LIBRARY OF PRINCETON 1 THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY | ^ V > , 3. •<7 I /y I - 19 DISCUSSIONS ON THE GOSPELS, '0 ovpavhs Kol 7) 797 vapeKeiaovTai, ol 5^ \6yoL M.OV OX) /JLT] irapiXduai. St Matt. xxiv. 35; Sx Maek xiii. 31; St Lxtke xxi. 33. DISCUSSIONS ON THE GOSPELS IN TWO PARTS. PABT I. ON THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED BY OUR LORD AND HIS DISCIPLES. PART II. ON THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF ST MATTHEWS GOSPEL, AND ON THE ORIGIN AND AUTHENTICITY OF THE GOSPELS. ALEXANDER ROBERTS, D.D SECOND EDITION REVISED AAD EMARGED. LIBRARY OF PRINCETON 7 2007 1 .iwAL SEMINARY (jTambritigc nnti Hontion. MACMILLAN AND CO. 1864. The Right of Translation and Reproduction is reserved. ©ambtitoge: PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AT THK UNIVERSITY PRESS. PEEFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. With the exception of a few trifling corrections, the only changes made in this new edition of my work will be found in the insertion of a number of additional notes and illustrations, and of an entire chapter in Part Second, bearing chiefly on the proper authenticity of the Gospels as recently challenged by M. Renan, I have not found any reason to doubt the soundness of the general conclusion which it was my object to establish, or to distrust the validity of the several arguments by which it is supported. On the contrary, after the most careful and repeated consideration of the views here set forth as to the Language of our Lord and His dis- ciples, and the most earnest and grateful attention to the remarks of reviewers, it is with increased confidence that I again submit this portion of my work to the judgment of Biblical scholars. No early or easy acceptance could be anticipated for views so entirely opposed to prevalent concep- tions as those which I have ventured to present. I am therefore not surprised that the opinion, so long held by sacred critics, that our Lord and His immediate followers were accustomed to speak in Aramaic, and not in Greek, still finds a place b Vi PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. in the most recent works of eminent scholars both at home and abroad. Since the last edition of my work was issued, the valuable " Einleitung in das Neue Testament" of the late Professor Bleek has appeared. It has been to me both highly interesting and gratifying to perceive how this distinguished writer seems at times to be treading on the very borders of the ground I occupy, but Bleek still main- tains, (though to his own manifest perplexity on several occasions,) the position that Aramaic was the language of Christ and His disciples. In our own country, Dean Alford continues in his last edi- tions to proceed on this assumption, while we are still told by Mr Webster in his recent work on the Syntax and Synonyms of the Greek Testament that " it is highly important to bear in mind the caution given by Michaelis, Syriace locutum Jesum, non Greece'' And (to refer only to one other example) we find the Athemeum, a few months ago, writing as follows respecting the original language of St Mat- thew's Gospel : — " To say that Greek was ' the most proper language for the Evangelist' is to beg the whole question. Was it the most proper language for a Gospel written for the use of the Jews who spoke Aramsean ? Nor was Greek the language used by our Lord Himself in most of His discourses. He usually spoke Aramaean." Athenamm, Nov. 28th, 1863. It is still with much diffidence that I oppose my own judgment to that of so many eminent scholars, but I cannot help expressing my humble PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. vii conviction that such statements as the above will, by and by, disappear from our Biblical literature. Every candid mind will, I believe, be constrained to admit that, unless the New Testament itself can be demolished, the argument developed in the fol- lowing pages in favour of the general employment of Greek by Christ and His disciples is irresistible. And, as some justification of this hope, I may perhaps be pardoned for quoting a single sentence from a lengthened and highly favourable review of my work which appeared in one of our ablest and most influential periodicals. It is as follows : — ''The result at which Mr Roberts arrives is, that ' Christ spohe for the most part in Greek, and only noiu and then in Aramaic,' and he establishes this conclusion by an amount of evidence which can hardly leave a doubt in the minds of unprejudiced readers." Saturday Revieiv, Nov. 29, 1862. This question as to the language made use of by the Son of God on earth, is one of deep and hallowed interest to the whole Christian world. Rising far above all sectarian prejudices or feelings, it claims the loving regard of every Christian com- munity on earth, and ought, as a mere matter of historical investigation, to be equally interesting to all parties of Protestants, and to East and West alike. As will be found pointed out at length in the sequel, it is also a subject of great practical import- ance. And this is specially the case at present. No one can doubt that the truly historical character of the Gospels is the great Biblical question of our 62 Vlll PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. day. I have tried to shew how my conclusions bear on this all-important point in the chapter devoted to the work of M. Renan. It will be seen, I think, by every careful reader that the question discussed in the First Part of this treatise, is really the most fundamental and far-reaching of all the questions connected with the records of our Saviour's life. But, indeed, its influence extends in every direction. According as it is settled, so are difficulties felt or removed with regard to every part of the New Testament. It will appear, again and again, in the following pages, how the admission of that con- clusion for which I plead as to the dominant lan- guage of Judsea at the commencement of our era, extricates us from perj^lexities that cannot other- wise be escaped, throws light on problems which, on the opposite hypothesis, have continued wrapped in the deepest obscurity, and confirms our faith in the canonical Scri2:)tures as the true and authentic productions of those inspired writers to whom they have been generally ascribed. St John's Wood, London, October 28, 1864. PREFACE TO THE FIKST EDITION. The principal argument developed in the following pages was briefly illustrated in a work which I published about three years ago on the Original Language of St Matthew's Gospel. The substance of that work, revised and corrected, will be found engrossed in the present volume. I have also taken this opportunity of referring to some of those criti- cisms upon it which seemed to deserve or to demand special attention. And during the interval which has elapsed since its publication, I have continued to investigate, as fully as lay within my power, the important questions to which it referred; and with- out having found reason to modify, in any material point, the views which were formerly expressed, I now present them, in a much more extended form, to the consideration of Biblical scholars. I had the pleasure of ascertaining that, even as before set forth, my argument in behalf of the ge- neral employment of Greek by our Lord and His disciples went far to satisfy some of the acutest reasoners and ablest critics of whom our country can at present boast. But, as was to be expected, it also encountered not a little opposition, and was in some quarters treated with utter contempt. I X PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. am inclined to believe that this may have been due to the very imperfect manner in which it was then presented, and to hope that in its present form it may be attended with better success. It is needless to detain the reader with any lengthy observations on the interest or importance of the points about to be submitted to his considera- tion. Few will doubt, that, if my argument is suc- cessful, the conclusions reached must have no small influence on some momentous questions connected with the Gospels. But all depends on the success of the argument. I therefore say nothing here respecting either the interest or importance of the points discussed, but reserve any remarks of that kind for the concluding chapter of the work. I only add, that 1 have not had the advantage of abundant leisure in pursuing those researches of which the result is now given to the world, and that, although there were no other reason than the interrupted and occasional manner in which my work has been composed, I am deeply sensible it will be found marked by many imperfections. But I humbly conceive that it is fitted to be of some service to the cause of Divine truth, and that it may especially tend to impart a fresh interest to one of the most precious portions of Holy Scripture — that which contains a record of the words and works of our adorable Bedeemer. A. B. St John's Wood, London, March 20, 1862. CONTENTS. PAET I. ON THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED BY OUR LORD AND HIS DISCIPLES. CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION — STATEMENT OF THESIS. PAGE Proposition of this "Work '........ 1 Different Views which have been held on the Question . . 5 Preliminary Observations 9 Sources of Evidence 22 CHAPTER 11. HISTORICAL PROOFS OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE IN THE TIMES OF CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES. General Diffusion of the Greek Language at the commencement of the Christian Era 26 Causes which led to the Prevalence of Greek in Palestine . . 36 Vai-ious Proofs of this Prevalence 39 Greek Inscriptions -^6 Nimiismatic Evidence 47 The Mischna 49 Xll CONTENTS. PAGE The Works of Pliilo 50 The Works of Josephus 51 The Apocryphal Books 56 CHAPTER III. PROOF FROM A GENERAL SURVEY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT THAT GREEK WAS THE PREVAILING LANGUAGE OF PALESTINE IN THE TIMES OF CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES, Statement of the Argument 68 General Proof from the Epistles 77 / _ General Proof from the Gospels 82 CHAPTER IV. SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE GOSPELS THAT GREEK WAS THE PREVAILING LANGUAGE OF PALESTINE IN THE TIMES OF CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES. The Sermon on the Mount 100 Quotations from the Old Testament in the Gospels . . . 110 Conversation of Christ with the Woman of Samaria . . . 122 Discourse delivered by Christ in Jerusalem . . . . 127 Intercourse held by Pilate with Christ and the People of the Jews 130 Incident connected with the Crucifixion 135 Conversation of Christ with Mary Magdalene . . . . 140 Recapitulation 142 CHAPTER V. SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES THAT GREEK WAS THE PREVAILING LANGUAGE OF PALESTINE IN THE TIMES OF CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES. Narrative of Events on the Day of Pentecost . . . . 146 Succccduig Speeches of the Apostles 152 Different Opinions regarding the Hdlenists and Ilebreas . . 156 CONTENTS. XI] 1 Discussion of the Question Sijeech of St Stephen before the Sanhedrim Succeeding Chapters . Council of Jerusalem . Tumult excited against St Paul . Concluding Chapters of the Acts Recapitulation . , . . PAGE 158 176 179 181 187 190 194 CHAPTER VI. PROOF FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWa OF THE PREVALENCE OP GREEK IN PALESTINE IN THE TIMES OF CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES. Questions agitated respecting the Epistle to the Hebrews Authorship of the Epistle Hypothesis of the exclusively Pauline Authorship Hypothesis of the exclusively non-Pauline Authorship Hypothesis of a Twofold Authorship of the Epistle . To what Readers the Epistle was orighially Addressed Difl'erent Opinions regarding this Point Conclusion and Inference 196 200 208 213 219 227 233 241 CHAPTER VII. FURTHER PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT THAT GREEK WAS THE PREVAILING LANGUAGE OF PALESTINE IN THE TIMES OF CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES. Style of the Epistle of James All Records of Christ's Teaching are in Greek . Existence and Origin of Hellenistic Greek .... Use of the Septuagint by the Writers of the New Testament Hymn of the Virgin Mary Intercourse of the /Soldiei^s with John the Baptist Narrative of St Paul's Conversion Use of the terms Aljjha and Omega by Christ . Conclusion 244 249 256 232 269 270 272 274 275 XIV CONTENTS. CHAPTER VIII. CONSIDERATION OP OBJECTIONS TO THE VIEW THAT GREEK WAS THE PREVALENT LANGUAGE OF PALESTINE IN THE TIMES OF CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES. PAGE A priori Objection 276 Objection from the Existence and Employment of Aramaic among tlieJews 283 Objections from the Writings of Josephus 285 Objection based on the Assertion that the Jews of Palestine did not use the Translation of the LXX 292 Objection from the Existence of the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan 300 Objections from the New Testament 301 Conclusion 316 PAET II. ON THE OEIGINAL LANGUAGE OF ST MATTHEW'S GOSPEL, THE ORIGIN AND AUTHENTICITY OF THE GOSPELS. CHAPTER L STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION RESPECTING ST MATTHEW'S GOSPEL, AND OF THE METHOD IN WHICH THE INQUIRY SHOULD BE CONDUCTED. The Different Opinions stated 319 First Principle of Inquiry stated and illustrated . . . 32S Second Principle of Inquiry stated and illustrated . . . 338 Third Princij^le of Inquiry stated and illustrated . . . 344 Bearing of the Conclusion formerly reached on the Present Question 351 CONTENTS. XV CHAPTER II. INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF THE ORIGINALITY OF ST MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. PAGE Its General Character 357 Mode in which Quotations from the Old Testament are made in it 366 Explanations of Hebrew Words and Phrases which occur in it . 370 Latinistic Forms which often appear in it .... 374 Frequent and Significant Employment of the Imperfect Tense . 377 Occurrence of unusual Greek Expressions which could be ex- pressed in Hebrew only by means of Circumlocution . . 378 CHAPTER III. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE OF THE~ORIGINALITY OF THE EXISTING GREEK GOSPEL Of"sT_;mATTHEW. Unfounded Assertions of the Advocates of the Hebrew Original on this Point 382 Proof of the Divine Authority of the existing Greek Gospel . 386 Proof of its Authorship by St Matthew 387 Manner in which we should deal with the Statements of the Fathers 390 Tlie Greek Gospel of St Matthew, the only one we are sure he ever wrote 393 St John saw and sanctioned the Three Synoptical Gospels . 395 CHAPTER IV. statements of ancient WRITERS IN SUPPORT OF THE HEBREW ORIGINAL OF ST MATTHEW'S GOSPEL, Reference to the Fact already Established . . •. . 399' Nature of the Evidence derived from the Assertions of early Ecclesiastical Writers 402 XVI CONTENTS. PAGE Statement of Papias as to the Original Language of St Matthew's Gospel 404 Testimony of Irenceus 408 Testimony of Pantpenus 411 Testimony of Origen 413 Testimony of Eusebius .... ... 415 Testimony of Jerome 417 Explanation of the Manner in which the Error of Papias pro- bably arose 420 Origin of the Gospel of the Hebrews 422 CHAPTER V. OTHER mrPOTHESES RESPECTING ST MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. Fancied Discoveries of the Hebrew Original of St Matthew's Gospel 425 Cureton's Syriac Gospels 426 Method of Dr Cm-eton's Argument 429 His Syriac Gospel of St Matthew derived from the Greek . 431 Its Unauthorised Additions 432 Its Unauthorised Omissions 434 Mistaken and Inexact Renderings 436 Its Origin 439 Hypothesis of a Twofold Original of St Matthew's Gospel . . 4*1 Destitute of Evidence 442 Opposed to Phenomena existing in the Greek Gospel . . 445 CHAPTER VI. ORIGIN OF THE GOSPELS. I)ifl5culties of the Question 449 Eichhorn's Hypothesis 451 Bishop Marsh's Hypothesis 453 Eichhorn's Amended Hypothesis 455 Hypothesis of this Work 458 Explains the Coincidences 465 Other Suppositious made in order to Accomplish this Object 470 CONTENTS. XVU PAGE Unsatisfactory Character of the Ur-Evangelium Hypothesis . 473 Hypothesis of this Work also explains the Diversities . . 474 Impossibility of doing this on the Theory that the Evangelists copied from each other 475 Defects of the Theories of Norton and Davidson . . . 480 Course followed by Dr Tregelles 483 Only Satisfactory Explanation of all the Phenomena . . 486 CHAPTER VII. AUTHENTICITY AND CREDIBILITY OF THE GOSPELS. M. Kenan's Assault on the Gospels 487 Manner of Meeting this 494 His view of the Language employed by Christ, and of the Original Language of St Matthew's Gospel 497 His account of the Origin of the Gospels ..... 499 His Conclusion respecting St John's Gospel .... 505 True Explanation of Phenomena presented by the Fourth Gospel 509 Fundamental Error of M. Kenan's "Work .... 513 Historical Value of the Gospels 516 CHAPTEK VIIL CONCLUSION — APPLICATIONS AND RESULTS. Consideration of the First Point established . . . . 518 Interest of the Conclusion that Christ made use of the Greek Language 520 Illustrations of its Practical Importance 524 Application of it to the Question concerning the Authorship of the Apocalyi^sc 530 Its Bearing on the Interpretation of the Gospels generally . 534 Consideration of the Second Point established . . . 537 Its bearing on the General Question of Inspiration . . . 640 Its Importance in respect to the existing Gospel of St Matthew . 544 Consideration of the Third Point established .... 648 It removes Difficulties hitherto felt Insuperable . . . 550 It confirms the Divine Authority of the Gospels . . . 551 Preciousncss of the Inspired Word of God .... 5.53 Conclusion ■ • 655 PART L ON THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED BY OUR LORD AND HIS DISCIPLES. ERRATA. Pa-^e i6i, Une ^5, for Peter, read Paul. ° toA ^7 for words, read language. 543 9,' for God-breathing, read God-breathed. 568, „ 46, /<"• attribiite, read attitude CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION — STATEMENT OF THESIS. The object of the First Part of this Treatise is to prove, chiefly from the New Testament itself, that Greek was widely diffused, well understood, and com- monly employed for all public purposes in Palestine, during the period spent on earth by our Lord and His apostles. In maintaining this proposition, I do not mean to deny that the Hebrew language, in the form of Ara- maean, also existed throughout the country, and was, to a considerable extent, made use of among the people. The real state of matters I believe to have been this — that almost all the Jews, both in and beyond Palestine, were then hilingues, that is, they understood Greek, the common language of the civilised world, and their own vernacular dialect, the proper national tongue of the region in which they lived. In this view of the case, the two languages, both commonly made use of by the Jews of Palestine, (though, as we shall see, generally for different purposes), would be the Hebrew, in its modernised and corrupted form, their true ancestral dialect, and the Greek, which had, through the force of circumstances, been introduced * 1 ^ INTRODUCTION. into their country, and flourished side by side with their mother-tongue*. The condition of the Palestinian Jews at the date referred to, when regarded in this light, appears to have been quite analogous to that of some of our Enghsh colonies at the present day. In several of these, we find two or more different lanofuaofes simul- taneously existing, one of which is the language of the conquerors, and the other of which is a form, more or less corrupted, of the ancient vernacular language of the country. '^In Canada," for example, as Latham writes, "the English language first took root after the taking of Quebec in the reign of George the Second. As Canada, however, had been previously a French colony, the European language that was first spoken there was not the English, but the French. Hence, when Quebec was taken, the language of the country fell into two divisions. There were the different dia- lects of the original Indians, and there was the French of the first European colonists. At the present mo- ment both these languages maintain their ground ; so that the English is spoken only partially in Canada, the French and the Indian existing by the side of it. "At the Cape of Good Hope, the EngHsh is spo- ken in a similar manner; that is, it is spoken par- tially. The original inhabitants were the Caffre and Hottentot tribes of Africa, and the earliest European colonists were the Dutch. For these reasons, Dutch and English, conjointly with the Hottentot and Caffrarian dialects, form the language of the Cape of ■ * To prevent misconception, it may be well to observe here, once for all, that by Hebrew is invariably meant, throughout this work, the Aramsean or Syro-Cliaklaic language, except where it is plainly stated \ that the ancient Hebrew is intended. STATEMENT OF THESIS. J Good Hope. In Guiana, too, in South America, English and Dutch are spoken in the neighbourhood of each other, for the same reason as at the Cape*." Or, as perhaps still more accurately and clearly representing the state of things which is conceived to have then existed in Palestine, I may briefly refer to the linguistic peculiarity observable at the present day in the islands of the English Channel. In these islands — Guernsey, for instance — almost all the inhabitants understand and employ English ; but, side by side with that language, there exists a kind of impure or antiquated French, which, being the old Norman tongue partially corrupted, is still largely made use of by the lower orders of the people. An Englishman, mixing only among the educated classes in the island, would perhaps never suspect that any other language than his own was in common use among its popula- tion ; but if he penetrate a mile or two into the in- terior, and accost any of the peasantry in their homes or at their labours, he will soon hear the tones of a foreign tongue, and will find that it is generally pre- ferred, in familiar intercourse, to the language of Eng- land. Hence it comes to pass, that both English and French, the one language, in many instances, greatly influenced by the other, are known by almost all the natives of the island ; and while the educated classes generally make use of the former, the lower orders as generally prefer the latter. Many similar examples might be referred to, of the ancient vernacular language of a country having been overlaid, so to speak, by that of its conquerors. A striking additional illustration is furnished in the fate * Latham on the English Language, Vol. i. p. 376. 1—2 4 IIsTRODrCTION. of the Greek language itself, as employed by the in- habitants of the Ionian Islands. During the supre- macy of the Venetians in these islands, the Italian almost entirely superseded the Greek, as the language of education and general public intercourse. At the same time, Greek continued to hold its place as the mother-tongue of the whole native population, and was commonly employed by them in familiar conver- sation. The ancient vernacular language was never altogether uprooted; but it was, for a lengthened period, entirely deprived of the position which it had formerly occupied, as the medium of polite and public intercourse ; while it speedily, of course, became greatly corrupted, from being left to be principally employed by the uneducated classes among the people*. Now, these two cases, of the Ionian Islands for- merly, and the Channel Islands at the present day, very nearly represent what is here maintained to have been the state of matters in Palestine in the days of Christ. The Greek lano^uaofe I believe to have been almost universally prevalent, and to have been under- stood and employed, more or less, by all classes in the community. But I also believe that the Greek, though thus generally used, w^as attended by the Aramaean, which was frequently spoken by all ranks of the native population ; was made use of by such, at times, on public as well as private occasions; but was, for the most part, employed only in homely and • " The language of the country people in the islands has always been Greek, more or less corrupted. That employed in good society, and in commerce, as well as in legislation and official business, was Italian, till the recent adoption of Greek as the language of the legislature, courtsof law, and all public departments." "Ency. Brit.", 8th ed., Art. Ionian Islands. STATEMENT OF THESIS. O familiar intercourse; and might still be said, though with difficulty, and, amid many exceptions, to main- tain its position as the mother- tongue of the inhabit- ants of the country. It will be observed, then, and I desire it to be specially noticed, that I put in no claim for the Greek, as having been the only language in common use among the Jews in the time of Christ. That claim, though, as we shall immediately see, it has been made, seems to me both paradoxical in itself, and opposed to indubitable facts. But what I maintain, and shall endeavour to prove, is, that, Greek was, in several important respects, the then prevailing lan- guage of Palestine; — that it was, in particular, the language of literature and commerce; the language generally employed in public intercourse; the lan- guage which a religious teacher would have no hesi- tation in selecting and making use of, for the most part, as the vehicle of conveying his instructions, whether orally or in writing; and the language, ac- cordingly, which was thus employed both by our Saviour and His apostles. Some have taken much higher, and others greatly lower ground upon this question. About a century ago, a treatise* was published, at Naples, by Diodati, * The title of the excellent little treatise here referred to is as fol- lows:— "Dominici Diodati J.C.Neapolitaui, de Christo Greece loquente," 8vo, Neapoli, 1767. It had become so rare, that Hug- states he could not procure a copy of it, even at Naples ; but it is now accessible to all scholars in a neat and convenient form, having- been republished in this country some years ago by Dr Dobbin of Trinity College, Dublin. Diodati was a civilian, and not an ecclesiastic, as he is sometimes natu- rally but erroneously called. In the licence to print the work, which is appended to the original edition, the censor having stated that he had found nothing in it " contrary to sound morals, or the Catholic faith/* U 6 INTRODUCTION. in which the learned and ingenious author labours to prove that Greek had, in the days of our Lord, entirely supplanted the old Palestinian dialect, and was, in fact, the only language then generally known among the people. In this particular object, I think, it must be admitted that the author fails. And it is to be regretted that he should have pushed his reason- ings to such an extent; as the fact of his having done so has greatly prejudiced his whole argument. His work excited much attention when it was published; but, from the extreme ground which it assumed, soon gave rise to a powerful reaction in the opposite direc- tion. We shall have occasion to notice afterwards some of the forced, and almost, at times, ridiculous interpretations to which he has recourse, in order to make good his position. But though his conclusions are of much too sweeping and trenchant a character, and though he uses several bad arguments, while he overlooks many more that are good, it will be ad- mitted by every candid reader of his work, that he collects much and varied information bearing upon the general question, and that his discussion of the proceeds as follows : — " Quin gratulanchim huic juveni est, quern licet non sit ex Ecclesiasticorum ordine, cum juris scientia socias fecisse s mctorum voluminum scientiam, atque orientalium linguarum peritiam, atque ad comnmnem Christianorum utilitateni, ac qurestum tot Sfecu- lorum intercapedine ignotam banc sacroe historian potissimam, ac prin- cipem partem saue quam erudito commentario, et evidentissimorum monumentorum ac rationum ope asseruisse, ingentemque nomini suo famam conquisivisse." Other similar laudations follow ; and when the work was published, " it excited," says Dr Dobbin, " the liveliest interest throughout the learned world, and procured for the author enrolment, by acclaim, among the members of several Academies, and other literary institutions. Royalty itself condescended to express its approbation of the genius and ability of Diodati, and Catherine II. of Russia forwarded to Naples tokens of her imperial regard." STATEMENT OF THESIS. 7 subject is conducted throughout with a lucidity of statement and a liveliness of style, which render it extremely interesting and attractive. On the other side, it has been maintained that the Greek language was scarcely used at all, in ordinary intercourse, by the Jews of our Saviour's day ; and that, accordingly, Aramaic was the language which He generally or exclusively employed. Among the supporters of this view, Dr Pfannkuche may perhaps be referred to as chief This writer had never him- self seen the work of Diodati ; but his treatise may nevertheless be regarded as a formal reply to that of the Neapolitan scholar, inasmuch as he made use of the previous reply of De Kossi, which had been pub- lished at Parma in 1772. Respecting De Possi, the learned Professor Hug observes that he " sometimes confounds different periods, often uses poor weapons, but is a stout combatant ;" and in all these respects he found in Dr Pfannkuche a not unworthy successor. There is, as every reader must feel, a most irritating want of method, clearness, and logical coherence, in the work of the learned German. In these particu- lars, no less than in his special object, his treatise is the very antithesis of Diodati's; and were the ques- tion in debate to be settled by an appeal to the lite- rary ability displayed by the respective champions, there could be little doubt in whose favour judgment would instantly be pronounced*. • The work of Pfannkuche was translated and pubKshed in this country in Vol. ii. of Clark's Cabinet Library. We shall liave occasion in the sequel to advert to some of the halting conclusions of this writer ; meanwhile, in illustration of what is said above, I may simply refer to page 15 of the translation, where we find the translator naively remark- 8 l^'TRODUCTION. Another extreme opinion on the point in question is, that neither Greek nor Hebrew, but Latin, was the language generally prevalent in Palestine in the days of Christ, and the language therefore in which, with few exceptions, the books of the New Testament were originally composed. This hypothesis was first formally advanced by the Jesuit priest, Hardouin, in his Commentary on the New Testament, published in 1 74 1*. It has been adopted by a few Koman Catho- lic writers t, but manifestly more in the interest of party than of truth. The object, of course, which such a theory tends directly to serve, is to exalt the Yulgate to a superiority over the canonical Greek Gospels, as containing the ipsissima verba of our Lord and His apostles. But it is too palpably absurd to be accepted by almost any except those whose minds are completely under the influence of prejudice. It did, however, to a considerable extent, find an acute and learned supporter in the author of " Palceoro- lug on a statement in the original, " It was not good in Dr Pf. to keep for himself the more decisice proofs I" * The ground assumed by Hardouin will be plain from "a single sen- tence. Speaking of the writers of the New Testament, he says, "Arbi- tramur euim scripsisse Latine qufecunque scripserunt ; nonuulla etiam Gr^ce fortassis : Ebraice etiam Apocalypsim fuisse scriptam, non Latine tantum." The views of Hardouin were fully refuted by Lamiiis in his very curious work, "De Eruditione Apostolorum," &c. pp. 1072 — 1135. t The chief of these is Molckenhuhr, who thinks that, on every ground, there is reason to believe that the Xew Testament was written, not in Greek, but in Latin. He says, (p. 46,) " Die Sache bios a priori betrachtet, ist es wahrscheinlicher, dass, wie Harduin meynet, das Xeue Testament urspriinglich nicht in griechischen, sondern in lateinischer Sprache geschrieben sei. A jJosteriori aber ; was wirklich geschehen ist, kommt es auf Uusserliche Zeugnisse, und innerliche Keuntzeichen an." He was conclusively answered by B interim, another Roman Ca- tholic priest, in a work entitled, " De Lingua Originali Novi Testamenti uou Latina," &c. STATEMENT OF THESIS. 9 maica," a work published anonymously in London in 1822. This volume, though now almost forgotten, excited not a little attention at the time of its appear- ance. Some of the best scholars in the Church of England entered the lists against the accomplished author, while he, for his part, shewed no want of spirit in defending the views which he had so unex- pectedly propounded. It is needless to add to whose side victory inclined. The theory of Black (for such was the author's name) was, indeed, what Johnson might have called mere "unresisting imbecility," and was sufficiently refuted in its announcement ; but the work itself, though wedded to this untenable hypo- thesis, is nevertheless full of learning, both biblical and classical, and may, on this account, still be read with pleasure and instruction*. In entering on the proof of that position which it is the object of this work to establish, I am deeply sen- sible of the o^Dposition to be encountered on the part of many eminent biblical scholars. As Vossius long ago remarked, " It has come, in some way or other, to be an accepted opinion among the learned, that our Lord and His apostles employed not the" Greek, but * The title of this curious work is as follows : — " Palssoromaica, or Historical and Pliilological Disquisitions, inquiring whether the Hellen- istic Style is not Latinistic ] Whether the many new words in the Elze- vir Greek Testament are not formed fi-om the Latin ? And, Whether the hypothesis that the Greek text of many MSS. of the New Testament is a translation or retranslation from the Latin, seems not to elucidate numerous passages ; to account for the diflferent recensions ; and to explain many phenomena hitherto inexplicable to Biblical Critics ?" London, Murray, 1822. Among those who published answers to the work are to be found the names of Maltby (afterwards Bishop of Dur- ham), Bishop Burgess, Dr Falconer, and, above all, Mr Broughton in his work styled, " An Examination of the Hypothesis advanced in a recent publication, entitled Palseoromaica." London, 1823. 10 INTRODUCTION. the Hebrew language*." This assumption (for I hold it nothing more) meets us everywhere throughout our * " Verura nescio qua ratione factum sit ut hoc nostro sseculo pleri- que fere docti Cliristura et Apostolos Hebraice semper locutos fuisse, existiment, non autem Greece NuUis profecto vel argumeiitis vel testimoniis nititur hsec opinio." — Is. Vossius, " De Sybillinis Oraculis," cap. xvi. If this was the prevailing opinion in the days of Vossius, it is certainly not less so in our own. To indicate this, and shew how opinion now stands among scholars in regard to the point in question, I may give the following extracts : — The learned and candid Dean Milman expresses himself thus in his " Bampton Lectures " for 1827 : " The general prevalence of the Greek language in Palestine, after the closest investigation I have been able to institute, appears to me to have been asserted in direct opposition to all authorities, and upon no grounds whatever, except an inference from its gradual extension in other countries. It is now almost universally allowed, that our Lord and his Apostles usually spoke the vernacular language of Palestine, a Syro-Chaldaic, or as it is sometimes called an Aramaic dialect," &c. He also quotes with approval from Reiske, ("Diss. Phil, de Ling. Vern. J. C.") the following sentences : — " Quam linguam Jesu Christo, nostro Servatori optimo, tandem vernaculam attribuemus 1 Hie vero ancipiti dubitatione nulla distrahemur, neque anxio conatu occupabimur circa illud, quod citra laborem doceri posse dudum Erpe- nius judicavit, sed Chaldseo-Syriacam Servatori nostro benignissimo asseremus, quam historia, usus, et communis doctorum opinio hue usque ilU adseruerunt. Nostra equidem charta non patietur, ut in testimoniis theologorum et philologorum evagemur ; verum tamen intrepidi illud affirmamus, eruditissimos quosque viros in eandem sententiam conces- sisse." Pp. 182—4. Dr Thiersch', having occasion to refer to a statement of Weisse, that St Mark has preserved some Greek words as they were really uttered by our Lord, speaks of this idea as being " im Widerspruch mit der jetzt mit Recht herrschenden Ansicht, dass Christus gewohnlich in der Land- essprache redete." — " Versuch zur Herstellung," &c., p. 68. Dr Fairhairn says, — " As regards the question, whether our Lord and his immediate disciples ever spoke in Greek to their countrymen in Judea, it may be admitted as perfectly possible, perhaps even probable, that they sometimes did so, — but the reverse of probable, that such should have been their usual practice, or that their jmblic addresses should have been originally delivered in that tongue ; the more so as their intercourse for the most part lay, not with the more refined and educated, but with the humbler classes of society." " Hermeneutical Manual," p. 10. Mr Westcotl, in his elaborate Art. on the New Testament in Smith's STATEMENT OF THESIS. 11 biblical literature. It is found in all commentaries on the New Testament, whether popular or critical, and is for the most part referred to by writers of all sorts, as if it were an unquestionable fact. So firmly imbedded is this notion in the minds of many, that they seem to claim for it all the respect due to a primary truth — will not so much as listen to any arguments which tend to contradict it, and have nothing but ridicule for those who venture to propound them. Their minds are made up on the subject; they wonder that any one possessed of " common sense " should ever stir the question, which has, in their opinion, been so conclu- sively settled; and, with a scoff or sneer, which takes no account of reason, they dismiss all that may be adduced in favour of the opposite conclusion. I need hardly say that it is only a deep conviction of the soundness of those views which are set forth in this work, and of their extreme importance in regard to some biblical questions, that could have induced me, in such circumstances, to venture on their pub- lication. I have often been tempted to acquiesce quietly in the prevailing opinion. The fact that such eminent scholars as Ewald and Benan, not to men- " Dictionary of the Bible," expresses himself as follows : — " The position of Palestine (in respect to language) was peculiar. The Aramaic, which was the national dialect after the Return, existed side by side with the Greek. Both languages seem to have been generally understood, though, if we may judge from other iutances of bilingual countries, the Aramaic would be the chosen language for the common intercourse of Jews (2 Mace. vii. 8, 21, 27). It was in this language, we may believe, that our Lord was accustomed to teach the people ; and it appears that He used the same in the more private acts of His life (Mark iii. 17, v. 41, vii. 34 ; Matt, xxvii. 46 ; John i. 43 ; cf. John xx. 16)." I give these extracts simply as specimens : similar passages might be quoted almost ad infinitum. 1 2 INTRODUCTION. tion here many others, both at home and abroad, have expressed themselves so confidently in favour of the idea that our Lord and His disciples generally made use of Hebrew*, has often presented itself with almost overwhelming force to my mind. I have felt as if, after all, I must be mistaken. Bat if so, I can only say that, the more I have examined the subject, the more has my confidence in the views propounded in this work increased. And I have a humble hope that, however much opposed to reigning opinions these views may be felt to be, they will not be re- garded by biblical scholars as the offspring of mere folly or presumption, but will be taken for what they are worth, as the earnest, though most imperfect, fruit of some study on the part of one whose highest ambition it is to promote, in however small a degree, the interests of sacred truth. It may be observed, however, that, of late years, there has been some tendency shewn among scholars to reconsider this question, and, more or less, to accept what I believe to be the truth regarding it. Most of our leading critics, native and foreign, now acknow- ledge that the Greek language was far more gene- * EicalcVs language on the point in question is very strong. Refer- ring to our Lord, he says : " Es ist an sich einleuchtend dass nur die allgemein verstandliche Landessprache seinem Zwecke dienen konnte ; und eine andre noch neben ihr zu gebrauchen lag fiir ihn keinerlei Ve- ranlassung vor, noch finden wir davon dass er noch eine andre namlich die griechische irgendwo gebraucht habe die geringste Spur."— " Jahr- bucher der Biblischen Wissenschaft," ii. 185, Renan simply says : — " Nous pensons que le Syro-Chaklaique etait la langue la plus repandue en Judee, et que le Christ ne dut pas en avoir d' autre dans ses entre- tiens populaires." — " Histoire des Langues Semitiques," p. 22.3, 2nd ed. See, for a criticism of M. Kenan's views as set forth in his " Vie de Jesus," Part II. Chap. vii. of this work. STATEMENT OF THESIS. 13 rally used in Palestine, in our Lord's time, than the school of De Rossi or Dr Pfannkuche imagined. Among English scholars, for example. Dean Alford often expresses himself to the effect that "Greek was commonly spoken in Palestine," though, as we shall afterwards see, he falls into several difficulties, from the limitations which he thinks it necessary to append to this statement. And among foreign critics, Winer (while agreeing with almost all critics that our Lord spoke in Syro-chaldaic) admits, in his ^' Peal-Worterbuch," that '' the Jews, ever since the epoch of the Seleucidae, were, to a great extent, ac- quainted with the Greek language*;" and refers, in his '' Grammar of the New Testament Idiom," to the sacred writers, as " persons who, though not pos- sessing any scholastic acquaintance with literature, nevertheless heard Greek continually spoken by those around them, and very often themselves correctly em- ployed that language t." Yet, even among those who advance farthest in this direction, there still appears a backwardness to trust only io facts for the ultimate conclusion to be held on this subject. They seem to be unduly influenced by various d priori considera- tions. Admitting that, ''for literary purposes, Greek was, undoubtedly, the prevailing language in Pales- tine," they yet refuse to occupy the ground assumed in this work, as to its habitual employment by our Lord and His disciples. "It can hardly be main- * " Gewiss ist dass die Juden, seit der Seleucidischen Periode, zum grossen Theil griechisch verstanden."- Winer, "R.W.B.," Art. Spiache. t "Marnier, welche zwar kein wisseuschaftliches Sprachstudium trieben, aber das griechische bestandig sprechen horten, und selir oft, ja regelmassig selbst sprachen." — Winer, "Gram, des Neut. Sprach." p. 33. 14 INTRODUCTION. tained," they remark, "that never, in the course of His ministry, did Jesus address the common people in the vernacular, as when He went through the vil- lages teaching, or when He entered into the syna- gogue, and read and expounded Isa. Ixi. i, (Luke iv. 17). Nor can it be supposed, whatever extension and prevalence of the Greek language in Palestine may be conceded, that all words of other interlocutors which are given in Greek in the Gospels, were uttered in Greek, — such as addresses from poor lepers, excla- mations from the populace, and the like*." I quote these sentences because they probably put the case against us as strongly as it admits of, and because I am anxious at once to deal with the difficulty which they suggest. That difficulty, or apparent difficulty, I do not mean to deny or depre- ciate. There certainly does seem to us, standing on a priori ground, a great antecedent improbability against the proposition that it was the Greek lan- guage which our Lord and those about Him almost continually employed. A strong tendency is at once felt to pronounce such a thing impossible. We can hardly conceive that a language, which it is almost the highest triumph of scholarship to master at the present day, could, even in its simplest form, have been familiarly employed by the humblest of the peo- ple in Palestine. And we have been so much accus- tomed to think of the Hebrew language in connexion with the Jews, and to consider the employment of Greek as the very badge of Gentilism, that it is per- haps with a kind of reluctance we conceive of our * "Westminster Review," July, 1859, p. 255, in a very fair and able notice of the author's former work. STATEMENT OF THESIS. 15 Lord and His immediate followers as using any- other than the ancient, distinctive language of the country. But what then ? Shall we yield so far to the influence of these feelings as to refuse to consider such facts as seem to oppose them? Shall our views of the likely or the unlikely hinder us from doing- homage to the positive and the actual? If it can be proved (as I maintain it can) that for several" genera- tions before Christ, Greek had been generally used throughout Syria and the neighbouring regions, and that in the days of our Lord especially, it was every- where current in Palestine, shall we allow any sup- posed improbabilities, however strong, to debar us from the conclusion to which these considerations lead? If we adopt such a principle in dealing with the past, we shall speedily make wild work among the facts of history. It may, for instance, be felt not a little difficult at times to believe, that the Choruses of ^schylus, or the Orations of Demosthenes, which require so much study from us that we may thoroughly understand them, were prepared for the populace of Athens; but the fact is nevertheless too certain to be disputed*. And in like manner, I beg to appeal from fancies to facts in regard to the point in question. In the phraseology of Bacon, here strictly applicable, I claim to be allowed a free in- * " The tragic writer was preacher, essapst, and lecturer, as well as poet ; a fact not to be doubted when we consider how familiar to the multitude those wi-itings must have been, when a casual quotation by a comic author, or even an indirect allusion by a rival poet, could find an immediate response in the vast assem1>ly of the Athenian theatre." — Paley's Msdiylus, 1S61, p. xxvi. To those who have puzzled over the obscurities of iEschylus, the fact of such familiarity with his verses might seem d, 2^>'iori not a little questionable. 16 INTRODUCTION. terrogatio Scripturce on the subject, and not to be deprived of this by that anticij^atio Scripturw which pronounces that certain things cannot be supposed or beUeved. I do not undertake to prove that our Lord and His followers never made use of the Hebrew language. That would be a rash, and, I think, un- tenable assertion. But what I maintain, and mean to prove, is, that Greek was the language which they habitually used in their public addresses; so that if any one affirms that Hebrew was used on some occa- sions, when their discourses have been reported in Greek, it remains with him to shew it. I may be inclined to believe that some such occasions are pos- sibly to be met with in the Gospel history; but at any rate I affirm that these were altogether excep- tional, and that Greek was the language usually employed in addressing even the very humblest of the people. The position which I uphold is thus the exact converse of that usually maintained upon the subject. While it is now generally said that our Lord spoke for the most part in Hebrew, and only sometimes in Greek, what 1 venture to maintain is, that LIe spoke for the most part in Greek, and ONLY NOW AND THEN IN Hebrew. And all I ask is to be allowed a fair trial. If I fail to adduce sufficient proof that Greek was the tongue thus spoken by our Lord and His disciples, then let judgment be given accordingly ; but if I do succeed in producing such evidence, let not its force be blunted, and the cause of truth injured, by any a priori considerations. And here I may observe that while the induc- tive method of argument is to be rigidly followed throughout this work, a very different course has STATEMENT OF THESIS. 17 been adopted by those on the opposite side. I pro- pose in the sequel to lead the reader from facts to conclusions; but the writers referred to have rather been in the habit of simply regarding certain facts as illustrative of the conclusion already formed. Our Lord, for example, is represented by the evangelists as making use of the Aramaic language on some few occasions. Now, it is manifest that, on an inductive process of reasoning, these form no sufficient basis for tlie conclusion that He always or generally em- ployed that language. But the supposition is first made that He did continually make use of that form of speech, and then these rare instances of its em- ployment are referred to as examples of the practice which has already been assumed as habitual; or again, some abstract principle, such as the ineradi- cable character of national speech, is adopted as a universal truth, and then it is reasoned deductively from that principle, as to the general employment of Hebrew by our Lord and His apostles. But in the following pages we are to follow an entirely different process. We shall assume nothing, except that the works are genuine which form the sources to which an appeal must be made on this question. We are to look simply and exclusively at facts ; and it will be evident, I trust, to every reader, that this is done in a spirit of fairness, and with a sincere and honest desire to reach and vindicate the truth. ^ In order still more completely to open up the way for an impartial dealing with the facts which are to be brought forward, let me here direct the reader's attention to a case, in which the same antecedent im- probability might seem to have existed to the use of 2 18 INTRODUCTION. Greek as to its employment by even " poor lepers " in Palestine, and we shall see how necessary it is to lay aside all prepossession in dealing with such a ques- tion. The case referred to is set before us in the four- teenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. In that chapter (ver. 8 — 18) we have an account of what occurred while Paul and Barnabas were in Lystra, a city of Lycaonia. We read first of Paul's speaking to the people at large, and then, successively, of his addressinof a lame man who attracted his attention in the crowd, of the cure which was accomplished by his words, of the excitement which this miracle gave rise to among the men of the city, of the attempt which was accordingly made to offer divine honours to the apostles, and of the address, dissuading from this purpose, which was delivered to the assembled multi- tude. Now, the state of matters plainly indicated in this narrative, with respect to the languages then employed in Lycaonia, forms an exact parallel to what I believe to have been the linguistic condition of Palestine in the time of Christ. There cannot be the slightest doubt tliat the apostles then spoke only in Greek* ; and in doing so, they were perfectly well * Like many other obvious facts which happen to clash with a favourite hypothesis, this has indeed been doubted or denied. See e.g. the recent learned Commentaries of Canon Wordsworth and the Rev. F. C. Cook on the Acts of the Apostles, in both of which we find state- ments to the effect that the apostles understood and employed the Lycaonian tongue. This supposition is in the very teeth of the inspired narrative, and, as has been often observed, leaves the conduct of Paul and Barnabas at this time absolutely without explanation. The almost universal opinion of biblical scholars, both at home and abroad, is ex- pressed by Prof. Hackett when he says, that the apostles, " in confer- ring with the people, had used, doubtless, the Greek ;" and when he also remarks, " Luke mentions that the Lystrians spoke in their native STATEMENT OF THESIS. 19 understood by the inliabitants of Lystra. The poor cripple, even, who probably owed as little to what is technically known as education as did poor lepers in Palestine, was quite able to follow Paul speaking in Greek; and having ''faith to be healed," he was singled out from the rest of the crowd, and indi- vidually addressed by the apostle in these very words, 'AvaarriOieTvlTovfi Trooas gov 6f}0c<;, — WOrds which were at once apprehended by his understanding, and which, at the same time, producing tlieir proper effect upon his heart, were made the means of conveying to ♦him a faculty which he had not before possessed. Upon this, a thrill of astonishment and awe passed through the multitude. They imagined themselves in the presence of some superior beings ; and, excited by this thought, they fell back, as was most natural in such circumstances, on the use of their native dialect, and exclaimed in the language of Lycaonia, "The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men!" Under this impression, they proceeded to prepare sacrifices with which to do honour to their celestial visitants; and Paul and Barnabas, appa- rently not comprehending their purpose, did not, for a time, interpose to prevent them. But as soon as they learned what was really proposed, they hastened to put a stop to the impious attempt, one or both im- mediately addressing the promiscuous assemblage in words of great eloquence and power, and that evi- dently in the Greek language. Here, then, we have a case in which two distinct tongue, that we may know why the multitude proceeded so far in their design before Paul and Barnabas interposod to arrest it." — HacketVs " Comni. on the Acts," in loc. 2—2 20 INTRODUCTION. languages or dialects were in common and familiar use among the people. There was the old, vernacular tongue of Lycaonia, (whatever that may have been,) endeared by many tender and venerable associations to the inhabitants of the country. There was also the Greek, known, as is manifest, to all ranks among the population, regularly employed as the vehicle of public instruction or address, and habitually made use of in the market-place or popular assembly, as it was so readily and successfully by the apostles on this occasion. Now, for Lystra read Jerusalem, and the above incident sets forth exactly what I undertake to prove as to the relation subsisting between the two lan- pfuaofes of Palestine in the time of Christ. It is not meant to be denied, that, as a matter of feeling, the ancient, vernacular language of the country may have possessed some peculiar charms to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, as the old speech of Lycaonia manifestly did to the inhabitants of Lystra. But it is meant to be affirmed, that, as a matter oi fact, in the one case as in the other, Greek was the ordinary language of public intercourse and instruction. There may have been occasions of great excitement (as we shall after- wards see) on which the Jews, like the Lycaonians, would prefer the accents of their ancestral tongue; but these very occasions, from their exceptional cha- racter, tend to confirm the truth of that proposition which it is the object of this work to establish. Not a little has been accomplished by previous in- vestigators with respect to what may be called the external or historical part of the argument; so that, to a considerable extent, we shall merely require, in STATEMENT OF THESIS. 21 this department, to gather together the proofs which have ah-eady been indicated or adduced. In addition to Diodati, in the work formerly described, Professor Hug*, in particular, has laboured very assiduously in this portion of the field, and has accumulated much valuable information on the point at issue. But both Diodati and Hug, as well as all the other writers on this question with whom I am acquainted, have left one important branch of the evidence almost entirely untouched. They are very painstaking and success- ful in collecting historical proofs from other ancient writings and monuments, as to the prevalence of Greek in Palestine at the commencement of our era ; but their references to the proof of this fact, which is contained in the books of the New Testament itself, are meagre and insufficient. There seems, indeed, to be what I cannot but humbly reckon a mischievous fallacy existing in the minds of not a few scholars in regard to this subject. They speak of the position sought to be established in this work, as being " per- fectly untenable in face of the mass of evidence to the contrary with which Oriental scholars are familiar f." Now, I can truly declare that I have anxiously in- vestigated every item of this evidence of which I could discover the slightest trace. Not the least part of it has been willingly left out of account in forming the conclusion which is set forth in this work. But I confess I have found no great "mass of evidence," apart from the New Testament itself, bearing upon * See his " Introduction to the New Testament," Part ii. § 10. + I quote these words from a review of my former work, which ap- peared in the "Athenaeum " of June 16, 1860, and in which it was spoken of in quite as kind terms as it deserved. I only wish that the writer had specified some of that " mass of evidence " to Avhich he referred. 22 INTRODUCTION. the question. All the sources of information with which I am acquainted may be classed under the fol- lowing heads : — I. Works generally allowed to precede the birth of Christ, or to belong to the first century of our era — viz., the Septuagint translation and the Apo- cryphal books of the Old Testament; the canonical writings of the New Testament, consisting of the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the fourteen Epi- stles of St Paul, the two Epistles of St Peter, the three Epistles of St John, the Epistle of St James, the Epistle of St Jude, and the Apocalypse of St John; the writings of Philo and Josephus; and, per- haps, the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. II. Works referred to an early period in our era, but the exact date of which is doubtful — viz. the most ancient Targums ; the Mischna (in its sub- stance) ; the Syriac Peschito version ; some of the later Apocryphal books. III. Statements to be found in some of the classical and patristic writers bearing on the point in question. IV. Numismatic evidence, and inscriptions to be met with on ruins existing throughout Syria and Palestine. Such is the whole amount of evidence of which I have been able to learn anything in connexion with this subject. It will all be found referred to, as occa- sion offers, in the following pages ; and a glance at it is sufficient to shew that the New Testament itself contains by far its largest and most valuable portion. And here I cannot but remark how important it is in dealing with this, and many other biblical ques- STATEMENT OF THESIS. 23 tions, ourselves to approach to those integri fontes, from which flows almost all that is really of import- ance in determining our judgment. There is great danger, lest the amiable, but perhaps somewhat indo- lent, habit of acquiescing in the opinions of ancient fathers, or venerated reformers, or illustrious scholars, should prevent us from looking with our own eyes at the true and primal source of almost all that can with certainty be known, respecting either our faith itself or the circumstances amid which it was ushered into the world. It does not fall within our present pur- pose to illustrate how much detriment has in this way been entailed on the cause of divine truth, and how errors of various kinds, which might have been corrected by a simple, unprejudiced reference to the New Testament, have been propagated from age to age in the Church. I shall merely remark on this point, that it certainly requires no very lengthened experience in critical pursuits, to render the student suspicious of the validity of some of those traditional explanations of difficult passages, which he finds re- peated by one commentator after another. If he traces the history of such explanations, he will pro- bably find that some writer, centuries ago, hazarded a conjecture as to the meaning of the dark or am- biguous phrase in question — that this opinion was then adopted by another, as if it had noiu some really substantial ground to stand upon — and that thus coming down to us from a venerable antiquity, it seems to demand acceptance as a matter of right at the present day, whereas, in truth, the person who first offered the conjecture had nothing more to guide him than we still possess in the original text. Let * 2 4 24 INTRODUCTION. US, then, in the question which we are about to inves- tigate, look, for ourselves, at the evidence of Scrip- ture. Eusebius may tell us again and again, that the apostles understood no language except Syriac* ; but let not that deter us from w^eighing impartially the evidence which may be adduced to shew that they both understood and employed Greek. The Rabbin- ical writers may, according to their fancy, at one time inform us that the Jews of Palestine desjnsed those who employed the Greek language; and may, at another time, go so far as even to ascribe divine inspiration to the Septuagint version of the Scrip- turest; but let neither the one statement nor the other divert us from the track by which alone there is any likelihood that truth and certainty will be reached in the matter. To the New Testament itself, above all else, we make our appeal ; for, in the writ- ings which it contains, we find by far the largest and most reliable portion of that evidence which is avail- able to settle the question about to be considered. It can hardly be doubted that this would have been generally, perceived and acted upon, had the books which constitute the New Testament happened to be the productions of secular, instead of sacred, writers. * Euseb. " Dem. Evang." lib. iii. In one passage of this book, Eu- sebius Sl^eaks of the apostles as r^y 'Evpcop ov irkeov eiralovris (fxovris. And in another passage, he represents the apostles as (but for the promise of Divine assistance) being in circumstances to reply to their Lord's command to " go and teach all nations," in such M^ords as these : TTOia 8e xpr](r6ixe6a Xe'^ei irpos "YXkrivas, avhpes rf) '2vp(iiv evrpacfievres p-ovrj >iXwv TrXaTcou'i^ei, — Photius, "Bib. Grsec." p. 151.) This author was born about the year 20 e.g., and with all his learning, and zeal for the institutions of his country, seems to have been almost entirely ignorant of the Hebrew lansfuao^e. His works bear conclusive evidence of this, and shew very strikingly how completely Hel- lenised the Jews of Egypt had become ; while, if we remember how closely connected these still remained with their native country, we are also led inferentially to the conclusion, so abundantly substantiated on other grounds, that the Greek language must then have been well known in Palestine.