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/cu31924096046341 
 
3 1924 096 046 341 
 
The True Text of the Old Testament 
 
71 71^ ficU /^.^^ lf.% 
 THE TRUE TEXT 
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 WITH SOME EEMARKS ON 
 
 THE LANGUAGE OF THE JEWS. 
 
 REV. JAMES BRODIE, A.M., 
 
 AUTUUB OF "THE ANTIQUITT AND KATURE OF HAH," " OUB FRK8KNT 
 POSITION ON THE OHAUT OF TIME," ETC. 
 
 EDINBURGH: 
 JOHNSTONE, HUNTER, & CO. 
 
 MDCCCLXXIII. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 THE TRUE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 PAfll 
 
 INTRODUCTION, - • ix 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 TUB OLD TESTAMENT AS COLLECTED AND REVISED BY EZRA, 1 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 HISTORICAL EVIDENCE IN REFERENCE TO THE SEPTUAGINT 
 
 AND TO THE PRESENT HEBREW TEXT, 7 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE GREI^K AND HEBREW UCUirTURES COMFAllED, - lU 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE GENEALOGIES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, - 32 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE GENEALOGIES OP THE NEW TESTAMENT, - 42 
 
iv OonterUs. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE HISTORICAL OBJECTIONS TO THE HEBREW CHBONOLOOT 
 DO NOT APPLY TO THAT OP THE 8EPTUAQINT, 
 
 Contents. 
 
 THE LANGUAGE OF THE JEWS. 
 CHAPTER 1. 
 
 THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES WHICH REQIILATE THE CHANOES 
 THAT TAKE PLACE IN LANOUAGES, 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE LANOnAQE OF ISRAEL PREVIOUS TO THE TIME OF 
 NEHEMIAH, ------ 
 
 t 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 OUTLINE HISTORY OF THE JEWS AFTER THEIR RETURN FROM 
 BABYLON, - - - . . 
 
 48 
 
 57 
 
 64 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE QUOTATIONS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT MADE BY OUR 
 LORD AND HIS APOSTLES WERE TAKEN FROM TBE 
 HEBREW, 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN THE WESTERN PART OF THE 
 KOMAN EMPIRE.— OPINION OF M. MAX MULLBR, 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 THE PREVALENCE OP GREEK IN PALESTINE.— ARGUMENTS 
 OF DIl ROBERTS, 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THE GIFT OF TONGUES. —OPINION OF DR ROBERTS AND 
 DEAN AI,FOUII, 
 
 CONCLUSION, 
 
 PAQK. 
 
 •Jl 
 
 99 
 
 103 
 
 lis 
 
 123 
 
 GO 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE EFFECT OF THE MEASURES INTRODUCED &Y EZRA AND 
 NEHEMIAH, ------ 
 
 77 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE LANGUAGE OF THE JEWS IN THE DAYS OF OUR LORD, - 83 
 
 L 
 
THE TRUE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Having from early youth been accustomed to combine 
 the study of Science with that of Scripture, and having 
 found both pleasure and profit in so doing, we have 
 often felt it a source of deep regret that theologians, in 
 general, pay so little regard to scientific pursuits, and 
 that many of our philosophers show so little reverence 
 for the revelation of God. 
 
 These feelings were more especially called forth, 
 when, after the publication of Sir C. Lyell's work on 
 the " Antiquity of Man," it became evident that some 
 of those who hold the highest rank in the estimation 
 of the literary world, look on the results of modern re- 
 search as altogether opposed to the testimony of the 
 Mosaic record. 
 
 Considering it to be at once the privilege and the 
 duty of every intelligent man to judge for himself, and 
 to accept of no opinion as true until he is satisfied as 
 
r 
 
 X The True Text of the Old Testament, 
 
 to the facts and arguments on which it rests, we 
 determined, more carefully than we had ever done 
 hefore, to investigate the subjects in debate, without 
 any deference to antiquated prejudice on the one hand, 
 or to philosophical hypothesis on the other. 
 
 Two subjects of inquiry presented themselves for 
 consideration. In the first place, Are the' conclusions 
 to which geologists and physiologists have come in 
 regard to the nature and antiquity of man, borne out 
 by the facts and arguments which they have adduced ? 
 In the second place. Are the inferences drawn by bib- 
 lical critics from the Old Testament Scriptures entitled 
 to implicit belief? 
 
 Directing our attention to the first of these inquiries, 
 we soon came to look on the facts and arguments ad- 
 duced by geologists in opposition to the Mosaic narra- 
 tive as very far from bearing out the assertions they 
 so confidently founded upon them. We published the 
 result of our investigations in a little work, " The Anti- 
 quity and Nature of Man, in Keply to Sir Charles Lyell." 
 We havo once and again solicited discussion, but have 
 never got any to reply ; and we have the satisfaction of 
 observing that many of the arguments which at one 
 time were most prominently brought forward by the 
 assailants of the Scriptural statements are now parsed 
 over in silence. 
 
 The second of the inquiries proposed — Are the infer- 
 ences drawn by biblical critics from the Old Testament 
 
 The True Text of the Old Testament. xi 
 
 Scriptures entitled to implicit belief ?— we found more 
 difficult. It required a far wider range of research than 
 we at first anticipated, and led to results so much at 
 variance with some of our preconceived opinions, that 
 reiterated examination, and long continued prayerful 
 study, were required before we could come to a final 
 decision. 
 
 The more prominent facts which these researches 
 have brought to light, and the conclusions to which 
 they have led, are embodied in the little volume now 
 presented to the public. 
 
P-v 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT SCKIPTUKES AS COLLECTED AND 
 REVISED BY EZRA. 
 
 The Apostle tells us in tlie Epistle to the Hebrews, that 
 " God, at sundry times and in divers manners spake in 
 time past unto the fathers by the prophets;" but in 
 regard to the manner in which the Lord made known 
 His will to the inspired penmen we are not informed ; 
 and we look on conjectures respecting it aa unprofitable 
 and vain. Having, however, been told that " holy men 
 of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," 
 we believe that the Old Testament Scriptures, as ori- 
 ginally revealed to the Jews, were sent from heaven, 
 and were entitled to the reverence that is due to the 
 unerring counsel of Him who cannot lie. 
 
 When we proceed farther, and direct our inquiries 
 into the evidence we have that the records we now 
 venerate are an accurate transcript of the revelation 
 originally made, we enter on an altogether different and 
 much more difficult subject. 
 
 Wo are not informed as to the means employed dur- 
 ing the earlier epochs of the Israelitish commonwealth 
 
2 The True Text of the Old Testament. 
 
 for the preservation of the sacred -writings, and we 
 have reason to suspect that they were not ^infrequently 
 treated with neglect. The account, for example, that 
 is given of the finding of the Book of the Law in the 
 house of the Lord, in the days of King Josiah, shows 
 how forgetful the Israelites, at that time, had been of 
 the inspired deposit which had been committed to 
 their care. From this neglect defects and inaccuracies 
 must no doubt have arisen, such as are now found in 
 our New Testament manuscripts. 
 
 On their return from Babylon, and re-establishment 
 in their native land, Ezra and his associates are repre- 
 sented as having collected, revised, and arranged the 
 sacred writings, with a diligence and a fidelity that 
 have claimed the admiration and gratitude of every 
 succeeding age. 
 
 Some have supposed that in this undertaking they 
 were guided by Divine inspiration, and entertain the 
 idea, that not only the original writers, but the scribes 
 employed in copying their manuscripts, were miracu- 
 lously preserved from error. Dr Gaussen of Geneva, 
 in his work on the " Canon of Scripture," advocates 
 tliis opinion in the following terms : — 
 
 "What God in His wisdom, and in harmony witli 
 His other works, needed to do, for the constant and 
 perfect preservation of the sacred oracles confided to 
 His people — ^what all the faithful under the old cove- 
 nant firmly believed He had done, — St Paul declares 
 
 The True Text of tU Old Testament. 3 
 
 that He has actually done, and informs us by what 
 means. It was, he says, by means of the Jews , God 
 Himself having confided to them for this end, under 
 the invisible government of His providence, the sacred 
 deposit of the Scriptures. It was thus that, by a 
 sovereign and mysterious decree. He constituted tins 
 inconstant and wayward people the sure and faithful 
 depositary of His Holy Word. ' Unto them were com- 
 mitted the oracles of God.' _ 
 
 "This important declaration is found at the begin- 
 ning of the third chapter of the Epistle to the Eomans. 
 •What advantage then hath the Jew?' The Apostle 
 supposes an objector to say, 'What is his privilege, 
 since, according to you, all men, Jews a. well ^^ 
 Greeks, are under the condemnation of the Law? 
 This privilege is 'much every way,' he rephes; but 
 chiefly in this, that they were intrusted with the 
 
 oracles of God.' . 
 
 "Their privilege according to the Apostle is, then, 
 not only that of possessing the Scriptures, which are 
 the very oracles of God our Saviour; but especially 
 that of having received them as a deposit, under the 
 guardianship of God, and thus being divinely charged 
 with their preservation. 
 
 .' It is not said merely that the oracles had been given 
 to them, as they have been to us. and to so many others, 
 but that tliey were intrusted with them ; so that this 
 nation, though almost always rebellious, through the 
 
p 
 
 4 The True Text of the Old Testament. 
 
 long course of their history — this nation, 'always re- 
 sisting the Holy Ghost/ as St Stephen said — this very 
 nation, has shown itself constantly faithful for thirty- 
 three centuries on this single point of the Scriptures ; 
 it has guarded them, and still guards them for ever 
 unaltered." 
 
 Notwithstanding the deference that is due to an 
 authority so distinguished as that of Dr Gaussen, we 
 cannot concur in the opinion that the words quoted 
 from the Apostle imply that the Jewish transcribers 
 of the Law, down even to the present day, have been 
 miraculously preserved from error. 
 
 St Paul is speaking of the advantages possessed by 
 the Jews, and directs attention more especially to the 
 inestimable privilege of having the oracles of God be- 
 stowed on them for their guidance in things pertaining 
 to their spiritual welfare. We cannot look on his words 
 as implying anything more than this ; and we see no 
 reason for believing that a special supernatural guid- 
 ance has been vouchsafed, even to the modem tran- 
 scribers of the Hebrew records, while no such aid has 
 been granted to those who copied, the writings of the 
 Apostles. 
 
 We find no intimation in the Books of Ezra or Nehe- 
 miah that the scribes they employed were under the 
 special direction of the Spirit ; and we are not aware of 
 anything in the writings of Josephus, or of any other 
 Jew, that gives countenance to Dr Gaussen's conjee- 
 
 The True Text of the Old Testammt. 5 
 
 ture. And we are not entitled to assume the mira- 
 culous interposition of the Spirit, when we have no 
 intimation of such interposition havmg been made, 
 and when we see no necessity for it. 
 
 While, however, we see no good reason or conclui- 
 ing that those who copied the volumes collated by Ezra 
 were directed by supernatural influence, the anxious 
 endeavour which was manifested by him and his as- 
 
 octatL to secure the accuracy of the wriUngs com- 
 "ted to their charge, affords sufficient evidence that 
 
 I canon they compiled was entitled to be regarded as 
 
 the Word of the living God. 
 
 ine vv oiu ui o Jewish common- 
 
 After the re-estabhshment ol tbe Jewis 
 
 ./...e*Jfoi *, U»," aod dist»ga»hed for the 
 Lplus. « Migh. ..most .ay ..peM,t.o»», -e,«- 
 1 ;nh thcv naid to the written Word. 
 
 r ,■ = W is evident that this feeling con- 
 
 ^r. tr, believe that it remained un- 
 have every reason to believe 
 
6 The True Text of the Old TestameiU. 
 
 changed to the time when the city was laid waste by 
 the armies of Eome. 
 
 These considerations are sufficient to show that the 
 canon collated by Ezra, and preserved through the 
 watchful care of the scribes, was entitled to thorough 
 acceptation. 
 
 By far the strongest of aU testimonies, however, that 
 can be adduced in its favour, is the manner in which 
 It was quoted by the Saviour himself. No one can 
 refer to it with deeper reverence than He did; no one 
 can show a more anxious desire to bow to the truth 
 of every word that it contains, and submit implicitly to 
 every mjunction that it imposes. 
 
 The argument to which, above all others, He deferred 
 was, "It is written;" and nothing can show a more 
 stnkmg contrast to the flippant, presumptuous style in 
 which some commentators permit themselves to speak 
 of the fancied imperfections of the sacred Scriptures, 
 than the deep and holy awe which our Lord exhibited 
 towards His Father's word, " the Law and the Prophets." 
 It surely becomes sinful, ignorant men to manifest 
 the deepest reverence for that Holy Book, to which 
 Immanuel paid implicit submission. 
 
 TJte True Text of the Old Testament. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 HISTORICAL EVIDENCE IN KEFEBENCE TO THE SEPTUA- 
 GINT AND PHESENT HEBREW TEXT. 
 
 Having in the preceding chapter endeavoured to point 
 out the appropriate value of the canon collated by Ezra, 
 we are, in the next place, led to an inquiry which is not 
 only, like the former, of interest and importance, but is 
 one that demands both careful and cautious research. 
 
 It is one, too, we must add, in regard to which many, 
 as we think, have fallen into error. 
 
 The question is, " Wliere are wo, at the present day, 
 to look for the most reliable transcript, or version, of 
 this precious volume ? " 
 
 We have, in the first place, the present Hebrew text, 
 in use among the modern Jews, from which the ver- 
 sions made by the Western Churches have been taken. 
 We have, in the next place, the Septuagint, or old 
 Greek translation, which was the only standard referred 
 to by the early Christian authors, and which still con- 
 tinues to be considered as entitled to supreme authority 
 by the Churches of the East. To whiph of these two 
 is the preference to be given? 
 
r 
 
 8 
 
 Tlie True Text of the Old Ttstament. 
 
 TJui True Text of the Old Tedament. 
 
 9 
 
 It has generally been assumed that the first of them 
 is a faithful transcript of the original Hebrew ; but we 
 have no evidence to prove that it should be so esteemed. 
 We have every reason for believing that the sacred 
 Scriptures were preserved in Jerusalem, in their original 
 integrity and purity,- so long as the Mosaic polity con- 
 tinued ; but there is strong ground for suspecting that 
 these highly-prized treasures must all have perished 
 in the destruction of the city. 
 
 While the Law and the Prophets were looked on with 
 the deepest veneration by the Jews, they were regarded 
 with very different feelings by their Eoman invaders. 
 They had been preserved with the most scrupulous care 
 up to the time when the armies of Titus invaded Judea ; 
 but we have no reason for supposing that they passed 
 unscathed through the disastrous epoch that thereafter 
 ensued. 
 
 The Bomans regarded the Jews with the most in- 
 tense hatred and most sovereign contempt. The Latin 
 poets treat their religious observances with ridicule and 
 scorn. Tacitus speaks of them as " cherishing bitter 
 enmity against all others," and describes their laws as 
 " hostile to men, and calculated to inspire the Jew with 
 hatred and opposition to the rest of mankind." And 
 Cicero, pre-eminent as philosopher, legislator, and orator, 
 seeks to justify the oppression with which they were 
 treated, even when living as peaceable inhabitants of 
 the provinces. lie thus assigns his reason : — " While 
 
 Jerusalem kept its ground, and the Jews were ma 
 peaceful state, their religious rites were -PU^-^J^ 
 the splendour of this empire, the -^^^^' l\^''^^'^;^ 
 and the institutions of our ancestors; but they are 
 xnost so now, because that race has shown by arms 
 lat were its feelings in regard to our supremacy 
 and how far it was dear to the ---*^1 ^^^^ J 
 have learned from the past, that it has been con- 
 ':ired, let out to hire, and enslaved."-Ora.o„ for 
 
 '^L'Z.M to mind the hatred with which the 
 Jews were regarded, and the fury with whxch their 
 exasperated enemies wreaked their vengeance upon 
 everything that pertained to their peculiar rehgious 
 Irvfce we may rest assured that the records which 
 haTbeen treasured up in Jerusalem would be commit- 
 ted to the flames by their ruthless conquerors. 
 
 A similar fate woiUd in all probability beiall the 
 volumes that had been preserved in the synagogue 
 throughout the country. When the imperial legions 
 spread over the land, previous to the final overthrow of 
 t le city, the inhabitants, instead of seekmg safety in 
 flight to other districts, crowded into Jerusalem, in the 
 vl expectation that the Lord would there interpose 
 n^iraculously on their behalf. By so doing they rushed 
 xnadly on their own destruction ; and it is not unreason- 
 able to suppose that, buoyed up by the same fallacious 
 hope they took with them the treasures of their syna- 
 
f 
 
 10 The True Text of the Old Testament. 
 
 gogues, and that, by this means, these precious relics 
 shared in the general ruin. 
 
 We must also recollect, that their records were alto- 
 gether unlike the small and portable volumes of the 
 |)resent day. They were \rritten on large rolls, which 
 • could neither be easily carried from place to place, nor 
 easily hidden from the observation of an enemy. It is 
 hardly possible, therefore, to suppose that the copies of 
 the Law, from which the text at present in use among 
 the Jews was taken, were those that were in use in 
 Jerusalem, or even in Judea. • The probability is, that 
 they must have been brought from some of the more 
 remote districts, on which the crushing weight of the 
 oppressor did not so heavily fall. 
 
 Historical evidence in regard to the origin of the 
 present Hebrew text is altogether awanting. We do 
 not know who the parties were by whom the copies 
 were made; we do not know where the originals had 
 been preserved, nor the means employed to secure accu- 
 racy of transcription. 
 
 The fact, which has been noticed by Biblical critics, 
 that the Syriac version agrees with the present Hebrew 
 text, while all the other ancient versions, such as the 
 Greek, the Arabic, and Samaritan, differ from it, but 
 agree with each other, leads us to look to Syria as the 
 source from which our modern copies of the Scriptures 
 have been derived. But there are no means by which 
 we can arrive at a definite conclusion on the subject. 
 
 The True Text of the Old Testamevt. U 
 We come, in the next place, to consider the claxms 
 .hi the S;ptuagint has to be regarded as an authonty 
 by the student of Scripture. 
 'as we before remarked, it was the only standard 
 referred to by the early Christian fathers, and stJl con- 
 tinu" to hold the same position in the estxmatxon of 
 the Eastern Churches. , „ „f 
 
 We are not ourselves acquainted with the works of 
 the early commentators and historians, but we have 
 the testimony of various learned critics, on whose state- 
 n^ents we can fully rely, who give us good reason for 
 placing the greatest confidence on the accuracy of the 
 
 'trnllell Home, in his " Introduction tothe Study , 
 of the Scriptures," gives what may be regarded as an 
 abstract of the conclusions to which previous inquirers 
 had come. We shall enumerate, in order, his state- 
 ments in regard to the Greek, or Alexandrian version 
 
 ne mth<yrity due to the Septua^int.-" Among the 
 Greek versions of the Old Testament, the Alexandrian, 
 or Septuagint, as it is usually termed, is the most valu- 
 able It is uniformly cited by the early fathers, whether 
 Greek or Latin, and from this version all the trans- 
 lations into other languages, which were anciently 
 approved of by the Christian Church, were executed, 
 -with the exception of the Syriac." 
 
 m origin of the Septuagint.-" T&nch uncertainty 
 has prevailed concerning the real history of this ancient 
 
12 Tlui True Text of the Old TedameiU. 
 
 version. According to one account, Ptolemy Philadel- 
 phus, King of Egypt, caused the translation to be made 
 for the use of the library which he had founded in Alex- 
 andria. For this purpose it is reported that he sent 
 Aristeas and Andreas, two distinguished officers of his 
 court; to Jerusalem, on an embassy to Eleazar, then 
 high-priest of the Jews, to request a copy of the Hebrew 
 Scriptures, and that there might also be sent to him 
 seventy-two persons, who were equally well skilled 
 in the Hebrew and Greek languages. These learned 
 men were accordingly shut up in the Isle of Pharos, 
 where, having agreed in the translation of each period, 
 after a mutual conference, Demetrius wrote down their 
 version as they dictated it to him, and thus, in the 
 space of seventy-two days, the whole was accomplished. 
 This relation is derived from a letter ascribed to Aris- 
 teas himself. If, as there is reason to believe is the 
 case, this piece is a forgery, it was made at a very early 
 period, for it was in existence in the time of Josephus, 
 who has made use of it in his " Jewish Antiquities." 
 
