the date at which they write ; while towards the end of the second century Irenaeus wrote from Lyons in Greek, on a theme interesting to, and intended to be considered by, the whole Christian world. The question now is, Had Greek, in any way, at- tained a footing in Palestine as in the rest of the world ? . Answers crowd upon us to this question, and these both of an a priori and a posteriori cha- racter. It seems almost impossible for any one to- consider the national history of the Jews for a cen- tury or two before Christ without concluding that Greek could not have failed to secure a large ascen- dency among them. The several dynasties to which they were successively subject, Egyptian, Syrian, and Roman, alike contributed to this result. A new wave » Pro Arch. 23. " Suet. Tib. cap. 71 ; Juv. Sat. vi. 180, et seq. &c. THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK. S5 I of Hellenic influence passed over the land with every fresh change which occurred in its political condition. Nor was this influence much checked under the Maccabean princes. With the temporary indepen- dence then enjoyed, there was, no doubt, an attempt made to throw off the taint of Gentilism in every particular. But Hellenic tendencies had become too firmly rooted in the land, and the constant use of the Greek language was found too necessary in all national transactions, to allow of any considerable change taking place during the brief period in which Judaea then existed as an independent kingdom. And soon did the hopeless effort die away. More than half a century before the beginning of our era Pompey the Great appeared in Palestine as' an ar- biter between the brothers Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, and from that moment Gentile influence revived in greater power than ever. The government speedily passed from the Asmonaean to the Herodian family; Judaea soon became an acknowledged dependency of Rome ; and we naturally conclude that, as in other parts of the Empire, so in Palestine, the Roman power would be the pioneer and support of Greek civilization and literature. 1 But now let us look at facts. We have the Apo- cryphal books of the Old Testament, the writings of Josephus, inscriptions still remaining on ruins in Palestine, numismatic evidence, and, above all, the New Testament itself, from all which sources proof is to be derived in favour of the conclusion for which I contend. » Ewald (Geseh. des Volk. Is. iv. 250-520) gives an excellent sketch of the history of the period, shewing the gradual encroachments and ultimate ascen- dency of Gentilism. 86 THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK. THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK. 87 As to the Apocryphal books, there is good reason to believe that the latest of them was written some time before the commencement of our era, while the others range, at somewhat uncertain dates, from that period up to perhaps the third century before Christ And it at once strikes us as a suggestive fact con- nected with these books, that they exist only in Greek. One of them, we know, was at first written f such desig- nations as Cephas, Boanerges, &c. ; and of such phrases as irpocrairov XajAfiaveiv, yeveadai Savarov, &C. But it seems no easy matter, on the hypothesis that our Lord generally made use of Hebrew, to account for the retaining of such words as 'Paxd (Matt. v. 22) and Map/ieovp (Luke xvi. 11), while his lan- guage is, for the most part, translated. For why, it may well be asked, should an exception be made in favour of these expressions ? What right had they to stand as they were originally uttered, while the whole context in which they are imbedded was subjected to a process of translation ? It certainly does appear to me somewhat difficult to answer these questions on the supposition that our Lord generally made use of Hebrew ; whereas, on the theory which I uphold, that the substance of his discourse was Greek, and has thus been reported to us in its original form by the Evangelists, nothing could be more natural, or indeed inevitable, than that such Aramaic words and phrases should from time to time occur and be preserved. I shall enter upon an examination of special pas- sages afterwards, but meanwhile I venture to main- 9 6 THE GOSPEL IN THE EPISTLES. CONTRAST BETWEEN THEM. 97 tain that, as has been shewn, there is every reason to conclude, from a general survey of the New Tes- tament, that Greek was generally known and used in Palestine at the time of Christ ; that that accord- ingly was the language which He usually employed ; and that, while He sometimes made use in public of the Aramaic dialect, such an occurrence was quite exceptional to his ordinary practice, and is on that account distinguished by particular notice in the Evangelic history. a. Roberts. THE GOSPEL IN THE EPISTLES. I believe that Jesus Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; that he descended into hell, and the third day rose again from the dead. When we begin to institute a comparison between the Gospels and Epistles on the above-quoted art- icles, we are struck at once with the different way in which the meaning of these sublime events of the Saviour's life was understood before and after the gift of the Holy Ghost. The Evangelists make con- spicuous everywhere how little even the chosen Twelve understood concerning the events which were to befall their Master. When Jesus (Luke xviii. 31-34) said plainly to them that, in their ap- proaching visit to Jerusalem, He should be delivered to the Gentiles, be mocked, scourged, and put to death, and the third day should rise again ; we are told, " They understood none of these things, and this' saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken." And if this were so with the plain details of what was about to come to f pass before their eyes, how much less were they likely to understand the great purpose for which these events were permitted to occur ! Christ, as we shall presently see, had given to his disciples, before the Resurrection, some few intimations of the great end for which He had come into the world ; and when- the Holy Ghost came upon them, these things were, without doubt, brought vividly to their remembrance, and the full meaning then made plain to them of what before had been obscure, or rather incomprehensible. . But in the Epistles the historic details of Christ's passion form a very trifling portion of the Apostle's matter. He deals almost wholly with the end for which these events were wrought. It is not that Christ died, but that He died for the sins of men, which St. Paul is anxious to proclaim : it is not the resurrection of Jesus only which he preaches, but that Christ is the first-fruits of them that sleep, and that we too shall be raised, yea, all in Christ shall be made alive : it is not a mere historic fact that Jesus was taken up into heaven, and that a cloud received Him out of the sight of the disciples, of which St. Paul has to tell, but that the followers of Christ should seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth at the right hand of God. Of all this teaching the Gospels which have been preserved for us say but very little. Till Christ's resurrection was accomplished; and the fact thereof fully received, no such lessons could have place ; of which lessons, however, the Epistles are full, and the narrative which we derive from the Gospels can only be traced by allusions made here and there by vol. vi. . 7 i6o NOTES ON COMMENTARIES. the Gentiles. It is a very able and sincere attempt to ap- praise the character of St. Paul, the kind of work he did, and the way in which that work has told upon the Church and the world. I do not know that I can give a better taste of the author's quality than in a few words on a question much disputed and often raised. " It cannot be denied that the teaching of Christianity ignores patriotism. It ignores it, however, only because patriotism is transient, is inferior to the large purposes which can be obtained by evangelizing a federal humanity. The State is superior to the family, and asserts its claim to break up all domestic ties in view of the public good, for it sacrifices the father in the citizen. But it does not, except under this constraint, disparage the family : on the contrary, it cherishes and encourages the love of home. And, similarly, the claims of a federal humanity are stronger than those of patriotism, and as civilization ad- vances the latter will be sacrificed if it clashes with the former. Patriotism is encouraged only as the school of a higher life. And it should be remembered that if pat- riotism has given magnificent examples of 'self-sacrifice, of heroic devotion, of ardent courage, of noble enterprize, these very qualities have been called out because a spurious loyalty has armed the oppressor with the power which a true patriotism has successfully defied. • But where, alas, could the preacher of the apostolic age find the material for patriotic impulse in the hopeless slavery of the Roman Empire ? He is turned, perforce, to the civitas Dei. He does not, indeed, forget ,to prescribe the conduct of a pure and happy home. Between that and the spiritual king- dom there was a desert. If the Lord had not shortened those days, no flesh should be saved." editor. II. THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK. I now proceed to 'deal with a very crucial question as relects the subject under considerate. In what n X .venture to ask, was the Sermon on the Sfdelivered ? Most readers will doubt ess be inclined at once to answer that ,t was n Arama- This is the almost universal opinion The ablest ana 1st elaborate works on this portion of Scripture, S touching upon every other point concerning it quietly assume that its onginal language was HeW In accordance, however, with the thes.s I have undertaken to prove, I maintain the contrary and affirm that the language used by o£ Lrcd ~ this great occasion was Greek ; and that for the following reasons. ' To whom was the discourse addressed? 1 his question has obviously a most important bearing on the other as to the language in which it was spoken. Our Lord, of course, intended that his hearers gener- ally should understand Him. He did not, there ore, employ a form of speech which, while it might be understood by some, would be unintelligible to others; but, ignoring provincial or local peculiarities of dialect, addressed them all in one common lan- guage. . . . Let us look, then, at the composition of his vast Q-, TI VOL. VI. SEPTEMBER, 1877. ll i6o NOTES ON COMMENTARIES. the Gentiles. It is a very able and sincere attempt to ap- praise the character of St. Paul, the kind of work he did, and the way in which that work has told upon the Church and the world. I do not know that I can give a better taste of the author's quality than in a few words on a question much disputed and often raised. " It cannot be denied that the teaching of Christianity ignores patriotism. It ignores it, however, only because patriotism is transient, is inferior to the large purposes which can be obtained by evangelizing a federal humanity. The State is superior to the family, and asserts its claim to break up all domestic ties in view of the public good, for it sacrifices the father in the citizen. But it does not, except under this constraint, disparage the family : on the contrary, it cherishes and encourages the love of home. And, similarly, the claims of a federal humanity are stronger than those of patriotism, and as civilization ad- vances the latter will be sacrificed if it clashes with the former. Patriotism is encouraged only as the school of a higher life. And it should be remembered that if pat- riotism has given magnificent examples of 'self-sacrifice, of heroic devotion, of ardent courage, of noble enterprize, these very qualities have been called out because a spurious loyalty has armed the oppressor with the power which a true patriotism has successfully defied. • But where, alas, could the preacher of the apostolic age find the material for patriotic impulse in the hopeless slavery of the Roman Empire ? He is turned, perforce, to the civitas Dei. He does not, indeed, forget ,to prescribe the conduct of a pure and happy home. Between that and the spiritual king- dom there was a desert. If the Lord had not shortened those days, no flesh should be saved." . editor. IT. THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK. I now proceed to 'deal with a very crucial question as respects the subject under consideration. In what language, I -venture to ask, was the Sermon on the S S delivered ? Most readers will doubt ess be inclined at once to answer that it was in Aramaic. ThisTthe almost universal opinion. The ablest and most elaborate worW on this portion of Scripture, while touching upon every other point concerning I quietly assume that its original language wa Hebrew In accordance, however, with the thes,s I have undertaken to prove, I maintain the contrary, and affirm that the language used by our Lord on this great occasion was Greek; and that for the following reasons. • To whom was the discourse addressed? _ This question has obviously a most important bearing on the other as to the language in which it was spoken. Our Lord, of course, intended that his hearers gener- ally should understand Him. He did not, therefore, employ a form of speech which, while it might be understood by some, would be unintelligible to others ; but, ignoring provincial or local peculiarities of dialect, addressed them all in one common lan- guage. Let us look, then, at the composition of his vast SEPTEMBER, 1877. XI i6s THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK. audience, as that is suggested to us by St. Matthew. In the introduction to the great discourse recorded by that Evangelist, we read as follows (Chap. iv. 23-25): "And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness, and all manner of disease among the people. And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people thatwere taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy ; and he healed them. And there fol- lowed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from yerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan." And then we im- mediately read (Chap. v. i, 2) that, "seeing the mul- titudes, he went up into a mountain : and when he was set, his disciples came unto him : and he opened his mouth and taught them, saying," &c. There can be no doubt that the discourse was addressed to the whole assemblage, so far as the mere hearing of it was concerned. Several passages, indeed, such as Chapter v. 13 ; vi. 9, &d, indicate that our Lord Spoke more immediately to his disciples. But it is also plain from other passages that He spoke so as to be heard and understood by the multitude at large ; for we are told (Chap. vii. 28), that " when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people [pi o^Xot) were astonished at his doctrine " — thus proving that his words had come home to them all, and that they had listened with some degree of intelligence to the weighty instruction which He delivered. Now, have we any reason to believe that the THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK. 163 inhabitants of Decapolis understood Hebrew ? Is it not, on the contrary, well known that the ten cities which gave its name to that region were thoroughly Greek, and that vast numbers of the population were not even Jews by religious profession, but heathen? It is difficult to ascertain, with exactness, the parti- cular ten cities which were included in the district ; and not improbably the name continued while some of the places once comprehended under it had sunk into decay. But there is no doubt as to the leading cities, which were Gadara, Gerasa, Philadelphia, Hippos, Pella, and Scythopolis; and the important point to be noticed is that, as Josephus informs us, these were thoroughly Greek cities. He expressly gives that name to Gadara and Hippos f E*Xj»i«'8« ,W TroXet?), 1 and he refers to the others in such terms as leave no doubt that the Greek element prevailed largely among their inhabitants. 2 Nothing, indeed, is more certain, or more generally agreed upon by critics, than that the region of Decapolis was oc- cupied almost exclusively by heathen settlers, or by Hellenizing Jews. It follows, therefore, as a matter of course, that as the Sermon on the Mount was in- tended to be understood, and actually was understood by inhabitants of that district among others, it must have been delivered in the Greek larguage. This conclusion is greatly strengthened when we turn to the parallel passage in St. Luke. At Chapter vi. 17, we find the persons who were addressed de- scribed as follows : — " And he came down with them (the apostles), and stood in the plain, and the com- pany, of his disciples, and a great multitude of peopje ' Anti.j- xvii. II, 4. ■ Wars, ii. 18, I. 164 THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK. out of all Judaea and Jerusalem, and from the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon, which came to hear him, and to be healed of their diseases." We thus learn that among our Lord's audience on this occasion there were the inhabitants at once of Jerusalem and ot Tyre and Sidon. What then was the language in which they were addressed ? Will any one maintain that it was Hebrew, in the face of that clear evidence which we possess that Greek was the only language then generally known* in the region of Tyre and Sidon ? Let me quote only one passage from Jose- phus bearing upon this point. He has preserved l an edict of Mark Antony sent to the people of Tyre, which begins as follows : " Marcus Antonius im- perator, to the magistrates, senate, and people of Tyre, sendeth greeting. I have sent you my de- cree, respecting which I will that ye take care that it be engraven in the public tables, in Roman and Greek letters, and that it stand engraven in the most conspicuous places, so as to be read by all." It is plain from this that Greek was the language of the district, and that no other was commonly used; since, in addition to the official Latin, Greek was the only tongue in which the edict was commanded to be published. There are just two views which can be taken of that portion of the Gospels we have been consider- ing. The sermon (or, if you will, sermons) referred to was spoken either in Hebrew or Greek. If any one says Greek, he admits all for which I plead. If, on the other hand, any one maintains that it was Hebrew, he is bound also to maintain that the in- ' Antiq. xiv. 12, 5. \ THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK. 165 habitants of Decapolis and Tyre and Sidon then understood that language. In that case, I beg to demand the proof of such an allegation. I venture humbly, but confidently, to affirm that no proof of the kind can be produced. Assumptions may, no doubt, be met with in several writers to the effect that what they call a Syro- Phoenician dialect was then prevalent in these regions ; but not a vestige of evidence is presented. On the contrary, Gesenius expressly states, in his elaborate treatise on the an- cient language of Phoenicia, that, from the time of Alexander downwards, it was gradually encroached upon by the Greek, until at length it became al- together extinct. 