* "The Jews," he says, refemng to the early Rabbis, "do well near ac- *■ knowledge the Greek for thoh- mother-tongue even in Judtea." — Llght- foofs Works, by Pitman, vol. xi. 25. * Comp. Renan, " Histoire des Langues Seaiitiques," p. 158, first edit., or p. 166, second edit. Dr Pfonnkuche asserts, (p. 83 of the English translation,) that Philo was familiar with Aramaic; also, (p. 14,) that the Egyi^tian Jews contemporary with Josephus spoke that language; and still further, (p. 39.) that the Alexandrine version was made, not from the Hebrew original, but from very ancient Targums ! Well might an eminent German scholar recently remark, " Bci De Rossi wie bei Pfann- PUEVALENCE OF GREEK IX TALESTINE. 51 If Philo has been compared to Plato, Josephus has been styled the Jewish Livy. His works are written with great care, on the model of the classical authors, and are extremely valuable in all that relates to the elucidation of the history and antiquities of his country. They furnish many important contribu- tions to our argument. Several passages have al- ready been incidentally referred to, and more will afterwards be quoted ; but we must here notice some- what more particularly the direct evidence in favour of our proposition which may be derived from the writings of the great Jev/ish historian. Josephus, as a man of eminent learning, was un- doubtedly far better acquainted with the ancient Hebrew than were the great majority of his country- men. In a well-known passage ("Antiq." xx. ii. 2) he expressly claims this superiority, and speaks of it as a thing which was freely conceded by his con- temporaries. " Those of my own nation," he says, " willingly acknowledge that I far exceed them in the learning belonging to the Jews." Yet, with all this, it is certain that his knowledge of the Hebrew tongue was by no means profound or accurate*. And it is also certain that, in his references to the Old Testa- ment, he makes more habitual use of the Alexandrine version than of the original textf- These facts shew kuche, findcn sicli manchc unriclitige mid iibertricbene Bchauptungen, was das Verlialtuiss des Aramaisclien zuin Griecliischeu betrifft." — Bleek, " Eiul. iu das Alt. Test." p. 51. Berlin, 1860. * Referring to the ignorance of ancient Hebrew which is betrayed by both riiilo and Josephus, Renan remarks, " Les explications qn'ils donnaicnt de certains mots hebreiix depassent les plus etranges hallu- cinations des ancicns en fait d e'tymologie." — " Histoire des Langues Semitiqucs," ut sup. t Fritzsche observes on this point, " Joseph, ist mchr von der LXX. 4—2 A 52 HISTORICAL PROOFS OF THE how dependent the Jews of our Saviour's time were upon the Greek translation of the LXX., and how general its use was even among those who were to some extent acquainted with the tongue in which the sacred Scriptures were originally composed. We find Josephus referring to many places in Judsea which bore Greek names, or both Greek and Hebrew — a thing to be expected, if the relation between the two languages was such as is here sup- posed. Thus, in reference to the Holy city itself, he mentions many such names as the following as be- longing to places within it, — rvfaiKcloi irvpyoi ("Wars," V. 2. 2), Ko\ufJil3rj0pa "Ocpewu (lb. V. 3. 2), 'iTnrLKo'i'ind facie evidence — that which results from a comprehensive survey of the New Testament from a purely literary point of view GENERAL PROOFS, ETC. 69 — is undeniably in favour of our proposition. For, let the simple facts of the case be considered. Here we possess, in the volume known as the New Testament, a collection of writings, composed for the most part hy Jews of Palestine, and primarily intended to some extent for Jews of Palestine, and all of them written (if only we leave out of sight, in the meantime, the disputed original of St Matthew's Gospel) in the Greek lano-uao-e*. Now what is the natural infer- ence? Is it not that Greek must have been well known both to the writers and their readers, and that it was deemed the most fitting language, at the time, in which for Jews of Palestine both to impart and receive instruction? Such at least is the conclusion which w^ould instantly be reached from the exist- ence of similar facts in any other case. When we find that an ancient writer addressed his countrymen at large in a particular language, we naturally infer that both he and they were familiar with that language ; and that it was chosen by him as the most suitable vehicle for conveying to them what he desired to communicate. And why should we not draw the same inference with respect to the writers and readers of the books * This statement as to the original language of the various books of the New Testament will scai'cely, at the present day, be disputed. The attempts made by Hardouin to shew that Latin was the original language of several books, — by Bertholdt, to prove that some were composed in Syro-Chaldaic, — and by Michaelis, to establish the Hebrew original of at least the Epistle to the Hebrews — are now iniiversally admitted to have been failures ; and the Greek original of the whole New Testament (excepting only St Matthew's Gospel) is as universally acknowledged. Comp. Crediwr, "Gesch. des N. T. Kanon," pp. 137-S ; and Maltby's Sermon, entitled " The Original Greek of the New Testa- ment Asserted and Vindicated," London, 1825. 70 GENERAL PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT of the New Testament ? When we find the Galilean Peter taking up his pen and writing in Greek, why should we not suppose that Greek was quite familiar to the inhabitants of Galilee? And when we find the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews writing to the Jews of Palestine^ in Greek, how can we escape from the conclusion that they generally understood that language? It is the weakest of all arguments to attempt to set aside this inference, by replying that the Epistle in question was intended for the benefit of the whole Christian world, and was on that account written in Greek, and not in the ordi- nary language of those to whom it was primarily addressed. AVe may willingly admit the universal, as well as particular, design of the Epistle ; we may gratefully acknowledge that it is fraught with most valuable lessons for Christians in our own and in every age, no less than for the Christians of Pales- tine in the early days of the Church. But still, we cannot forget that it was to the Palestinian believers of those days it was specially inscribed ; that it was for their benefit, in particular, it was ostensibly WTitten; and, keeping these facts in view, we can- not suppose that, however wide the field which its divinely-insi^ired contents might afterwards enrich, or however lasting might prove its value to the whole Christian Church, it was originally composed in a language with which its first readers were not well acquainted, and that thus their interests, while professedly sought, were in reality cruelly and mock- ingly disregarded, for the sake of others. ■^ This point is taken for granted in the meantime ; it ^vill be found fully discussed afterwards, in Chapter vi. of this Part. OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 71 Two questions, then, instantly arise on the point under consideration, as soon as we give even the most cursory glance at the contents of the New Testa- ment; and which seem to admit of only one answer. The first question is — How could Palestinian Jews, like Peter, James, and John, — " unlettered and igno- rant men," as they were styled by their own country- men— men certainly possessed of no advantages, either of rank or education, above the respectable labouring classes in Judsea, — have turitten in Greek, unless that were the lanofuas^e which men even in the humblest station naturally employed? And the second question is — How could it have been supposed by these writers, that they would be understood by their countrymen in and beyond Palestine, while they wrote in Greek, unless it had been assumed that that was a language with which all Jews w^ere then more or less familiar ? There is only one mode of escaping from the con- clusion which follows from the first of these ques- tions, and it has been had recourse to by some of the very strenuous upholders of the prevalence of Hebrew at this time in Palestine. It is implied in the followinof 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 was 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, yet by the gift of * Gresicell, "Harmony of the Gospels," i. p. 14L Y 7 '2 GENERAL PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT tongues, tbey were supernaturally endowed with a knowledge of that language. And such a supposi- tion is clearly necessary on the part of many more writers than seem inclined openly to adopt it. It furnishes the only possible mode of explaining the undoubted fact, that the primitive disciples of Jesus did possess such a knowledge of Greek as enabled them readily to speak and to write in it, unless the opinion advocated in this work as the correct one — that they spoke and wrote that language naturally — be fully accepted*. But Mdiile the hypothesis of Greswell and others, as to the supernatural imparta- tion of a knowledge of Greek to the apostles, cer- tainly removes one class of difficulties, not otherwise, on their ground, to be evaded, it appears to me to entail on its advocates another class of difficulties not less manifest or formidable. I cannot but ag-ree with those critics, who deem the supposition in ques- tion equally opposed to reason, ancient testimony, and Scripture. The idea that the apostles were taught Greek by the immediate interposition of Hea- ven— seems repugnant to the constitution and work- ing of the human mind, and to all that is told us in, or may be inferred from the Bible, as to the manner * Beza, in his " Dissertatio de dono Lingiiarum," says, in reply to Erasmus, (who projierly held that the gift of tongues did not imply a supernatural communication of Greek to the apostles, though erring in his view of the miracle of Pentecost,) " Quid ergo ? A quo pi"a?ceptore Gr£3ecam linguam illi didicerunt 1 ' Xil niiruni,' inquit, ' Apostolos citra miraculum Greece novisse, cum ^Egyptus ac Syria totaque Cilicia vulgo Greece loqueretur.' Id vero Erasmus pruhet, Judiieis Groecum idioma tarn fuisse familiare ut idiotis ac piscatoribus notum esse poiuerit." — Honerfs " Syntagma Dissertationum de Stylo Nov. Test. Grreco ;" or, see Beza on Acts x. 46. The alternative, thus suggested, exactly brings out the real requirements of the case. OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. iS in which the Spirit of God operates upon it. He who has made us as we are, graciously and wisely accom- modates His actings to that spiritual and intellectual nature which He has imparted; and ever honours His own workmanship, as displayed in our mental habi- tudes and laws, by making use of these in the super- natural operations of His grace. Now, it has been admitted by the great majority of modern scholars, that such a supposition as that under consideration, is utterly opposed to all that we know, or can con- ceive, of the mechanism and exercise of the human understanding. ''I would not conceal," says Dean Alford, ''the difficulty which our minds find in con- ceiving a person supernaturally endowed with the power of speaking" (and the same remark applies of course to writing) " ordinarily and consciously a lan- guage which he has never learned. I believe that difficulty to be insuperable. Such an endowment would not only be contrary to the analogy of God's dealings, but as far as I can see into the matter, self- contradictory, and therefore impossible. But there is no such contradiction, and to my mind no such difficulty, in conceiving a man to be moved to ut- terance of sounds dictated by the Holy Spirit." And this, accordingly, is the view of the gift of tongues which is now obtaining general adoption. Almost all recent expositors agree with the foregoing re- marks of Alford, and also with the views which he expresses when he says : " If the supposition be made that the gift of speaking in various languages was be- stowed on the disciples for their after-use in preach- ing the gospel, we are, I think, running counter to the whole course of Scripture, and early patristic evi- 74 GENERAL PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAJIEXT dence on the subject. There is no trace whatever of such a power being possessed or exercised by the apostles, or by those who followed them. (Compare chap. xiv. II — 14; Euseb. iii. 39; Iren. iii. i.) I believe, therefore, the event related in our text to have been a sudden and powerful inspiration of the Holy Spirit, by which the disciples uttered, not of their own minds, but as mouthpieces of the Spirit, the praises of God, in various languages, hitherto, and possibly at the time itself unknown to them *." In substantial accordance with this view, I believe it must be held that both the facts of Scripture, the testimony of antiquity, and the nature of the case, lead us to the conclusion that 710 language, hitherto unknown to the apostles, was then communicated to them for ordinary use in their subsequent career, as preachers or as writers in the service of the gospel. The miracle witnessed on the day of Pentecost seems to have had quite another object. It was intended, in a manner specially striking, to demonstrate tlie reality of a supernatural influence at work among the disciples of Jesus. It had, also, a symbolical import. * Afford, in loc. ; see also Conyh. and Hotrsnn, i. p. 470; Alexander on the Acts, i. p. 45, and almost every recent critical work on this por- tion of Scriptm-e. Canon Wordsworth, however, in his late edition of the New Testament, contends strenuously for the old view of the gift of tongues, as intended to enable the aiwstles to preach the gospel through the wide bounds within which they spread it, and, indeed, as being indispensable for this purpose. I have carefully considered the arguments of this learned and excellent writer, but without being in any measure convinced by them. To support his theory, he assumes constantly that the apostles did not employ Greek, but the vernacular languages, in addressing the inhabitants of Asia Minor, an assumption not only quite gratuitous, but opposed to the whole character of the inspired narrative, as well as to all the antecedent probabilities of the case. See his notes on Chap, xiii, 15, and xiv. 11. OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. ,0 It typified the manifold gifts of the Holy Ghost; and suggested the thought that these were not now to be confined to one, but extended to all nations. We find, accordingly, that the miracle was afterwards repeated on the formal and solemn reception of the Gentiles into the Church. It is recorded (Acts x. 44 — 46,) that while Peter spoke to those assembled in the house of Cornelius, "the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the cir- cumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was 230ured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speah ivith tongues, and magnify God." In this case, it is almost beyond dispute that the object of the miraculous effusion and special manifestation of the presence of the Spirit, was simply to indicate that there was henceforth to be no differ- ence between Jew and Gentile — that both alike were to share in the blessings of salvation. And it appears plain, from Peter's words afterwards, (chaj). xi. 15,) in referring to this event at Jerusalem, that the gift now bestowed upon the Gentiles was essentially the same as that received by the apostles on the day of Pentecost. '^And as I began to speak," says the apostle, " the Holy Ghost fell on them, as 07i us, at the beginning." The miracle, therefore, which is described in the second chapter, as appears from Scripture itself, is not to be regarded as implying any sudden or unnatural communication of knowledge. And we find no traces, in those remains which have been preserved to us of the apostles' discourses and writings, of such an endowment. The Bible is throughout the most natural of all books. Every 76 GENERAL PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT writer, while under tlie influence of the Holy Ghost, is yet permitted freely to exhibit his own tendencies, to make use of his own acquirements, and to write in his own style. While the whole is the Word of God, the several loarts are as manifestly the productions, of different men. And this not only imparts to it a charm, which a uniformity of thought or style would necessarily have lacked, but, as every one knows, serves a highly important purpose in the vital question of authenticity. In all thoroughly genuine and unaffected works the man appears in the author. The book reflects the character, and, as it were, em- bodies the soul of him who composed it. " Le style cest Vhomme ;" and, as every reader must feel, this is strikingly characteristic of the Bible. Even its bitterest enemies cannot bring against it the charge of affectation, on the one hand, or monotony, on the other. Its human authors seem truly to have realised that remarkable expression by which some simple tribes have described the act of composition, and to have j/9?'es5e(i their souls on the paper on which they wrote. Now, this is quite compatible with the doctrine, that they were supernaturally guided in the use of their natural powers; so that all their writino-s, while exhibiting: their several characters and 0 7 O gifts, yet possess in common the attribute of Divine inspiration. But how it could be consistent with the mi] aculous impartation to any of them of a new lan- guage for ordinary use, seems impossible to conceive. Such a notion introduces the idea of the factitious and unreal, and appears quite repugnant to that naturalness which is so striking a characteristic of the Bible. In a word, the opinion that the Greel in OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. ( 7 which the apostles spoke and wrote — strongly marked as it is by local and individual peculiarities — was directly conveyed to them from Heaven, involves so many difficulties, if it does not even imply utter con- tradictions, that, although held by the great majority of expositors, from Chrysostom downwards, it is now, by general consent, abandoned. We must therefore conclude, that when Peter, James, and John, spoke or wrote in the Greek tongue, they just naturally made use of a language with which they were well acquainted, and which they knew to be best fitted for the purpose designed to be accomplished*. But then, this conclusion immediately draws after it another. If Peter and James naturally made use of the Greek lano-uaofe, that lanoaiag'e must have been known to all classes in the community. And this is a point which I beg to press upon the attention of those who maintain that Hebrew was then chiefly, or almost exclusively, the language of Palestine. How, I ask, in that case, were the apostles able, as they did, to write in Greek ? The idea of a miracle having been wrought for this purpose being excluded by the considerations already noticed, there remains no other explanation of the fact in question, than that Greek was the language which they naturally employed. But then, as I maintain, this concession implies that it was in common use by the great body of the popu- lation. These first disciples of Jesus were taken * Neandcr well remarks: "As to the Greek language, the mode in which the apostles expressed themselves in it, the traces of their mother-tongue which appear in their use of it, prove that they had obtained a knowledge of it according to the natural laics of lingual acquirement" — " Planting and Training of the Church," p. 10, Eng. edit. 78 GKNERAL PROOFS FUOM THE XEW TESTAME^^T from the lower ranks among the people. They had, no doubt, previous to their call to the apostleship, received the elements of an ordinary education; and there can be no question that, during the years of tlieir intercourse with Jesus, great additions were made to their intellectual vigour and attainments. But all this will not account for their knowledge of Greek, if it be supposed that Hehreiv was the only language to which they were accustomed in youth^ and the language which they habitually employed in intercourse with their Divine Master. No one can doubt that they possessed a very considerable com- mand of the Greek language ; their writings are suffi- cient to prove that point. Hoiv, then, I ask again, did they acquire it*? Not by miraculous interposi- tion, as we have seen ; it must therefore have been in the natural and ordinary way; and this being granted, it follows, as an irresistible inference, that if THEY, humble fishermen of Galilee, understood Greek to such an extent as naturally and easily to write it^ that language must have been generally known and used among the people f. * It is necessary to urge this point ; for numerous writers, while not affirming that the apostles were taught Greek supernaturally, seem oblivious of the fact that, if they were not so, the very use which they were able to make of it proves that it was generally known among their countrymen. Where did St James (who seems never to have left Jerusalem) obtain that acquaintance with Greek which he displays in his Epistle, if it w\as not commonly employed by those among whom he mingled? Are we to suppose that he, or any other of the apostles, devoted himself to the study of languages? Sec this point further noticed in Chap. vii. t The above reasoning seems open to attack only on one side, and that, one to which few will probably turn. It might be said that, as the apostles belonged to the loicer ranks among the people, their em- ployment of the Greek language does not prove that it was generally OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 79 The same conclusion instantly follows from a con- sideration of the second question which was proposed, namely, How it could have been imagined that writ- ings in Greek would be undei^stood by the inhabitants of Palestine, and how they should accordingly have been addressed by the apostles in that language? Even supposing that an acquaintance with Greek was supernaturally conveyed to the luriters of the New Testament, it cannot be supposed that their readers were supernaturally endowed to understand it. And as it is impossible to believe that such an Epistle as that of St Paul (or whoever else may have been the author) to tlie Hebrews, that is, in the first place, to inhabitants of Palestine, or the Epistle of St James 'Ho the twelve tribes in the dispersion," that is, to the Jewish believers scattered outside of the Holy Land*, would have been addressed to them in Greek, unless they had been able easily to read it, we must conclude that the Jews generally in Palestine as well as out of it, then possessed a familiar ac- quaintance with that language. It is undoubtedly, on a general view of the used among the higher. Some idea of this kind seems to have been floating before the view of Crcdner, when he somewhat strangely writes : "So geschah es, dass in Palastina die griechische Spraclie vorziiglich imter den niedern Standen der Eingebornen Juden heimisch war, ohne dass sie darum den Uebrigen unbekannt bleiben konnte." — "Einl. in das N. T." § 76. But we are generally told that the exact converse of this was true ; as, for example, by Gr infield, when he says, " The knowledge of Greek was confined chiefly to the upper orders, and to the Roman officers." — " Ajjology for the Septuagint," p. 76. * We are perhaps scarcely justified in holding with Alford (" Gr. Test." Vol. IV., " Prolog, to Ep. of James," § ii. 9) that the Biacnropa may be regarded as including Palestine: the term seems used exclusively of the Jews resident in foreign countries. Comp. John vii. 35 ; 1 Peter i. 1. 80 GENERAL PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT subject, an evident and striking proof of the wisdom as well as goodness of God, that the Scriptures of the New Testament should have been given to mankind in a language understood by the world at large, and liot in a dialect like the Aramsean, which was in- telligible only within a very limited territory. But it is to blot and disparage both that wisdom and goodness, if it be supposed necessary that in order to carry their purpose into effect, the persons who were originally addressed had to be overlooked — that, by writing to them in Greek, their interests were to some extent sacrificed, while those of the world at large were consulted. Yet this is the conclusion to which those must come who, admitting the Palestinian designation of the Epistle to the Hebrews, hold that Hebrew was, on any account, the proper language of religious address among the Jews in the days of Christ and His apostles. The Christians of Jerusalem and Judfea, they concede, were addressed in Greek by the writer of that Epistle which specially bears their name ; and this, it is said, w\as done, not because that was the most fittino; lansjuao-e in which to address them — the contrary is maintained — but for the sake of the rest of the world! Such a notion seems almost too preposterous to require refutation. It will again come under our notice in a subsequent chapter; and I simply remark in the meantime re- garding it, that had the fact been as supposed, the Epistle in question must rather have irritated than edified those who received it. And if it be said, as it often is, that St Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, in order to conciliate the prejudices of his countrymen, by relating the Gospel-history in their OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 81 own language, how much more necessary was it, that in an Epistle like that to the Hebrews, which strikes at the root of all that was peculiarly Jewish, this means of propitiating and pleasing them should not be neglected! Yet the Epistle in question was written in the G^^eek, and not in the Hebrew language*. But, on the other hand, if the proposition of this work be admitted, that Greek was then the fittinsr language of popular address in Palestine, as in the rest of the civilised w^orld, how illustriously does the wisdom of God shine forth! He had by His provi- dence gradually brought the world into such a con- dition, that without any violent interference on His part, there was existing on the earth, at the com- mencement of our era, a language which was known in common both by Jews and Gentiles. And thus, without any miraculous operations, and without the preference of the interests of any one nation to those of another, the Greek language was adopted as that of the New Testament — the language in which the Scriptures of the latter dispensation were naturally, as well as most fittingly, composed. Looking, then, at that part of the New Testament which has alone been as yet particularly noticed — the Epistles — is not the natural inference to be drawn from the data which it furnishes, just that * See Chapter vi. for a fiill discussion of these points. The diffi- culty above suggested applies, of course, with double force to those who imagine that Hebrew was the ])revailing language of Palestine at the time referred to, and yet ore inclined to believe that the Gospel of St Matthew was at first written in Greek. That the evangelist, in what- ever language he wrote, specially addressed himself to the Jews of Palestine is unquestionable. 6 82 GENERAL PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT which has been stated — that Greek was then a famihar language to the inhabitants of Palestine? And why strive to reach any other conclusion? Why perplex and confound such a simple case as that of men writing naturally in a language which they themselves understood, to others in a lanofuaofe which they understood also, by supposing that the writers were led to compose their works in a language which they themselves did not naturally understand, and to send these to men who did not easily, perhaps not at all, comprehend what was thus addressed to them ? And if we now glance at the other great division of the New Testament books — the Gospels — do we find any ground for supposing that these merely contain translations of the words which our Lord employed? Is there a single hint to that effect given by any of the writers? Do they not, on the contrary, express themselves exactly as they would have done, supposing they had meant to report to us the very language which was made use of by the Saviour? Their constant formula is, "Jesus said," or ''He spoke these ivords," and that whether it happens to be Greek or Hebrew which they record as the language which was uttered. Not the least indication is ever furnished by the Evangelists that, for the most part, they convey to us only a trans- lation of the words of Christ. And the supposition that such is the case, must be justified, if it can be justified at all, by considerations entirely extraneous to the tenor of the narrative. It is quite gratuitous, for instance, so far as the record is concerned, to OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 83 imagine that St John translated the word which Jesus employed, when he tells us that our Lord exclaimed on the cross, TereXeo-ra/. There is no intimation given us to that effect, any more than when we are informed by another Evangelist that He cried, '^Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani;" the onus prohandi therefore manifestly falls upon those who assert that, in either case, it is only a version of our Lord's words which has been preserved; for the natural impression made upon our mind by the narrative is, that, in the one case, as much as in the other, the very language is reported to us which then actually proceeded out of the Saviour's mouth*. * It may be projier to notice a remark made on this passage as it stood in my former work. The writer of a review in " EvangeHcal Christendom," (May 1860), says of it: " We fancy every one will see the weakness of this argument. It may simply be replied, it was not necessary to say, 'Jesus spake in Aramaic, words which being inter- preted are.' We susjiect the cause that requires such arguments to be adduced." I am inclined to believe that most readers will easily per- ceive that, in the passage thus commented on, I am simply on the defensive, guarding against the assumption which is so generally made, that the discourses of our Lord, contained in the Gospels, are transla- tions from the Hebrew. If they are so, prove it ; bat there is at least, I maintain, wo prima facie or direct evidence to that effect in the nar- ratives of the evangelists. Such is all the weight I lay upon the con- sideration adduced above, though it is s[)oken of by the reviewer as if it wei'c set forth as a positive or leading ai-gument. — (I find the following observations made on the above note in " Evan. Chr." Aug. 1862, p. 385, " Without entering into any defence of our former remarks on tliis point, as being here imnecessary, we would put a case which strikes us as ex- actly parallel. Were we to read in English a life, say, for instance, of Schleiermacher, and now and then to come across a few words and sen- tences in German said to have been spoken by him, sometimes trans- lated by the writer, and sometimes in the case of single words left un- translated, would we not, independently of all other considerations, except such as might appear on the surface of the narrative itself, naturally conclude that the subject of the life spoke German? And would it ever occur to our minds that because his ordinary conversation '6—2 84 GENERAL PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT A very strange mode of reasoning, as humbly appears to me, has prevailed with respect to those occasional Aramaic expressions which are inserted in the Gospels as having been employed by Christ. It has been argued, that the occurrence of such terms, now and then, in the reports which have been pre- served to us of our Lord's discources, proves that He generally made use of the Syro-Chaldaic language; and that, accordingly, it is in these few instances only, that we have examples of the very words which He employed. But such a conclusion rests upon a manifest petitio principii; there is not the least foundation furnished for it in the evangelic narrative. The writers (especially St John and St Mark) seem not a little anxious at times to let us know the exact words which our Lord and others employed. Only on the ground that they desired to be strictly ac- curate in this respect, can we account for the trouble was related in English, that English was his usual language T To this I simply reply that the cases are not parallel. In the illustration sug- gested, there would manifestly be something in the manner in which the German words or phrases were introduced, to indicate that German was the usual language of the person whose life was narrated, or this would be supposed as known to the reader from other sources. But that is exactly the point which is denied in the above reasoning with respect to the language usually employed by our Redeemer. We have no means of learning what tongue He generally made use of except from the Gosf)el-records themselves ; and what I maintain is, that there is nothing in these to lead us to the conclusion that, because they con- tain a few Aramaic expressions, tJiat was the tongue which he habitu- ally employed. On the contrary, I venture to affirm that the occurrence of a few Syro-Chaldaic terms (introduced apparently as exceptions) in His discourses, tends to prove that He generally made use of Greek, just as the insertion of a few words of English or French in a life of some unknown author whose discourses were generally reported in Ger- man, without any positive statement as to what was his usual dialect, would confirm the supposition that neither English nor French, but German, was his ordinary language.) OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 85 which they so frequently take in preserving Aramaic expressions, and then appending to these an inter- pretation, instead of at once representing them by their Greek equivalents. But, with all this, none of them ever hint that they are giving the words of Jesus more exactly when they report Hebrew, than when they report Greek. On the contrary, as has been already remarked, the very same mode of ex- pression is made use of by them, whether it be the one language or the other which our Lord is repre- sented as employing; and to say therefore, that the occurrence, here and there, of an Aramaic word or phrase, proves that He habitually made use of that dialect, is simply to assume the point in question, and to mistake for a sound and valid argument, what is in reality a foregone conclusion*. * The method of argument on which I have here taken the liberty of remarking, is found in countless writers. See, e. g., among a host of others, Winer, "R. W.B.," Art. Sprache ; Migne, " Encyclope'die Theo- logique," Vol. in. Art. Matthieu ; and (though, in this case, with some important qualifying remarks,) Trench "On the Miracles," p. 186. As one of the latest specimens of the mode of reasoning i-eferred to, I may quote here a single sentence from an article, entitled "Greek the Lan- guage of Inspiration in the New Testament," in " Evangelical Christen- dom" for September 1860, a periodical which has recently contained some valuable papers on biblical topics. The writer, after referring to the usual passages containing Aramaic expressions, adds, (p. 470), *' These instances sufficiently pnyce that our Lord spoke a language such as has been already described, of Hebrew substance indeed, but varied by Syriac, as it also was by Chaldee." The passages in question simply prove that our Lord spoke such a language on these occasions, and nothing more. It might almost as well be argued that, because the Aramaic terms Maran-atha occur in St Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians, that Epistle was originally written in Hebrew, or that the Corinthians generally employed Hebrew, as that our Lord usually spoke in Hebrew, and that the Greek Gospels merely contain translations of His words, because He occasionally maJe use of an Aramaic expres- sion. 86 GENERAL PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT The fact seems to be, that the occasional occur- rence of Aramaic expressions in the Gospels, instead of proving that Christ hahitually made use of that dialect, rather tends to jDrove the contrary. If it be maintained that Syro-Chaldaic was the language which He generally employed, the question at once occurs, why we have a few such words, and a few only, preserved to us as having been used by Him on rare occasions. On the supposition that He spoke usually in Greek, these words, we may see, come in naturally enough as exceptions to the general rule, and are specially inserted as such, just as in the reported discussions of Cicero we often find a few Greek terms introduced; and, as in our own lan- guage, a French or German expression may every now and then occur. But if, on the other hand, it be supposed that Christ really for the most part made use of the Aramaic, so that the Greek was the exception, and not the rule, in His discourses, it seems impossible to give any satisfactory, or even tolerable, explanation of the manner in which the few Aramaic words found in the Gospels are introduced. They certainly ap^jear to be brought in as excep- tional to our Saviour's practice; and when regarded in that light, their occurrence can cause little diffi- culty, even although no evident reason may be found for His use of Aramaic on these particular occasions. But, when the opposite opinion is maintained, and when these words are looked on as being really speci- mens of His ordinary language, there is no principle of reason which can be suggested as likely to* have guided the Evangelists in their preservation and in- sertion. The most improbable, and even absurd, ex- OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 87 jDlanations of this matter have been offered by some of those who imagine that our Lord generally made use of Hebrew; as will be plain from the following examples. Dr Pfannkuche having stated that in the well- known passages, Matt, xxvii. 46, Mark xv. 34, v. 41, vii. 34, we have '' some fragments of Christ's speeches preserved in the original language," adds in a note, — " We can only conjecture why these passages of our Greek Gospels, which otherwise always give Jesus's speeches and sayings in Greek, contain only a few words of the original text. In the two first-quoted passages, as it seems, the original expression is in- serted, because thereby light is thrown upon the cir- cumstance immediately after mentioned, — that Jesus, according to the supposition of some by-standers, cried for help from Ehas. In the two latter pas- sages, where the preservation of the original seems to be rather accidental than intentional, the trans- lator may have been in the same predicament as the authors of the Alexandrine version, who, now and then, did retain, probably from mei^e inadvertence, a single Hebrew word*," &c. It is needless to notice the weakness of this expla- * On this passage the English translator of Pfannkuche, while fa- vourable to the general view maintained by his author, remarks, with his usual candour, " The translator is not much disposed to dispute the author's position with regard to the language of Palestine at the time of Christ ; but he thinks it but fair to observe, that the proof here drawn from Christ's speeches is excessively iceak" He then goes on to shew this, and adds, " After all, Dr Pfannkuche here only presiqyjwses, and has not proved that the Greek Gospels are only translations." Ex uno (Usee omnes: it has been supposition, and not proof, which has been characteristic of all that have maintained the views of Pfann- kuche on this matter. 88 GENERAL PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT nation, if, indeed, it deserves the name of explana- tion. The dishonour which it does to the character of our Gospels, as written by intelligent, not to say insjnred men, must be obvious to every reader. But other solutions of the difficulty have been suggested. By far the most plausible of such solu- tions is that which conceives of these particular Ara- maic expressions having been preserved rather than others, on account of the peculiar solemnity which belongs to them. This view is stated by Archbishop Trench as follows, — "St Mark gives us, probably from the lips of Peter, the very words which the Lord spake in the very language wherein he uttered them — Talitha ciinii — no doubt as having something especially solemn in them ; as he does the Ephpliatha on another occasion*." But, if I may venture an expression of dissent from the many eminent scholars who seem willing to rest in this explanation, I must confess that it appears to me very far from satisfac- tory. There are numerous occasions, at least equally solemn, on which our Lord's words are given in Greeh, — such as those majestic terms preserved in St Mark only, by which He soothed the tempestuous lake, and that mighty utterance of power which, as St John informs us, brought forth from his grave the sleeping Lazarus. These two scenes must be allowed to have been among the most sublime in our Lord's history; and if He had really been in the habit of speaking in Aramaic, and if the solemnity or grandeur of the circumstances in which He spoke had been deemed by the Evangelists a sufficient reason at any time for preserving the very language which He em- * Trench "On the Miraclea," p. 186. OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 89 ployed, there are no occasions on which this feehng could have operated more strongly than on those which have been mentioned. Surely also, in such a case, we might have expected to have had preserved, in their original form, more of those impressive words which He spoke upon the cross. Only one of His seven cries is given in Aramaic; the rest in Greek. And can it be conceived that the beloved disciple, who is so ready, on other occasions, to report the Hebrew terms which his Lord and those about Him employed*, would have failed to preserve some of these in their original form, had they really been uttered in Aramaic? John stood with a bleedins: heart by the cross of his Master. Alone of all the apostles he was an eye-witness of the crucifixion. He heard, with his own ears, the words which the Saviour now spoke ; and these must have sunk far too deeply into his affectionate memory ever afterwards to be forgotten. For our own part, we believe that they never were, and never will be, forgotten. According to our view, the faithful pen of the apostle has re- corded the exact expressions which our Lord em- ployed; when glancing first at His weeping mother, and then at His dearest disciple. He said to her, rJmt, lU 6 1/I09 (Tov, while to him He added, 'iSe r/ MTi]f> (Tov. And the same pen, I believe, has accurately preserved, in its original form, that one word At\//ccause we have every reason to believe that the Avritcrs were but little acquainted with ancient Hebrew, and because the evangelic nai'- rative having been often repeated to those Avho understood (besides Greek) only modern Hebrew, the passage in question would soon come to be expressed in that corrupted form of the ancient language. And in the variations which ai-e here found in the respective texts of Matthew and Mark, we seem to trace the process of deflection from the original words, as perhaps spoken by our Saviour. St Matthew, accord- ing to the received text, differs only by a single word {aa^axGavi for ^jniTy) from the Hebrew of the Psalms, while St Mark imparts a stronger Aramaic colouring to the whole exclamation. And the remark of Beza (in loc.) seems here in point ; " Ego arbitror Christum Hebroeas Davidis voces usurpasse, ut apparet ex manifestiori paronomasia Ell et Elhry — It may perhaps be said, that the reason assigned above for the employment of Hebrew, instead of Greek, by our Lord on this occasion, would equally apply to the last words He uttered upon the cross, which are nevertheless given by St Luke in Greek. But although Greek is the language employed by the evangelist, I think it not altogether im- probable that this quotation from the Psalms (Ps. xxxi. 5, with the in- sertion of the word Father) was, like the former one, made by our Lord in Hebrew. St Luke never appears so solicitou.s, as are the other evangelists, to preserve the cd-act words which our Lord employed, (compare e.g. chap. viii. 54 with Mark v. 41, and, generally, the Go.speI of Luke with the other synoptics;) and as he is the only one who men- tions this last utterance of Christ on the cross, we are at liberty to believe that, though preserved to us iu Greek, it was really expressed 98 GENERAL PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT terms which occur in Ilis discourses. The Aramaic had, as a matter of course, no small influence upon the Greek of the country; and necessarily insinuated many of its idioms and expressions into the coexist- ing language. Hence the occurrence of such words as Amen, Corhan, Rabbi, &c., of such designations as Cephas, Boanerges, kc, and of such phrases as irpoawTTGv \a[xl3aieit>, yeveaOai davarov, &C. It seems no easy matter, on the supposition that our Lord generally made use of Hebrew, to account for the retaining of such words as 'Para, (Matt. v. 22,) and '^lafifxwva, (Luke xvi. II,) while His language is for the most part translated. For why, it may be well asked, should an exception be made in favour of these expressions ? What right had they to stand as they were originally uttered, while the whole context in which they are imbedded was subjected to a process of translation ? It certainly does appear to me some- what difficult to answer these questions, on the hypothesis that our Lord spoke for the most part in Hebrew ; whereas, on the theory here maintained, that the substance of His discourse was Greek, and has thus been reported to us in its original form by the evangelists, nothing could be more natural, or indeed inevitable, than that such Aramaic words and phrases should, from time to time, occur and be preserved. in Hebrew. On the whole, however, I am inclined to believe that the words were spoken by onr Lord as we find them given by the evan- gelist. And I would explain the difference of language in the two quotations by the fact, that the 22nd Psalm is so thoroughly Messianic, and must therefore, in its original form, have been deeply engraven on our Lord's memory; while, in the other case, lie simply adopts, and adapts to His own circumstances, the sentiment expressed by David. OP THE PREVxVLENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 99 It appears, then, from a general survey of tlie whole New Testament, that there is every reason to conclude that Greek was generally known and used in Palestine, in the days of Christ and His Apostles ; — ■ that THAT accordingly was the language which He and they usually employed; — and that, while both the Master and His disciples sometimes made use in public of the Aramaic dialect, such an occurrence was quite exceptional to their ordinary practice, and is, on that account; specially noticed in the evangelic history. 7—2 CHAPTEH IV. SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE GOSPELS THAT GREEK WAS THE PREVAILING LANGUAGE OF PALESTINE IN THE TIMES OF CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES. We next proceed to support the conclusion already reached on general grounds, by a consideration of some particular incidents and statements which are set before us in the New Testament. And we shall begin our examination by a closer scrutiny of the Gospels than has yet been given them, in the liope of discovering evidence in their intimations, that Greek was the language w^hich our Lord usually employed; and that therefore these inspired narra- tives have, to a great extent, preserved the very words which He uttered, for the lasting gratification and delight of all succeeding generations. In what language, then, was the Sermon on the Mount delivered? Most readers will doubtless be inclined at once to answer, that it was in Aramaic. This is the almostjjiniy^rsa]^_opir^^ The ablest and most elaborate works on this portion of Scrip- ture, while touching upon every other question con- cerning it, assume for the most part, without a word on the subject, that its original language was He- brew. I humbly venture, however, to maintain the SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE GOSPELS, &C. 101 contrary, and to affirm that tlie language now employed by our Lord was Greek, influenced, in doing so, by the following considerations. To AVHOM was that discourse addressed? This question has obviously a most important bearing on the other as to the language in which it was spoken. Our Lord, of course, intended that all His hearers should understand Him. He did not, therefore, employ a form of speech, which, while it might be understood by some, would be unintelhgible to others; but, ignoring provincial or local peculiarities of dialect, addressed them all in one common lan- guage. Let us look, then, at the composition of His vast audience, as it is suggested to us by St Matthew. In the introduction to the great discourse recorded by that evangelist, we read as follows, (chap. iv. 23 — 25,) — "And Jesus went about all Galilee, teach- ing in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness, and all manner of disease among the people; and his fame went throughout all Syria; and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy, and he healed them; and there followed him great multi- tudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judoea, and from beyond Jordan." And then we immediately read, (chap. V. I, 2,) that, "seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain; and when he was set, his disciples came unto him, and he opened his mouth 102 SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE GOSPELS OF THE and tauglit them, saying," &c. There can be no doubt that the discourse was addressed to the ivlioh assemblage, so far as the mere hearing of it was concerned. Several passages, indeed, such as chap. V. 13; vi. 9; vii. 6, indicate that our Lord spoke more immediately to His discij^les. But it is also plain from other passages, that He spoke so as to be heard and understood by the multitude at large; for we are told chap. vii. 28, that '^when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people {o\ o'xXoi) were asto- nished at His doctrine, "^ — thus proving that the}'' had all been addressed in His discourse, and had all listened with some desfree of intellicfence to the in- structions which He delivered*. Now, have we any reason to believe that the inhabitants of DecapoUs understood Hebrew? Is it not, on the contrary, well known that the ten cities v/hich gave name to that region were thoroughly Greek, and that vast numbers of the population were * Tholuck gives a very good account of this matter. " The import of Matt. V. 2 is the following : ' The sight of the great concourse of people induced Jesus to withdraw, in order to impart instruction to Ilis dis- ciples. He accordingly ascended a mountain there, that He might teach His disciples,' {Meyer on Matt. v. 2). No doubt the multitude must be regarded as hearers (v. 1, vii. 28; Luke vii. 1). But such ex- pressions as ver. 12-16 seem to presuppose that in those addressed the life of faith had already begun; and again, expressions such as ver. 12, where those addressed are viewed as occupying the same footing with the prophets, (comp; fitSa^??, ver. 19, and vii. 6,) evidently refer to teachers. Hence, we must consider the discourse as addressed pri- marily to the disciples, and secondarily to the people ; and the degree of its bearing upon these different classes as expressed by the relative position of the hearers to the speaker. Thus, the twelve formed a circle in the Saviour's immediate neighbourhood ; farther off stood the fia6r]Ta[, Avhom St Luke vi. 13, 17, distinguishes from the aTroa-ToXoL; and beyond them stood the crowd." — Tholuck's "Sermon on the Mount," Introd. p. 14; Clarl's "For. Theol. Library," Ediu. 1860. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 103 not even Jews by religious profession, but heathen* ? It is difficult to ascertain, with exactness, the parti- cular ten cities which were included in the district ; and not imjorobably, the name continued, while some of the cities, once comprehended under it, had sunk into decay. Different lists of these cities are given by ancient writers. Pliny, expressly noticing this diversity, mentions the following — Scythopolis, Hi23- pos, Gadara, Pella, Philadelphia, Gerasa, Dion, Ca- natha, Damascus, and Rapliana. Josephus again, by stating (''Wars," in. 9. 7) that Scythopolis was the largest city of Decapolis, seems plainly to exclude Damascus from the number; and yet other slight variations occur in the lists which have come down to us from antiquity f. But there is no doubt about the leading cities in the district, which were Gadara, Gerasa, Philadel- phia, Hi23pos, Pella, and Scythopolis. And the im- portant point to be noticed is, that, as Josephus informs us, these were thoroughly Greeh cities. He expressly gives that name to Gadara and Hippos :[:; and he refers to the others in such terms as leave no doubt that the Greek element also prevailed largely among their inhabitants §. Nothing indeed, is more certain, or more generally agreed upon by critics, * Winer, R. W.B., describes Decapolis as follows : " Ein District von 10 Stadten mit wesentlich heidnischer Bevolkeruiig."— Art. Decapolis. To the same effect, Abp. Trench remarks, that "a great part of the population of Decapolis was certainly Gentile." — " Notes on the Mira- cles," p. 174. t See Smith's " Dictionary of the Bible," Art. Decapolis, for a state- ment of these variations. + Ta8apa Koi "imvos 'EkXijvides etVl TroAets. — Joseph., " Autiq." XVII. II. 4; see also " Wars," il. 6. 3. § Jb.96i^A. "Wars," II. 18. I. 104 SPECUL PROOFS FROM THE GOSPELS OF THE than that this region of Decapob"s was occupied almost exclusively by heathen settlers, or Hellenising Jews; and it follows therefore, that, as the Sermon on the Mount was intended to be understood, and actually luas understood by inhabitants of that dis- trict, it must have been delivered in the Greek lan- guage. This conclusion, derived from a consideration of St Matthew's Gospel, is greatly strengthened when we turn to the parallel passage in St Luke. With- out entering on the difficult question as to the iden- tity of the discourse contained in Luke vi. 20-49, with that recorded in Matt, v.-vii. — a point imma- terial to our argument — let us mark the lang-uasre which St Luke employs with respect to the ]jersons to whom the sermon which he reports was addressed. At chap. vi. 17, we find these described by the evangelist as follows: — ''And He came down with them, (the apostles,) and stood in the plain, and the company of His disciples, and a great multitude of people out of all Juda'ci and Jerusalem, and from the sea-coast of Tyre and Sidon, who came to hear Ilim, and to be healed of their diseases." We thus learn that among our Lord's audience on this occasion, there were the inhabitants at once of Jerusalem and of Tyre and Sidon. In the discourse which follows, it is manifest that while, as in Matthew, some pas- sages are specially applicable to the apostles, the whole multitude was simultaneously addressed; and that, of course, in a language which all understood. What, then, ivas that language ? Will any one maintain that it was Hebrew, in the fiice of that clear evidence which we possess, that Greek was the PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE, 105 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, Avhich begins as follows : — '^ M. Antony, impe- rator, 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 in the public tables, in Roman and Greek letters, and that it stand engraven in the most conspicuous places, so as to be read by all."* It is plain from this that Greek was the lanofuao-e of the district, and that no other was commonly em- ployed, since (in addition to the official Latin) Greek was the only tongue in which the edict was com- manded to be published. In like manner, we read respecting Sidon, that Julius Csesar sent a decree to its inhabitants, which contained the injunction that it should be " publicly set forth on a tablet of brass / in the Greek and Latin languages."! Again, we are told in general of the cities. Tyre, Sidon, and Asca- Ion, (the last of which, it is worthy of remark, was situated in Palestine itself,) that a decree of the sanie Roman magistrate was ordered to be published at each of them in the Greek and Latin lansfuao-es. 1 It seems too jDlain, from all this, to admit of any denial, that Greek was then the only language com- monly employed by the natives of the sea- coast of Tyre and Sidon§ ; so that a discourse intended to be •"• Joseph. " Antiq." xiv. 12. 5. t Ibid. xiv. 10. 2. t Ibid. XIV. 10. 3. § Tliis conclusion is still further confirmed by two inscriptions found \ at Putcoli, the one being the copy of a letter Avhich the inhabitants \ of that place addressed to the people of Tyre, and the other a cojiy of the answer which the Tyriaus returned, both of which arc written in 106 SPECIAL PROOFS YUOU THE GOSPELS OF THE understood by them must of necessity have been dehvered in the Greek language. But if this conclusion be admitted, the whole controversy may be regarded as settled. Conceding that the Sermon on the Mount;, as reported by St Matthew, or the analogous discourse recorded by St Luke, was spoken by our Lord in Greek, it will be difficult any longer to deny the validity of the propo- sition of this work, that Greek was the language which He commonly employed. There w'ere on the occasion or occasions referred to, the inhabitants of Judaea and Jerusalem, no less than of Decapolis, and Tyre and Sidon, among his hearers; and it is quite evident, from the evangelic narratives, that all equally understood Him, and were, therefore, all perfectly familiar with the Greek lano^uaofe. There are just two views which can be taken of the question we are now considering. Tlie sermon (or, if you will, sermons) referred to, was spoken either in Ilehreiv or Greek. If any one says Greek, then he admits all for which I plead. If, on the other hand, any one maintains that it was Hebrew, he is bound also to maintain that the inhabitants of Deeapolis and Tyre and Sidon then understood that language. In that case, I beg to demand the proof of such an allegation. I venture humbly, but confi- dently, to affirm that no proof of the kind can be jDroduced; and that, as has been already shewn, Greek was then the lanofuaofe of these districts*. As- the Greek language. See Gruteri, " Inscriptiones antique totius Orbis Roniani," Tom. ii. p. 1105. B interim remarks, "^Egyptios a tempore rtol. Lagi Grtecam linguam locutos fuisse, «(V«< et Phoeuicos constat." — "De Lingua," &c. p. KJO. . 62. t " Geschriebene aramaische tJbersetzungen der meisten Biblischen Biicher hat es sicherlich schon unter den Hasmonaern gegeben." — Zunz, ut snp., p. 6L 118 SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE GOSPELS OF THE course necessary, when the Old Testament was read in the original in the synagogues, that it should be accompanied by a translation into either Greek or Aramaic. But from the currency which had already been gained by the version of the LXX. in Pales- tine, as appears from the later apocryphal litera- ture, there was no necessity, even from the time of Antiochus Epiphanes downwards, that ivritten Ara- maic translations should be prepared and circulated among the people. And accordingly, there is no proof that any such were then in existence. In like manner, while there must, in our Saviour's time, have been some written version of the Scrip- tures current among the people, as both His and their frequent references to the Old Testament prove ; there is no evidence whatever, that they at any time possessed such a version in the Syro-Chaldaic lan- guage. It seems quite inconceivable that, if the Old Testament had then been in their hands in an Ara- maic form, (as was, of course, the case, if Christ's exhortation to ''Search the scriptures," referred to the sacred books in that language,) all traces of such a version should so utterly have disappeared. In fact, there is nothing except the necessity which certainly then existed among the Jews, of their possessing the Sacred Scriptures in a language more generally known than the ancient Hebrew, that gives any countenance to the idea that an Aramaic version of the Old Testament was then current among them ; and we have now to consider whether that necessity may not be shewn to have been met in another and better way than by assuming the existence of a translation which has left no trace. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 119 either of its origin or its influence, in the literature of antiquity. As has been already remarked, I hold that when the Saviour quoted the Scriptures of the Old Testa- ment in His popular addresses, or when the people did so in conversation with Him or His disciples, such quotations were invariably made, more or less exactly, from the Septuagint translation. We know that this Greek version of the whole of the ancient Scriptures had existed for long before the times of Christ. And we possess the clearest evidence, both in the writings of Josephus and in the several books of the New Testament, how commonly it was em- ployed by the Jews of Palestine. We find, in fact, that most of the quotations which occur in the Gospels agree almost verbatim with the rendering of the Sep- tuagint; and that those are very few indeed which seem to depart from its phraseology, and follow more closely the original text*. There is not a single passage presenting such variations, but may, after all, be regarded as derived from the Greek version. The differences in question are easily accounted for, on the ground either of the citations having been made from memory, or of a somewhat different text of the LXX. having been followed from that whicli is current at the present day; or by taking into consideration the undoubted fact, that our Lord and His apostles often introduced into their quotations from the Old Testament a few words which did not « * See the question as to these and other Old Testament citations occurring in the New Testament, more fully noticed in Chapter VII of this Part ; and compare GrbifieliVs " Apology for the Septuagint," jHissim. 