 These ancient traditions, though evidently mixed 
 with fable, give us every reason to conclude that the 
 original copies of the Hebrew Scriptures, from which 
 the Alexandrian version was taken, must have been col- 
 lated with care, that the version taken from them was 
 made with accuracy, and that it is, therefore, entitled 
 to our confidence. 
 
 Tlie Samaritan Pentateuch agrees with the Septuagint. 
 
 The Tnic Text of the Old TestamerU. 
 
 13 
 
 _" From the very close resemblance B«b«isting between 
 the text of the Greek version and the text of the 
 Sail Pontatouch, Louis Le Dieu. Selden, Wh^^ 
 Hessencamp, and Bauer, are of opm.n ^^^^^^^IZ 
 of the Alexandrian version made xt from the SamanUn 
 
 Pentateuch. And in P-P-^^,- ^^^J" W« 
 pond, the Greek differs from the Hebrew. ^Hor^es 
 
 n:^-;:lL'i;^l^-. «/ ., .. o....-an ^n^s 
 
 agree with the Septuagint-^ Home -y«. P. ^ \^^_ 
 
 ""'Mrnorne speaks of these versions as having been 
 baWe B»pp».Uon » that the, cor P 
 
 Am. 
 
14 TJve True Text of the Old Testament. 
 
 Such are the testimonies home to the Septuagint by 
 Bihlical critics. The opinion which they express in 
 regard to the accuracy of the Jewish scribes who lived 
 in the early part of the Christian era is very di£ferent. 
 
 Mr Home says, p. 179 : — " The Septuagint version re- 
 tained its authority, even with the rulers of the Jewish 
 synagogues, until the commencement of the first cen- 
 tury after Christ, when the Jews, being unable to resist 
 the arguments from prophecy which were urged against 
 them by the Christians, in order to deprive them of the 
 benefit of that authority, began to deny that it agreed 
 with the Hebrew text. Farther to discredit the Sep- 
 tuagint, the Jews instituted a solemn fast, on the eighth 
 day of the month Thebet, to execrate the memory of 
 its having been made." 
 
 To the varied testimonies in favour of the Septuagint 
 thus adduced by Mr Home, there is yet another of a 
 very different kind. 
 
 The quotations from the Old Testament Scriptures 
 which we find in the New agree with tJie Septuagint. 
 — ^This agreement is so remarkable, that all who have 
 studied the subject concur in acknowledging it. It is 
 thus described by the Kev. Professor Koberts, of St 
 Andrews, in a Paper printed in the " Sunday at Home :" 
 — " The quotations from the Old Testament, introduced 
 by the Apostle into his discourse. Acts ii. 14, agree for 
 the most part with the phraseology of the Septuagint, 
 presenting only those slight variations, omissions, and 
 
 The True Text o/fc Old Tatamml. 15 
 .dditton,, ^Mcb naturaUy occur in the ««•• «' ^ 
 
 01dTe.to.en ._^ ^^^^ ^^. 
 
 'In some of the inferences he deduces from them 
 
 Tn so far as external evidences guxde us-^at ^ 
 • 1 far as agreement with other versions, with the 
 '" . 7J^L and with the quotations which we 
 TfltllTT^^^^^^ -able us to detemiine, 
 tfa^ led to give a very decided preference to the 
 
 "te'i::l:t:areful to keep in mind, that while we 
 havrthus the strongest corroborative testirnony sup- 
 p rig the claims of the Septuagint, histoncal evidence 
 Lre^ard to the origin of the prescut Hebrew text is 
 
 T:::^:^ conclusion, in regard to the sup. 
 rior authority due to the Septuagint, we are aware that 
 roppose a very generally received opinion. But we 
 Z our arguments before the reader, and leave him to 
 judge for himself. 
 
w 
 
 16 Tlie True Text of the Old TestameiU. 
 
 CHAPTEK III. 
 
 THE GREEK AND HEBREW SCRIPTURES COMPARED. 
 
 We, in the next place, compare the Greek and Hebrew 
 versions together, that we may be the better able to 
 judge of the discrepancies that are found between them, 
 and form, from internal evidence, an opinion of their 
 comparative accuracy. 
 
 We subjoin a list of all the passages, in the first thirty 
 chapters of Genesis, in which any difference of import- 
 ance is found. 
 
 We first give the translation we iiave taken from the 
 Septuagint, and then the rendering from the Hebrew, 
 as it is found in the English Bible. 
 
 Where the only difference consists in the omission of 
 some words, which are found in the Greek but not in 
 the Hebrew, these words are printed in italics. 
 
 BOOK OF QENESIS. 
 
 Chap. i. 9— "Let the water under the heaven be 
 gathered together into one place, and let the dry land 
 appear : and it was so. And the water tohich was under 
 the heaven was gathered together into its places, and the 
 dry land appeared." 
 
 m Trm Text of the Old Testavi^nt. 17 
 Ver 11-" And God said, Let the earth bring forth 
 the herb of grass bearing sood. according to its kind 
 td Lcordin to its likeness, and the fruit tree bc^ing 
 fruit, whose seed is in itself, after its kind on the e-th. 
 .. Ind God said. Let the earth bring orth grass tbe 
 ,orb yielding seed, and the fruit tree Jjolding fruit after 
 bis kind whose seed is in itself, upon the earth 
 
 Ver 14-" And God said. Let there be lights in the 
 filament of the heaven, togive ligUupontke earth,and 
 to divide the day from the night." 
 
 Ver 28-" And have dominion over the fish of the 
 .a and over the fowl of the air. and f^^^^^^^f 
 all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creep 
 
 etb upon the e_arth.^ on the sixth day God ended his 
 
 ""'< And on the seventh day God ended his work." 
 vt 6-" But there rose a fountain out of the earth, 
 
 and watered the whole face of the ground/- _^ 
 .. But there went up a mist from the earth, etc^ 
 Ver 15-" And the Lord God took the man whom he 
 
 had formed, and put him into the garden." 
 
 CHiriii! 1-" Now the serpent was the most subtile 
 
 nf all the beasts of the field." 
 
 °'; Now that serpent." according to the ^^^f^^^^' 
 
 i„. « was more subtile than any beast of the field. 
 Ver 12-" Hast thou eaten of the tree whereof I om- 
 
 Jnded thee, that of it al^e thou shouldest not eat? 
 
F 
 
 18 
 
 TJi^ Trm Text o/tlie Old Testament. 
 
 Ver. 14-«Upon thy breast and thy belly shalt thou 
 go- 
 
 Chap. iy. 8-« And Cain said to Abel his brother 
 Let us go out into the field." 
 
 " And Cain talked with Abel his brother." 
 
 Ver. 12-" Thou shalt be groaning and tremblinff on 
 the earth." " 
 
 "A fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the 
 earth." 
 
 Chap. v. 3-The genealogies will be afterwards ex- 
 amined. 
 
 Chap. vi. 16-" Thou shalt make the ark to contract 
 and m a cubit shalt thou finish it above." 
 
 "A window Shalt thou make to the ark, and in a 
 cubit shalt thou finish it above." 
 
 Ver. 19—" And ofaU cattle, and o/aU creeping things, 
 and of aU wild beasts, even of all flesh shalt thou bring,' 
 two and two, into the ark." 
 Chap. vii. 1—" And the Lord God said unto Noah." 
 The omission of the word God from the title of Jeho- 
 vah, as the Lord God, is of frequent occurrence. 
 
 Ver. 3— "And of fowls of the air that are clean, by 
 sevens, and of all fowls of the air that are not clean, by 
 twos, the male and the female." 
 
 Ver. 8—" Of fowls thai are clean, and of fowls that 
 are not clean, of clean beasts, and of beasts that are 
 not clean, and of aU that creepeth upon the earth, 
 there went in two and two." 
 
 The True Text of the Old Testament. 19 
 
 Ver. 17 — " And the flood was forty days and forty 
 nights upon the earth." 
 
 Chap. viii. 1 — " And God remembered Noah, and all 
 the wild beasts, and all the cattle, and all the flying 
 fowl, and all the creeping things, as many as were with 
 him in the ark." 
 
 " And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, 
 and all the cattle that were with him in the ark." 
 
 Ver. 13 — " And it came to pass in the six hundred 
 and first year of the life of Noah." 
 
 Ver. 19 — " And all the wild beasts, and all the cattle, 
 and every bird, and whatsoever creepeth upon the earth, 
 after their kinds, went forth out of the ark." 
 
 Chap. ix. 1 — " Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish 
 the earth, and have dominion over it." 
 
 Ver. 7 — " Bring forth abundantly in the earth, and 
 multiply therein, and have dominion over it." 
 
 Ver. 9 — " And I, behold, I establish my covenant 
 with you, and with your seed after you, and with every 
 
 living creature that is with you of all that 
 
 come out of the ark." 
 
 " And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, 
 and with your seed after you; and with every living 
 
 creature that is with you from all that go out 
 
 of the ark, to every beast of the earth." 
 
 Chap. x. — In the genealogies the accommodation of 
 the Hebrew names to the Greek pronunciation makes it 
 sometimes difiicult to recognise their identity. In some 
 
20 Tlie True Text qftlie Old Testament. 
 
 cases, other names seem to have been substituted for 
 those that were found in the original Hebrew manu- 
 scripts. These we may suppose to have been the names 
 by which the persons and places were known among 
 the Greeks and Egyptians. 
 
 There is no other difference between the two lists, 
 excepting in verses 22 and 24, to which we shall after- 
 wards refer. 
 
 Chap. xi. 8 — " And they left off to build the city and 
 the tower." 
 
 Ver. 10 — The genealogies will be afterwards consi- 
 dered. 
 
 Ver. 31 — " And led them forth put of the land of the 
 Chaldees." 
 
 " And went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees." 
 
 A similar difference is found in chapter xv. 7. 
 
 Ver. 32 — " And all the days of Terah in the land of 
 Canaan were two hundred and five years." 
 
 Chap. xiii. 1 — " And Abram went and Lot 
 
 with him, into the wilderness." 
 
 " And Abram went and Lot with him, into 
 
 the south." 
 
 So also in verse 3. 
 
 Ver. 12 — " And Lot dwelled in a neighbouring city." 
 
 " And Lot dwelled in the cities of the plain." 
 
 Ver. 17 — " To thee will I give it, and to thy seed for 
 ever." 
 
 Ver. 18—" By the oak of Mamre." 
 
 The True Text of the Old Testameni. 
 
 21 
 
 " In the plain of Mamre." 
 
 So also in chap. xiv. 13, and chap, xviii. 1. 
 
 Chap. xiv. 7—" The princes of Amalek. 
 
 " The country of the Amalekites." ^^ 
 
 Ver. 16—" AH the goods of Sodom." 
 
 Ver 19— " And he blessed J 6ram." 
 
 Chap xv 2-" I am departing without a child, but 
 the son of Masek. my home-born f^-;!;. «^-^; *^^ 
 Eliezer of Damascus. And Abram said. Since to me 
 thou hast not given seed, one bom in my house shaU 
 
 be mine heir." . , . 
 
 .. I go childless, and the steward of my house is tins 
 Eliezef of Damascus. And Abram said. Behold to me 
 thou hast given no seed: and, lo. one bom in my house 
 
 is mine heir." ^ 
 
 Yer. 6—" And Abram believed God. 
 
 " And he believed in the Lord." 
 
 Ver 11-" And when the fowls came down upon the 
 carcases, even upon the divided parts of them. Abram 
 
 sat down by them. ' 
 
 •And when the fowls came down upon the carcases. 
 
 Abram drove them away." 
 
 Ver 17-" And when the sun went down, there was a 
 flame, and behold a smoking furnace and lamps of fire^ 
 "And when the sun went down, and it was dark, 
 behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp/' 
 
 Chap. xvi. 8-" And the angel oj the Lord said to 
 her, Hagar." 
 
 1 
 
F 
 
 22 The True Text oftU Old Testament. 
 
 Chap. xvii. 1 — "And the Lord appeared to Abram, 
 and said unto him, I am thy God." 
 
 " And the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto 
 him, I am the Almighty God." 
 
 Ver. 14 — " And the uncircimiciBed man child whose 
 flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised on the eighth day." 
 
 "Ver. 19 — "And God said io Abraham, Sarah thy wife 
 shall bear thee a son: and thou shalt call his name 
 Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an 
 everlasting covenant, to he a Ood to him and to his 
 seed after him." 
 
 Ver. 27 — The concluding words of this verse, " were 
 circumcised with him," are not in the Greek. 
 
 Chap, xviii. 6 — " And make cakes upon the hearth." 
 
 Ver. 23 — " Wilt thou destroy the righteous with the 
 wicked? And shall the righteous be as the wicked f" 
 
 Chap. xix. 10 — "And shut to the door of the 
 house." 
 
 Ver. 15 — " Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daugh- 
 ters, which are here, and go forth." 
 
 Ver. 16 — The Hebrew adds to the end of this verso, 
 " and they brought him forth, and set him without the 
 city." 
 
 Ver. 37 — " And called his name Moab, saying, he is 
 of my father." 
 
 Ver. 38 — "And called his name Ammon, saying, the 
 son of my family." 
 
 Chap. xx. 2 — " And Abraham said of Sarah his wife. 
 
 The True Text of the Old TestamerU. 23 
 
 • She is my sister,' for he feared to say she is my wife, 
 lest at any time the men of the city should hill him for 
 her sake; and Abimelech king of Gerar sent, and took 
 
 Sarah." 
 
 Ver. 14—" And Abimelech took a thousand pieces of 
 silver, and sheep, and oxen, and men-servants, and 
 maid- servants." 
 
 Ver. 16—" And unto Sarah he said, Behold I have 
 given thy brother a thousand pieces of sUver. These 
 Bhall be to thee for the honour of thy countenance, and 
 to all the women with thee-And, Speak the whole 
 
 truth." 
 
 " And unto Sarah he said. Behold, I have given thy 
 brother a thousand pieces of silver: behold, he is to 
 thee a covering of the eyes, unto all that are with thee 
 and with all other: thus was she reproved." 
 
 Chap. xxi. 22—" And it came to pass at that time, 
 that Abimelech, and Ohozath his friend, and Phicol 
 the chief captain of his host." 
 
 There is a similar omission in verse 32. 
 
 Chap. xxii. 2—" Ami got thco unto tlio high land." 
 
 " And get thco into the laud of Moriah." 
 
 Yer. 12—" Thy beloved son." 
 
 " Thine only son." 
 
 There is the same difference in verse 16. 
 
 Ver. 13—" Caught in a plant of sabec." 
 
 " Caught in a thicket." 
 
 Ver. 14— "And Abraham called the name of that 
 
24 The True Text of the Old Testament. 
 
 place, 'The Lord hath seen:' that they might say 
 to-day, In the mount the Lord was seen." 
 
 "And Abraham called the name of that place 
 Jehovah-jireh (the Lord will be seen) : as it is said to 
 this day, In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen." 
 
 Ver. 17 — "Thy seed shall possess the cities of the 
 enemies." 
 
 " Thy seed shall possess the gates of their enemies." 
 
 So also in chapter xxiv. 60. 
 
 Chap, xxiii. 2 — " And Sarah died in the city of 
 Arba, which is in the valley." 
 
 Yet. 9 — "That he may give me the double cave, 
 which he hath, which is in part of his field." 
 
 " That he may give me the cave of Machpelah 
 (double), which he hath, which is in the end of his 
 field." 
 
 A similar difference is found in verses 17 and 19, 
 and in chapter zxv. 9. 
 
 Chap, xxiv, 7 — " The Lord the God of heaven, and 
 the God of the earth." 
 
 Ver. 10 — " And the servant took ten camels of his 
 master's camels, and of all the goods of his master with 
 him." 
 
 " And the servant took ten camels of the camels of 
 his master, and departed; for all the goods of his 
 master were in his hand." 
 
 Ver. 14 — " Drink thou, and I will give thy camels 
 drink, until they shall have done drinking." 
 
 TU True Text of tU OU Tedame^rt. 25 
 
 Ver. 22-" The man took golden ear-rings, each of a 
 
 'TirifLk a golden ear-ring of half a shekel 
 
 "time difference is found in verses 30 and 47. 
 
 V 7-" Behold I stand by the well of water, and 
 the daughters of the men of the city come forth to draw 
 Iter a^d it shall be. that the virgin to whom I shall 
 
 " »'And let it come to pass, that the damsel to whom I 
 
 ^'^4"'i__..This shall be the wife, which the Lord 
 hath prepared for his own servant Isaac. 
 
 . J the same be the woman which the Lord hath 
 aDDointed for my master's son." 
 
 Ver 55-" And her brethren and her mother said. 
 
 '< And her brother and her mother said." 
 
 ytr 59-" So they sent forth Eebekah their sister 
 
 and her goods." ^ 
 
 " Eebekah their sister, and her nurse. 
 Chap. xxv. 18-" And he dwelt in the presence of 
 
 all his brethren." +!,,„„" 
 
 .. And he died in the presence of all his brethren. 
 Ver. 25-" And the first came out red, hairy all over 
 
 ''rint^he first came out red, all over like a hairy 
 
 garment." 
 
w 
 
 26 The True Text of the Old I'eatament. 
 
 Chap. xxvi. 12 — "And he received in the same 
 year barley an hundredfold." 
 
 Ver. 14 — " And he had cattle of sheep, and cattle of 
 oxen, and many tilled lands." 
 
 " For he had possession of flocks, and possession of 
 herds, and great store of servants." 
 
 Ver. 19—" In the valley of Oerar." 
 
 Ver. 24 — "For the sake of Abraham thy father." 
 
 " For Abraham my servant's sake." 
 
 Ver. 26 — •" Isaac's servants digged a well in the valley 
 of Oerar!' 
 
 Ver. 32 — " We have not found water," or rather, pro- 
 bably, " Have we not found water ?" 
 
 " We have found water." 
 
 Ghaf. xxviL 6 — " And Bebekah spake to Jacob, her 
 younger son." 
 
 Ver. 29 — " Be lord over thy brother, and let the sons 
 of thy father bow down to thee." 
 
 " Be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother's sons 
 bow down to thee." 
 
 Ver. 38 — " And Isaac being troubled, Esau lifted up 
 his voice and wept." 
 
 Ver. 43 — "And flee to Mesopotamia, to Laban my 
 brother." 
 