1 He thinks, indeed, from the evidence, of a few coins of uncertain date, that it continued to be used, aliquo modo, down to the times of the Antonines, but is very far from suggesting that it was generally employed among the people in the days of our Saviour. And even granting that this was so, it would still remain to be shewn that the Syro - Phoenician and Syro - Chaldaic dialects were identical, or, if different, which of them was now adopted by our Lord, since He had hearers at this time both from Tyre and Jerusalem. The truth is, as I trust has been sufficiently proved, that neither the one nor the other was employed ; but that the very Greek in substance which is still preserved in the Gospels — the peculiar orientalized Greek of Syria and Palestine, bearing throughout such a strong Shemitic colouring, and embalming, so to speak, some such Aramaic terms as Raca and More, which had, most naturally, forced their way into the Ian- ' Scriptura Linguaque Phoenicia Moi%umtnia % p. 339. [66 THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK. THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK. 167 guage — was made use of by our Lord in this the solemn and impressive commencement of his public ministry. But then, as every one must feel, this is a ruling case with respect to the question under discussion. If our Lord spoke in Greek on the occasion referred to, it is certain that the inhabitants of Judaea and Jerusalem were thoroughly familiar with that lan- guage ; and it would therefore be quite arbitrary to conclude that the Saviour ever employed any other in addressing them, unless a special intimation to that effect is made by the Evangelists, or some cir- cumstances present themselves which render it pro- bable that a departure from his usual practice did at any time take place. Let me next direct the reader's attention to those passages in the Gospels in which our Saviour on the one hand, or his hearers on the other, are re- presented as making quotations from the Old Testa- ment The question which here occurs is, In what language were these quotations made ? To this question it may be answered : (1) That they were made directly from the original text in ancient Hebrew ; or (2) that they were made in Aramaic ; or (3) that they were made, as they still stand in the Gospels, from the Greek Version of the Septuagint Let us examine these three hypotheses, with the view of ascertaining which of them alone can be re- garded as consistent with the facts of the case. First, then, there is probably a vague notion in the minds of ordinary readers that the citations re- ferred to were made from the ancient Hebrew text. When we read, as we so often do, of the appeals l» which our Lord and those around Him made to the Scriptures, we think, of course, of the Old Testa- ment ; and the impression is perhaps received and rested in, that the references were made to the ori- ginal Hebrew. But a very few words are sufficient to refute this opinion. It is certain that, long before the birth of our Saviour, the ancient Hebrew had ceased to be generally known or used among the people. Every scholar admits that, at least a cen- tury before the commencement of our era, the old language of the Jews had sunk into disuse ; and that, while it still continued to be studied by the learned as being the language of inspiration, it was, in the days of Christ, utterly unknown to the great majority of the nation. This being the case, it could not possibly have been in the ancient Hebrew that those quotations were made which occur in our Lord's addresses to the multitude, or which they employed at times in conversation with Him. Refer for an example of the first kind of quotation to Mark xii. 35-37, in which passage the Saviour is set before us teaching publicly in the temple, and introducing an Old Testament text into his discourse. " And the common people," we read (6 iro\v<; 8x>-o<:, who cer- tainly knew nothing of ancient Hebrew), "heard him gladly." Next, let us view the matter conversely, when the quotation from the Old Testament is made, not by Christ, but by the people. Turning to John vi. 3 1 for an example, we find the multitude (6 6^X09, Verse 24) addressing the Saviour in these words : " Our fathers did eat manna in the desert, as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat." They r thus quoted familiarly from the Book of 1 68 THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK. Psalms ; and in what language was the quotation made ? Certainly not in the ancient Hebrew, for, . as all authorities admit, that language was then to- tally unknown to the great body of the people. But, abandoning this first hypothesis, many will be inclined to take their stand on the second, and main- tain that such quotations were made in Aramaic. This, however, may be shewn to be an equally un- tenable opinion with the former. The truth is, we have no satisfactory evidence that a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures ever existed in the Syro- Chaldaic language. Frequent reference is, no doubt, made in the writings of modern Biblical scholars to ancient Targums, or translations and paraphrases of the Old Testament, which were formerly in use among the Jews. But when we come to examine the matter, we find it is a mere assumption that these existed in the days of our Saviour ; or that, if known at all, they circulated in a written form among the people. Can it be supposed that it was to such Versions our Lord referred when He said to his hearers, " Search the scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and these are they which testify of me " ? These words evidently im- ply (whether the imperative or indicative rendering of ipeware be adopted) that the people had easy and familiar access to the inspired writings, and that they could read and compare them, from beginning to end, without any dependence on rabbinical or sacer- dotal aid. There must, therefore, at the time, have been some written Version current among the people. But, as has been already said, there is no evidence whatever that any such Version existed in the'Ara- I THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK. 169 I I maic language. It seems quite inconceivable that, if the Old Testament had then been in the hands of the Jews in an Aramaic form (as was of course the case if Christ's exhortation to "search the scrip- tures" referred to the sacred books in that language), all traces of such a Version should so utterly have disappeared. In fact, there is nothing except the necessity, which certainly then existed, of the people of Palestine possessing the Scriptures in a language more generally known than the ancient Hebrew, that gives any countenance to the idea that an Ara- maic Version of the Old Testament was then current among them ; and we have now to consider whether that necessity may not be shewn to have been met in another and better way than by assuming the existence of a translation which has left no trace, either of its origin or its influence, in the literature of antiquity. I hold, then, that when the Saviour quoted the Scriptures of the Old Testament in his popular ad- dresses, or when the people did so in conversation with Him and his disciples, such quotations were invariably made, more or less exactly, from the Sep- tuagint translation. We know that this Greek Ver- sion of the whole of the ancient Scriptures had existed for long before the times of Christ. And we possess the clearest evidence, both in the writings of Josephus and in the several books of the New Testament, how commonly it was employed by the Jews of Palestine. We find, in fact, that most of the quotations which occur in the Gospels agree almost verbatim with the rendering of the Septuagint ; and that those are very few indeed which seem to depart 170 THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK. from its phraseology, and follow more closely the original text. There is not a single passage pre- senting such, variations but may, after all, be re- garded as derived from the Greek Version. The differences in question are easily accounted for on the ground (1) of the citations having been made from memory ; or (2) of a somewhat different text of the LXX. having been followed from that which is current at the present day ; or (3) by taking into consideration the undoubted fact that our Lord and his apostles often introduced into their quotations from the Old Testament a few words which did not exist in the original, or gave the passage quoted a higher and more special significance than it at first possessed. And thus at length we understand how the Saviour could have addressed to the Jews at large such a pre- cept as, " Search the scriptures." That precept, as all must acknowledge, could not have referred to the inspired books in their original language. And even though it be admitted, without sufficient evidence, that written Chaldee translations of some parts of Scrip- ture then existed, that does not much help the matter; for Chaldee, such as that of the most ancient Tar- gums, was certainly not then the familiar language of the Jewish people. We conclude, therefore, that the words of our Lord above referred to pointed to the Septuagint ; that his quotations were made from it ; that it then constituted the People's Bible in Pa- lestine, in fact ; and that, therefore, they must have been thoroughly familiar with the Greek language. Proceeding now to the Acts of the Apostles, we J THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK. 171 t nnd every Chapter giving more or less support to the proposition which I have undertaken to establish. Only a few out of many available passages can here be noticed. First, then— In what language did Peter deliver his great sermon (Chap. ii. 14-36) on the day of Pentecost ? It is plain that he addressed the whole multitude at one time, and in the same language. It is also plain from the result — the conversion of no fewer than three thousand — -that they all understood him. He must, therefore, have used a form of speech with which they were all of them familiarly acquainted. What, then, was that form of speech ? Was it the Greek or Aramaic which was the language common to all those " Jews out of every nation under heaven " ? This is surely a question which it is not difficult to answer. I should think that, if any argument at all is required on the subject, there is enough to convince every one that Aramaic could not have been the language in question in the fact that we find, in. the list of those addressed by the apostle, "men of Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes." Will any one maintain that these persons understood and employed Hebrew ? The reader should carefully observe that both the native and foreign Jews were simultaneously addressed ori this occasion. This appears very plainly, among other proofs, from the exordium of the Apostle. He begins his address thus : "Ye men of Judaea (AvBpei 'lovSaioi), and all ye that dwell in Jerusalem (ko.1 ol KaToiKovyrei ' lepovaaXrjfi eta-aire?), be this known unto ypu," &c; and by these different appellations he can only mean, as, is agreed by all critics, the native 173 THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK. Jews who were habitually resident in Jerusalem, and the temporary sojourners from other countries. Both classes were among his hearers, both were addressed in the same speech, and that' speech was delivered in the Greek language. Can any one of these state- ments be controverted or refuted ? If so, let the ar- gument which I build upon them fall to the ground. But if not so — if it must be admitted that we have here a clear instance of a Jew of Palestine addressing, among others, Jews of Palestine in the Greek lan- guage, and so well understood by them that a vast multitude repented and believed — the inference is surely manifest that Greek was then thoroughly familiar to the inhabitants of that country. Advancing now to Chapter vii., we find ourselves upon ground which can hardly be disputed. The reasons for holding that the speech of Stephen be- fore the Sanhedrin was delivered in Greek are very obvious and decisive. We may notice (i) that his accusers were unquestionably men to. the majority of whom the Greek language only was vernacular. They consisted of Cyrenians, Alexandrians, and others (Chap. vi. 9) — foreign Jews accustomed to the use of Greek, and to whom, as a rule, Hebrew was utterly unknown. If, then, these men were pre- sent, as many of them would needs be, when St. Stephen made his defence before the Sanhedrin, the speech which he delivered must have been in Greek, else it would have been to them unintelligible. Again, (2) it is a necessary inference, from the verse which has been referred to, that Stephen was himself one who was in the habit .of employing the Greek lan- guage. "There arose certain," we read, "of tHe THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK. i73 synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen." It naturally follows that, as he and they had been accustomed to dispute together in Greek, the speech which he now delivered in self-defence would also be in the Greek language. And again, (3) if we look at the address itself, we find that it bears plain evidence of having been spoken in Greek. It consists, in substance, of a cento of extracts from different parts of the Septuagint, strung together in a loose, yet masterly, manner. And nothing, surely, could be more improbable, than either that Luke adopted the version of the LXX. so often in this chapter differing from the Hebrew (see, e.g., Verses 14 and 44), while Stephen really cited the original Scriptures ; or that Stephen himself, in quoting the Hebrew, altered it as we find in the Greek version of his words. One or other of these improbabilities must be maintained by all who hold that Hebrew was employed by the proto-martyr on this occasion ; and there are probably few readers who will be in- clined to adopt either of the alternatives in prefer- ence to the natural conclusion reached on other grounds, that Stephen now made use of the Greek language. 'Here then, again, we have a decisive case. We find that a long and important speech, addressed to the most national and distinctive of Jewish courts, was delivered in Greek. There can be no doubt that it was an open assembly in which Stephen now pleaded ; that vast multitudes of the common people were present ; that he addressed himself to them all '74 THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK. {Verse 2, avSpa, a8e\■■■ I now proceed to subject the view for which I con- tend to a sort of cross-examination. There are several, phenomena presented in the New Testament which have been felt perplexing, if not inexplicable, on the opinion which has generally prevailed as to the language usually employed by the Saviour and * Cf. Rom. xv. 14 with Heb. v. II, 12. .1 THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK. 291 his followers ; and I desire now to employ these both as tests and evidences of the opposite theory, which it has been my endeavour to establish. The decisive proof of the validity of any hypothesis, is. that it ex- plains all the phenomena in question. As Aristotle has remarked, " Everything connected with a subject harmonizes with the truth regarding it ; " J and if we have, in fact, reached the truth respecting the point under discussion, we may justly expect that difficulties otherwise formidable will vanish when set in the light of it, and that, through its means, problems will be easily solved which remain insoluble on any er- roneous hypothesis. There is, then, one great difficulty which has been felt and acknowledged by some of those able and candid scholars who hold that Aramaic was. the only language with which natives of Palestine could pro- perly be said to be familiar at the time referred to ; and that is, how to account for the very considerable command of Greek possessed by all the writers of the New Testament, and by some of them more than , others. The idea, long prevalent, of ascribing this to a miraculous interposition, is now, as was formerly remarked, universally abandoned. And the question then comes to be how a man like St. James, for example, who never, apparently, left Palestine all his life, should have been able to write such Greek as is found in the 'Epistle bearing his name. The diction and style of that Epistle are admitted, on all hands, • to make a comparatively near approach to the clas- sical models of Greek composition. Expressing the opinion which exists, on this point among Biblical 1 Nic. Eth. i. 8. 29* THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK. critics, Dean Alford remarks : " The Greek of our Epistle is peculiar. It is comparatively free from Hebraisms ; the words are weighty and expressive ; the constructions for the most part those found in the purer Greek." And he adds: " The Greek style of this Epistle must ever remain, considering the native place and position of its writer, one of those difficulties with which it is impossible for us now to deal satis- factorily." The sentence which I have printed in italics con- tains a candid admission of the difficulty which the style, of this Epistle presents to every one who holds the prevalent views with respect to the relation then subsisting between the Greek and Hebrew languages in Palestine. To all who agree with the eminent writer quoted, that Aramaic was the prevailing lan- guage of the country, the problem which is suggested by the Greek- diction of this Epistle of James must remain, as he frankly confesses, one of which it is hopeless to attempt the solution. But should not the very fact of such a difficulty being felt, on the ground assumed by Alford and others, lead them to doubt whether, in standing where they do, they may not be in error ? The hypothesis which they maintain with respect to the knowledge of Greek then possessed by the inhabitants of Pales- tine is one which must be tested by facts, and it confessedly fails when set face to face with some of them. But surely, if the philosopher of old could say that " there is in nature nothing interpolated, or without connection, as in a bad tragedy," we may as confidently affirm that there is nothing in Scripture which is really out of harmony with the circumstances ! t * THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK. *93 in which the inspired writings were composed. And when this Epistle of James, on being appealed to in evidence either of the validity or unsoundness of that opinion which is generally held as to the know- ledge of Greek then possessed by the natives of Palestine, is found to declare against those who maintain it, ought not that fact of itself to suggest a doubt whether they may not possibly be mistaken ? Under the pressure of that difficulty which they acknowledge to be connected with this Epistle, may they not, without offence, be asked to reconsider their position, and to inquire whether there be not another way of looking at the point in question, by which all the facts of the case become easily explic- able, and no residuum of unexplained difficulty re- mains to perplex and baffle the critical student. That the position maintained in these papers en- tirely neutralizes every such difficulty, is too obvious to need any lengthened remarks. On the ground which I have assumed, and sought to make good, nothing could be more natural than that even the Palestinian James should write in the style which characterizes his Epistle. He lived in a country f where the Greek tongue was constantly employed. On almost all public occasions he used it himself and heard it used by others, In the civil transac- tions taking place between the Romans as masters and the Jews as subjects, the language of Greece could alone furnish a common medium of intercourse; while in the ecclesiastical courts held under the pre- sidency of the high-priest in Jerusalem, and in the Christian assemblies which met in the same city, with the Apostle himself aj their head, we have ?94 THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK. 2 95 seen that the same tongue was habitually employed. In these circumstances, James >could not fail to ac- quire a large acquaintance with that noble language. Continual use may easily be believed to have given him such a command of it as appears in his Epistle; and his very permanency in one settled sphere of labour would afford him an opportunity, which the other apostles did not possess, of becoming acquainted with some of the literary treasures which it contained. It seems, indeed, too plain to be disputed that James had read at least the works of some of the learned Jewish writers of the religio-philosophical school of Alexandria; and he could not have been familiar with the almost classical writings of Philo, without contracting some of that purity and polish by which they are so remarkably distinguished, and which are, in fact, so apparent in his own very elegant Epistle. 