120 SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE GOSPELS OF THE exist in the original, or gave the passage quoted a higher or more special significance than it may have at first possessed. And thus at length we understand how the Sa- viour could have addressed to the Jews at larg^e such a precept as '' Search the scriptures." That precept, as all must acknowledge, could not have referred to the inspired books in their original language. And even thouo-h it be admitted without sufficient evi- dence that written Chaldee translations of some parts of Scripture then existed, that does not much help the matter; for Chaldee, such as that of the most ancient Targums, was certainly not then the familiar language of the Jewish people. Some of the most eminent Oriental scholars, both at home and abroad, are agreed on this point, although it is common enouted at that time the language and tlie manners of the Greeks For this reason, unless there were distinct evidence to the contrary, it would seem most natural to suppose that the conversation at Jacob's well took place in Greek. But if in support of this view, Mr Roberts quotes the 2.5 th verse of the 4th chapter of St John, which reads as follows: 'The woman saith unto Him, I know that Messias cometh, who is called Christ ;' and if he maintains that the parenthetical clause, 'who is called Christ' (6 \ey6- fievos Xpia-Tus) was really uttered by the woman herself — the evangelist, as he says, ' taking all pains to report the conversation very accurately,' he must have forgotten that the exact words of that conversation could liave been heard by two persons only, and that in repeating the tenour of that dialogue to His apostles, the main object of Christ was not to repeat the ipsissijiia verha, but to convey to His disciples the same lesson , probably with greater fulness, which He had delivered to the ignorant and worldly wonnvn of Samaria. And, waiving this, there still remains the further objection that the evangelist who wrote dow)i this chapter, many years after the event, many years after the death and resurrection of Christ, might surely have added this merely verbal ex- planation, on which Mr Roberts attempts to rest his argument."— Saturday Review, Nov. 29, 1662. I confess myself unable to see any PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 127 Turning now for a little to another part of the Gospel of John, we read (chap. xii. 20, 21) as fol- lows : — "And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast: the same came therefore to Pliilip, who was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus." It cannot be doubted for a moment, that these Greeks {"EXXt)i'ei) spoke the Greek language. And it can as little be doubted that one at least of the disciples of Jesus understood them when they thus addressed him. Nor have we any reason to suppose that this constituted a peculiarity in the case of Philip. Beth- saida was the native place of Andrew and Peter, no less than of Philip ; while tlie whole of the apostles probably belonged to Galilee. And if, as seems to me almost unquestionable, the request of these Greeks was^ at least in substance, granted*, and they were necessity for modifying my argument in the text in consequence of these remarks. 1 here is, of course, no objection to regarding the parenthe- tical clause as having been inserted by the evangelist, if such seems its most natural explanation. But if it be observed that St John has already, at chap. i. 42, given his readers an interpretation of this very term Messias, it will perhaps appear somewhat improbable that he should here again have so needlessly repeated his own words. Besides, as argued above, the woman herself either uttered this explanatory clause, or she did not. If she did, the question as to her speaking in Greek is decided. If she did not, but the evangelist inserted the words, this could only have been due to the care he was taking to give the very expression by which she referred to the expected Saviour ; and, in that case, might we not have expected that he would have consistently maintained his accuracy, and represented her (ver. 29), and her fellow- townsmen (ver. 42, if indeed 6 Xpto-ros is not here an interpolation) as making use of tiie term Mcssinh, and not Chrht f Comp. Alfard in loc, but observe his un.satisfactory explanation of the use of the Greek word XpLo-Tos by the woman. * It is doubtful what was the exact object of the desire wliich these Greeks expressed "to see Jcsiis." Some, like Alford, (in loc.) have held very decidedly that it was a prica'.e interview which they requested ; 128 SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE GOSPELS OF THE now admitted for the moment to share in the privi- leges of Christ's disciples, the discourse which fol- lowed must have been spoken in the Greek language. But, let the conclasi(m to which such a supposition necessarily leads be observed. Jesus was then in Jerusalem, surrounded by a multitude of the inhab- itants of the city. These evidently understood, with the greatest ease, the words which He now spoke, when He proceeded in their hearing to tell of His approaching death, and of the effects which it would accomplish. And conceiving of both Jews and Greeks as listening to the discourse which was then delivered, (ver. 23 — 36,) a great additional signifi- cance seems to be imparted to some declarations which it contains. It sets forth concisely, but clearly, the necessity of Christ's sufferings — the abundant fruit which these would produce — the happiness and honour insured to all who should follow Him — the devotedness to the Father's will which characterised all that the Son endured — the victory which was speedily to be gained over Satan — the extension of the blessings of salvation to men of every country and condition upon earth — and the happiness of and if so, that certainly was not granted. But be this as it may, it seems to me altogetlier opposed to our Lord's habitual conduct towards the inquiring, to suppose that He did not, in some way, grant their earnest and respectful desire. If their words be regarded as pointing to a private interview with Jesus, their object in seeking it could only have been to inquire into the bearing of His work on the Gentile race to whom they belonged, and to obtain some information as to the way in which, without being Jews, they might profit by His instructions. If this was in truth the motive which prompted their request, it is in- teresting to observe, in the following discourse of Jesus, how He who " knew what was in man " suited the words which He uttered to the wishes of their hearts. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 129 those wlio rightly improved the privileges with which they were favoured. Nothing could be imagined more congruent to the circumstances of the case, if these Greeks, as the representatives of the heathen world, then formed part of the audience who listened to the words of our Saviour. They thus received a gracious answer to those questions which perhaps the}^ desired to put to Him; they heard from His own lips that the results of His great work were to be enjo3''ed by all nations ; and they received hints which might suffice to convince them of its sublime and majestic scope, both with respect to heaven and earth. The question then recurs — Were they present on this occasion, or were they not ? It is, I believe, almost incredible that they were not; and that thus they alone of all that ever addressed the Saviour, received no answer whatever to the request which they had preferred. It was not thus that He acted, of whom it was written by the prophet, as the words are applied by St Matthew (chap. xii. 20, 21), "A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory ; and in his name shall the Gentiles trust." But then, if these Greeks were present at this time, the Saviour undoubtedly spoke so as to be understood by them, that is, in their own language. Yet, in doing this. He was evidently well understood also by the inhabitants of Jerusalem, (ver. 34, aTreKpiOii avrcp 6 c;y^oc,) who formed, in fact, by far the largest por- tion of His audience ; and it is thus again made per- fectly certain that the Jews of our Lord's day were thoroughly familiar with the Greek language. I now proceed to direct the reader's attention to 9 130 SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE GOSPELS OF THE a part of tlie evangelic history which bears the clearest and most conclusive testimony to the valid- \^ ity 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 judgment. No one will venture to maintain that the Poman governor either understood or employed He- brew, nor will many be inclined to suppose that Latin was used by our Lord or the Jews in their intercourse with Pilate. The only other supposition is that Greek was the language employed by all the parties in question; unless, indeed, it be assumed that an interpreter was employed between them. And it must be allowed by all who are inclined to adopt this view, tliat it involves, at least, quite a gratuitous assumption. There is not the slightest trace of any such personage in the narrative, and it is, therefore, rather to cut the knot than untie it when this expla- nation is suggested*. But I have no hesitation in saying, that the idea of an interpreter being employed in the scenes referred to, is not only gratuitous, but absurd. This will, I think, appear plain to every reader, from even the slightest consideration of the narrative of the evangelists. Peferring, for example, to the Gospel of St Matthew, (chap, xxvii. ii — 14,) * Credner justly remarks on this point: "Audi findet sich nirgends die geringste Spur, dass sich Jesus im Verkehr mit Giiechisch Ilcdenden Oder vor Gericht eines Dolmetschers bedient hatte, woraus denn her- vorgeht, dass von den Yerfussern unserer Evangelien jene Bekannt- schaft der Talastiuenser mit dor Gricchischcn Sprache als etwas ganz Gewohnliches iibcrall vorausgcsetzt wird." — "Eiul. in das N. T.," § 77. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 131 we have first an account of tlie interview between Christ and Pilate as follows : " And Jesus stood be- fore the governor : and the governor asked him, say- ing, Art thou the King of the Jews ? And Jesus said unto him, Thou say est. And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing. Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee ? And he answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly." Now, is it not manifest that, as here set before us, the Saviour, the governor, and the chief priests and elders, are represented as having made use of a common lan- guage ? Can any one believe that it was through an interpreter that Pilate listened to the accusations of the enemies of Christ ; and again that through an interpreter he said to our Lord — " Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee 1" Is it not at once apparent from the narrative, that one tongue was then employed by all the various speak- ers ? And if so, is it not manifest that that could have been no other than the Greek language ? Still, however improbable, it is perhaps yet within the bounds of possibility, that an interpreter ivas then employed. And even if it be granted that such was not the case, it may be said that though Greek was well known to Pilate and the chief priests and scribes, this does not prove that it was generally understood, or commonly employed among the people. But let us proceed with the narrative. We read (ver. 15 — 25) as follows: '^Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a j^nsoner, whom they v/ould. And they had then a notable prisoner, 9—2 132 SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE GOSPELS OF THE called Barabbas. Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ ? For he knew that for envy they had de- livered him. When he was set down on the judg- ment-seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man : for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him. But the chief priests and elders persuaded the mul- titude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus. The governor answered and said unto them. Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you ? They said, Barabbas. Pilate saith unto them. What shall I do then with Jesus who is called Christ? They all say unto him. Let him be crucified. When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. Then answered all the people, and said. His blood be on us, and on our children." Can any one read over this passage and believe that an interpreter was em- ployed between the governor and the multitude ? can any one yield for a moment to the supposition that these rapid and passionate questionings and exclama- tions, which were now exchanged between Pilate and the populace, were not expressed in a common lan- guage, but by the roundabout process of interpreta- tion ? If so, I despair of producing any effect upon his mind by argument. But if not so, the position is again won for which I contend: if the governor and the people are admitted to have conversed in a common language, the inference is plain — that Ian- PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 133 guage was Greeh, and the common people of Jeru- salem were then quite habituated to its employment. On turninor to the accounts of the same transac- tion, which are contained in the other evangelists, we find that they all bear testimony to the correctness of that conclusion which has already been reached. In St Mark's Gospel (chap. xv. 8,) we are told that 'Hhe multitude (J o;^Xos) crying aloud began to desire Pilate to do as he had ever done unto them." And did not the governor understand that cry, until he had consulted his interpreter — an invisible personage who never makes his presence known in the narra- tive, and whose precarious existence is entirely depen- dent on the imaofination of certain critics*? At any rate, it is unquestionable that Pilate lost no time in replying to the excited populace; for we imme- diately read (ver. 9) that he " answered them, saying, Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews?" And the evangelist then repeats the ac- count of that conversation between the Koman ruler and the people of Jerusalem which has already been given us by St Matthew. In the parallel passage of St Luke's Gospel we read, (chap, xxiii.13, 14,) that " Pilate, when lie had called together the chief 23riests, and the rulers and the people, said unto them, Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that pervert- etli the people ; and, behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no f.mlt in this man touching * '• What language, then, did our Lord use before Pilate 1 or what did Pilate u:^e himself? the answer to these questions does not give us any concern. An interpreter may have been used, although not mentioned," &c. — " Evan. Chr." ut sup., May 1860, p. 287. The writer forgets to ask, What language did the populaco employ on the occasion in liucstion ? 134 SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE GOSPELS OF THE those things whereof ye accuse him ;" from which it is plain^ that priests and people were simultaneously addressed by the governor in a language which all understood. And if we look to the supplementary accounts of the same events which are contained in the Gospel of St John^ we find new and most con- vincing proof that no interpreter could have been used between Pilate and the people, in the various intercourse which they had on this occasion. We are told (chap, xviii. 38 — 40) that after some con- versation with the prisoner before him, Pilate " went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all. But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews? Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas." Now, I ask again. Is it possible to interpolate into this record the idea of an interpi'eter, who was employed between Pilate and the people? Or, can such a supposition be tolerated for a moment, when we advance a little in the narrative, and read (chap. xix. 4 — 7), "Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them. Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him. Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man ! When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucif}" him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him. The Jews answered him. We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God." It does PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 135 not require a word here to prove, that Pilate and the peo2:)le of the Jews conversed directly with each other ; and it follows from this, as a necessary consequence, that the inhabitants of Jerusalem were then perfectly accustomed to the use of the Greek lano-uaofe*. I shall next direct the reader's attention to a notice, contained in the first tw^o evangelists, of some remarks made by the bystanders around the cross, when our Lord exclaimed, " Eli, Eli, lama sabach- thani?" We read in St Matthew's Gospel (chap, xxvii. 47 — 49), that ''some of them tliat stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias. And straightway one of them ran, and took a sponge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink. The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him." In the parallel passage in St Mark's Gospel, (chap. XV. 35, 36,) we read, that ''some of them that stood by, when they heard it, said. Behold, he calleth Elias. And one of them ran and filled a sponge full of vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink, saying, Let alone; let us see whether Elias will come to take him down." Now, it appears to me, that here, as so often, commentators have involved themselves in difficulty, by seeking after some other than the natural import of the Avords. It is agreed * It is not a little striking, at'tcv the c^ear and abnnclant evidence which is thus seen to be imbedded in the Gospel history, that Greek was quite familiar to all ranks in Jerusalem, to find such an eminent writer as Dean JSTilman declaring himself satisfied (" Bampton Lectui'es," p. 193) " that the body of the native people in Palestine spoke the Ara- maic dialect, and »o other." And quite recently (June, 1864), I find in Lec/der's "Commentary on the Acts" fp. 76), the statement that "the inhabitants of Galilee were accustomed to speak only the Aramaic." — ■ Claries " For. Theol. Lib.," Third Scries, Vol. xxi. 136 SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE GOSPELS OF THE upon by almost all recent critics, that none but Jeius could have uttered them;* for, what would others, such as the Koman soldiers, to whom the words have sometimes been ascribed, either know or care about Elias? So far, I quite agree with the views now generally expressed by biblical interpreters. But then, they are almost equally unanimous in supposing that the words were spoken in bitter irony ; and witli that part of their exposition of the passage, I can find no reason to concur. On my mind the narra- tive leaves a decided impression, that the words were uttered in honest ignorance, without any intended mockery or perversion. As they stand in St Mark, there is not the sliMitest foundation furnished for the opinion, that they were spoken in derision; and had they been so, we can hardly suppose that that evangelist would have dropped the ojvros w4iich occurs in St Matthew, and which is referred to by many, as denoting the sarcastic spirit in which the words were uttered. St Mark^ more than any of the evan- gelists, furnishes us with minute hints as to the real circumstances in which events recorded in the Gospel- narrative occurred; and would not, we may believe, have failed to do so on this occasion, had there really been any such sting in the word ovropovr)Tah "ye despisei-s." t See above, Chap. i. pp. IS— 20. 182 SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE ACTS OF THE awain, we find the clearest and most conclusive evi- dence in favour of our proposition. The speeches of St Peter and St James before the assembly which had convened to deliberate on the point then threat- ening to break the peace of the Church, as well as the letter by whicli the mind of the council was conveyed to the parties interested, may all be shewn by the most irrefragable proof to have been spoken and written in the form in which we still possess them, — the Greek language. This follows at once, with respect to the speeches, from the consideration that deputies, sent up with Paul and Barnabas by the Church at Antioch to have the matter in dispute discussed and settled, (ver. 2,) were present during the debates which now took place regarding it. As was formerly shewn*, there can be no question that in Antioch, the capital of the Greek kingdom of Syria, the Greek language was habitually employed ; and it would have been truly strange if the deputies referred to, on coming up to Jerusalem, and sub- mitting the controverted point to the judgment of the Church in that city, had found themselves pre- cluded, by the use of Hebrew in the assembly, from understanding one v/ord of what was said. But it is manifest that no such course was followed. We naturally suj^pose that the various speakers, among whom Peter, Barnabas, and Paul are expressly men- tioned, made use of the same lanofuagfe that we have always hitherto seen them employing, and not the Hebrew, the use of which would have necessitated the employment of an interpreter to some of the audience^ a functionary of whom not the least trace * Sec above, Chap. 11. \>. G3. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 183 is to be found in tlie narrative. And the speech of James, who seems to have spoken as president, contains positive evidence that Greek was the lan- guage employed. It includes a very remarkable citation from the Book of Amos, differing widely towards the close from the Hebrew original; but agreeing as nearly with the Septuagint, as is usually the case with those memoriter quotations which occur so frequently in the New Testament, Now, it is impossible to believe that the inspired historian would have attributed the words of the LXX. to the apostle on this occasion had not St James actually employed them, since, in fact, the weight of the argument greatly depends on that part of the citation which differs entirely from the Hebrew text ; and it is therefore evident that the speech must have been delivered in the Greek language*. Again, that the epistle agreed upon by the assem- bly to be sent to "the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia," (ver. 23,) was written in Greek, is too plain to require any remark. No one can possibly deny it who considers either its form, which is in the regular ej^istolary style of the Greeks, or the j^ersons to whom it was addressed, who are expressly described as Gen- tiles. The formula of salutation with which it opens * The attempts made to deny this are but few and feeble. Alford expresses his belief that James "spoke in Greek;" and Alexander re- marks : " The quotation is made from the Septuagint version, even •where it varies most from the orighial, not becauss the latter would not answer the apostle's purpose, but because he no doubt spoke in Greek, and therefore used the current version without regard to its inaccu- racies, as they did not interfere with the design of his quotation." — " Comm. on Acts," in loc. 184 SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE ACTS OF THE (Xa'tpeiv) is the same with that contained in the letter of Claudius Lysias to Felix, (chap, xxiii. 26,) and only occurs again in the New Testament in the Epistle of James, (ver. i ;) and like both these docu- ments*, it was undoubtedly composed in the Greek On lookino" into the various critical commentaries on this chapter, I find there is an almost unanimous agreement with the views which have just been ex- pressed as to the language employed in tlie trans- actions of the council at Jerusalem. Exjoositors are here led, in s|)ite of all preconceived notions, to fall in with that proposition which it is the object of this work to establish. They admit that Greek was now the language used by'E/3^a7o£ no less than'EXX;/t'to-Tai, (adopting, for the moment, the meaning which thei/ put upon these terms,) and yet they imagine that the great distinction between the two parties was that the former used the Hebrew, and the latter the Greek language. The vast majority of the au- dience on this occasion consisted of the natives of Jerusalem — tlie to TrXrjOo^ mentioned in ver. 12, who seem, also, in a somewhat irregular way, to have taken part in the discussion, (ver. 7, compared with ver. 12,) and who were all to be ranked among the * It is pretty commonly asserted that the letter of Claudius Lysias, here referred to, was written in Latin. (Sec Conyh. and Ilotcson, i. 3.) But this is one of those baseless statements in which, without any warrant from the narrative, commentators on Scripture have been too much in the habit of indulging. It is 2)ossibIe that Latin may have been used on this occasion, but to say that " there is hardly any doubt " that such was the case, is going far beyond the warrant of the facts. Dr Ale.candcr well remarks (in loc), "As Greek was in such extensive use, there is no need of supposing that this letter is translated from the Latin." PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 185 'Ef^poLoi as that word is usually explained. Yet tlio language employed throughout was Greek. How, then, can the distinction stand which discriminates between the Hellenists and Hebrews of chapter vi. i, specially on the ground of the dialect which the two parties severally used? Is it not plain from this passage, even though there were no other, that no such distinction existed between them? And after the proof here furnished, is it possible to deny any longer the truth of our proposition, that Greek was then the language regularly employed in Palestine, both for all literary purposes, and on all ordinary public occasions? After the events narrated in the fifteenth chapter, we are again led away by the course of the narrative from Jerusalem, and follow the footsteps of St Paul, as he journeys through Asia Minor and Greece, confirming the churches which he had formerly planted, and introducing the gospel into new regions which had not as yet listened to the accents of sal- vation. It needs no word to prove that, in all these peregrinations, the tongue of Greece was still the instrument which the apostle employed in addressing to men the words of eternal life. Throughout the travels recorded in the sixteenth, seventeenth, eigh- teenth, nineteenth, and twentieth chapters, in which there meet us such names as Philippi, Thessalonica, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, and Miletus, not the most sceptical can doubt that it was the Greek language ■which was continually employed. It is not till we reach the twenty-first chapter that we again find the apostle in Palestine, and at Jerusalem. And here, as before, I believe the plainest proof is pre- 18G SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE ACTS OF THE sented that Greek was the language commonly em- ployed in public by the inhabitants of that city; although I readily admit it is equally plain that occasions might arise on which those able to do so would deem it advisable to address them in Aramaic, the existing representative of the ancient vernacular language of the country. St Paul, having long been distinguished for the liberal spirit with wliich he treated the Gentiles, and the zeal with which he opposed the narrow bigotry of the Judaistic party in the Church, had become pecu- liarly obnoxious to the stern upholders of the law of Moses, whether within or without the pale of Chris- tianity. On arriving at Jerusalem, therefore, he found that, though most cordially received by James and the other leading men in the Church, they were somewhat suspicious of the effect which his arrival would have upon the multitude of Jewish zealots, who had yielded to the power of the gospel, but who still clung, with the most pertinacious obstinacy, to the ordinances of the law. It was accordingly pro- posed to him that he should publicly engage in one of those Judaic observances, which were in them- selves indifferent, but to which the narrow-minded party in the Church attached much importance, and by the performance of which it was hoped that they would become more favourably affected towards the apostle. St Paul appreciated the motives which led the leaders of the Church in Jerusalem to give him this advice. He had no misf^ivinof that St James and the others associated with him in the government of the Church did not themselves concur, in substance, with the views which he had been ■ PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 187 accustomed to express. But he perceived the dif- ficulty of tlieir position, as having to deal with those who were as yet totally incapable of understanding the free and catholic spirit of the gospel. With that largeness of mind, therefore, and that tender regard for the prejudices and preferences of others, which ever led him, when no point of principle was in- volved, to "become all things to all men," St Paul agreed to their proposal, and went through the ser- vice which had been suo^o-ested. But the result was different from what was ex- pected. It happened that some Jews from Asia, who had doubtless been among his former opponents at Ephesus, (chap. xx. 19,) were then in Jerusalem, and seeing him in the temple, seized the opportunity of exciting the minds of the people at large against him. Laying hold of him where he stood, and evi- dently determined, in the most summary manner, to gratify the hatred which they bore him, they cried out, we are told, (ver. 28,) ''Men of Israel, help! This is the man that teacheth all men everywhere against the people and the law, and this place; and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place." Now, in what language, I would ask, w^as this exclamation uttered? The answer is obvious, that it was in Greek. For, from whom did the words proceed? From men of Asia — inhabitants of Ephesus or the neighbourhood* — persons to whom the Greek only was vernacular, and of whose knowledge of Hebrew, ancient or modern, not a tittle of evidence can be produced. It is easy, no doubt, to assume that these foreign, Asiatic Jews * Sec Alford and Alexander, in loc. 188- SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE ACTS OF THE did understand and employ Aramaic. JBut until some proof is advanced, such an assertion deserves no consideration. And I venture to maintain that no proof can be produced that the inhabitants of the district of Ephesus then made use of any other lan- guage than Greek*. In Greek, therefore, I hold their appeal was now made to the Jewish multitude in Jerusalem. And did it meet with any response, or was there difficulty in understanding it? The answer is found in these words, (ver. 30,) "And all the city was moved, and the people ran together ; and they took Paul, and drew him out of the temple, and forthwith the doors were shut." We thus learn that the people of Jerusalem were at once roused by the outcry raised by these Jews of Asia in Greek ; and as it is impossible even for those fondest of the hypothesis on otlier occasions to imagine that an interpreter was employed at this time, it follows, beyond all question, that the common people of the city — the very rabble, (o o-)(\orj.v6-i" Avere in the habit of employing Latin even when addressing Greeks ; but the very expression tlms used implies that the custom had ceased, a fact after- wards clearly brought out by the historian himself in a passage formerly PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 101 It does not seem at all likely tliat, luJess under the pressure of necessity, Ananias and his colleagues, who, as we learn from the first verse of the chapter, were then present, would have been willing that their advocate should speak in Latin— a language which we have no reason to believe that they understood. And as it cannot be questioned that Paul's address (ver. 10 — 21) was delivered in Greek, and so as to be perfectly understood by his accusers, the natural conclusion is that the same language was employed throughout the whole proceedings ; so that we find in this chapter another proof how familiar Greek then was to the inhabitants of Palestine, and per- ceive how even the ecclesiastical authorities, who might have been supposed the most determined up- holders of all that was distinctively national, were accustomed, as a matter of course, to have causes in which they were interested conducted in the Greek language*. In the twenty-fifth chapter (ver. 7,) we read that the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem again urged many vehement charges against Paul, and that Paul, (ver. 8,) as was his wont, pleaded his own cause quoted in this work (see Chap. 11. p. 30). Besides, in a passage of Dio Cdssim, also ([uoted above, it is expressly stated that, under Tiberius, l^leadings were conducted, even at Rome, in the Greek language. And, as has been well remarked, if that wore allowed in the capital, we cau hardly suppose that a stricter rule was followed in the provinces. ■'• If anywhere, it must have been in ecclesiastical assemblies that the Aramaic would be employed. To this day, Welsh is the language made use of in Wales on such occasions, although great part of the people are quite familiar with English. The clear proof presented in this chapter, that not even in the ecclesiastical courts at Jerusalem was Aramaic used, furnishes decisive evidence that it was not generally employed on any public occasions. ' 192 SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE ACTS OF THE before the governor. Tlien follows (ver. 9) an account of a proposal made to the apostle by Festus at the instance of the Jews, that he should go up to be tried at Jerusalem; but Paul, jDerceiving the craft which was involved in this proposal, refuses to accept of it; and, apparently despairing of having justice done him by Festus, ends his brief reply (ver. 10, 11) by making his appeal to the emperor in the usual form, and is accordingly reserved unto the hearing of Augustus. All these proceedings were evidently carried on in the Greek language. The same was obviously the case with the long apologetic discourse of the apostle before Agrippa, of which a full report is preserved in the twenty-sixth chapter. And it may be remarked generally with respect to this part of the Acts, (chaps, xxii. — xxvi.) that, of the five apologies of St Paul which it contains, two were before Jews with Gentiles present — two before Gen- tiles with Jews present — and this last one was " before a man who might be said to represent, in his own person, both religions and both governments— a Jew by education and profession, the official guardian of the temple and defender of the faith, but at the same time a crowned vassal of the Poman empire, bound to it not only by political necessity, but by personal interest and predilection*." Of all these, with the exception of the first— an exception specially marked by the historian — there is evidence both of an internal and external kind to shew that they were delivered in tlie Greek lanofuao^e. The twenty-seventh chapter contains an account of the voyage of Paul in a ship of Alexandria towards * Alexander " Ou the Acts," 11. p. 409. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 193 Italy. The various short speeches of the apostle, pre- served in this chapter (ver. lo, 21 — 26, 31, 33 — 34) were all, of necessity, expressed in the Greek lan- guage. And the same language continues to be used in the following chapter which concludes the book. It has been argued by some that we have a proof of the supernatural knowledge of languages possessed by the apostles, in the fact that the inhabitants of the island on which the ship carrying Paul was now wrecked are styled "barbarians," yet were understood by him or Luke (ver. 4) in their whisperings with one another*. Those who reason thus suppose that the natives of the island employed only some ver- nacular tongue, and are styled barbarians on account of their utter isfnorance of Greek. But this is a hasty conclusion. The epithet in question seems to have been given them not on account of their lan- guage, but their descent. They were a Phoenician, and not a Greek or Eoman colony. No doubt some Punic form of speech was current among them, as the Lycaonian was at Lystra, and the Hebrew in Jerusalem. But the opinion that they did not also employ Greek seems inconsistent with the fact that vessels from Greek-speaking countries were in the habit of touching at, or wintering in, the isle (ver. 10); and also with the fact that there was a Boman settlement near the spot where Paul was * Wordsworth's " New Testament," in loc. This able scholar, mis- led by the opinion he has adoi»tcd respecting the gift of tongues, finds in this passage " another silent evidence of power, in the apostles and evangelists, to understand and speak languages which they had n< t learnt, and were not supposed to know, just as they understood what was said in the Lycaonian dialect, and spoke it to the people at Lystra." See above, Chap. i. pp. 18-20 ; and Chap. in. pp. 71-77. ]o O 194 SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE ACTS OF THE wrecked, and consequently some knowledge of the Greek literature and language. The Publius who re- ceived Paul so courteously (ver. 7) was probably the governor of the island under the Praetor of Sicily*. And it appears from two inscriptions which have been discovered in Malta, the one in Latin, and the other in Greek, that there is a reference in the word Trpwros, employed by St Luke, to the official title which he bore, Uptoro^ MeXiTalcou. All this shews that the in- habitants could not have been ignorant of the Greek language. The apostle at length arrived in Home; and we have an account, in the concluding portion of the chapter, (ver. 17 — 28), of several interviews which he had with his countrymen in that city. It needs no argument to prove that the language employed on these occasions was Greek. The Epistle to the Po- mans furnishes sufficient evidence on that point; and we cannot doubt that, as the apostle had formerly written to them, so now he would converse with them, in the Greek language. We have thus gone through the whole book of the Acts, with a view to ascertain what evidence it bears respecting the question under consideration. And it has uttered no uncertain sound. From be- ginning to end we have found demonstrative proof of the constant and familiar use then made of the Greek language by the Jews of Palestine, as well as their brethren in other countries. There are four occasions especially to which I would direct the * Cicero, hi "Yerrem," ii. 4, IS. See the commentators on the pas- \ PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 195 reader's attention, as absolutely decisive of the ques- tion at issue. The first is the sermon of Peter on the day of Pentecost — the second, the address of Ste- phen before the Sanhedrim — the third, the speeches delivered by the various speakers in the council at Jerusalem — and the fourth, the outcry raised by the Jews of Asia against St Paul when they met with him in the temple. Let the arguments brought forward to shew that on all these occasions Greek was the lanofuasfe used be either refuted, or let the conclusion to be derived from that fact be admitted. That conclusion, I humbly think, is not over-stated when it is expressed in the terms of the proposition contended for in this work — that " Greek was widely diffused, well understood, and commonly employed for all 2^ublic purposes in Palestine, in the times of Christ and His Apostles." 13- CHAPTER YI. PROOF FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IX PALESTINE IN THE TIMES OF CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES. More controversies have perhaps been waged re- sjDecting the Epistle to the Hebrews than any other book of the New Testament. All admit that it is a noble composition. In a mere literary and artistic point of view, it takes the very highest place among the books of Scriptm^e. In no other is the language so copious and flowing, or the march of the argument so stately and imposing. The Epistle to the Komans may, indeed, vie with it in point of doctrinal import- ance, and may not be inferior in regard to the skill with which the reasoning is articulated, and the various portions of the argument made to converge on one grand conclusion. But in manner and style, the Epistle to the Hebrews is peculiar. The sonorous character of its diction, the rhythmical balancing of its clauses, the regular construction of its sentences, and the frequent and elaborate illustrations which it contains, serve to mark it out especially from the acknowledged epistles of Paul, and distinguish it, less PROOF FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS, ETC. 197 or more strikingly, from all the other books of the New Testament. It follows at once from the fact that this very- peculiar composition is anonymous, that the question of its authorship must furnish a problem of no easy solution to the biblical student. Had its charac- teristics been those of the generally-received epistles of Paul, there might have been little difficulty in acquiescing in the conclusion which associates it with his name. But, as is at once evident, the differences are many and great. No reader of the New Testa- ment can pass from a perusal of the Epistle to the Romans to the Epistle to the Hebrews, without feel- ing as if he had entered an entirely new realm of thought, and were brought in contact with a mind of quite a different order and cultivation. Accord- ingly, from the days of Origen downwards, all critical students of God's Word have been greatly perplexed by this question of authorship. On the one hand, the transcendent excellence of the epistle seems of itself to suggest its apostolic origin. No one W'ho compares it with any of the sub-apostolic writings can fail to be struck with its immense superiority. The jejune character of even the best remains of the apostolic fathers, the utter want of original or seminal thoughts wdiich appears in them, and the not unfrequently silly or superstitious remarks in which they indulge — all form a very marked contrast to this epistle, and all seem necessarily to suggest its divine authority and inspiration. But then, on the other hand, to what one of the apostles or their associates is it to be ascribed? That is the question which, above all others, agitates, from age to age. 198 PROOF FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS the minds of biblical scholars in connexion with this epistle, and which continues to receive, from dif- ferent inquirers, the most varied and contradictory answers. Other questions, moreover, remain behind. There is not, indeed, a single point connected with the epistle that has not been made the subject of controversy. Whether it he an epistle or a treatise — whether its original language was Hebrew or Greek — whether, if St Paul was not its sole author, he had any part in its composition — whether, if the Pauline origin must be altogether set aside, the work is to be ascribed to Luke, or Barnabas, or Apollos — and whether it was to the inhabitants of Palestine that it w^as pri- marily addressed, or what other community of Chris- tians is to be fixed upon as its original recipients, are all points which have been keenly discussed, and which still divide, to a considerable extent, the opinion of the learned world. Under the influence of the many important ques- tions thus suggested, the epistle has been subjected to the most elaborate and searching criticism. A large library might be formed of the literature bear- ing upon this subject. There is not a hint or allu- sion contained in the epistle, not a phrase or idiom employed, but has been seized upon by industrious and keen-eyed critics, and made to tell favourably upon their own hypotheses, or unfavourably upon those of their opponents. Thus, if it cannot be said that the oft-repeated study of this epistle, and of the various notices respecting it which are to be found in ancient writers, has yet led to a positive settle- ment of all the questions connected with it, it may OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 199 certainly be said, that we possess a far more intimate acquaintance with every point, internal and external, belonging to this portion of Scripture, than we would, or could have done, but for the many and serious difficulties surrounding it. It is only to the last of the inquiries referred to above that we are here called to direct special atten- tion. The question concerning the readers for whose benefit especially the work was written, has manifestly a very important bearing on the controversy respect- ing the language then prevalent in Palestine. And to contribute to the settlement of that question is the ultimate object contemplated in this chapter. It seems to be necessary, however, before proceeding to the examination of this point, to say a few words in regard to the other questions which have been men- tioned, since the determination of one has some in- fluence on the conclusion we are likely to form con- cerning another. That the writing is an epistle, and not a disserta- tion or treatise, as some have maintained from the want of the usual introductory formula, I believe, with almost all recent critics, to be too plain to re- quire any lengthened argumentation. There are numerous personal appeals contained in it; the con- clusion is in the regular epistolary style of salutation and benediction; in short, the notion that it is not an epistle, but a homily or general discourse, is just one of those fanciful hypotheses, which have too fre- quently found their way into biblical science, but which scarcely deserve or call for any elaborate refutation. As to the language in which the epistle was ori- 200 PROOF FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS ginally written, many considerations tend to prove that it was Greek. The testimony of antiquity, in- deed, rather points to a different conclusion. Cle- ment of Alexandria, the very first writer who refers expressly to the authorship of the epistle, declares that it " was written to the Hebrews, in the Hebrew language." Eusebius, who has preserved to us this statement of Clement, also gives it as his own opi- nion, that the ejoistle was addressed " to the Hebrews in their native tongue;" though, as in the analogous case of St Matthew's Gospel, he afterwards falls into inconsistency, and reasons as if he believed the ori- ginal language to have been Greek. Jerome, in like manner, affirms that Hebrew was the original lan- guage of our epistle, Referring in one part of his works C'Catal. Script. Eccl.," chap. v. Paulus) to the various opinions entertained respecting its author- ship, he seems, upon the whole, to ascribe it to St Paul, and then expressly declares, '^Scripserat auteni ut Hebrseus, Hebrseis, Hebraice." The same state- ment is made by Theodoret, Theophylact, and others of the Fathers, and has been adopted by some learned writers in modern times. But the great majority of biblical scholars at the present day agree in be- lieving, on the ground of internal evidence furnished by the epistle, that the ancients were in error on this point, and that the original form of the writing was just that in which we still possess it. The next question which occurs is that which re- gards the authorship of the epistle. It is with mucli hesitation that I here touch upon this famous problem, as, however inadequately discussed, it must, I am afraid, if referred to at all, keep us too long from the OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 20l subject wliicli more immediately requires our atten- tion. But since the two questions respecting the autJio7'sJup and the destination of the epistle seem at some points to be vitally connected together, I shall trust to the reader's indulgence while dwelling some- what longer on the former point than is, perhaps, altogether proper in a work professing to deal only with the Gospels. According to some, internal evidence is all that we have to guide us to a conclusion respecting the authorship of this epistle. The ancients, with all their statements, hypotheses, and conjectures, furnish us with no assistance. We may, if we choose, hear what they have to say on the subject ; but, after listen- ing to the confused sounds in which they address us, we shall feel that we have got no hint which can be of the slightest value in settling the controversy. All that they can teach us is simply that they know nothing of the matter. And all the advantage which we can derive from looking into their remaining works in quest of information on this subject, is merely to learn that they leave us entirely to our own discre- tion, and that we are at perfect liberty, if our judg- ment should so incline us, to ascribe the epistle to one whose name never occurred to them as its pos- sible author. Thus, Dean Alford (to whose discussion of this question, as the most recent, and one of the most able and impartial, I shall especially refer in the fol- lowing remarks) observes with regard to the external evidence, ''It simply leaves us, unfettered by any overpowering judgment of antiquity, to examine the epistle for ourselves, and form our own opinion from 202 PROOF FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS its contents," (^^ Greek Testament," vol. iv. part i. ; Proleg. p. 12.) Again, "Wbat we require is this: that we of this age should be allowed to do just that which the apyaloi avSpe^ did in their age, examine the epistle simply and freely for and by itself, and form oar conclusions accordingly, as to its author, readers, and date; having respect, indeed, to ancient tradi- tion, where we can find it, but not, where it is so broken and inconsistent with itself, bound by any one of its assertions, or limited in our conclusions by its extent," (Ibid. p. 40). Once more: "In freely pro- posing to ourselves the inquiry. Who wrote the epistle ? as to be answered entirely from the epistle itself, we are not setting aside, but are strictly following, the earliest and weightiest historical testimonies respect- ing it, and the references to be deduced from them. And if any name seems to satisfy the requirements of the epistle itself, those who in modern times sug- gested that name, and those who see reason to adopt it, are not to be held up to derision, as has been done by Mr Forster, merely because that name was not suggested by any among the ancients. The ques- tion is as open now as it was in the second century. They had no reliable tradition ; we have none. If an author is to be found, avro Se'i^ei," (Ibid. pp. 49; 50). ^ Now, without professing to attach very great im- portance to the mere dicta of the early Fathers on any point, historical or theological, I cannot but think that Alford here estimates somewhat lightly the statements they have left us with respect to the question under consideration. It is, I hold, a very sound rule, in dealing with the opinions or assertions OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 203 of early ecclesiastical writers, to follow them as far as indubitable facts will possibly permit us. And very often, in acting on this principle, we shall find reason to conclude, that even their errors are not all errors, but that there is an ingredient of truth in the mass of erroneous statements which they make*. The ore may often be of a very impure and inferior character, but still it is golden ore, and for the sake even of the few grains of precious metal which it contains, is not to be at once and contemptuously thrown away. Thus I believe the case stands with reference to the external evidence bearing upon the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews. There is a certain value to be attached to the many statements which have come down to us from antiquity in favour of its Pauline origin; although these statements are often confused and contradictory. Nothing certain, I be- lieve, can be founded on the celebrated passage of the New Testament itself, (2 Peter iii. 15, 16,) in which allusion is made to the epistles of Paul. It cannot be proved that St Peter there refers to the writing before us, and we must pass beyond the confines of inspired Scripture before we find anything which can be shewn to bear clearly and decidedly, either on the authority or authorship of the epistle. But the very first step out of the canon of Scrip- ture introduces us to an author who makes the most copious use of the work under consideration. Cle- ment of Kome, whose Epistle to the Corinthians was probably written before the close of the first century, has quoted very largely from the Epistle to the * See this point again touched upon in Part ii. chap. iii. 204 PROOF FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS Hebrews. His own WTiting, indeed, seems, in many passages, just an echo of our epistle. He appears to have ascribed to it the authority of inspiration, although, of course, we do not find him referring to it in those technical terms which afterwards came to denote canonicity. He is silent respecting the au- thorship ; and, if himself acquainted with the name of the author, must for some reason or other, have abstained from mentioning it*, since we find uncer- tainty prevailing on that point in the Western Church down to about the middle of the fourth century. At that date the practice begins among Latin writers of quoting the epistle as St Paul's; and, in spite of lin- gering doubts, the habit of ascribing it to him is more and more established. Long before this date, the tradition which as- signed the ej)istle to Paul had been acknowledged in the Eastern Church as embodying a certain amount of truth. Pantsenus, head of the catechetical school at Alexandria, in the middle of the second century, ascribed the epistle to St Paul, {Euseb. "Hist. Eccl." VI. i4f). This testimony, wdth some modifications * There seems to be some force in the remark of Dr Wurdsicorth (" Greek Test., Proleg. to Hebrews"), " The author of the Epistle to tlie Hebrews, whoever he was, had written anonymously, and doubtless he had good reason for doing so. If the writer w^as St Paul, then St Clement, who was an intimate friend of the apostle, and Avrote soon after his decease, woukl know and respect those reasons, and would be guided by them." This observation is equally applicable to the modi- fied as to the absolute view of the Pauline authorship ; but it seems utterly impossible to give any explanation of the silence of Clement, if the epistle were wTittcn by Apollos, and addressed, as Alford believes, to the Church of Rome. + I here assume, as is generally done, that by the expression fiaKa- piof irpfo-livTepos employed by Clement (loc. cit.), he mcims Pa ntcvii its, although Crcdner remarks on this point (" Einl." § 189), that it is " kein- csweges so sicher als angenonuncn wird." OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 205 wliicli are important, as pointing, I believe to the right conclusion on this perplexing subject, is repeated by Clement himself. His view is (JEuseh. ut sup.) that the epistle was Paul's, but written by the apostle in Hebrew, and carefully translated by Luke into Greek — whence he accounts for the similarity of dic- tion which it presents to the Acts of the Apostles. And then his great disciple Origen follows. He ha- bitually quotes the epistle as St Paul's; and in one part of his writings distinctly attributes fourteen epi- stles to that apostle. It is true that when he comes to give his own opinion respecting the epistle, he introduces, as Clement had done, some modifications into his ascription of it to St Paul, and still more correctly than his master, furnishes us with the liint which seems sufficient to harmonise all the facts con- nected with the epistle. His words are {Eiiseh. "H. E." VI. 25) — "Expressing my own view on the question, I would say that the thoughts belong to the apostle, but that the stijle and comj^osition are due to one who put on record the apostolic ideas, and, as it v^ere, commented on the expressions employed by his master. If any church, therefore, holds this as the epistle of Paul, let it by all means be commended for so doing. For not without reason have the ancients handed it down as Paul's. But who lurote the epi- stle, God alone truly knoweth. The report which has reached us is twofold : some saying tliat Clement who was bishof) of Rome wrote it; and others, that Luke was the writer, the same who wrote the Gospel and Acts." Alford's comment on this important passage is as follows (ut sup. p. 7): "Who the apyaloi ui'Sfj€S 206 PROOF TROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS were, it is impossible for us to say. Possibly, if we confine our view to one church, no more than Pan- ta?nus and Clement, and their disciples. One thing is very plain, that they cannot have been men whose Trapd^oais satisfied Origen himself, or he would not have spoken as he has. Be they who they might, one thing is plain, that their Trapct^oais is spoken of by him as oiiK ekfj, not as resting on external matter of fact, but as finding justification in the internal character of the epistle; and that it did not extend to the fact of St Paul having written the epistle, but only to its being in some sense his." To my mind this seems a very inadequate representation of Ori- gen's meaning. In the first jDlace, the attempt to limit the expression "the ancients" to Origen's own teacher and his predecessor at Alexandria, is so plainly inadmissible as to require no remark*. And then the further assertion that the Trapd^ocri^ spoken of by Origen, is to be regarded as resting on the in- ternal character of the epistle, is, as appears to me, to miss the point altogether. Had Origen meant jiny such thing as Alford maintains, he would surely not have used the expression "handed down" (-n-apa- Se^wKaai) at all, but would rather have said that "the ancients not without cause supposed or affirmed the epistle to be Paul's." The obvious meaning of the pas- sage seems to be this. Origen informs us that there was an ancient tradition connecting our epistle with the apostle Paul. He also acknowledges the validity of * Hug gives the expression apxaioi avhpes no more than its natural import when lie says (Introd., Fosdlclcs translation, ii. § 147), "This ex- pression, used by a man in the third century, lias a very important meaning, and would seem to carry us back near to the times of the apostJcs." OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 207 this tradition, so much so as to approve of the con- duct of any church which attributed it pur et simple to the apostle. But then he beheved that the tradi- tion left room for some modification of this idea re- specting the Pauline authorship. He was inclined, on internal grounds, to attribute the tJioughts to Paul, the composition to another. That other he does not definitely fix, but mentions Clement and Luke as both having been named in connexion with the writing (the secondary authorship) of the epistle*. How far the report which had thus reached him was true, he does not undertake to decide. But he leaves, as I humbly think, the tradition which, in some sense, ascribed the epistle to St Paul, on ground which is unassailable. And it is, I believe, to take up a posi- tion entirely difierent from that of Origen, when any one imagines himself, as Alford does, at liberty to cast aside the external evidence altogether, and to support the claims of any name different from that of the apostle, to the sole authorship of the epistle. The result, then, of our inquiry into ancient testi- mony on the question now before us, is that we pro- ceed to the investigation of the contents of the epistle itself, with a decided leaning towards Paul as being, in some sense, its author. It may turn out, on an examination of the internal evidence, that we find * Tliat the much- controverted clause tIs 8e 6 ypa\lfas rrjv inia-ToKrjv, TO aXTjdes 6fos oibev, refers not to the mere scribe, on the one hand, or to tlie author of the vorjixara, on the other, appears to uie manifest from the scojie of the passage. Origen expresses no doubt, so far as he was liim- self concerned, as to the author of the substance of the epistle ; his only doubt refers to the person who gave it its special character and form, Alford, therefore, appears wide of the mark when he states, as one of his inferences from the passage (ut sup.), "t/iat the authorship of the ej)isUe teas regarded by Origen as utterly tinknown" 208 PROOF FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS reason to yield fully to this leaning, and accept of the apostle as the sole author of the epistle ; or that we are compelled to resist it, and deny that he had any hand whatever in its composition ; or, finally, that we are led to rest in some such conclusion as Oriofen, ascribing the thoughts and subject-matter to Paul, while we attribute the peculiar character and style of the epistle to another. I proceed then briefly to con- sider the internal evidence, as it bears on these three positions; — and let us look — First, At the hypothesis of the exclusively Pauline autJiorshijy. As may have been gathered from what has been already said, I cannot acquiesce in this conclusion. It seems to me opposed by the whole character and style of the epistle. I do not, however, quite see the force of some of the objections which have been brought against this hypothesis. No insuperable difficulty appears to me to arise from the passage (chap. ii. 3) in which the writer speaks of himself as, with his readers, having received the gospel at second-hand, and not directly from Christ, as Paul earnestly claims for himself in other epistles. Luther, Calvin, and many other eminent critics, have deemed this of itself decisive against the Pauline authorship. They have also dwelt very much on the absence, in this epistle, of personal allusions to the writer's own position and history ; and have found in this, as con- trasted with the well-known habit of St Paul, a reason for denying that he could have been the author of this epistle*. * Both objections are put very strongly by Dean Alford. With respect to tlie former, he says (p. 44), "That an apostle, who ever OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 209 Now, in my judgment, such arguments as these proceed to a great extent on a forgetfulness of the special character which ex liypothesi attaches to the epistle. Supposing it Paul's, it is designedly anonymous. He feels from the first, that there are special circumstances attending the composition of this work. He sits down to it with the resolution not, as in his other epistles, to begin with the men- tion of his name, or the assertion of his apostolical authority. And having begun in this manner, it would have been to run counter to his own desio-n, had he afterwards violently obtruded his personality on the attention of his readers. While he manifestly did not wish absolutely to C07iceal his identity, as appears from the end of the epistle, he as manifestly did not wish strongly to suggest it, as is plain from the beginning. And in such a case, the fact that he quietly identifies himself M'ith his readers in chap, ii, 3, and the absence of marked individual traits throughout the epistle, seem to me in no degree to tell against its Pauline origin. All the characteristic claimed to have received tlie gospel, not from men but from the Lord himself. — who was careful to state that when he met the chief apostles in council they added nothing to him, should at all, and especially in writing (as the hypothesis generally assumes) to the very church where the influence of those other apostles was at its highest, place himself on a level with their disciples as to the reception of the gospel from them, is a supposition so wholly improbable, that I cannot explain its having been held by so many men of discernment, except on the supposition that their bias towards the Pauline authorship has blinded them to the well-known character and habit of the apostle." Again, in reference to the other objection, he remarks (p. 45), " Much .stress has been laid, and duly, on the entire absence of personal notices of the writer, as affecting the question of the Pauline authorship. This is so inconsistent with the otherwise invariable practice of St Paul, that some very strong reason must be supposed which shoiild influence him in this case to dejiart from that practice." Comp. also p. 47. 