 Chap, xxviii. 3 — " And may my God bless thee." 
 
 " And God Almighty bless thee." 
 
 Yer. 9—" To be his wife, besides Ma otJier wives." 
 
 Tl^TrveTextoftMOldTestamerd. 27 
 Ver. 13-" Fear not, the land on which thou Uest to 
 
 '' VeT^'o- n "i Lord God wiU be with me." 
 
 P ,xix 1-" And Jacob went on his journey. 
 Chap. xxix. 1 An ^^ ^^ 
 
 and came into the land of the ^st ^^^ 
 
 ofBetJiuel, the Syrian, the brother oj 
 
 of Jacob and Esau." «/ r/ifian came with 
 
 Ver. 9-" Rachel the daughter of Laban, cam 
 
 her father's sheep." ^ 
 
 Tr ^9—" And Leah conceived and bare a 
 JX Z r.ad, Th» U,d ha* looW on ...» 
 
 °°Cn'- ^..A-d Bilhah, SacM-s maid, con- 
 
 "yef U-" And ledi »>id, ' It i» -'V »* *» «»"«* 
 '".rdUr»aid,-A»oopcome«.:'.«d*.c.Ued 
 
 ""Cis!^' And she called In. nan>« I.«>el.ar. « i. 
 JimM eaid, God ha* taken awaj m, reproach. 
 
 „^0<S FE0» THB SEQO»D BOOK OF ™GB. 
 
 A. it ma, be eatiBf«>tory to direct attention to Bomo 
 p^:;! taken from another part ot Senptnro, we take, 
 
 Jim 
 
 j:: 
 
28 The True Text of the Old Testament. 
 
 ad aperturam libri, the first three chapters of the Second 
 
 Book of Kings. 
 2 EiNQS i. 2 — "Inquire whether I shall recover of 
 
 this disease ; and they went to inquire of him." 
 Ver. 3 — " Is it because there is no God in Israel, that 
 
 ye go to inquire of Baal-zehub, the God of Ekron ? But 
 
 it is not so." 
 
 ■ Ver. 4 — " And Elijah departed, and said to them." 
 Ver. 9 — " And, behold, Elijah sat on the top of a hill." 
 Ver. 11 — " And the captain of fifty spoke to him and 
 
 said." 
 Ver. 12 — " And fire came down out of heaven." 
 " And the fire of God came down from heaven." 
 Ver. 16 — " And Elijah arose and went down." 
 Ver. 17 — Instead of the notice given in the Hebrew 
 
 of Jehoram, the Septuagint inserts the first three verses 
 
 of the third chapter, with the addition, " and the wrath 
 
 of the Lord was kindled against the house of Ahab." 
 
 And repeats these three verses at the beginning of the 
 
 third chapter. 
 Chap. ii. 13 — "And Elisha took up the mantlo of 
 
 Elijah, which fell off from him upon Elisha." 
 Ver. 16 — " Peradventure the Spirit of the Lord hath 
 
 taken him up, and cast him into Jordan, or on some 
 
 mountain." 
 
 " And Elisha said. Ye shall not send." 
 
 The name Elisha is in like manner omitted in several 
 
 other places. 
 
 TheTrmTextoftheOldTesUimei^. 
 
 29 
 
 0,„, iU.7_..Iwm go up.*, ar, «.!«». 1- 
 TL;;*;uLi.e eve,, fenced ci.,, and eve^ 
 *Ver. 21-" And .11 the Moabitee he.rd tW to three 
 """^irS^Zii^y .«d, IhiB i. * Mood o/«. 
 
 sword." , ^gii and cut down 
 
 ^r Of; » And they stopped every weu, a-u 
 e,r;gc^-:-f*.y.ef.onl,toe.ne.ofto 
 
 wall cast down." „+>,« wells of water, and felled 
 
 " A-d they stopped aU ^^e -Us ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^ 
 all the good trees: only m iiu nar 
 
 stones thereof." ^ j^g bad 
 
 ^T 07 " Then he took his eldest son, WHO 
 
 "'Tl ir;^l.iTtdlgn*n .g.in.t l^U 
 land." 
 
 C ; - -re taken the English Won . snppl,- 
 r,;::'aIou..te t«nd.tion of the Heta.» text In 
 
w 
 
 30 TJie True Text of the Old Testament. 
 
 quoting from the Septuagint, while we have carefully 
 examined the original, and given its meaning as clearly 
 as we could, we have adopted the style and language 
 of the English Bible, that our translation might not 
 present an appearance of discrepancy where in reality 
 there is none. 
 
 The investigation, which we have now made, refers 
 only to a small portion of the sacred record. But it is 
 sufficient to establish several conclusions of great im- 
 portance. 
 
 In examining this list of discrepancies between the 
 Greek and Hebrew, we find some that seem to have 
 arisen from accidental errors in transcribing ; there are 
 others which appear to have been produced by differ- 
 ences of opinion in regard to the meaning of particular 
 words and phrases, but by far the larger number are 
 caused by' the omission of words and sentences in the 
 Hebrew, which are found in the Greek. 
 
 In general, the words omitted affect but slightly the 
 meaning of the passages in which they occur. Whether, 
 therefore, we regard the words found only in the Greek 
 as additions made to the original record by the seventy 
 translators, or as portions omitted by the Jewish tran- 
 scribers, we cannot assign any fraudulent purpose, either 
 to the transcribers of the Hebrew text, or to the com- 
 pilers of the Septuagint. 
 
 If we look on these passages as additions made to the 
 original, it is very evident that they are not additions 
 
 cannot imagine any concern™ 
 Mocoa the .utl>o™ of *• Septn'.S^nt to ^e 
 liberty with the volmne. intiueted to tl,on care, 
 enpposition implies. ^ ^^,i„„ 
 
 It, en the other hand, «e rega 
 torn the original record, they are e^Uj -« 
 tion. a. we might naturally «P»;' ^ ",, ^^ ;„ 
 
 ..,y Regarded .-P='«P' ^^ J^Ced ^ ^^ »" 
 Judging from inte^a^ e^den« " "V,,^^^ ^^ ^^^ 
 
 ::rc:si::;-----:'^r: 
 
 spects, an inaccurate copy ^^^^ 
 
 tL same time. ^<>^^^^i:i^:^'X^^^^^'' ^'^- 
 refer to genealogies, we find no reauy V 
 ence between the two documents. 
 
32 Tlie True Text of the Old Testament. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE GENEALOGIES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 A LARGE proportion of thoae who have written com- 
 mentaries on the Old Testament seem to concur in the 
 opinion of Dr Gaussen, and look on the Hebrew text 
 as if the transcribers had been divinely inspired. We 
 have already shown reasons for concluding that this is 
 far from being the case. We find in it many inaccu- 
 racies, though in general the errors are of little im- 
 portance, and do not indicate any deliberate design of 
 falsifying the record. 
 
 We cannot say .so much for the passages on which 
 our computation of chronology depends. 
 
 The quotations we made from the work of Mr Hart- 
 well Home in reference to the Septuagint, contain 
 several statements in regard to the Jewish chronolo- 
 gists, which show how little worthy they are of that 
 implicit reliance which many writers have placed upon 
 them. 
 
 We think it of importance, however, in a matter of 
 such moment, to confirm his remarks by quoting tlie 
 equally decided testimony of another witness, Dr W. 
 Hales. 
 
 The True Text of the Old Testament. 
 
 33 
 
 In his " Analysis of Chronology," he shows the diver- 
 sity of statement in respect to dates that is found m 
 different versions and copies, and expresses very de- 
 cidedly his opinion in regard to it. The following are 
 his words in reference to the Era of the Deluge :- 
 
 " EPOCH OF THE DBLOGE. 
 
 " According to the Septuagint, - - 3246 b.c. 
 
 According to Josephus, 
 
 According to the Samaritan, - - 2998 
 
 According to the Hebrew Text, - 2288 
 
 According to Vulgar Jewish Computation, 2104 
 "The variations of this important era, whence the 
 history of the present race of mankind properly begins, 
 are more mischievous and perplexing than those of the 
 
 creation itself. 
 
 "The period of 480 years, from the Exodus to the 
 foundation of Solomon's Temple, is also too short, and 
 is plainly repugnant to the tenor of Scripture, as will 
 appear from the detail of particulars. 
 
 " The same dishonest management appears m the 
 details of the next period of 410 years, from the foun- 
 dation to the destruction of the temple. 
 
 "The last supposed period of 40 years, from the 
 finishing of the second temple, in the sixth of Darius 
 Hystaspes, b.c. 516, to the era of contracts, b.o. 312, 
 was in reality an interval of no less than 204 years. 
 This is one of the most flagrant violations of chrono- 
 
 
 
34 Tlie True Text oflU Old Testament. 
 
 logical truth ever attempted even by the Jews them- 
 eelves." 
 
 From these extracts it is evident that, in so far as its 
 chronology is concerned, the accuracy of the present 
 text, which comes to us through the medium of the 
 Jewish transcribers, instead of being entitled to un- 
 hesitating confidence, is rather to be regarded with 
 doubt. 
 
 PASSAGES CONTAINING GENEALOGICAL LISTS. 
 
 In quoting those passages of Scripture which contain 
 the genealogical lists on which our systems of chrono- 
 logy depend, we shall imitate the style of the English 
 Bible ; but shall adopt the interpretation and dates that 
 are given in the Septuagint The spelling of the names 
 is taken from the Hebrew. 
 
 When the numbers found in the Hebrew differ from 
 those found in the Greek, we mark the Hebrew num- 
 bers in figures, and enclose them in brackets. 
 
 Genksis v. 3. 
 
 And Adam lived two hundred and thirty years [130], 
 and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image ; 
 and called his name Seth: And the days of Adam after 
 he had begotten Seth were seven hundred years [800] : 
 and he begat sons and daughters: And all the days 
 
 The True Text oftJie Old Testament. 35 
 that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: 
 
 and he died. 
 
 And Seth lived two hundred and five years [105], 
 and begat Enos: And Seth lived after he begat Enos 
 seven hundred and seven years [807], and begat sons 
 and daughters: And all the days of Seth were nine 
 hundred and twelve years: and he died. 
 
 And Enos lived one hundred and ninety years [90], 
 and begat Cainan: And Enos lived after he begat 
 Cainan seven hundred and fifteen years [815], and 
 begat sons and daughters: And all the days of Enos 
 were nine hundred and five years : and he died. 
 
 And Cainan lived one hundred and seventy years 
 [70], and begat Mahalaleel : And Cainan lived after he 
 begat Mahalaleel seven hundred and forty years [840], 
 and begat sons and daughters: And all the days of 
 Cainan were nine hundred and ten years : and he died. 
 And Mahalaleel lived one hundred sixty and five 
 years [65], and begat Jared: And Mahalaleel lived 
 after he begat Jared seven hundred and thirty years 
 [830], and begat sons and daughters: And all the 
 days of Mahalaleel were eight hundred ninety and five 
 years : and he died. 
 
 And Jared lived one hundred sixty and two years, 
 and he begat Enoch : And Jared lived after he begat 
 Enoch eight hundred years, and begat sons and daugh- 
 ters: And all the days of Jared were nine hundred 
 sixty and two years: and he died. 
 
36 
 
 Tlie True Text of the Old Testament. 
 
 And Enoch lived one hundred sixty and five years 
 [65], and hegat Methuselah: And Enoch was ■well- 
 pleasing to God after he begat Methuselah two hundred 
 years [300], and begat £ons and daughters : And all 
 the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five 
 years: And Enoch was well-pleasing to God: and he 
 was not ; for God took him. 
 
 And Methuselah lived an hundred sixty and seven 
 years [187], and begat Lamech : And Methuselah lived 
 after he begat Lamech eight hundred and two years 
 [782], and begat sons and daughters : And all the days 
 of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years : 
 and he died. 
 
 And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and eight years 
 [182], and begat a son : and he called his name Noah, 
 saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work 
 and toil of our hands, because of the groimd which the 
 Lord hath cursed. And Lamech lived after he begat 
 Noah five hundred sixty and five years [595], and begat 
 sons and daughters : And all the days of Lamech were 
 seven hundred fifty and three years [777] : and he died. 
 
 And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah 
 begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth. 
 
 Genesis xi. 10. 
 
 These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an 
 hundred years old when he begat Arphaxad, in the 
 second year after the flood : And Shem lived after he 
 
 The True Text of the Old Testament. 37 
 begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and 
 
 daughters : and he died. , . , «. 
 
 And Arphaxad lived one hundred and thirty-five 
 years [35], and begat Cainan. And . Arphaxad W 
 after he begat Cainan four hundred years [403], and 
 begat sons and daughters : and he died. 
 
 And Cainan lived an hundred and thirty years and 
 begat Salah. And Cainan lived after begetting Salah 
 three hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and 
 daughters: and ho died. 
 
 And Salah lived an hundred and thirty years [30], 
 and begat Eber: And Salah lived after he begat Eber 
 lee hundred and thirty years [403], and begat sons 
 and daughters: and he died. 
 
 And Eber lived an hundred thirty and four years 
 [34], and begat Peleg: And Eber Uved after he bega 
 Peleg two hundred and seventy years [430], and begat 
 sons and daughters : and he died. 
 
 And Peleg lived an hundred and thirty years [30], 
 and begat Eeu: And Peleg Uved after begetting B.u 
 two hundred and nine years, and begat sons and daugh- 
 
 ters : and he died. 
 
 And Eeu lived an hundred thirty and two years 
 [32], and begat Serug: And Reu Uved after begetting 
 Serug two hundred and seven years, and begat sons and 
 daughters: and he died. 
 
 And Serug lived an hundred and thir^ years [30 
 and begat Nahor: And Serug Uved after he begat 
 
38 Tim Trm Text oftlte Old Testament. 
 
 Nahor two hundred years, and begat sons and daugh- 
 ters: and he died. 
 
 And Nahor lived an hundred and seventy-nine years 
 [29],. and begat Terah: And Nahor Uved after he 
 begat Terah an hundred and twenty-five years [119], 
 and begat sons and daughters: and he died. 
 
 And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram 
 Nahor, and Haran. 
 
 Gekesib X. 22. 
 
 In the Septuagint, in chapter x. 22. we have an enu- 
 meration of the children of Shem :— " The sons of 
 Shem, Elam, and Assur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and 
 Aram, and Cainan." 
 
 This Cainan is omitted in the Hebrew. 
 
 In verse 24th it is said. "And Aiphaxad begat 
 Cainan; and Cainan begat Salah." 
 
 In the Hebrew, Cainan the son of Arphaxad is 
 omitted. 
 
 1 Chboniclbs i. 
 
 In this passage, we find that part of it which refers to 
 the immediate descendants of Noah in the 24th verse. 
 According to the Hebrew text, " Shem. Arphaxad, Salah. 
 Eber, Peleg, Eeu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abram." 
 
 In the ordinary copies of the Septuagint six verses 
 are omitted, and the record reads, Verse 17th, "The 
 sons of Shem, Elam. and Asshur. and Arphaxad." 
 
 Tlie True Text of (lie Old Testament. 39 
 
 Verse 24th, " Salah, Eber, Peleg, Eeu, Serug, 
 
 Nahor." 
 
 In the Alexandrine text of the Septuagint this omis- 
 sion is supplied ; and in the 18th verse we read, " And 
 Arphaxad begat Cainan ; and Cainan begat Salah ; and 
 Salah begat Eber." 
 
 An examination into these discrepancies between the 
 Septuagint and the Hebrew text leads us to some very 
 important conclusions. 
 
 In the case of six of the antediluvian patriarchs, we 
 find that an hundred years are taken from their earlier 
 years; that is, from the period that elapsed before the 
 birth of the son, through whom the descent of Noah is 
 reckoned, and an equal amount is added to the account 
 of their later years. By this means the full age of each 
 individual remains the same in the Hebrew as in the 
 Greek ; but the period that elapsed between the crea- 
 tion and the flood is made to appear six hundred years 
 less than the Septuagint represents it to have been. 
 
 In the lists of the postdiluvian patriarchs a similar 
 process has boon pursued. A century has been deducted 
 from the younger years of six of them, a century and 
 a-half are taken from those of Nahor. while the name 
 of Cainan is entirely omitted. The time between the 
 flood and the birth of Abraham is thus represented as 
 having been only 292 years, while according to the 
 Septuagint it was 1172 years. 
 
 Wo cannot regard these discrepancies as having 
 
40 Tlie True Text of the Old Testament. 
 
 arisen from mere inadvertence, nor can we suppose 
 that, like those to which we formerly directed atten- 
 tion, they proceeded simply from a desire to lighten 
 the task of copying. On the contrary, we find in them 
 manifest tokens of design. 
 
 The omission of the name of Cainan in the 22nd and 
 24:th verses of the tenth chapter tends to confirm this 
 supposition. This is the only instance of the omission 
 of any name, which we have observed, in all the lists 
 which are given in the thirty chapters which we before 
 examined. 
 
 In endeavouring to discover tte object which the 
 fabricator of the alteration had in view we have nothing 
 but conjecture to guide us, and uncertainty must con- 
 sequently remain on our conclusions. We think, how- 
 ever, that a sufficient foundation for a probable expla- 
 nation may be discovered. 
 
 If we accept the present Hebrew text as the authentic 
 and accurate copy of the original, we can imagine no 
 conceivable object that could have induced the Alex- 
 andrian translators to make a deliberate and systematic 
 alteration on the record. 
 
 If we take the Greek to be a faithful rendering of the 
 work completed by Ezra, and the Hebrew to have been 
 fraudulently changed, we think we can discover an 
 object, for accomplishing which a zealous Jewish par- 
 tisan > might have been induced to take liberties witli 
 ' the passages now under consideration. 
 
 The True Text of the Old Testmnent. 41 
 The Jews seem to have had a kind of superstitious 
 fondness for discovering a correspondence be*^-^ ^^ 
 more remarkable events of their own national histoiy 
 and certain definite epochs of time. When we observe 
 therefore, that by adopting the reckomng of tbe preseu 
 Hebrew text, the calUng of Abraham, which may be 
 fegarded as the commencement of the Mosaic dispensa- 
 tion and the origin of the I--li*-\-™"^°X^;^l'; ", 
 made to correspond with the two thousandth y a o 
 man's existence upon earth, we are led to suspect that 
 the alteration must have been made by some unscru 
 pulous Jew, who sought by this means to gratify the 
 national pride of his countrymen. 
 
 This is merely a conjecture, but it has sufficient 
 foundation to give it some measure of probability. 
 
42 The True Text of the Old Testament. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE GENEALOGIES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 In the New Testament we have two genealogies given 
 of our Saviour ; one in Matthew, and the other in Luke. 
 In Matthew, our Lord's descent is only traced to Abra- 
 ham, while in Luke it is carried up to Adam. 
 
 The evangelist gives no record of dates or ages, but 
 we find his list of names perfectly corresponding to 
 those contained in the Septuagint, while it diflFers from 
 those contained in the present Hebrew text in retaining 
 the name of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, which the 
 Hebrew copyists seem to have taken such pains to 
 remove. 
 
 To those who look on the evangelist as acting under 
 the inspiration of God, this is a fact of the utmost 
 importance, and strongly confirms the authority of the 
 Grecian record. 
 