1 I next observe that the very existence of what is known as the Hellenistic dialect of Greek seems to point to, and certainly fits in exactly with, the con- clusion which is here sought to be established. A somewhat futile disputation was formerly carried on among scholars respecting the Greek of the New Testament. As the controversy was conducted between two such illustrious scholars as Salmasius and Heinsius, it may now be clearly seen to have been a mere strife about words. No one can read the Greek New Testament without perceiving that it is written in a peculiar kind of Greek. He may, indeed, refuse to allow that it ought to be styled '"« Credner, a most competent authority remarks, "InderThat jeigt unser Brief des Jacobus vielfache Beriihrung mit den Schriftcn Philos."— EM. sec 219. w i a dialect in the same sense in which that term is applied to those varieties of language which were employed in different parts of Greece and her de- pendencies ; but that it had its own characteristics, as much as any of the recognized dialects of classical Greek, is evident from the slightest inspection of the Gospels and Epistles. Not more manifestly does Herodotus differ from Xenophon or Theocritus from Sophocles, than St. Matthew or St. Peter differs from all. Now, how did this peculiar dialect arise ? and how did it come to be so largely used, that we have many more writings extant in it than we pos- sess in some of the classical dialects of the Greek language ? Allow the common view as to the pre- vailing language of Palestine at the time of Christ to stand, and these questions appear to admit of no answer. Aramaic, it is said, was the language of the country, and Greek was but little used or understood. How then, I ask, did the dialect employed by the human authors of the New Testament arise ? and \how did it reach that maturity which manifestly ap- pears in their use of it ? Could the employment of Greek by a few scholars, accustomed for the most part to write in Hebrew, have led to its existence i and cultivation ? It is not thus that dialects are usually formed. They spring up, not in the libraries of the few, but in the homes of the many — not from the practice of learned and elaborate writers, but from the rough and ready utterances of those who meet at church or market, and are there accustomed to address each other in language which is naturally tinged by national characteristics and habits. No sort of salius could possibly have been made by Jews 296 THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK. addicted to the almost exclusive employment of the Hebrew language, to the use of such Greek as appears in the New Testament. The very fact, therefore, that the inspired writings exhibit such a formed and distinct species of diction seems of itself necessarily to presuppose the general and long-con- tinued use of the Greek language among the people. But it may be said that the dialect in question was founded upon the Septuagint ; and we may, in a certain sense, admit that this was the case. There can be no doubt, I believe, that all the sacred writers were thoroughly familiar with the LXX., and that its style had no little influence on the diction which they themselves employed. But I cannot allow that a mere acquaintance with the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures furnishes any adequate explana- tion of the point under consideration. If, indeed, it be acknowledged that the Septuagint was in such constant use among the inhabitants of Palestine, as to form in fact the Bible which they habitually read, all is granted for which I contend ; and I care not to discuss the question whether this common use of the LXX. implied, on other grounds, the exist- ence of the dialect under consideration, or was itself the means of giving it currency throughout the country. But if it be said that Matthew and John and Paul wrote in the peculiar Greek exemplified in their works, simply because they followed the model presented by the Septuagint, I must deny the sufficiency of the cause assigned. The studied imitation of the style of a work not generally read in the country could never have given rise to the dialect which we find to have so generally prevailed, I 7 HAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK. 397 f i even though it were possible to suppose that suffi- cient motive otherwise existed to lead to such a studied imitation. The influence of the LXX. may have been strongly felt by the New Testament writers, but certainly could not have induced or enabled them to compose their works in the diction which these exhibit, had not that, on other grounds, been the character of the language which they habitually employed. Besides, it is certain that the Septuagint was universally employed by the Jews of Egypt, yet the Judaic writers of that country were very far from either designedly or unconsciously imitating its style. Philo, as is well known, depended en- tirely for his knowledge of the ancient Scriptures upon the_ Greek translation, yet his writings are framed on the classical, not the Hellenistic, model ; and the same thing is true of the fragments which have come down to us of other Judso - Egyptian writers belonging to this period. Palestine alone "can be said, to be the country in which the dialect exhibited in the New Testament flourished ; and the vigorous existence of such a dialect in the days of Christ and his apostles can only reasonably be accounted for on the ground that it was then the prevailing public language of the people. In what language, I shall now venture to inquire, was the hymn of the Virgin Mary (Luke i. 46-55) originally composed ? No doubt some will scarcely have patience for a moment to consider this ques- tion, but will at once reply that it was, of course, in Hebrew. Nevertheless, that is not by any means certain : on the contrary, probability strongly inclines 398 THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK. to the other side. It has been noted by some of those who never saw their way to those views which it is my endeavour to establish, that the beautiful song of the mother of our Lord is made up of " en- tirely Septuagintal expressions." ' On this ground they have actually felt themselves constrained to believe that Greek and not Hebrew was the tongue which Mary employed, while at the same time they continued to hold that her Divine Son, in the exer- cise of 'his public ministry, habitually made use of the Hebrew language ! The incongruity of these two statements must, I think, be obvious to the reader. If there is really ground to believe that the Virgin, even in giving utterance in private to those feelings excited within her by the Holy Ghost, made use of Greek, much more must we suppose that this was true of the Saviour in the delivery of his public discourses. Let the Magnificat be carefully and candidly examined, and if it is found to bear clear internal evidence of having been originally composed in Greek — as even learned op- ponents of my views have admitted — then it seems impossible to deny, without utter inconsistency, that Greek was perfectly familiar at the period in question to the inhabitants of Palestine, and would, as a matter of course, be generally made use of by our Lord and his disciples. I only add that Scripture is consistent to the end with that view of the linguistic condition of Palestine at the time which is here set forth. For, surely, it fits in well with the conclusion we have so often reached, when the exalted Saviour is represented in « Crinfield's "Apology for the Septuagint," p. 185. t THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK. 299 \ i the Book of Revelation as making use emblemati- cally of the letters of the Greek alphabet. In three several passages of that book (Chaps, i. 8 ; xxi. 6 ; xxii. 13) the expression is used by our Lord, — " I am Alpha and Omega [A kuI n), the beginning and the end, the first and the last!" Now there is certainly nothing impossible in the supposition that the corresponding . Hebrew form of this figurative description was, in point of fact, made use of by Christ ; and that, as Grotius has observed, " Joannes earn locutionem aptavit ad alphabetum Grsecum, quia ipse Graece scribebat." But it can hardly be shewn that the analogous Hebrew form of expression was in use among the Jews of our Saviour's day. It seems also, as Diodati has remarked, to have been the habit of John to insert the Hebrew terms which were, at any time, employed by those to whom he listened in these apocalyptic visions, as well as to give their Greek equivalents (Comp. Chaps, ix. 11 and xvi. 16); and it cannot, at all events, be denied that it is more easy and natural to regard the Greek expressions now referred to as having been actually employed by our Lord; and, as no sufficient reason can be suggested for his having adopted this form of speech, except on the supposition that Greek had been generally employed by Him and his disciples, we find again, in the passages under remark, an additional corroboration of the truth of the proposition already so abundantly confirmed, that He and they did, for the most part, make use of the Greek language. A. ROBERTS. 366 THE WATERS OF SHILOAH. solitudes of the mountain, the garden, the desert — alone, yet not alone, because God was with Him. His course through life, like that of the sacred hill stream, was to be traced by the blessings He shed around Him, the added life and fruitfulness He car- ried to prepared and fertile hearts, the new life and fruitfulness He carried to barren hearts. Under the gentle, unobtrusive, yet irresistible influence of his grace, how many a solitary place has grown glad with flowers and fruit ! how many a desert place has blossomed and rejoiced like the rose ! The passage sets Christ before us as rejected by his own. " His own received him not." They re- fused the waters of Shiloah — refused them precisely because they ran softly. Had they brawled down a rocky bed, fretting and whitening against every stone that opposed their progress, they might have proved attractive; they might have commanded attention. Had Jesus come to reveal his power instead of to display his mercy, blazing fierce wrath upon his enemies and smiting hostile nations to the earth, the Jews would probably have received Him and re- joiced in Him. But He came not with observation. One day He will come as the lightning which flashes from one end of heaven to the other : but of old He came in great humility. And the Jews, like their fathers, refused the Divine Gentleness that would have made them great, and relied on the human might which oppressed and enslaved them. Just as the fathers rejected Jehovah to put their trust in the kings of Syria and Assyria, so the children rejected Jesus and put their trust in Caiaphas and Pilate. And we are in danger of falling into their sin. It is THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK. 3 6 7 hard to hold fast our faith in God, and the invisible operations of his law, and the secret equity of his providence, when a slight exertion of our own craft, or a little help from our neighbours, seems all we need to secure our immediate and certain good. It is our constant temptation to put our trust in men— in our own cunning or our own might, or in out- neighbours' might and cunning— instead of holding fast our confidence in God and in the blessedness of obedience to his law. And, therefore, we need to remember the doom of those who refused the softly- flowing waters of Shiloah, and rejoiced in Rezin and Remaliah's son ; that, warned by their doom, we may not share their sin. s. cox. IV. THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK. I now proceed to a consideration of the objections which may be urged against the view that Greek was the dominant language of Palestine in the times of Christ and his apostles. Such objections are to be expected. For as there is no proposition which does not contain a contradiction in terms but may possibly be true, so there is no proposition which does not rest on mathematical evidence but will be found in some measure open to objections, and must, however certain in itself, be defended against them. The first objection to be noticed is of a purely a priori character. It rests on the alleged tenacity of vernacular language, and is usually accompanied by 368 THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK. a statement of the special unlikelihood which is sup- posed to have existed in the case of the Jews that any other tongue should have gained supremacy over their ancient national language. This objection need not long detain us, for the appeal must here, as in every such case, be made to facts. The de- cisive question is, Was it, or was it not, the case that, in our Saviour's days, the Greek language had ob- tained prevalence in Palestine ? It is only if no cer- tain evidence exists that we can allow the a priori principle any weight in determining our judgment. All mere presumptive reasoning must yield in the face of actual proof. Its very strongest conclu- sions vanish at once when shewn to be inconsistent with even the smallest amount of incontrovertible fact ; and therefore, while far from acknowledging the validity of the objection in the principle which it involves, I may be content simply to point to the evidence already brought forward to demonstrate its inapplicability in the special case which has engaged our consideration. Many and varied proofs have been adduced to shew that Greek was in reality the reigning language of Palestine in the time of Christ ; and unless these proofs can be repelled, the result to which they lead remains totally unaffected by any a priori considerations. They present the stubborn resistance ever offered by facts to all mere theories, however plausible ; and if they cannot be questioned or set aside, they demand, with the imperial autho- rity of truth, to be accepted in all their length and breadth, and with all their manifest and legitimate conclusions. This a priori objection to the views which I have THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK. 3 6 9 advocated, though so inherently weak, is a very favourite weapon with a certain class of writers on the opposite side of the question. Such arguments as the following are continually employed : " We cannot conceive that Greek was employed by our Saviour and his disciples;" "The Jews were too tenacious of all that was national and peculiar ever to have parted with their ancestral language ; " "How can we doubt that Hebrew was the dialect which our Lord and his contemporaries made use of ? " &c. Now I crave leave to retire from this ground alto- gether, not from any fear of being beaten on it, but because it is not the ground on which the controversy can ever be settled. The question is purely one of fact, and nothing else can properly be allowed any weight in deciding it. Let the opponents of those views which have been here presented leave the shadowy realm of presumptive reasoning altogether, and let us meet on the substantial ground of actual evidence, where alone the contest can find issue, and where the irresistible testimony of truth may be proved to belong either to the one side or the other. It is then with a feeling of satisfaction that I pro- ceed to a consideration of those a posteriori argu- ments by which the conclusions aimed at in these papers are sought to be invalidated. Many of these arguments bear only against the opinion that Hebrew, in the form of Aramaic, was not employed for any purpose by the Jews of our Saviour's day, and pre- sent, therefore, no really hostile aspect to the views for which I contend. It is idle to prove that Ara- maic was frequently used by the contemporaries of Christ and his disciples. The evidence of that fact VOL. VI. 24 370 THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK. is, I believe, abundant and conclusive. I willingly admit that the Jews of the period were, generally speaking, Sirykwrroi, and I entertain no doubt that they often found it convenient and agreeable to em- ploy their national language. But the admission of this fact does not in any way controvert the thesis which I have propounded. Both truths rest on their own appropriate evidence ; and the many proofs which may be brought forward to shew that the Jews were then acquainted with Aramaic, and often made use of it, stand in perfect harmony with the parallel proofs which have been adduced to evince that they were equally well acquainted with Greek, and generally employed it for all public and literary purposes. These remarks furnish a sufficient reply to the objection based on several passages in Josephus, 1 in which the historian reports that, by the command of Titus, he addressed his besieged countrymen, rp irarpup ykaxroy and ' Efipxlfav. Of course the Jews understood Aramaic, and, for fanatical reasons, had then fallen back upon its use much more than at a somewhat earlier period of their history. But that fact certainly does not disprove what we so clearly learn from the same writer, that they were also fami- liarly acquainted with the Greek language. There are two other passages generally quoted from Josephus, 2 in the former of which he speaks of the Greek as a fei/7j*al aWoSoTrrj StaXe/ero?, which every one admits it to have been ; and in the latter tells us that he had devoted himself to the study of Greek learning, but had not been able to acquire a correct * IVars, v. 9, 2 ; vi. 2, I. * Antiq. Prooem. 