14 210 PROOF FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS tendencies of the apostle must of necessity Lave been kept in check throughout, else he might as well have beofun at once with a declaration of his name, and an assertion of his status as an apostle, as we find him doing in his other epistles. But while I cannot attribute to the above argu- ments that weight which many eminent critics have assigned them, I am still led, on other grounds, to say with Calvin, " Ego ut Paulum agnoscam autorem adduci nequeo." The reasons which specially weigh with me in forming this conclusion, are just those which so greatly impressed Origen of old. *' Every one," says that learned father, [Euseh., ut sup,,) 'Svho is capable of noting differences of style, will admit that the character of the diction of the Epistle to the Hebrews does not possess the uncouthness of the apostle, (who confessed himself rude in speech, that is, in style,) but that it is more purely Grecian in its composition." The same fact has been dwelt upon by many distinguished scholars in modern times. Erasmus, for example, remarks, after noticing other reasons which induced him to deny the Pauline origin of the epistle, " Pestat jam argumentum illud, quo non aliud certius, stilus ipse et orationis character, qui nihil habet affinitatis cum plirasi Paulina." This argument indeed, of difference of style, has often been pushed to a ridiculous excess in judging of the authenticity of several books of the New Testament. There has been an absurd and unnatural attempt made by certain critics to tie down the writers of Scripture to the use of a stereotyped style, however different the moods in which they may have written, and even to the employment of the very same vo- OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 211 cables, however diverse the subject of which, at dif- ferent times, they treated. But still the argument from style, in any question bearing upon authorship, is necessarily a strong one, {" quo non aliud certius,^' as Erasmus puts it,) and this is specially the case in writinofs so much distino^uished for their naturalness as are those of the New Testament, — writings in which, as was formerly noticed, the individuality of the several authors so strikingly appears. I believe, then, that the hypothesis of the ex- clusively Pauline authorship of our epistle must be abandoned. The character of the writing itself is de- cisive of this point. It seems impossible, on grounds confirmed by universal experience, that such a com- position could have proceeded from the same pen that wrote the Epistle to the Galatians, or the Epistles to Timothy and Titus. And if a candid examination of the epistle must convince every competent judge of this fact, as it lias convinced the most learned of the Fathers, the most illustrious of the Reformers, and the great majority of eminent biblical scholars in modern times, no considerations of authority, pre- scription, or expediency, must be allowed to interfere with the conclusion. It is curious to observe that although both Luther and Calvin, as well as Erasmus, expressed themselves strongly, at the epoch of the Keformation, against the Pauline authorship, there has been since then, as Alford remarks (p. 38), ''a growing disposition, both in the Pomish and in the Peformed Churches, to erect into an article of faith the Pauline origin, and to deal severely with those who presumed to doubt it*." As was to be expected, * The reason of this has doubtless been that the questions of the 14—2 212 PROOF FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS this tendency has displayed itself most strongly amonof Romanists. "With them, of course, ecclesi- astical authority is everything. If the Church has settled any disputed point, then reason must be si- lenced for ever. And it is lamentable to notice the shifts to which thinking men within the Komish com- munion are thus not unfrequently reduced. "What could be more mournful, for instance, than the way in which a scholar like Erasmus felt himself con- strained to write with respect to this very question ? Having ventured, as we have seen he did, to deny the epistle to be Paul's, the doctors of Paris assailed him with the greatest virulence, and accused him of having written "arroganter et schismatice," as pre- suming to doubt what so many divines, councils, and popes had already determined. Erasmus was fright- ened by this thunder, and in his reply to these vehemently-orthodox champions, declared that while '^juxta sensum humanum," he could not believe the epistle to be St Paul's, yet, if the Church had really determined the question, he would yield all to her authority. " Id si est," he says, " if sh.e requires us to hold not only that what is contained in the ca- nonical books is true, but also that the persons to whom they are ascribed certainly wrote them," then, " damno ac rejicio dubitationem meam ; plus apud me valet expressum Ecclesise judicium, quam ullse authorship and canonical authority of the epistle have been confounded. But the true position is that indicated in such Avords as the following : " Calvin ct Luther avcc leiu's adherents imnie'diats de'clarerent ne pas pouvoir reconmutre Paul pour auteur de cct e'crit ; et les confessions de foi de rAUemagne luthe'rienne et de la France re'forme'e consacrercnt implicement cette opinion, sans renoucer pour cela a citer I'e'pitre conime une autorite apostolique." — Reuss, " Hist." ii. 268. OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 213 rationes humanoe"! It is matter for thankfulness that the spirit of these Sorbonne divines, who thus violently repressed the intelligent convictions of one infinitely better qualified than any among them to give a judgment on the point in question, has to a great extent disappeared, at least in Protestant Churches. A better disposition has happily begun to prevail. Truth, alone is now acknowledged worthy of absolute homage, and in the conviction that ra- tional and reverent inquiry can never injure its au- thority, "we have at last," says Dean Alford, (p. 62,) " in this country begun to learn that Holy Scripture shrinks not from any tests, however severe, and re- quires not any artificial defences, however apparently expedient." We now proceed to consider — Secondly, The hypothesis of the exclusively non- Pauline authorship of our ejnstle. The possible names that present themselves to us on this supposition, are those of Barnabas, Luke, Clement, Mark, Titus, Apollos, Silvanus, Aquila. Of these, Barnabas is supported by the testimony of Tertullian, who, quoting Heb. vi. i, expressly styles our epistle "Epistola Barnab?e." But this opinion, though accompanied by no doubtfulness on the part of Tertullian*, seems never to have prevailed to any great extent in the Church. It is certain that if Barnabas wrote that epistle which is current under his name, he could not also have written the Epistle * It has been adopted by IVicseler iu his " Chronologic des Apos- tolischen Zeitalters," pp. 504, &c., as what he deems the best sup- ported of all the traditions, and is favoui'ed by Conyh. and Hoicson, II. p. 531, &c. 214 PROOF FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS to the Hebrews. The two are in many respects diametrically opposed to each other, and cannot with any prooabilitybe ascribed to the same author. And even though this objection to Barnabas being the writer of our epistle be set aside, by supposing (as is almost certainly the case) that the epistle bearing his name is spurious, we cannot see why, if he had written the Epistle to the Hebrews, it should not have been generally ascribed to him. We know of no plausible reason which, on the hypothesis of his being the author, can be assigned for its anony- mousness, or for the almost complete silence respect- ing his name which is observed by antiquity. On the whole, while the supposition in question is one which it is difficult to refute, from the very little we know of the mental capabilities and characteristics of the person referred to, it has hardly any positive evidence on which to rest, and cannot, I believe, maintain its ground against the tradition, which, in one form or another, ascribes our epistle to St Paul. The hypothesis again, that Luke was the independent writer of the epistle is to my mind sufficiently nega- tived by the fact that the personal notices which it contains, and the tone of authority, however gentle, which it exhibits, do not tally with such a supposi- tion. How far Luke was, in our view, concerned in the composition of the ej)istle, will appear afterwards. It is certain again, that Clement could not have written this e23istle, and also the epistle to the Corin- thians which we possess under his name ; and, as the authenticity of the latter is unquestionable, the hypo- thesis of his being the writer of the former is at once proved untenable. OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 215 These three names then being set aside, there are none of the others which were enumerated, that seem to have any plausible claims to the authorship, with the exception of that o^ Ajyollos. It is well known that Luther was led to hazard the conjecture that, in this eloquent Alexandrian teacher, we may find the much-sought writer of our epistle. This hypothesis of the reformer has been embraced by not a few eminent critics, and among these are some of the very highest rank in modern times. Credner, Tholuck, Bleek, De "Wette, Alford, and others, all agree in holding that to Apollos probably is the authorship of the epistle to be ascribed. And, as such names are of themselves sufficient to indicate, much plausi- bility can be imparted to this supposition. The account of Apollos which Luke gives us in the Acts of the Apostles, when he describes him as " a certain Jew born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, mighty in the scriptures," may certainly be regarded as har- monising with the characteristics presented by our epistle. Alford makes the most of the probability thus imparted to his hypothesis, and seems to find support for it in some very fanciful coincidences*. * He remarks respecting Apollos (p. 58), "He is described as eVt- o-To/xei/oj fiovov TO ^aiTTKT^ia rov 'laavvov, but being more perfectly taught the way of the Lord by Aquila and Priscilla. No wonder then that a person so instituted [instructed ?] should specify ^aTrria-fiav 8i8axi] as one of the components in the dfneXiov of the Christian life (Ileb. vi. 2)." Here we seem to find an illustration of the ease with which fimcied sup- port may be found for a hypothesis already assuiued as true. Although Apollos is described as "knowing on\j the bajjfisjii of John" when he was found by Aquila and Priscilla, yet that does not surely imply that the doctrine of baptism was a thing on which his mind specially dwelt, or that when these better-instructed Christians " expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly," they were particularly anxious to im- press upon him the nature of Christian baptism as distinguished froiu 216 PROOF FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS All we can admit in reference to Apollos, as the supposed author of the epistle, is that its literary character suits very well with the hypothesis. The eloquence attributed to him by St Luke, and the large and powerful use which he could make of the Old Testament scriptures, might certainly be regarded as illustrated in its contents. But when we have admitted thus much, all has been said which can be specially urged in support of the authorship of Apollos. Acquaintance with Paul, which is men- tioned by Alford as another reason in his favour, was shared by many others, such as Barnabas and Luke, and therefore proves nothing. The Alexandrian cha- racter of the epistle again, which has been much insisted on by some, even though admitted to all the extent contended for, really imparts little, if any, additional plausibility to the theory under considera- tion; for it cannot be doubted that Barnabas as a native of Cyprus, which was closely connected with Alexandria, and Luke as a man of general culture who could hardly fail to be acquainted with the writings of Philo, might easily have displayed such familiarity as the epistle suggests, with Alexandrian modes of thought and literature. And any presumption which may be supposed to arise in favour of Apollos from the style of the writ- that of John. The meaning of the passage sunply is this, that when Apollos mot with Aquila and Priscilla, he had not obtained fuller or clearer views of the gospel than the forerunner of the Saviour had an- nounced, and that they were instrumental in conveying to him that com- plete evangelical knowledge of which, till now, he had been destitute. Still more fanciful is Alford's argument in the same passage from the use of the term irappr^a-ia^eadiu by St Luke in the Acts, and the occur- rence of the word Trapprja-lav in chap. iii. 6 of this epistle. OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 217 ing, speedily gives way, I believe, wlien confronted with some other facts connected with the epistle. In the first place, his name was never associated with its authorship by the ancient ecclesiastical writers. Alford makes very light of this objection, but it appears to me of itself fatal. Had there been the least ground for attributing the epistle to an Alex- andrian Jew, for such Apollos was, surely we should have found some conjectures or affirmations to that effect in the church of Alexandria. But, as we have seen, it is exactly there, that no room is left for such a supposition. It is at Alexandria that the tradi- tion as to the Pauline origin is most speedily and specially prevalent ; and among the modifications of this opinion mentioned by Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen, the name of Apollos is never whispered as having the slightest connexion with the epistle. This total silence appears unaccountable on the hy- pothesis of the authorship by Apollos, and seems of itself to render such a theory untenable. And then, in the second place, the tone of the epistle is such as does not harmonise with the supposition of Ajiollos being its author. This is the case even granting that it was addressed to the church at Rome. The o\l/onai vfxa^, (chap. xiii. 23,) as Alford himself admits, ''has a tinge of authority about it, which hardly seems to fit" such a person as Apollos. The same is the case with the words aTroKaraaTadw vfxlvf (chap. xiii. 19,) which seem to imply such a relation subsisting be- tween the writer and the readers as we have no reason to believe existed between Apollos and the church of Rome. The objection arising from these personal references is, of course, much stronger, if we regard 218 PROOF FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS the epistle as having been addressed to the church of Jerusalem; and thus we feel ourselves once more constrained entirely to set aside the hypothesis that Apollos was the author of the epistle. Again, in the third place, it seems impossible on such a theory of the authorship, to assign any satisfactory reason for the anonymousness of the epistle. We find Dean Alford indeed, not only not admitting that there is any difficulty to the adoption of his hypothesis in this fact, but even reasoning as if it actually favoured it. He tries (p. 60) in a manner which I must con- fess appears to me more ingenious than convincing, to bring out 'Hhe self-denying modesty of Apollos," with respect to the church at Corinth ; and then, after concluding (p. 61) that ''the same spirit of modest self-abnegation would hardly be wanting in Apollos, to whatever church he was writing," he expresses himself (p. 71) as follows: — '' Supposing, as we have gathered from the notices of Apollos in First Corin- thians, that he modestly shrunk from. being thought to put himself into rivalry with St Paul, and that after the death of the apostle he found it necessary to write such an epistle as this to the church in the metropolis, what more likely step would he take with regard to his own name and personality in it, tlian just that which we find he has taken; viz. so to conceal these, as to keep them from having any pro- minence, while by various minute personal notices he prevents the concealment from being complete?" In my humble judgment, this is ingenuity completely tlirown away. "Why Apollos should conceal his name to avoid all risk of being thought to enter into rivalry with St Paul, after that apostle was dead, I am some- OF THE PREVALEISICE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 219 Avliat at a loss to conceive. And what danger there was of any such person as Apollos, however eloquent or eminent, succeeding in drawing too much of the respect of the Roman church, and thus detracting from the high esteem in which the great apostle, now also reverenced as a blessed martyr, was held, I am quite unable to comprehend. Had such an idea as this entered into the head of ApoUos, and led him to write anonymously to the Romans, I should have been inclined, for my own part, to think him animated by a very different principle from that extreme tnodesty for which Dean Alford has given him credit. Surely, if he wished to disclaim all rivalry with the Apostle Paul, nothing would have been easier than for him to say so; and we might have looked in his epistle for some such warm tribute of homage and affection to " our beloved brother Paul," as we find embodied in the Second Epistle of Peter. The explanation, then, of the anonym ousness of the epistle which is suggested by Alford will not stand; far less can it be supposed to give any countenance to his hypo- thesis. He does not, so far as I can see, at all succeed in removing the difficulties which imme- diately spring from the ascription of the sole author- ship to Apollos; and thus we conclude that every form, even the most plausible, in w4iich the exclu- sively non-Pauline origin of our epistle has been maintained, is unsatisfactory, and must be dismissed. Nothing remains therefore, but that we adopt — Thirdly, The hypothesis of a tioofold authorship of the epistle — Paul supplying to a large extent its matter, and setting his seal on its authority, while another actually composed it, and thus imparted to 220 PROOF FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS it the special style and character which we find it to possess. As already hinted, this is the only theory which seems to me to afford any tolerable solution of the many difficulties connected with this epistle. It cor- responds exactly with the prevailing tradition in the early Church regarding it. The ancient testimony which ascribed the epistle to St Paul is satisfied. The anonymousness of the epistle is also naturally explained. For while, according to the view pro- posed, it is quite justifiable to style the epistle St Paul's, as is so generally done by the Fathers, and is popularly done at the pi'esent day, yet it plainly would not have been proper that it should have borne his name, as is the case with all his other epi- stles. And, approaching the more special point to which our investigations are directed, we may easily conceive that St Paul would not deem it expedient to obtrude his personality in writing to the church of Jerusalem. He was known as the apostle to the Gentiles. Yet, though such was his official designa- tion, he had always retained a very warm interest in his brethren in Palestine. As Delitzsch beautifully remarks, " It is one of the finest features in the cha- racter of the Geutile apostle, that, as desire after Je- rusalem was not restrained by the prospect of bonds there awaiting him, so now it was not weakened by the endurance of bonds coming upon him from that city*." He gladly took an opportunity during his last imprisonment of instructing, stimulating, and warnintr the Christians of Palestine, to whom he now * " Commentar ziim Briefe an die llcbracr/' p. 705. OF THE PREVALENCE OF GUEEK IN PALESTINE. 221 courteously gives the title o^ Hebrews, though he had formerly refused to acknowledge the right of the Judaisers at Corinth to appropriate that designation. At the same time, while looking back upon a former period of intercourse with his Palestinian brethren, and forward to the time when that intercourse might be renewed, he did not, as in his epistles to the Gen- tile churches, judge it becoming or expedient that he should directly address them in the tone and with all the authority which pertained to an apostle. Adopting, then, the view sanctioned by antiquity, that the epistle is in substance Paul's, but not his immediate production, we have next to seek from among his usual attendants one to whom its second- ary authorship may be ascribed. As we have already seen, there are three of these referred to in this con- nexion by the ancients, — viz. Barnabas, Clement, and Luke. And if one of these is to be chosen, I have no hesitation in fixing upon St Luke. It is absolutely certain that he was long and intimately connected with the apostle. He is spoken of (Philem. ver. 24) as one of the awefjyoi of Paul, and we learn afterwards (2 Tim. iv. 11) that the evangelist conti- nued with him when many others had forsaken him. Indeed, Luke seems to have been one of the most faithful and beloved of the apostle's friends, and to have remained in attendance on him to the very last. If, then, other particulars will suit, we seem to have found in him exactly the person most likely to be employed in the composition of this epistle. His relation to Paul is altogether such as would mark him out for the writer of whom we are in quest; and we have now to inquire whether or not the character- 222 PROOF FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBRE^YS istics of the epistle are of a kind to harmonise with this hypothesis. That the phraseology is in striking harmony with such a supposition is generally admitted. Grotius (Prolog, in Ep.) suggests for comparison the follow- ing passages: — iicts xxiii. 20 with Heb. v. 7; Luke xiii. II with Heb. vii. 3, 23; Acts vi. 3 and xvi. 2 with Heb. vii. 8 and xi. 2, 5, 39; Luke ii. 26 and Acts x. 22 with Heb. viii. 5; Luke xxii. 26 with Heb. xiii. 7, 17; Acts iii. 15 and v. 31 with Heb. ii. 10 and xii. 2. And Alford himself observes, (p. 53,) "The students of the following commentary will very frequently be struck by the verbal and idio- matic coincidences with the style of St Luke. The argument, as resting on them, has been continually taken up and pushed forward by Delitzsch, and comes on his reader frequently wdth a force which at the time it is not easy to withstand." Of course, Alford, with the views which he has adopted, finds it neces- sary to ''withstand" the evidence which is thus ac- knowledged so weighty, and tries to account for the Lucan phraseology of our epistle on other grounds than the natural one of its having been written by the evangelist. The positive objections which he brings against this view, appear to me both weak in themselves*, and to derive any seeming strength * For example, we read (p. 4/5), " Within the limits of the same heavenly inspiration prompting both, St Luke is rather the careful and kindly depicter of the blessings of the covenant ; our writer rather the messenger from God to the wavering, giving them the blessing and the curse to choose between: St Luke is rather the polished Christian civilian, our writer the fervid and prophetic i-hetoriciau." With the sincerest respect for the learned writer's critical acumen, I cannot but think that it is here considerably astray. There is surely no psycho- logical law which can prevent an author from being at one time the OF THE P UK VALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 223 which they possess from the supposition that Luke is maintained to have been the independent author of the epistle. With regard to the difference of style which may be thought to exist between Luke's other writings and this epistle, we must remember that he had evidently a gi^eat command of the Greek lan- guage— that his style varies in its character much more than that of any other New Testament writer — ■ that there is certainly as great difference between the Preface to his Gospel and other parts of his ac- knowledged writings, as there is between this epistle and any portions of the Gospel which bears his name, or of the book of Acts ; and that therefore, consider- ing the mastery which he possessed of the beautiful and flexible tongue of Greece, we need have no diffi- culty, so far as style is concerned, in regarding him as the writer of this epistle. In short, though I am very far from asserting that absolute cei'tainty has been reached in the mat- ter, I cannot but believe, with Delitzsch*, and some messenger of peace, and at another time the herald of judginent ; neither is it true that a uniform tone of sternness pervades our epistle, as the words of Alford just quoted might lead us to suppose. On the contrary, there are passages in it (ii. 14-18, iv. 14-16, xii. 9-13) which are unsurpassed in tenderness within the whole compass of the New Testament ; while, on the other hand, there are passages in other parts of Luke's writings {e.g. Luke xxiii. 29-31 ; Acts xiii. 40, 41) Avhich em- body at least as severe announcements as any to be found in our epistle. * As a specimen of what ingenuity can do in favour of our hypothe- sis, I may mention that Delitzsch ai-gues in its support from the fact of Luke having been a /)A//.s/ciV/» (Col. iv. 14). lie thinks this in striking correspondence with the contents of the epistle. It contains, so to speak, an anatomic portion (chap. iv. 12, seq.) ; a dietetic portion (v. 12-14) ; and a therapeutic portion (xii. 12, seq.). Also, incidental expressions in it, such as i-co^pos, Bpco/xara /cat nofiara, which occur in Hippocratcs, suggest a writer, he thinks, who was familiar with that great medical authority 224 PROOF FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS other critics, tiiat the view now given of the origin of our epistle furnishes an explanation of many facts which are otherwise unaccountable, and that the ob- jections which may be brought against it are unim- portant. It falls in exactly with the prevailing tra- dition of antiquity. It accounts naturally for the markedly Pauline and Lucan characteristics which are both presented by our epistle. It suggests rea- sons for the anonymousness of the writing, which seem quite satisfactory. It helps us to explain why, while Clement of Rome ascribes so much authority to the epistle, neither he nor any of his successors for a considerable period refer it to any particular author. And lastly, it seems exactly to suit the personal no- tices which are contained in the epistle, and which almost of necessity suggest St Paul as the person to whose position and circumstances alone they can be accommodated*. And here, perhaps, I may be allowed a conjecture which has already, in a somewhat different form, been offered by others. It seems to me probable that the closing verses of the epistle are from the apostle's OWN hand. Supposing that Paul had any share in its composition, this was to be expected, for he says, (2 Thess. iiL 16, 17,) in language which will immediately strike every one as bearing a close resemblance to that employed in our epistle, "Now the Lord of peace himself give you peace always by all means. The Lord be with you all. The saluta- in the ancient world. These may be fancies, but are not altogether un- worthy of consideration. * It has been thought that an obscure fragmentary allusion in the " Canon " of 3fumtori tends directly to support the above view of the authorship of the Epistle. Comp. GuKSsen "On the Canon," p. 190. OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 225 tion of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write." We would expect, then, in the close of our epistle, to find some indication of its Pauline origin, if it at all proceeded from the apo- stle. And, as is obvious, its concluding verses are very similar to those with which he winds up several of his acknowledged epistles. But, then, how are we to mark the point at which the directly Pauline por- tion begins ? Some have supposed the transition to be made at the 17th verse, and that thus the last nine verses of the epistle are to be ascribed immedi- ately to the apostle. There does not appear any in- superable objection to this supposition, but I am not quite inclined to adopt it. I would rather suppose that the transition occurs at the 19th verse, in which it will be observed that the first person singular is employed*. I conceive that St Luke, having said in the iSth verse, " Pray for us, for we are confident we have a good conscience, desiring in all things to act becomingly," laid down the pen, and that then St Paul himself taking it up, repeated in his own person the exhortation with which his friend had concluded, saying, ''And / the more earnestly (or abundantly) entreat you to do this, that I may be restored to you the sooner." I make this suggestion with great defer- * It may be remarked that, properly speaking, the singular pronoun occurs here for the first time in the epistle. The reading at chap. x. 34 should be roTs hfo-fxiois, and not roTs Secr/xotf /xod, as in the Text. Rec. ; while it is a mere rhetorical use of the first person singular which occurs at chap. xi. 32, corresponding to the French On, or the German Man. The plural is used in all the other passages in which the first person is employed, — chap. ii. 5, v. 11, vi. 9, 11, xiii. 18 — a fact hardly without significance. 15 226 PROOF FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS ence, yet cannot help thinking it worthy of some con- sideration. And it appears to me supported by the expression 7re pia-aoT€p(iovr See the whole account, Euseb., loc. cit. OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 249 and Greeks that Jesus is the Christ*;" a statement which, as well as the former, naturally implies his familiar and habitual use of the Greek language. I may next notice the fact, which appears to me a very important and suggestive one, that all the recoi'ds which we possess of our Saviours teachiyig are contained in the Greek language. According to the common view, we have thus scarcely a single word of what He actually said. The language used by Him who spake as never man spake has perished. The words which He uttered while He tabernacled among men have died away on the ear of the world, and can never be recalled. All the tender, beau- tiful, and striking terms which He employed in ser- mon, or parable, or prayer, have been wiped out by the tide of time from the world's remembrance, so that scarcely a vestige of them remains behind. It is true that, on this hypothesis, we still have an inspired translation of His words; and, granting that that is all, it is infinitely precious, the most valuable beyond comparison of all the literary treasures which exist upon the earth. But let it once more be stated that, on the prevalent hypothesis, the whole of the actual sayings of the Son of God while manifested in the flesh, have, with the exception of a very few Hebrew expressions, perished for evert. And here, * " MapTVS ovTos aXrjdrjs 'lovSat'ots re Koi EXXt^cti yeyevrjTai, on 'irj- (Tovs 6 XpKXTos eVrii'." — Ihtd. t " Of Him," says Bluck, almost in a tone of exultation, " who spake as never man spake, not above a dozen original words have been pre- served ; and of the divine Sermon on the Mount (with the exception of the word Raka) not a syllable is now extant." — " PahToromaica," p. 11. So Gresu-ell, referring to the few Aramaic expressions contained in the Gospels, describes them as " the o«/// instances in which the evangelists have preserved to us the very words of our Saviour." — " Harmony of the 250 FURTHER PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT without laying undue stress on mere subjective con- siderations, I may be allowed to ask — Is this likely ? Is it probable that, while the very words in which Moses pleaded with God, and David praised Him — the very words in which Isaiah foretold the sufferings and the glories of Messiah, and Daniel described the nature and the permanency of His kingdom — the very words in which Paul wrote of the grace of Christ as displayed on earth, and John detailed His glory as revealed in heaven, have all been handed down to us, and may still be read in their original form, the ivords of the Son of God, if ever written at all, have, as it were, been " writ with water," and only a reflection of them has been preserved ? I cannot but feel, for my own part, that such a view is in the highest degree improbable; and if I must acquiesce in it, it shall only be at the authoritative and imperious com- mand of evidence, which cannot, and ought not, to be resisted. But, happily, evidence leads to no such conclu- sion. Not the least fragment of an Aramaic or He- brew document has come down to us, to exemplify the orisfinal form in which the teachina^ of Christ is imagined to have circulated, and to give some colour. Gospels," III. p. 347- Campbell seems strangely enough to imagine that there is even some advantage in conceiving of our Lord's language as lost to us for ever, when, after having pointed out the Hebrew colouring which belongs to the Greek of the New Testament, he adds, " It is per- tiueut, however, to observe that the above remarks on the Greek of the New Testament do not imply that there was anything which could be called idiomatical or ^^llgar in the language of our Lord himself, ^L■}^o lawjht ala-ajjs in his motlier-tongue. His apostles and evangelists, on the contrary, who wi'ote in Greek, were, in writing, obliged to translate the instructions received from him into a foreign language of a very different structure, and for the use of people accustomed to a peculiar idiom."— " Diss." I. § 16. OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 251 by its existence, to the opinion that He did in reahty make use of the Hebrew language. All the hypo- theses which have been framed respecting an Ur- Evangelium, an original Gospel in the national lan- guage of Palestine, are utterly baseless ". And when we find, as we so often do find, in the wTitings of biblical critics, statements to the effect that there were numerous Aramaic accounts of our Lord's dis- courses at first circulating, orally or in writing, among His followers, and that on these our present Greek Gospels are based f, we may confidently inquire what ground there is for such an assertion ? I regard it, indeed, as very likely, or rather certain, that some •accounts of Christ's life and discourses were for a time extant in Aramaic as well as Greek. It natu- rally follows from the relation conceived in this work to have existed between the two languages, that such would be the case. And, perhaps, it may not unrea- sonably be supposed, (though I am far from inclined to adopt the supposition) that, as in the introductory chapter of St Luke's Gospel, such narratives were employed to a slight extent in the composition of the canonical Greek Gospels. But so far as re- spected our Lord's discourses, such Aramaic reports * See this point fully illustrated in Part ii. Chap. vi. t Thus Dean Afford (" Greek Test.," Vol. iv. Part i. Prolog, p. 64 ; ♦ comp. also Vol. i. Prolog. Chap. i. sec. 3), "There can be no doubt that the apostolic oral teaching on which our first three Gospels are founded was originally extant in Aramaic." Thus also the writer in " Evan. Chr.," formerly referred to (Sept. 1860, p. 473), "That there were original Gos- pels in Hebrew — that is, a Hebraistic dialect, SjTO-Chaldaic Hebrew — not one merely, as Matt.'s, but several, iierhaps even many — cannot pos- sibly be doubted." To the same effect Be nan declares respecting the first records of our faith, " Ce que est indubitable, en tous cas, c'est que de tr^s-bonne heure on mit par ecrit Ics discours de Jesus eii langue arameenne." — " Vie de Jesus," p. xxi. 252 FURTHER PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT would not possess an advantage over the contem- porary Greek records, but the reverse. And when it is maintained, as it usually is, that Aramaic narra- tives, either oral or written, really formed the foun- dation of the gospel-history at large, we may well ask, as said above, what proof can be produced in favour of such an allegation ? It rests, in fact, upon nothing else than the preconceived notion that Ara- maic was the language which Christ habitually spoke, — a notion which again rests itself in great measure, as we have seen, on the few Syro-Chaldaic expressions which are to be found in our existing Greek Gospels. It would undoubtedly follow from the supposed, fact that Aramaic was the language which our Lord and His disciples usually employed, that the first narratives containing an account of His and their actions would be composed in that language. This point was well urged by a highly intelligent Syrian priest, with whom Dr Claudius Buchanan had some warm discussion respecting the original language of the Four Gospels. The following is the account given by the excellent writer of this very interesting de- bate : — " ' You concede,' said the Syrian, ' that our Saviour spoke in our language ; how do you know it V From Syriac expressions in the Greek Gospels. It aj)pears that He spoke Syriac when He walked by the way, (Ephphatha,) and when He sat in the house, (Talitha Cumi,) and when He was upon the cross, (Eli, Eli, lama sabachthaui. ) .... 'But,' added he, ' if the parables and discourses of our Lord were in Syriac, and the people of Jerusalem com- monly used it, is it not marvellous that His dis- OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 253 ciples did not record His parables in the Syriac language ; and that they should have recourse to the Greek V I observed that the gospel was for the world, and the Greek was then the universal language, and therefore Providence selected it. ' It is very probable/ said he, Hhat the Gospels were translated immediately afterwards into Greek, as into other languages; but surely there must have been a Syriac original. The poor people in Jeru- salem could not read Greek. Had thei/ no record in their hands of Christ's parables which they had heard, and of His sublime discourses recorded by St John after His ascension V I acknowledged that it was believed by some of the learned that the Gospel of St Matthew was written originally in Syriac. 'So you admit St Matthew ? you may as well admit St John. Or was one Gospel enough for the inhabitants of Jerusalem V I contended that there were many Greek and Roman words in their own Syriac Gos- pels. 'True/ said he, 'Roman words for Roman things.' They wished, however, to see some of these words. The discussion afterwards, particularly in reference to the Gospel of St Luke, was more in my favour*." The Syrian was undoubtedly right in contending that if Syriac was the prevailing language of Pales- tine in our Saviour's day, and the language accord- ingly which He employed in His preaching, then the first lano^uasfe in which accounts of His life and teaching were written was, of course, Syriac. And so the case stands, whatever the lansruaofe which it is supposed He generally employed. If that be * Buchanan's "Christian Researches in Asia," p. 113. 254 FURTHER PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT called Syro-Clialdaic, then in Syro-Chaldaic would the first accounts be written*. And in one important respect, these would possess an advantage over all others. They preserved the ipsissima verba of our blessed Redeemer — a peculiarity which could be shared with no version whatever. Were, then, these precious records thought utterly unw^orthy of pre- servation? and were they suffered so speedily to be echpsed by a Hellenistic version? For my own part, I cannot believe that, had they ever existed, this would have been the case. As the Syriac priest remarked, a necessity might indeed soon arise in the Church for having the original documents translated into Greek; but is it to be supposed that when this hajopened, the accounts taken down from our Lord's own lips would then be entirely neglected, and suf- fered utterly to perish ? Is this in accordance with the universally recognised principles of human na- ture? And must we believe that Peter and John, those ardently attached followers of Christ, were willing to allow the records containing their beloved Master's words to fall into entire and hopeless ob- livion ? It surely will not be said that this was a likely course for them to follow ; nor can I conceive that any will maintain that they were directed by the Spirit of God to act in such a manner, contrary to * I again quote the words of the wi-iter in " Evan. Chr.," as follows : — " If our Lord preached in Hebrew, and the people heard and learned from His mouth in Hebrew, the first records of these things, Avliich must have been written at the time they were preached and heard, must also have been in Hebrew In truth, that which we have aimed at establishing is, that the first narratives of onr Lord's sayings and doings were necessarily comiwsitions in Hebrew, and not in Greek," &c., p. 473. OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 255 the tendencies of their own hearts. For, shall we assert that the Holy Ghost, the Author of all that is good, loving, and commendable in our natures, should have quenched those feelings in the bosoms of the apostles, which would have led them religiously and affectionately to preserve their Master's words? Far from us be such a thought; and while we feel how much temporary interest is still attached to any document which can persuade the world for a moment that it has preserved some more of the very words of the Son of God than we otherwise possess, we cannot but believe that those devoted disciples who were appointed to be Christ's "witnesses in Jeru- salem, and in all Judsea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth," would have taken care to hand down for the gratification of all coming ages those incomparably precious and sacred words Avhich they themselves had once listened to as they issued from the Saviour's mouth*. The very fact, then, that it is in Greek, and Greek only, that the words of Christ have been preserved * It may be here remarked, that, notwithstauding the frequency with which the Syro-Chaldaic dialect is referred to by biblical scholars, we really possess no literary evidence beyond the few Aramaic expres- sions contained in the New Testament, that such a dialect had, in our Saviour's days, any existence. A statement occurs in the " Encyc. Brit." (Art., Language, 8th edit.) as follows : " The Targums and the Talmud of Babylon are in the older Chaldee ; and a Syro-Chahhdc translation of the Ncir Testament has been discorered to be stiU in existence!^ The writer probably refers in this last clause to the discovery of yif(//cr, of which Adelung says (" Mithridates," i. 373\ " Entdeckte in Rom eine bisher ganz unbekanute Uebcrsetzung des N.T. im Syrish-Chaldaischen Dialect. Die Ilandschrift war 1030 gcschrieben, die Uebcrsetzung aber zwischcn dem 4ten und Gten Jahrhundert." This version of the Gospels is now known as the Jerusalem-S:>Tiac ; and according to Dr Tregelles, "the barbarism of the Syriac seems hardly consistent with a date so early as that assigned by Adler."— //or»(' and Treyelles, p. 2S7. ox 56 FURTHER PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT to US by His apostles, imjoarts, I believe, great addi- tional probability to the opinion that that was really the language which He habitually employed. Ad- mitting that such was the case, all is henceforth easy in connexion with the Gospels. The many wald notions which have arisen from the idea that He spoke in Aramaic ; the vagaries of criticism respect- ing original Gospels in Hebrew, and translations of these piecemeal into Greek ; the labyrinths of specu- lation into which, in the pursuit of such phantoms, eminent scholars have been led; and the scepticism or infidelity which has thus too frequentl}^ been en- gendered— are things well known to all that have looked into the history of this question, and are all quashed and set at rest for ever, by the simple truth which it is the object of this work to establish, that both Christ and His disciples habitually made use of the Greek language. But passing from this point as to the origin of the Gospels, which will be found discussed at some length afterwards, I next remark that the very existence of what is known as the Hellenistic dialect of Greek, seems to point to, and certainly fits in exactly with the conclusion which is here sought to be established. A somewhat futile disputation was formerly carried on among scholars respecting the proper name of this dialect, supposing its existence admitted. As the controversy was conducted between such illustrious scholars as Salmasius and Heinsius, it may now be clearly seen to have been a mere strife about words*. * Salmasius, while admitting the marked peculiarities of the New Testament Greek, denies, on some technical grounds, that it ought to be styled a dialect. See his treatises " De Lingua llellcnistica " and "Fu- OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 257 No one can read the Greek New Testament without perceiving that it is written in a peculiar kind of Greek. He may indeed refuse to allow that it ought to be styled a dialect in the same sense in which that term is applied to those varieties of language which were employed in difterent parts of Greece and her dependencies ; but that it had its own characteristics, as much as any of the recognised dialects of classical Greek, is evident from the slightest inspection of the Gospels and Epistles. Not more manifestly does Herodotus differ from Xenophon, or Theocritus from Sophocles, than St Matthew or St Paul differs from all. The language in which the apocryphal books of the Old Testament, and the canonical books of the New Testament are written, is as peculiarly sui generis, as is the style of the Attic and Ionic poets, or his- torians of Greece. Now, how did this peculiar dialect arise? And how did it come to be so widely used, that we have many more works extant in it than we possess in some of the classical dialects of the Greek language? Allow the common view as to tlie pre- vailing language of Palestine in the time of Christ to stand, and these questions appear utterly insoluble. Syro-Chaldaic, it is said, was the language of the country, and " Greek was probably only understood at the capital or seaport towns*.'' How, then, did the dialect used by the human authors of the New Testament arise? and how did it reach that maturity which manifestly appears in their employment of it? mis \Ai\g. Hell.;" lleuwus, on the other hand, contends, with undiio eagerness, that the Greek of the New Testament had the same title to be° called the Ilellenislic dialect as any of the classical dialects to bear their peculiar designations. See his " Exerc. de Ling IIcll." * "Evan"-elical Christendom," Mav, 1860, p. 287. 17 lot- FURTHER PrxOOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT Could the use of Greek by a few scholars accustomed for the most part to write in Hebrew, or in a few cities, which by their very employment of such a language, were, on the hypothesis in question, cut off from all intimate sympathy with the great body of the Jewish nation, have led to its existence and culti- vation? It is not thus that dialects are usually formed. They spring up, not in the libraries of the few, but in the homes of the many — not from the pmctice of learned and elaborate writers, but from the rough and ready utterances of those who meet at church or market, and are there accustomed to address each other in language which is naturally tinged by national characteristics and habits, is^o sort of saltioi could have been made bv Jews, accustomed to the almost exclusive employment of the Hebrew lan- guage, to the use of such Greek as appears in the New Testament. The very flict. therefore, that the inspired writing's exhibit such a formed and distinct species of diction, seems necessarily to presuppose the general and long-continued use of the Greek lan- guage among the people at large. A learned writer like Josephus could have given little or no help to the formation of such a dialect as appears in the New Testament ; for, as is evident on an inspection of his works, and as he expressly tells us, he took care to avoid national and provincial peculiarities, and to write as much as possible in the style and character of the accepted models of Greek composition. It is to be observed, moreover, that it is by natives of Palestine, almost exclusively, that we find the so- called Hellenistic dialect employed. The ^^Titers of the New Testament (if we except St Paul and St OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 259 Luke) all belonged to that coiintiy. And even tbe two sacred writers excepted had lived so much in Palestine, that, on this ground alone, we naturally expect to find them composing their works in the style of Greek there prevalent. But, of course, the causes which had given rise to the Hebra^o-Greek dialect of Palestine, also operated, to some extent, amono: the Jews throuo-hout the world. These were all accustomed to Hebrew modes of thought, and to the Hebraised diction of the Septuagint translation. At the same time, they were more free from the in- fluence of national peculiarities, and more likely to make an approach towards pure Greek composition, than could, in general, be the case with inhabitants of Palestine. Hence we find such a writer as Pliilo among the Jews of Alexandria in the first century of our era. Josephus, a Palestinian Jew, may make an approach towards the purity of his Alexandrian con- temporaries; but, as he confesses, it is not without much labour and difficulty. And St James, though resident in Jerusalem, may write in a style of compara- tive elegance and freedom from Hebraistic idioms; but this, too, is a somewhat rare exception to the diction usually employed, and is to be accounted for on the grounds formerly mentioned. The true type of Palestinian Greek is to be found in the other writings of the New Testament. The Epistles of St Peter, and the Gospels of St Matthew and St Mark, above all, perhaps, the Apocalypse of St John*, furnish specimens of the Greek which inhabitants of Palestine, Mho had passed through no scholastic training, then naturally employed. The writings of * See this point further noticed in Part ii. Chap. viii. 17—2 2G() FURTHER PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT the New Testament exhibit this dialect in various degrees of cultivation; but they are all so closely, and, as it were, organically, connected together by the common possession of its peculiarities, as to be necessarily assigned to writers who had been subject to the same mfluences, and lived in the same age and country*. And it may be observed, that if St Luke and St Paul, in some portions of their writings, particularly in the concluding chapters of the Acts, and in the Epistle to the Hebrews, depart more than any other of the sacred writers from the type of Greek generally exhibited in the New Testament, this is just what was to be expected in the case of such as had travelled so much, and enjoyed such various culture, as was certainly the case with both these writers. But it may be said that the dialect in question was founded upon the Septuagint; and we may to a certain extent admit that this was the case. There can be no doubt, I believe, that all the sacred writers were thoroughly familiar with the version of the LXX. ; and that its style had no little influence on the diction which they themselves emplo3^ed. But I cannot allow that a mere acquaintance with the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures furnishes * Thiersch jvi-stiy remarks : " Die spracliliche Charakter dcr heiligeu Schrifteii, und das Genus der Literatur, dem sie nicht eigcntlich ange- horen, soiidern welclies sie vielmehr selbst coiistituiren, ist so eigen- thiimlich und triigt in alien seinen Theilen so sehr das Geprage der Originalitat, dass der wahre Erforscher der Sprachengescliiclite, und Beobachtcr verschiedenartigen Gestaltung des Styls, allerdings die be- deutsamsten Kriterien der Aechtheit dieser Werke im Gantzen darin zu entdecken vermag." — " Versncli zur Ilerstellung des historischeu Stand- punkts fiir die Kritikder neutestamentlichen Schriften," Erlangen, 1845^ p. 4:}. OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 2G1 any adequate explanation, of the jooliit under con- sideration. If, indeed, it be acknowledged that the Septuagint was in such common use among the in- habitants of Palestine, as to form in fact the Bible which they generally employed, all is granted for which I contend: and I care not to discuss the point whether this common use of the LXX. im- plied, on other grounds, the existence of the dialect in question, or was itself the means of giving it currency throughout the country. But if it be said that Peter and John and Matthew wrote in the peculiar Greek exemplified in their works, simply because they followed the model presented by the Septuagint*, I must deny the sufficiency of the cause assigned. The studied imitation of the style of a work not generally read in the country, could never have given rise to the dialect w'liich w^e find to have so generally prevailed, even though it were possible to suppose that sufticient motive otherwise existed to lead to such a studied imitation. The influence of the Septuagint may have been strongly felt by the New Testament writers, but could never have led them to compose their works in the diction which these exhibit, had not that, on other grounds, been the character of the language which they habitually employed. Besides, it is certain that the Septuagint was * Thus T/iii'i-xc/i, ut sup., p. r^S, scq., and, more or less definitely, many other writers. Bitfhop 3f(itfhif observes, in language which I humbly conceive to set forth truth with some admi.xture of error, "Greek was the language to which all Jetr. in any case it is certain, that in the time of the Maccabees it was quite superseded in common use among the people, and was only an object of learned acquisition." — " Authenticity of the Book of Daniel," Clark's " For. Theol. Lib.," p. 244. OF OBJECTIONS. 281 soundness^ it would still remain subject, in every case, to the test of actual facts. Supposing it to be true that there were few or no other cases in which a national language had died out, or been superseded by a different dialect ; and supposing it also true that there were special causes in existence which seemed likely to prevent this from taking place among the Jews, the question could not yet be regarded as settled. In every case, the appeal must, after all, be made to facts. The decisive question is, Was it, or was it not, the case, that, in our Saviour's days, the Greek language had obtained prevalence in Pales- tine? It is only if no positive evidence exists, to which reference may be made on this question, that we can allow the d p7'io7'i principle any weight in determining our judgment. All mere presumptive reasoning must yield in the face of actual proof. Its very strongest conclusions vanish at once when shewn inconsistent with even the smallest amount of in- controvertible fact. And therefore, while far from acknowledging the validity of the objection now under consideration in the principle which it involves, I may be content simply to point to the evidence already brought forward to demonstrate its inapplic- abihty in the special case which has engaged our attention in this work. Many and varied proofs have been adduced to shew that Greek luas in reality the reigning language of Palestine in the time of our Saviour. And unless these proofs can be repelled, the result to which they lead remains totally unaffected by any a priori considerations. They present the stubborn resistance ever offered hj facts to all mere theories, however plausible; and if they cannot be 282 CONSIDERATION questioned or set aside, they demand, with the im- perial authority of truth, to be accepted in all their length and breadth, and with all their manifest and legitimate conclusions. It has been necessary to notice thus particularly the cl priori objection to the views which I have advocated, because it is in reality a very favourite weapon with a certain class of writers on the opposite side of this question. Such arguments as the follow- ing are continually employed : — '' We cannot conceive that Greek was employed by our Saviour and His disciples" — " The Jews were too tenacious of all that was national and peculiar ever to have parted with their ancestral language" — '' How can we doubt that Hebrew was the dialect which our Lord and His contemporaries made use of*?" &c. Now, I crave * I may quoto a single specimen of this mode of argument from among the reviews of my former work. In a fi-iendly enough notice of it which appeared in the "Literary Churchman" (Nov. 1, 1859, p. 393), we read as follows : — " That our Saviour may possibly have delivered some of His recorded sayings in Greek, or even in Latin, u-ho would bo so rash as to venture to deny ? But that He spoke Greek habitually — for example, to the widow of Nain, to the blind men of Jericho, to the woman of Canaan, to the multitudes who heard many of His parables, and witnessed many of His miracles— this, we should really think, is what no learned and thoughtful person could gravely maintain, or seriously attempt to prove, for an instant. Why doubt that He spoke rj Ibia bioKeKTa avT&v ] and that their own dialect was the same in which ' the field of blood ' was called ' Aceldama ' ]" As was remarked in the First Chapter, it is easy in this way to excite a powerful prejudice against the views which I have ventured to maintain. But I simply appeal to facts. If I have proved in the preceding pages that even the populace {px>/ Kui aXXoSa-rrr] SidXeKTo^ ; and in the latter, tells us that he had devoted himself to the study of Greek learn - * Daridmu'x " Introduction," i. 428. 