 There are some, no doubt, who argue against the 
 admission of the name. Dr Lightfoot, whose high 
 repute for learning and research compels us to take 
 notice of his observations, speaks of the passage that 
 refers to Cainan in the following terms : — 
 
 Tlve True Text oftJie Old Testament. 43 
 
 " I cannot be persuaded by any arguments, that this 
 passage concerning Cainan was in Moses' text ; partly, 
 because no reason can be given how it should come 
 to be left out of the Hebrew text, and partly, because 
 nothing was more usual with the Greek translators 
 than to add something of their own, according to their 
 own will and pleasure. 
 
 " But if this version be so uncertain, and differs so 
 much from the original, how comes it to pass that the 
 evangelists and apostles should follow it so exactly, 
 even in some places where it does so widely differ from 
 the Hebrew fountain ? 
 
 " Answer. — Whereas the New Testament was to be 
 written in Greek, and come into the hands chiefly of 
 the Gentiles, it was most agreeable, I may say neces- 
 sary, for them to follow the Greek copies, as being what 
 the Gentiles were only capable of consulting, that so 
 they, examining the histories and quotations that were 
 brought out of the Old Testament, might find them 
 agreeing with and not contradicting them. For in- 
 stance, tliey, on consulting their Greek Bibles, from 
 David backward to Adam, find there Cainan, the son 
 of Arphaxad. If Luke had not also inserted it, how 
 readily might they have called his veracity in question 
 as to the other part of the genealogy, which had been 
 extracted out of registers not so famiUarly known." 
 
 In this extract Dr Lightfoot falls, as we conceive, 
 into two mistakes. He supposes, in the first place, that 
 
44 The True Text oftlie Old Testament. 
 
 the present Hebrew text is a full and accurate copy 
 of the canon prepared by Ezra. We think we have 
 shown that this is not the case. He assumes, in the 
 next place, that the Jews, in the days of our Lord, had 
 laid aside their Hebrew records, and adopted the Sep- 
 tuagint in their stead. For this there is no CAridence, 
 and we hope afterwards to be able to show that this 
 also is an error. 
 
 But even if we were prepared to allow all this, and if 
 we were to suppose yet farther, that the apostles, when 
 speaking to their countrymen, quoted the Greek rather 
 than the Hebrew, that could never account for the 
 evangelist, when writing a history designed for all 
 nations and ages, inserting the name of Gainan in his 
 genealogy if he believed it to be fictitious. Such a 
 supposition, in regard to one who was guided by inspir- 
 ation from on high, savours of profanity. We cannot 
 receive that part of the genealogy of our Lord which 
 makes mention of Gainan the son of Arphaxad as an 
 inaccurate statement, which the evangelist adopted out 
 of deference to the prejudices of those who made use of 
 the Greek translation. We accept it as a simple truth, 
 recorded originally by Moses, and confirmed to the 
 evangelist by the Holy Spirit of God. 
 
 If to the various other arguments which we have 
 adduced in favour of the Septuagint, we add the con- 
 curring genealogy of Luke, there can remain no doubt 
 as to the accuracy of its chronological statements, and 
 
 The True Text of the Old Testarmnt. 45 
 there need be no hesitation in denouncing those that 
 are found in the present Hebrew text as wilful fabnca- 
 
 tions. 
 
 CONCLUSION OF OUR INQUIRY. 
 
 We have now completed our examination of those 
 
 questions, an inquiry into which we considered neces- 
 
 Bary in order that we might rightly ascertain the True 
 
 Tei of the Old Testament, and the Exact Chronology 
 
 of Moses. ■. . ^ ., 
 
 In our first chapter, we directed attention to the 
 canon of the Old Testament, and while we found that 
 we could not concur in the opinion of those who 
 believe that they who collated, and they who tran- 
 scribed the Old Testament Scriptures, were equally 
 under 'the inspiration of God. as those who at first 
 received them, we found abundant evidence, in the 
 anxious endeavour manifested by Ezra and his associ- 
 ates to secure the accuracy of the writings committed 
 to their charge, that the volume thoy compiled is 
 entitled to be relied on as the Word of the hving God 
 
 We more especially observed, that we have the 
 strongest of all testimonies that can be adduced m its 
 favour, in the uniformly reverential manner m which 
 the Old Testament Scriptures are quoted by our Lord 
 as the appointed rule of faith and of practice. 
 
46 77te True Text of the Old Testament. 
 
 In the Becond and third chapters we took up the 
 question : Where are we at the present day to look for 
 the most accurate copy, or version, of the canon com- 
 piled by Ezra? After carefully examining the subject, 
 judging, in the first place, by what may be called the 
 external, and, in the next place, by what may be re- 
 garded as the internal evidence, we came to the con- 
 clusion, that the Septuagint is a full and faithful 
 translation of the original volume, while the present 
 Hebrew text is an abridged, and consequently, in some 
 respects, an inaccurate copy of the same. 
 
 If this conclusion be correct, it shows that all our 
 modem translations of the Old Testament require a full 
 and careful revision. 
 
 In our third and fourth chapters, we took up the 
 genealogical lists both of the Old Testament and of the 
 New, and, after careful examination, were led to look 
 on the Septuagint as a faithful translation of the 
 Mosaic original, while the statements in the present 
 Hebrew text are altogether unworthy of confidence. 
 
 The residt of this part of our inquiry seems to be of 
 great importance. It points out the true chronology of 
 Scripture. It removes that doubt and uncertainty on 
 the subject which emboldens the opponents of our faith 
 to treat the histories of the Bible with scorn, and which 
 leads some truly devoted men to regard the whole 
 subject as a matter of but little importance. It takes 
 away that feeling of perplexity which the reflecting 
 
 Tlie True Text of the Old Testament. 
 
 47 
 
 reader cannot help entertaining, when he finds reference 
 made to comparatively large populations in the days of 
 Abraham, who lived nearly twelve hundred years after 
 the flood, but whose era is represented by modem 
 computation as having commenced less than three 
 hundred years after that event. 
 
 These are the conclusions to which our inqmry has 
 led We have found that inquiry much wider m its 
 scope, and much more difficult in its execution, than we 
 at first expected. We desire, therefore, to speak with 
 caution and reserve. But tmth demands the frank and 
 honest statement of the results to which our researches 
 have led. 
 
48 The True Text of the Old TestametU. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE HISTORICAL OBJECTIONS TO THE HEBREW CHRONO- 
 LOGY DO NOT APPLY TO THAT OF THE SEPTUAGINT. 
 
 The arguments which we have hitherto adduced have 
 all been of a purely literary kind. We have avoided 
 introducing any allusion to preconceived theories of 
 chronology. Our primary object was to determine by 
 critical argument, what version of the Old Testament 
 Scriptures was more especially entitled to our regard. 
 
 The importance of accurately determining the rela- 
 tion which the chronology of Scripture bears to the 
 narratives and traditions of the heathen, will readily be 
 allowed by all who take into account the attacks that 
 at present are made on the sacred record by sceptical 
 writers. Another and equally weighty consideration is 
 found in the conduct of other authors, some of them 
 eminently Christian men, who seem prepared to treat 
 its details with very little regard. 
 
 Among them we regret to reckon his Grace the 
 Duke of Argyle, who thus writes in his work on 
 "Primeval Man:"— 
 
 "When the great figure of Abraham appears upon 
 
 Tlue True Text of (lie Old Testamerd. 49 
 
 the scene, we find ourselves akeady in the presence of 
 the monarchy of Egypt, and of the advanced civilisa- 
 tion of the Pharaohs. In the same narrative we find 
 ourselves on another side, in contact also with one of 
 those great military kingdoms of the East, which m 
 succession occupy so large a space in the history of 
 the ancient world. Chedorlaomer, with his tributary 
 princes, was then the ruler of nations capable of 
 waging wars of conquest at vast distances from the seat 
 of their government and the centre of their power. We 
 see in him, therefore, the sovereign of a long estabUshed 
 
 and powerful race. 
 
 " We have other evidence of an historical character 
 to show that the monarchy of Egypt had been founded 
 long before the time of Abraham. But how long is 
 a question on which there is the widest discrepancy of 
 opinion. The most moderate computation carries the 
 foundation of that monarchy as far back as 700 years 
 before the visit of the Hebrew patriarch. Some of the 
 best German scholars hold that there is evidence of a 
 much longer chronology. But seven centuries before 
 Abraham is the estimate of Mr E. Stuart Poole, of the 
 British Museum, who is one of the very highest 
 authorities, and certainly one of the most cautious 
 upon questions of Egyptian chronology. This places 
 the beginning of the Pharaohs in the twenty-eighth cen- 
 tury B.C. But according to Usher's interpretation of 
 the Hebrew Pentateuch, the twenty-eighth century b.c. 
 
50 
 
 Tlie True Text oftJie Old Teatament. 
 
 would be some 400 years before the flood. On the other 
 hand, a difi"erence of 800 years is allowed by the chrono- 
 logy which is founded on the Septuagint version of the 
 Scriptures. But the fact of this difference tells in two 
 ways. A margin of variation amounting to eight 
 centuries between two versions of the same document, 
 is a variation so enormous, that it seems to cast com- 
 plete doubt .on the whole system of interpretation on 
 which such computations of time are based. And yet 
 it is more than questionable whether it is possible to 
 reconcile the known order of events with even this 
 larger estimate of the number of years. It is true that, 
 according to this larger estimate, the flood would be 
 carried back about four and a-half centuries beyond the 
 beginning of the Pharaohs. But is this enough ? The 
 founding of a monarchy is not the beginning of a race. 
 The people among whom such monarchies arose must 
 have grown and gathered during many generations. 
 Nor is it in regard to the people of Egypt alone that 
 this difliculty meets us in the face. The existence, in 
 the days of Abraham, of such an organised government 
 as that of Chedorlaomer, shows that, 2000 years b.c., 
 there flourished in Elam, beyond Mesopotamia, a 
 nation which even now would be ranked among ' The 
 Great Powers.' 
 
 " There is another civilisation which appears to have 
 l^Ben almost as ancient as that of Egypt, and which has 
 been far more enduring. The authentic records of the 
 
 The True Text of the Old Testament. 51 
 
 Chinese Empire are said to begin in the twenty-fourth 
 century B.C., that is more than 300 years before the 
 time of Abraham. They begin, too, apparently with a 
 kingdom already established, with a capital city, and 
 with a settled government." 
 
 If we adopt the ordinarily received Hebrew text as 
 an authentic and accurate record, the arguments here 
 adduced may well lead us to look on the whole system 
 of Scripture chronology as enveloped in perplexity and 
 doubt. If there were only two hundred and ninety-two 
 years between the flood and the birth of Abraham, we 
 find it impossible to account for the numbers of people 
 who seem, from the statements contained in the Bible 
 narrative, to have inhabited the earth in the days of the 
 patriarch. The early records of Egypt and China, 
 though we cannot place implicit confidence upon them, 
 afford a farther evidence of the increase of mankind, 
 and add to the difficulty of reconciling the historical 
 traditions of former ages with the ordinary computation. 
 
 But if we adopt the rendering of the Septuagint, 
 which, as we have shown, there is good ground for 
 preferring, all our difficulties vanish, and ample time 
 is afl'orded for the multiplication of mankind previous 
 to the arrival of Abraham in Egypt. 
 
 We must farther remark, that the Hebrew narrative 
 speaks of men in the ages that immediately followed 
 the flood as possessing a vigour of constitution much 
 greater than that which is now allotted to our race. 
 
imp- 
 
 52 The True Text o/tJie Old Testament. 
 
 Their Uvea were prolonged far beyond the span assigned 
 to us at present. The constant reference that is made 
 to their having "sons and daughters," leads us to 
 believe that a remarkable fruitfulness also distinguished 
 them. We, can easily suppose, therefore, that in a 
 period of eleven hundred and seventy-two years man- 
 kind would have greatly increased and spread them- 
 selves abroad over the earth. 
 
 If we adopt the chronology of the Septuagint, and 
 keep the peculiar circumstances referred to by the 
 sacred historian in our remembrance, we find a perfect 
 agreement among all the ancient historians, whether 
 sacred or profane. 
 
 With some of the suppositions that are made by his 
 Grace in the extracts we have given from his work, we 
 cannot concur. 
 
 If the people among whom such monarchies as those 
 of Egypt and China arose, "must have grown and 
 gathered during many generations," how came it to 
 pass that the Boman empire, the greatest that the 
 world has ever seen, and which dated all it records 
 from the founding of the city, originated in a little 
 company of young men, who, as their own historians 
 tell us, were regarded by their neighbours as " robbers 
 and semi-barbarians " ? 
 
 His Grace speaks of " the advanced civilisation of the 
 Pharaohs;" but the Scripture account of Abraham's 
 visit to Egypt does not give us a very high opinion of 
 
 Tlie True Text of the Old Testament. 53 
 
 the culture and refinement to which they had attained 
 in the days of the patriarch. 
 
 As for Chedorlaomer, while we are informed of his 
 widely extended plundering incursions, we are at the 
 same time told that the inhabitants of the valley of 
 Sodom were not afraid to meet him in battle array. 
 
 That valley, even if we were to suppose that it 
 occupied the whole space now covered by the waters of 
 the Dead Sea, was only sixty miles in length, by from 
 eight to ten in breadth. The description given of it in 
 the thirteenth chapter of Genesis represents it as a pas- 
 toral district, "well watered every where;" and it was 
 so thinly peopled that Lot found ample room for his 
 numerous flocks and herds. The army, therefore, that 
 defied the bands of Chedorlaomer, and went out to meet 
 him in the open field, must have been but small. They 
 were, no doubt, defeated; but the invader, in his turn, 
 was utterly routed by Abraham and his little band of 
 household retainers — three hundred and eighteen in all, 
 — with whom his neighbours, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre, 
 did not hesitate to join in the pursuit of the confederate 
 kings. 
 
 Chedorlaomer and his associates, in short, must be 
 regarded as a mere band of marauders ; and certainly we 
 never could speak of them as "a nation which even 
 now would be ranked among the great powers." 
 
 If, on the one hand, we adopt the chronology of the 
 Septuagint, which we think we have proved to be that 
 
54 The True Text of the Old Testament, 
 
 on •which we can most confidently rely, and if, on the 
 other hand, we examine the events which occurred in 
 the early history of mankind with the calm and un- 
 hiassed ectutiny of reason, we will find.no difficulty 
 in repelling the historical ohjections that have been 
 brought against the chronology of Scripture. 
 
 THE LANGUAGE OF THE JETfS. 
 
 1 
 
THE LANGUAGE OF THE JEWS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES WHICH REGULATE THE 
 CHANGES THAT TAKE PLACE IN LANGUAGES. 
 
 Before we begin our investigation into the language 
 spoken by the Jews, and into the changes which it is 
 supposed to have undergone, it will be of some advan- 
 tage to direct attention to the general principles that 
 regulate the changes which take place in other lan- 
 guages, as these alterations are exemplified in the his- 
 tory of those dialects which we can more easily examine. 
 Every variety of speech may be regarded in three 
 different aspects. It may be regarded simply as a col- 
 lection of words, to which men havo agreed to give ua 
 arbitrary meaning, and which are made use of by the 
 inhabitants of some particular country or district. It 
 may be looked on as a combination of words, regulated 
 by the laws of syntax and idiom, which the custom of 
 different nationalities has sanctioned. And yet, again, it 
 may bo looked on as a collection of articulate sounds, 
 
58 Tlie Language of the Jews. 
 
 some of which are common to a great many dialects, 
 while others are peculiar, and characteristic of a few. 
 In all these respects languages are liable to change. 
 New M'ords are introduced into the vocabulary, while 
 others become obsolete, and are forgotten. New idioms 
 become fashionable, and old forms of expression are 
 cast aside. There are alterations also in the character- 
 istic pronunciation of different dialects, though these 
 are comparatively few. 
 
 In general, men adhere with remarkable tenacity to 
 the speech of their forefathers, and the circumstances 
 that either retard or promote alterations can easily be 
 pointed out. We shall state a few leading facts : — 
 
 I. When a people are by any circumstance, whether 
 of locality or political position, shut out from frequent 
 intercourse with their neighbours, their language under- 
 goes in general very little alteration ; but when these 
 circumstances no longer operate, the case is very differ- 
 ent. In many of the sequestered Highland glens of 
 Scotland, where, the inhabitants continued from father 
 to son in their old-fashioned pastoral and agricultural 
 avocations, the Gaelic continued for ages to reign su- 
 preme. But when intercourse had been opened up 
 with the Lowlands, and the advantages to be derived 
 from speaking English became manifest, a remarkable 
 change took place ; and several localities can be pointed 
 out where nothing but Gaelic was heard some eighty or 
 ninety years ago, and where nothing but English is 
 
 The Language of the Jews. 59 
 
 spoken now. The language of their forefathers is un- 
 derstood by the aged, but to their children it is as a 
 
 foreign tongue. . „ , 
 
 II The intermixture of races is the most fruitful 
 source of linguistic change. It needs, however, a very 
 thorough intermixture, and a very decided predomi- 
 nance in the one population over the other, to make 
 that change speedy or extensive. Some countries re- 
 main bilingual, as it has been termed for ages^ In 
 many districts of the Scottish Highlands. English and 
 Gaelic continue both to be spoken, and a b'-^i1^;« 
 might be made in regard to English and Welsh in 
 Wales; in regard to English and Irish in Ireland; 
 and English and Old Norman French in the Channel 
 
 Islands. „ , r ti,„ 
 
 The history of modern English affords one of the 
 
 most striking instances of the persistency with which 
 
 nations continue in the use of the paternal tongue. 
 
 When England was conquered by the Normans, the 
 conquerors continued the use of French. They made i 
 the language of the Court, of fashion, and of law. But 
 the Saxons, who constituted the great bulk of the popu- 
 lation, refused to conform. This bilingual condition of 
 the country continued for many generations, but the 
 effects which it produced on the language were much 
 less than we might have expected. " ^ , , 
 
 After the connection between the Crown of England 
 and the Norman provinces of France had ceased, and 
 
60 The Language of the Jews. 
 
 after our nubles bad begun to pride themselves in the 
 name of Englishmen, the Saxon, in its modified form, 
 ■was adopted as the language of Britain. The effects 
 produced upon it, by the long continuance of the Nor- 
 man supremacy, were unquestionably great. The lan- 
 guage of the present day is not the Saxon of Alfred. 
 Many foreign expressions have been introduced. Great 
 alterations have been made; but when we trace the 
 origin from whence our words are derived, we find all 
 the vocables in most common use — the pronouns, pre- 
 positions, and auxiliary verbs, for instance, all that con- 
 stitute what we may call the bone and muscle of the 
 language — are derived from the Saxon. A writer in 
 the " Weekly Eeview," June 8th, 1872, says—" Gray's 
 ' Elegy in a Country Churchyard' contains 994 words, 
 of which 821 are derived from the Anglo-Saxon, 125 
 from the Latin, 15 from the French, 7 from the Italian, 
 and 23 from the Greek." 
 
 If we examine the characteristic pronunciation of 
 the French, we find, that of all the peculiar consonants, 
 vowels, and accents, which form such a marked distinc- 
 tion between the speech of the French and that of thoir 
 Teutonic neighbours, the English have not adopted so 
 much as one ; while the only sounds made use of in the 
 Saxon, which have been set aside in English, are the 
 aspirate gutturals kh &nd'gh, and these have only fallen 
 into disuse within a comparatively recent time. 
 