2-, Antiq. xx. II, 2. THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK. 37i pronunciation, on account of the habit which pre- vailed in his native country. The whole difficulty which this passage seems to present vanishes when we take into account the object which Josephus had professedly in view. It was not his purpose merely to write in Greek, but in pure and classical Greek ; and it is in perfect consistency with the position which I uphold that he should have felt great diffi- culty in accomplishing this purpose. His varrpfa avvndew, greatly hindered it. His case was analogous to those Scottish writers of the last century (Camp- bell, for instance, in the preface to his work on the Gospels), who speak of the pains which they had taken, often, as was felt, with but partial success, to write in correct and classical English. The Hebra- istic Greek to which Josephus was accustomed in Palestine might almost have been reckoned a dif- ferent language from that employed by the classical historians. It was therefore an onerous task which he undertook when he engaged to write an account of the institutions of his country on the model of native Greek writers ; and we wonder not that he required all the assistance he could procure in this undertaking, and excused the delay which had oc- curred in the publication of his work by a statement of the difficulty he had experienced in composing it. It is next contended that there is no evidence of the Septuagint translation having been used in the synagogues of Judaea, as might have been expected if the Greek language prevailed in that country. This objection has been strongly pressed by many learned writers, and in a tone of triumph which seems to indicate that it is deemed unanswerable. Never- 37* THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK. theless, as appears to me, it is an objection which when examined resolves itself into another confirma- tion of the views here sought to be established. What then, I beg to ask, is the nature of the evi- dence demanded on the point in question ? Is it no evidence that we find the passages quoted by our Lord in the synagogues (see Luke iv. 16-20; John vi. 26-35) agreeing almost verbatim with the version of the LXX. ? Is it no evidence that we learn from the Gospels throughout that the ancient Scriptures were read in the synagogues of Palestine in a lan- guage well understood by the people, and are at the same time sure that the Biblical Hebrew was then totally unintelligible to most of them, while we have no proof that any written version of the Old Testa- ment ever existed except that of the LXX. ? Is it no evidence that we find the earliest Fathers of the Church, who lived in times bordering on those of the apostles, unanimously speaking of the Septuagint as in habitual use among the Jews; and that it is not till we come down to Jerome that we find any doubts suggested as to that Version having been employed by our Lord and his apostles ? To my mind every available source of evidence which is worth anything points to the conclusion that the Greek translation of the Old Testament Scriptures was then regularly used in the synagogues of Palestine. Let us subject the question to the test of history. We see our Lord entering the synagogue at Nazareth, and having a book put into his hands, from which He reads in the hearing of the people. In what language was that -book composed ? This question, if it can be answered, is decisive of the point under discussion. Nor does THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK. 373 there seem much difficulty in answering it. We know, beyond all dispute, that ancient Hebrew could not have been the language of the book, since that was then unintelligible to the great body of the people. The ground is narrowed, then, to the old question between- the Septuagint translation, which was certainly then in existence, and a written Chaldee paraphrase, which is summoned into being for the occasion. One should imagine that if there is any- thing required to decide between these competing claims, it is found in the twofold fact, that no proof can be brought from the New Testament that even an oral Chaldee paraphrase was then usually given in the synagogues of Palestine, and that the passage referred to is preserved by the Evangelist in almost the exact words of the Septuagint version. And then, if we look at the statements of the early Christian writers, we find that with the greatest un- animity they corroborate this conclusion. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian all contain state- ments which clearly testify to the habitual use of the version of the LXX. among the Jews. It was not, as has been already remarked, till the time of Jerome, that the idea began to spread that any other form of the ancient Scriptures was generally employed by our Lord and his disciples. In short, as there is nothing more than assertions to be found that the Old Testament Scriptures existed in any other form among the Jews of our Saviour's day than in the Hebrew original and the Greek translation, and as they certainly were not read by our Lord and his contemporaries only in a dead language, we neces- sarily conclude, in full accordance with the impression 374 THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK. derived from the earliest Christian and Jewish writers, and above all from the records contained in the New Testament, that the Greek version of the Old Testa- ment was in our Saviour's time regularly read in the synagogues of Palestine. Advancing now to a consideration of the objections derived from the New Testament itself, I shall notice very briefly, in the first place, those Aramaic words and phrases which occasionally present themselves, and on the occurrence of which not a little is often based. In fact, the few Hebrew words which are found in our Lord's discourses have been frequently referred to as decisive of the whole question at issue. The fallacy involved in such a mode of argument was formerly pointed out. It was remarked that nothing could be more natural than that such terms should from time to time occur if the relation of the two languages were such as is here supposed. It was also shewn Ljw difficult it is to account for the retention of these few words in their original form on the hypothesis that the language employed by our Lord and his disciples has for the most part been translated. By all the rules of logic, indeed, the occurrence of those few Aramaic words which appear in the New Testament, so far from proving that that was the usual language of Christ and his followers, rather proves the contrary, and leads us to conclude ■ that they generally made use of the Greek language. Again, we are told by St. Paul, in the narrative of his conversion given before Agrippa (Actsxxvi. 14), that the exalted Saviour then spoke to him " in the Hebrew tongue." The inference which many have drawn from this is, that Hebrew was then the pre- THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK. 375 » vailing language of the country, and the language, accordingly, which our Lord habitually made use of during his sojourn upon the earth. But this way of viewing the matter deprives the Apostle's statement of all significance. If Hebrew had been the usual language of public intercourse at the time, and the language habitually spoken by Christ, what need was there for the Apostle to remark that it was now made use of by the Saviour ? All his hearers would of course suppose this, had it been true that Aramaic was the language generally employed. The very fact that -St. Paul regards the matter as worthy of being mentioned, shews that the occurrence was ex- ceptional, and that it was therefore a thing which would not naturally suggest itself to the minds of his audience. We are thus led to the old conclusion — Greek, and not Hebrew, was the language commonly made use of in Palestine as the medium of public in- tercourse ; and in accordance with this, the Apostle now mentions it as something singular and striking that he was, on this * occasion, addressed by the Saviour in Aramaic, and not in the usual Greek, which might have been expected to be employed. It is hardly needful, after what has already been said, to do more than notice the objection, brought forward by some, to the effect that " it is scarcely credible that the poor woman who came out of the coasts of Tyre and Sidon could have uttered her cries and lamentations in Greek. She spoke the native language of her country. It was Syro- Phoenician or Syro-Chaldaic, and the same mixed language, with some variety of dialect, prevailed at that time over Judaea, Samaria, and Galilee. There seems the (jucuuy urucrcu mat me iNew lestamenc snould be composed in Hellenistic Greek, they were enabled by that Divine power which we term inspiration to convert this provincial and transient dialect into its present fixed and enduring form." 1 This is a deli- cious passage, as exhibiting long-prevalent views in all their crudeness. No answer to it is required beyond referring to what has been proved above. Few, I imagine, will be inclined to attribute the Greek of the New Testament to inspiration if it can be ac- counted for on natural grounds ; and equally few, I trust, will find any difficulty in believing that a woman of Tyre and Sidon, who is expressly styled by St. Mark 'EWyvk, addressed her petition to Christ in the Greek language. Again, it is objected that we read (Matt. xxvi. 73 ; Mark xiv. 70) that Peter was discovered to be a native of Galilee by the dialect which he employed, and must therefore have been speaking the vernacular language. Granting that this was the case, it proves nothing against the proposition which I have en- deavoured to establish. It is, on the contrary, in closest accordance with the view which has been here exhibited of the relation subsisting between the two languages. It was exactly in such circumstances as those referred to thatwe should expect the vulgar tongue, of the country to be employed; and it is surely nothing strange that the dialect of it which * Grinfield's " Apolojy for the Septuagint," p. 12. \ t the question 01 tne is.oih.ui umt« «•« * 37), '< Canst thou speak Greek ? " With strange per- versity, Father Simon says, regarding this question, that it " implies a supposition that all the Jews of Jerusalem did not speak in that tongue." The plain truth is that the words have no reference to the Jews of Jerusalem, or any other Jews, at all. This is ob- vious from what follows. The Roman soldier had imagined that Paul was a notorious Egyptian band.t, and, rightly or wrongly, had concluded that in that case he would be ignorant of Greek. As soon as he heard the Apostle make use of that language, he ex- pressed his surprise, and exclaimed, " Thou art not then (better thus than interrogative, as in our Au- thorized Version) that Egyptian, which before these days madest an uproar, and leddest out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers. The words have thus no bearing whatever on the language of Palestine. And Paul by his answer shews that, whatever might be supposed to hold good in the case of the rude Egyptian referred to, it was nothing remarkable that a Jew like himself should be found acquainted with Greek. " I am," said he, "a Jew of Tarsus, and I beseech thee suffer me to speak to the people,"— a request which the chief captain immediately granted, doubtless expecting, as we shall soon see the people of Jerusalem themselves did, that Paul would now address the multitude in the Greek language. Thus we are told tnat wnen me youuwui au» v.i James II. was acknowledged by Louis XIV. as heir of the crown of England, this was done " in Latin, French, and English." 1 On this occasion French alone would probably have served every practical purpose, just as Greek alone would have been prac- » Macaulay's " History of England," v. 294. is manifest, therelore, irom mis vciy v ^^ b ^ in accordance with what has been so repeatedly urged in these papers, Hebrew was not in that age the ordinary medium of communication employed by public speakers or instructors in Palestine. Why, then, it will be asked, did the Apostle now 38o THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK. make choice of it ? and why were the Jews in- clined to hear him more patiently on perceiving that he employed it ? Evidently, as appears to me? from the special circumstances in which, relatively to his auditors, the apostle was then placed. In the im- mediately preceding context we learn that a great uproar had been excited among the Jews on account of St. Paul's fancied opposition to all that they deemed most sacred. On perceiving him in the Temple, some Jews of Asia had cried out, saying, " Men of Israel, help : This is the man that teacheth all men everywhere against the people, and the law, and this place : and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place." Now, such being the nature of the suspicions with which the minds of the Jews were filled against him, nothing was more fitted to win for him a favourable hearing, if that were possible, than at once to com- mence his address to them in their national language. His adoption of the Hebrew tongue was an instant witness in his favour. It proved that he was not so ' utterly estranged from all that was specially Jewish as his enemies had represented; and no sooner, accordingly, had the sound of the old ancestral lan- guage been heard from his lips, than the prepos- sessions against him lost much of their force, and there was manifested a greater disposition to hear him patiently. This seems to me the only satisfactory explana- tion of the passage. To infer from it that Hebrew was the usual language of public address at this time, is not only opposed to the narrative itself, but serves to strip the conduct of the apostle of all its meaning. THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK. 38i i t Yet that has not unfrequently been done. Thus, Dean Milman speaks of St. Paul's employment of Hebrew on this occasion as being "absolutely neces- sary, in order to make himself intelligible to the people." l According to such a view, Paul had no option in respect to the language which he employed. It was essential that he should speak to the multitude of Jews around him in Hebrew, simply that they might understand him, and thus mere common sense dictated the employment of that language. But, surely, that is not what the narrative suggests. There was a deliberate choice made by the Apostle as to the language in which he should speak. And, on the ground which I maintain, his conduct at this time manifested that prudence and skill by which it was in general so remarkably distinguished. It cannot be doubted that, prevalent as the Greek tongue then was in Palestine, the Jews, like any other nation, would be pleased on such an occasion as the present, when their prejudices had been vio- lently excited, to listen so unexpectedly to the ac- cents of their national tongue. And St. Paul, with that consummate wisdom which led him to become " all things to all men," now adapted himself to that most natural feeling. To the Jew he became as a Jew, for the purpose of obtaining a friendly hearing ; just as formerly at Athens he had, for the same end, be- come as a Greek to the Greek, and expressed him- self in the language and style of an accomplished Grecian. We have thus found fancied objections really changing into additional confirmations of the views 1 Bampton Lecture, p. 184. 38* THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK, sought to be established. And this is a very con- vincing sort of evidence. To quote the words of Sir John Herschel : — "The surest and best charac- teristic of a well-founded and extensive induction is when verifications of it spring up, as it were, spon- taneously into notice from the quarters where they might be least expected, or even among instances of that very kind which were at first considered hostile to them. Evidence of this kind is irresistible, and compels assent with a weight which scarcely any other possesses." l It has been proved then, I believe, beyond the reach of all reasonable objection, and from the un- deniable facts of New Testament history, that Greek and not Hebrew was the common language of public intercourse in Palestine in the days of Christ and his apostles. And if this has been done, we may be allowed to express some gratification at the thought that, in our existing Greek Gospels we possess, in the form in which they were uttered, the words of Him to whom the illustrious testimony was borne — " Never man spake like this man." He spoke in Greek, and his disciples did the same while they reported what He said. Their inspiration consisted not, as has been thought, in being enabled to give perfect translations, either of discourses delivered or of documents writ- ten in the Hebrew language, but in being led under Divine guidance to transfer to paper for the benefit of all coming ages those words of the Great Teacher which they had heard from his own lips in the Greek tongue ; which had in that form been imprinted oh their affectionate memories; and which were by them * "Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy." 180. THE GOSPEL IN THE EPISTLES. 383 I- in the same language faithfully committed to writing, while they literally experienced a fulfilment of the gracious promise, — "The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all. things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." . A. ROBERTS. THE GOSPEL IN THE EPISTLES. I believe that Jesus Christ rose again from the dead, that he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty, and from thence shall come to judge the quick and the dead. On these doctrines of the Christian faith the Epistles with which we are dealing are quite as explicit in their statements as the Gospels, and we therefore propose only to quote one or two passages from them, for to cite all their expressions on the resur- rection of Jesus, the greatest theme of Christian teaching, would be to quote whole chapters of the Epistles in extenso. But that there may be no doubt about what St. Paul understood by the resur- rection of Jesus Christ, it will be well to cite a few of his expressions on the subject before we proceed further. In the Epistle to the Romans (vi. 8-10) he writes : "Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him : knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more ; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once : but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God." There is no question that in the first clause of this passage the Apostle is speaking of the mortification of evil within the heart of the CONTRIBUTORS TO THE EXPOSITOR. The Rev. Rev. Rev. Rev. Rev. Rev. Rev. Rev. Rev. Rev. Rev. Rev. Rev. Rev. Rev. Rev. Rev. Rev. Rev. Rev. Rev. Rev. Rev. Very Rev. the Dean of Canterbury. Canon Farrak, D.D., F.R.S. Canon Perowne, D.D. Professor Plumptre, M.A., D.D. W. Sanday, M.A., D.D. J. Rawson Lumbv, B.D. Rayner Winterbotham, M.A., B.Sc. Professor Stanley Leathes, M.A. Principal Tulloch, D.D. Professor Alex. Roberts, D.D. James Morison, D.D. J. Oswald Dykes, D.D. Professor A. B. Davidson, M.A., D.D. Proi i:ssor A. B. Bruce, D.D. Professor W. Milligan, D.D. Professor W. Robertson Smith, M.A. Professor A. M. Fairbairn, D.D. Professor D. W. Simon, M.A. Professor H. R Reynolds, D.D. Henry Bjjrtox, M.A. R. W. Dale, M.A. A. Maclaren, D.D. Henry Allon, D.D. , Alex. Raleigh, D.D. THE EXPOSITOR. i EDITED P.V THE KEV. SAMUEL COX. VOLUME VII. THIRD EDITION. tt JjTontom: IIODDER AND STOUGHTON, 27, PATERNOSTER ROW. MDCCCLXXXII. 