288 CONSIDERATION ing, but had not been able to acquire a correct pro- nunciation, on account of the habit which prevailed in his native country*. These passages have been much insisted on by those who deny the prevalence of Greek in Palestine. But the whole difficulty which they seem to present, vanishes when we take into account the object which Josephus had profess- edly in view. It was not his purpose merely to write in Greek, but, as far as possible, in pure and classical Greek-\. And it is in perfect consistency with the position which I uphold as to the linguistic condition of Palestine at the time, that he should have felt great difficulty in accomplishing this pur- pose. His Trarpo? avvt'jdeia greatly hindered it. The Hebraistic Greek, to which he was accustomed, mio-ht almost have been reckoned a different Ian- guage from that employed by the classical histori- ans |. It was, therefore, an onerous task which Josephus undertook, when he engaged to write an account of the institutions of his country on the model of native Greek writers; and we wonder not that he required all the assistance he could procure * "Twi' '^Wr)viK^v he ypa/i/xarcoi' ecnrovhaa-a ^eracrxfiv, ttjv ypajXfxaTi- KTjv efXTTfipiav avaXafSav, rrjv 8e TVfpl rrjv Trpo; "History of England," Vol. v. 294. On this occasion, French alone would probably have served every prac- tical purpose, but, as in the case of the inscription placed upon the cross, there were formal reasons why the three languages should bo used. 316 CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS. It has been proved then, I believe, beyond the reach of all reasonable objection, and from the un- deniable facts of the New Testament history, that Greek, and not Hebrew, was the common language of public intercourse in Palestine in the days of Christ and His apostles. And if this has been done, we may be allowed to express some gratification at the thought, that, in our existing Greek Gospels, we possess, for the most part, the very words of Him to whom the illustrious testimony was borne, "Never man spake like this man." He spoke in Greek, and His disciples did the same while they reported what He said. Their inspiration consisted not, as has been thought, in being enabled to give perfect trans- lations, either of discourses delivered, or of documents written in the Hebrew language, but in being led, under infallible guidance, to transfer to paper for the benefit of all coming ages, those words of the Great Teacher, which they had heard from His own lips in the Greek tongue; which had in that form been imprinted on their affectionate memories ; and which were by them, in the same language, unerringly com- mitted to writing, while they literally experienced a fulfilment of the gracious promise, — " The Com- forter, WHICH IS the Holy Ghost, whom the Fa- ther WILL SEND IN MY NAME, He SHALL TEACH YOU ALL THINGS, AND BRING ALL THINGS TO YOUR REMEM- BRANCE, whatsoever I HAVE SAID UNTO YOU." PART II. ON THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF ST MATTHEW'S GOSPEL, THE ORIGIN AND AUTHENTICITY OF THE GOSPELS. CHAPTER I. STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION RESPECTING ST MATTHEw's GOSPEL, AND OF THE METHOD IN WHICH THE INQUIRY SHOULD BE CONDUCTED. Three opinions are current among biblical scholars at the present day, as to the language in which the Gospel of St Matthew was originally written. The first of these opinions is, that St Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew only; that is, in the modified form of Hebrew generally spoken of as the Aramgean or Syro-Chaldaic dialect, and which is supposed to have been the prevalent language of Palestine in the days of Christ. This opinion has been very strenuously maintained by many eminent critics, and is usually expressed by those who hold it with very great confidence. Greswell, for ex- ample, declares, that '^no matter of fact which rests upon the faith of testimony can be considered certain, if this be not so*;" and Tregelles remarks, that "in his judgment, all testimony is in favour of a Hebrew original of St Matthew's Gospel, and of that onlyt." * GreswelFs " Hai-mony of the Gospels," i. 125. t Home and Tregelles, p. 420. 320 ORIGINAL LANGUAGE To tlie like effect, a recent writer in one of our lead- ing critical reviews speaks of it as " a demonstrated fact" that St Matthew wrote in Hebrew only, and affirms that there is ^^just as much reason" for be- lieving our existing Greek Gospel to have proceeded from the pen of the apostle, as for maintaining that " the Latin that we have of Irenaeus ' Against Here- tics' is the original of the work of that father*." The holders of this first hypothesis all agree, of course, in regarding our present Greek Gospel as only a version of the original work of the apostle ; but they differ widely among themselves as to the degree of authority which they are inclined to ascribe to the supposed translation. Some few, as Dr Tregelles, endeavour to vindicate for the Greek the same claims to deference and respect as would have been pos- sessed by the original Hebrew. But a much greater number of modern critics, who have espoused the opinion now referred to, follow an opposite course. They deem the supposed fact of the Greek Gospel being an anonymous translation from the Hebrew, a reason for our treating it (if we so please) with far greater liberty than could have been warrantably used with respect to an inspired work; and, while some are content with simply pointing out what they imap-ine to be an occasional slip of the translator, others openly contend that his task has been very inaccurately performed, and loudly charge him with numerous and important errors. These varieties of judgment as to the inspiration and authority of the existing Gospel of St Matthew, when it is viewed as a translation from the Hebrew, will be afterwards * " Edin. Review," July, 1859, p. 1S5. OF ST Matthew's gospel. 321 more particularly considered; meanwhile, I may ob- serve regarding this first opinion, that without taking into account the ancient fathers of the Church, who are in this matter to be looked at rather as witnesses than as advocates, it has been maintained, in modern times, by Grotius, Walton, Mill, Michaelis, Eich- horn, Campbell, Davidson, Tregelles, Cureton, and many others, both on the Continent and in our own country. The second, and counter opinion to that just stated, is, that St Matthew wrote in Greek only; and that, accordingly, the work which we now possess under his name is the veritable original. This opi- nion numbers, perhaps, as many and as eminent names among its defenders as does the former, although it appears of late years to have been losing ground. The cause of this probably has been that many who would otherwise have felt themselves con- strained to adopt and uphold the true and exclusive originality of our present Greek Gospel, have deemed the third hypothesis — to be immediately mentioned — a preferable and more tenable position. There have not, however, been wanting, within a recent period, expressions of opinion in favour of this second hypo- thesis as confident as those which were quoted in support of the first. Thus, an able writer in the "Edinburgh Review" (July, 1851, p. 39,) declares that " the casual remark of a professed anecdote-collector, whose judgment is entirely disabled by the historian who records it, is, after all, the sole foundation for the statement that St Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew;" and the recent editor of Diodati affirms, in his preface, (p. xiii.) that, " if the records of history 21 322 ORIGINAL LANGUAGE and the reasonings of logic have any value, the books of the new canon, from Matthew to the Apocalypse, were certainly Greek in the Apostolic autographs." Among the more celebrated defenders of this second opinion, I may name, Erasmus, Calvin, Lightfoot, Wetstein, Lardner, Hales, Hug, De Wette, Credner, Stuart, and Bleek. It will naturally occur to every reader, from a perusal of the above list of eminent critics, ranged against each other in " this noble controversy*," and from the decisive way in which their different opi- nions have been expressed, that there must be strong arguments on both sides of the question, and that it can be no easy matter for an impartial inquirer to make choice between them. Such is, in truth, the case; and the consequence has been, as usually hap- pens in such circumstances, that a middle opinion has been sought, which is thought by its supporters to absorb the conflicting evidence on both sides, and thus to furnish a means of escape from the formida- ble difficulties which appear to beset both the first and second hypotheses. This third opinion is, that St Matthew wrote his Gospel hoth in Greek and Hebrew, the two editions being either given to the world silnultaneously, as some think, or rather, as more are inclined to believe, at different periods, according to the varying circum- stances and necessities of the Church. This hypo- thesis, although but of comparatively recent origin, can reckon not a few highly-respectable names among its advocates, and is at present a very favourite theory, both in this country and with some able and * " Ha3C nobilis controversia."— -Po/?' " Synopsis, in Matt." OF ST Matthew's gospel. 323 orthodox theologians in Germany. The ground on which it rests is briefly indicated in these words of Townson: — "There seems more reason for allowing: two oriofinals than for contestinof either : the consent of antiquity pleading strongly for the Hebrew, and evident marks of originality for the Greek*." This opinion has of late years found zealous supporters on the Continent in Guericke, Olshausen, and Thiersch ; and, with various modifications, has been defended by Kitto, Home, Lee, Ellicott, and others, in this country f. It is a curious psychological problem, how so many able and learned critics, looking at this ques- tion with a sincere desire to know the truth, and with exactly the same data on which to form their judgment, should have been guided to such contra- dictory results. It cannot be doubted, indeed, that, in some cases, dogmatic prepossessions have operated to the detriment of the critical judgment. This is suflficiently obvious from the fact that most Komish writers have been upon the one side, and most Pro- testant writers on the other. The former have, for the most part, maintained the hypothesis of a He- * "Discourses on the Gospels," i. 31 . t Considerable confusion exists in the lists of wiuters usually given as holding the several hypotheses. Thus, the name of Whitby is men- tioned in Home's "Introduction" (Vol. iv. 416 — 419) among the sup- porters both of the first and third opinions ; and Olshausen is ranked by Stuart (" Notes to Fosdick's Hug," p. 704) as maintaining the He- brew original exclusively, whereas he ought to be numbered with the advocates of the third hypothesis, as above. While, as has been re- marked by Dr Tregelles, the question cannot be settled by mere names, it is desirable, if these are given at all, that they should be correctly classed under one or other of the three well-defined opinions. Our lists might have been greatly extended, but sufficient names have been given as specimens, and no catalogue could pretend to give the whole. 21—2 324 ORIGINAL LANGUAGE brew, and the latter of a Greek original; and this is but too plainly in accordance with the doctrinal lean- inofs of their respective Churches. Romanists are anxious at all times to magnify the authority of the Church; and in this question they find an excellent opportunity for doing so, at the expense of their opponents. They eagerly adopt the opinion that our existing Gospel of St Matthew is merely a version from the Hebrew, executed by some unknown trans- lator; and then they easily fix their adversaries in the dilemma, either of admitting it into the canon of Scripture solely on the ground that the Church has sanctioned it, or of denying that it is possessed of any canonical authority at all. "With Protestants again, it is a fundamental principle to uphold the supreme authority of the Word of God, in opposition to all merely ecclesiastical claims upon their reve- rence and submission, and this they have felt no easy matter in regard to the existing Gospel of St Matthew. In order to place it on the same footing as the other books of the New Testament, it is neces- sary to make out, either that the original Gospel was, in fact, that which we now possess ; or, that our pre- sent Greek is an equally inspired and authoritative work as the original Hebrew ; and in grappling with the difficulties of the question, Protestant writers have sometimes been tempted to assume the point which they were required to prove, and to seek sup- port for their position on grounds that cannot be maintained in argument*. * Many quotations might be brought forward from the older writers on this subject in illustration of what is here stated. Let the following; examples suffice. I quote first from a Popish writer, who seeks thus to OF ST Matthew's gospel. 325 But after all such deductions have been made, there still remains a large number of thoroughly honest and impartial inquirers, who have been led to opposite conclusions on this question, and that, in some cases, in spite of what might have been deemed their doctrinal tendencies. Thus, to give only two names which may be regarded as representative of many more — Hug, the celebrated Koman Catholic professor in the university of Freyburg, is one of the most strenuous and successful defenders of the Greek original; while Tregelles, an eminent and earnest Protestant scholar among ourselves, is one of the ablest and most determined advocates of the opinion, that St Matthew wrote in Hebrew exclusively. Lea\dng out of view, then, dogmatic prejudices, as far from sufficient to account for that diversity of opinion which prevails upon this subject, I would embarrass his Protestant opponents : — " Cum Evangelium Matthaei He- braice sit scriptimi, et vero illiid hodie non extet, ideo necessario ad divinam et infallibilem Ecdesice auctorltatein nobis recmTendiim, qua negata nullus sit Evangelii hujus usus, cmn fides intei'pretis sit incerta et nomeu ignotum." — Adami Contzenii "Commentaria in quatuor Evan- gelia," 1626. Such a mode of argument is very commonly to be met witli in the pages of Romish controversialists ; and how much it was felt by Protestant writers will be plain from the following examples : — " Si id semel constituatur," says Jf. Flacius," Xov. Test.," Basil., 1570, "hunc librum initio Ilebraice, non Greece scriptum, et ab aliquo ignoti nomiuis, authoritatisve ac etiam fidei homine, tanta prisesertim libertate, conver- sum esse, non parum profecto de ejus auctoritate decesserit ; quod me- hercle Christianis nullo moclo ferendum est." Betraying the same anxiety to shelter the existing Gospel of St Matthew from the attacks of the Papists, Ger/iard, " Annot. in Matt.," p. 38, remarks, " Cum ne- mine pugiiabimus, qui Matthteum Hebraice scripsisse statuit, inodo con- cedat, Grtecum textum Apostolum, vel Apostolicum viruni auctoreiu habere, ac proinde esse authenticum." In the same spirit, Jones, in his very learned work on the Canon (iii. 2.52), observes, — "As we would therefore avoid this consequence of making the authority of this Gosj^el uncertain, we must conclude it not to be a translation." 32G ORIGINAL LANGUAGE venture to suggest that such differences may, in many cases, find their explanation in the difference of priority and proDiinence awarded by the several inquirers to the two great divisions of the evidence. It need scarcely be said that much depends, in every case of conflicting probabilities, on the method in which particular parts of the evidence are taken up and considered. One man may place the facts in such a manner, as that, while in a sense admitting them all, he will infallibly be led to a different con- clusion from another man who has considered them, with equal honesty of purpose, but in a different order. And thus, as chemists now inform us, that it is the order in which the particles of a body are arranged, even more than their nature, which imparts to the substance its special properties ; so, in an argu- ment like the present, the final result which is reached will often be influenced more by the particular metliod in which the inquiry is conducted than by the actual force of the evidence which is produced. This neces- sarily follows from the very great plausibility with which, as all that are well informed upon the subject must admit, either side of the question may be argued. There are strong arguments apparently in favour of the proper originality of our existing Greek Gospel ; and there are also strong arguments apparently that St Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. So much is this the case, that, as we have seen, many think it best to admit the force of both classes of arguments as irresistible, and simply on this ground to maintain the hypothesis that the apostle must have written both in Greek and Hebrew. We shall afterwards have occasion to consider at some lenofth this mode OF ST Matthew's gospel. 327 of evading all difficulties; but in the meantime we confine our attention to those who take a decided position, either in favour of the Greek or Hebrew original. And in respect to such, I believe that much depends on the o?'(ier in which they are led, either by accident, or by their special habits of mind, to consider the complex and conflicting evidence which is available for settling this question. The arguments urged by the defenders of the Hebrew original especially, from their being of such an ob- vious character, are apt at first to produce a great, and, it may be, decided impression. Of this ample proof is presented in the way in which the subject is sometimes alluded to by writers who have manifestly done little more than glance at the various argu- ments. And I have myself (if the reference may be allowed) to some extent had experience of the effect which is likely in this way to be produced. At first I felt almost compelled, by the force of evidence, to adopt the conclusion that St Matthew wrote in Hebrew only. Beginning my investigation of this subject with a perusal of the arguments of Drs Davidson and Tregelles, they appeared for a time irresistible. It seemed as if the question were finally settled, and that it would be a waste of time longer to inquire into the subject. But on further reflec- tion, a very different estimate was formed. I gradu- ally got round to the opposite point of view, took a more complete survey of the whole evidence, assigned, as is believed, a juster value to the several parts, and at last reached a firm conviction of the truth, diame- trically opposed to that in which for a time I was disposed to acquiesce. 328 ORIGINAL LANGUAGE On what principles then, and in what method, ought this inquiry to be conducted? These are im- portant questions, the right settlement of which must of necessity have no small influence on the success which will attend our efforts in seekino- to reach the truth in this matter; and before proceeding further, I shall endeavour to give them clear and satisfactory answers. In doing so, it will be seen that, while in some respects I heartily agree with the defenders of the Hebrew original, in others I entirely and essen- tially differ from them. The principles, then, and method by which 1 humbly think this question should be investigated, are simply these : — ■ First, The question must be decided by evidence, only. Second, We must take into account the ivliole evi- dence ; and, Third, The internal ought, in point of order, to take precedence of the external evidence. The validity and import of these three principles will now be illustrated and established. First, This question, like all others connected with the Wo7^d of God, is to he decided by evidence alone. In maintaining this proposition, I am quite at one with the upholders of the Hebrew original of St Matthew's Gospel; but it is necessary for my own sake explicitly to state it. Different ground has un- fortunately been taken by some with whose conclu- sions on the general question at issue I agree, while I cannot but dissent from some of the views which they have expressed. In particular, there is no prin- ciple which I deem more valuable in inquiries of this OF ST Matthew's gospel. 329 kind than that of being guided by evidence only; and there is no course against which I would be ready more emphatically to protest than that of shaping conclusions according to our own precon- ceived opinions. It is, 1 believe, utterly improper, and may prove fatally misleading, to allow our own conceptions of what ought to be to have any weight in deciding disputed points m sacred criticism. To attach importance to our own subjective notions, when opposed to evidence, or when unsupported by it, is, in fact, to arrogate to ourselves a position to which we have no rightful claim. For shall we pre- sume to say what God must, or ought to, have done? Is it for us to settle beforehand either the manner or the contents of any revelation which He may be pleased to make to us ? or to dictate the course which in His providence He should afterwards pursue with regard to it? Surely these are matters which, as every pious and reflecting mind will feel, must be left to His sovereign pleasure ; and the only thing which we have to do is to search out and consider the proof with which we are furnished that He has acted in one way or another. Evidence, and not predilec- tion, is the guide which we are bound to follow in every matter connected with Scripture. It may happen that, in some instances, a result repugnant to our own wishes will thus be reached. But still, if there is evidence, we must not hesitate. We are bound, if we w^ould act the only part consistent with our character as finite, fallible, and erring creatures, to look to no inward light of our own as the guide to which we will trust — to follow no ignis fatuus of our own imagination — but to seek earnestly and 330 OEIGINAL LANGUAGE diligently for the steady though often feeble ray of evidence which may come to our aid in the midst of uncertainty, and to surrender ourselves to its guid- ance exclusively in our researches after truth. These statements sound so much like truisms, that there may appear to some little necessity for making them. But there is necessity. Although it mio'ht seem that the least reflection on the relative positions of God and man with respect to a Divine revelation — the One as supreme, the other as depen- dent— would have led to the general adoption and the constant application of the principle which has just been enunciated, this has, unhappily, not always been the case. A very different spirit has sometimes been manifested by the friends of the Bible. They have either ignored, derided, or defied evidence, in their fervent but mistaken zeal for the interests of religion; and the consequence has been, that they have imperilled that cause which it was their earnest purpose to defend: This is a reproach which, I re- gret to say, may, with too much justice, be cast upon many of the defenders of the Greek original of St Matthew's Gospel; and it is a reproach, therefore, from which it is necessary to take special care, in en- tering on this controversy, to stand completely free. But it is by no means in this question alone that such a spirit has been displayed. It has been more or less exhibited with regard to many other points of sacred criticism; and, for my own part, I gladly take this opportunity of declaring against the ten- dency, whenever and wherever it may be manifested. How often, for example, are biblical scholars as- sailed with vituperation simply for yielding to the OF ST Matthew's gospel. 331 force of evidence ! They call in question, it may be, the genuineness of some passages generally received as inspired Scripture, or the validity of some current interpretation, and they are instantly accused of rash- ness, presumption, and impiety. The reasons which they allege for what is proposed are not considered ; the arguments which they adduce are not attempted to be refuted ; but on the sole ground that they have opposed some ancient tradition, or questioned the accuracy of some prevailing opinion, they are at once suspected of enmity to the truth of God, and ad- judged guilty of taking unwarrantable liberties with His holy Word. Now, that not a few critics have justly laid them- selves open to such charges must be admitted. There has been a large class of theologians in Germany, and representatives of whom are not wanting in this country, who have certainly adopted a kind of pro- cedure with respect to the "Word of God which is as impious as it is indefensible. They have constituted themselves arbiters instead of inquirer's; they have elevated their own reason to the tribunal of judg- ment with respect to the subject-matter of revelation, instead of humbly employing it as the means of col- lecting and deciding upon the evidence by which that revelation is substantiated ; they have practically denied that there was any need of a supernatural communication from heaven, or, at least, have de- graded it from its only worthy position as a supreme rule of right and wrong, by subordinating it to the variable and uncertain dictates of individual con- science; and thus they have presumed to reject as spurious, or to brand as erroneous, whatever did 332 ORIGINAL LANGUAGE not tally with their own subjective tendencies, and commend itself to their approbation as suitable, necessary, or beneficial, in a professed revelation from heaven*. No judgment passed upon such critics can be too severe; but let those who utter it beware lest they themselves incur the same condemnation. It is a curious illustration of the common saying, "extremes meet," to find that the most violent opponents of rationalism have really at times subjected themselves to the very same censure as that which they have so emphatically pronounced. For, what has, not unfre- quently, been their manner of acting? They have, in contravention of all the laws of evidence, clung to certain opinions or prepossessions, which have im- bedded themselves firmly in their minds; and more than this, they have branded as impious or audacious those who, in a diligent use of their reasoning powers, and a reverent application of the proofs which have been collected, have felt themselves constrained, in the service of truth, to oppose and condemn certain reigning prejudices and conceptions. Now, in all such cases, we need have no hesitation in saying, that the charge of presumption is far more applicable * Every one acquainted with the theological literature of Germany knows how far and fatally the tendencies above referred to have ope- rated in that country ; and we have recently had a melancholy illustra- tion of their existence and working among ourselves in the now notorious " Essays and Reviews." The fundamental error of that volume is tlie place which it assigns to the "verifying faculty" in our own minds, making the human understanding and conscience the supreme arbiter of all truth, and thus destroying the possibility of any authoritative revela- tion from heaven. How far the substance of a professed revelation may be regarded as forming part of its evidence is noticed by Trench, " Notes on the Miracles," p. 27. OF ST Matthew's gospel. 333 to those who advance it than to those against whom it is directed. For what is the real meaning of that conduct which, in spite of evidence, clings, let us say, to certain passages of the Bible as Divine, and which denounces the diligence that discovers or the honesty that proclaims their spuriousness*? Is it not, in fact, to maintain that the Word of God is incomplete without these passages? that they ought to have been in it? and that its Author has acted umvisely, either in failing to insert them at first, or in allowing them to be afterwards called in question from want of suf- ficient evidence ? Such is, in truth, the position assumed by those who persist, on other grounds than those of evidence or rational argument, in maintain- ing a fixed opinion with respect to any controverted point in sacred criticism; and it needs only to be stated in order to reveal its presumption and impiety. It is in reality to asperse the wisdom of the God both of grace and providence. It is to set the human against the Divine — it is to let opinion take the place of fact — it is to elevate subjective feelings to the seat of authority, instead of keeping them, as they ever ought to be kept, thoroughly subordinate to objective truth — and thus, in a word, it is to reach, from a different starting-point, the same conclusion as does the rationalistic critic and interpreter of Scripture. Wherever evidence is, on any pretence * I refer here, of com*se, to such passages as 1 John v. 7, and Acts viii. 37, whicli, as every scholar knows, have no chiim whatever to a phice in the inspired Word of God ; and in the immediately preceding remarks I allude to such questions as that respecting the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which, in the opinion of most competent scholars, God has not been pleased to enable us to settle with anything like dogmatic authority. 334 ORIGINAL LANGUAGE deserted, there is the spirit of rationalism displayed. The only legitimate field open to man's researches with respect to revelation is then abandoned ; and all the guilt of exalting mere human prejudices at the expense of Divine realities is unconsciously con- tracted. The simple difference, in regard to this matter, between the infidel rationalist and the unrea- soning dogmatist is, that, in the one case, there is a bold and reckless avowal made of the standard of judgment which is adopted; and that, in the other, there is an earnest regard professed for the authority of God's Word, while, notwithstanding, the fallible and human is assigned a sovereign, and therefore utterly unsuitable and presumptuous place. Now, it cannot be denied, as has been already said, that those who uphold the Greek original of St Matthew's Gospel have sometimes done so on grounds justly liable to the condemnation which has just been expressed. They have allowed their own notions of the probable, or the suitable, to have a very undue influence in deciding the question. This is strikingly observable, for instance, in the writings of Lightfoot. In one place, for example, he expresses himself as follows: — "That which we would have is this, — that Matthew wrote not in Hebrew;" (he means by this ancient Hebrew,) ''if so be we suppose him to have written in a language vulgarly known and understood, which certainly we ought to suppose;" (so far his argument is good, but observe what fol- lows,) '' nor that he nor the other writers of the New Testament wrote in the Syriac language, unless we suppose them to have written in the ungratefid lan- guage of an ungrateful nation, which certainly we OF ST Matthew's gospel. 335 ought not to suppose. For, wlien the Jewish people were now to be cast off, and to be doomed to eternal cursing, it was very {mp7'oper certainly to extol their language, whether it were the Syriac mother-tongue or the Chaldee, its cousin-language, into that degree of honour that it should be the original language of the New Testament. Improper certainly it was to write the Gospel in their tongue who above all the inhabitants of the world most despised and opposed it*." Not a few others on the same side, without going to the extreme indicated in these sentences of Light- foot, have more or less manifested a similar spirit. They have argued, that the inspired original of St Matthew's Gospel could not have been Hebrew, else God would have watched over it and preserved it from destruction, and that to imagine otherwise is to impugn the wisdom, power, or faithfulness of the Almighty. "This dogmatic view of the question," says Dr Tregelles, "has arisen from considerations relative to God, and His mode of acting towards His creatures. It is allesfed that no book which He did not intend for abiding use would be given by inspira- tion; that no mere translation can be authoritative; and that the old view stamps imperfection on the canon. It is affirmed that it is inconceivable that God should not have insured the preservation of an inspired book, and that the contrary would be in some measure contradictory to the Divine perfec- tionst." * " Lightfoot's Works," by Pitman, xi. 24. t Tregelles, " On the Original Language of St Matthew's Gospel " (Bagsters, 1850). The same dissertation had previously appeai-ed in the "Journal of Sacred Literature," first series. Vol. v. 1 shall frequently 336 ORIGINAL LANGUAGE Now if, as Dr Tregelles seems to imply, this mode of arguing may be alleged as characteristic of the defenders of the Greek original of St Matthew gene- rally, I beg, for one, most heartily to repudiate it. All such reasonings as those he mentions appear to my mind as futile as they are presumptuous. I hold, as strongly as he does, that it is no business of ours to inquire what God ivoidd or should have done ; we have onl}'- to ask what He has done. It is not for us to settle d priori God's manner of acting in this, or in any other case. We are quite sure that He will always act in a way worthy of Himself, and in har- mony with all His infinite perfections; but to attempt to sketch out beforehand how He must therefore have acted in such a matter as the present appears to me the height of presumption and impiety. For aught we can tell, previous to inquiry, He may have been pleased to give through Matthew an inspired revelation of His will in Hebrew only, or in Greek only, or in both together ; He may have been pleased to let the inspired original perish, and to replace it from the earliest times by an equally inspired and authoritative translation ; or He may have been pleased to let nothing come down to us but an im- perfect, unauthorised, or even misleading version of what was at first a heaven-inspired book. One or more of these suppositions may appear to us, accord- ing to our several tendencies, very improbable. But we must not, on that account, refuse to hear the evi- dence, if any, which can be urged in their supjDort. refer to this treatise in the following pages, as being one of the most elaborate efforts which have recently been made to uphold the Hebrew original of St Matthew's Gospel. OF ST Matthew's gospel. 337 We dare not say beforehand, which, or how many of them, are certainly true or false; but in what direc- tion soever our own notions and inclinations may tend, we must set ourselves earnestly and diligently to collect and examine the evidence, and must rest humbly and willingly in the conclusion to which that leads*. Thus far, we have found ourselves in har- * The mode of reasoning here condemned has been far too common Thns says Heidegger, " Enchirid.," p. 707,—" Si Hebraice Evangelium Matthpeus scripsisset, pro eo conservando at Dei Providentia et Eccle- sioe industria perenniter vigilasset indubie." In like manner, Hofman, "Ad Pritii. Introd.," p. 307, thus expresses himself, — 'Trovocamus ad Divinam Providentiam et sedulam Ecclesije curani in custodiendis et servandis libris N. T. canonicis. Qui cedat, Deum passum fiuf^se, ut liber Divino impulsu et instinctu conscriptus, ad religionis Christianse normam et canonem pertiucns, plane periret," &c. To the same effect, Zedler, in his "Universal-Lexicon," 1739, says of St Matthew's Gospel, — "Hatte es der Evangelist darinneu [«'. e. in Hehretc] geschrieben, so miissten wirs noch haben, denn niemand wird ohne Beleidigung der gottlichen Provi- denz und Wahrheit sprechen konnen, dass der Original-Text verlohren gegangen ware." This is certainly a very short and easy method of ending the controversy ; and that it is not even yet obsolete will be apparent from the following sentences in that article in " Evan. Chr.," Sept. 1860, which has already several times been quoted :— "We hold it to be impossible, in the very nature of things, that God should give a book of Scripture, say St Matthew's Gospel, by inspiration, and conse- quently of His own free grace, and yet should not exert His providence to preserve and keep the book so given for the use of His creatures. And this argument becomes a thousandfold weightier when it is con- sidered that the providence of God has been unceasingly and largely exerted to preserve and keep in use in the Church the G)"eek, which is supposed to be but a translation, while the supposed original Hebrew has been lost. The very same providence that has been exerted for the preservation of the supposetl Greek version would have preserved the supposed Hebrew original. But to conceive that an original inspired book has been lost, and a translation of it jirescrved, with all the same care and energy that would have sufficed for the preservation of the original, is a hypothesis so utterly contradictory of and derogatory to the wisdom, power, and excellency of God's providence, as to amount to an utter and extreme inqirobability ; an improbability so utterly ex- treme, that we may pronounce it to be an impossibility on the jiart of 3o8 ORIGINAL LANGUAGE mony with the upholders of the Hebrew original of St Matthew's Gospel, as to the principles on which the argument should be conducted ; but this will no longer be the case when we proceed to observe — Secondly, That tve must, in examining and de- ciding this question, take into consideration the whole EVIDENCE. This is a statement which bears as much the appearance of a truism as the former, but which, though no doubt nominally accepted by all, has also, I believe^ been to a great extent practically dis- regarded. TJie principle which it contains is not less important than that which has already been con- sidered, for it is manifest that a false result is as likely to be reached by taking a one-sided view of the evidence, as by ignoring it altogether. And in this I believe is to be found the causa erroris in the case of those who have pronounced so decisively in favour of the Hebrew original. They have looked only or chiefly at one department of the evidence, and have, in fact, not unfrequently argued as if that were in reality the whole. Take, for example, one of the ablest advocates of this hypothesis, Dr Tregelles, and let us observe the manner in which he discusses the question. The very first sentence of his treatise on God, and an inconsistency which the Divine Being could not have been guilty of."— rage 469. Unfortunately for such reasonings, there are numerous undoubted facts, both in nature and revelation, which, judged of a ])riori, would certainly appear to us as inconsistent with the perfections of the Most High, as can be any hypothesis connected with St Matthew's Gosjiel. As stated in the text, all such arguments as the above seem to my humble judgment, not only inconclusive, but perilous and presumptuous in the extreme. Once let evidence be forsaken, with respect to this, or any similar question, and all becomes uncertainty and confusion. OF ST Matthew's gospel. 33D the subject is sufficient to set his method of arguino- before us. " In the following remarks," he says, "I propose to consider what was the original language in which St Matthew wrote his Gospel, by an ex- amination of ancient evidence in connexion with the circumstances which relate to that testimony." By this '"ancient evidence," as might be supposed, and as speedily appears, he means only the statements made upon the subject by ancient writers; and no- thing else is taken into account by him in settling the point at issue. But is it not manifest that, in a question such as the present, there are other thino-s that ought to be considered, than simply what may have been said upon the subject? This would be the case even although no Greek Gospel were extant at the present day. If no book at all now existed bearing the name of St Matthew, we should still be warranted in subjecting the statements of antiquity as to the language in which that apostle once wrote to the test of other ascertained circumstances. Every one acquainted with history knows how many asser- tions made by ancient writers require to be set aside, because proved inconsistent with other undoubted facts. And it would be to claim infallibility for those ancient fathers who have left us a statement of their convictions on this subject, did we not venture to inquire, by the aid of other existing facts or probabili- ties, whether they may not possibly have been mis- taken. If then, I repeat, we had no Gospel at all bearing the name and ascribed to the authorship of the apostle Matthew at the present day, we should still be justified in considering the statements made regarding his work by ancient writers in the light of 340 ORIGINAL LANGUAGE facts which had been ascertained as to the state of things in which they wrote, their sources of informa- tion, the consistency and independence of their testi- mony, &c., and thus deciding as to the probabiUty or improbabihty of their assertions. But the case is much stronger when we actually hold in our hands a Gospel in Greek bearing the name of the apostle, and transmitted to us from the earliest times as an integral portion of the New Testa- ment scriptures. The question as to its original lan- guage cannot in such a case be settled by the mere citation of any number of passages from writers in the second, third, or fourth centuries. The Gospel itself in its present form runs up into a higher an- tiquity, as is generally admitted, than belongs to any of those testimonies which attribute to it a different original language from that in which we now possess it. It existed, as most allow, in Greek, before the apostles left the earth; it exists in that language still; and surely, therefore, it ought itself io be taken into account as forming an essential part of the evi- dence in that question which we are called upon to consider. Moreover, there are other indisputable facts con- nected with the volume of which the Greek Gospel of St Matthew forms a part, which have a manifest bearing upon the discussion, and must not be over- looked. How is it possible, for instance, with any propriety, to leave out of view, in dealing with this question, the striking and important fact, that our present Gospel of St Matthew abounds in verhal coincidences with the other Gospels, all of which are now universally admitted to have been written in OF ST Matthew's gospel. 341 the Greek language? There may he a satisfactory mode of explainmg this fact without finding it ne- cessary to adopt our supposition, that St Matthew's Gospel, like the rest, was written in Greek — a point to be afterwards fully considered — but at any rate, the striking phenomenon which has been mentioned cannot properly be overlooked in discussing the ques- tion. Yet overlooked it has been by most of the defenders of the Hebrew original. In their excessive zeal for '' ancient evidence," they have been tempted to forofet what is both the most ancient and the most trustworthy of all — the phenomena presented by the Gospel itself. St Matthew has a voice, as well as St Jerome, in the settlement of this question. But that voice has been almost entirely disregarded by those who have maintained that our present Greek is a translation from the Hebrew. They have eagerl}'' inquired what Papias and Origen and other early fathers had to say in the matter ; but they scarcely think it worth their trouble to ask of the writer of the Gospel himself what testimony he bears, by the special character attaching to his work, as to the language in which it was originally given to the world. I complain, then, with regard to the upholders of the Hebrew original, that they do not take into ac- count the whole evidence. Dr Tregelles very fre- quently and very warmly contends for the paramount authority of evidence in settling this and all other biblical questions; and so far, as has been already seen, I most cordially agree with him. But, then, he appears to me most unduly to limit the evidence. It is only one kind of proof at which he will look ; and 342 ORIGINAL LANGUAGE f that, as I believe, by no means -the surest or strongest kind — the proof which is furnished in the express declarations of ancient writers. And it is on these, almost exclusively, that the opponents of the true originality of our Greek Gospel rest their cause. Quotations from the ancient fathers are marshalled so thick and deep, that these are seen, and scarcely anything besides. Indeed, as was previously hinted, it is no easy matter for an unprejudiced inquirer ever to get round to the other side of the question at all. As soon as he enters on the investigation, his judg- ment is apt to be greatly biassed, if indeed, it is not completely decided, by the arguments thus pro- minently presented by the writers referred to ; and he has certainly no chance of hearing from them the caution, that a full half at least of the evidence re- mains yet to be considered. The consequence is that he may scarcely look at the other department of the evidence at all, but may rest in the conclusion already formed; whereas, had he followed out the inquiry by contemplating the question from a different stand- point, he might have been led to a very different result. I am greatly disposed to believe that not a few who look into this controversy never succeed in obtaining more than a partial view of the various considerations which make up our available data for determining the question. Their opinion is formed in favour of the Hebrew original while one important branch of the evidence remains wholly unconsidered. And then, if they are persuaded to devote attention to that at all, it is only to deny that it should have any great influence on the question at issue, to argue as if the controversy were already closed, and to OF ST Matthew's gospel 843 explain away all that seems inconsistent with the conclusion which has been already reached. It is necessary, therefore, to insist on our second principle — that the tvhole evidence must be consi- dered. Quotations from ancient writers, statements by early fathers, prevailing traditions in the Church, are only one element in deciding this question. The entire mass of evidence, internal as well as external, must be taken into account; and the judgment must be guided by a fair and candid estimation of the whole. In all questions, of course, except those cajDable of mathematical certainty, the arguments brought forward must be conflicting in greater or less degree. Sometimes they will be so equally balanced as to leave the problem utterly insolvable; and sometimes they will be so largely on one side, as almost to amount to demonstration; while infinite degrees of probability will lie between these two extremes, drawing the mind more or less powerfully either in the one direction or the other. But even in the most difficult and perplexing cases, we have this rule to guide us — that the same principle which renders it our duty to follow evidence at all, also requires that w^e should submit to the j^reponderating evidence, though perhaps unable fully to explain that which points to a different conclusion. Now such may be our position with respect to the present question. We may find enough of evidence on the one side to convince us that there lies the truth, yet may not be able com^^letely to remove every objec- tion that may be urged on the other. And if the proof thus presented is of such a nature, whatever its amount, as appears irresistible, the most that can be 344 ORIGINAL LANGUAGE demanded is, that we furnish a possible or plausible explanation of the difficulties which seem to lie against the conclusion to which it leads. If again, the argument can, on no proper ground, be held clearly conclusive on either side, our duty will be discharged by taking a full and impartial view of the entire evidence attainable, and then diffidently forming our judgment according to probabihty, which, as Butler remarks, is to us '' the very guide of life." As will afterwards appear, I believe that there is evidence both of a kind and amount which renders it morally certain that our present Gospel of St Mat- thew is not a translation, but an original work. The same opinion, however, is held by many with respect to the evidence in favour of the very opposite con- clusion. This singular diversity of feeling among biblical scholars was above ascribed to the different methods which they pursue in dealing with this sub- ject ; and the question, therefore, now arises for dis- cussion— In what order ought the different parts of the evidence to be adduced ? what arguments have a claim to he first considered ? I am thus led to observe (though the point is of no essential importance) — Thirdly, That the logical and natural course is to allow the internal to take precedence of the external evidence. In maintaining this proposition, it seems almost sufficient to suggest the obvious consideration that there are circumstances easily conceivable in such a work as St Matthew's Gospel, which would render it perfectly impossible that it could be a translation. The existence of such circumstances, or not, can only be ascertained by an actual inspection of the docu- OF ST Matthew's gospel. 345 ment; and, therefore, the proper course manifestly is first to examine the history itself before allowing our judgments to be swayed by any of those statements which may have been made respecting it. It is scarcely needful to illustrate at any length the assertion which has just been made, that a writing may possess in itself sure and evident marks that it is, or is not, a translation. This is, in fact, the case with most versions, and most originals, in every lan- guage. In spite of what has been said to the con- trary, I cannot but hold that there is nothing which is more certainly within the power of literary tact and experience, than, in all ordinary cases, to distin- guish between an original and a translated work. No two languages approach so closely to each other in idiom as to allow a translator, who is scrupulously faithful to the work he has undertaken, an opportu- nity of imparting to his production the air and cha- racter of an original. In cases of very free transla- tion, indeed, such as Pope's translation of Homer, the traces of the original language may be almost, or altogether, obliterated; but this cannot take place when (as is claimed for our Greek Gospel of St Mat- thew by most of those who deem it a version from the Hebrew) a close and faithful adherence is pre- served to the oriofinal. A foreio-n and awkward air will almost inevitably attach to every translation from one language into another, if any approach to literal exactness is sought to be maintained in the version that is produced. It is sufficient to refer in proof of this to the Septuagint translation from He- brew into Greek, to the many close translations from the German or French into our own language at the 346 ORIGIXAL LANGUAGE present day, or to the literal versions of the ancient classics into the various tongues of modern Europe. In all such cases, a person of ordinary ability and experience would have no difficulty in at once detect- ing the translation, and in assigning the reasons which had led him to that conclusion. Dr Tregelles, however, seems inclined to deny this; and asks, in confirmation of his views, what traces the Lord's Prayer in English bears of being a translation. We may admit that no such traces are to be found, without any prejudice to our argument. The injustice of comparing a few lines, like those referred to, with the Gospel of St Matthew at large, must be apparent to every reader. The Lord's Prayer is so short as to form no parallel to an exten- sive work like the entire evangelical history; and no one, I suppose, will deny that occasional passages may easily be found in any translation which will pass as original. And besides, the Lord's Prayer is a composition of such a nature, that the points which specially mark a translation are necessarily wanting in it. It consists of a number of independent clauses, each complete in itself, so that the different modes of connecting one part of a sentence with another, which serve greatly to distinguish different languages, cannot appear. Indeed, one of its petitions might as fairly be made the test of its being a translation as the whole. But whether it be possible or not to detect a translation by its intrinsic character, it is unquestion- able, at all events, that a work may contain, in itself, plain and unmistakable proof that it is an original, and not a translation. How certain is it, for exam- OF ST Matthew's gospel. 847 pie, that the history of Thucydides, the odes of Ho- race, and the dramas of Shakspeare, are original, and not translated works ! They bear evidence, not only in the style and idiom in which they are w^ritten, but by the manner in which they reflect the life and habits of the age and country in wdiich they were respectively composed, as well as by the frequent allusions which they contain to national aflairs and contemporary occurrences, that they were written originally by the persons whose names they bear, and could not possibly have been translations made by them at first, or by any others afterwards, from a different language. Not the most united external testimony would ever persuade the w^orld to the con- trary, or lessen, in the faintest degree, the conviction arising from a perusal of the works themselves, that they were written originally in the language in which we still possess them. Since, therefore, it is quite possible that internal evidence may exist wdiicli renders it absolutely cer- tain that our present Greek Gospel of St Matthew is not a translation, but an original w^ork, it is plainly the proper and logical course first of all to inquire whether or not such evidence is to be found. If we adopt the opposite course, and begin our investiga- tion with a consideration of the evidence of testi- mony, then, after reaching our conclusion M'ith respect to it, we may find, on turning to the Gospel itself, that that conclusion cannot be sustained, as being inconsistent wdth other plain and incontrovertible facts. When any one therefore tells us, on our taking the existing Gospel of St Matthew into our hands, as the advocates of its Hebrew original do tell us, 348 ORIGINAL LANGUAGE that it is a translated, and not an original work, the first and most obvious question to be considered is the evidence borne by the Gospel itself with respect to that assertion. On ojDening and examining it, we may find proof the most conclusive either for or against such a declaration. It may appear either plain, probable, possible, or impossible, that our pre- sent Gospel should be regarded as a translation. There are works, as every one will admit, which are seen, on the very first look, to be translations. There are also other works, as has just been shewn, of which it may most confidently be maintained, on a mere examination of their contents, that they are originals. And others still, let us admit, (such as some of the apocryphal books of the Old Testament,) may be found, of which it cannot positively be declared, on internal grounds, whether they are originals or trans- lations, but which may be accepted as either, accord- ing to the external evidence which accompanies them. If it is found, on an inspection of our Gospel, that it bears in itself plain or probable evidence of being a translation, then the statements which have been made to that effect, may at once and most willingly be received ; if, on the other hand, it clearly appears from such an inspection that it cannot possibly be a translation, then the statements in question must be resolved into a misapprehension ; and if, finally, it is found difficult or impossible to say, from internal considerations, whether it be a translation or an ori- ginal work, then tlie preponderating external evi- dence may be allowed to decide the question. Such, then, is the course of argument to be fol- lowed in the ensuing discussion. We are to look OF ST Matthew's gospel. 849 first at the internal evidence, and allow it to deter- mine the weight which ought to be assigned to the external. This I cannot but regard as the logical and natural method; and it is a method, I trust, which will recommend itself to the approbation of the majority of readers. I can scarcely hope, indeed, that w^riters like Dr Tregelles, who is in the habit of almost ignoring internal evidence on all critical sub- jects, will not object to the course which has been indicated. To such an extent does the eminent critic referred to carry his repugnance to all objective proof of an intrinsic character, that, in reference to our pre- sent subject, he seems, in one passage, to deny it the very name of evidence, and that although it may amount to demonstration. He says, {ut sup.,) ''It has been argued that our Greek Gospel must be an original document. If this must be the case, let it once be demonstrated, and then evideiice may be overlooked." Here there is either a very unfortu- nate use of language, or there is furnished a striking proof of that one-sidedness, which, as was before remarked, has greatly, though unintentionally, cha- racterised the defenders of the Hebrew original. Dr Tregelles appears to imagine that there is nothing which can properly be called evidence on the other side at all. And yet, if this is his meaning, he calls, with some seeming inconsistency, for a demonstra- tion from that side, after w^hich he tells us " evidence may be overlooked." Why, how could the supposed demonstration be effected except by evidence ? And how could evidence be overlooked after that demon- stration had been accomplished ? There remains, in fact, no evidence to he overlooked after demonstration 350 ORIGINAL LANGUAGE lias been reached: all the counter-statements which may then be made can only be regarded as a conge- ries of errors. But although I can perhaps hardly hope for the concurrence of Dr Tregelles and some others in the justness and propriety of that method which has been indicated, is it not, on that account, left to rest en- tirely on its own merits without the sanction of some very eminent critics. On the contrary, there may be jjroduced in its behalf the authority of celebrated names on both sides of the question. Thus, on the side of the Greek original, Credner, after bringing forward very fully the testimonies usually quoted from the fathers, to the effect that St Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, still holds that the question, whether or not our present Gospel is an original or a translated work, remains undecided, and that it can be settled only by a consideration of its internal character. " What biblical criticism, then," he says, '^ has to do in this matter, is simply to concern itself with the following question — whether or not our pre- sent Gospel of St Matthew bears evidence in itself that it is a translation from the Hebrew*?" * " Einl. in das N. T.," § 46. In his last work, " Geschiclite des Neut. Kanon," piiblislied since his death, Credner repeats, in substance, the above statement as to the manner in wliich the question respecting the original language of St Matthew's Gospel must be settled, remarking of that Gospel, as well as of the Epistle to the Hebrews, " Aus inneren Giiinden eine urspriinglich hebraische Abfassung nicht stattgefunden haben kann," p. 136. I may take this opportiuiity of observing that, however much one may regret the strong rationalistic tendencies of Credner, it is impossible not to admire tlie clearness and fulness with which he treats of every point wliich falls under his consideration. As Moses Stuart remarks ("Fosdick's Hug," p. 703) regarding a then ex- pected publication of Credner's, " This must be a work full of interest when in such hands as those of Credner, and this will be true whether OF ST MATTHEWS GOSPEL. "3^1 And, on the other side, it is curious to observe, that even Eichhorn, one of the most determined up- holders of the Hebrew original, also expresses himself as if he deemed the proof of translation quite in- complete, until he had taken into consideration the character of our existing Greek Gospel. He pro- ceeds, from an examination of the passages usually quoted from the ancients in this controversy, to an exhibition of the arguments which he imagines may be derived from the Gospel itself in support of his hypothesis, and heads the chapter in which he treats of these — ^'Decisive Proof that St Matthew wrote in Hebrew*." Since, then, one critic (Credner) believes that from the Gospel itself we must derive the only conclusive proofs of its originality, and another critic (Eichhorn) supposes that in itself alone we can find decisive indications of its being a translation, the internal evi- dence is thus acknowledged on both sides as being the dominating element in the settlement of this question, and naturally, therefore, in the first place, demands our attention. Before, however, proceeding to an examination of the Gospel itself, I may be allowed briefly to indicate how far the conclusion reached in the First the fheonj he adopts be right or wi'ong; for, in whatever direction he moves, he never makes an idle or insignificant movement." I cordially subscribe to this statement ; and, while differing widely from him on many points, gratefully acknowledge myself more indebted to Credner for direction and suggestion, as well as positive information with respect to many of the points treated of in this work, than to any other writer. * " Entschcidender Beweis fiir einem hcbraischen Gruud-text : Feh- ler des griechisclien Uebersetzcrs." — Eichhorn's "Einl. in das N. T.," 1. 106. S52 ORIGINAL LANGUAGE Part of this work, as to the prevaiUng language of Palestine in the time of Christ, appears to me to bear upon the special question now awaiting dis- cussion. / All must see that the linguistic condition of the country at the time furnishes a strong ground of probability as to the language in which a Jewish writer such as St Matthew would be likely to address his countrymen. If the prevailing language of public address was Hebrew, then in Hebrew would he probably write, and vice versa. Accordingly, most of those who have maintained the Hebrew original of the first Gospel, have also striven to prove that Hebrew was then decidedly the prevalent language among the Jews of Palestine. They have even rest- ed their whole cause upon this consideration. Thus says Father Simon, in opposition to the view that St Matthew wrote originally in Greek: — ^'It hath indeed been more convenient that the books of the New Testament should be written rather in Greek than in another language. But here it is only ar- gued concerning the Jews of Palestine, to whom St Matthew first preached the gospel. And since those people spake Chaldaic, it was necessary for him to preach to them in this same language. On these grounds all antiquity hath relied, when they have believed that St Matthew had composed his Gospel in Hebrew*". This extract (which has often been repeated in substance by later writers) t shews very clearly how * " Critical History of the New Testament," by Jii chard Simon (from the French ; London, 1689), p. 43. t Even Ebrard, who grants that " Greek was very commonly under- OF ST Matthew's gospel. 353 important is the question respecting tlie reigning lan- guage of Palestine at the time to the upholders of the Hebrew original of St Matthew's Gospel. Hardly any reason can be imagined for the evangelist having ■written in Hebrew, unless that were the only, or, at least, the ordinary language then made use of for literary purposes in Palestine. This is fully admitted in the words which have just been quoted from Father Simon. And we find the same writer (in reply to Isaac Vossius, who had called those critics " semi- docti et fanatici" that believed our Lord and His disciples to have spoken in Hebrew,) expressing him- self as follows in another passage: — "The ancient ecclesiastical authors who have affirmed that St Mat- thew hath written his Gospel in Hebrew, would be all fanatics, for they declare that they have embraced this opinion only because the Jews of Jerusalem then spake Hebrew, that is to say, the Chaldee or Syriac tongue*." Moreover, every one who believes that the first Gospel was originally written in Hebrew, must also hold, in opposition, as will afterwards ap- pear, to evidence which is bound up in the Gospel itself, that the evangelist in writing it had regard only to the inhabitants of Palestine. St Matthew could never, of course, have written his work in He- brew with any view to its general diff'usion, since that stood in Palestine," exclaims, "Just think of the native Israelite, an Apostle of the circiinicision, writing tlic life of .lesus for Israelites (this is evident even from our Greek Matthew) ; is it likely that he would make use of a language which had been forced upon his nation, instead of the sacred ton ij lie which Jesus imself had employed ?" "Gospel History," p. 5.37. How completely this argument has been ovei'thrown, and, whatever force it has, turned in the opposite direction, will be ob- vious to every reader of this work. * Simon, nt sup., p. 46. 