 When successful invasion takes place, and the con- 
 
 The Language of the Jews. 61 
 
 querors form a majority of the population, we commonly 
 ind that the aborigines adopt the language of the vr^ 
 tors, and disuse their own. This has been «.e case m 
 almost all the colonial settlements of the Bntxsh. 
 
 Where the vanquished constitute the larger part of 
 the population, and an intimate intermixture of the 
 a es tls place, we find, in general, that the vocaW 
 of the more numerous party are adopted, whUe hange 
 more or less remarkable are made upon them, n order 
 r cln^odate them to the V^^ ^^^^^^^^ 
 the victors. In ^-^^^-^!:^::;:^ 
 
 pronounce some of the letters pecuhar to the Latu. i 
 French we find still greater alterations made, and evi 
 rlpntlv for a similar reason. 
 
 ni Where no ix.timate intermixture of races has 
 faken Place changes in language proceed very slowly 
 r^Untnguag! may become fashionable, as Frenc 
 
 nf the British Court in former times. It may be 
 r: lanu go learning and science, as Greek and 
 L:in ha^been. and in a .^^ -asu. contmu^ o 
 be in our learned associations; but, after all, it may 
 be very far from being the language of the people. 
 
 IV The most effectual means of presemng a Ian- 
 guale from change is the formation of a national 
 literature. 
 
62 
 
 TVte Language of the Jews. 
 
 The Anglo-Saxon, in the middle ages, underwent 
 many changes, though they do not appear to have been 
 rapid. 
 
 On the revival of art and learning, and the conse- 
 quent spread of civilisation, an accelerated movement 
 began. There is a wide difference between the English 
 of Chaucer and that of those who went before him ; and 
 there are equally wide divergencies between the Btyle 
 of the " Canterbury Tales" and that of Spencer and 
 Shakespeare. So rapid was the transition which then 
 began, that some of the writers of the Elizabethan age 
 express an apprehension that, in order to secure perma- 
 nent reputation, English would require to be set aside, 
 and authors would need to have recourse to the ancient 
 classic tongues. Waller, who was one of those whose 
 writings tended to correct the imperfection which he 
 laments, says in one of his poems : — 
 
 " But who can hope hia lines should long 
 Lost in a daily changing tongue 7 
 While they are new, envy prevails, 
 And OB that dies our language fails. 
 Poets that lasting marble seek 
 Must carve in Latin or in Greek ; 
 We write in sand, our language grows, 
 And, like the tide, our work o'erflows." 
 
 In consequence, however, of the popularity of Shake- 
 speare and other writers of that time, and more espe- 
 cially, in consequence of the publication of the autho- 
 rised version of the English Bible, and its wide diffusion 
 
 The Language of the Jews. 63 
 
 through the community, the tendency to change was 
 checked, and our national speech remams at present 
 essentially the same as it was three hundred years a^o^ 
 Similar examples might be brought forward from 
 other languages, but they are unnecessary, as fewju U 
 be inclined to call in question the mfluence of a gene- 
 rally acknowledged standard of literary composxtxon m 
 preserving the national tongue from decay, 
 'some may look on this dissertation on the genera 
 principles which regulate the changes that take place 
 L languages as unnecessary and out of place, and we 
 ackno^edge that there is ground for such an opm.on^ 
 But we introduce it as affording the readjest means of 
 replying to the rash conjectures, and bold unfounded 
 asLLns. which we find brought forward m reference 
 to the language of the Jews. 
 
w 
 
 64 
 
 Tfi£ Language of the Jews. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE LANGUAGE OP ISRAEL PREVIOUS TO THE TIME OF 
 NEHEMIAH. 
 
 We do not Btop to inquire into the changes which the 
 language of Israel underwent previous to the exodus 
 from Egypt. We may learn from a critical study of the 
 Pentateuch what it was at that time. And in examin- 
 ing the Old Testament Scriptures, we have abundant 
 means of tracing its subsequent course, down to the 
 penod when Nehemiah re-established the Jewish com- 
 monwealth. 
 
 During all that lengthened series of ages the national 
 speech remained essentiaUy the same. Some words 
 once common may have become obsolete, and new ones 
 may have been introduced into their place. In one 
 place, for example, we read. "He that is now called a 
 prophet, was beforetime caUed a seer." These changes 
 however, were very few The Hebrew of Joshua and 
 Moses is the Hebrew of Nehemiah and Malachi. 
 
 This persistent continuance in maintaining their 
 national speech without alteration is altogether singu- 
 
 The Language of the Jews. 65 
 
 lar. We find nothing similar to it in the history of 
 other races. At the same time, it is simply the natural 
 result of the peculiar regulations under which the Lord 
 had placed His people. They were all descended from 
 the same father; they had all experienced the same 
 vicissitudes in Egypt and in the wildomoss ; they were 
 enjoined to look on each other as brethren; to keep 
 themselves separate from the nations around ; to avoid 
 as a heinous ofiFence against God, any intermarriage 
 with their neighbours, and to remember that they were 
 called on to be holy and peculiar, devoted to the Lord. 
 All the circumstances which can favour the preservation 
 of the national tongue unpolluted, concurred in resist- 
 ing the corruption of the Hebrew. 
 
 In addition to the influence of these circumstances, 
 we must remember that tlie reading of the law given 
 by Moses; the revelations made from age to age 
 through the prophets ; the psalms and hymns that 
 were sung in the sanctuary, must have produced an 
 effect on the public mind very similar to that which 
 our national literature has produced upon us. 
 
 We know from what history tells us of the word 
 Shibboleth, that there were diversities of pronunciation 
 among the different tribes. But the distinction that 
 separated the Epliraimites from the Gileadites was 
 precisely similar to that which separates the natives 
 of London or of Northumberland from the inhabitants 
 
w 
 
 66 
 
 The Language of the Jews. 
 
 of the rest of the kingdom. It was a peculiarity of 
 pronunciation that did not indicate a departure from 
 the national speech. 
 
 From 2 Kings xviii. 26, we learn that the educated 
 classes in the days of Hezekiah were acquainted with 
 the Ohaldaic; but that the "Jews' language" was 
 altogether distinct. 
 
 Part of Daniel, from chapter i. 4, to chapter viii. 1, 
 is written in Ghaldaic ; and part of Ezra, from chapter 
 iv. 8, to chapter vii. 27,- is also written in it. There is, 
 however, no amalgamation of the two languages. The 
 Ghaldaic stands out as distinct froia the Hebrew as a 
 quotation from a French or German author does in the 
 pages of an English book. 
 
 The Hebrew and Ghaldaic, though entitled to be 
 regarded as cognate dialects, were at the same time 
 distinct and separate. 
 
 The diversity that existed between them is shown 
 by the account that is given in the Book of Daniel, of 
 the pains that were taken in teaching the young cap- 
 tives that had been brought from Judea, "the learning 
 and tongue of the Ghaldeans." 
 
 Some quotations made by Walton in his " Prolego- 
 mena," lead us to conclude that the distinction between 
 the Hebrew and the Ghaldaic was more remarkable in 
 pronunciation than in vocables. We copy Walton's 
 words : — 
 
 " Oleaster says, ' I can easily believe that these two 
 
 The Language of the Jews. 
 
 67 
 
 languages were one and the same at the beginning, 
 since they are now so closely related.' 
 
 "Lucas Brugensis says, 'It is possible for one who 
 has been instructed in the rudiments of Hebrew, to 
 learn as much of the Ghaldaic and Syriac i^ the space of 
 two months as is necessary for a theologian to know. 
 
 "This opinion," says Walton, "the experience of all 
 who have bestowed moderate diligence on the study, 
 will abundantly confirm." 
 
 He gives another quotation which leads us to con- 
 clude that it required a considerable amount ol labour 
 for a person to make himself thoroughly acquainted 
 with the pronunciation of the Ghaldaic. "Hierony- 
 mus complains of the difficulty he had had in acqmr- 
 ing the Ghaldaic. He says, ' I, who thought myself a 
 proficient among the Hebrews, began again to be a 
 learner among the Ghaldees, and, to confess the truth 
 up to the present day I am better able to read and 
 understand the Ghaldee language than to pronounce 
 
 it.'" 
 
 We may perhaps venture to hazard the conjecture. 
 
 that the dialect spoken in Babylon in the days ol 
 Daniel bore a relation to that of the aboriginal Ghal- 
 deans. similar to that which the language of modem 
 Italy bears to the tongue of ancient Kome. The vo- 
 cables had been originally the same, but the pronuncia- 
 tion was different. It was that of a race of conquerors, 
 " a nation from afar, a mighty nation, an ancient nation. 
 
68 
 
 The Zianguage of tlte Jews. 
 
 whose language thou knowest not, neither understandest 
 what they say ;" who, having made themselTes masters 
 of Bahylon, adopted the speech of the Chaldeans, but 
 retained their own pronunciation. 
 
 Whatever the difference may have been between the 
 Hebrew and the Chaldaic, we have every reason for 
 concluding that the Jews, after their return to their 
 native land, continued to speak the Hebrew tongue in 
 its purity. 
 
 Some modem philologists confidently affirm the 
 contrary, and tell us that they used so many words 
 of foreign origin that their dialect was altogether new. 
 To this corrupted Hebrew our literati have given the 
 name of the Aramaic; but of its existence they adduce 
 no evidence. 
 
 During their captivity the children of Israel had 
 neither forsaken the God, nor forgotten the language of 
 their fathers. The language of Ezra, Nehemiah, and 
 Esther, of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, is the 
 language of Samuel and Moses. A few changes must 
 no doubt have taken place upon it; but from the 
 Exodus out of Egypt, b.o. 1491, down to the re-estab- 
 lishment of the Commonwealth by Nehemiah, in b.c. 
 434, a period of more than a thousand years, the lan- 
 guage of the Jews remained, in all its essential features, 
 unchanged. 
 
 r/te Language of the Jews. 
 
 69 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 OUTUNE HISTORY OF THE JEWS AFTEB THEIE BETURK 
 FROM BABYLON. 
 
 In order the more accurately to judge of the arguments 
 employed by different authors in support of the theories 
 which they adduce in regard to the language of the 
 Jews, we shall now give a brief outline of the history 
 •of the children of Israel after their return to their 
 native land, directing attention more especially to the 
 varying circumstances in which they were placed, as 
 these may be supposed to have influenced the national 
 
 I. B.C. 536. Betumfrom 5a6y?on.-According to the 
 ordinary computation, it was in the year b.o. 536 that 
 Cyrus issued his proclamation that tho house of tho 
 Lord God of Israel should be rebuilt. 
 
 In obedience to this decree a great many of the chil- 
 dren of the captivity assembled together, and formed a 
 company to return to the land of their fathers. En- 
 couraged by the gifts of the king, who at the same time 
 restored to them all the vessels of the sanctuary, and 
 aided by the liberal contributions of their fellow-citizens. 
 
70 
 
 The Language oftlie Jews. 
 
 they Bet out on their march, and settled again in the 
 promised land. 
 
 In " the seventh month," we are told, " the people 
 gathered themselves together as one man to Jerusalem," 
 and huilded the altar of the God of Israel. They at the 
 same time made preparation for rehuilding the temple, 
 hut it was not till the second month of the second year 
 after their coming to Jerusalem that the foundation 
 was formally laid. 
 
 Though Zerubhabel seems to have been acknowledged 
 as the legitimate heir to the throne of David, and though 
 he 'was honoured as the prince of the tribe of Judah, 
 the monarchy was not restored. This circumstance 
 leads us to conclude, that having been taught by the 
 sore experience of former ages that it was not good for 
 Israel to have " a king over them like other nations," 
 their great endeavour, after the return from Babylon, 
 was to re-establish a theocracy, like that which had 
 existed in the days of the Judges, when the elders of 
 the people, the high priests, and prophets, directed the 
 affairs of the nation. 
 
 During a period of seventy-nine years, those who had 
 returned from Babylon were occupied in restoring the 
 commonwealth, rebuilding the temple, and ordering the 
 service of God. The solemnity and earnestness with 
 which they proceeded, and the diflBculties with which 
 they had to contend, are fully related in the Book of 
 Ezra. We are told, on the one hand, of the malice and 
 
 The Language of the Jews. 7 
 
 misrepresentations of their enemies, and of the inter- 
 Tt on tl^at was thereby caused to their work; and^ on 
 
 Hdo La ly b-ia, and a.i.h.d it, «=coriing u. 
 
 the event, took place wUch .re de^cnbed m the Bool 
 
 °'TTo 457. irri^ »/ '^"'-'^ ""' C"*.!! 
 J hil, of the ,ew, i. tut w«;^P;f jtL 
 arrival of Ezra, and before the commg of I^ebemia 
 ^^tlplekadWrebuil^a^.^-^^^^^^ 
 v.hen Em, " a ready scnbe m the aw « ' 
 
 sent from Babylon, the king gmng thxs comm 
 
 !:r::c':,X-":a^X*.that 
 
 king, Bet himself to reform the abuses inai 
 
72 
 
 The Language of the Jews. 
 
 introduced during the long period in which the govern- 
 ment had been vreak and ineffective. 
 
 In the ninth chapter we are told of the grief and 
 astonishment that he felt when informed that " the 
 holy seed had mingled themselves with the people of 
 those lands," and had married strange wives. We are 
 farther told, that after deep humiliation and earnest 
 prayer he called a convocation of the people together. 
 In response to this invitation, "there assembled unto 
 him out of Israel a very great congregation," and after 
 consultation they entered into covenant with God " to 
 put away all the strange wives and such as were bom 
 of them." 
 
 The carrying out of this national resolution was the 
 first part of Ezra's work. He seems thereafter to have 
 set himself .with earnest endeavour to fulfil that part of 
 the king's commandment which required him to teach 
 the people the laws of his God. 
 
 We have no account in the sacred record of the 
 manner in which the task was carried on, but the con- 
 current testimony of the J«wish historians leaves us no 
 room to doubt that it was during this period that the 
 work of collecting, revising, and copying the Old Testa- 
 ment Scriptures was most earnestly prosecuted. 
 
 III. B.C. 446. Arrival of Nehemiah. — The determi- 
 nation of the Jews, under Ezra, to put away their 
 strange Vidves, and to separate from all those who re- 
 fused to comply with the national resolution, naturally 
 
 »7Q 
 
 The Language of the Jews. 
 
 Sam«iUn»,m»6t l"" /"f T''' . „ „„„mon»ealtli. 
 
 o„ ft, poliUcl "-'S";;' ^,*; .".t Inan. * we 
 "We ate consequenUy told that me , 
 
 1 r. „f the eaptivity in the provinee we m great .fflic 
 Irft ot fte capm y j .fte, eame.t 
 
 tie. ana ''P"-^' X'° i,„^, „a got .uthorit, 
 
 "■re'B^^Hcrhe ha, written i. ocenpied with an 
 ir: the devoted and ene.*--^^^^^^^^^^ 
 
 he executed his "— "^ J^ J ,„to,eed the law 
 Jem..leM and set np ^. ^^^ ^^^^^ ^j 
 
 „r Mo.es .n re,^^ J oS Lts-he carried out 
 the observance of the appoi 
 
 ,et .o« stringently *« ^ ^.^^ ^f -»- ^« 
 
 ItCl^itdwiv^osorXshdoda^Mo*.^^^^^^^^ 
 
 ehildren conld not speak m ""/;"' '"^/.^j „» 
 .pake aecotding to *e 1-f^f f_ ^f ^Ld the 
 ,ead that without -P^'" l^^™', i„„, fron, .11 
 transgressors from hrni, and cloansea 
 
 %T«. 134. ». Je'^ '•"''V ^I"--^""' 
 
74 
 
 The Language of the Jews. 
 
 twelve years labour Nehemiah completed his refonns. 
 He seems to have succeeded iu establishing the theo- 
 cratical form of government in a more systematic and 
 efficient condition than it had ever been in before — the 
 high priests and rulers of the people, or Sanhedrim, as 
 they were afterwards termed, exercising the supreme 
 authority, with the assistance of such men as God from 
 time to time raised up among their brethren. 
 
 We have no farther record of the Jewish history by 
 any inspired authority. In fact, any record we have of 
 the following hundred and fifty years is very brief and 
 uncertain. 
 
 It was during this period that the knowledge of the 
 Scriptures was most widely diffused, and a reverence 
 for them was most thoroughly awakened. It was 
 during this time that, through the study of God's Word, 
 especially of* such passages as the intimation given in 
 the twelfth chapter of Daniel in reference to a future 
 state, and guided still farther, we may conjecture, by 
 the oral instructions of Ezra, they came to form those 
 clear views of the resurrection which wore so firmly 
 held in the days of our Saviour, both by their teachers 
 and by the great body of the people. It was at this 
 time, in short, that a people who, in preceding ages, 
 had ever been prone to adopt the manners and customs 
 of those who lived around them, and who had only been 
 kept from gross idolatry by the often-repeated chasten- 
 ings inflicted on them by God, became zealous for tiie 
 
 The Language of the Jews. '^'^ 
 
 law and the prophets, and imbued with an intense aver- 
 
 ^i:::r^rZ^Wews continue tribu 
 
 ., /the Persians, ^^^^^ ^:::^^ 
 seem to have been heavy. In the year , 
 
 ander invaded Asia, and the empue V^^^^ ^ 
 Greeks At first Judea seems to have been left very 
 It to itself, though, no doubt, it -l^e affect^^^^^ 
 by the contests of contending empires, the xntrodu 
 tfon into its neighbourhood of a foreign race, and the 
 increasing influence of the European invaders 
 
 V B c 304 Jvdea suhjected to the rule ofEgypt- 
 T \is vear the Jews became subject to the Ptolemaic 
 t^lfEypt. They no doubt suffered from ^e 
 
 mate intercourse with '^'''^' ^^^^ition; 
 
 f: : tot: ::er rhi tr t^^^ oppressed. 
 
 but they do not seem ^^ ^^^ ^^^^_ 
 
 They became a large and mn J ^^^^^ ^^ 
 
 andrian pop^^ation ^ ^^^-^2ol.^. in getting 
 "Z^:^^"^^^^ scriptures may be taken 
 L r evTdcnco that no intense antipathy was enter- 
 tninfid towards their religion. 
 
 gj.v!:kr th, dete.t of the Egyptian, at the bat le 
 Tte^n^ing influence of G«oiao o«.toM» poduoed 
 
w 
 
 76 The Language of the Jews. 
 
 the most disastrous effects. A party manifestiDg very 
 decidedly a preference for heathenish practices, pur- 
 chased from Antiochus the office of high priest, and 
 sought to transform the house of God at Jerusalem 
 into a temple for the worship of Jupiter. In this en- 
 deavour he was supported by the power of the Syrian 
 Empire, and many of the Jews concurred in departing 
 from the worship of God. This defection from the 
 faith of their fathers, on the part of an influential sec- 
 tion of the Jewish people, and the depression and perse- 
 cution of those who retained their steadfastness, con- 
 tinued for about forty years. It was succeeded by the 
 heroic efforts of the Maccabees and their associates, 
 who continued successfully to resist the power of their 
 heathen oppressors for other forty years, when the 
 arrival of the Bomans put an end to the Grecian rule. 
 