8o BRIEF NOTICES OF BOOKS. most of the articles which have appeared in this Magazine over the name Carpus. This volume is the third of a series of which "An Expositor's Note-book" was the first, and "Biblical Expositions" the second volume ; and contains, besides the Carpus papers, about a dozen others which have not appeared in The Expositor. It would not become me to add more than the final sentence of the preface, which explains the choice of my occasional twin de flume. "Carpus of Troas, the friend and host of St. Paul, may or may not have read and pondered the manuscripts which the Apostle left in his charge ; but I have always conceived of him as a man of literary tastes and aptitudes, as one of the obscure students and teachers of the Word in apostolic times ; and it is this conception of him which has led me now and then to borrow his name." Messrs Williams and Norgate are publishing a translation, by y. Frederick Smith, of Ewald's great Commentary on the Pro- phets of thk Old Testament, of which I have received Volumes I. and II. It is too late in the day either to praise or to criticize Ewald's work— always at its best when he is dealing with the poetical books of Scripture. Whatever his defects— and, no doubt, he had " the defects of his qualities," and a few over— he takes the first place among the critics and commentators of Germany as easily and un- deniably as Canon Lightfoot takes it among English expositors. All that remains to be said is, therefore, that the publishers of this trans- lation are conferring an immense boon on students to whom Ewald is not accessible in his mother-tongue, and that the translator has done his work with the most painstaking care. On one point, how- ever, I think his reverence for Ewald is excessive— that reverence of the mere letter and symbol which is the root of idolatry. If in an English book we must have Yahvi for yehovah, I really do not sec that anything is gained by substituting at every turn Yoel, Zakharya, Yesaya, 'Obadya, Mikha, &c, for the more familiar name-forms by which the Hebrew prophets are known among us. s. cox. 3 THE LANGUAGE SPOKEN IN PALESTINE AT THE TIME OF OUR LORD. Let me preface the few remarks I have to ofter upon Dr. Roberts's recent series of papers in The Expositor, by saying that I have no wish to obtain a merely con- troversial victory. The subject is worthy of being discussed for its own sake, and as a question of scholar- ship or history should be, sine ird et shtdio. There seem to me to be some serious gaps and defects in Dr. Roberts's train of reasoning. But if these can be re- moved — if the case can be made good to the satisfac- tion of competent judges — I think I can engage not to hold the ground a moment after it becomes untenable. To one who has the truth of things really at heart, there is no disgrace in such defeat. He does not profess to know all about the matter in hand, but certain objec- tions occur to him, and he states them. If they are satisfactorily answered, he makes his bow and walks away. The fact remains upon a firmer basis than before. And, first, to define somewhat more nearly the point at issue. The difference between the two opposing views is not really so very great. There is no question that the Jews of our Lord's time were practically bilin- gual. The only question would be as to the propor : tion in which the two languages were spoken. Dr. iRoberts maintains that Greek was spoken more and . FEBRUARY, 1878. 6 VOL. VII. 82 THE LANGUAGE SPOKEN IN PALESTINE Aramaic less, and that our Lord Himself habitually spoke Greek and occasionally Aramaic. I should only wish to invert the qualifying expressions in this state- ment, and to say that Aramaic was spoken more and Greek less, and that our Lord used Aramaic habitually and Greek only occasionally. No fairly well-read scholar would deny that Greek was largely spoken in Palestine at the time of our Lord! Greek was the language of universal intercom- munication, just as, and even more than, Latin was in the Middle Ages. Many nations owned it as a second tongue. There are several causes which made it specially prevalent in Palestine. One main cause would be commerce. The Jews were, then as now, and at home as well as abroad, a very active commer- cial people. In Galilee especially, which was then densely populated and much better cultivated than it is at present, a thriving trade was driven in corn and oil with Phoenicia and Syria. This trade brought wealth, and wealth brought luxury, and luxury again encouraged trade: imports naturally balanced exports. Thus arose a large, commercial class, who in their dealings with the foreigner would naturally speak Greek. Another cause, equally important, would be the constant intercourse with foreign Jews, occasioned by their coming up to attend the great religious feasts. To such an extent was this carried that, at the last Passover before the outbreak ot the war, the number of people in Jerusalem is said to have reached the almost incredible total of three millions. Many of these would not be able to speak Aramaic. Hence both in Jerusalem itself, and in. the main roads which led to it, especially from the west, ' Greek would be spoken. There were also permanent synagogues in Jerusalem for the use of these foreign I AT THE TIME OF OUR LORD. g 3 Jews, and very probably at Cssarea and elsewhere. A . third cause would be the direct influence of the dynasty ot the Herods, who were especially addicted to Greek manners and customs. Foreigners themselves, they all courted the favour of Rome, and shewed but slight f sympathy for Judaism. Herod Agrippa I. was the only exception to this. His short career (a.d. 41-44) was enough to win for him the enthusiastic regard of the people as the one truly patriot king. Herod Agrippa II. tried, but not quite successfully, to com- bine the two things. To the house of Herod was due the construction of wholly Greek towns such as Uesarea, Stratonis, and Tiberias. The court and sur- roundings of Herod the Great and Archelaus at Jeru- salem, and of Herod -Antipas in Galilee, would be centres o Hellenizing influences. Something must also be allowed for "the influence of heathen Monies like Decapolis. The scattered cities that formed ^ s confederation were founded by the Romans on their conquest of Syria in b.c. 6 5 . No exact particula s W come down to us as to the language spoken by them. Isolated from each other as they were, and •exposed to the influences of the neighbouring popula- tions, we should naturally expect them to be bLgual, only » different proportions from the Jews. Many of the first inhabitants would probably be Syrians, who spoke a dialect of Aramaic very similar to tha^of Palestine. They would be therefore quite as likely to adopt Aramaic as Greek.' We must add, lastly the in language. The ^^2irfj^2 ?' * 7 ? "* ° f thS Greek Tesja™ ent as an exhaustive division of J^H ^TXT ^ *" (and not in substance wrongly) translated in JverS, 7yt G^L^TfZ * 4 THE LANGUAGE SPOKEN IN PALESTINE fluence of a few individuals like Gamaliel and Josephus r wiser and more liberal than the rest of their country- men, who made a special study of the Greek learning. But in spite of all these Hellenizing influences, the great kernel of the nation remained true to its tradi- tions. Jewish life was made up of violent contrasts. If there was one current setting strongly in the direc- tion of Hellenizing, there was another setting just as strongly in the opposite direction. The fury which burst out in the great rebellion against Rome had long been secretly gathering. The frequent insurrections shewed that the old Maccabaean spirit was still not extinct. The mass of the nation hated all that was Greek. Along with some expressions of toleration are others which breathe the fiercest spirit of intolerance. "The later fanatical Rabbis, both before and after the destruction of Jerusalem, and in the death-struggle against Rome under Hadrian, excluded the friends or the foreign literature from eternal life; they laid the same curse upon those who educated their sons in the wisdom of the Greeks {chochmat jewanit) as upon the possessors of swine; while others, who were milder, permitted the reading of Homer as the reading of a [private] 'letter.' 1 But the stricter Rabbis merely expressed the national spirit. Not only Origen, but Josephus also — notwithstanding his coquetting with the foreigner— bear witness to the instinctive repug- nance of the nation." 2 vii/35 ("The dispersed among the Gentiles"); Rom. Hi. 9 {" Both Jews and Gentiles ") ; I Cor. x. 32 (" Neither to Jews nor Gentiles"), &c. « Tr Sanhedr. (R. Akibha): " Nee eum participem esse vitoe Ktemae, qui hbios alienigenarum legit Execrabilis esto, qui alit porcos, execrabilis item qui docet filiura suum sapientiam Gnecam." Dr. Keim also refers to Gfrorer, Jahrh. Hah. p us- Hewfeld, Hi. pp. 254 <* "t- 1 J<*t. Hi. 99- F<» ">e English reader we may «dd Farrar's " Life of Christ," vol. 1. p. 91, and Excursus iv' • Keim, Geschichtt Jtsu von Nasara, i. 228 (E.T.). AT THE TIME OF OUR LORD. 85 This seems to me, I confess, a much truer picture of the real spirit of Judaism than that which is pre- sented to us by Dr. Roberts. It is difficult to see how even a party in the nation can have uttered execrations on those who brought up their sons in the Greek learn- ing when Greek was the habitual language of all the rest of their countrymen. I know that Dr. Roberts (in his larger work) repeatedly asserts that these ex- pressions of violent antagonism belong only to the time of the war (or, I suppose, the two wars) with the Ro- mans. But the whole tenour of Jewish history is decid- edly against this. The Jewish character did not change backwards and forwards like a shuttlecock. The hatred of the foreigner and of things foreign was not begotten in a day. The line of Jewish history is marked by a constant succession of risings and struggles, in which national, religious, and social elements were combined, all the way from the death of Herod to the final destruction of the Jewish nationality under Hadrian. History, however, bears but a secondary place with Dr. Roberts. The evidence for his views is chiefly literary. What that evidence is it now remains for us to see. And here, in pursuance of the principles laid down at the outset, I propose first to put on one side a number of arguments that, trying to weigh them with candour, I cannot regard as decisive. All a priori arguments I willingly give up — with just the proviso that arguments drawn from the historical background cannot strictly be called a priori. I know that it has been usual to lay stress upon the Aramaic phrases — Ephphaiha, Talil/ia cumi, &c. — : occurring in tU$ Gospels. These seem to me to be quite as compat- 86 THE LANGUAGE SPOKEN IN PALESTINE ible with one hypothesis as with the other. They may represent an exceptional use of Aramaic, or they may represent an habitual use of it. No one can positively say which. Again, I do not wish to contest the possi- bility that the Syrophcenician woman may have spoken Greek. I think it more probable that she did not, but that may pass. No very great argument can be drawn either way from the inscription on the cross, because it does not mark the proportions in which the different languages were spoken. Dr. Roberts has given an ingenious explanation of the surprise of the Roman officer at finding that St. Paul could speak Greek (Acts xxi. 37), which is probably the right one. The surprise may have had its ground in the fact that the officer supposed him to be a certain obscure Egyptian. Dr. Roberts also seems to me to be suggesting a truth, though not the whole truth, when he makes the address of St. Paul to the Jews in Aramaic (Acts xxi. 40) an act of policy intended to remove the prejudice against him as a Greek. All these concessions I am prepared to make to Dr. Roberts. But, on the other hand, I am afraid he will think me rather exacting when I claim to be allowed to put aside as equally indecisive a great number of arguments of his own. Indeed, I can hardly regard any of the arguments that are derived from the New Testament as really very pertinent. Those, for in- stance, which are drawn from the Epistle to the Hebrews; seem to me to be singularly inconclusive. In the first place, it is very uncertain that it was written to Palestinian Jews at all. The points urged by Dr. Roberts in support of this amount to the barest probability, and are obviously quite insufficient to build I \ AT THE TIME OF OUR LORD, 87 a further argument upon. Besides, in the case of a letter there are two persons or sets of persons to be considered — not only those to whom it is addressed, but also the person by whom it is written. Now, sup- posing the author to have been a thoroughly Hellen- ized Jew, like Apollos or St. Luke, why should he not write in Greek ? On any hypothesis, quite enough of his readers would understand that language to make the letter worth writing. If a non-resident landlord wished to make some communication to a parish in Wales, he would write to the vicar or to his agent in English. But if the person of the writer may be taken to account for the Epistle to the Hebrews, that of the readers accounts for 1 Peter and the Epistle of St. James. Both these are written expressly to the Jews of the Dispersion, and the only language that most of these would understand would be Greek. St. James, by his position at Jerusalem, would naturally be brought much in contact with these Hellenized Jews, and would so acquire a more correct Greek style. Or, apart from this, there was dothing to hinder any indi- vidual from learning Greek with a greater or less de- gree of correctness. St. Peter, it is rather probable, did not write his Epistle for himself. A very old traditidn, dating back from the early part of the second century, and repeated frequently in that century, says that he took Mark for his dragoman or interpreter {kpMvevTfc). St. Paul, we know, wrote little with his own hand. Not a few of the peculiarities of style in the apostolic writings are probably to be accounted for by the extent to which they made use of amanu- enses. A greater amount of latitude was allowed to the scribe sometimes than at others. The Revelation 88 THE LANGUAGE SPOKEN IN PALESTINE of St. John is a good example of the kind of Greek that would naturally be written by a native of Pales- tine. It abounds in solecisms that would jar upon a Greek ear. The Gospel represents the same style, refined by fifteen or twenty years of contact with a Greek-speaking people. Nor can I attach any real conclusiveness to the arguments derived from the Gospels. All the main points can be explained quite easily on the other hypothesis. One is almost surprised to see an argu- ment like that from the presence of people from Deca- polis among the audience of the Sermon on the Mount seriously put forward. Dr. Roberts admits that Ara- maic was the vernacular tongue of Palestine. 1 The cities of Decapolis were not collected together in a single district, but were scattered over a considerable extent of country. Surrounded, therefore, by the ver- nacular, they could not fail to be influenced by it. They must have been also more or less bilingual. But supposing the audience to have consisted partly of persons who understood Aramaic well and Greek only imperfectly (as many, if not most, of the Galilean villagers, must have done), and partly of people who understood Greek well and Aramaic only imperfectly (as some of the Decapolitans may have done), why should the first class have been sacrificed to the second, any more than the second to the first ? But I see that Dr. Roberts admits the hypothesis, 2 which is now held by a majority of critics, that the so-called Sermon on the Mount may hot really have been delivered upon a single occasion. But if so, how shall we really deter- 1 The Expositor, vol. vi. p. 376. • * Cilct vol; vi. 'p. l5j. "'Sermon (or, if you will, -sermons)." I AT THE TIME OF OUR LORD. £9 t mine in what way the different parts of it were brought home to the hearers ? Again, Dr. Roberts lays much stress upon the fact that the quotations in the Gospels are, for the most part, taken from the Septuagint. But this can only be done by arguing from a series of assumptions, none of. which have any certainty. Dr. Roberts is doubtless aware that the quotations from the Old Testament in the Gospels are thought almost universally by critics at the present day to be due, in their form at least, to the Evangelists. I know that he himself holds a peculiar view on that point, and that he has indeed peculiar views as to the composition of the Synoptic Gospels generally. I am quite ready to admit the great diffi- culty of the problem which these Gospels present, and I doubt very much whether it has received as yet the final solution. But I am afraid the theory put forward by Dr. Roberts will not bear detailed examination. It would take us too far from our present subject to enter into this here, but I will undertake to give the proof of what is said, in case it should be required. In the mean time it is not easy to see why the ordinary theory does not explain the facts as well as Dr. Roberts's. Two^ certainly, of the Synoptic Gospels — the second and third — were written, the one by a Gentile, the other by an Hellenist, for Gentile or Hellenistic readers; It is therefore only natural that the Septuagint should be made, use of in them. A third Evangelist, St. Matthew, wrote for Jewish Christians, and here we have the remarkable fact that the quotations from the Old Testament which are peculiar to this Evangelist shew a recurrence to the Hebrew text, while those which are common to him with the other Synoptists retain 9 o THE LANGUAGE SPOKEN IN PALESTINE their Septuagint colouring.' This would seem to shew, precisely what we should have expected, a Hebraizing tendency in the author. In the parts peculiar to him- self he goes back to the Hebrew, in those which he has in common with the rest he keeps to the same Hel- lenized tradition, or draws from the same document. Thus, at the only point where we should have any reason to expect a study of the Hebrew, we find it. The reason why the Gospels that have come down to us are all in Greek is, that at the time when the Gospels were composed, the immense majority of Christians were either of Gentile or Hellenistic ex- traction. In hardly any part of the world did Chris- tianity make so little way as among the native Jews. Even in Jerusalem itself, and but a very few years after our Lord's ascension, we already find that foreign Greek-speaking Jews formed an important part of the Church, so much so that a special order had to be appointed to see that justice was done them in the administration of alms. And yet the first Gospel of wh.ch we have any record was in Aramaic. No mat- ter what the relation of this Aramaic Gospel to our present St. Matthew, there certainly was such a Gos- pel, and it was doubtless for a time the Gospel of the Aramaic -speaking Christians. Even the heretical branches of that body had Aramaic Gospels of their own. But, practically speaking, the great war broke up the Church of Judaea. From that time onwards the Palestinian section of the Aramaic Church sank into insignificance, while Christianity passed over from the Jews to the Hellenists and the Gentiles. , 'SeeHoltzmann,£>ieSynoftiscfienJivati£tIteit,p.2S9i Westcott, "Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, " p. 21 1, &c I AT THE TIME OF OUR LORD. 9' So much, having been said with a view to clear the ground of what I cannot but think irrelevant matter, we may come now to the positive side of the evidence. This, I venture to think, may really be compressed within small limits. There are two passages of Jose- phus which seem to me to decide the whole question ; but before I come to them, I should be glad to make a few remarks on some other portions of the subject. To take, first, the New Testament. There are several passages which Dr. Roberts thinks do not tell against his opinion, which, however, seem to me to be much more consistent with the view to which he is opposed. The Aramaic language is expressly men- tioned more than once in the historical books. In one instance there is an allusion to the particular dialect spoken in Galilee. We are told in Matthew xxvi. 73, Mark xiv. 70, that St. Peter was discovered to be a Galilean by his dialect; and in exact accordance with this we learn from the Talmud that the Galileans were taunted by the Jews with their faults of pronunciation. They could not properly distinguish between the gut- turals, and pronounced the s/i with a lisp, and so on.' Here, we should have thought, was very fairly conclu- sive evidence upon the whole case. It seems to prove that Aramaic was the language commonly spoken— the vernacular tongue both in Galilee and Judiea. If Greek was spoken, therefore, it must have been as the exception, and not as the rule. Dr. Roberts, how- ever, does not seem to admit this. He says, " Grant- ing that" St. Peter spoke Aramaic on this occasion, "it proves nothing against the proposition which I have endeavoured to establish. It is, on the contrary, in 1 See Meyer, ad Ik. 9 a THE LANGLAGE SPOKEN IN PALESTINE closest accordance with the view which has been here exhibited of the relation subsisting between the two languages. It was exactly in such circumstances as those referred to that we should expect the vulgar tongue of the country to be employed ; and it is surely nothing strange that the dialect of it which Peter was accustomed at times to speak in Galilee should now be stated to have been found somewhat different from that generally prevalent in Jerusalem." 