23 354 ORIGINAL LANGUAGE language was at no time understood beyond a very limited territory. And very strong cause certainly ought to be shewn why the first apostolic account of a religion destined for all nations should have been written in a tongue known to one nation only; and that while another language existed, which, it must be admitted, was, in no small degree, familiar to that nation, and was at the same time generally under- stood throughout the world. The whole cause, then, of the advocates of the Hebrew original, as they themselves acknowledge, stands or falls according to the manner in which this question regarding the prevalent language of Pales- tine in the time of Christ is settled. They frankly confess, that if it can be shewn that the Jews of that period generally employed Greek, and not Hebrew, in their public intercourse with one another, the con- troversy may be regarded as settled in favour of the Greek original of the first Gospel. I have ventured to accept the challenge thus proposed. In the pre- ceding chapters of this work, I have endeavoured to prove, by a large induction of facts, that the Jews of Palestine did then, for the most part, make use of Greek in their public dealings with one another, and more specifically as the language of religious address. If I have succeeded in this, then, in the estimation of the most strenuous defenders of the Hebrew original, the very ground on which their opinion rests, and has always rested, is irrecoverably swept away. We shall hear no more of the statements of antiquity. Papias and all his followers must be declared in error. The originality of our existing Gospel of St Matthew is acknowledged to be established ; the error on which or ST Matthew's gospel. 355 the opposite opinion depended is exposed ; an end is put to this long and fluctuating controversy ; and the truth is at last reached resj)ecting a very interesting and important subject of investigation*. Such, according to many able upholders of the Hebrew original of St Matthew's Gospel, is the result, if the conclusion aimed at in the First Part of this volume be admitted. If it can be proved that Christ and His disciples generally made use of the Greek language, they profess themselves ready to resign their case as no longer defensible. Supposing, then, the previous course of argument allowed to be satis- factory, we might, according to them, simply append to it the corollary, that St Matthew wymote his Gospel in Greek, and not in Hebrew. But I am not inclined to avail myself of such a summary mode of settling this question. It seems to me that, even accepting the conclusion which has, I believe, been established in the preceding pages, the case of the defenders of the Hebrew original is not yet quite so desperate as some of them imasfine. I can conceiv^e that, thouo^h Christ and His disciples did usually speak in Greek, St Matthew, for a special purpose, and addressing a particular class, might, nevertheless, have written in Hebrew. We know that Josephus, writing rol^ avco (iap(idpoi'i, at first published his History of the Jewish War in Hebrew. And the same or a similar object may have been contemplated by St Matthew * It is soincwliat surprising to find Abp. Thomson in SmitJi's " Dic- tionary of the Bible " (Art. Matt.), taking no account of the linguistic condition of Palestine at the time, in his discussion of the question as to the original language of our first Gospel. We can scarcely wonder that, leaving out this essential element in the inquiry, he can only say at last of the point referred to, " We leave a great question still unsettled." 23—2 366 ORIGINAL LANGUAGE, ETC. in writing his Gospel. This supposition has, in fact, been made by Isaac Vossius, who, strongly as he contends for the j)i^evalence of Greek in Palestine, still thinks, as his views are stated in his treatise entitled ''Ad Tertias Simonii Objectiones Responsio," that St Matthew wrote his Gospel "Hebraice in usum Gentium in Parthica viventium ditioue, quibus Babylonius sen Chaldaicus sermo erat vernaculus," It remains, therefore, that we examine both the Gospel itself and the ancient testimonies which have been handed down regarding it, in order to discover whether there is yet miy ground for conceiving that it was originally written in Hebrew, and that the existino: Greek is but a translation from that lonsr- lost document; or whether there is reason to believe that the evangelist published tivo editions of his Gospel, of which the former, in Hebrew, speedily perished, while the latter, in Greek, continues in our hands at the present day. CHAPTER II. INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF THE ORIGINALITY OF ST MAT- THEW'S GOSPEL. The special purpose contemplated in this chapter is to collect and consider the proofs which may be de- rived from the existing Greek Gospel of St Matthew, viewed by itself, in favour of its originality. On our hypothesis, some such indications are, of course, to be expected. If St Matthew, like the other evan- gelists, wrote originally in Greek, we cannot but sup- pose that his work, no less than theirs, will bear in itself the proper stamp and evidence of originality. I proceed, then, to set before the reader some of those considerations arising from the character of the Gospel itself, which seem to me harmoniously to combine in illustrating and establishing its original- ity in the form in which we still possess it. And in entering on this portion of the argument, I may remark, — I. That, on a complete and thorough examina- tion of the Greek Gospel of St Matthew, it is seen everywhere to possess the air and character of an original, and not a translated tvorJc. The maintainers of the Hebrew original pretty 358 ST Matthew's gospel : generally allow that this is the case. Dr Tregelles, in particular, makes the admission as fully as could be desired, and simply denies that, on this one account, it is necessary to abandon the idea of a Hebrew original. "It is granted," he says, "that St Matthew's Gospel in Greek does not seem like a translation; that the language does not seem less original than the other New Testament writings; and that, unless we had external testimony, we should probably not have imagined it to be a version ; but all this does not prove the contrary'"." I am not inclined to press this point with him, nor is it at all necessary to do so. There are many other grounds, as we shall see, on which dependence may safely be placed in this controversy. But it is some- thing, at least, to get such a candid and explicit admission as that just quoted, from one of the most strenuous upholders of the Hebrew original. It may serve as a reply to very different allegations which have been made by some others on the same side of the question. Eichhornf, Davidson |, and Cure- ton §, all imagine that there are manifest marks of the translator to be discovered in our existing Greek Gospel. Eichhorn reckons up a vast number of pal- pable errors of translation, as he deems them, — undertakes, indeed, to shew that there are some such to be found in every chapter. Davidson, on the other hand, will not allow that there are any positive mistakes, (except, perhaps, in the translation vIko^, chap. xii. 20,) but traces the hand of the translator * Tregelles, ut sup., p. 15. t Eichhorn, "Einl. in das N. T.," § 106. t Davidson's " lutroduct. to the N.T.," p. 47, &c. § Cureton's " Syriac Gospels," pix vi. — xliv. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 359 in several passages; while Cureton, again, decidedly prefers, in very many cases, the readings of that Syriac recension of St Matthew which he recently edited, to our existing Greek, and openly charges the supposed translator with numerous and evident errors. It will be necessary to examine the arguments of Cureton at some length in a subsequent chapter, and they may, therefore, in the meantime be left un- touched. As to the position assumed by Eichhorn, it would be a waste of time to expose its absurdity. All critics are now agreed that he himself, and not the writer or translator of the Gospel, was the per- son in error. It is enough to say, in the words of Credner, that " the pretended instances of mistrans- lation which Bolten, Eichhorn, and Berth oldt reckon up, have no existence save in their own imagina- tion*;" or, in those of Dr Davidson himself, that "those who impugn the authority of the Greek Gospel desert antiquity in denying its identity with the Aramaean, written by Matthew, while they main- tain the opinion of that same antiquity concerning the fact of Matthew writing in Hebrew t." We have, then, to concern ourselves, in this place, only with those writers who admit that there are few or no traces of translation in our present Gospel of St Matthew, and yet deem that an unim- portant circumstance in connexion with the subject under discussion. They confess that it does not look like a translation, but they are not the less inclined, on that account, to conclude that it is a translation. * "Einl. indasN.T.,"§46. t " Introd. to the N. T.," p. 75. 360 ST Matthew's gospel: It seems to them quite a natural thing that it should appear what it is not, — should bear the character of an original, while all the time it is really a version. " I wonder," says Greswell, " what marks of a trans- lation it should be expected to exhibit*," Now, unless it be supposed that the imagined translator was under supernatural influence, and that accordingly by a miraculous agency his work had a special character attached to it, — a supposition which, so far as I know, has never been made, — I venture to maintain, that the fact of its being unlike a trans- lation tends powerfully to support the opinion that it is no translation. For, why, it may be well asked, should this immunity belong to it? Why should it be distinguished among all other w^orks of the same kind, by wanting the marks of what, on the supposi- tion, it really is,' — a close and accurate version of a previous Hebrew work? How has it happened that in this case, and in no other, the obvious inherent evidences of such translations have been escaped? And by what strange art (truly in this instance an ars celare wtem) has this one translator succeeded in entirely concealing the real nature of his work, and in imparting to it the whole appearance and impress of an original? Every one who has tried his hand at translation knows how difficult it is to approach perfection in such a work. There are two things at which every good and faithful translator must aim. He must en- deavour, in the first place, to come as near to literal exactness as possible ; and he must take care, in the second place, not to sacrifice the idiom of the lan- * "Harmony of the Gospels," 1. 127. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 361 guage into which his version is made. It must be his effort to give neither more nor less than the meaning of his author; to preserve the special cha- racters of style and thought which appear in the original ; and, at the same time, to do no violence to the genius of the language into which he transfers it. And who has ever succeeded for any length of time in perfectly, accomplishing these two objects ? What translator has not felt himself compelled, at times, to give a paraphrase rather than an exact version of his author, in order that he might avoid the in- tolerable awkwardness which a literal version would have caused ? But nothing of this, as is confessed, appears in our existing Gospel of St Matthew ; it is allowed to possess all the characteristics which belong to an original work; and if, notwithstanding, it must be accepted as a translation, it can only, in that case, be regarded as a sort of literary miracle, and one which is as unique as it is amazing, as solitary in kind as it is exalted in desfree. " How can I read the Gospel of St Matthew, as it now lies before me," asks Professor Stuart*, and feel that I am readino; a translation made in ancient times? Where is Q^^nj version like it? The Septua- gint? That is greatly diverse from it in very many and important respects." In the truth of this state- ment I cordially agree, though from its being un- accompanied with proofs, it is apt to produce little impression. It is scarcely enough simply to affirm with the excellent critic quoted, that ^'m very many and important respects," the Septuagint translation differs from our Greek Gospel of St Matthew: in * Stuart's "Notes to Fosdick's Hug," p. 710. 362 ST Matthew's gospel : order to give any weight to the declaration, some specimens of such differences must be produced. I shall, therefore, notify a few particulars in which tlie differences may be observed, as these have occurred to myself in reading over the Greek of Matthew, and comparing it with a book of the LXX., perused for this special purpose. No portion of the Septuagint could mere fairly be employed as a test in this inquiry than the book of Genesis. Every scholar knows that the Pentateuch is by far the best executed portion of the whole ; and of the Pentateuch, no book approaches so nearly in simplicity of subject and style to Matthew, as does Genesis. Taking, then, the first book of the Old Testament in Greek, and comparing it with the first book of the New Testament in the same language, the one an acknowledged, the other an alleged trans- lation from the Hebrew, such differences as the fol- lowing are at once perceptible* : — The paucity of the Hebrew language in conjunc- tions, and the very frequent use which is therefore made of the simple copulative, are well known. The "^ and" continually occurs in connecting clauses or sen- tences, where in Greek, which is so rich in particles, some other word would be emjoloyed. Now, we find this Hebrew usage copied very remarkably by the * I attach no importance in this investigation to the jmroiiomasia which is supposed to occur in chap. \i. 16. Much as has been made of it by some writers, multitudes of better examples might be discovered in ahnost any translation. Justly does Credner declare (" Einl.," § 47), "That single wretched paronomasia is of no consequence whatever in shewing the Greek original of our present Gospel." Bleek simply men- tions it along with kukovs kukcos cnrokiasi, chap. xxi. 41, and such expres- sions as ^aTTokoyelv, and noXvXoyia, as SO far in favour of the Greek original. " Einl.," p. 273. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 363 Greek translator of Genesis, while in Matthew no such thing appears. On the contrary, our first Gospel is distinguished for the frequent occurrence in it of adverbs of time. While kuI is continually made to do service in the Septuagint in the sense of "then" or " when," the proper adverb is as constantly employed in the Gospel. It has been observed that rare occurs no less than ninety times in Matthew, — a striking contrast, certainly, to the Greek version of the book of Genesis, in which that particle of time is scarcely ever used at all, but, as in the corresponding Hebrew, has its place usurped by the simple copulative. Again, a well-known Hebrew idiom is that by which participial or verbal constructions are made to supply the want of adverbial expressions. Thus in Genesis xxv. i, the Hebrew literally translated is, " And Abraham added, and took a wife," to denote the idfea that he again married; and in chap. 1. 24, Joseph is represented as addressing his brethren in words which, literally rendered, are "God visiting will visit you," to express the certainty with which Divine interposition might be looked for by the Is- raelites. Both of these Hebrew idioms are slavishly adopted by the Septuagint translator, the former passage being rendered, WpoaOenevo's U 'A^paan, and the latter 'E.Tr laKoirri 06 eTrtc/cev/zeTo* o 06O9 J«as, while no trace of any such servile and awkward renderings is found in Matthew, but the equivalent Greek ad- verbs are employed*. * I do not mean to affirm that the Hebrew idioms noticed above had not found their way, like many others, into the Hebraistic Greek of Pales- tine. Instances of both may be seen in the Gos2iel of St Luke, chap. xx. 11, and chap. xxii. 15. Although examples of their use, therefore, had been foimd in the Gospel of St Matthew, these would not necessarily 364 ST Matthew's gospel : Numerous other instances of a violation of the Greek idiom by the Septuagint translator, in order to approach the Hebrew mode of expression, might be mentioned. But let me only further notice such re- duplications as (xcpoSpa, o(poSpa, (Gen. vii. 19;) such almost unintelligible expressions as eOavfxaad aov to TTpoawTTov, (Gen. xix. 21;) such literal renderings as rjpecxav o\ Xoyoi evavriov KjULfiMp, (Gen. XXXIV. 1 8,) &C. — evident marks of the translator, of which no examples are to be found in Matthew. Nor can it be said, in answer to these remarks, that in the case of St Matthew, there was a studied accommodation to the Greek idiom, while in the Sep- tuagint a simple effort was made to express the sense in a literal form, without any regard to the niceties of language. Neither assertion can be maintained. There is evidently no peculiar effort made in St Mat- thew's Gospel to approach to pure Greek expresMons ; on the contrary, it is written in exactly the same dialect as the other Gospels, and has, perhaps, a stronger Hebrew colouring than any of them*. The writer manifestly did not aim at avoiding Hebraistic forms of expression, and yet he escaped those awk- have proved it to be a translation ; but their entire absence seems fitted to support the conclusion that it is no translation. The first idiom might have been expected to occur at chap. xxi. 3G, and the second at chap. xxi. 41, since it seems probable that they would have been used in these passages in the corresponding Hebrew. * This consideration furnishes a suflBcient answer to such statements as that of Bishop Middleton in his notes on Matt. i. 2, — " Throughout the whole of this genealogy there is a use of the article which is wholly foreign from the Greek practice, and which in some degree favours the historical accoimt of the Hebrew original of St Matthew's Gospel." — "Doctrine of the Greek Article," p. 164. Not only in respect to the article, but in many other points, the Hebrew rather than Greek idiom appears in the first Gospel, as in every part of the New Testament. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 365 wardnesses which appear so frequently in the Sep- tuagint, and succeeded in imparting to his work all the ease and rhythm of an original composition. All this is naturally accounted for only on the supposi- tion that the evangelist did, in fact, like his inspired brethren, compose his work in the Greek language, but Greek tinged, as theirs also was, by the Hebrew medium through which it passed. And, on the other hand, it is plain that the Sep- tuagint translator took the liberty, from time to time,, of avoiding the peculiar Hebrew mode of expression employed in his original, when he conceived that its literal counterpart would be ambiguous or absurd in Greek. I have noticed several examples of this in reading over the book of Genesis, but shall mention only, as illustrative of the point in question, the in- stance which occurs at chap, xxxiv. 30. By turning to the English (or German) version of the passage, the peculiar Hebrew phrase here employed will be discovered, for it has most needlessly and offensively been retained by our translators. But in the Sep- tuagint we find it entirely avoided, and the sense given as follows, — luarirov jxe TreTToitjKare, ware irovrjpov jue eti/at Traai roi^ kutoikovgl ttju ytjv*. Vv e See, then, that it was not from want of a desire to accommodate his work to the requirements of the Greek language * On the other hand, there are many instances in which tlie Engh'sh version properly avoids the peculiar Hebrew phrase, while it is closely copied in the Septuagiut. Thus, in Gen. xli. 1, we read in English, "And it came to pass at the end of two full years," where the Septuagint, lite- rally following the Hebrew, has 8vo ctt] ///^fpcoj/. Thus difficult do trans- lators find it to avoid both the Scylla and Charybdis of this matter — to preserve strict accuracy, and yet to write in accordance with the genius and laws of their own language. } 7 366 ST Matthew's gospel : that the translator fell into those inelegances which have been noted. He manifestly felt the difficulty which every faithful translator must always feel — the difficulty of keeping close to the original before him, and yet not violating the idiom of the language in which he writes. Sometimes the one and some- times the other of these objects is missed in the Septuagint/ as in every other translation ; and as neither the one error nor the other can be proved to have a place in our existing Greek Gospel of St Matthew, we conclude that it is not a translated, but an original work*. II. I shall next refer, in support of the proper originality of our existing Gospel, to the manner in which citations from the Old Testament are made in it. St Matthew is rich in quotations from the Old Testament. There are thirteen passages quoted from the Pentateuch, some of them oftener than once. There are 7iine citations from the Psalms. There are sixteen passages from the prophetical books, eight of these from Isaiah, one from Jeremiah, and seven from the minor prophets. Now, if St Matthew wrote in Hebrew, he would, of course, make his citations directly from the Hebrew text. And if his work was afterwards faithfully translated into Greek, the passages quoted would naturally be given in the form * Winer observes that, as might be exi^ected, Hebrew idioms and expressions appear more markedly in translations made directly from the Hebrew than in works composed originally in Greek by Jewish writers. He appends to this remark the following statement, which I would specially apply to St Matthew's Gospel,—" Hierin liegt zugleich ein weuig beachteter Grund, warmn der Text des N. T. nicht als eine (grossentheils ungeschickte) Uebersetzung aus dem Aramaischen be- trachtet werden kann." — " Grammatik des Neut. Sprach.," p. 26, sixth edit. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 367 in which they stand in the Hebrew Bible. Such is unquestionably the course which we would expect a scrupulously honest translator to have followed. And if we find any reason to suspect that he tam- pered with his author in regard to citations, we lose all certainty that he may not have used the same liberty in other respects. The applications of Old Testament statements made in the evangelic narra- tives necessarily form a most important part of their contents. They often bear upon such essential points as the Messiahship, the divinity, and the vicarious atonement of the Saviour. It is, then, a very serious matter if there be ground to believe that we do not in this Gospel possess the Old Testament quotations, as they were really made by the apostle. If his translator has ventured to change or modify these according to his own judgment or fancy, then, unless it can be proved that he was himself inspired, we have no safeguard whatever against his great and wilful dishonesty. There is indeed one supposition which may be regarded as saving his good faith, although we do find that the quotations, as he has given them, vary from the Hebrew Scriptures. He may have preferred adopting the Septuagint trans- lation, which was already current, to venturing on an independent translation of the apostle's words. This course might have, perhaps, been pardonable. But if he followed it, we would at least expect to find him consistent throughout, and that, by an application of this principle, we could explain all the variations which might appear in our present Gospel from the text of the Hebrew Scriptures*. * Comp. above, Part i. Chap. vii. pp. 266-8. 368 ST Matthew's gospel: How, then, stands the case ? As every one may see, on examining the Gospel, and comparing the quotations which it contains with the Hebrew ori- ginal and the Septuagint translation, these are so made that, if our Greek Gospel be a version from the Hebrew, it is utterly impossible to explain them in consistency with the accuracy and fidelity of the translator. In some passages there is an exact verbal accordance with the LXX., as in chap. xxi. i6. This is the case at times even when the Greek translation differs to some extent from the Hebrew, as at chap, xix. 5. In other passages, and those by far the most numerous, there is not a literal agreement with the text of the LXX., while its phraseology is never- theless substantially adopted, as in chap. xv. 8. And there are other passages still, such as chap. xii. 18 — 20, in which there is not an exact accordance with either the expressions or the apparent meaning of the ori- ginal statement ; but an intensity is imparted by the evangelist to the idea which he desires to bring out, and a somewhat different turn is given to the import of the words from what they appear to have either in the Greek or Hebrew text*. * Creclner enters very fully, in the second vol. of his " Beitrage," into an examination of the Old Testament quotations which occur in the Gospel of St Matthew; and the result of his investigations is thus repeated in his " Einleitung," ^ 46, — " Matthaus citirt frei und halt sich bei der Anfiihrung alttcstamentlicher Stellen durchaus an die Grie- chische Uebersetzung, aber nach einem Texte, wclcher bei den messi- anischen Beweisstellen, und einzig nur bei diesen, mit dem Hebiaischcn Texte, oder, wie schon Gesenius (" Comment, zu Jes." i. § 64) von eini- gen Stellen richtig bemerkte, mit einem alten Targum verglichen und nach ihm geandert war." I cannot agree with Credner in his approval of the hypothesis of Gesenius here referred to, because there is no proof that any such ancient Targums were then in existence. But it is not a little valual)le to have such a distinct opinion as the above, with regard INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 369 Now, how is it possible to explain these various phenomena on the supposition that our present Gospel is a translation ? If it be regarded in that light, the utmost caprice appears in the conduct of the translator, and all confidence in his fidelity is destroyed. But if, on the other hand, we look upon our present Greek Gospel of St Matthew, as being the true original work of an inspired apostle, there is no difficulty in accounting for the differences observ- able in his mode of citation. We can easily conceive, in such a case, that the writer was led, as suited his purpose, to quote exactly from the text of the Old Testament, or to depart less or more from it, accord- ing as the Spirit who guided him might direct, and as the apostolic authority which he possessed may be held to have fully sanctioned. There appears to me, then, a strong and almost irresistible argument for the proper originality of the existing Gospel of St Matthew, in the manner in which quotations from the Old Testament are pre- sented in it. This feeling has been shared by many to the source of the 0. T. citations in Matthew, from so competent and clear-sighted a critic as Credner. He holds decidedly that these quo- tations are derived exclusively from the LXX, whatever appearances to the contrary some of them {e. g. ii. 15) may present. All just argument, I believe, tends to this conclusion. Nothing could be more baseless than the assertion of Jerome (" Cat. de vir. illus." c. 3), " quod evange- lista, sive ex persona sua, sive ex persona Domini Salvatoris, veteris Scripturse testimoniis abutitur, non sequitur septuaginta translatorum auctoritatem, sed Hebraicam," or the parallel statement oi Eichhorn that, in the citations made by St Matthew, there is " keine Spur vom Gebrauch der Septuaginta." ("Einl. in das N.T." p. 512.) It is some- what curious to find Credner, in face of his express opinion quoted above, apparently referred to by Lange (" Life of Christ," Eng. edit. i. 175) in support of the vague and untenable notion that "important quo- tations from the 0. T. are generally not taken from the Septuagint, the current Greek translation, but are fresh translations of the Hebrew text." 24 370 ST Matthew's gospel: eminent critics. Professor Hug, for example, remarks that "the Greek dress of the passages from the Old Testament is so managed, that their appearance must be ascribed to the author, and not to any translator*." Some have even been so deeply impressed with this consideration, as to deem it of itself absolutely con- clusive. Thus Guericke declares, after attaching, as I humbly conceive, an exaggerated importance to the statements of antiquity in favour of the Hebrew ori- ginal,— ''Our existing Greek Gospel, however, cer- tainly bears in itself also the sure sign and stamp of originality. This appears especially from the fact that the citations which occur in it from the Old Testament do not harmonise throughout, all and wholly, either with the Hebrew text or with the Septuagint, but are given with so much freedom and peculiarity, that they cannot be regarded as having flowed from a mere translator, nor can be explained on such a supposition t." III. I may now notice, as another corroboration of the originality of our present Gospel — those ex- planations of Hebreiv luords and 'phrases which occur in it. We read, (chap, i. 23,) "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring fortli a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel; ivhich, being interpreted, is, God ivith us." And, again, (chap, xxvii. 46,) "And about the ninth hour, Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani ? that is to say, My God, my God, ivhy hast thou forsaken me f " An obvious difficulty arises from these explanatory '■■■ Fosdlck's "Hug," II. § 12. t Guericke, " Isagog." § 14. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 371 clauses, against the hypothesis that the Gospel was originally written in Hebrew. They present the very same forms of expression as do analogous passages in the other Gospels^ of which the Greek original is not disputed. Thus we read in St Mark's Gospel, (chap. XV. 2 2,) "And they bring him unto the place called Golgotha, which is, being interpreted. The place of a skull." And in St John's Gospel, (chap. i. 42,) '^And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona; thou shalt be called Cephas, which is, by interpreta- tion, A stone." These passages are exactly similar to those which occur in St Matthew's Gospel; and, viewing the first Gospel as being like the others an original composition in Greek, the same reason will account for such explanations occurring in it as in the rest. But what shall be said of the clauses in . question, on the supposition that our first Gospel is a translation from the Hebrew ? I have noticed three different ways in which the upholders of that opinion seek to account for the clauses under con- sideration. The first is that of Dr Treo-elles, and, so far as I know, is peculiar to that eminent critic. He says, " It is needless to regard as additions many of those things which have been specified as such : thus, Hhey shall call his name Emmanuel; which, being interpreted, is, God with us:' why should we regard this last clause as an addition f It is not a bare translation, but an authoritative statement, that Emmanuel was not a mere name, signif^dng only God is with us, but a divine declaration that the Lord Jesus was really and truly God ivith us*." It * Tregelles, ut sup., p. 37. 24—2 372 ST Matthew's gospel: is thus supposed that the clauses in question existed also in the imagined Hebrew original, and are to be regarded as comprising something more than a mere version of the Aramaic words. Every reader will be able to judge for himself of the validity of such an explanation. For my own part, I must, with all deference, confess that it seems to me to border on absurdity. Can any reader of the Gospel imagine that a doofmatic announcement is intended to be made, w^hen he is told respecting the name "Em- manuel," that, hemg interpreted, it is, "God with us,'' or still less that any point of doctrinal importance is involved, not in the words themselves, but in the mere explanation which is given of the words, when he is informed that our Lord exclaimed on the cross, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" The second account of this matter which may be mentioned is that suggested by Dr Cureton, and is diametrically opposite to the one just considered. While Dr Tregelles imagines that the explanatory clauses under consideration, may have existed also in the fancied Hebrew original, Dr Cureton is doubtful if they have a valid claim to be regarded as forming genuine portions even of the Greek Gospels in which they occur. Thus, in his remarks on John i. 39, he says, "The explanation in the Greek, o Xeyerai fieOep- nv}vev6fievov At^aV/caXe, was unnecessary to the Syriac reader, who knew the meaning of the term, and is therefore omitted, if, indeed, this and similar explana- tions he not marginal notes ivhich have found their ivay into the text subsequently to the time when this version was onade*." This supposition of the learned * Cureton' s " Syriac Gospels," p. xlvi. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. S7o writer is opposed by the almost unanimous authority of all existing MSS. and versions, in which the words which he would relegate to the margin continually appear as an integral part of the sacred text. Such is the case even in that Syriac version of St Matthew, which he rates above the Greek, for at chap. i. 23 it reads, " His name shall be called Emmanuel, which is inteiyreted, Our God ivith us." But the third, and by far most common explana- tion given of the clauses in question by the defenders of the Hebrew original is, that they were inserted by the Greek translator of the Gospel for the benefit of his readers, who could not otherwise have guessed the meaninsf. This is ag^reeable to common sense, and might not perhaps be deemed beyond the pri- vilege and right belonging to a strictly conscientious translator. But, unfortunately, there are other terms occurring in the Gospel, at least as difficult to be understood as those to which an interpretation is appended, yet left untranslated. Thus every one knows how obscure is the meaning of those expres- sions Raca and Mo?'e which occur in the Sermon on the Mount. It is with difficulty even at the present day, that scholars can agree as to their significance. And if it be supposed that the Gospel of St Matthew was primarily written in Hebrew, and that its Greek translator thought it necessary, when retaining any of its original expressions, to add to these an inter- pretation, there are no words which could be regarded as more standing in need of such an explanation than those which have been mentioned. This third hypo- thesis, then, proves equally insufficient with those already considered. The only satisfactory account 374 ST Matthew's gospel: of the matter is, that St Matthew himself wrote the Gospel in the form in which we still possess it. There can be no doubt, as was formerly noticed, that he had special reference in its publication to the wants of his Jewish countrymen. But there can be as little doubt, I believe, that he also intended his work for the whole world. This appears not only from those explanatory clauses now under consideration, but from passages having a universal reference, (chap. xxvi. 13, xxviii. 17,) which all must admit to have formed part of the Gospel from the first ; and from such explana- tions of Jewish customs as are occasionally inserted. Thus it would have been evidently absurd to state for the information of Palestinian readers, (chap.xxvii. 15,) that '^at the feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would," and to remark (chap, xxviii. 15) that ^Hhis saying is com- monly reported amongst the Jews until this day." The Gospel, then, having been intended for others than the Jews of Palestine, could not possibly have been written in Hebrew, but its author having in view Gentile no less than Jewish readers, added the ex- planation in question, while occasional Aramaic ex- pressions, which had established themselves in the current Greek of the country, were naturally left untranslated*. IV. Several Latinistic forms occur in our Greek Gospel which it seems in the highest degree impro- bable that a translator from Hebrew into Greek would have adopted. Thus, at chap. v. 26, we find Ko^pdvTr],) and denoting an action at once definitely accomplished. Now, it is no doubt true that both in Hebrew and Syriac, there is a means of expressing the imjDcrfect by a circumlocution with the substantive verb. But, as might be expected from the want of a proper tense, its use is much less common in these languages than in Greek. Even the Peschito, which is in general so faithful, not unfrequently fails to bring out the de- licacy of meaning conveyed by the use of the imperfect in the Gospels. This is the case, for instance, with respect to the passage last referred to in the Greek of St Matthew. Both the imperfect and aorist are at xviii. 30 represented by the preterite in the Syriac version*. We may regard it, therefore, as in the highest degree improbable that, had the evangelist written his Gospel at first in a dialect of Hebrew, we should have found the imperfect tense so often and so appropriately employed, as it is in the Greek, — ■ whence we agfain conclude that this is no transla- tion, but proceeded immediately from the pen of the apostle. VI. Finally, it may, in my judgment, be urged as a strong proof of the proper originality of the * OvK i]deXev is rendered iu Pescli. by ]^. (J, and in the SjTiac version, published by Dr Cureton, by a parapln-astic translation, iu which the force of the imperfect in Greek is also lost. In the other two passages cited above, the imperfect is preserved by the Peschito in both cases ; by the Curetonian only in the second. Conip. also with the Syriac texts the following passages, Matt. xv. 25 ; xxv. 36 ; Mark xiii. 3, xiv. 4 ; Luke xiii. 13, xv. 28, &c. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 379 Greek Gospel of St Matthew, that unusual expressions occur in it which could not have been given in Hebrew, or in the cognate dialects, except hy means of a circumlocution. Thus, at chap. v. 33, we find the verb eiriopKew employed to denote the complex idea of swear i7ig falsely. There is no answering ex- pression to this in the Hebrew or the Syriac. The Peschito renders the single Greek verb by two sepa- rate words, ^'Thou shalt not he false in thine oaths*;" the Syriac of Cureton has "Thou shalt not swear an oath of lying .'^ The same is to be observed at chap, xix. 28, with respect to the striking term 7raXt77ei;e(r a. The amalgamated idea contained in this single Greek word could be expressed only by two or more in He- brew or Syriac. We find, accordingly, that the Peschito and Curetonian Syriac, while differing some- what in their renderings, both agree in breaking up the one compound Greek term, and in seeking to convey its meaning by separate simple words. Now, the repeated occurrence of such casest appears plainly enough to indicate that our Greek Gospel is an original work. It is hardly conceivable that any translator should have condensed the more diffuse expressions of his original into the uncommon Greek terms which have been quoted. The tendency of every translator is much rather towards expansion * 5^ ASDOlonj ^VV* ~ ' ^^^® Curetonian is still more diflfuse, as is, in general, the case. t In addition to the above-mentioned passages, the reader may com- pare with the Syriac texts the Greek terms, anoa-Tcia-iov, v. 31 ; Trvpecro-ov- a-av, viii. 14 ; oIkiokoX, X. 36 ; napaKova-rj, xviii. 17 ; evvovxi-O'drja-av, xix. 12, &c. : in all which passages there is a conciseness in the Greek which is necessarily wanting in the Syriac. 380 ST Matthew's gospel: than condensation. This is one of the necessities attending such a work, and will be found cha- racteristic of every known translation. As then has been inferred regarding the Epistle to the Hebrews, that it must in its present form be an original work, from its containing Greek ex- pressions which could only be expressed by a cir- cumlocution in Hebrew*, so, for the same reason, we may conclude, respecting our Greek Gospel of St Matthew, that it is an original and not a trans- lated work. Altogether, it seems impossible to demonstrate any work to be original, if that has not been done with respect to our present Gospel of St Matthew. Every internal characteristic points, as we have seen, to that conclusion. The general character of the work — the manner in which citations occur in it — the several special features which may be marked in its structure and phraseology — all combine in furnish- ing evidence of its originality, which it seems hardly possible to resist. It will be strange indeed if a work thus clearly shewn on internal grounds to be original, should be destitute of external evidence to the same effect. We shall in the following chapter inquire whether or not that is the case. Meantime, I feel justified in saying, after the evidence which has already been adduced, that, for my own part, I should as soon be persuaded to believe that the ^neid of Yirgil came not, in its present Latin dress, from the * Comp. Guericke, "Neut. Tsag.," §25, or Davidson's "Introduc- tion," Vol. III. 285, &c., for a full illustration of the argument. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 381 hands of its author, or that the " Paradise Lost" was really stolen by Milton from a poem in another lan- guage, as that our present Greek Gospel of St Matthew issued not, in the form in which we now possess it, from the hands of the apostle whose name it bears. CHAPTER III. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE OF THE ORIGINALITY OF THE EXISTING GREEK GOSPEL OF ST MATTHEW. If we were to judge by the assertions which some of the defenders of the Hebrew original have made on this pointy we should here feel ourselves utterly help- less. According to them, there is no external evi- dence that St Matthew wrote a Gospel at all, unless it be admitted that he wrote in Hebrew. Thus says Dr Tregelles, " On what ground do we believe that St Matthew wrote a Gospel at all? Because we learn it from ancient and competent witnesses. But the same witnesses affirm that he wrote in Hebrew; and if endeavours be made to cast doubt on this part of their testimony, the whole (to say the least) is weakened*." Such statements occur very frequently in the writings of Dr Tregelles, but with all due deference to his well-earned reputation as a biblical scholar, I have no hesitation in saying that they are utterly without foundation. So far are they from giving a true account of the state of the case, that I propose in this chapter to prove all for which we need care in connexion with St Matthew's Gospel, without refer- * Utsup., p. 19. ST Matthew's gospel, etc. 883 ring to any of the ivitnesses for the Hehreic original at all. I do so, however, with a protest against the unfairness of the course to which Dr Tregelles endea- vours to shut up the maintainors of the Greek origi- nah It is plain from the language which he employs, that he too is not indisjDosed, when occasion serves, to adopt the in terroreni style of argument. As was remarked in a previous chapter, there has been a too great looking at consequences by those who have argued for our present Gospel as a true original ; and I there heartily joined with Dr Tregelles in con- demning the habit of being influenced by such con- siderations. But it is here evident that he exposes himself, though on other grounds, to the same con- demnation. He attempts to frighten us from assign- ing their true historical value to the words of Papias and others, by declaring that, if we should in any measure discredit them, the consequences will be disastrous. We dare not, as he puts it, question the correctness of these writers on one ^^int, lest we destroy their general trustworthiness, and thus inva- lidate the authority on which other important con- clusions rest. Now, I strongly protest against being fettered in this manner. We ought to hold ourselves at perfect liberty to use the statements of the fathers just as we do those of other ancient writers. We may, and must, discard all that we find in them which can be proved inconsistent with other known facts, and yet, at the same time, we may gratefully make use of them as positive witnesses to what there is otherwise no ground to question. No reason can be alleged why we should refuse to accept the statement of Papias, that St Matthew was the ivriter of a Gospel. 884 ST MATTHEW'S GOSPEL: And we may surely receive his testiraony to that fact, without being compelled also to believe, on his authority, that the Gospel in question was written in Hebrew. It is utterly unphilosophical to demand, that, if we refer to him at all, we must submit to his assertions or opinions on every point connected with the subject. Totally accept, or totally reject, cannot with any fairness be urged as the rule which is bind- ing in such a matter. It is not the rule adopted with respect to the declarations of other ancient writers; and it is manifestly not the rule by an appli- cation of which any question that rests upon historic evidence can ever be settled. Who shall demand, for instance, that we must either accept or reject, in toto, the statements con- tained in the first book of Livy's Roman history? Are we bound to deny that there ever was such a man as Homulus, if we refuse to believe the marvel- lous incidents which have been recorded of his birth and death? And may we not fully credit tlie general opinion that Numa Pompilius was a wise and saga- cious prince without believing that he acted under supernatural direction? May we not accept those statements of Livy which appear to be of a true historical character, without, at the same time, admit- ting all the legendary and mythical stories by which they are accompanied ? The notion to the contrary is preposterous, and yet it is substantially this doc- trine which Dr Tregelles lays down with respect to Papias and other ancient ecclesiastical writers. We must receive everything which they tell us, else we can avail ourselves of nothing. We must admit on their authority that St Matthew wrote in Hebrew, EXTERNAt EVIDENCE. 385 or incur the penalty of not being able to learn from them that St Matthew wrote at all*. This is much the same as if we should be told that, unless we accept the assertions of Tacitus as to the character and con- duct of the early Christians, we can make no use of that historian's statement, that our religion arose in Judsea in the reign of Tiberius, and that its Author bore the name of Christ. If this plan of dealing with ancient testimony were adopted, we might abandon as vain, all attempts to distinguish between fact and fable, or to construct for ourselves, from the records of the past, a trustworthy account, either of human opinions or achievements. I hold, then, that the maintainers of the Greek original are perfectly entitled, if they choose, to avail themselves of the testimony of Irenseus, Papias, and others, to the effect that St Matthew did write a Gospel, although they reject the statements of these writers as to the language in which that Gospel was composed. There may be no reason whatever for questioning the one statement, but every reason for receiving it. There may be, and, as we have seen, there is, the plainest necessity for rejecting the other. But to prove how groundless is Dr Tregelles' allegation, I purpose, as has been said, to dispense entirely with the aid of the authors usually quoted in support of the Hebrew original, and, independently of these, to shew that we have external evidence that St Matthew wrote our present Greek Gospel. I shall first bring forward evidence of the autJiority, * The language of Dr TregcJIcs on this point is echoed by the writer in the " Edin. Review," idreadv referred to, July, 1859, pp. 184, 185. 25 386 ST Matthew's gospel: and then of the autliorsliip ; shewing that it may both be proved that the Greek Gospel we now pos- sess, was always esteemed part of inspired Scripture, and that it was invariably attributed to the apostle Matthew. In reference to the first point, I cannot do better than quote a passage from Dr Tregelles himself. He says, " Even if we look at the Greek copy of Mat- thew hy itself, we see that it must belong to the apo- stolic age. The line of early writers who cite and use it, carry us back in the same way as they do with regard to Mark, Luke, and John. The lan- guage, too, shews its origin as plainly as does that of the other three Gospels As to the canonical authority of the Greek Gospel which we possess, no further proof need, I believe, be given ; we have the same evidence for this Greek translation which we possess for the original documents written by Mark, Luke, and John. All four were used together by the Church from the earliest days; ^11 four have the same sanction*." We could not desire more than this with regard to the position of authority assigned to our present Greek Gospel. It has been transmitted to us as canonical scripture from the earliest times. We can trace it to the apostolic age. It occupies exactly the same footing as the other acknowledged books of the New Testament. All this Dr Tregelles contends for in regard to our Greek Gospel viewed hy itself, and yet he maintains the somewhat paradoxical position, that if we deny that St Matthew wrote in Hebrew, we have no proof that he wrote at all ! * Tregelles, ut sup., p. 34. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 387 We have proof at least that the Greek Gospel which goes under his name is an apostolic and in- spired document. That much, it is granted, may be proved independently of the statements made as to its Hebrew origin. Papias, the first writer who speaks of the Hebrew Gospel, does not carry us quite to the apostolic age, and would not be sufficient to bear out the claims of our Greek Gospel, as these are stated above by Dr Tregelles. But beyond him, we can appeal to Polycarp and Ignatius, who both contain evident quotations from the Greek Gospel which we now possess*. Its authenticity, then, as canonical scripture, is clearly and confessedly esta- blished, without the slightest aid being derived from those ancient writers that speak of its Hebrew ori- ginal. And, next, as to its authorship. Here, too, we have the most satisfactory evidence without calling upon any of the assertors of the Hebrew original to bear their testimony. This Greek Gospel of ours, acknowledged to be, in its present form, apostolic, has always, in that form, borne the name of St Mat- thew. There is not a whisper in all antiquity of any rival claimant. In every existing manuscript, the most ancient as well as the most modern, the same name appears on its front. It is Matthew always, and Matthew only. The same thing holds with re- sj^ect to every version of the New Testament, ancient or modern. One name is always prefixed as that of the human author of this portion of Scripture. It is * See the passages fully considered in Lardner's " Credibility," &c., or in Jones " On the Canon ;" and, more or less fully, iu the ordinary Introductions to the New Testament. 25—2 388 ST Matthew's gospel: continually announced as the work of the apostle Matthew. This is especially distinct in the most ancient version of all, the Peschito, which, as abund- ant evidence proves, must have been formed not later than the second century*. In this truly venerable and admirable translation, which thus approaches the apostolic age, if indeed it does not completely reach it, the title of the first Gosj^el is, '' The Holy Gosj^el, the preaching of Mat- thew the Apostle^." It will be observed that, in this inscription, there is no room left for those doubts which have sometimes been expressed with regard to the titles of this and the other Gospels, as they usually stand in the ancient MSS.J It can only be interpreted as implying that the first Gospel pro- ceeded from the pen of the apostle, that it was his in the strict sense of being his proper authentic pro- duction. And thus, as it is almost universally ad- mitted, and indeed cannot without contradicting the * The extreme antiquity of the Syriac Peschito version is to my mind unquestionable. Attempts have indeed been made to render this point doubtful, but in vain. The single fact that this version did not originally contain those books of the New Testament which were for a time doubted of, is sufficient evidence of its high antiquity. Marsh assigns it to the middle of the second century, while Mlchaelis places it even in the first. See a very complete and satisfactory argument in be- half of its almost apostolic antiquity in Jones "On the Canon," i. 86-107. t The authority of such a statement is manifestly . different from that which belongs to those which occur at the end of the Gospels. A title must have existed from the first, so that the words above quoted are, in all probability, to be ascribed to one almost contemporary with the apostles, while, as has been remarked, " these j^ostscripts are not the testimonies of the translators. Tliey proceed merely from the conjec- ture of some transcriber, but when written, or by whom, is equally m\- kno\\n."—Cam2^beirs "Preface to St Mark's Gospel," § 4. + See this point further noticed in the remarks on Benan^s "Vie de Jesus," Chap. vii. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 389 clearest evidence be denied, that the Peschito version was made directly from the Greek, we have the surest testimony both to the apostolic antiquity of our exist- ing Gospel of St Matthew and to the fact, that, from the very first, it vv^as attributed to that apostle. Are we not then justified in styling the statements of Dr Tregelles, on this point, without foundation? By a chain of the clearest testimony, we can demonstrate both the authority and the authorship of our first Gospel, without once referring to those fathers who assert its Hebrew original. How groundless then the allegation which Dr Tregelles is so fond of making, 'Hhat if there is any evidence that St Mat- thew wrote a Gospel at all, it is proved that he wrote it in what was then called Hebrew*" ! And may not even a somewhat stronger epithet be applied to such language as the following, which he is fond also of repeating? He says, ^'Suppose it could be shewn that we have no sufiftcient proof that St Matthew wrote in Hebrew, would it follow that he must have written in Greek? This has been assumed by the advocates for a Greek original, but in fact if we get rid of early testimony, we are quite left in the dark as to the language. Why should not a claim be put in for other tongues besides Greek? Why not Latin or Coptic, &c.t?" The zeal of the learned writer seems here to be- . tray him into such utter recklessness as carries in itself its own refutation. And I cannot but observe that it is a complete misrepresentation to insinuate, as he does, respecting the defenders of the Greek * "Journal of Sacred Literature," January, 1859. p. 410. t "On the Original Language of 8t IMattlicw's Gospel," p.'19. 390 ST Matthew's gospel: original, that it is either their wish or endeavour to *' get rid of earhj testimony." No such thing. They neither undervalue, nor do they, in fact, abandon it. They simply appeal from its mistakes to the evidence of unquestionable facts. And they gratefully accept of it and follow it, so far as it is not proved either self-contradictory, or opposed to what is otherwise indisputable. They gladly welcome all its statements, but they expect not to find these unmixed with error. They think themselves justified in sifting and trying all the declarations of the fathers by the principles of historical criticism, just as they do those of other ancient writers. To treat them otherwise is not, in truth, to yield them a becoming respect, but to be guilty towards them of a childish superstition. There is nothing peculiarly sacred in their character as wit- ness-bearers; they have no special claim to infalli- bility. And as we scruple not to convict of error a Thucydides or Tacitus in particular statements which they make, while at the same time we by no means slight or question their general testimony, so we are not to be accused of setting aside or seeking to dis- parage the testimony of the ancient fathers simply because we refuse to pin our faith to every assertion which they make, and will not shut our eyes to the evidence of other undoubted facts in order that we may quietly rest in every one of their conclusions*. * The mode in which the reproach above noticed is sometimes cast at the defenders of the Greek original ahnost amounts to silliness. Thus says the writer in the "Edin. Review" (ut sup. p. 188), in reference to Dr Curetoti's hypothesis respecting our first Gospel, — '' To all biblical scholars who prefer objective facts to subjective visions, who regard the testimony of ancients that St Matthew did write in Hebrew, more highly than the peremptory assertion of moderns that he did not, do we com- EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 391 Now, as will be shewn in the following chapter, there is some amount of obvious error involved in the statement made by Papias, respecting St Matthew's Gospel. But while beheving that this can be fully proved, I still hold that there is a certain value in his declaration. It may unquestionably be regarded as a positive testimony to the fact that St Matthew did write a Gospel. That truth remains after all the error contained in the statement has been set aside ; and while we receive not the whole as pure uncor- rupted truth, we may yet rejoice to find in it some- thing which is really valuable, and are not called to reject the whole as absolutely and entirely without foundation . Let us accept, then, on this as on other points, every declaration of antiquity which stubborn and resistless facts do not compel us to question. And acting thus, we find that by successive links of such testimony as there is no cause to question, we are able to trace up our existing Greek Gospel of St Matthew to the very verge of the apostolic age, discover that it was always esteemed part of canoni- cal scripture, was quoted as the inspired and in- fallible word of God, and was with unanimous voice attributed to the author whose name it still bears. So far, therefore, from admitting that there is any force in the allegation so frequently made, that, unless we believe St Matthew to have written in Hebrew, we have no proof that he ever wrote at all, I should mend the consideration of the subject." I simply ask, Are the pheno- mena which have been pointed out in the Gospel itself mere " subjective visions " ? If so, how would this writer prove the Greek original of the Epistle to the Hebrews in opposition to the statements of ancient writers on the subject ? 392 ST Matthew's gospel : be inclined to lay down the exactly counter-proposi- tion. Supposing it were impossible to jDrove his authorship as regards the Greek Gospel, which is now, and always has been, in the hands of the Church, then I maintain that, judging of the matter by the most rigorous principles of historical criticism, it would be impossible to prove that he ever wrote a Gospel at all. For what, on these principles, is neces- sary to make good the assertion that he did write in Hebrew, and what then appears the value of t*hat evidence which is actually prodacihle in support of that alleged fact? Let us answer the first of these questions, in the following words of a very able writer, and we shall not experience much difficulty in disposing of the second. " Historical evidence," says Sir G. C. Lewis, "like judicial evidence, is founded on the testimony of credible witnesses. Un- less these witnesses had personal or immediate per- ception of the facts which they report; unless they saw or heard what they undertake to relate as hav- ing happened, their evidence is not entitled to credit. As all original witnesses must be contemporary with the events which they attest, it is a necessary con- dition for the credibility of a witness, that he be a contemporary, though a contemporary is not neces- sarily a credible witness. Unless, therefore, a histo- rical account can be traced by probable proof to the testimony of contemporaries, the first condition of historical credibility fails*." Now, it humbly appears to me that, not without some difficulty, will the upholders of the Hebrew original be able to shew that any one of their wit- * "Credibility of Early Roman History," Vol, i. p. 15. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 893 nesses fulfils these conditions. Papias is the first who speaks of the Hebrew Gospel, and he certainly was not contemporary with the apostle Matthew. Nor does he affirm that he ever saw the Gospel in question. He simply makes a statement which, whe- ther originating with himself or derived from an- other, at once appears opposed to other indisputable evidence. He tells us that St Matthew wrote in Hebrew, but the Greek Gospel which we possess under that apostle's name immediately rises up to contradict that assertion. Let it be remembered too, how such an assertion appears in the light of the con- clusion reached in the previous Part of this work. I claim to have proved that Greek was habitually employed by Christ and His disciples, and if so, how utterly improbable does it appear that St Mat- thew should have written to his fellow-countrymen in Hebrew! It seems necessary to the mainten- ance of such an opinion either to convict of insuf- ficiency the arguments which have been brought forward in the preceding pages, or to suppose with Vossius that St Matthew's Gospel was not origi- nally intended for inhabitants of Palestine. Besides, none of the subsequent writers quoted in support of the Hebrew original declare positively and un- ambiguously that they had ever seen that docu- ment; so that, if we had no Greek Gospel of St Matthew at the present day, and none of that abund- ant evidence which we possess that the fathers were intimately acquainted with it, I venture to maintain that, in spite of all which is said by the ancients in regard to the Hebrew writing, it would be im- possible to make out, on the strictest principles of 394 ST Matthew's gospel: historical inquiry, tliat St Matthew ever wrote a Go- spel at all. All the irrefragable proof of that fact gathers round our existing Greeh Gospel. Evidence which cannot be questioned of the authorship by St Matthew is found, as we have seen, in the most ancient MSS., the most venerable versions, and the unbroken chain of quotations from, and references to, his Greek Gospel, which carry us up to the very verge of the apostolic age. Here I might safely stop; but, at the risk of parting company with some who have hitherto ad- mitted the validity of the argument, I cannot help advancing a step further. I am firmly convinced that the Greek Gospel of St Matthew, as well as the other two synoptical Gospels, possesses direct apostolic sanction. It appears to me certain, from a careful examination of the evidence, both internal and ex- ternal, that the apostle John saw the other three Gospels before writing his own, and that by the nature of his own work he has implicitly and in- tentionally sanctioned those of the three other evan- s^elists. I am well aware that this is strongly controverted by some modern critics. But on looking into the Gospel of St John, the evidence appears to me plain and irresistible. On no other supposition, I believe, can we give any possible account of the special cha- racter which that Gospel possesses. The apostle manifestly did not write for the purpose of furnish- ing us with a full history of the life of Christ, for many of the most important facts are altogether omitted, and, in not a few instances, these are pre- supposed as already well known. He takes no notice EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 395 of tlie birth, the baptism, the transfiguration, and many of the miracles of Christ recorded by the other evangelists ; while, at the same time, he assumes these things as quite familiar to his readers. Thus, in chap. i. 32, there is a reference to the baptism of Christ, as reported by Matthew and Luke. In chap. ii. i, the mother of Jesus is mentioned as a well-known person, although John himself has not previously noticed her. At chap. iii. 24, a parenthetical clause is inserted, apparently to guard against an error which might have arisen from the narrative of Matthew respecting the Baptist. And at chap. xx. i, the stone at the grave of Jesus is referred to, although John has not previously nientioned it; he says of the women, that they saw " the stone taken away," evidently supposing that his readers had learned from the other evangelists, regarding the tomb of Jesus, what he himself specially mentions of that of Lazarus, that " it was a cave, and a stone lay upon it." The question then arises how St John could have written in this manner, — on what ground he based the assumption which he so manifestly makes, that both the facts which he has entirely omitted and those to which he merely alludes were quite familiar to his readers. Various opinions have been enter- tained on this subject. Eichhorn imagines, of course, that the ajDOstle wrote with an eye to the Urevan- gelium, and with the view of supplying its deficiencies. Liicke, Bleek, and Alford suppose that he took for granted the commonly-received oral accounts. De Wette, again, says that St John not only presupposed oral traditions, but also most probably the existence of, at least, the Greek Gospel of St Mattheiv. 39G ST MATTHEWS GOSPEL: And with this latter view, external testimony is coincident. I know of no reason why the statements of the ancient fathers on this point should be rejected. They are, no doubt, mixed up with errors; but, after these have been set aside, (and errors plainly demon- strated to be such are all in ancient testimony that I would ever set aside,) there seems to remain substan- tial and satisfactory evidence to the fact, that St John saw the first three Gospels before writing his own. There are, as Hug has remarked, 'internal evidences in the books of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, that they were antecedent to the Gospel of John; and there are references in the latter which shew that the writer was acquainted with the contents of the three other Gospels. Now, if the declarations of ancient writers coincide with this conclusion, they do not deserve to be so summarily rejected as they have been*." And, as has just been said, the external is, on this point, in perfect harmony with the internal evidence. Indubitable facts as to the lengthened period to which the apostle John was spared upon the earth, and express testimonies of ancient writers as to the object which he had in view in writing his Gospel, tend to confirm the opinion which we derive from an inspection of the work itself "The beloved disciple," says Dr Wordsworth, " was providentially- preserved to a great old age, not only to refute the heretics who denied the Lord that bought them, and to convince us of the divinity of the uncreated Word, who was in the beginning with God, but also to complete the witness of the written ivord, and to vindicate its inspiration from the forgeries of false * " Introduction," ii. § 55. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 397 teachers, and to assure us of its fulness and divine character. In confirmation of this assertion, let us now refer to a fact attested by ancient and unexcep- tionable witnesses, (Clem. Al., apud Eus., vi. 14; Eus,, III. 24, &c.) Towards the close of his long life, copies of the three Gospels of St Matthew, St Mark, and St Luke, which, at that time, we are informed, had been diffused throughout Christendom, were pub- licly brought to St John in the city of Ephesus, of which he was the metropolitan, by some of the bishops of the Asiatic churches; and, in their presence, St John openly acknowledged these three Gospels as inspired, and at their request composed his ov/n Gospel, in order to complete the evangelical record of the life and teaching of Jesus Christ*.'' Such, I believe, is the conclusion to which all evi- dence leads on the point in question. But that con- elusion has, nevertheless, been strongly controverted. Dean Alford, for example, takes a view exactly oppo- site to that stated above. I have said that, unless it be supposed that John knew of the other Gospels, no account can be given of the pecidiar character attach- ing to his own; Alford, on the contrary, believes that, "on such a supposition, the phenomena pre- sented by his Gospel would be wholly inexphcable." He grounds this opinion on those parts which this Gospel has in common with the other three. " And though," he remarks, " these are not so considerable in extent as in the case of the three Gospels, yet they are quite important enough to decide this question t." * Wordsworth "■ On Inspiration," p. 1 C>9. Compare EUicoWs " His- torical Lectures on the Life of Clnist," p. lo n. t A (ford's "Greek Test." Vol. i. p. 56. 398 ST Matthew's gospel, etc. But it should be noticed that, in every part of the history in which John goes over the same ground with the other evangelists, it is with quite a different purpose from theirs, and with the view of giving prominence to different incidents. Take, for example, chap, xiii., and compare it with the parallel passages in the other Gospels. Does it not manifestly take these for granted, inasmuch as it entirely omits all mention of the Eucharist, and leads us to contemplate the whole scene, as it were, from a different stand- point? And is not this quite in harmony with the opinion that the writer was acquainted with the other Gospels, and had it in his view to supple- ment them ? John, then, saw and sanctioned the other Gospels. Of that, both on internal and external grounds, there is every reason to be convinced. And thus, j^assing beyond Papias, the most ancient authority to whom the advocates of the Hebrew original can appeal, we carry our cause into the very presence of the beloved disciple. We ask the aged and venerable John, who has survived all his brethren in the apostleship, what testimony he bears respecting those Gospels which had already been given to the Church. And, in answer, he points to that inestimably precious work, which, as supplementary to these, he left as his great memorial to all coming generations. In his own Go&pel he sets his seal upon those which had pre- ceded it; he proceeds on the supposition that they are truthful and infallible records; and thus he affixes to all the three the stamp of his apostolic authority, and to the Greek of St Matthew among the rest. CHAPTER IV. STATEMENTS OF ANCIENT WRITERS IN SUPPORT OF THE HEBREW ORIGINAL OF ST MATTHEW's GOSPEL. We have seen that our present Greek Gospel of St Matthew has been quoted as inspired Scripture from the apostoUc age, and that it has always been attributed to the person whose name it now bears. We have also seen that there is demonstrative evi- dence in the Gospel itself, that it is an original, and not a translated work — coming as certainly in its present form from the hands of St Matthew as the other two synoptical Gospels issued in their present form from the hands of St Mark and St Luke. If these points have been established, as I believe, on grounds which cannot be set aside, the hostile assertions of either ancient or modern writers need cause us very little trouble. Facts, once ascertained, remain /^ifc^5, however much they may be mistaken or controverted ; and it matters nothing how weighty may be the authorities that question them, or how numerous the writers who contradict them. No one, for example, thinks it worth while, at the present day, elaborately to refute the assertions of early heathen writers respecting the manner in which the 400 ST Matthew's gospel: worship of the primitive Christians was conducted. Though Tacitus evidently beHeved the stories in cir- culation on this point, and lent them the sanction of his great name*, the facts of the case are too well known to us from other sources, to allow these asser- tions, numerous as they are, and weighty as is the authority of some that make them, to produce any impression upon our minds. The most that we deem it necessary to do is to give some probable explana- tion of the manner in which they may have arisen. And whether we succeed in effectino- this or not, the conclusion already formed as to their erroneousness cannot be shaken. That rests on independent and irrefragable evidence. It is implied in all that proves Christianity to be from God; and, as long as that fact is admitted, it is rather a curious question * In the well-known chapter (" Annal." xv. 44) in which he says of the Christians that they were " per flagitia invisi ;" and, while acquit- ting them of the i^articular crime of setting fire to the city, with which Nero, for purposes of his own, had charged them, nevertheless brands tliem as being distinguished for their " general hatred of mankind " — "odio humani generis." In illustration of these expressions of the Roman historian, Brotier remarks : " Crimini datum, quod seditiosi, jamque rcpressi, rursus erumperent, ea superstitione imbuti, qua; deos, terrarum dominos, imperii secundarumqiie rerum auctores non mode non veneraretur, sed impiis etiam dicteriis lacesseret: qupe deorum cultores, morte dignos, seternisque ignibus devovendos, furioso generis humani odio pronuutiaret : dum ipsi per flagitia innsi, publicos opti- mosque mores aversati,soli mortalium, nee templa, nee aras, nee sacri- fioia haberent ; secretes tantum et legibus prohibitos, conventus uoc- turnos frequentarent ; in quibus foedarentur horrendis impudicitiarum spurcitiis, Thyest?eisque pascercntur dapibus." These horrible accusations had manifestly arisen from some confused and erroneous reports respecting Baptism and the Lord's Supper, which had found their way in among the heathen, and which, being once set in motion, were taken up by one after another. Thus readily are false statements propagated, and even rise at times to the dignity of history, when they are made with respect to matters which of necessity were at first ill understood. STATEMENTS OF ANCIENT WRITERS. 401 about the vagaries to which the human mind is hable, than any inquiry of moment to us as Chris- tians, while we seek to trace to their origin these mistakes of heathen writers. And so with regard to the passages usually quoted from the fathers, in opposition to the proper originality of our Greek Gospel of St Matthew. If that point has already been made out by evidence of its own which is completely sufficient, we have simply to offer some possible explanation of the counter- statements that have been made upon the subject. And whether we succeed in shewing these statements to be in themselves palpable errors, or to be the fruit and consequence of other errors ; or whether we fail in revealing such as their true character, in either case the fact already proved will remain as certain and immovable as ever*. Unless therefore, that reasoning can be im- pugned, by which I have endeavoured in the preced- ing chapters to evince the true originality of our existing Greek Gospel, the utmost that any testimo- nies from the fathers can possibly prove is, that St * Dr Tregelles lays down the following somewhat singular logical canon as necessary to be observed by all those who adopt the view here taken of the question under discussion. " To maintain," he says (ut sup. p. 10), "the Greek original, there ought to be, 1st, a refutation of the evidence advanced in favour of the Hebrew ; 2d, at least equal evidence in favour of the Greek ; and, 3d, a proof that such evidence is equally congruent with the facts of the case." I have willingly assumed the onus prohandi in the controversy, but could scarcely be expected to do that, and at the same time begin by a refutation of the arguments em- ployed on the opposite side. As to the congruity of St Matthew having written in Greek, with the fact that his Gospel was intended specially for the natives of Palestine (to which, I suppose, Dr Tregelles refers), I leave the evidence, already brought forward to prove the prevalence of Greek in that country, to speak for itself. 2G 402 ST MATTHEWS GOSPEL: Matthew wrote in Hebrew as well as Greek. How- ever numerous and strong these testimonies may be, they cannot exclude the originahty of the Greek, unless the arguments already brought forward in its favour have first been answered. As was formerly remarked, and as will afterwards be more particularly noticed, some have felt the patristic evidence in sup- port of the Hebrew original so strong as to deem it equivalent to that which exists in favour of the Greek, and have therefore adopted the hypothesis of a twofold original. For my own part, I cannot allow it any such importance. It seems to me of a nature, whatever its amount, on which no certain dependence can be placed ; and in giving my reasons for thus judging, I beg the reader's attention to one or two general observations on the statements to be found in the writings of the fathers, before pro- ceeding to consider the chief of these in their several parts. It must of necessity be admitted by all, that the early ecclesiastical writers are very often clearly in error on points such as that now before us. Thus, we have already seen Eusebius maintaining that the apostles naturally understood no language except Syriac, and Chrysostom declaring that the apostle Paul was acquainted only with Hebrew*. And in a question still more analogous to that now under dis- cussion, we find the early fathers both of the Eastern and Western Churches, decidedly affirming the He- hrevj original of the Epistle to the Hebrews. This opinion ruled in the Church until the science of biblical criticism awoke at the epoch of the Keforma- * See above, pp. 24, L56. STATEMENTS OF ANCIENT WRITERS. 403 tion, when the notion sanctioned by so many ancient authorities was proved untenable, and is now univer- sally abandoned. We roust, then, beware of attaching to those statements which occur in the fathers, respecting the original language of St Matthew's Gospel, any im- mediate critical value. As in every like case, they must be tested and estimated by other extant evi- dence. And the mere numher of those who make such statements cannot be held of itself to prove them accurate. If it is admitted that the asser- tions of Jerome, Euthalius, Eusebius, and others respecting the original language of the Epistle to the Hebrews, are unquestionably erroneous, then the un- certain character of such testimony is acknowledged, and the statements of other fathers respecting St Matthew's Gospel cannot, as a matter of course, be regarded as conclusive*. Their real critical worth mast be considered. We must examine the circum- stances in which they originated, the form in which they appear, the character of the persons who make them, and their consistency with other undoubted facts; and, in now proceeding to do this with respect to the well-known passages, in the most ancient fathers, which bear upon the question before us, I venture to affirm that there is not one of them but may be shewn to be either absurd, ambiguous, doubt- * « Utor permisso, caudajque pilos ut equinse Paulatim vello ; et demo unum, demo etiam imum ; Dum cadat elusus ratione ruentis acer^T Qui redit ad fastos, ct virtutem sestimat annis, Miraturque nihil nisi quod Libitina sacravit." —Hor. "Ep." Lib. n. 45, seq. 26—2 404 ST MATTHEWS GOSPEL*. ful in point of authority, or contradictory to other declarations of the writer in which it is found. Beginning, then, with the famous saying of Papias, preserved by Eusebius, (''Eccl. Hist." in. 39,) we find it stated that "Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew dialect, and each one interpreted them as well as he could*." This is the very corner-stone in the argument of those who plead for the Hebrew original. Papias was Bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, in the early part of the second century, and is thus a witness of undoubted antiquity. But we must re- ceive all that he says with caution, for the very writer who has conveyed to us an acquaintance with some of his sentiments, does so with the accompanying state- ment that he was (7(p6Spa cfxiKpo^ tov vovv, " a man of very little understanding." And there is enough in the specimens which the historian has preserved of his opinions to shew us that this judgment was just. Some very foolish stories are reported by Eusebius {Log. cit.) as having been credited by Papias, and some very silly notions are ascribed to him; but, without spending time in referring particularly to these, we may restrict ourselves to the statement more imme- diately before us, and we shall find, even in it, evi- dence sufficiently plain, of the weakness of his un- derstanding. * MarOaios fitv ovv 'E/3patiSi SiaXeKrw ra Xoyta crvvera^aro' fjp^rjvevae 8' avTCL cos fjhvvaTo (or, t]v Swaros) (Kaaros. It is impossible to say with any certainty, from the manner in which these words are reported by Eusebius, whether they are to be (mediately) ascribed to John the pres- byter or not. But, even although inclined to think that they are, we can- not tell how much the original statement may have been misunderstood or supplemented, and must practically deal with them as the words of Papias. Comp. on this point the remarks of Hfig, " Introd." ii. § 8. STATEMENTS OF ANCIENT WRITERS. 405 For, let us endeavour to attach any common-sense meaning to the words which have been quoted, and we shall find that impossible. We may admit that Xo7ta means the wJiole Gospel-narrative, and not merely a collection of our Lord's discourses, as some writers have supposed*; a point which must be granted before the words of Papias can be turned to any good account by the supporters of the Hebrew original of our existing Greek Gospel. But, then, what shall we make of eKacrros. ? " Every one," says Papias, "translated the Hebrew Gospel to the best of his ability ;" and of whom is this statement made ? does it refer to Jews or Gentiles? If to Jews, then why did they translate this Gospel, when, eo) hypotliesi, it was written for them in their own language, just that they might need no translation? And if, on the other hand, exacrTos be regarded as referring to Gentiles, then, how did it come to pass that they were able to translate the Hebrew document in ques- tion? Is it not a well understood fact, that so rare was an acquaintance with that language in ancient times, that very few even of the teachers of the Church could read it? Papias himself, in all pro- bability, did not know a word of Hebrew; and, in that respect at least, he was not inferior to the great majority of his fellow-Christians. But where, then, * Comp. Credner, " Einl." § 45, and Schleiennacher in " Studien und Kritiken," 1832, p. 735, &c. With regard to the term ripfi-qvevai, there seems no reason to doubt that it means translated; and the aorist may perhaps be held to indicate that Papias himself possessed our Gospel of St Matthew in Greek. He speaks of the time for ''every one " translat- ing as past ; and this seems to imply that he and his conteinporaries felt no need for such translations. But although his words may Avarrant this inference, they furnish no hint (as Thiersch and others have argued) that the apostle himself ])uh\iiihcd a Greek translation of his work. 406 ST Matthew's gospel: the "every one" who translated for himself this sup- posed Hebrew Gospel ? In what country, and among what class, shall we seek for those who were both qualified, and found it necessary, to translate the Hebrew Gospel of St Matthew into a language with which they were better acquainted ? The only defi- nite answer which I have observed given to these questions is the following by Dr Davidson : — " Those who had the Aramaean document in their hands en- deavoured, as well as they could, to ascertain its meaning; which, they heing Greeks, (for eKaaro^ must be restricted to persons to whom, like Papias himself, the Hebrew was not vernacular,) best did by trans- lating it to themselves*." The every one, then, of Papias is to be sought for only among the Greeks. That being the case, there are several questions to be a^ked, which, if I mistake not, it will be found somewhat difticult to answer. First, What reason is there to think that a knowledge of Hebrew was so common among those Christians, in the early age, to whom, like Papias himself, that language " was not vernacular," that they could be said to translate for themselves from a Hebrew docu- ment? Is there the slightest evidence that the lan- guage of Palestine ever became generally, or even, except most rarely, known to Greek-speaking nations ? Is not the very opposite universally admitted ? Does not Jerome, when referring to the supposed Hebrew Gospel of St Matthew, expressly say of it, ('^Comm. in Hos.," 0pp. III. 134;) ''Qnod non poterant legere, nisi qui ex Hebrceis erarit^f and where, then, the "every one" among the Gentiles who translated this * " Introduct. to the N.T." i. 69. STATEMENTS OF ANCIENT WRITERS. 407 Hebrew document? Secondly, Why should the Greeks have laboured so hard to translate this narra- tive of St Matthew, when their wants were sj)ecially provided for in the Gospels of St Mark and St Luke, and when the Gospel of St Matthew was, on the supposition of its Hebrew original, not intended or fitted for them at all? It was 'par excellence the Gospel for the Jews; and why, then, should the Gentiles have struggled so industriously to extract some meaning from a document, which, by the mere fact of its being written in the peculiar language of Palestine, it was supposed that they did not require ? Will it be said, that it was only till the Gospels of St Mark and St Luke were published, that the Greeks thus laboured to translate into their own language the Hebrew Gospel, and that after these were given to the world, their efforts ceased ? Then I ask. Thirdly, How comes it to pass, that, if the whole Christian world were dependent for a time on a Gospel in the Hebrew language, and if, as was natural in such circumstances, they strove to the utmost to under- stand it, — if, in short, the Hebrew Gospel of St Matthew was, during many years, in everybody's hands as the sole authoritative account of the Chris- tian faith, — how comes it to pass in such a case, that no trace of it whatever has been preserved in the writings of antiquity, at least out of Palestine? Is it conceivable, that a Gospel which, for a time, was every ones Gospel, should have perished so utterly, that no relic of it has survived? If the Gentile Chris- tians generally did, as is supposed, derive, for a series of years, their information respecting the religion which they professed, from a book written in Hebrew 408 ST Matthew's gospel: by the apostle Matthew, can we believe that it would so easily and entirely have been suffered to fall into oblivion? When it is conceived that the Hebrew Gospel of St Matthew was confined to Palestine, some plausibility may be given to the notion, that, although an inspired book, it was suffered to fall into obscurity, because never known, nor intended to be known, by the Christian world at large. But when it is main- tained that " every one" among the Gentiles was, for a considerable jjoriod, in the habit of translating it, the speedy and complete oblivion into which it was permitted to fall becomes utterly inexplicable. The very difficulty which, according to the view under consideration, Greek readers felt in making out its meaning, must have impressed its statements all the more upon their minds ; and it is, in such a case, to- tally incredible, that the wave of forgetfulness should so soon and efiectually have passed over their memo- ries, and obliterated every impression which had been produced by their hard and constant study of that Hebrew document. Thus, it appears that the statement of Papias, when carefully examined, is found replete with folly, and comes to us most naturally as the saying of one who, while doubtless possessed of many valuable qualities, is certified as having been a man of easy credulity, and scanty judgment. The next testimony is that of Irenseus, {" Hser." in. I,) in the following terms: — " Matthew also issued a Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Pome, and laying the foundations of the church there*." It * The Greek of Irenseus, as preserved by Eusehius ("' Eccl. Hist." v. STATEMENTS OE ANCIENT Yv'RITEllS. 409 seems to me most probable, from a consideration of all the circumstances, that, so far as the question respecting the original language of St Matthew's Gospel is concerned, these words are not possessed of any independent value. They appear nothing more than the echo of Papias. We know from Eusebius, {''Hist.,'' ut sup.,) that Irenseus, like many others, was a great follower of that father on account of his antiquity. We are even informed that he adopted millenarian notions, simply because these had been espoused by a man that had known Polycarp, whom he held in so much veneration. And in the same way, there seems to me reason to believe, that he embraced this opinion regarding the original lan- guage of St Matthew's Gospel, simply because he found it contained in the writings of Papias*. " But I am not at all anxious to press this view of the words now before us. Let them be considered as an independent statement by Irenseus. In that case, they are no doubt to be regarded as embodying the prevalent tradition of his times. We should remem- ber, however, in connexion with it, how easily, in an uncritical age, erroneous opinions on such points are propagated, and that thus tradition often becomes as much the inventor of fiction as the preserver of 8), is as follows : 'O jsev Brj Mardalos iv Tois 'El^pniois rfj iSia 8ia\eKTco avrav Kol ypaffyfji/ e^rjveyKep evayyeXiov. The attempt wllich has been made by Hales, Robinson (" Theol. Diet."), Wordsworth, and others, to interpret the koi in this passage as implying the publication of two Gos- pels, seems to me vain. The meaning simply is, that St Matthew, after preaching to the Hebrews, also ]uiblijhed a Gospel in their dialect. The date assigned to this alleged fact (a. d. 61 — 63) is, in all probability, as erroneous as the fact itself is misstated. The early publication of St Matthew's Gospel (a.d. 37—60) appears to admit of no question. * Corap. Hug, " Introduction," ii. § 8. 410 ST Matthew's gospel: truth. And however ancient and wide-spread the tradition in question may have been, it must, after all, be tested by facts, in order to be rated at its proper value. If found inconsistent with these, its credit is gone, and it must at once be abandoned. Nor can any mere statements based on such tradi- tion, whatever their number or apparent trustworthi- ness, be held sufficient to set aside the enduring and unquestionable evidence of its originality, which we have found imbedded in our existing Greek Gospel. The utmost which they can prove, even though their undoubted truth be admitted, is, as has been remark- ed, that St Matthew wrote also in Hebrew. If any are disposed to attribute so much weight to the testi- monies of Irenseus and others, as to come to this con- clusion, they will, in my judgment, greatly exagge- rate their importance, as well as involve themselves in difficulties which, as will afterwards be noticed, seem to me insuperable. But the essential point is, that our existing Greek Gospel be admitted the immediate production of the apostle Matthew; and the evidence of that fact which has already been adduced, unless proved insufficient, can be affected by no testimonies, statements, or assertions whatever. The report as to St Matthew having written in Hebrew, which, as we have seen, first appears in the writings of Papias, is repeated over and over again by the ancient fathers of the Church. This was naturally to be expected. "Writers," says Boling- broke, " copy one another ; and the mistake that was committed, or the falsehood that was invented by one, is adopted by hundreds*." Numerous illustra- * " Letters on the Study of History," v. § 4. STATEMENTS OF ANCIENT WRITERS. 411 tions of this remark might be produced from all departments of literature*, and certainly not least from the department of Church-history. We find, accordingly, that Papias had many followers. Hav- ing been one of the first who collected historical notices on those points which were so interesting to all Christians, that father, notwithstanding his simple and credulous character, was necessarily much de- ferred to by later writers t. Origen, Eusebius, Epi- phanius, Jerome, and others, all repeated the state- ment which rests as its ultimate historical foundation on the testimony already considered; and by giving heed to it, they were, as we shall see, betrayed into various difficulties and inconsistencies. But before proceeding to notice the statements of these writers, we must glance at the account given us of another, who is deemed quite an independent witness. Eusebius ("Hist. Eccl." v. lo) contains the following passage respecting Pantsenus: — "Pantaenus is said to have visited the Indians, where, according to report, he found the Gospel of Matthew in use, before his arrival, among the Christians there, to whom Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached, and who left them the Gospel of Matthew written in Hebrew letters," &c. It can hardly be denied that there is some intrinsic improbability in this state- ment. And we must also notice the hesitating way in which the historian reports it. As given by Euse- bius, the account is very far from having the weight of direct testimony. Pantsenus is said to have gone * For some curious examples, see Buckle's " History of Civilisation in England," Vol. i. p. 276, &c. t "Junioribus, ut soleut, sequentibus." — Wetstein, "N. T." I. p. 224. 412 ST Matthew's gospel: where it is said lie found the Hebrew Gospel*, the proverbial uncertainty of mere tradition being in this case attended by a double intensity. And thus we find it is with the supposed Ara- maic original of St Matthew's Gospel as with the many stories of apparitions which have been palmed upon the world. Multitudes are ready to avouch the fact, but it is almost always on the authority of some one else. There is no such thing as direct personal testimony. One believes because another believed, and that other because he had it from a third whose veracity could not be questioned. But still, the person who actually saiv with his own eyes the mar- vellous appearance remains undiscovered, and seems only to conceal himself all the more obstinately, the more his testimony is demanded or desired. And so is it with respect to the Hebrew Gospel of St Mat- thew, That is the spectre which haunts ecclesiastical antiquity. Many speak of it and assure us of its reality, but no one ever saiu it. The most that we hear of it is that some one else had met with it, until at last we are introduced to the credulous Papias himself, who was exactly the man to become the father of a ghost-story, and to whose weak judgment, we may believe, the whole delusion is to be ascribed. In reference to the testimony of Pantsenus, little either need or can be said. It comes down to us in varying forms, and we find it impossible to disperse the obscurity which hangs around it. There may be some substratum of truth in the statement that the Gospel of Matthew was found among these so-called Indians in Hebrew letters. But this does not prove * The Greek here is, Xeyerai, i'v6a \6yos evpe'w. STATEMENTS OF ANCIENT WRITERS. 413 that the apostle wrote his Gospel originally in He- brew. A translation of the Greek into Hebrew might have been made at an early date, as we know was the case into Syriac. As will afterwards be noticed, this seems to me to have been the origin of the " Gospel according to the Hebrews/' and would also account for the existence of a Hebrew Gospel among the Jews of Southern Arabia, to whom the words of Eusebius in this passage probably refer*. And thus, while, according to the principle formerly laid down, that ancient testimony is in all points to be acce^Dted, so far as it does not run counter to indisputable facts, we find in this report concerning Pantaenus additional proof of the statement other- wise so well substantiated, that St Matthew was the writer of a Gospel, w^e acknowledge nothing in it which leads us, in the face of other evidence, to con- clude that that Gospel was originally written in the Hebrew lano-uao^e. The next witness is the accomplished Origen. And here, at length, we meet with one who is tho- roughly competent to give plain and decided evidence in favour of the Hebrew original, supposing it had ever existed. Well skilled in Hebrew learning, en- thusiastic in sacred studies, earnest and careful in searching out everything that could illustrate the sacred Scriptures, Origen was the very person to find this Hebrew Gospel, if it was to be found, or to pre- serve to us some traces of its peculiar character, if * Kirchhnfer remarks on the passage under discussion :— " Dieses Indien ist ohne Zweifel das siidliche Arabien, welches man auch Indien naunte ; wo das Cliristenthum bekanutlich sehr friih hingenonimen war, indem daselbst viele Juden lebten, unter denen Bartholomaus wahrsch- einlich dasselbe verkundigt hatte." — " Quellensammhnig," p. IIO. 414 ST Matthew's gospel: it had ever been in existence. And lie was well acquainted with the leading Christians in Palestine; so that, as he was sure to desire a sight of the He- brew Gospel among them, if he really believed it to be that of the apostle, he was equally sure of having his desire most readily gratified. His friends in Palestine would have been delighted to furnish him with any books of Scripture which they might pos- sess in a peculiar form, and we know too much of his habits of mind not to be sure that he would ask them. Origen was as likely as any modern critic to be inter- ested and excited by the idea of St Matthew's original Gospel being in existence' in Hebrew, and would un- doubtedly have sought after it had he believed that it was to be found. But, unfortunately for the de- fenders of the Hebrew original, so little dependence did this learned father place upon the tradition on which they build so much, that he seems at times to have utterly forgotten its existence, and never to have ascribed to it the least practical value. We can hardly doubt that, had he so far credited it as to have believed that the Hebrew oriofinal of St Mat- thew's Gospel was still in existence in his own day, as according to many was the case, he would have taken care to consult it in his labours on the sacred text. And it will not account for his complete neg- lect of it for such a purpose, to say that by his time it had become greatly corrupted. However much that might have been the case, it was surely still worthy of some examination if it had any existence, just as a MS. at the present day, though so corrupt as the Codex Bezse, may still be of great value in the service of textual criticism. We conclude, there- STATEMENTS OF ANCIENT WRITERS. 415 fore, that Origen could not have deemed the then extant "Gospel of the Hebrews" as having any claim to be regarded as in substance the original work of the apostle Matthew, and that it was merely under the influence of a prevalent but baseless tradition, that he ever gave any countenance to the idea of our existing Greek being a translation from the Hebrew. In accordance with this view we find him observino-, C'De Orat.," 0pp. i. 245,) in his exposition of the fourth petition of the Lord's Prayer, that " the Greek word eiriovaios is not used by any of the learned, nor by the common people, but seems to have been framed by the evangelists, for both Matthew cmd Luhe agree in using it without any difference." Here he seems completely oblivious of the fact that St Mat- thew's Greek Gospel was said to be a translation, and it is only when his mind is specially turned to the subject that he remembers to state his having learned by tradition (m eu TrapaSoaei maOwv) that the apostle wrote in Hebrew. The same remarks will apply to Eusebius. Some- times he seems quite to forget that there was any report current as to the Greek Gospel of St Matthew being a translation from the Hebrew. At other times he recalls the tradition which prevailed to that effect, and writes accordingly. Heferring (" Comm. in Psal." Ixxviii. 2) to the peculiar manner in which a quotation from the Hebrew is made by the evan- gelist, (Matt. xiii. 35,) he tells us that "Matthew being a Hebrew, made use of his own interpretation* * I am perfectly aware of the different views which have been taken of the word eKSoa-is employed by Eusebius in this passage. Davidson assigns it the meaning " recension ;" but that this is incorrect, and that 416 ST Matthew's gospel: of the original, {epev^omai, &c.,) instead of adopting that of the Septuagint {(pOey^o/jat, Sec.)" Much re- spect cannot be claimed for the critical judgment of Eusebius. We have had some specimens of his errors in the preceding pages, and others of a still more serious nature ("Hist. Eccl." i. 13, &c.) might easily be produced. While, therefore, we are deeply grate- ful for his labours as a historian, we are not bound to yield much deference to his judgment as a critic. It adds little to the w^eight of the evidence for the Hebrew original of St Matthew, that he repeats ("H. E." III. 24) the prevailing tradition regarding it; and, on the other hand, we need by no means adopt his explanation of the variation observable between the Greek text of the first Gospel and the Septuagint in the passage just quoted, unless other- wise satisfied with it. But it seems at least clearly implied in the explanation which he ofiers, that, for the moment, he regarded St Matthew himself as being the author of our present Greek Gospel, while at another time ("Ad. Marin." quoest. 2) we find him attributing a particular Greek expression which occurs in it, {oyj/e cTa(i(3dTwv,) not to the apostle, but to the person who translated his work from the Hebrew. Now, such confusion of thought and statement on this subject is quite compatible with the idea that there was a tradition widely difiused in the Church that St Matthew wrote in Hebrew, but seems inex- plicable if that tradition were accepted as embodying an indubitable truth. Impressed at times, as would " translation " is its true rendering, appears from the words of Eusebius himself in the very same passage. He immediately uses €K8f8coKev in the sense of " translated," and this is quite sufficient to fix the meaning of fK^oa-is as given above. STATEMENTS OF ANCIENT WRITERS. 417 appear, by the striking evidence of originality which the Gospel itself contains, the fathers express them- selves as if they had never heard it was a translation ; and then again, falling under the influence of the prevailing tradition, they write as if they did not regard our present Greek Gospel as an original, while at the same time, they continue to quote it as inspired and authoritative Scripture. It is almost needless to devote any attention to the statements of later writers*, but for special rea- sons we must glance for a moment at the position occupied by Jerome in this controversy. And here we find ^^ confusion worse confounded." At one time Jerome writes as if he had actually seen the long- hidden Hebrew Gospel of St Matthew. He says, (" De Viris lUus." 3,) ^'Ipsum Hebraicum habetur usque hodie in Csesariensi bibliotheca, quam Pam- philus martyr studiosissime confecit. Mihi quoque a Nazarseis qui in Beroea urbe Syrise hoc volumine utuntur, describendi facultas fuit." But again he says (^'Comm. in Matt." 11.), '^In Evangelio quo utuntur Nazarsei et Ebionitse, quod nuper in Grsecum de Hebrapo sermone transtulimus, et quod vocatur a plerisque Matthsei authenticum." And as the latest testimony which he bears on this subject, he says, (''Adv. Pel." III.) respecting this same Gospel that was in use among the Nazarenes, that it was entitled, "Secundum Apostolos, sive ut ^9?erz(/ie- pov, CLTreiv tw irapaXv- ctTretv A^ewvrai cot wvrat CTOU ai afxapTtar tlku)- AcpewvTai aov oll afxapTcai aov rj ^ etTTCtv "Eyeipat Kat ai a/xaprtaf ^ eiTrctv ciTreiv Eyetpat Kat 7rept7raT€i; "Iva Se €t- "Eyeipai, /cat dpov aov 7r€pLTrdT€L;"IvaSk elh-rj- BrJT€ OTL k^ovcriav (.)(€L tov KpdjSfSaTov, kol ttc- re on e^ovo-tav e;i(€i o d vtos Tou dvdpuiTrov ptTraret; "Iva Se etSiyrc i^ios tov avOpwirov Irri cTTi T^s y^s ae^tevat a- ore e^ovcriav e;(et d vi- tt^s yr^s a<^ievai a/xap- /xaprtas" (rdre Xeyet tw ds tov dvOpwTTOv d€vyiTiii(Tav Irri TO. opy]' 6 iirl tou Sco/xaT09, /at) KaTa/Sat- vcTco apat Tt €K t^s ot/ctas avTou. Mark xiii. 14, 15. Orav 8e tSrjTe to f38i\vy[xa Trj<; iprjfitjj- crcws, TO pT]6ev vtto AavirjX Tov TrpoffirjTOV, eo"Tos OTTOU ou Set* (o avayiva)0"Ka)i/ voetVw) ToT€ 01 ev TT7 lovSaia €vyiTwcrav €t5 ra op?/* O 06 CTTl TOU ScO/AttTO?, ju.77 KaTa^arw ei5 tj^v oi/ctav, )U,>j8e etcreX^erw apat Ti CK T17S oiKtas avTou. Luke xxi. 20, 21. OTav Se iSt^tc ku- KXov[Jievr]v viro arpa- TOTTcSwi/ Ti^v 'Iepouo"a- Xy/x, TOTe yvwTe oti rjyyiKiv rj ep7//xwo-ts au- T17S. ToTe Ot Iv ry lovoaLO. p. 349 —363. 504 AUTHENTICITY AND CREDIBILITY have it^ then he cannot have spoken as John repre- sents. Between the two authorities no critic has hesitated, or will hesitate. Utterly removed from the simple, disinterested, impersonal tone of the Synoptics, the Gospel of John reveals unceasingly the pre-occupations of the apologist, the after-thoughts of the sectary, the intention of proving a thesis, and of convincing adversaries. (See e. g. chaps, ix. and xi. Observe, above all, the strange effect produced by such passages as John xix. 35; xx. 31; xxi. 20 — 3, 24, 25, when one recalls the absence of all reflections which distinguishes the Synoptics.) It was not by pretentious, dull, and ill- written tirades, addressing little to the moral sense, that Jesus founded his divine work... I do not mean to say that there are not in the discourses of John some admirable flashes, some traits which really came from Jesus. But the mystic tone of these discourses in no way corresponds to the character of the eloquence of Jesus, such as we imagine it to be according to the Synoptics. A new spirit has begun to breathe; Gnosis is already commenced; the Galilean era of the kingdom of God is closed ; the hope of the near coming of Christ has vanished; we enter on the aridities of meta- physics, and the darkness of abstract dogma. The spirit of Jesus is not there ; and if the son of Zebedee really wrote these pages, he had in truth forgotten, when he did so, the lake of Gennesareth, and the charming discourses which he heard on its borders." P. XXX. Thus puzzled by the character of the Gospel itself, which appears to him so inexplicable, M. Renan at last almost retracts the admission which he had OF THE GOSPELS. 505 made, that it may be the authentic production of the apostle. Keferring again to the discourses which it contains, and affirming that even though attributed to John, these cannot be viewed as truly historical records, he concludes thus: — " If everything must be said, we shall add, that probably John himself had little part in this (compo- sition), that this change (in the Gospel style) was made around him, rather than by him. One is some- times tempted to believe that some precious notes coming from the apostle have been used by his disciples in a sense very different from the primitive evangelical spirit. In fact, certain parts of the fourth Gospel have been added by an after-thought; such is the twenty-first chapter throughout, in which the author seems to have intended to render homage to the apostle Peter after his death, and to answer ob- jections which men would draw, or already drew, from the death of John himself (ver. 21 — 23). Several other places bear the trace of erasures and corrections (vi. 2, 22; vii. 22)." P. xxxii. Such is the extraordinary account which M, Penan gives of this wonderful fourth Gospel. At one mo- ment it is John's ; at another it probably flowed from the perversions of his disciples. Now we are told that it manifestly, though tacitly, claims to be the work of the apostle, and that, if it be not really his, 'Sve must admit a fraud, of which the author was conscious;" and then again, it is described as the ill-assorted compilation of some of the members of the school at Ephesus*. Is it not a happy escape * Comp. in further illustration oi M. RenarHs fluctuating feeling with respect to St John's Gospel, pp. 76, 157. 506 AUTHENTICITY AND CREDIBILITY from such contradiction and perplexity, to find our way back to the ancient, and almost universal, opinion, that this Gospel which so sorely troubles our author was, after all, just the true, authentic production of St John the apostle ? That this is the truth, may by many strong rea- sons be evinced. From the late origin of the Gospel, the testimonies to its authorship are not so numerous in the earliest age, as is the case with most of the other books of the New Testament. It was probably the very last of them to be written ; at any rate, it was among the last ; and we cannot, therefore, expect to find such copious evidence to its authorship in the writings of the primitive age, as we do find in the case of others. But, as M. Kenan himself admits, such evidence is by no means wanting. And his concession that the first Johannine epistle is un- doubtedly to be ascribed to the same author as the Gospel, does, in fact, settle the case. Nothing could be more satisfactory than the proof which we possess, that the epistle in question was the work of St John ; and nothing more therefore is needed, according to our author's own statement, to vindicate the apostolic origin also of the Gospel. As to the internal evidence on wLich M. Renan bases his chief objections, it too points to the same conclusion. This has been stated in the most forcible terms by a German writer, who was himself too much tinctured by the spirit of rationalism, but who has nevertheless done most valuable service to the cause of Biblical hterature. ''Were we," says Cred- ner*, " destitute of all historical accounts respecting * " Einl. in das N. T." § 93. Comp. also Bleck, " Einl." p. 1 77, &c. OF THE GOSPELS. 507 the author of the fourth Gospel, who is not named in the writing itself, we should still be led from internal considerations, from the nature of the style, from the freshness and clearness of the narrative, from the accuracy and particularity of the accounts, from the peculiar manner in which John the Baptist and the sons of Zebedee are mentioned, from the enthusiastic affection which the writer indicates to- wards Jesus, from the irresistible charm which has been shed over the whole evangelical history, from the philosophical views with which the Gospel begins, to the following conclusions : — The author of such a Gospel can only be a native of Palestine, can only be an immediate eye-witness, can only be an apostle, can only be a favourite disciple of Jesus, can only, in fine, be that John whom Jesus, with the whole hea- venly fascination of His doctrine, had bound to him- self, that John, who leaned on the bosom of Jesus, as well as stood beside His cross, and whose later residence in a city like Ephesus, shews that not only did philosophical speculation attract him, but that he knew how to maintain his ground among philoso- phically educated Greeks." With regard to the difference of style between the discourses of Christ as reported by John, and as pre- served by the Synoptics, I admit at once that it is great. It is one of the most undeniable phenomena of the New Testament, and demands, like other facts, to be cordially accepted. Writers like M. Renan have pushed it forward with such a hostile intent against the Gospels, that others have, perhaps, been too shy in recognising it. But let it be granted in its fullest extent, and we find nothing to dread in its 508 AUTHENTICITY AND CREDIBILITY announcement. All that the Scriptures ever have to fear is partial, one-sided, and untruthful representa- tion, on the side either of friends or enemies. Their real glory, both in respect to evidence and contents, is never fully brought out, until every phenomenon which they present is looked at in broad daylight, without extenuation or omission. In every sense they demand to be "searched;" and there is not a feature which they exhibit that shrinks from the closest and most rigorous investigation. John then, we agree with our author, differs much from the Synoptics in the style of discourse which he attributes to Christ. That is an undoubted fact, acknowledged by all; and diversity of opinion only begins to arise when we ask how it is to be accounted for, and what inferences, if any, are to be derived from it. According to M. Renan, it is utterly fatal to the authority of the greater part of the fourth Gospel. He repeats, again and again, that no credit can be given to the discourses which John has pre- served, except in one or two cases (chap. iv. i, &c.; XV. 12, &c,), in which they are fortunate enough to please him. He even goes so far as to " defy any one to compose a Life of Jesus if he starts with the idea of taking into account these discourses which John has ascribed to Him." "They are altogether," he says, " in the style of John himself, and one can easily see that, in writing them, the author followed not his remembrances of Christ, but the somewhat monotonous movements of his own mind." — P. xxxiii,, &c. Now I b&lieve that the personal character of John has coloured his reports of Christ's words much OF THE GOSPELS. 509 more than in the case of the Synoptics. The style of the discourses is certainly John's own, and can with no probabiHty be ascribed to his Master. That should be admitted at once, and may be so with the greatest safety. In flict, I do not see how the matter could have been otherwise, unless the apostle had been made a mere unintelligent machine in reporting to us the words of Christ. But, as need hardly be remarked, there is no indication throughout the whole of Scrip- ture that the minds of the writers were ever thus practically extinguished, and that, in order to qualify them for being the fitting organs of inspiration, their individuality was destroyed. On the contrary, every page of the Bible exclaims against such a notion. Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Amos, for instance, among the writers of the Old Testament, have manifestly dif- ferent styles, while all enjoying the like supernatural afflatus; and the same is the case in the New Testa- ment with Peter, and John, and Paul. The Holy Spirit invariably used the natural talents, tendencies, and culture of the several men whom He employed, so that they spoke and wrote under as little coercion or restraint as the bird feels when it soars in the sky, or as the angel experiences when he praises God in heaven. Bearing this in mind, we find nothing in the fact under consideration which causes the least difficulty or doubt. Bather do we see in it just another of the many natural traits by which the word of God is dis- tinguished. The Synoptics all wrote at a compara- tively early period. John followed them at the distance of at least a quarter of a century. Now, what should we 7iaturally expect in such a case? 510 AUTHENTICITY AND CREDIBILITY Would it not be exactly what we find, that the first writers would give us a report of Christ's words in the precise style which He had Himself employed, while the later writer would necessarily produce an account more strongly tinged by the peculiarities of his own mind? To have been otherwise, it seems to me that nothing less than a psychological miracle would have been requisite. John, looking back on his Master's life through that long period which had elapsed ere his Gospel was composed, did, as a matter of course, describe it in the style which by his resi- dence at Ephesus he had contracted. His enjoy- ment of the promised inflxiences of the Spirit (John xiv. 26) did not imply that God was now to undo by the exercise of a violent supernatural power what had already in His providence been accomplished. The apostle had been divinely guided to fix his abode at Ephesus, as much as he was divinely guided to write the Gospel. And now, in composing that book, he naturally (inevitably we may say, if he were to write in accordance with that analogy which pervades the whole of Scripture) reported the discourses of Christ, not in that type of Palestinian Greek which the Saviour had actually employed, but in the style to which he himself had for long been habituated among the inhabitants of Asia Minor*. But another point yet remains to be considered. * The above remarks do not, of course, imply that such striking and suggestive terms as o TlapaK\r]Tos, 7; (mtj, ^ dX^^eia, &c., were not actually employed by Christ. I believe, in accordance with what has been proved in the preceding pages, that these very Greek words issued from the lips of Jesus, though the apostle has, under Divine guidance, presented them, so to speak, in a setting of his own. Compare, on such points, the excellent remarks of Da Costa, " Four Witnesses," p. 291, &c., and see also the conclusion of Gredner, " Einl. in das N. T.," p. 2.37. OF THE GOSPELS. 511 John's Gospel, we are told, varies not only in style, but in matter, from the Synoptics, and Christ, it is said, could not have uttered even the substance of what John has ascribed to Him. Now, here, I differ toto ccelo from M. Renan. He entirely forgets, what seems to be too generally forgotten in dealing with this subject, that in the first three Gospels, and in- deed in all the four, we have only a very partial and fragmentary account of either the words or the works of Jesus. This is plainly stated by St John himself (chap. XX. 30; xxi. 25), and it is implied also in the Synoptics. Thus, in the answer which Jesus gave to the messengers of the Baptist, He spoke, among other things, of 'Hhe dead being raised up" — v€Kpo\ eye'ifjovrai (Luke vii. 2 2), — as if even that had been no uncommon occurrence, though very few accounts of such miracles are recorded by the evangelists. This consideration may serve in some measure to explain how it came to pass that the raising of Lazarus was passed over without notice by the writers of the first three Gospels. That event probably did not seem to them so extraordinary as it does to us. There were multitudes, apparently, of as striking cases which have not been recorded. The cycle of evangelical teaching, as remarked above, soon assumed a definite form at Jerusalem, such as we have it presented to us by the Synoptics; but this embraced only the smallest part of what Christ actually did and said. Hence John, wTiting afterwards, had a wide field both of incidents and discourses from which to select his topics, and, as he himself informs us, he still left by far the greater part untold, so that, had it pleased God to lead others of the apostles, such as Andrew 512 AUTHENTICITY AND CREDIBILITY or Thomas, to write a Life of Jesus, we miglit have had yet other and different accounts of the works which He performed, and of the words which issued from His lips. Nor, as M. Kenan himself admits, are points of affinity wanting between the first three Gospels and that of John. " Certain passages of Luke," he says, '' in which there is, as it were, an echo of the Johannine traditions, prove that these traditions were not a thing altogether unknown to the rest of the Christian community" (p. xxxvii). He instances the pardon of the woman that was a sinner, the knowledge which Luke shews of the family of Bethany, and other particulars in the third Gospel, which he judges to be more or less in accordance with the fourth. He might have also referred to Matt. xi. 25 — 30, Luke X. 21, in which we find the exact spirit which breathes throughout the fourth Gospel. Such passages in the Synoptics are in fact a kind of side-lights, which sufficiently shew the accuracy of the substance of those discourses of Christ which are reported only by John. He set himself in his old age, under the guidance of the Spirit of promise, to gather from the wide field, rapidly passed over by his predecessors, some of those reminiscences of his Master which were specially dear to his own heart, and which he thought would be permanently valuable to his Christian bre- thren. The substance of his memoranda was perfect and absolute truth, while the form which they assumed was such as was dictated by the special purpose which he had in view, and by the providential circumstances in which he was placed. We need not, then, totally object to the com- OF THE GOSPELS. 613 parison which M. Benan, following several other writers, institutes between Xenophon and the Syn- optics, on the one hand, and Plato and John on the other. To a certain extent the analogy is quite cor- rect. The actual words of Socrates are no doubt more exactly reported to us by Xenophon than Plato. Yet it may be doubted if Plato has not, after all, given us a more full and faithful portraiture of Socrates, than, with all his mere verbal accuracy, we have from Xenophon*. And so it is with the Gospels. John, like Plato, was probably more capable of fully under- standing his Master than were the others, and with less literal exactness, has nevertheless more accurately depicted the spiritual and divine aspects of the cha- racter of Christ. So far, the analogy may be ad- mitted. But if, as can hardly be doubted, Plato has in many instances, only used his master's name to give expression to his own thoughts, we find no reason for admitting any such supposition in reference to the fourth Gospel. The Christ whom it depicts is the same Christ whom we find in the Gospel of Mat- thew, and in the epistles of St Paul. The very same truths are announced both o/Him and hy Him; the only difference is, that the writer dwells more on the divine side of His character, and clothes in his own style and phraseology those profound lessons of wisdom to which he had listened from the Saviour's lips. M. Benan's final estimate of the Gospels is ex- pressed in these words : — * Comp. on this point the remarks of Bleek, " Einl. in das N. T.," p. 195. 33 514 AUTHENTICITY AND CREDIBILITY ' ' They are neither biographies after the fashion of Suetonius, nor fictitious legends after the manner of Philostratus : they are legendary hiographies. I shall willingly compare them to the legends of the saints, the lives of Plotinus, of Proclus, of Isidore, and other writings of the same kind, in which histori- cal truth, and the desire to present models of virtue, are combined in different degrees." — P. xliv. This conclusion respecting the character of the Gospels, is the capital error of M. Penan's book. It is more fatal than even his denial of the supernatural. For, he does not profess absolutely, and in all con- ceivable cases, to reject the miraculous. " We do not say," he remarks, "that miracle is impossible; we say that up till now no miracle has been proved." He then goes on to state the conditions under which alone a miraculous occurrence would be rendered credible at the present day. If these conditions were fulfilled, he declares himself ready to admit the super- natural. He has not, in terms at least, taken up the extreme position of Hume, that no evidence can prove a miracle. Pather, he has distinctly repudiated such a principle, however much at times he may seem to write in accordance with it. But he thinks that never as yet has satisfactory evidence of a miracle been furnished, and therefore he declares, " Until a new order of things arrive, we will maintain this principle of historical criticism, that a supernatural account cannot be admitted as such, that it always implies credulity or imposture, and that the duty of the historian is to explain it, and examine what pro- portion of truth and error may be concealed under it."_P. lii. OF THE GOSPELS. 