 VII. B.C. 135. Supremacy 0/ the Bomans. — After the 
 establishment of the Boman sovereignty, though the 
 Jews were compelled to pay custom and tribute, the 
 form of government as completed by Nehemiah was 
 allowed to remain, with comparatively little change, 
 till the advent of our Lord. 
 
 Tlie Language of the Jews. 
 
 77 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE EPFEOr OF TUE MEASURES INTBODUCED BY EZRA 
 AND NEHEMIAH. 
 
 IN considering the language of Israel, previous to the 
 time of Nehemiah, we showed the evidence we have 
 that it had remained essentiaUy unchanged from the 
 
 davs of Moses. _ _ , . 
 
 We farther remarked, that this peculiar attachment 
 to their national speech was perfectly cons^stent vath 
 the general principles that reflate all thyaned 
 dialects that are spoken by the famdies of - - Th^ 
 Jews were all descended from one parent; they bad 
 laws and reUgious services which were -tended ^^^^^ 
 to keep them separate from the nations around them 
 ly were taught to look on any intimate alliance w.h 
 strigers as a sin ; and to regard themselves as a holy 
 and a peculiar people. The natural effect of the. bemg 
 Tept thus separate from other people necessarxly tended 
 to preserve in its purity their original tongue. 
 
 lu these influences must have operated with still 
 neater power after the return from Babylon. 
 "^ wTobserve. in the first place, that while the decree 
 
78 
 
 .The Language of the Jeios. 
 
 of OyruB directed the people to return to Jerusalem 
 and to rebuild the temple of God, there was no compul- 
 sion used. Gifts were largely bestowed, and every 
 encouragement was offered, but those who preferred to 
 remain in the land of their exile were in no ways 
 molested. When, therefore, we remember the distance 
 between Babylon and Judea, the dreary and dangerous 
 road the travellers had to traverse, and the desolate 
 prospect which a city in ruins presented to their imagi- 
 nation, we can easily suppose that only the more zealous 
 and patriotic would venture on the journey. We may 
 be sure there would be no mixed multitude among 
 them, like that which went up at the Exodus froci 
 Egypt, hankering after the idolatrous indulgences of 
 the heathen. 
 
 Among |a company so select, we naturally conclude 
 that there must have existed a more than ordinary 
 attachment to the religious customs and language of 
 their fathers. 
 
 The abolition of monarchy, and the re-establishment 
 of a theocracy like that which prevailed in the days of 
 Samuel, tended yet farther to separate the inhabitants 
 of Jerusalem from the people around them. Unlike 
 the nations of the West, among whom republican forms 
 of government find favour, the natives of the East have 
 always shown a desire for the pomp and pageantry of 
 a king. A government by priests and elders, without 
 external grandeur or military parade, would have little 
 
 79 
 The Language of the Jetos. 
 
 had given. . a h^ "R/ra and Nehemiah 
 
 ™,t have ol»mled wth peoaUar , 
 
 *- .elected ..d ^^^^^^Z^^Jl, .,„.„.» of 
 remarked onto .e.l o *«>» t^" ^^ ^„p,» 
 
 """ . temtltl™. »Baer .ucl. a government 
 
 ZZ W ve that ^any of them removed f»m nnder 
 r r On the other hand, those tl.at remamed, 
 '"' ■ ;. tern* 1 it. eervice reetored, their free- 
 l,»v,ng *» '=2 '^^ „, ,^ „i„ ^paired, K>d their 
 '""r::^*": Ji* .n to wJ-ing. that aowfrom 
 ;':^»rtthle government, regarded ti>e ..fb- 
 S theocU Wth graUtnde and «"» P;f^- J"^ 
 
 ::sr ot:r.ro:r :r ;^- the» 
 
w 
 
 80 The Language of the Jews. 
 
 its purity, the building of Synagogues throughout the 
 land, and the regular reading in them of the Word of 
 God, was undoubtedly the chief. ' 
 
 The manner in which they read and explained the 
 sacred oracles is fully detailed in the eighth chapter of 
 Nehemiah. We read of the solemn assembly of all the 
 men and women, of Ezra standing upon a pulpit of 
 wood above aU the people, opening the book, when " all 
 the people stood up, and Ezra blessed the Lord, the 
 great God ; and all the people answered. Amen." It is 
 added in a subsequent verse, " So they read in the book 
 in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and 
 caused them to understand the reading." » 
 
 Here we have a service described which very closely 
 resembled that which is observed in many churches at 
 the present day ; in which the clergyman, after reading 
 the Word of God, gives an exposition, that his hearers 
 may understand its meaning. It is to such a practice 
 as this that the people of Scotland are more especially 
 indebted for their knowledge of the Scriptures. 
 
 We are aware that some have spoken of the passage 
 which we have quoted as if it implied that the people 
 had forgotten the language of their fathers, and there- 
 fore needed an interpretation. 
 
 Such an argument needs no refutation. If we were 
 told that when a large congregation had assembled for 
 religious service, a clergyman, after reading a portion of 
 Scripture, " gave the sense, and caused them to under- 
 
 The Language of the Jews. 81 
 
 stand the reading," would any one venture to say that 
 from this account we must infer that the people were 
 ignorant of the language in which the book was written, 
 and that the lesson of the day must have been read 
 in Greek or in Hebrew? 
 
 The ordinance by which the Scriptures were read in 
 the synagogues every Sabbath-day continued, as we 
 learn from the Book of Acts, to be faithfully observed 
 down to the times of the Apostles. 
 
 Dr Lightfoot, whose learning and research entitle him 
 to be regarded as an authority in matters of fact, though 
 we may question the soundness of some of the con- 
 clusions which he has drawn, gives a very distinct 
 testimony in regard to the language employed in the 
 public worship of the Jews after the time of their 
 dispersion. In his addenda to the fourteenth chapter 
 of 1 Corinthians, he says, "Many passages may be 
 produced, whereby it appears that the Hebrew text 
 was read in the synagogues of the Hebrews, that is in 
 those of Palestine and Babylon, and whosesoever mother 
 tongue was Syriac or Chaldaic." 
 
 It is a yet more remarkable fact, that such is the 
 strange, we might almost say idolatrous, reverence 
 which the Jews have for the ordinance appointed by 
 Ezra, that even in the present day, both in Germany 
 and in England, it is their custom to read the Scrip- 
 tures in the original tongue in the public service of 
 their synagogues. 
 
 F 
 
82 Tlie Language of the Jews. 
 
 If we look on the public reading of God's Word 
 merely as a means of. communicating instruction in the 
 doctrines which it contains, we cannot commend the 
 practice of reading the Scriptures in the original tongue, 
 when the Hebrew has become almost entirely obsolete. 
 But if we regard it in another light, and look on it as 
 a means of perpetuating a reverential regard for the 
 language and laws of their fathers, we then acknowledge 
 that no system could have been devised better fitted for 
 accomplishing the end in view. 
 
 The temple is in ruins, and sacrifices have ceased. 
 Israel, downtrodden and despised, is scattered over all 
 the regions of the earth ; but the measures introduced 
 by Ezra and Nehemiah continue to be observed even to 
 the present day, and exercise a mighty power in keep- 
 ing the house of Jacob distinct from the nations around. 
 This conservative influence, we doubt not, will continue 
 until the day shall arrive when, restored to their country 
 and to the favour of their God, the promises made to 
 their fathers shall be fulfilled, and the world shall rejoice 
 in " the receiving of them again as life from the dead.*' 
 
 The Language of the Jews. 
 
 83 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE LANGUAGE OF THE JEWS IN THE DAYS OP OUR LORD. 
 
 Until a comparatively recent period the common, we 
 believe we might say the universal, opinion of theolo- 
 gians was, that the Jews in the days of our Lord con- 
 tinued to speak the language of their fathers. 
 
 But a new school of Biblical critics has arisen, by a 
 large number of whom we are told that, after the return 
 from Babylon, the Jews employed a dialect so corrupted 
 by the introduction of foreign words and idioms, that it 
 formed, in fact, an altogether different language, to 
 which they have given the name of the Aramaic. 
 
 Others of them go yet farther, and affirm that the pre- 
 vailing tongue in Judea in the days of our Lord was Greek. 
 These conclusions, however, have nothing brought 
 forward in their support but vague and unfounded 
 conjectures; we therefore pass them by, and, judging 
 from a careful perusal of the Gospel narrative, we un- 
 hesitatingly affirm, that in the days of our Lord the 
 ordinary language of the Jews was Hebrew. 
 
 In the firsts chapter of John we have an account of 
 the conversation which Jesus held with Andrew and 
 
84 Tlie Language of the Jews. 
 
 Peter. The words of the evangelist certainly suggest 
 the idea that the language they employed was Hebrew. 
 " Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith 
 unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, 
 (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where 
 dwellest thou? He saith unto them, Come and see. 
 They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with 
 him that day : for it was about the tenth hour. One of 
 the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was 
 Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. He first findeth his own 
 brother Simon, and saith unto him. We have found the 
 Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. And 
 he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, 
 he said. Thou art Simon the son of Jona : thou shalt be 
 called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone." 
 
 In Mark we are told, "And Simon he sumamed Peter; 
 and James' the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of 
 James; and he sumamed them Boanerges, which is. 
 The sons of thunder." 
 
 Again we read, that when Jesus made himself known 
 to Mary Magdalene after his resurrection, " Jesus saith 
 unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, 
 Eabboni, which is to say. Master." This narrative cer- 
 tainly leads us to conclude, that the language in which 
 Mary had been accustomed to address the Saviour was 
 the Hebrew. 
 
 In the seventh chapter of Mark we are told, that in 
 passing through the coasts of Decapolis, where we might 
 
 85 
 r/te Language oftU Jews. 
 
 ..ppose the lan^age of the foreigner ^^X^J, 
 to have prevailed, in consequenc 0^*1-^"^ ^^^^ 
 Gentile settlers there, they brought -"to H- one tb 
 
 Vi f ^ TT« " nut his fingers into his ears, and ne 
 was deaf, and Ho put b 
 
 spit and touched his tongue ; and lookm^ up 
 
 r'ighed, and saith unto hi., Ephphatha, that xs B 
 \ AT^dstrai-htway his ears were opened. i^s 
 
 opened. And strai^utw y \;,u^.xg^ 
 
 account seems very clearly to prove 
 
 spoken in the coasts of Decapohs was not Greek 
 
 ^ttleaccountgivenoftheraisingofJairus^-^^^^ 
 Luke 'relates the particulars with great brevity. H e 
 
 IZ. all out, and took hor by the hand, and call d^ 
 put tiiem , ^^^^ ^ aiid 
 
 saying, ^^^d, ame. And 1 P ^^^^^^^^^^ial. 
 
 she arose straightway. Mark s ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ 
 
 r: 1 derr P ion of an eye-witness, on whose 
 '^Ti^l^Z made a deep and abiding impr^- 
 Tu '^But when he had put them all out, he taketh 
 : e fathtLl the mother of the damsel, and them that 
 the father a .^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^ damsel was 
 
 ;;;rAndt;:ok the damsel by the hand au^ 
 ul ber Talitha cumi; which is. being interpreted. 
 . CsS i ^ay unto thee, arise. And ^^^^^^^ 
 damsel arose, and walked; for she was of the age o 
 tvTlve years. _ And they were astonished with a great 
 astonishment." 
 
86 
 
 27te Langvuige of the Jews. 
 
 The cry of agony on the cross, Ehi, Eloi, lama 
 aabachthanif while it shows that our Saviour was 
 acquainted with Hebrew, cannot be quoted as evidence 
 that it was in that language He usually held conversa- 
 tion with others. 
 
 It has been said that if the ordinary conversation 
 between our Saviour and His apostles had been carried 
 on in Hebrew, we might have expected the fact to have 
 been distinctly stated. To this we reply, that there 
 was no need for giving any such explanation. Those 
 to whom the Gospel narrative was at first communi- 
 cated were all aware that the language of the Jews 
 was Hebrew. We may farther remark, that until ^a 
 very recent period no other opinion seems ever to have 
 been entertained. 
 
 If we observe the style and manner of the sacred 
 writers, we find that it was only when there was some 
 particular significance attached to the language em- 
 ployed that we are told what it was. In the account 
 of Paul's conversion, which is given in the ninth chapter 
 of Acts, we are told of the voice that he heard from 
 heaven ; but we are not told whether it spake in Greek 
 or Hebrew. When he afterwards described the mira- 
 culous occurrence to King Agrippa, he told him that 
 it spake " in the Hebrew tongue." This circumstance, 
 which was not noticed in the previous account of his 
 conversion, is here mentioned, in order, we may sup- 
 pose, that the monarch, who "believed the prophets," 
 
 The Language of the Jews. 
 
 ..,ht the more ^^^^^ ^^ "^^the iros!^ 
 God of Israel who on ^^^^^^^^^ ,, ^o bis brethren 
 In like manner, though J° «P^ J „f ^^^^ having 
 t,.ough an interpreter, no ^^^X^^^, ,,« fact, in 
 been the case tiU it was nee ss ry to r ^.^^^ ^^ 
 
 order that the circumstances of the 
 understood more clearly. ^^^a on a very few 
 
 It is only, as we have ^^^ l^^^^; .^ployed is 
 occasions that the name f/^^^^^f J,, the Hebrew, 
 xnentioned. When it is saxd to have ^^^^ ^^ 
 
 the context leads us to conclud hat ^ ^^ ^^^ 
 
 that which bore the vene"^^ -^ ^ ^^ ,,, 
 
 For example, we are told ti at t ^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^ 
 eross was written m LaUn i. . ^^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ ^^ 
 inscription was jnten e^ ^ ^ ^^^^ ^^^ , -,,3 teU 
 no mention made of the A ^^ ,„,,ersaUon. 
 
 ns had hocomV^^J -^^^^^^^^^^ 
 When Paul ad^-ssed^^^ - ^^^^ „ ^^^^^ 
 
 toldthathespake in the ^^^4 differed 
 
 no intimation that the 1 n^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^,,,„_ 
 from that spoken by ther .^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^, 
 
 the inspired lustonan -^^J ° J^ ^ ^,,e conjecture 
 should have so°^^^^""J,"^ ' „eak in Hebrew, but in 
 
 name of the original tongue- ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ .^ ^^,p. 
 
 The truth ^«.^^^7'" . regard to the Aramaic 
 port of these conjectures m reg 
 
88 
 
 T*he Language oftlie Jews. 
 
 tongue. There are no remains of any literary work 
 written in it. There is no reference made to it by any 
 ancient author. And though the Jews, with a praise- 
 worthy desire of diffusing the knowledge of the sacred 
 Scriptures, made versions into the Greek, the Syriac, 
 the Arabic, and several other tongues, there is no 
 version into the Aramaic, which our learned men sup- 
 pose to have been the vernacular dialect of Judea. 
 
 While in the days of our Saviour Hebrew was the 
 general language of the Jews, the different provinces 
 of the Holy Land seem all to have had their peculiar 
 characteristic pronunciation, in the same manner as 
 the different districts of Israel had in the times of the 
 shibboleth. The Galilean is referred to as particularly 
 remarkable. We are told of the bystanders saying to 
 Peter, " Thou art a Galilean, and thy speech agreeth 
 thereto ;" and in the description of the miraculous gift 
 of tongues, we are informed that the people exclaimed, 
 " Are not aU these that speak Galileans ?" 
 
 In all probability, there were also peculiar words and 
 provincial expressions, but these differences did not pre- 
 vent the inhabitant of Jerusalem from being understood 
 by the Galilean, or the Galilean from being intelligible 
 to the dweller in Judea. 
 
 These various dialects do not seem to have differed in 
 any important particular from the language of Moses 
 and the prophets. In their pronunciation they may 
 have stood in a relation to each other, somewhat similar 
 
 The Language of the Jews. 89 
 
 to that in which the provincial dialects of our own 
 country stand to those of the surrounding d.stncts. but 
 the words were substantially the same. ^ 
 
 As in Britain at the present time, so m Judea and 
 G^UiuthodaysoftheLord.thesacro Scr^tur. 
 
 we publicly read in the religious assombho aU ove 
 the country, and were not only reverenced ^ the 
 TJZ by'which the revelation of heaven had be^n 
 communicated to men, but being -^-f^^ J^J ^'^• 
 they kept the language from change, and were recog. 
 Bised as the standard of correct composition. 
 
 This conclusion is confirmed when we duect our 
 attention to the account of Paul's address to the people 
 in the 22nd chapter of Acts. In that passage we are 
 told, that "When they heard that he spake m he 
 Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence. 
 J^eeculiaf attention which they paid to his words 
 because they were Hebrew, is a manifest evidence that 
 CTot ol understood, but that they reverenced the 
 lantmage in which he addressed them. 
 
 if they did not know the meaning of what he said. 
 ,vhy was their indignation roused when he stated some 
 unpalatable truths which offended their national pride ? 
 It was because they understood the meaning of his 
 lords and felt the force of his argument that they cried 
 out, " Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it 
 is not fit that he should live." 
 
 The request made by the Apostle to the chief cap- 
 
w 
 
 90 , T/ie Language of the Jews. 
 
 tain, and the remarks which his address called forth, 
 prove most distinctly that Greek was not commonly 
 spoken by the inhabitants of Jerusalem. 
 
 In the 37th verse we are told, that "as Paul was 
 to be led into the castle, he said unto the chief cap- 
 tain, May I speak unto thee? Who said. Canst thou 
 speak Greek? Ai-t not thou that Egyptian, which 
 before these days madest an uproar, and leddest out 
 into the wilderness four thousand men that were mur- 
 derers ?" . If Greek had been commonly spoken either 
 by the Jews or by the Egyptians, Paul's address would 
 have occasioned no surprise. The questions put by the 
 chief captain show very conclusively, that neither in 
 Judea, nor even in Egypt, where the power of the 
 Grecian mpnarchs had prevailed much longer, and had 
 been more fully confirmed than -in Judea, had the lan- 
 guage of Greece become the vernacular dialect of the 
 country. 
 
 Tlie Language oftJie Jews. 
 
 91 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE QUOTATIONS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT MADE BY 
 OUR LORD AND UIS APOSTLES WERE TAKEN FROM 
 THE HEBREW. 
 
 Yarious opinions have been expressed in regard to the 
 discrepancies tliat exist between the Soptuagint and 
 the quotations found in the New Testament. Dr Ro- 
 berts says — " The quotations from the Old Testament, 
 introduced 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 naturally occur in the case of one 
 quoting from memory, and which are generally found 
 in the citations made by the writers in the New Testa- 
 ment." Mr Grosart, in a notice which appeared in the 
 " British and Foreign Evangelical Eeview," says — " In 
 no single instance does the New Testament give the 
 exact words of the Septuagint; sometimes abridging, 
 sometimes enlarging, and sometimes deepening and 
 transfiguring them into larger meanings." 
 
 Between the Septuagint and the New Testament 
 citations the difference in meaning is very slight. The 
 
w 
 
 92 The Language of the Jews. 
 
 discrepancy consists almost entirely in the manner of 
 expression. We cannot help thinking, therefore, that 
 Mr Grosart's language is too strong, and suggests the 
 idea that there is a greater diversity hetween them than 
 really exists. On the other hand, we cannot concur in 
 the opinion of Dr Roherts, that the variations are such 
 as "naturally occur in the case of one quoting from 
 memory." In determining a question of minute verbal 
 criticism, we do not wish to speak with undue confi- 
 dence ; but we think that we get a much more probable 
 solution of the difficulty, by supposing that the New 
 Testament quotations are translations made by the in- 
 spired penmen from the Hebrew Scriptures which they 
 had themselves been accustomed to hear; while the 
 Septuagint is an altogether different version, made at 
 a former time from the same original. 
 