1 Dr. Roberts just saves himself by inserting the words " at times." If he had said, "which Peter spoke habitually in Galilee," that would be all for which I should contend. But— I must needs ask the question — Is " the ver- nacular language," " the vulgar tongue " of a country (as Dr. Roberts himself calls Aramaic in Palestine), spoken only at times ? Is not the vernacular language of a country the language ? Was the language of England, after the Norman Conquest, French or English ? Is the language of. Wales, at the present day, English or Welsh ? To come exactly to the point at. issue, can we suppose that our Lord Himself habitually used any other language than the vernacu^ lar ? If the field of his ministry had not been Pales- tine, but Wales, or the highlands of Scotland, as they are now, would He have habitually spoken English ? Again, we read in Acts i. 19, that the death of Judas " became known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem ; insomuch as that field is (rather '.was ') called in their proper tongue (if JZl i'iUoTi, Ioku, ro7e Ampiiicaw--" Dorians, I think, may be allowed to speak Doric" So Greeks may surely be allowed to have spoken Greek. *■ " Vdllig Htllenische Stadle."— Cesc/i. d. Volk. Jsr. iv. 266. Til A T CHRIS T SPOKE GREEK— A RE PL Y, 281 been somewhat surprised to learn that their inhabitants did not necessarily make use of the Greek language. The linguistic condition of the cities of Decapolis is thus really decisive as to the language of the Sermon on the Mount, and therefore decisive as to the whole question at issue. But there is another fact to which I called attention, that Dr. Sanday has entirely over- looked. It matters nothing to my argument whether the great discourse reported by St. Matthew was de- livered on one or more occasions. But it dogs matter that this point be noticed, that among those who listened to a portion of it at least were inhabitants of Tyre and Sidon. ' Will Dr. Sanday venture to main- tain that these people understood Aramaic ? If so, the learned world will probably be curious to hear the proof, since it has hitherto held that even Syro-Phceni- cian had ceased, at the time referred to, to be the medium of public intercourse in these regions. I for- merly referred to Gesenius in proof of this point : let me now quote another learned authority to the same effect Sperling, in his masterly work entitled " De Nummis non Cusis," alluding to the fact that all the Tyrian coins of this period bore Greek inscriptions, remarks in explanation : " For after the successors of Alexander the Great and the Greeks got possession of Syria, the people of the country both spoke Greek and wrote only in Greek, while they managed all their matters, the coining of money inclusive, according to the customs of the Greeks ; and the ancient Tyrian or Phoenician writing and inscription completely vanished and perished." ' I refer, then, with confidence, to the statement formerly made, that Greek was at the time 1 Page 51. 282 THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK— A REPLY. the language of Phoenicia. Dr. Sanday, as I have re- marked, has not said one word in contravention of that statement. But it demands to be faced, and either re- futed or accepted. If it can be refuted, then let it dis- appear from my argument for ever. But if it must be accepted, let it carry with it its own proper conclusion. What that conclusion must be, is obvious from Luke vi. 1 7. There we read respecting Christ, " And he came down with them (the apostles), and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people out of all Judaea and Jerusalem, and from the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon, who came to hear him, and to be healed of their diseases." The discourse which that mixed multitude of Jews and Phoenicians listened to simultaneously, and in common understood, must have been delivered in the Greek language. Dr. Sanday next tells us (p. 84) that " the mass of the. nation hated all that was Greek." This is one of those sweeping assertions not unfrequently found in connection with the question under consideration. It is apt to produce considerable impression by the very vehemence with which it is made ; and, accordingly, I am inclined to ascribe to the feeling thus excited, more perhaps than to anything else, the unwillingness dis- played to admit the force of my argument. But I entreat the reader to withstand its force until it be- comes something more than assertion, and to keep his mind open till some proof has been brought forward ii> support of the only point here truly relevant, viz., that the Jews of the period hated the Greek language. Very different is the opinion expressed by the illus- trious Rabbinical scholar, Lightfoot. " The Jews," he THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK- A REPLY. 283 says, referring to the early Rabbis, " do well near ac- knowledge the Greek for their mother-tongue even in Judaea." « This is not very like hating the language. To the same effect, Zunz, an eminent scholar of our own day, declares : " The speech of Greece stood among the Jewish wise men of Palestine in high esteem." - In this opinion he is joined by the learned Jewish writer, Frankel, who says : " In the Talmud itself the Septuagint is only referred to in terms full of respect." 3 In fact, there are passages which ascribe nothing less than Divine inspiration to the Greek version of the Old Testament. 4 But turning away from these later views, let us see what inference is to be derived from the earliest Hebrew literature bearing upon the ques- tion. The compilation of the Mishna was begun by the Rabbi Judah about the middle of the second century of our era, and was completed some fifty or eighty years afterwards by his disciples. The object of this work was to preserve from perishing the maxims and decisions of former Rabbis, so that the substance of part of it, doubtless, belongs to a date anterior to the birth of Christ. Now, among its statutes, we find one of Simeon, the son of Gamaliel, to the effect that it was not allowable for the Jews to compose books "except in the Greek language." Again, we read that a bill of divorcement might be written and signed either in Greek or Hebrew, and was equally valid, whether the one language or the other was employed. These passages indicate something very different from that hatred of Greek attributed by Dr. Sanday to the Jews ' " WoAs," by Pitman, xi. 25. * Veiiiase, p. 10. 3 Vorstuditntu i/er Scptuaginla, p. 61. * Ilertzog's RtalEncye. Art. Alexan. Uebcrs. 284 THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK— A REPLY. of our Saviour's day. I must repeat, therefore, that any dislike evinced to the use of that language was a thing of later date. For we, no doubt, also read in the Mishna, exactly in accordance with what we might infer from some passages in Josephus, that the study and employment of the Greek language were formally prohibited during the course of the wars conducted by Vespasian and Titus. 1 The fallacy in this assertion, that the Jews " hated all that was Greek," seems to be one that is well known to every student of logic. It is the Fallacia a dido secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter. If the thesis propounded were that the Jews always hated the reli- gion or philosophy of the Greeks, then the position would, I believe, be tenable, and we might thus recon- cile apparently inconsistent passages which occur in the Rabbinical writings. This was pointed out by Paulus so long ago as 1803. He shews that the hatred of what was Greek applied to the Greek philo- sophy, and not to the Greek language. On the con- trary, as is proved by citations from the Talmud, Greek was in habitual use among the Jews of Pales- tine, and the study of the language was regarded as perfectly legitimate.? Dr. Sanday has most justly remarked that " the Jewish character did not change backwards and for- wards like a shuttlecock." But who represents it as so changing ? The Greek proclivities of the Jews for several generations before Christ constitute an unques- tionable fact. This has been clearly demonstrated by Ewald in the section of his history entitled " The ir- 1 See Surenhusius, Much. Megill. 1,8; Giltim, 9, 8 ; Sola/i, 9, 14. ■ Milliii's JlfiTgnziu EucyclofMique, 1805. . \ THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK-A REPL Y. 285 ruption of Grecian culture and art." ' Referring to the period in question, he says: " There soon were plenty of Jews and Samaritans who at once betrayed their pre- dilection for the new culture by their adoption of Greek or Greek-like names. And this intrusion of the Greek element by no means limited itself to Alexandria or other Greek cities ; it spread also speedily and power- fully to Jerusalem, and especially to Samaria, as many indications lead us to acknowledge." • This is obvious from the apocryphal books of the Old Testament. And when the author of the Second Book of Maccabees tells us that in his day Hellenism had become so pre- valent in the land, shall we suppose that, without any cause which history recognizes, there was a sudden and violent recoil in the opposite direction ? No ; there is not a shadow of reason to believe that such a thing had taken place before our Lord's day. It was only at a later date, and owing to circumstances totally different from those of the time of Christ, that an outburst of fury and fanaticism against all that savoured of Gen- tilism actually took place. The position of Dr. Sanday in reference to the Epistle to the Hebrews is somewhat peculiar, and will not, I venture to think, be regarded as satisfactory. Admitting the composition to be a letter, he believes that there is hardly any clue to its original destination. In this he departs both from the ancient Fathers and from the great majority of modern critics. These have felt constrained, in spite of all difficulties, to regard the Epistle as having been primarily intended for the Church in Palestine. The one grand barrier to this conclusion has been the language of the Epistle. I • Ccsch. d. Volk. Isr. iv. 282. 286 THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK— A REPLY. need not repeat .what was formerly said on this point. Dr. Sanday appears to concede that the original des- tination of the Epistle may have been Palestine, but thinks that this proves nothing as to the language dominant in that country. ' I shall only remark on this, that the writer is evidently and very thoroughly en rapport with his readers, which could scarcely have been the case had he written to them, as Dr. Sanday is willing to imagine, in a language which perhaps not more than half of them understood. I cannot but feel that the argument I based on this Epistle remains un- touched, though I might easily afford to part with it without any detriment to the cause for which I plead. A somewhat desperate expedient is had recourse to by Dr. Sanday in order to escape from the conclusion derived from the knowledge of Greek manifestly pos- sessed by the Apostle Peter. He thinks it " rather probable that St. Peter did not write his Epistle for himself." It is supposed that St. Mark acted on the occasion as his amanuensis and interpreter, writing at the Apostle's dictation, but changing, I presume, his Aramaic, into Greek. Now this is surely to cut the knot instead of untying it. And not only is the hypo- thesis totally gratuitous, but it seems clearly opposed by the writing itself. Mark is conceived of as the author of the letter in its Greek form, and yet he is spoken of (Chap. v. 13) as " Marcus, my son ! " It is in a very different way that the amanuensis of St. Paul introduces his own name when he says (Rom. xvi. 22), " I, Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord." But even waiving this, what does Dr. Sanday say as to St. Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost ? THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK— A REPLY. 2S7 He has taken no notice of this in his paper; but I must be allowed again to press it on the attention of the reader. That sermon, be it observed, was addressed, among others, to "men of Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes." And I ask, Will any one maintain that these persons understood Hebrew ? If so, I should like to see the proof. But if not so, St. Peter spoke at the time in Greek, and the clearest evi- dence is thus presented of the familiarity then possessed by the Jews with the Greek language. Dr. Sanday presses me, I think somewhat unduly, with the admission which I have made, that Aramaic might still be called the vernacular language of Pales- tine. He asks (p. 92), " Is not the vernacular language of a country the language ? " Yes, in one sense ; but not necessarily so in another. Celtic may be said to be the vernacular tongue of many Scottish Highlanders, who yet scarcely ever hear it on public occasions. Gaelic may be said to be their mother tongue, but the language which they read in books, and which they listen to in public, is English. Many other illustrations might be derived from bilingual nations. And exactly so do I conceive it to have been in Palestine. The Aramaic was the representative of the old ancestral tongue, and as such was used in homely familiar inter- course. I am therefore willing to style it the verna- cular language of the country, but I do so without the least prejudice to my argument. This must be obvious to all who have attended to the relations which I regard as having existed between the two languages. The Aramaic, I have elsewhere remarked, "might still be said, though with difficulty, and amid many exceptions, 288 THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK— A RE PL Y. to maintain its position as the mother-tongue of the inhabitants of the country. 1 We are told by Dr. Sanday that the occurrence of "occasional Aramaic expressions in the Greek Gospels is quite as compatible with the belief that Christ habi- tually spoke the one language as the other. But in this I hardly think that he will carry with him the assent of any candid and considerate . reader. Here we have documents which, on his hypothesis, have been, as a body, translated from the Aramaic, and which never- theless retain, here and there, an expression from that language. Now, in such a; case it is surely requisite, and. should also be possible, to give some plausible reason fbr the retention of these words untranslated. Accordingly, many on Dr. Sanday's side of the ques- tion, recognizing the necessity, have made such an at- tempt The results have been of the sorriest character —indeed, have at times bordered on the ludicrous. Dr. Sanday prudently lets the matter alone, though he is bound, like others, to offer some explanation. I beg to refer with considerable confidence to what was said on this point in my previous papers. I need. hardly say here that it is no argument what- ever against my views to find Aceldama spoken of at Acts i. 19 as belonging to the "proper tongue " of the Jews.. As I have discussed this passage at some. length elsewhere, 3 I need not dwell on it here. Instead of any observations of my own, I shall quote the words of a writer who cannot be suspected of any sympathy 1 " Discussions on the Gospels," p. 5. I may here remark that, while the tone of Dr.; Sanday's paper is excellent throughout, there seems to me to be one jarring sentence. He asks, " Can we suppose that our Lord Himself used any other lan- guage than the vernacular ? " Certainly we can, as the word " vernacular " is ex-; plained above. And let me add that we must look only at facts, and have nothing to do with suppositions. * " Discussions on the Gospels," p. 302. THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK-A REPLY. 