 We frankly say, moreover, that we do not like to 
 ascribe to our Lord and His Apostles, when speaking 
 by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, such a deficiency of 
 memory as Dr Eoberts' supposition implies. 
 
 In order that our readers may be able to form an 
 opinion for themselves, we take the Gospel by Matthew 
 as a specimen of the whole, and out of the thirty-four 
 quotations which it contains, we select seven in which 
 the difference is most perceptible. 
 
 We give, in the first place, the quotations found in 
 the New Testament. These we believe to be transla- 
 tions of the Hebrew text, as it was read in the syna- 
 
 Tlie Language of the Jews. 
 
 93 
 
 gogues in the days of our Lord, and we look on those 
 who made them as having been guided by the inspira- 
 
 tion of God. 
 
 We give, in the next place, a translation of the 
 passages cited, as they are found in the Septuagint, 
 which we consider to be another version of the same 
 original, made by men who were learned and faithful, 
 but who were not aided, in making their translation, 
 by supernatural power. 
 
 We give, in the last place, the passages as they are 
 found in the English Old Testament, which we look on 
 as a translation of a slightly abridged, and m some 
 measure inaccurate, copy of the ancient Hebrew. 
 
 QUOTATIONS FOUKD IN THE GOSPEL BT MATTHEW. 
 
 New TESTAMENT.-Chap. ii. 6-" And thou Bethle- 
 hem in the land of Juda, art not the least among the 
 princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, 
 that shall rule my people Israel." 
 
 Septuagint.-" And thou Bethlehem, House of Eph- 
 rata art thou the least among the- thousands of Judah? 
 Out'of thee shall come one to be for me, the ruler of 
 Israel."— Micah v. 2. ^ , . , 
 
 OLn Testament.-" But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah. 
 though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, 
 yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to 
 be ruler in Israel." 
 
 Chap. ii. 18— "In Rama was there a voice heard, 
 
94 The Language of the Jcvos. 
 
 lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Bachel 
 weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, 
 because they are not." 
 
 Sept. — " In Bama a voice was heard of lamentation, 
 and weeping, and great mourning, Bachel weeping for 
 her children and would not cease, because they are not." 
 — Jeremiah xxzi. 15. 
 
 0. T. — " A voice was heard in Bamah, lamentation, 
 and bitter weeping; Bachel weeping for her children 
 refused to be comforted for her children, because they 
 were not," 
 
 Chap, iii 3 — "The voice of one crying in the wil- 
 derness. Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his 
 paths straight." 
 
 Sept. — "The voice of one crying in the wilderness, 
 Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make the paths of 
 our God straight." — Isaiah xl. 3. 
 
 0. T. — " The voice of him that crieth in the wilder- 
 ness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in 
 the desert a highway for our God." 
 
 Chap. iv. 15, 16 — " The land of Zabulon, and the land 
 of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, 
 Galilee of the Gentiles ; the people which sat in darkness 
 saw great light ; and to them which sat in the region 
 and shadow of death light is sprung up." 
 
 Sept. — " The land of Zabulon and the land of Neph- 
 thalim, and the others by way of the sea and beyond 
 Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles. Oh pooplo, walking in 
 
 The Language of the Jews. 9o 
 
 darkness, ye saw a great light, and ye who walked in 
 the region and shadow of death light has shone upon 
 
 you." — Isaiah ix. 1. , r xr i 
 
 0. T.— " The land of Zebulun and the land of JSapU- 
 tali, and afterward did more grievously afiaict her by 
 the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the 
 nations. The people that walked in darkness have seen 
 a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow 
 of death, upon them hath the light shined." 
 
 Chap. xii. 18-21-" Behold my servant, whom i 
 have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is wd 
 pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall 
 show judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, 
 nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the 
 streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smok- 
 ing flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judg- 
 „.ent unto victory. And in his name shall the Gentiles 
 
 . I ft 
 
 'to -" Jacob is my servant, I will help him ; Israel 
 is my chosen, my soul has accepted him. I have put 
 my spirit upon him, he shall bring forth judgment to 
 the Gentiles. He shall not cry nor lift up, neither shall 
 his voice be heard without. A bruised reed shall he 
 not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench ; 
 but he shall bring forth judgment to truth. He shal 
 shine out, and shall not be broken (discouraged), until 
 he have set judgment on the earth, and in his name 
 shall the Gentiles trust."— Isaiah xlu. 
 
96 7%e Language of Hie Jews. 
 
 0. T.— "Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine 
 elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my 
 spirit upon him: he shall hring forth judgment to tho 
 Gentiles. He shaU not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his 
 voice to be heard in the street. A bruised reed shall 
 ho not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: 
 he shall bring forth judgment unto truth. He shall not 
 fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the 
 earth : and the isles shall wait for his law." 
 
 Chap. xiii. 14, 15-" By hearing ye shall hear, and 
 shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and 
 shaU not perceive: for this people's heart is waxed 
 gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their 
 eyes they have closed ; lest at any time they should see 
 with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should 
 understand with their heari;, and should be converted, 
 and I should heal them." 
 
 Sept.— "Ye shall hear indeed, but ye shall not un- 
 derstand ; and ye shall see indeed, but ye shaU not 
 perceive. For the heart of this people has become 
 gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes 
 have they closed, lest they should see with their eyes, 
 and hear with their ears, and understand with their 
 heart, and be converted, and I should heal them."— 
 Isaiah vi. 9. 
 
 0, T.— " Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but 
 understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. 
 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears 
 
 T 
 
 The Language of the Jews. 
 
 97 
 
 heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their 
 eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with 
 their heart, and convert, and bo healed." 
 
 Chap, XV. 8, 9 — " This people draweth nigh unto me 
 with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips ; 
 but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do 
 worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments 
 of men." 
 
 Sept. — " This people draw nigh to me with their 
 mouth, and honour me with their lips ; but their heart 
 is far from mo, but in vain do they worship me, teach- 
 ing the commandments and doctrines of men." — Isaiah 
 xxix. 13. 
 
 0. T. — " This people draw near me with their mouth, 
 and with their lips do honour me, but have removed 
 their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is 
 taught by the precepts of men." 
 
 These extracts are sufficient to show that the diflfer- 
 ences found between the various versions of the Old 
 Testament Scriptures affect very slightly the meaning 
 of the passages in which they occur, and that wo must 
 be very cautious lost our language should suggest the 
 idea that there is a greater diversity between them 
 than really exists. 
 
 At the same time, they certainly lead to the conclu- 
 sion that the verbal discrepancies which we find between 
 the Septuagint and the Old Testament quotations are 
 not to be accounted for by assuming an imperfect re- 
 

 98 The Language of the Jews. 
 
 collection on the part of the Apostles and the Evan- 
 gelists, but rather by supposing that these quotations 
 were made by the inspired penmen from the Hebrew 
 Scriptures, which they had themselves been accustomed 
 to hear ; while the Septuagint is an altogether diflFerent 
 version of the same original, made at a former time. 
 
 The Language of the Jews. 
 
 99 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE PREVALENCE Or GREEK IN THE WESTERN PART OF 
 THE ROMAN EMPIRE. — OPINION OF M. MAX MULLER. 
 
 Professor Egberts has lately published some very 
 elaborate "Discussions on the Gospels," in which ho 
 endeavours to prove that while " the Jews in our 
 Saviour's time commonly used both Greek and Aramaic, 
 the one language being employed in public intercourse 
 of all kinds, and the other in more domestic and fami- 
 liar transactions," . . . . " the prevalence of such a 
 dialect in Palestine, as the Greek of the New Testament, 
 in the days of Christ and His Apostles, can only be 
 accounted for on the ground that it was then the pre- 
 vailing public language of the country," .... and 
 " that our Lord and His disciples did, for the most part, 
 make use of the Greek language." 
 
 In order to support these views, he endeavours to 
 prove that in the days of our Saviour the language of 
 Greece prevailed throughout the Koman Empire. He 
 says, " Greek, and not Latin, was really, during the 
 period in question, the language of the Boman Empire." 
 —P. 33. 
 
1^0 The Language of tJie Jeios. 
 
 We shall consider his arguments as they refer, first, 
 to the West ; and, in the next place, to the East. 
 
 After adducing a number of extracts, to show how 
 widely the knowledge of Greek was diflfused throughout 
 the realms of the West, as well as of the East, and 
 referring to Vossius, Credner, and other German authors, 
 as concurring in his conclusions, he gives a quotation 
 from one, whom he appropriately terms "an eminent 
 living authority among ourselves, Max Muller," who 
 says, " The fact is, that so long as we know anything of 
 Italy, the Greek language was as much at home there 
 as the Latin," 
 
 If the question were to be decided by the verdict of 
 authorities, Dr Eoberts' hypothesis admits of little dis- 
 pute. But we are not prepared to bow down at once, 
 either to his confident decision. " that the Greek, and 
 not Latin, was, during the period in question, the 
 language of the Eoman Empire," or to the more mode- 
 rate opinion of Professor Max Muller, that " the Greek 
 was as much at home in Italy as the Latin," 
 
 At the time of our Saviour's sojourn upon earth, the 
 Greek had acquired an influence and a difi'usion over 
 the civilised world such as no other language has ever 
 attained either in ancient or in modem times. It was 
 the tongue in which men of science and literature con- 
 ducted their correspondence, and thus occupied the 
 place which Latin held in the days of our fathers. It 
 was the language of the Court and of fashionable life. 
 
 The Language of the Jews. 101 
 
 and occupied a position like that held by the French 
 previous to the Eevolution in 1792; and above all, it 
 was the language of travel and of commerce. It was, 
 in short, the general channel of communication among 
 almost all the nations of the civilised world. 
 
 Thus far we are happy to concur with the opinion of 
 Dr Roberts. And as we trace the appointment of a wise 
 and gracious God in bringing so large a proportion of 
 the human race under one supreme government, when 
 the period came for the promulgation of the new dispen- 
 sation, so we see His providential arrangement in pre- 
 paring a language so generally understood to be the 
 medium by which its doctrines might be made known. 
 
 But though it was at once the language of learning 
 and of fashion, of travel and of commerce, it does not 
 follow that it was the speech of every-day life through- 
 out the various countries that owned the sway of Bome. 
 
 The best means of ascertaining the vernacular tongue 
 of the Eomans during the decline and fall of the Empire, 
 is a careful endeavour to trace back to their original 
 source the languages spoken by their descendants at 
 the present lime. 
 
 After the conquest of Gaul and Spain, a great many 
 of the Italians, who had been enriched with the plunder 
 of the world, went and settled in these countries. They 
 carried with them their arts and arms, their laws, and 
 the Latin tongue. They emigrated in such numbers 
 that the aboriginal inhabitants had citlicr to retire before 
 
■^02 Tlie Language of the Jews. 
 
 them, or conforrri^to the customs and manners of their 
 invaders. Gaul and Spain having been thus colonised 
 by settlers from Italy, the whole population might be 
 regarded as of Italian origin, and the nations into which 
 It has been formed have been generally, and most 
 appropriately, termed the Latin races. 
 
 When the Eomans were, in their turn, overcome by the 
 barbanans from the North, the conquerors formed the 
 smaller part of the population, and amalgamating with 
 them, according to the general principles which regu- 
 late language when such mixtures of races take place 
 the conquering minority adopted the vocables of the' 
 vanqmshed majority, while every race of the invader* 
 retamed more or less of its own distinctive pronuncia- 
 tion. 
 
 On examining the different dialects spoken by the 
 nations that rose from the faU of the Empire, we find 
 that the differences by which they are distinguished are 
 in general such as may be attributed to peculiarities 
 of pronunciation, while by far the greater part of the 
 words of the modern Italian, the Provencal or Southern 
 French, the French, the Spanish, and the Portuguese, 
 are derived from Latin roots. The words taken directly 
 from the Greek seem to be but few. 
 
 We therefore conclude, that the language of the 
 Western parts of the Eoman Empire was not Greek but 
 Latin, during the whole period of its existence. 
 
 Tlic Language of the Jews. 
 
 103 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. — ARGUMENTS 
 OF DR ROBERTS. 
 
 We have already stated the conclusions to which Dr 
 Boberts has come in regard to the prevalence of Greek 
 among the Jews. 
 
 The consideration of these conclusions we delayed 
 till we had examined his wider and more general as- 
 sertion, that " Greek, and not Latin, was really, during 
 the period in question, the language of the Boman 
 Empire." 
 
 We now direct attention to the arguments he em- 
 ploys, in order to prove that Greek was the prevailing 
 language in Palestine. We shall endeavour to state 
 them as clearly and fairly as we can. 
 
 The quotations from the Old Testament, made by our 
 Saviour and His Apostles. The quotations from the 
 Old Testament, made by our Lord and His Apostles, 
 differ so much from the Hebrew text, and bear such a 
 close resemblance to the Septuagint. that we are led to 
 conclude they must have been taken from the Greek ; 
 and having been used in discussions and public ad- 
 
f 
 
 104 
 
 The Language of the Jews. 
 
 dresses, we are led to believe -that the Septuiagint must 
 have been in common use at that time among the Jews. 
 
 Such is the substance of Dr Eoberts' argument ; and if 
 the premises be granted, the deduction naturally follows. 
 But the investigations into which we have entered have 
 led to a very different result. We have seen reason 
 to believe that we have not now a full and accurate 
 copy of the volume collected and collated by Ezra ; that 
 the Septuagint is a faithful and careful translation of 
 the Canon of Ezra ; and that the present Hebrew text 
 is an abridged, and, consequently, in some measure, 
 an inaccurate copy. We therefore conclude, that the 
 quotations made in the New Testament agree with 
 the Septnagint, not because they were taken from the 
 Greek, but because the Scriptures in use among the Jews 
 in the days of the Apostles, and from which they quoted, 
 agreed with those which the translators of the Septuagint 
 had employiBd. We observe farther, that the differences 
 that are found between these quotations and the Sep- 
 tuagint are not, as Dr Roberts supposes, the variations 
 which naturally arise in the case of one quoting from 
 memory, but are the diversities of oxprossion that neces- 
 sarily occur when two translators give, each of them, an 
 independent version of the same original. 
 
 We do not consider it necessary again to go over the 
 arguments which we have already examined. 
 
 The influence of the Syrian rule. We next direct 
 attention to what Dr Boberts says of the influence ex- 
 
 Tlie Language of the Jews. 105 
 
 crtcd on the language of the Jews by their subjugation 
 to the Syrians, which he seems to think was mainly in- 
 strumental in introducing the use of Greek. 
 
 After telling us, p. 38, of the endeavours made by 
 King Antiochus " to root out the superstitions of the 
 country, and establish the institutions of the Greeks," 
 he proceeds to say, "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, the language so 
 favoured by the Court would gradually encroach upon 
 the ancient 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.' 
 
 The reference to the influence of the Norman con- 
 quest is rather unfortunate for Dr Roberts' argument. 
 We have formerly shown that its effects on the English 
 language was remarkably small. 
 
 Let us now consider what are the facts of history in 
 regard to the Syrian occupation of Judea. In the year 
 B.O. 217, Antiochus got posscBsion of the country. Aided 
 by some renegade Israelites, he sought to introduce the 
 religion and language of Greece. After 40 years of 
 oppression, the Syrian rulers so effectually roused the 
 indignation of the people that the Jews broke out into 
 open rebellion. Under the direction of the Maccabees 
 and their associates, they carried on the war with heroic 
 
106 The Language of the Jews. 
 
 endurance, and sometimes with signal success. This 
 embittered contest continued for other 40 years when 
 the Romans invaded Asia, proclaimed the Jews their 
 friends and allies, and speedily put an end to the Syrian 
 power. Such is the history of the dominion which 
 Antiochus and his successors exercised over Judea. 
 
 What inducement had the Jews to cast aside the 
 speech of their fathers, in order to adopt that of oppres- 
 sors whom they hated, and had so heroicaUy resisted ? 
 
 The 80 years of Syrian supremacy, instead of " making 
 the language favoured by the Court encroach upon the 
 ancient vernacular dialect," could only have intensified 
 the reverence entertained for the Hebrew, which had 
 been preserved unchanged by their fathers for 1300 
 years. 
 
 The Edicts of the Roman Governors in Syro-Phoenicia 
 were published in Greek and Latin. We shall, in the 
 next place, consider the somewhat laboured argument 
 by Avhich Dr Eoberts endeavours to prove that the 
 Syro-Phoenicians made use of the language of Greece. 
 "Let us mark," he says, " the knguage which St Luke 
 (chapter vi. 17) employs with respect to tho persons 
 to whom the sermon which he reports was addressed. 
 They are described by the evangelist as follows :—' And 
 he came down with them, 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, which came to hear him 
 
 The Language of the Jeios. 
 
 107 
 
 _1 
 
 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 of Sidon. In the discourse which follows it is 
 manifest that 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 
 says, ' M. Antony, imperator, to the magistrates, senate, 
 and people of Tyre, sendeth greeting. I have sent you 
 my decree, respecting which I will that ye take care 
 that it be engraven on the public tables in Boman and 
 Greek letters, and that it stand engraven in the most 
 conspicuous places, so as to be read of all.' It is plain 
 from this that Greek was the language of the district, 
 and that no other was commonly employed, since, in 
 addition to the official Latin, Greek was the only tongue 
 in which tlio edict was commanded to bo imblisliod. 
 In like manner we read respecting Sidon, that Julius 
 Caesar 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 of the cities, Tyre, Sidon, and 
 Ascalon, that a decree of the same Eoman magistrate 
 
f 
 
 lOS 
 
 The Language of the Jews. 
 
 was ordered to be published at each of them, in the 
 Greek and Latin languages. It seems too plain from 
 all this to admit of any denial, that Greek was then the 
 only language commonly employed 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. But if this 
 conclusion be admitted, the whole controversy may be 
 regarded as settled. Conceding that the discourse re- 
 corded by St Luke was spoken by our Lord in GrBek, it 
 will be difficult any longer to deny that Greek was the 
 language which he commonly employed. There were 
 on the occasion 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 evangelistic narrative that all equally under- 
 stood Him, and were, therefore, all perfectly familiar 
 ■with the Greek language." 
 
 We do not acknowledge the force of Dr Eoberts' argu- 
 ments. At the time when these proclamations were 
 issued, the supremacy over Syro-Phoenicia had just 
 passed away from the Grecian to the Boman. Greelc 
 had previously been, and Latin then was, as Dr Roberts 
 terms it, the oflBcial language. Both of them, there- 
 fore, might very fitly have been employed in public, 
 intimations. But we have no evidence whatever that 
 either the one or the other of them was tlie ordinary 
 language of the people. 
 
 The Langmge of the Jews. 109 
 
 Confining our attention to the Syro-Phoenicians, we 
 are ready to allow that the inhabitants of Tyre and 
 Sidon, and the other cities on the sea coast, dependmg, 
 as they did, for their prosperity on trade, were very 
 generally acquainted with Greek, which was peculiarly 
 the language of commerce. But wo have nothing to 
 prove that it was the only language that was spoken 
 in the district. If, as Dr Roberts supposes, " the Jews 
 in our Saviour's time 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," why may we not suppose 
 that the inhabitants of the sea coast, while they under- 
 stood Greek, continued to use in their familiar inter- 
 course the language of their fathers, which, if not the 
 same as that of the Jews, was a dialect of the Syriac, 
 that closely resembled it. 
 