289 with me in the present question. /' Some affi rm£ says the author of "Supernatural .Religion," << that Verses 18 and 19 are inserted as a parenthesis by the author of the Acts, whilst a larger number contend that only Verse 19 is parenthetic. A very cursory examination of the passage, however, is sufficient to shew that the verses cannot be separated. Verse 18 is connected with the preceding by the .h olv, 19 with 18 by ««, and Verse 20 refers to 16, as indeed .t also does to 17 and 18, without which the passage from the Psalm, as applied to Judas, would be unintelligible. Most critics, therefore, are agreed that none of the verses can be considered parenthetic." ■ Among the cnttcs refer d to in this last sentence are Meyer, Stter, De Wette, Zeller, and others of deservedly high reputation Dr. Sanday, however, goes against them, and regards the words referred to as "an added note or comment by St Luke " This seems to me, as it has to so many others, utterly impossible, on account of the Greek construction. I still regard the whole speech as that of St Peter, to whom it is ascribed; and why should we doubt that he was now speaking in Greek, seeing that as proved above, he unquestionably did so on the occasion referred to in the second chapter . To save space, I shall, not dwell upon die perhaps not very important remarks of Dr. Sanday on the Talmud and Targums. He quotes a passage from Credner on the subject, and I always listen to any- thing coming from that most admirable writer with the ■ utmost respect But not even Credner can convince me that, when our Lord said to his hearers, "Search the Scriptures," He referred them to an Aramaic trans- VOL. VII. ' Vol. iii. p. too. 19 290 THAT CHRIST STOKE GREEK— A REPLY. lation of the Old Testament, of which we hear nothing in Jewish or patristic antiquity. But I now come to deal with Josephus, to whom Dr. Sanday ascribes an overwhelming force in deciding the question at issue. This, I think, is hardly fair, since we have in the New Testament itself no fewer than eight different authors of the period, who ought all to have a voice in determining the matter. But Dr. Sanday has appealed to Josephus, and to Josephus let us go. First of all, then, as every scholar knows, Josephus depends, for the most part, on the LXX. in his ref- erences to the Old Testament. Though a man of fc eminent learning among the Jews, it is clear, that he knew, but little of ancient Hebrew, and it is' still more obvious that he knew nothing at all of those Aramaic Targums which have so often, without the least ground of evidence, been conjured into existence. Next, Dr. Sanday forgets altogether that passage in the preface to his History of the Jewish War, in which Josephus tells us for whom he wrote it in Aramaic Was it for the Jews of Palestine ? Nay : but for "the barbarians of the interior" — the Jews of Babylon and the surrounding countries. And for whom did he translate that history into Greek ? For those, as he himself tells us, who lived under the government of the Romans. Now, it is clear that the Jews of Palestine are excluded from the first class, and included in the second. They were not among those for whose sake Josephus wrote his history in Hebrew, and they were among those for whom he translated it into Greek. Is not the inference obvious ? But now we come to the passage in Josephus on TIIA T CHRIST SPOKE GREEK-A REPLY. .9. ,hich Dr. Sanday appears to lay the greatest ^ stress : I refer to the statement made by the Jew at the close of the - Antiquity £°w ^ well ^Ji«Stf^ are these : pretauon f^^^ m comm0 n enough among «V A knowledge of Greet was asses tha t would the middleandlowe, -classes ^*£m Hellenistic naturally be engaged » ^mc, eithe r w* Jews or with foreigners): among ; Ac u P P except, we should probably ^£%™ t correctly . ^^r^ST^^t language of but the idea that Greek was these the country, is contradicted 1 ^ever U n, be correct conclusions ? I am atraia t y b ^-£*£2&£ "^knowledge to the Roman officers Thus also Treek language was little spread in Judsea De y on Greek langu g government, and cities in- classes who had part _ m tte g % mu ltitudes habited by pagans, like Csesarea. of others. D San d a y main- Thus on the one hand, we nave ^ l ' ^ng'wLthi, own friends would -W^w ll and on the other hand, we are told what seen, Seta accordance with the common-sensev.ew of the Iteet that, while the Greek language was known by he highly-educated among the Jews, ft was scarcely wd among the community at large. May not ^forgiven for hoping that, amid such confus.on of ■ . . .1 „ */; » Vie de Jisus, chap. iii. • •' Apology for the Septuagmt," p. 76. J «9* THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK— A REPLY. thought on the subject, agreement will yet be found in the acceptance of my proposition ? What was it that Josephus took such pains to learn ? Not Greek cujuslibet generis, for, by Dr. Sanday's ad- mission that the Jews of the time were " bilingual," he had that without any trouble. What, then, could it have been, unless, as I have maintained, to write, as far a$ possible, in pure and classical Greek ? "Josephus imitates," says Ernesti, " with great care and consider- able success, the writers of pure Greek, especially Polybius, both in single words and in the turn of his sentences, intermixing but few Hebraisms, and therein, as he himself says, departing from the custom of his fellow-countrymen." 1 And a late able American scholar shews us that he takes the same view of the import of the passage when he says, " Josephus speaks with emphasis of the difficulty which even a well- educated Jew found in writing Greek with idiomatic accuracy." 2 The real meaning of this much- vaunted passage in Josephus thus turns out to be in perfect harmony with the views which I have endeavoured to establish. The other passage {Contr. Ap. i. 9) need not long detain us. Dr. Sanday himself admits that there may be in it " some exaggeration." Josephus is supposed to affirm that, of all in the Roman camp, he was the only one who understood Hebrew, or who, knowing both that language and the Greek, was capable of act- ing as interpreter between the Jewish deserters and the Romans. But this is absurd on the face of it, and in direct contradiction to numerous accounts contained • " Institutes," ii. 184. « Hadley's " Essays Philological and Critical," p. 413. THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK-A REPLY. W to his own writings.. Either, therefore another mean- tog than " understood" must be g.ven »-J ortte to magnify his own importance. Flimsy indeed, then, are the arguments derived i iro of that argument I have he whole New of S that Gospel, but which I wouid venture yet agam to commend to his consideration. The oassa« referred to is John xx. 14-17. ana U n °„ „ot that it was Jesus. Jesus sa.th unto her Woman why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? S,e supping him to be the gardener, sa,th unto torn, It 'i thou have borne him hence, tell me where hou t ,1M him and I will take him away. Jesus sa.th r,o her Ma" She turned herself, and said unto «"\Vars,"iv I, S i v - "3> 7> &c - 294 THAT CHRIST SPOKE GREEK— A REPLY. him, in Hebrew, Rabboni ; which is to say, Master, Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not ; for I am not yet ascended to my Father : but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father ; and to my God, and your God." The following extract will shew how well fitted this passage is to impress every candid mind with the true linguistic condition of Palestine at the time. " Mary," says Rohr, " in her conversation with Christ, appears to have spoken Greek, until she understood that He was risen from the dead, when she addressed him in the more common Aramaic, saying, Rabboni." ' This writer, however, does not see that the admission which he here makes is fatal to the theory which he maintains ; for surely if the Aramaic had been " more common " in public intercourse among the Jews of that period than the Greek, it would at once have been used by Mary in addressing one whom she supposed to be " the gardener," and there would have been no indication in the narrative that any other language was generally employed by the Saviour and his disciples. ! Let it be noticed by the reader that certainly one, and probably two, Hebrew terms are preserved in the passage, neither of which would have any meaning if the whole conversation had been carried on in that language. Jesus said to his affectionate follower, " Mary." This word at once recalled to her those tones which she loved so well: she recognized her Master in the person who now stood beside her ; and, under the influence of deep emotion, she said unto Him, " Rabboni," making use of the same language in which He had probably uttered her name (Mariam). ' Paldstina^ Bib. Cab. p. 92. RABBINIC ESCHAILU.UU i. We see at once a beauty and significance in the employ me nt and preservation of these Hebrew term >f the rest of the conversation was in Greek ; but if it be supposed that the language used by Christ and Mary .hroughout was Hebrew, the meaning of these isolated expressions being retained in that tongue entirely^ appears. And the restoration by criticism of the word %a^l renders the proof still more evident that Greek was the language usually employed by Christ and his disciples. For why, we may well ask should the Evangelist remark that Hebrew was the language now used by Mary, if that was, in fact, the form of speech which she and her fellow-disciples generally employed. It must, I think, be difficult for any one to read the en- tire passage in the original without feeling that it leaves an almost irresistible impression in favour of *« opinion that Greek was the language usually employed by Christ in discoursing with his followers, and that Hebrew was used only in their more private and familiar intercourse, or for special reasons, and on particular occasions. A. ROBERTS. RABBINIC ESCHATOLOGY. It is not my object in the present paper to enter either directly or indirectly into controverted topics. It may be that it would be better for us all if it were more the habit of modern authorship to state, with the utmost impartiality, the historical and logical grounds for cer- tain inferences, and to leave the reader to form his own conclusions from them, without startling him into rejec- tion by any premature assertion of the conclusion at which the writer has himself arrived. This was the plan 368 DID CHRIST SPEAK GREEK? office intrusted to him, but I repeat that it was not one to be envied, and that in spite of the young king's earnestness, and the apparent success of his reforms, these visions pointed to a darker side, and spoke chiefly or entirely of chastisement and endurance. . R. PAYNE SMITH. DID CHRIST SPEAK GREEK?— A REJOINDER. I am sorry that Dr. Roberts should think the difference between us greater than I had supposed it to be. It is true. that I wished to make as little of it as I could. At the same time I thought the reader would see pre- cisely in what respect the difference seemed capable of being minimized, viz., so far as it related to the purely critical and historical question to what extent and in what proportion Greek and Aramaic respectively were spoken in Palestine at the time of our Lord. I purposely excluded other considerations, from the fear that they might prevent the question from being decided upon its own merits, and excite a prejudice which it ought to be our object rather to allay. The question is one of fact and evidence, not of feeling ; and if feeling is introduced, it is only too apt to make " the wish father to the thought." And yet even here I think Dr. Roberts is inclined to overstate his case. Even supposing that the dis- courses in the Gospels were all originally delivered in Greek, there would still be the most serious difficulties in the way of supposing that we had received an exact transcript of them. But even if we could put these difficulties on one side, it might still be asked whether to insist upon such syllabic exactness was not ~si. . A REJOINDER. ^ to attach too much importance to the "letter." It is one of the singular excellences of the Gospels that they lose so little by translation. Many most devout and learned men have lived and died quite content with the belief that they were reading a Greek version of words spoken in Aramaic. Nor is the beauty of our own Version destroyed-it is hardly even diminished— by the knowledge that it is not the original. There is more than one passage— such as, "Consider the lilies how they grow," and parts of i Corinthians xiii. and xv.— where the English seems even to surpass the Greek. And if the theory which I have upheld be true, there is nothing irreverent in allowing ourselves to think so. I am obliged to confess that both Dr. Roberts's ori- ginal articles and his reply do not make upon me the impression of a strictly impartial and unprejudiced judgment. Perhaps it was not to be expected that one who has made a particular subject his specialty for years should sit down to consider quite calmly the argu- ments brought against his own view of it. In such a state of mind any sort of weapon seems good enough that first comes to hand. The main point appears to be that it should deal a ponderous and resounding blow The real justice and validity of the argument is little considered. A very slender argument goes a long way when it makes for his thesis. A considerable argu- ment is thrust aside, or met by some irrelevant appeal when it tells against it. And the deficiencies of the argument are made up by peremptory challenges and rhetorical declamation. A hasty reader might easily be misled' by these. Confident and emphatic statement however insecure the foundation on which it rests is « vol. vn 2 , ' 37° DID CHRIST SPEAK GREEK ) apt to carry with it conviction. Few have the time and patience really to test an argument when it is put before them. And yet, in order to get at the truth, some trouble, I am afraid, will be necessary. I shall be obliged to ask those who take sufficient interest in the question to follow carefully the whole course of it, to place statement and answer side by side, rigorously to sift out all irrelevant matter, and to take the arguments on either side strictly for what they are worth. • I propose to take Dr. Roberts's" points one by one, not knowingly omitting any, though some are really of very slight importance, and then briefly to review the position of the question. As Dr. Roberts, I believe, followed the order of my paper, I shall follow the order of his. At the end perhaps it may be possible to arrange the different items of the evidence a little more ac- cording to the weight that ought to attach to them. i. The first point that Dr. Roberts mentions is one that has a quite insignificant bearing upon the main issue. I observe in a note that Dr. Roberts is too ready to infer from the use of the words, "Exktjv, '£%/!, that any other language than Greek is ex- cluded. He calls this a " pretty strong assertion," and adds, "that people styled 'Greeks/ and that cities styled ' Greek cities,' made use of the Greek language, is surely the dictate of common sense." This is just the kind of argument to draw down cheers from the gallery, but I did not expect it from a scholar like Dr. Roberts. Indeed, I think I can safely leave him to answer himself; for in the sentence immediately pre- ceding that in which he speaks of the "pretty strong assertion," he states that, " as every one knows, Greek and Gentile are in the New Testament convertible A REJOINDER. S£ l^y^ t often si r y «'"'•—" eluded with certain* L IT"* eref ° re ' bC C ° n - *e «- of the gS'C g S m ^fVr , Pfa iz z a ^ w„;r , s r ians ' who spoke *-■>* ='ves, and would not have to "earn " it at all that theTeS ^D **?- * "° «*^V°** among thSienc o W" ^ Were P-ent -derftood nol^^^T U ^ ^ evidence is f^T** 'g™ ^ ^-s "dent as to this pon^f hfs arg^ t "rtT T of the "linguistic conditions of theckie 'of n ^ as really decisive as to the language J^ the Mount, and therefore decisTe as to H^T • the Galilean villagers und^tood %*£ t^V! * -.as I asked in my firstpaper , ^ ^ZlJ^ o-Uhe point before us. But I TZ ^^J"? ° " "^ the 1»««™ " «ot incumbent on me to shew) that all th ? S Zf j'T" (what - '"deed, " was Arama.e. All I said was that the ^S ° f n De "P ^ actually spoke to prove that they spoke nothing but Greek W ! V ^ R ° berts d °"°' office self, I shall be quite prepared to prove 1 1 pos'itivlv T„ T™ * C ° ndusion "V forward by Dr. Roberts, it is enough for me 1^' "^ '° the ar £ u '»e»ts put shew that the premises do not bear out th? P -° Ve them «*S«""vely ; ,", , t« shew that the particular inhabits of Cecal V T' '"'^ Dr " ***** •Sermon on the Mount ^«,/ have unde stood^haHa * ° *«* I,,esent at ** of the case within its proper logical iko\oyove next point, the statement that Aceldama in Acts i i 9 belongs to the "proper tongue" of Jerusalem, though Dr. Roberts s treatment of it is entirely beside the mark The argument from authority is out of place where as many or more authorities can be quoted on the other side. Besides, it is hardly ingenuous to leave it to be inferred that I am going against authority when the majority of commentators are really on my side I do not rest my case on authority, but I used certain definite arguments to which Dr. Roberts has given no answer. The main point, however, I suppose I m ay take for granted, that the "proper dialect " of Jerusalem was Aramaic At the same time I admit that the pas- sage is not decisive, because it tells us nothing about the proportions in which the two languages were spoken. a fi e i8o DID CHRIST SPEAK GREEK t II. I postpone for a moment what I have to say on the subject of Talmud and Targum, and come to Jose- phus. Dr. Roberts thinks it unfair in me to attach so much weight as I do to this writer, " since we have in the New Testament itself no fewer than eight dif- ferent authors of the period, who ought all to have a voice in determining the matter." I need hardly say that I was not measuring the evidence by quantity. My oniy reason for attaching" importance to Josephus was that his evidence is direct and definite, while that which is gathered by inference from the New Testa- ment is not. The point of the relative extent of Greek and Aramaic is a nice one, and more difficult to prove with any precision than Dr. Roberts seems to think. My belief is not in the least degree shaken that Jose- phus affords the best, and indeed conclusive, evidence upon the subject. Dr. Roberts quotes as a set-off against the two passages adduced by me, a third, which I venture to ' think tells so far as it goes in the same direction. Josephus tells us that he wrote his History of the Jewish War originally in " his native tongue," and afterwards translated it into Greek. The Aramaic version he sent to the "barbarians of the interior," it probably in the first instance to the Jews of Baby- lonia and the East. The Greek version, he says, was destined for " those who lived under the government of the Romans." There is nothing to shew that he meant by this the remnant that still remained in de- vastated Judaea. The last persons who would need the history would be those who had been the foremost actors in it. He meant rather the whole body of Hellenistic Jews, of whom there were a million in I A REyOINLER. 381 Alexandria alone. Besides these, he had in view, as he himself says, 1 the Roman court and the educated Roman world generally. No argument at all can be drawn from the address of the work ; but, on the other hand, there is some slight weight in the expression which Josephus uses to describe the Aramaic in which he wrote. He calls it distinctly " his native tongue" {Tratpiov oltceribv to?? diXovai. It is for the reader to say whether the paraphrase is a just one. But in any case the fact that Grinfield and Renan seem to have over- looked this passage, does not affect my argument in the least. To reconcile their statements with the language of Josephus is their concern. But to introduce siich conflicting statements in an answer to me is something more than" irrelevant : it is an argumenhim ad in- vidiam, which ought to be excluded from a controversy conducted on the terms that I hope this is. ■ Vila, §65. 382 DID CHRIST SPEAK GREEK t The point of what I allege is that Josephus speaks of Greek throughout as a foreign and "intrusive" tongue, which might be easily acquired, and was acquired to a considerable extent among the classes that I named ; but nothing can be more opposed to his views than the supposition that it was habitually in use, as super- seding the language of the country. Such a supposi- tion is, as I said, " contradicted in every line," and Dr. Roberts has brought nothing to shew that it is not. The same applies to the next passage adduced by me. The answer — if it is intended for an answer — that Dr. Roberts gives to this flies wide of the mark altogether. Josephus says that he alone understood the Aramaic of the deserters who came into the Roman camp. I explain this by saying that Josephus means himself alone of the immediate entourage of Titus, and that there may be in it some little exaggeration. On that explanation there would be no contradiction of importance to any other portions of the narrative. 1 But however gross the exaggeration may be, it is still an exaggeration of the statement that he (Josephus) alone understood the reports of the deserters. This must have been because they were in Aramaic. Greek every one would have understood. Aramaic would only be understood by a few Syrians. Dr. Roberts, does not meet this inference in the least. He says: " Either another meaning than ' understood ' must be given to oWijv, or the passage must.be regarded as one of many in which Josephus seeks, at the expense of 1 Of the two passages which Dr. Roberts quotes in proof that others in the Roman army besides Josephus understood the speech of the Jews — in one (B. J. iv. i. 5) it is expressly staled that the party which overheard a conversation in a Jewish house understood what was said " because they were Syrians'.' (i.e., because they spoke Aramaic themselves) ; in the second, a single Jew addresses Titus— very r osi 'k' v in Greek. 4 A REJOINDER. 383 perfect truthfulness, to magnify his own importance." The suggestion that another meaning should be given to avvlrfv may, I think, be left to itself, as the meaning of the word is perfectly plain. The rest of the sentence leads nowhere. Suppose we grant all that is asked for, that Josephus does "seek to magnify his own im- portance : " what then ? Unless his statement is abso- lutely and glaringly false, whether he alone understood the deserters, or some few, or even many understood them besides, still they must have spoken Aramaic, and not Greek. Such are the answers that Dr. Roberts has given to arguments that he describes as " flimsy." I leave it for the reader to decide whether they are " flimsy " or not, but I must also ask the reader to decide as to the way in which they have been met. 12. The last point upon which I shall touch is the evidence of the Talmud and Targums. I did not enter into this before for reasons which I gave. At the same time I expressed my opinion that it was precisely in this direction that a really full and scientific treatment of the subject ought to be sought. .1 quoted from Credner some minute but very sound and accurate reasoning in favour of the use of a Targum by the first Evangelist, which Dr. Roberts meets with his own subjective opinion, that when our Lord said " Search the scriptures," He cannot have referred to an Aramaic translation. 1 He adds further, that of these Aramaic translations, or Targums, " we hear nothing in Jewish or patristic antiquity ; " and again he speaks of " those * I doubt if the reference in these words is to a translation at all. They ■wouldjje directed, in the first instance, to the scribes and lawyers, the authorized exponents of the Law, whose duty it was to study it in the original. 384 DID CHRIST SPEAK GREEK f Aramaic Targums which have so often, without the least ground of evidence, been conjured into existence." I do not know how to characterize a statement like this with due regard to the moderation which I have wished to observe. It certainly seems to reckon upon an amount of ignorance which I should hope is not to bp found amongst the readers of The Expositor. We . have only to take up the first standard authority on the subject. I gave a reference in my previous paper to Deutsch's " Literary Remains." As this has passed unnoticed, I now write it out in full. After giving an account of the gradual substitution of Aramaic for the ancient Hebrew after the Captivity, Mr. Deutsch pro- ceeds to trace the origin and growth of Targums. " If the common people thus gradually had lost all knowledge of the tongue in which were written the books to be read to them, it naturally followed (in- order ' that they might understand them ')' that re- course must be had to a translation into the idiom with which they were familiar — the Aramaic. That further, sinqe a bare translation could not in all cases suffice, it was necessary to add to th'e translation an explanatipn, more particularly of the more difficult and obscure pas- sages. Both translation and explanation were desig- nated by the term Targnm. In the course of time there- sprang up a guild, whose special office it was to act as interpreters in both senses {Meturgeman), while formerly the learned alone volunteered their ser- vices. These interpreters were subjected to certain bonds and regulations, as to the form and substance of their rendering. Thus (comp. Mishnah .Meg. passim ; Mass. Sofer. xi. 1 ; Maimon. Hilch. Tephjll. xii. § i 1 ff. ; Orach Chaj. 145. h 2 )> ' neither the redder no; the A REJOINDER. 385 interpreter are to raise their voices one above the other;' . . . 'the Meturgeman is not to lean against a pillar or a beam, but to stand with fear and with rev- erence ; ' 'he is not -to use a written Targum, but is to deliver his translation vivd voce,' lest it might appear that he was reading out of the Torah itself, and thus the Scriptures be held responsible for what are his own dicta ; ' no more than one verse in the Pentateuch and three in the Prophets shall be read and translated at a time.' Again (Mishnah Meg. and Tosifta ad loc), certain passages liable to give offence to the multitude are specified which may be read in the synagogue and translated ; others, which may be read, but not trans- lated ; others, again, which may neither be read nor translated. . . . The same cause which in the course of time led to the writing down — after many centuries of oral, transmission — of the whole body of the tradi- tional Law, . . . engendered also, and about the same period as it would appear, written Targums, for certain portions of the Bible at least. The fear of the adulte- rations and mutilations which the Divine Word — amid the troubles within and without the commonwealth — must undergo at the hands of incompetent or impious exponents, broke through the rule that the Targums should only be oral, lest it might acquire undue autho- rity (comp. Mishnah Meg. iv. 5, 10 ; Tosifta, id. 3 ; Jer. iMeg. 4, 1 ; Bab. Meg. 24 a ; Sota 39 b). Thus a Targum of Job is mentioned (Sab. 115 a; Tr. So- ferim, 5, 15 ; Tosifta Sab. c. 14 ; Jer. Sab. 16, 1) as having been highly disapproved by Gamaliel the Elder (middle of first century a.d.), and he caused it to be hidden and buried out of sight. We find, on the other v hand, at the end of the second century, the practice of VOL. VII. 2% 3 86 DID CHRIST SPEAK GREEK? reading the Targum generally commended, and some- what later Jehoshua Ben Levi enjoins it as a special • duty upon. his sons. The Mishnah even contains re- gulations about the manner (Jad. iv. 5) in which the Targum is to be written." ' The vague and indiscriminating censures which Dr. Roberts passes upon the Talmud in his larger work 2 are not the slightest answer to definite and coherent statements such as these. Granting that some of the evidence made use of by Mr. Deutsth is comparatively late, much of it is drawn from the Mishnah itself, which dates from about 200 a.d., and was then only the codi- fying of a much older oral tradition. If Dr. Roberts wishes to continue this controversy, it would be instruc- , tive to know what are his views on this matter. And ■ I would ask that the discussion of it might be really • to the point, and not consist in a few selected quota- tions which were written without any reference to the question at issue. I have thus taken up in all twelve different points : (1) The linguistic inference from the use of the word "Greek;" (2) the argument from the presence of people from Decapolis at the Sermon on the Mount ; (3) the like argument from the presence or people from Tyre and Sidon ; (4) the relation of the Jews to the . Greek language ; (5) the special statement of Ewald as to the " intrusion " of Greek, into Palestine ; (6) the • Epistle to the Hebrews ; (7) the Apostle Peter ; (8) the Galijean dialect; (9) Aramaic expressions in the Gospels V' (10) Aceldama; (11) Josephus ; (12) Tal- mud ''and Targums. Of these, I do not care to press 10, though, as 'far as •Deutsch, "Literaiy Remains," pp. 324-328. " "Discussions," p. 297. A REJOINDER. 3S7 * 'J f it goes, it is in my favour. Neither is much to be gathered either way from 7 and 9. On 1 and 2 (which should 'be taken together), 3 and 6, Dr. Roberts's premises are doubtful, and, if they were certain, the ■conclusion would not follow from them. 5, which is quoted against, tells really for the view which I have maintained. On 4 and 1 2 the existence of evidence is denied where clear and definite evidence has been pro- duced. On 8 a conclusion follows from Dr. Roberts's own admissions which is fatal to his theory and which he has done nothing to remove. 1 1 remains as deci- sive against him as it was, the answer given being quite irrelevant. Apart from the positive evidence which has been adduced in support of the opposite conclusion, Dr. Roberts m himself has made admissions which are enough to prove that his own position is untenable. He admits that Aramaic was the "vernacular lan- guage " of Palestine. He admits that in the wars of Vespasian and Titus "the study and employment of the Greek language were formally prohibited." From the first admission it follows that our Lord must have taught, for the most part, in Aramaic. From the second admission "it follows that Greek cannot have ^be'en, in the generation before the Jewish wars, the dominant tongue. I have been much disappointed with Dr. Roberts's reply. I expected at least to have the subject treated in a scholarly and critical manner, and I have seldom read anything less critical. By "critical" I mean exact in definition, cautious in statement, strictly re- levant and logical in reasoning. I have met with ■many rough - and - ready arguments that are such as 388 STUDIES IN THE LIFE OF CHRIST. an advocate might urge before a popular jury ; I have hardly met with one that would carry weight with a scholar who took the trouble to give it a few moments' consideration. Anything like a judicious and impartial weighing of objections is very far to seek. I do not know what the readers of The Expositor may think, but Dr. Roberts has lost at least one convert who might easily have been made if the case would have admitted it. I am now more convinced than I was before that he is spending his powers on a quite untenable cause. W. SANDAV. STUDIES IN THE LIFE OF CHRIST. III. THE PERSONALITY OF JESUS. The Person of Christ is the perennial glory and strength of Christianity. If the life of our faith had depended on its signs and wonders, it had perished long ago. If they win the ages of wonder they offend the ages of inquiry ; and as the world grows in years credulous spirits die and critical spirits increase. But the Person that stands at the centre of our faith can never cease to be winsome while men revere the holy and love the good. His moral loveliness has been as potent to charm the human spirit into obedience as the harp of the ancient mythical musician was to charm nature into listening and life ; has by its soft strong spell held the wicked till he ceased to sin and learned to love, and the tender and guileless heart of a child began to beat within his breast. , The Person of Christ makes the Christian faith, is its sacred source and highest object. In it lie hidden the causes of what He afterwards became. Circumstances THE PERSONALITY OF JESUS. 389 if !! X f did not make Him ; God did. Thousands lived under the same conditions, in the midst of the same society, under the same heaven, in communion with the same nature, were born in the same faith, nurtured in the same schools and under the same influences ; yet of these thousands not one can be named with even the most distant claim to be compared or matched with Jesus, And why from among the many millions living in his own land and time did He alone become the Christ ? The ultimate answer must be sought in his nature, in his person. That was his own, not given by man, but by God, full of. the potencies that have blos- somed into the glorious Being that has overlooked and ruled the ages. Education can educe, but cannot pro- • duce ; circumstances may plant and water, but they cannot create; the increase must be given of God. Where the eminence is so pre-eminent and peculiar, the name that best expresses the nature and relations of Him who achieved it is the one proper to Jesus alone among men, " the Son of God." The Person of Jesus stands in the most intimate and organic relation with his words and acts. Here the speaker and thing spoken are, while distinguishable and different, inseparable. The teaching of Jesus is his articulated character, his Person the realized religion of Christ. The more the Person is studied the better should the religion be understood ; in the former the latter finds its creative source. Of the works Jesus per- formed, the greatest must ever remain Himself, since beyond all question the grandest element in Christianity is Christ. But if we are to know what He was as a result, we must, in some measure at least, know how He became rt. He was not an abnormal being, an arti- ECKMAN D E R Y, I N C. Bound-lb-Plcase* OCT 01 MANCHESTER, INDIANA 46962 f 250 PROOF FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS OF THE It does not occur at all in the writings of Luke, unless we take into account this Epistle. An analo- gous form, indeed, is found oftener than once in his Gospel ; but the term before us is specially a favourite of St. Paul's (2 Cor. i. 12; Gal. i. 14 ; Phil. i. 14 ; 1 Thess. ii. 17, etc.), and seems very naturally to fit in with the supposition that it commenced that part of the Epistle peculiarly apper- taining to the apostle. We may conclude, then, with Origen, " If any Church holds this Epistle as St. Paul's, it is in this matter worthy of commendation." According to the view which has been presented, it is perfectly proper to inscribe the Epistle with the name of the great apostle, though it was not the immediate product of his pen. His presence overshadowed, so to speak, its composition ; his thoughts were expressed by the freely-working mind of its accom- plished writer; and his own hand, I am inclined to believe, added the verses, so redolent of his ardent Christian affection, with which it closes. In a word, Luke with me (AovKdi fier efiov) might have been the account of the authorship given by the apostle himself, had he seen fit to make any statement regarding it; as we certainly know that Luke only was with him at a period somewhat later in his history (2 Tim. iv. 11), when, having resigned all hope of being permitted again to visit the Jerusalem upon earth, he was looking forward to a speedy removal to 'the "Jerusalem which is above." 1 1 Was St. Luke a Jew or GenlUe? It is quite the practice among biblical scholars to affirm that the third evangelist was of Gentile PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 257 We are now fully prepared for entering on the consideration of that other question connected with the Epistle to the Hebrews, which has such an important bearing on the proposition maintained in this work respecting the prevalent language of Palestine at this period — I mean the question as origin, and that thus he was the only one of all the writers of the New Testament who did not belong by birth to the seed of Abraham. A glance into any of the ordinary introductions to the New Testament is sufficient to show how prevalent is this impression. I may simply name Oredner, Hug, Bleek, Home, and Alford, as representatives of countless others who hold the opinion in question, and who think that it can bo maintained with a greater or less approach to certainty. But, in my humble judgment, it rests upon nothing more than a mistaken inference from Col. iv. 11. That passage is, in fact, the only one generally referred to in its support. St. Paul there refers to some " of the circumcision " who had helped him in his labours, and at ver. 14 he names Luke in a way which appears to distinguish him from those formerly alluded to under this appellation. The argu- ment, then, is thus stated by Home (Intrnd. iv. 444) : " As the apostle in this passage opposes him and Demas to the Christians who had been converted from Judaism, it is evident that Luke was descended from Gentile parents, if the passage does not mark him to be simply a Gentile." The whole reasoning manifestly turns on the meaning assigned to the words i* irtpiroftiii, used in ver. 11. If that expression be regarded as meaning simply Jews by birth (" Juifs de naissance," as it is paraphrased in French, and as is the explanation usually given of it), then the conclusion seems a probably just one, that St. Luke is to be regarded as a Gentile. But, as I have had occasion formerly to notice (chap. vii. p. 197, etc.), the words i* irtpnoft.ri;, as often as they occur in the New Testament, are by no means to be viewed as synonymous with 'loviaioi. but as pointing to a special parti/ among the Jews, both within and without the Church. If this be so (and I refer with con- fidence to the remarks previously made in proof that it is so), then no inference can be drawn from the passage in Col. iv. 11-14, to the effect that St. Luke was not a Jew, but simply that he did not belong to that bigoted section of his countrymen to whom the appellation oi t* irtpiTofirjt was assigned^ We are therefore at liberty to believe that, assigned wri<0re of like the other wri40rs of the New Testament, he was by birth an Israelite ; and hence we easily explain that intimate familiarity which he displays with the peculiarities of Judaism— a fact which has been felt somewhat difficult to account for on the prevailing hypothesis. Comp. e.g. Hug's Jntrod. ii. § 34. R 354 GREEK THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF liability, did not know a word of Hebrew ; and, in that respect at least, he was not inferior to the great majority of his fellow-Christians, But where, then, the " every one " who translated for himself this sup- posed Hebrew Gospel ? In what country, and among what class, shall we seek for those who were both qualified and found it necessary to translate the Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew into a language with which they were better acquainted ? The only definite answer which I have observed given to these ques- tions is the following by Dr. Davidson : " Those who had the Aramaean document in their hands endea- voured, as well as they could, to ascertain its meaning ; which they, being Greeks (for e/ca