 We may also remark, that Dr Roberts forgets to 
 observe that the people had a double object in coming 
 to Jesus. St Luke tells us that they " came to hear him, 
 and to be healed of their diseases." A hope of being 
 healed would, no doubt, have a powerful effect in quick- 
 ening their attention to our Saviour's discourse, even 
 though the language was not altogether familiar. 
 
 We farther object to the quotations that are brought 
 forward, inasmuch as the whole facts of the case are not 
 stated. There is no notice taken of the circumstances 
 that led to the promulgation of the edicts to which they 
 
f 
 
 110 T1i£ Language of the Jews. 
 
 refer. When we consult the Jewish historian, we find 
 that his countrymen, after having for a long time 
 struggled against the Grecian rulers of Syria, had 
 latterly suffered also from the exactions of the Roman 
 armies who were opposed to Antony and Caesar. But 
 when the Jews had entered into alhance with these two 
 generals, public intimation was given that they had be- 
 come confederate with Borne. And Josephus informs 
 us that the edicts which he quotes were especially in- 
 tended to restrain the violence of their former oppressors. 
 
 Whatever the language of the native inhabitants may 
 have been, decrees directed against Grecian and Eoman 
 marauders were most appropriately promulgated in 
 Greek and Latin. 
 
 Tlie inscriptiona on coins and monuments. Dr Eoberts 
 refers to the inscriptions on coins and monuments as a 
 proof of the prevalence of Greek. " The inscriptions 
 existing on ruins in Palestine are decidedly favourable 
 to our propositipn. They are far more numerous in 
 Greek than in the native dialects of the country. All 
 of them probably belong to a somewhat later ago than 
 that of Christ, but as the Greek tongue must have been 
 current in the land, before it would bo employed so 
 largely in public inscriptions, they support the conclu- 
 sion in favour of the prevalence of that language." .... 
 " The numismatic evidence is more certain and satis- 
 factory. Not a few Palestinian coins are still extant. 
 
 The Language of, the Jews. 
 
 Ill 
 
 belonging to our Lord's time, and these almost all bear 
 Greek inscriptions."— P. 47. 
 
 To this we reply, that the language inscribed on 
 monuments and coins is not, in general, the language 
 spoken by the people, but the language which the 
 fashion or caprice of their rulers sees meet to adopt. 
 The current coin of Judaea, in the days of our Saviour, 
 bore the superscription of Caesar, because he thereby 
 claimed the supremacy over the country. The Pales- 
 tinian monuments and coins bear Greek superscrip- 
 tions, because Herod and his successors were anxious 
 to introduce the customs and manners of Greece. The 
 inscriptions found on Palestinian coins no more show 
 the language of Judea to have been Greek, than the 
 Latin inscriptions on most of the coins that have cir- 
 culated in Britain prove that the English speak the 
 
 language of Rome. 
 
 Our Lord's appearance before Pilate. In reference to 
 our Lord's appearance before Pilate, Dr Roberts re- 
 marks:—" I now proceed to direct the reader's attention 
 to a part of the evangelic history, which bears the clear- 
 est and most conclusive testimony to the validity of 
 that position, which it is the object of this work to 
 establish. I refer to those passages, in all the four 
 Gospels, which record the conversations that were 
 carried on between our Lord and Pilate, on the one 
 hand, and between Pilate and the populace, on the 
 other, when the Saviour was brought before him for 
 
t 
 
 112 The Language of the Jews. 
 
 judgment. No one will venture to maintain that the 
 Eomau governor either understood or employed Heb- 
 rew, nor will many be inclined to suppose that Latin 
 was used by our Lord or the Jews in their intercourse 
 vath Pilate. The only other supposition is, that Greek 
 was the language employed by all the parties in ques- 
 tion; unless, indeed, it be assumed that an interpreter 
 was employed between them."— P. 129. 
 
 After a somewhat lengthened argument, in order to 
 show the improbabiUty of our Lord's having 'spoken 
 through an interpreter, the discussion ends with the 
 confident conclusion. " Is it not at once apparent from 
 the narrative, that one tongue was then employed by 
 all the various speakers ?• And if so. it is not manifest 
 that that could have been no other than the Greek 
 language." 
 
 The supposition that Pilato understood and employed 
 Hebrew, which Dr Eoberts seems to regard as utterly 
 unworthy of notice, we beUeve to be the supposition 
 that is best entitled to acceptance. 
 
 We have already shown by a variety of arguments, 
 that Hebrew was the language of the country, and that 
 we have reason to believe that the populace of Jeru- 
 salem knew but little Greek, while the inhabitants of 
 the rural districts were altogether ignorant of it. 
 
 On the other hand, a very little reflection is sufficient 
 to show, that it must have been an object of great im- 
 portance for the Governor of Judroa to make himself 
 
 The Langv4ige of the Jews. 
 
 113 
 
 acquainted with the language of the people over wlioni 
 ho was appointed to rule. When acting as a judge, ho 
 must have found it of great advantage to take part in 
 the examination of witnesses. When endeavouring to 
 suppress disturbances, he must often have found a few 
 words spoken in the language of their early youtli one 
 of the most effectual means of conciliating angry feel- 
 ing. A knowledge of the native tongue may, in short, 
 be looked on as essential on the part of a ruler. 
 
 The British Government act on this principle when 
 they require the young men sent out to the civil service 
 in India, to act as the future judges of that land, to be 
 all acquainted with one or more of the native tongues. 
 We have reason to believe that a similar rule was fol- 
 lowed by the Romans. We read, at least, that some of 
 the governors whom they appointed could not only 
 address men of different nationalities, but were able to 
 converse with the inhabitants of different districts and 
 localities in their appropriate provincial speech. We 
 know how anxious Pilate was to conciliate the Jews, 
 and conclude that nothing could be more natural than 
 to suppose that ho had endeavoured to learn their lan- 
 guage, in order to secure their good-will. 
 
 We, therefore, think it very probable that Hebrew 
 was the language in which the conversation between 
 our Saviour and Pilate was carried on. 
 
 But even if we were to suppose that it was Greek 
 tliat was employed, that would not necessarily imply 
 
Y 
 
 114 The LangvMge of the Jews. 
 
 that our Lord must have learned tliat language in his 
 youth. When at Nazareth he stood up to read, some 
 of his hearers exclaimed, " How knoweth this man 
 letters, having never learned?" Dr Roberts propounds 
 a similar question in regard to the knowledge of Greek 
 which the Apostles possessed, even after they had re- 
 ceived the gift of tongues, and were under the guidance 
 of the Holy Spirit — " How could Palestinian Jews, like 
 Pet€r, James, and John, have written in Greek, unless 
 that were the language which men, even in the hum- 
 blest station, naturally employed ? " Will Dr Eoberts 
 speak in a similar manner of Him who knew all 
 things? Will he venture to say, "How could Jesus 
 of Nazareth, if he had not been taught in his youth 
 to speak the language of Greece, have been able to 
 carry on in that tongue a conversation with Pilate?" 
 That, however, is the style of argument he must be 
 prepared to adopt, before he can logically introduce the 
 interview between our Saviour and Pilate as evidence 
 in support of his " position." 
 
 We have now examined the principal arguments by 
 which Dr Eoberts endeavours to prove that the lan- 
 guage of Palestine was Greek. We leave our readers 
 to determine for themselves the weight to which his 
 reasoning is entitled. 
 
 -I 
 
 11 
 
 Tli£ Language of the Jews. 
 
 115 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THE GIFT OF TONGUES.— OPINION OF DK BOBEBTS 
 AND DEAN ALFORD. 
 
 The gift of tongues is a subject far too important to be 
 adequately discussed as an appendix to our inquiry into 
 the langiiage of the Jews. At the same time, it is so 
 closely connected with that inquiry that we cannot 
 pass it by altogether without notice. 
 
 We shall therefore give, in the first place, the views 
 entertained by Dean Alford, and " the great majority of 
 modem scholars," as they are described by Dr Eoberts, 
 and thereafter shaU very briefly state the reasons which 
 induce us to continue to hold what, it seems, are now 
 regarded as antiquated notions. 
 
 Dr Eoberts says, in his "Discussions," page 71 — 
 " The first question is. How could Palcstiuiau Jews, 
 like Peter, James, and John, unlettered and ignorant 
 men-men certainly possessed of no advantages, whether 
 of rank or education, above the respectable labouring 
 classes in Judea,-/tat;e im-Uten in Greek, unless that 
 were the language which men, even in the humblest 
 station, naturally employed? There is only 
 
116 
 
 Tlie Language of the Jeios. 
 
 one mode of escaping from the conclusion which follows 
 from the first of these questions. It is implied in the 
 following words of Greswell, in his learned and laborious 
 work upon the Gospels : — ' If the Greek alone,' he says, 
 'would have sufficed everywhere out of Palestine, as 
 the vehicle of a popular address, what necessity for the 
 gift of any other language ? And if the Greek wiis 
 understood even in Palestine, what necessity, even 
 there, for the gift of that ?' It is thus supposed, that 
 although Peter and James did not naturally use or 
 understand Greek, they were supernaturally endowed 
 Avith a knowledge of that language. 
 
 " But while this hypothesis of Greswell's certainly 
 removes one class of difficulties, it appears to me to 
 entail on its advocates another class of difficulties not 
 less manifest or formidable. I cannot but agree with 
 those critics who deem the supposition in question 
 equally opposed to reason, ancient testimony, and Scrip- 
 ture. The idea that the Apostles were taught Greek 
 by the immediate interposition of Heaven, seems repug- 
 nant to the constitution and working of the human 
 mind, and to all that is told in the Bible as to the 
 manner in which the Spirit of God operates upon it. 
 It has been admitted by the great majority of modern 
 scholars, that such a supposition as that under consider- 
 ation is utterly opposed to all that we know or can 
 conceive of the mechanism and exercise of the human 
 understanding. 
 
 Tlie Language of the Jews. H"^ 
 
 " 'I would not conceal,' says Dean Alford. 'the dif- 
 ficulty which our minds find in conceiving a p^son 
 supeiturally endowed with the power of speak^ng 
 ordinarily and consciously, a language which he has 
 never leLed. I beUeve that difficulty to be msupe. 
 able. Such an endowment would not only be contra^ 
 to the analogy of God's dealings but. as far as I can 
 see into the matter, self-coutradictory, and therefore 
 inipossible. But there is no such contrad-tio^' ^n^ 
 to my mind no such difficulty, in concexving a man 
 to be moved to utterance of sounds dictated by the 
 
 "^^^ recent expositors agree with the fore- 
 going remarks of Alford, as al^o ;-^;^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
 he expresses, when he says. If the suppos 
 Lde that the gift of speaking in vanous languag s 
 L bestowed on the disciples for therr after use m 
 preaching the Gospel, we are. I tb-k. runmng coun^ 
 L the whole course of Scripture and early patnstic 
 evidence on the subject. There is no trace whatev 
 of such a power being possessed or exercised by the 
 Anostles or by those who foUowed them. I believe, 
 fhertre he event related in our text to have been a 
 udden and powerful inspiration of the Holy Spmt. by 
 Ibich the disciples uttered, not of their own minds 
 V,.t as mouthpieces of the Spirit the P-- o God 
 ,n various languages, hitherto, and PO-^y at the time 
 itself, unknown to them.'" Thus far Dean Alford. 
 
 i. 
 
118 The Language of the Jews. 
 
 Dr Eoberts proceeds to say : — " In a word, the opinion 
 that the Greek, in wliich the Apostles spoke and wrote, 
 strongly marked as it is by local and individual peculi- 
 arities, was directly conveyed to them from Ileavon, 
 involves so many diflBculties, if it does not even imply 
 utter contradiction, that although held by the great 
 majority of expositors, from Chrysostom downwards, it 
 is now by general consent abandoned." 
 
 When we read the statements of Scripture in regard 
 to the gift of tongues, Avithout allowing our thoughts to 
 be distracted by speculations referring to the " mechan- 
 ism and exercise of the human understanding," or by 
 the ideas which modern scholars have formed of " the 
 analogy of God's dealings," we are unquestionably led to 
 believe that those on whom the power of the Spirit fell 
 were " supernaturally endowed with the power of speak- 
 ing consciously languages which they had never learned." 
 We cannot say that they possessed this power at all 
 times ; but that they possessed it on every occasion 
 when its exercise tended to the welfare of the Church, 
 we have no doubt. 
 
 That this is the natural conclusion to which the 
 intelligent perusal of the sacred narrative brings a man 
 of unbiassed mind, is made abundantly evident by the 
 fact, which Dr Eoberts himself has stated, that such 
 has been the opinion "held by the great majority of 
 expositors, from Chrysostom downwards." 
 
 The work was unquestionably miraculous. It was a 
 
 The Language of the Jews. 119 
 
 „,anifestation of the power of God such as we do not 
 see in the ordinary course of his providence It was a 
 miracle of a very remarkable kind; as such it had been 
 spoken of by our Lord when he told 1"« /'-P^^^ ° 
 remain in Jerusalem until they should be baptxsed w^h 
 the Holy Ghost; as such it was spoken oi ^^^^ ^}^ 
 Testament, when it was referred to as the gJt by which 
 the latter days were more especially to be distmgmshed 
 (Acts ii. 16, Joel ii. 28) ; and as such it was spoken of 
 ■ by the sacred writers in the New Testament, after the 
 
 event had occurred. 
 
 It was a manifestation of Divine power such as has 
 not been seen either before or since; but we do not 
 conclude, on that account, that it was "self-contradic- 
 tory, and therefore impossible." w ^ v,v Dr 
 The argument of our modern critics, as stated by Dr 
 Eoberts, ^n so far as we can judge, -^ves .se^ ^^^ 
 this -The idea of men having communicated to them 
 t power of speaking languages which tW had -er 
 learned is so far opposed to our experience, and to the 
 :: we have formed of the faculties f ^^^ ^-- 
 nund. that we cannot understand it, and therefore we 
 cannot believe it. They adopt the same argument that 
 ^as employed by David Hume and his associates ma 
 former age. The men are very different, their objects 
 "different; but we see no essential difference 
 between the argument of Dean Alford and the argu- 
 mcnt of David Hume. 
 
120 
 
 The Langvage of the Jews. 
 
 The outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost waa a 
 miracle wrought on the mental faculties of men. We 
 have many instances related of miracles wrought on 
 the bodies of men ; why should we think it incredible 
 that miracles could be wrought immediately and directly 
 influencing their minds ? Were such gifts beyond the 
 power of Omnipotence to bestow, or unsuitable to the 
 circumstances in which they were given ? 
 
 We farther remark, that in many of the miracles 
 wrought by the Saviour for the removal of bodily evils, 
 there was, at the same time, the instantaneous com- 
 munication of mental acquirements. 
 
 When a man lame from his birth was enabled at 
 once to walk, this implied not only the healing of the 
 bodily infirmity, but the miraculous imparting of the 
 knowledge by which we are enabled to make a right 
 use of our limbs, which in ordinary cases lengthened 
 practice alone can supply. Cases, for instance, have 
 occurred in which prisoners, long confined in chains 
 and narrow cells, were scarcely able, when first set free, 
 to walk at all. 
 
 When a man bom blind was made to sec, there was 
 not only the removal of the bodily imperfection, but 
 the instantaneous imparting of tlie power by which wo 
 judge, from the impressions made on the eye, of the 
 colours, shades, shapes, sizes, and distances of the 
 various objects that are before us. When sight is 
 communicated to persons born blind, by means of a 
 
 The Lawjuage of iU Jews. 
 
 . , finn this power, without which vision 
 
 ,urg.ca opora^on. tu^ p , ^^ ^^^^ ,^. 
 
 ^"'' \V 1 s ;^ -n born blind, who was 
 — -^T:t2Z^^ "af man. 
 
 and the string of his long 
 
 1 •. " Wo have every reason to believe luat 
 pla^n. ^^^ '^^^ \^ ,^, other instances m which 
 
 consequcuces iollowccl ^ ^^^ ^^^^ 
 
 ,,, deaf were ^^^^^^^^^^o^^^^^^^^ When the deaf. 
 
 '^^"? "'feared- conclude that there was not 
 therefore, were cured, we ^^^ 
 
 ,,ly a defect removed ^^^^^^^^^^ \^^^ ,,i„as a 
 knowledge of the languag .^^^ ^^^ 
 
122 Tlie Language of the Jews. 
 
 languages was bestowed on the disciples for their after 
 use in preaching the Gospel," but believes it " to have 
 been a sudden inspiration of the Holy Spirit, by which 
 the disciplies uttered, not, of their own minds, but as 
 mouthpieces of the Spirit, the praises of God in vari- 
 ous languages, hitherto, and possibly at the time itself, 
 unknown to them." The power exercised on that day 
 over the disciples, if this explanation is accepted, must 
 have been very like that which was manifested when 
 the dumb beast, speaking with man's voice, reproved 
 the madness of the 'prophet. We cannot help thinking 
 that the promise of the Saviour, that his Apostles 
 should be endowed with power from on high, implied 
 something more than " a sudden inspiration, not of 
 their own minds," by which they spake " in language 
 possibly at the time itself unknown to them." We 
 cannot help believing that there was an intelligent co- 
 operation with the Spirit, and that a gift was given to 
 be used by them when they saw meet. (1 Cor. xv.) 
 
 " A sudden inspiration, not of their own minds, but 
 as moutlipieccs of the Spirit," might be a very suitable 
 description of the testimony which the demoniacs bore 
 to the Saviour; but it was certainly something very 
 different that 'was bestowed on the Apostles on the 
 day of Pentecost. 
 
 Conclusion. 
 
 123 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 The second part of our inquiry, in which we direct 
 attention to tlie language of the Jews, has not equal 
 importance with the first part, in which wo endeavoured 
 to determine- the true chronology of Scripture, and the 
 authority to which, in rendering the Old Testament, 
 we should more especially defer. 
 
 At the same time, it seems to be worthy of consider- 
 ation, not merely as affording a subject of curious 
 research, but as manifesting the providence of God in 
 the wonderful permanency of the Hebrew tongue. If 
 we be right in our conclusions, that language was pre- 
 served from any essential change for the long period of 
 nearly two thousand years. And why was it thus pre- 
 served? Because it was the language of the people 
 whom God had chosen to be the depositaries of his 
 revelation, and his witnesses to the nations; and the 
 admiration that is awakened in contemplatmg this 
 seemingly miraculous perpetuity of speech is farther 
 heightened when we find that it is to be referred, not 
 to the exertion of any mysterious supernatural power, 
 but to the operation of the ordinances given by Moses, 
 and the measures introduced by Nehemiah, acting m 
 
124 Conclusion. 
 
 perfect accordance with the general principles which '| 
 
 regulate the language of man in every country and in 
 every age. 
 
 In the few remarks which we have made on the gift 
 of tongues, we have directed attention to a subject of 
 great importance. We frankly confess ourselves un- 
 able to do it justice, and earnestly hope some abler 
 theologian will take it up. 
 
 IDIRBDBOH : rBIHTID BT 0. 0IB90H, WBST TBISTLB STBBBT.