515 But what becomes of this principle if it can be shewn that our existing Gospels are truly historical records? What if their character, and the circum- stances in which they were composed, prove that they carmot be legendary? What if they are demonstrated to stand alone among historical accounts in regard to the accuracy with which they have reported the words and works of Him to whom they relate ? We must surely hold that the truth of events, of whatever nature, is to be decided not by d priori considerations, but by the evidence accompanying them. An account may appear highly probable, yet, if it rests upon no sufficient testimony, it should not, of course, be ac- cepted. On the other hand, an account may seem in itself very improbable, but if supported by adequate evidence, all difficulty regarding its credibihty ought to vanish. Now, as I maintain, the truth of the Gospel narrative rests upon grounds of the most conclusive character. M. E-enan, referring to the general uncertainty of history, says, " When we have two reports of the same fact, it is extremely rare that the two are in agreement. Is not this one reason why, when we have only a single account, we should suspect its perfect accuracy? We may affirm that, among all the anecdotes, discourses, and celebrated sayings reported by historians, there is not one rigorously authentic. Were there any short-hand writers present to catch the rapid words ? Was there any recorder always near to note the gestures, de- meanour, and sentiments of the person in ques- tion?" Yes, we reply, such demands for accuracy are substantially realized in the evangelical histories. These accounts come to us from the immediate pre- 33— 2 516 AUTHENTICITY AND CREDIBILITY sence of Christ Himself, reporting His very words, and often describing His looks and gestures. The Synoptical Gospels, as has been shewn, are the works of three independent writers, all varying somewhat in their narrative, as would naturally be the case, but all agreeing marvellously, both as to the words which they report, and the works they relate. If this be so, they must be accepted as of the highest historic value, and it is impossible to eliminate from them, except by the most arbitrary criticism, those accounts of suiDernatural events which they contain. No one can doubt, as M. E-enan himself admits, that the canonical Gospels are totally different in character and authority from those apocryphal Gospels which appeared at an early age in the Church. '' These latter," he says, "are flat and puerile amplifications, having the canonical for their foundation, and not adding to them anything of consequence." The same sharp contrast is presented between the canonical writings and those of the apostolic fathers. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are universally admitted to stand alone among all the literature of antiquity. And, as I have endeavoured to shew, this is naturally accounted for by their origin. They all rise from the very fountain-head of Christi- anity. Not only do they as M. Renan (departing entirely in this respect from the conclusions of the Tiibingen school) declares, belong to the first century of our era, but also to the firstybrm which the history of our faith assumed. They are the primary, authentic records of the life of Jesus. They comprise the accounts of men who were "from the beginning eye- witnesses" {citt' apx^i'i avTOTTTai, Luke i. 2) of the events OF THE GOSPELS. 517 which they narrate. All possibility of myth or legend is thus excluded. There was neither time nor oppor- tunity for its formation before our Gospels were com- posed. These all spring up in the immediate vicinity of Christ Himself — come to us, therefore, furnishing that evidence of the supernatural which M. Renan desiderates ; evidence which does not, indeed, pretend to be supported by that parade of science which he deems necessary for the acceptance of a miracle at the present day, but evidence of a historical kind which is the most conclusive it is possible to con- ceive, and which leaves nothing more to be desired by those who believe anything whatever that rests upon the sole basis of testimony. CHAPTEE Ylir. CONCLUSION — APPLICATIONS AND RESt^LTS. In this chapter I propose briefly to review the con- clusions which have been reached in the preceding pages, and consider tiiem in some of their practical applications and results. I do so, of course, without the remotest design or desire to influence the reader in judging of the validity of those positions which I have sought to establish. These must be accepted or rejected according to the evidence and arguments already adduced in their behalf. And if I did not believe them possessed of the authority of truth, no apparent advantages resulting from their acceptance could persuade me to adopt them. But as I am per- suaded, rightly or wrongly, that they have been esta- blished on grounds of argument which cannot be invalidated, I trust I may be permitted, without being suspected of any wish to tamper with the critical judgment of the reader, to indicate some of those im- portant practical issues which appear to be connected with them. This procedure will not, I hope, be deemed other than a natural and fittinof conclusion to the investigations in which we have been engaged. The first point which I claim to have established CONCLUSION APPLICATIONS AND RESULTS. 519 is that our Lord and His apostles hahitually made use of the Greek language. This is the fundamental position of my whole work, on the proof of which everything else may be said to depend. The First Part of the volume is entirely devoted to its illustra- tion and establishment. And the conclusion which I have sought to make good amounts to this, that throughout the whole of His public ministry, in Jerusalem as well as Galilee, on the public highway when addressing the individuals around Him, whether these were poor and ignorant lepers, (Matt. viii. 3, &c.,) or rich and educated rulers, (Luke xviii. 19, &c.,) no less than when proclaiming, as from the Mount of Beatitudes, (Matt, v., &c.,) the word of salvation to assembled thousands : in the house of Martha at Bethany, (Luke x. 38, &c.,) when discours- ing probably to a simple rural audience, as well as in the city, when He spoke so effectively (John vii. 46, &c.) to the crowds that gathered round Him: — our blessed Lord continually made use of the Greek lanofuaofe. Now, if this conclusion has been established, it appears to me, as I believe it will appear to most readers, a point of the very highest interest and im- portance. Some writers, indeed, entitled to much respect, have spoken of the question as to the lan- guage usually employed by our Saviour, as if it were not only destitute of practical importance, but of general interest, and could attract attention only as a matter of fruitless historical curiosity or dry anti- quarian research. But few, I am convinced, will be disposed to view the question in this light. To me, at least, it seems in itself, and independent of all 520 CONCLUSION. practical purposes, a most interesting subject of inves- tigation. To ascertain the language which the Son of God spoke when He dwelt upon the earth — to find out, it may be, that in our existing Gospels we have the very words which He employed, and can repro- duce to ourselves the tones in which He uttered them • — this appears to me a matter interesting to far more than the antiquary, and to appeal to the heart of every earnest loving Christian. "Who would not feel a new interest in the beautiful words, " Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest," or the sublime words, ^' I am the resurrection and the life; he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live," if he ascer- tained beyond a doubt that these words, as they stand in our Greek Testaments, were the very words which proceeded out of the Saviour's mouth? It may be ridiculed by some as a sentimental weakness ; but, for my own part, I am not ashamed to confess that when I read the Gospels, and reflect that in these the ipsissima verba of the Divine man have been recorded, the book is invested with a new in- terest; and I am able more vividly to feel as if introduced within the very circle of the Saviour's hearers, who, it is said, '*^all bare Him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of His mouth." But, in truth, everything associated with our blessed Lord rises far above any merely sentimental or antiquarian interest. Whence, for instance, that attraction which the land of Palestine has possessed for Christians in every century of our era? Why is it that those crowds af pilgrims and travellers have APPLICATIONS AND RESULTS. 521 flocked to it ? " And how comes it to pass tliat their tale, though a thousand times repeated, still finds eager and listening ears ? Is it from the antiquarian curiosity which prevails with respect to the ruins of that country ? Is it any motive of that kind which leads the temporary sojourner in that land to peer so anxiously into Jacob's Well, or to gaze so intently on the Mount of Olives ? . Nay ; it is because the land is so closely associated in the minds of all Christians with Him they love. It is on that account that the tourist observes with so much earnestness, and the reader listens to his tale with so great avidity. It is because He once trode them that even the narrow repulsive streets of Jerusalem have an in- terest which none else on earth can equal ; it is be- cause He once dwelt there that the unpretending Nazareth has power to stir so deeply the hearts of its many visitors. And if even the soil on which He trode, and the localities with which He was connected — things utterly extraneous to Himself — can thus attract and affect the Christian, shall it be said that the question respecting the language which He used — the words which He uttered — the medium He employed for laying bare to us His heart, for making us acquainted with His truest self — is one of mere antiquarian interest? Surely such is a very low and unworthy view to take of it; and although no utilitarian purpose whatever be served by the in- quiry, it is still one which may well stimulate to diligence in its prosecution, and which will be felt amply to reward pains and industry in its settlement. It has accordingly been generally felt, that to become even approximately acquainted with the 522 CONCLUSION. ipsissima verba which lingered on the lips of our Divine Redeemer, is to reach a source of great and hallowed satisfaction. This has given a charm to the study of the Syriac and Chaldee languages which it would not otherwise have possessed. The belief has prevailed that in a dialect kindred to, and almost identical with, these languages, our Saviour's inter- course with others was conducted. A peculiar fasci- nation has thus been imparted to the form of speech which it is believed the Son of God ennobled by His employment of it uj)on earth. " The Palestinian Syriac," it has been said, "is a language pre-eminently interesting to the Christian. It was sanctified by the lips of the Divine Redeemer. In those forms of speech He conversed with the virgin mother, in- structed His disciples, and proclaimed to myriads the promises of eternal life*." To the same effect Wid- manstadt, the first who published the Syriac New Testament in Europe, describes, in his preface, the Syriac as "banc linguam Redemptoris nostri ortu, educatione, doctrina, miraculis, corporis et sanguinis sui confectione Eucharistica, ac patris etiam seterni voce bis coelo ad eum emissa, consecratam." And, to quote only one other example, the learned Walton says of the Aramaean language, as supposed to have been continually employed by Christ — " Hanc sacro ore consecravit, in hac doctrinam Evangelicam tradi- dit, in hac preces ad Patrem obtulit, mysteria mundo abscondita aperuit, Patrisque de ccelo vocem audivit, ita ut dicere possimus — ' Lingua hominum est lingua nobilitata Dei ;' * Etheridge's " Horse Aramaicse," p. 9. APPLICATIONS AND RESULTS. 523 et ut quidam cecinit de Syro Lexicographo, 'Nos docet hie unua Numinis ore loqui*.'" Now, if I have succeeded in the leading argument of this work, all the interest which has thus been ascribed to the Syriac, really belongs to the Greek language. That finest of tongues had the peculiar honour of being selected and employed by the Son of God. The Creator availed Himself of the best vehicle which the genius of man has ever devised for the conveyance of thought, when He himself in human form held communication with His creatures upon earth. And having graciously come to this world, in order that He might display a love and reveal a religion destined to bless all nations, He employed not any restricted or provincial tongue, like the Hebrew, as the medium of disclosing the wonders of His grace, but, adopting the world's language, as if to suggest that for the world at large He both lived and died, it was the tongue of Greece to which, fropa His infancy. He was accustomed, and which He almost invariably used in the course of His public ministry. If this be admitted to have been the case, few, I imagine, will fail to perceive the exceeding interest of such .a conclusion. In addition to all the literary glories which have gathered round the language of Greece, its crowning glory cannot but be felt to lie in its having been employed by the Son of God while He dwelt upon the earth. And, instead of having to study a comparatively poor and unattractive language like the Syriac, in order to have the satisfaction of * "Prolegomena," xiii. p. 631. 524 CONCLUSION. becoming acquainted with something like the ex- pressions employed by our Redeemer, we have only to o]Den our Greek New Testament to find still pre- served to us, in living reality, the very words which issued from His lips*. But let us now glance at the practical importance of that conclusion, which I have sought to establish as to the language generally employed by Christ. There are several respects in which this may be shewn, before adverting to the two most important of all, already indicated in connexion with the questions concerning the original language of St Matthew's Gospel, and the origin of the Gospels. "We may, for instance, sometimes derive no small advantage in * In the many cases in which the Synoptics agree in tlieir accomits, we may be sure that we have the exact words which were employed. When Matthew and Mark agree, but Luke differs, the two former are of course to be regarded as containing the precise expressions made use of by our Lord or others. When there is a slight difference in all the three evangelists, I should be inclined, for the most part, to consider St Mark's account as nearest to the language which was actually used. I must notice, however, that there is a pecuharity observable in the second Gospel which should not be ovei'looked in judging of the order in which words were actually spoken, as well as events occurred. It seems a characteristic tendency of St Mark always to hurry on to the result, and then to gather up and relate the intermediate occurrences. A striking example of this is found in the apparently puzzling passage Mark xi. 13. The evangelist is eager to tell that the Saviour found no fruit on the fig-tree which had attracted His notice, and then appends, somewhat out of its place, the statement that but for the exceptional appearance which that particular fig-tree presented, no expectation would have been formed of finding fruit upon it, "for the regular season of figs was not yet come." So, again, at chap. xvi. 3, 4 ; and comp. i. 43, 44 ; vi. 7, 8, &c. The Gospel of John, as we have seen, stands on a difl'erent footing from the other three. It, too, preserves the substance of our Lord's dis- courses in the very words which He employed; but the inspired writer's individuality has influenced the form in which they are presented much more than in the case of the Sjnoptics. APPLICATIONS AND RESULTS. 525 reading the Gospels from noting the delicate shades of meaning which are suggested in the discourses which they contain, by the employment of different Greek words or tenses. Strangely enough, and some- what inconsistently, as was before hinted*, this has been observed and dwelt upon by several writers, who, after all, believe that our Lord and His disciples habitually made use of Aramaic. Thus, Abp. Trencli remarks on Martha's words addressed to our Lord, (John xi. 2 2,) '^But I know that even now, what- soever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee," — ''She uses the word airfiv, (oVa av a'lT^ari,) a word never used by our Lord to express His own asking of the Father, but always, epwrav — for there is a cer- tain familiarity, nay, authority, in His askings, which this word expresses, but that would notf." Now, there is, I believe, great propriety and force in this observation, provided it be admitted that both our Lord and Martha spoke in Greek, and actually used these very expressions; but if it be supposed, as is generally done, that Aramaic was the language which He and His disciples employed, it is difficult to see on what the learned writer's remarks can rest. It will scarcely be maintained by any, that precisely equivalent expressions to alrew and ep^Taw were used in the Aramaic tongue, and that the Holy Spirit led to the choice of these Greek words in order exactly to represent the original expressions. It is hardly possible that the fine distinction noted by the Arch- bishop as existing between the two Greek verbs should be found in precisely the same degree in any other * Comp. above, Part i. Cliap. ii. p. 45. t Trench " On the Miracles," p. 401. 526 CONCLUSION. language. The distinction is utterly lost in English, although we have many words nearly synonymous with " ask ;" and in like manner, although there certainly were several terms in use in the Aramaean to express the idea of ashing, it cannot be affirmed that any two of them were capable of representing the exact shades of meaning which have been pointed out as distinguishing the two Greek expressions*. So also with regard to the distinction which the same writer notes between ayairw and (piXw (John xi. 3, 5, xxi. 15 — i/t). We can easily see such a propriety as Dr Trench points out in the change of terms which occurs in these passages, provided it be granted that our Lord and His disciples actually made use of the words in question ; but if we suppose them to have spoken in Aramaic, and these to be merely transla- tio7is of the terms which they employed, it can scarcely be held that there is any real foundation for endeavouring to fix such subtle distinctions between them J. * It is true that a different verb is used in the Peschito to translate atVeco, in the verse here referred to, from what is emi^loyed to represent epwrao) as used by our Lord in chap. xiv. 16, xvii. 9, &c. But at chap, xvi. 23, in which verse a clear distinction seems to be suggested by the use of the two different words in the Greek, we find the same Syriac verb ^t-» employed to translate both iparTjueTf and al-rricrriTe. •ft t Trench, ut sup., p. 393, and p. 465. In the first case, the distinc- tion noted between ayaivS) and <^tXo3 may be regarded as preserved in the Peschito ; but in the second, one Syriac verb isQjvjJ is employed tliroughout the passage. X The same learned writer ("Syn. of New Test." 2nd series, p. 147) lays great stress on the words uvtI tvoWwv (Matt. xx. 28), as proving the truly vicarious character of the death of Christ. And with reason, if it be granted that our Lord really employed these Greek words. Other- wise, there is no foundation for his argument, since the Syriac language does not furnish means for distinguishing between vnep and aini, the APPLICATIONS AND UESULTS. 627 The following passages from Sir Jaraes Stephen's " Essays in Ecclesiastical Biography" furnish a some- what striking illustration of the practical importance of that conclusion which has been reached as to the language habitually employed by Christ. Having stated that " incomparably the most important part of the Scriptures (that is, the words of our Lord and Saviour Himself ) are known to the most learned only by translation," he adds that " the whole controversy regarding transubstantiation rests on the precise meaning of a Greek sentence, tovto ea-n to aw/xa nov : words which it is perfectly certain Christ never uttered. In this, as in other cases, we can only conjecture what His very words were; and in the wide field of conjecture it is morally impossible that a real unanimity of judgment should prevail." A little further on, he says in reference to the doctrine of eternal punishment, after endeavouring to elude the force of some other passages, " It must, however, be acknowledged that the language of Christ, in the closing verse of the 25th chapter of St Matthew, is perfectly clear and unambiguous as it stands in our English Bibles. 'These,' He says, 'shall go away into everlasting 2^U7iishment.' It is therefore of in- finite moment to inquire whether the words which our translators have thus given us really correspond with the words which our Saviour Himself uttered. Now no human being knows, or ever can know, what were the very words which thus fell from the lips of Christ. They were spoken in a dialect of the Syro- Chaldaic. No one even knows with any certainty same preposition .g^\ ».. being used indiscriminately for both. Comp. Matt. ii. 22; John x. 11, 15; Rom. v. 8, &c. 528 CONCLUSION". whether our extant Greek version of them proceeded from the pen of St Matthew. On the hyjDothesis adopted by many high critical authorities, of an in- termediate Hebrew Gospel, we must believe the con- trary. Assuming, however, that the hand of the in- spired writer did trace the very words eh KoXaaiv a'lMviov, it will yet not necessarily follow that either of these words is a precise equivalent for the original which it represents; because, for terms so abstract, perfectly precise equivalents can seldom, if ever, be found in languages so essentially dissimilar in their structure and genius as the Syro-Chaldaic and the Greek*." It is evident that, whatever the value attributed to the texts in question in the respective controversies to which they refer, the above reasoning is at once and entirely set aside by the conclusions which have in the preceding pages been established. Again, nothing is more common than to find Pro- testant writers insisting on the distinction between 7r6T|009 and ireTpa, in the words addressed by our Lord to Peter (Matt. xvi. i8). And granting that these words were spoken in Greek, of which, I believe, there is no doubt, the contrast clearly indicated between them cannot be overlooked. It could not be without an important significance that the Saviour made such a marked change in the terms which He employed when He said to His disciple, 2u el Trerpos, kuI eVi Tavrr) tj] Trerpa olKooopirjffw fxov rt]v eKKkrjaiav. Ihe tirst term Trerpo^ means a stone, and the second irerpa a rock, the distinction between the two being strictly observed by all Greek writers. Ifj then, these words were really employed by our Lord, it is perfectly fair, * Essays, &c. pp. 637, 654; comp. "Fraser's Mag." Nov. 1864, p. 662. APPLICATIONS AND RESULTS. 529 or rather imperative, on the principles of a just exe- gesis, that the distinction between them should be clearly brought out in interpreting the passage. But on the usual supposition, that the Saviour spoke in Aramaic, there is not the slightest ground for press- inof the difference between them. The distinction entirely vanishes in Syriac. That language affords no means of marking the contrast between the two Greek words, so that even the accurate Peschito uses the same terrn in both clauses*. Only, therefore, on the ground which I maintain, as to the language both now and generally employed by our Lord, can the argument so often and so forcibly made use of by Protestant writers, in dealing with this passage, be shewn to rest on any solid foundation. It is also very usual, among recent exact inter- preters, to attach considerable importance to the employment of the aorist by the evangelists. As might be expected, in the case of so accurate and painstaking a scholar, this is often done with admir- able effect in the writings of Bishop EUicott. In one passage, for example, he remarks, — "The message (of the sisters at Bethany) only announced that La- zarus was sick ; but the supposition is not improbable, that by the time the messenger reached our Lord, * ]^|lD is the word employed twice, both in the Peschito and Curetonian Syriac. Dr Schaff remarks, in reference to this passage and against the distinction usually pressed by Protestant writers as existing between the two Greek expressions : — " The Greek word must in both places correspond to the Aramaic Cephas, which always means rock, and is used both as a i)roper and common noun." — "Apostolic His- tory," II. p. 5. It is hardly correct to say that the Syriac term in ques- tion always means rock; we find it used in one verse (Matt, xxvii. GVi) to denote both a rock and a stone, the distinction between the two, there clearly indicated in the Greek, being utterly lost. 34 530 CONCLUSION. Lazarus had died. It may be observed that, two days afterwards, when our Lord spoke of the death of Lazarus, He uses the aorist direOavev (Johnxi. 14), which seems to refer the death to some period, un- defined indeed, but now past*." Did, then, our Lord really make use of this very word and tense ? If so, there is a basis for the consideration built upon it, and for the similar remarks which may frequently be found made on other passages in which the aorist is used. But if the Saviour spoke in Aramaic, there seems no ground for resting anything on a mere peculiarity of the Greek language, into which His words are supposed to have been translated. A very important application of the conclusion we have reached as to the prevalent language of Pales- tine in the times of Christ and His apostles, may, I think, be made in reference to the difficult question concerning the authorship of the Apocalypse. There is no book of Scripture to which earlier or ampler testimony is borne than this one. Traces of it are to be found even in the first century. And the fullest evidence of its antiquity is contained in the writings of Paj^ias, Justin Martyr, and Irenseus t. But while * "Historical Lectures on the Life of Christ," p. 2G7 ; couip. also p. 327. The same writer observes, in his Essay on the Interpretation of Scripture, — "The great exegetical difBculty in Johnxx. 17 appears modi- fied, if not removed, by taking into consideration the tense of the verb cmrov (not o'\|/'?;)." — "Aids to Faith," p. 421). Surely, then, our Lord must be supposed to have spoken in Greek. t See the passages in Kirchhofer, " Quellensammlung," pp. 296 — 328. He remarks on the accumulated testimonies : — " Aus diesen Zeug- nissen ergibt sich, dass man schou im ersten Jahrhundert Spuren der Apocalypse findet, dass sie gegen das Ende des zweiteu Jahrhunderts schon in Asien, Europa und Africa verbrcitet war, dass die meisten und wichtigsten Schriftstellcr ihr giinstig warcn, dass vor dem dritten Jahr- hundert keine Zeugen gegen sie auftraten, von da an aber in den ver- APPLICATIONS AND RESULTS. 531 the early origin of the book is universally acknow- ledged, much doubt has been thrown upon the belief that the apostle John was its author. In fact, the conclusion of modern scholarship has been very strongly against this opinion. It has been maintained, on internal grounds, that no point in New Testament criticism is more certain than that the apostle John, if he wrote the fourth Gospel and the epistles bearing his name, could not have been the writer of the Apocalypse ; or, alternatively, that if he be regarded as the author of the latter work, he could not pos- sibly have written the former*. Accordingly, the majority of eminent foreign critics, such as Credner, De Wette, Liicke and others, have attributed it to John the Presbyter. In our own country. Dean Alford, while adhering to the opinion in favour of its apostolic authorship, gives strong and repeated expression to the difficulties which appear to beset such a supposition!. These difficulties arise entirely from the marked difference of style which exists be- tween the Apocalypse and the other writings of John. No candid and competent scholar can deny that this difference is very great. The ruggedness of the Apocalypse contrasts very strongly with the smooth- ness of the Gospel; and the solecisms in grammar. schieden Kircheii einzelne Bestreiter sich zeigteii." — P. 297. Corap. Credner, "Gesch. cles Neut. Kanou," § 33. * " Man geradezu bebaiiptete in der neutestaraentlichen Kritik stelie nichts so fest, als dass der Apostel Joliannes, wenn er der Verfasser des Evangeliums und der Briefe ist, die Apocalypse nicht geschrieben haben, Oder wenn diese sein Werk ist, nicht Verfasser der andern Schriften sein konne." — Kirchhnfer, p. 297. t Alfordh " Greek Testament," Vol. rv. Part ii. Proleg. pp. 224, 229, &c. 34—2 532 CONCLUSION. which not unfrequently occur in the one, find nothing at all corresponding to them in the other. At the same time there are manifestly several links in the Apocalypse and the other Johannine wri tinges which seem to bind them all towther. The same deeply Hebraic style of thought is visible in every one of them. Their author was evidently one who was thoroughly familiar with the old economy, and intimately acquainted with its varied adumbra- tions of Gospel blessings. This appears as strikingly in the writer of the Apocalypse as in the Gospel; and when we add to this consideration the further facts, that peculiar expressions, such as o \6y09 applied to Christ, John i. i, i John i. i, Apoc. xix. 13, occur in these three writings, and nowhere else throughout the New Testament, and that ancient testimony on the whole points decidedly to the apostle John as the author of the Apocalypse, we cannot but feel that there is much to lead us to acquiesce in that conclusion. What opinion, then, are we to form in face of these perplexing facts? Must we, like many learned critics, account the diversity of style so great that it is im- possible to believe the Apocalypse and Gospel to have proceeded from the same pen? Or, while, like Dean Alford, accepting the Apocalypse as the work of the apostle, must we declare ourselves, with him, " far from satisfied with any account at present given of the peculiar style and phenomena*" which that writing presents? It humbly appears to nie that there is no necessity for coming to either of these conclusions. Admitting * Alford, ut sup., p. 229. APPLICATIONS AND RESULTS. 533 the early date of the Apocalypse and the late composi- tion of the Gospel, the difference of style between the two seems hardly to present any difficulty. It is rather just what was to be expected. If the Apo- calypse was written about a.d. 68 or 69, to which period it is now generally ascribed, and the Gospel was composed towards the end of the first century, a point almost unanimously agreed upon by biblical scholars, some twenty years or more elapsed between the composition of the two documents. And now, if we remember that, according to the conclusion reached in the First Part of this work, Greek of a certain kind was vernacular to John as to the in- habitants of Palestine generally, but that he possessed in his youth no great educational advantages, (Acts iv. 13,) all the phenomena presented by his works seem exactly such as would naturally belong to them. We find in the Apocalypse that rugged type of Greek which was generally prevalent among the lower orders in Palestine; while the style of the Gospel and epistles, written after the apostle had been long resident at Ephesus, is naturally marked by far greater correct- ness, and even by a kind of Ionic smoothness. Thus, resting on the conclusion made good in the preceding pages — that the apostle possessed, as a matter of course, from his birth and residence in Galilee, an acquaintance with the popular Greek of the country — every fact connected with his waitings seems exactly such as there was reason to anticipate. The very early and frequent notices of the Apoca- lypse which occur in the fathers, and the compara- tively late and meagre allusions which are made to the Gospel, find an easy explanation in the supposi- 534 CONCLUSION. tion of the one work having been pubhshed long before the other ; and this conclusion at once explains, while it is confirmed by, the diversity of style ob- servable in the two compositions. So far from any real difficulty arising from the difference in question, the fact of such difference existinaf seems rather, when viewed in connexion with the circumstances of the apostle's history, one of the many natural traits which appear in Scripture, and which tend so powerfully to support its authenticity and genuineness. Had the Apocalypse and Gospel of John presented no marked diversity of style, then, apart altogether from the psychological reasons which, of themselves, must have had some influence in giving rise to such diflerence, a real difficulty would have sprung up in the mere period of time which elapsed between the composi- tion of the two works. The rough Greek of the Palestinian fisherman could not have continued to flow from the pen of the aged apostle after a length- ened residence in such a city as Ephesus. But, as the case really stands, in the light of that conclusion reached in the previous pages as to the linguistic con- dition of Palestine in the days of our Lord, the diver- sities, no less than the similarities existing between the two writings, appear strongly to support the Johannine origin of both w^orks. The following observations of a learned writer, not himself holding the views which I have endea- voured to estabHsh, will illustrate their importance generally, in reference to the interpretation of the Gospels. " It was," says Dr Black*, " in the so-called Hebrew, or popular language of the nation, that Paul * " On the Study of Exegetical Theology," p. 58, Edin. 1S56. APPLICATIONS AND RESULTS. 535 addressed the multitude assembled in the streets of Jerusalem beside the castle, though they were evi- dently prepared to listen to him with intelligence when they expected him to address them in Greek. But it was in Greek that his discourses were generally spoken; and the Greek student of the New Testa- ment, by placing himself in the position of those to whom these discourses w^ere addressed, and realising to himself what may still be ascertained of the very tones of the voice with which the words were uttered, will be in possession of an important exegetical prin- ciple for obtaining more vivid conceptions of the depth of meaning conveyed by the voice of the speaker." He refers, in illustration of this remark, to John vii. 28, where our Lord repeats the words of the people, and which, he says, "should be marked as interrogative, or quasi-interrogative." But, un- fortunately, Dr Black also adopts (though apparently with some reluctance) the common notion that our Lord usually spoke in Aramaic, and thus deprives himself, to a great extent, of " the important exegetical principle" which he acknowledges. "The addresses of our Lord," he says, "seem, from the examples given of some of the words that He spoke, to have been delivered in the common Aramaean of the age and country ; but the Greek form in which they have been transmitted in the Gospels, by the evangelists who recorded them under the guidance of inspiration, still puts it in the power of the student substantially to listen to the voice of Him who spake as never man spake." I find it somewhat difficult to form an idea of what is here meant by listening substantially to the voice of Christ in the Gospels, if we do not so in 53 G CONCLUSION. reality. In every faithful translation we liave the substance of our Lord's words preserved. The only difference (and in some points of view, doubtless^ vitally important difference) between the Greek ver- sion of them and all others is, that in the one case the translation was made by inspired men, while, in other cases, the translators simply employed their natural powers. But this does not touch the point at present under consideration. Inspiration cannot effect impossibilities. It cannot make a translation of our Lord's words to be the very words which He spoke. And, so far as " listening substantially" to His voice is concerned, I confess myself unable to see how the reader of His sayings in Greek, occupies any position of advantage over the reader of the same in English, unless, as I am firmly convinced, and have endeavoured to shew, we do in very deed listen, in the Greek of the evangelists, to the identical words which proceeded out of our Saviour's mouth. How great the satisfaction of being able to be- lieve that this is the case ! How vivid and impressive the emotions awakened by the thought, that in the striking words preserved by St Mark, SuoVa, Ttecpitiwaw, we have the very command by which our Lord stilled the raging deep, — that in the Uarep rjuLwv of St Matthew and St Luke we possess the very terms in which Christ taught His disciples to address their Father in heaven, — and that, in the marvellous prayer recorded in John xvii., we hear the very tones of His Divine yet supplicating voice — we listen to the majestic words in which Deity on earth called upon Deity in heaven ! I cannot but believe that, if this conclusion be regarded as established, a new APPLICATIONS AND RESULTS. 537 attraction will be found in the study of the Gospels — that many more will be stimulated to seek an ac- quaintance with these precious records in the original Greek, and that all who are able to read them in the language which enshrines the words of the Divine Kedeemer will feel more vividly than before the mean- ing of His own striking declaration — " The words which I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are llfey The second question discussed, and, in my humble judgment settled, in the previous pages, is that which respects the original language of St Matthew's Gospel. This is a question which meets the critical student of Scripture at the very threshold of the New Testa- ment; and he will soon perceive reason to conclude that it is not only first in the order in which it occurs, but first also in many respects in the importance which belongs to it. It involves in its settlement some very momentous consequences; and, on this account, while truth alone is to be sought in our investigations, it demands to be considered with a solemn feeling of responsibility and reverence. As has been shewn in a previous chapter, our only '^,^f1. choice in this controversy lies between the first and second hypotheses. The reconciling theory, as it has been called, which assumes, without a particle of evi- dence, the publication of two Gospels by St Matthew, was proved to be as unsatisfactory as it is arbitrary and baseless. No alternative remains but that we believe either, j^rs^, that the apostle wrote originally * Ta pr]\iaTa a e'-yci XfXaXrjKa vjjuu, irvevfia iariv Koi fwi; ecrriv. — John vi. 63. 538 CONCLUSION. in Hebrew, and that we now possess only a version of his work, executed by some unknown translator; or, secondly, that he wrote in Greek only, and that we still have his work as authentic and entire as are any of the other Gospels. Many attempts have been made by the more reverent and cautious advocates of the first hypothesis, to shew that, although, on their supposition, our pre- sent Greek Gospel is the work of an unknown and irresponsible translator, we may yet accord to it the reverence which is due to inspired Scripture. Dr Tregelles, in particular, has laboured to maintain this position. He says in one place, (and often repeats the idea,) — " Why should the fact of a book being translated by an unhioivn hand detract from its authority ? Were not many canonical books written by unknown persons ? Who shall say positively who vjrote many of the Old Testament books? Who wrote Joshua, Judges, II. Samuel, Kings, Esther, and other books? And yet God has preserved to us these in- spired anonymous volumes*". But the irrelevancy of these remarks to the point in question appears to me evident. There are, no doubt, in the Old Testament scriptures some books the authorship of which we, at the present day, cannot positively determine, which, nevertheless, stand on precisely the same footing as the rest of the inspired volume. But Dr Tregelles seems to forget to what these owe their authority. Not to mention other reasons, there is especially this one — that they were all contained in those scriptures to which our Lord Himself so often gave the weight of His Divine * " On the Original Language of St Matthew's Gospel," p. 19. APPLICATIONS AND RESULTS. 539 sanction and approval. Had we anything like this for the supposed translation of St Matthew, not another word need be said about its anonymous character. If the Greek Gospel, when viewed as a version from the Hebrew, could be proved to be of apostolic origin, or to have received apostolic sanc- tion, then its Divine authority could not be ques- tioned. But it is needless to remark that nothing^ approaching to such sanction can be pleaded on its behalf. It rises in obscurity — no one knows when or where — it presents no credentials of its accuracy or fidelity, and it offers not a vestige of proof that it has any claim to be regarded as a portion of the inspired Word of God. It is vain to tell us that the fathers treated it as inspired scripture, while asserting it to be a translation, and professing themselves ig- norant of its author. Unless they give us good and sufficient reasons for adojiting such a course, it does not follow that what satisfied them must also satisfy us. But, for my own part, I do not believe that our present Greek Gospel thus lightly attained to its place in the canon. Nothing, I am persuaded, ex- cept its apostolic origin, will account for the universal deference with which, from the earliest ages, it has been regarded. It was accepted by the primitive Church as St Matthew's Gospel, because it really was so, and as such inspired; and when, afterwards, the notion spread that the Greek was merely a transla- tion, this error could not deprive the Gospel of that position of authority which it had already attained ; and the fathers, accordingly, continued to quote and refer to it as the infallible Word of God*. * 3Ir Westcott, iii liis recent interesting little volume entitled " Tlie 540 CONCLUSION. But let us look a little more closely at the ground occupied by those modern critics who hold that our existing Greek Gospel is merely a version from the Hebrew, formed by an unknown translator, and yet claim for it the respect due to the word of inspiration. Dr Tregelles very properly quotes Jerome's famous saying, '* Quis in Grascum transtulerit non satis cer- tum est," to shew how groundless are the assertions of those who maintain that either St Matthew him- self, or some other of the apostles, was the translator ; but he does not feel how ominous is the sound of these words as respects the authority which he claims for our existing Gospel. Is a translation, no one knows by whom, (and, so far as appears, no one has ever known,) to be set side by side with inspired scripture ? Who, that has any proper notion of what inspiration implies, can bear such an idea for a single moment? If inspiration is a reality at all, it dis- tinguishes the books which possess it from all others in the world. We are not, indeed, able to shew this by an exhibition of the manner in which the Spirit of God operates upon the minds of the inspired. But Bible in the Church," remarks concerning the " Antilegomena " of the New Testament, — " In some cases, as far as we can see, a book was ' doubted ' or ' gaiusayed ' because it was unknown in particular Churches ; in others, because the apostolical authority of its Avriter was uncertain ; in others from its internal character," p. 143. The fact that there never was any doubt as to the canonical authority of the first Gospel seems a strong ground of argument in support of its apostolic origin in the form in which we still possess it. Had the Greek been deemed a mere translation, it is scarcely possible that its authority woiUd not have been cliallenged by some portion of the Church. Comp. the forcible remarks of Olshamen {Clark's " For. Theol. Lib." v. 28), which, though meant to support the third hypothesis, do, in fact, serve only to confirm the jiosi- tion that our existing Greek Gospel is the authentic production of St Matthew. APPLICATIONS AND RESULTS. 541 the works thus produced must, unless the idea of inspiration be a mere deception, be totally different in point of authority from all others, inasmuch as they, and none else, possess the attribute of infalli- bility, and claim to be received, without exception or qualification, as the unerring dictates of the living God. Inspiration, then, is a very solemn peculiarity to attribute to any writing, and must not, except on the very best grounds, be either supposed or admitted. It completely isolates those books to which it belongs from all others, however excellent or admirable these may be reckoned. And it is highly important at the present day carefully to preserve the vital distinction which thus exists between inspired and non-inspired books, since it is not uncommon to find in our popular literature a sort of inspiration spoken of as pertaining to mere human compositions. This error must be all the more guarded against, because, like every other that has obtained much currency, it involves a kind of half-truth. There is a sense, we readily admit, in which it may be said that the Spirit of God is the Author of all intellectual eminence ; so that whatever is excellent or noble in any created being, is to be traced to His gracious and effectual working. To Him is due every triumph of human genius, and to Him should the glory of all that intellectual power which man displays be ascribed. When the astrono- mer calculates, years beforehand, the courses and posi- tions of the stars of heaven — when the metaphysician draws his fine distinctions, and grapples successfully with that very mind which serves him — when the poet's eye, rolHngin ecstasy, contemplates the gorgeous 542 CONCLUSION. visions which flit before his imagination, and when he seizes and incarnates these in words for the delight and admiration of mankind — when the historian gives Hfe and interest and value to the deeds of bygone ages, by the graphic style and the philosophic spirit in which he narrates them — when, in short, any 2:)roof whatever is presented of the exercise of mental supe- riority, there do we gladly acknowledge the working of the Spirit of God — of Him who at first made man '^a livinof soul," who filled the heart of the skilful Bezaleel with wisdom and understanding and know- ledge, and who is still promised as a Spirit of counsel and of might to all them that ask Him. But, while we readily admit these truths, we must guard against the erroneous inference which some have drawn from them — that the inspiration claimed by and for the writers of Scripture, is the same in kind with that which is enjoyed by the possessors of natural genius. Not a few will acknowledge at once the inspiration of David, Isaiah, and Paul; but it is just in the same sense as they maintain that of Homer, or Plato, or Milton. Now, this is a per- nicious confounding of things which are, in reality, entirely different. There is, as every sincere believer in Scripture must feel, an essential difference indi- cated in the Bible itself, between the nature of that influence which is exerted upon the mind of the secu- lar poet or historian, and that which goes forth upon the sacred prophet or evangelist — a diff*erence so vast, that it is an utter abuse of language to call the two things by the same name. It may be, for aught we can tell, that the process by which the Spirit operates upon the mind is as simple in the one case APPLICATIONS AND RESULTS. 543 as the other. The modus operandi is equally unknown to us with respect to the sacred as to the secular writer. But while we can say nothing about the differences which may exist as to the manner in which the Divine power is applied, we know to a certainty that there is an infinite difference in the results which are produced. This grand peculiarity belongs to every inspired book, {iTa7 for it the earth in which we Hve would still have been the dark abode of ignorance and vice, filled with beings who knew no God save the product of their own evil hearts, and who owned no laws but such as their own corrupt minds devised. From it has gone forth the power which has changed our own country from the condition of barbarism and wretchedness in which it once lay, into that state of civilisation and comfort in which we now behold it. And what the Bible has done for Britain, the Bible can do for every nation under heaven. It needs but the free circulation and the universal study of that Book, to reclaim men everywhere from the bondage of sin and superstition : and it needs but the practice of its humanising maxims and the copying of its one per- fect Example, in order to chase away savage manners from the earth — to break the power of selfishness and ambition — to banish war and all its horrible accompaniments — to extirpate vice and tyranny and oppression in the many hideous forms in which they so often present themselves — to constitute mankind one great and loving brotherhood — and to knit all human hearts together in the blessed bonds of unity and peace. ^'I the Lord will hasten it in His TIME." INDEX. A priori reafoiingon language of Pales- tine, 14, 441, 277, 282 Acts of the Apostles, argument from, to use of Greek in Palestine, 144 — 194 Aceldama, 302, 306 Adeking's "Mitliridates" quoted 255 Adler referred to, 255, 271 "Aids to Faith" quoted, 255 Akerman on Coins of Palestine, 47 Alexander the Great, influence of his conquests, 28, 45 Alexander, Dr Add. on gift of tongues, 74 ; on meaning of word Israel, 162 ; on intercourse of Jews with Gentiles, 165 ; on speech of St James, 183 ; on letter of Claudius Lysias, 184 Alexander, Dr Alex, on two-fold origi- nal of St Matthew's Gospel, 445 Alexander, Dr W., on variations of New Testament quotations from He- brew text, 268 Alexandria, the supposed destination of Epistle to Hebrews, 231 Alford, Dean, on language of Palestine, 13, 121, 122; on gift of tongues, 73; on Epistle of James, 79, 144 ; on Greeks seeking to see Jesus, 227 ; on mockery of Christ by the Jews, 137 ; on language used by St Peter on day of Pentecost, 152, 267; on Hellenists and Hebrews, 157; on circumcision- party, 168; on speech of St Stephen, 177; on speech of St James, 183; on authorship of Epistle to Hebrews, 202, 205, 215, 222; on primary destina- tion of Epistle to Hebrews, 231, 235, 238; on original Aramaic Gospels, 251; on Aceldama, 304, 307; on St John's Gospel, 395, 397; on hypothe- sis that the Evangelists copied from one another, 480; on authorship of Apocalypse, 531 Ancient writers, how their statements should be dealt with, 203, 384, 400 Antiochus Epiphanes, his pohcy to- wards the Jews, 37; stations Greek soldiers in Jerusalem, 63; holds in- tercourse with Jews in Greek, 66 ; addressed by the Samaritans in ful- some terms, 123 Aorist, remarks on use of, in N. T. 529 Apocryphal books of 0. T. enumerated, 56; their evidence as to spread of Greek in Palestine, 57 — 67 Apocryphal Gospels, their character, 5 1 6 Apollos the supposed author of Ep. to Hebrews, 215; his claims disproved, 217, 218 Apostles, their natural use of Greek, 71, 142 ; their early education, 78 Aramaic expressions in Gospels, argu- ment from, 84, 86, 141 ; how explain- ed, 90, 98, 302 Aramaic language, its relation to the Greek in Palestine, 4, 20, 90, 92, 9^, 96, 251, 277, 283 Aramaic version supposed of 0. T. 114 Aristotle, quoted, 243, 245 Asseman, quoted, 57 ' ' Athenaeum " on language of Palestine, 21 ; on verbal coincidences among writers, 470 Augustine on St Mark's Gospel, 530 Augustus Csesar used Greek, 33 660 INDEX. Bar Salibi referred to, 57, 417 Barnabas supposed the author of Ep. to Hebrews, 214 Baruch, book of, 60 Baumgarten-Crusius on original desti- nation of Epistle to Hebrews, 234 Baur on Jerome's statements respecting St Matthew's Gospel, 418; on theories of Origin of Gospels, 450 ; his " Evan- gelien" referred to, 503 Beelen on Taigums of 0. T. 300 Bel and the Dragon, 6i Bengel on destination of Ep. to He- brews, 233; ou two-fold original of St Matthew's Gospel, 442 Bertholdt on original language of New Testament, 69 Beza on gift of tongues, 72 ; on " Eloi," &c., 97 Bible, its literary character, 75 ; has nothing to fear from investigation, 508; its inspiration, 542 ; its precious- iiess, 555 Binterim refutes Molckenbuhr, 8 ; on language of Phcenicia, 106; on lan- guage used by St Peter, 3 r 3 Biscoe on the Acts referred to, 294 Black on language of New Testament; on supposed loss of Christ's words, 249 Black, Dr., on importance of knowing what was the language of Christ and His apostles, 534 Bleek, Prof, on reasoning of Pfannkuche 9,nd De Rossi, 50 ; on disuse of an- cient Hebrew among the Jews, in; on authorship of Epistle to Hebrews, 215 ; on primary readers of, 229, 240 ; on Targuras of O. T. 300 ; on Greek original of St Matthew's Gospel, 362 ; on St John's Gospel, 395 ; refen-ed to respecting error of Papias, 421; on Gospel of the Hebrews, 423 ; on origin of Synoptic Gospels, 501 Blunt, Prof., on use of LXX in syna- gogues of Palestine, 299 Bohme on original destination of Ep. to Hebrews, 234 Bolingbroke on influence of writers on each other, 410 Bolten on original destination of Ep. to Hebrews, 234 Brotier on statements of Tacitus respect- ing primitive Christians, 400 Broughton's answer to " Palffioro- maica," 9 Buchanan, Dr Claudius, on original language of the Gospels, 252 Buckle's " History of Civilization " re- ferred to, 411 Bunsen's " Hippolytus" referred to, 35 Burckhardt's "Travels in Syria," 47 Burgess, Bp. answers " Palaeoromaica," 9 Butler, Bp. referred to, 344 Buxtorf on disuse of ancient Hebrew among the Jews, 1 1 1 ; his Lexicon referred to, 376 Cresar, Julius, on spread of Greek, 29 Calvin on authorship of Ep. to Hebrews, 210 Campbell, Dr, on loss of Christ's words, 250; on style of N. T., 288; on post- scripts of the Gospels, 388 ; on two- fold original of St Matthew's Gospel, 445 Canonical Gospels, character of, 516 Casaubon on inscription on Cross, 315 Causes which led to the prevalence of Greek in Palestine, 36, 37 Chaldee, translations of O.T. in, 120; the supposed language of Christ, 522 Chalmers, Dr, incident in his life refer- red to, 91 Channel Islands, Unguistic condition of, 3 Christ, his habitual use of Greek, 143, 519; unity of the description of, given by the Evangelists, 513 Christianity, erroneous statements of heathen writers regarding, 400 Chrysostom on the language of the Apostles, 24 ; on the Hellenists and Hebrews, 156; on the original desti- nation of Ep. to Hebrews, 229 Circumcision-party, who, 167, 491 INDEX. 561 Clemens Alex, on authorship of Ep. to Hebrews, 205 ; on original destination of, 229 Clemens Rom. wrote in Greek, 34 ; his copious use of Ep. to Hebrews ; his supposed authorship of, 214 Coincidences in Synoptic Gospels refer- red to, 340; illustrated, 460; account- ed for, 465, 469 Colenso, Bp, referred to on inspiration, 543 Concision, the, referred to, 169 Contempt, supposed, of Hebrews for Hellenists, 294 Conybeare and Howson referred to, 37, 74, 121, 176, 184, 190, 213, 231 Contzenuius, Ad. on original language of St Matthew's Gospel, 325 Cook, Rev. F. C, on language of Lys- tra, 18 Credner, on spread of Greek, 33 ; on its use by the Jews, 42, 79; on language of Christ and the Apostles, 43; on original language of N. T., 69 ; on the intercourse of Christ with Pilate, 130; on authorship of Ep. to He- brews, 215; on original destination of, 234; on Ep. of James, 244, 247; his character as a critic, 351 ; on sup- posed errors of translation in Greek Gospel of St Matthew, 359 ; on quo- tations fi-omO. T. in 368 ; on Jerome's conclusion respecting the Gospel of the Hebrews, 420; on two-fold origi- nal of St Matthew's Gospel, 445; on theories respecting origin of Gospels, 457 ; on coincidences in Synoptic Gos- pels, 461 ; on authenticity of St John's Gospel, 506; on authorship of Apoca- lypse, 531 Cureton, Dr, on Greek Gospel of St Matthew, 359; on explanation of He- brew terms in, 372 ; his Syriac Gos- pels referred to, 378, 379; his state- ment respecting the preservation of Hebrew Gospel of St Matthew, 420; the claims of his Syriac Gospels con- sidered, 426; his opinion aa to the language of Christ, 427; his remarks on coincidences in Synoptic Gospels, 472, 482 Da Costa, his "Four Witnesses" re- ferred to, 510 Daniel, date of book of, 112 Davidson, Dr S., on original language of Apocryphal books of 0. T., 58, 60, 61 ; on correspondence of Lacedtemo- nians with Jews, 62 ; on Hellenists and Hebrews, 157; on use of LXX in N. T., 263; on persons for whom Josephus wrote his history in Greek, 287; on Aceldama, 303; on the mean- ing of " the Hebrew tongue" in N. T., 309 ; on Greek Gospel of St Matthew, 358; on Latinistic forms in, 375; on meaning of Papias, 406 ; of Eusebius, 415 ; referred to in regard to Hebrew Gospel, 419; on coincidences in Syn- optic Gospels, 478; his hyiiothesis respecting St Matthew's Gospel ex- amined, 481; on authority of sup- posed Greek translation of, 544 De Quincey on population of Rome, 32 De Rossi, on language of Palestine, 7 ; his erroneous opinions and reasonings, 51, 59 De Sola and Raphall, Eng. edit, of ]\Iischna by, 49 De Wette on use of LXX. by Philo and Josephus, 52 ; on original language of Apoc. books of 0. T., 58, 59 ; on date of Judith, 59; on disuse of ancient Hebrew among the Jews, 112; on Targums, 1 15, 1 16; on language of Samaria, 123; on gift of tongues, 147; on Hellenists and Hebrews, 157; on authorship of Ep. to He- brews, 215 ; on St John's Gospel, 395 ; on two-fold original of St Mattliew's Gospel, 445 ; on Eichhorn's hypothe- sis, 473; on authorship of Apocalypse, Decapolis, language of, 102; cities of, 103 Delitzsch on authorship of Ep. to He- 36 562 INDEX. brews, 220, 223; on original destina- tion of, 229 Dialect of Greek in N. T., 257; its origin, 260 Dio Cassius on use of Greek, 30, 33 Diodati on language of Christ, 5, 6 ; on numismatic evidence as to spread of Greek, 48, 6^ ; on Hellenists and He- brews, 156; on soldiers in Palestine, . 271; on the persons for whom Jose- phus wrote his history in Greek, 287 Dionysius Bar Salibi referred to, 57, 417 Dispersion, Jews of, who, 79 Distinctions to be noted between Greek terms in the Gospels, 524 Diversities in Synoptic Gospels account- ed for, 473, 550 Dobbin, Di-, his edition of Diodati, 5 ; on original language of N. T., 32 1 Dogmatic prepossessions, influence of, 21^, 3^3: 330 Dollinger on spread of Greek, 29 Droysen on Hellenism referred to, 45 Druids made use of Greek, 29 Duke of Manchester on origin of Gos- pels, 459 Ebionites, who, 422 Ebrard on original language of St Mat- thew's Gospel, 353 Ecclesiasticus, book of, 60 Eckerman's " Conversations with Go- ethe," 553 " Edinbiu-gh Review" referred to, 265, 385^ 549; quoted 320, 321, 390, 420, 428 Eichhom on original language of St Mat- thew's Gospel, 351, on supposed er- rors in the Greek of, 358 ; on 0. T. quotations in 369; on St John's Gospel, 395 ; his theory of the origin of the Gospels, 450, 455, 552 Ellicott, Bp., on mockery of Christ by the Jews, 139; referred to on St John's Gospel, 397; his remarks on the use of the aorist in the Gospels, " Eloi, Eloi," &c., how explained, 96 "Encyclopaedia Britannica" quoted, 4, 255 Ephesus, Jews of, used Greek, 187 " Ephphatha," its occurrence explained, 94 Epiphanius referred to on Hebrew Gos- pel, 418 Epistles of N. T., their general testi- mony to spread of Greek, 82 Erasmus on gift of tongues, 72 ; on Aramaic expressions in Gospels, 90 ; on authorship of Epistle to Hebrews, 210, 212 Emesti on style of Josephus, 288; on Rabbinical writings, 297 Esdras, books of, 57 " Essays and Reviews," fundamental er- ror of, 332 ; on origin of Gospels, 549. Esther, apoc. additions to, 59 Etheridge on Palestinian Syriac, 522 Eusebius on the language of the Apos- tles, 24 ; on the original language of St Matthew's Gospel, 418; his cha- racter as a critic, 416 Euthalius on destination of Epistle to Hebrews, 237 " Evangelical Christendom" quoted, 83, 85, 108, 112, 133, 166, 251, 254, 257, 337 Ewald, Prof, on language of Christ, 12; on Hellenism, 37, 45, 46; on date of book of Judith, 59; on Cure- ton's Syriac Gospels, 425 Fabricius, his Codex Pseudep. referred to, 57; on different opinions as to Hellenists and Hebrews, 156; re- ferred to, 436 Facts, how to be dealt with, 281, 399, 401, 410 Fairbairn, Dr on language of Christ, 10; his "Bible Dictionary" quoted, 157 Falconer, Dr, answers "Palccoromaica" 9 Fathers, statements of, how they should be treated, 202, 339, 383, 391 ; their errors on critical questions, 24, 156, INDEX. 563 402 ; their assertions with respect to original language of Epistle to He- brews and of St Matthew's Gospel accounted for, 421, 448 Flacius, M. , on original language of St Matthew's Gospel, 325 Forsyth's " Life of Cicero" quoted, 32 Frankel on Targums, 1 1 5 ; on Samaritan Pentateuch, 124; on statements of the Talmud respecting use of Greek, ■296 " Fraser's Magazine " referred to, 470, 528 Fritzsche, O. F. Dr on use of LXX by Josephus, 51; on 0. T. Apocrypha, 59, 61 ; on use of LXX by Jews of Palestine, 294 Fiirst on Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan, 120; on language of Sa- maria, 124 Galilee, language of, 70, 78; Greek and Gentile, 142 Gandell's edit, of Lightfoot referred to, 121 Gaussen on the Canon referred to, 224 Gentiles, gift of tongues to, 75 Gentilism, its encroachments on Juda- ism, 36, 159. "George of the Gentiles," on use of Greek among the Jews, 57 Gerhard on original language of St Matthew's Gospel, 325 Gesenius on Josephus' knowledge of Hebrew, 52 ; on language of Phoe- nicia, 107 ; on disuse of ancient He- brew among Jev/s, in; on use of Targums by Christ, 114; on language of Samaria, 1 24 Gift of tongues, what, 72, 74 Glassii "Philologia Sacra" referred to, 377 Goethe on origin of Gospels, 553 Gospels, their general testimony to spread of Greek, 82, 99 ; special tes- timonies to, loi — 143; supposed Aramaic, 251 ; theories of origin of, 449, 492, theory of this work, 458; their true character, 495, 515 Greek language, its character, 26 ; dif- fusion of before the birth of Christ, ■29> 35 j its spread in Palestine, 35, 49> 53> 55, 64, 143; used by St Ste- phen, 178; in council of Jerusalem, 185 ; in Jewish ecclesiastical assem- blies, 191 ; in writing to Hebi-ews, 2 40 ; the only language in which Christ's teaching has been preserved, 249, 256 ; used by the exalted Re- deemer, 274; the constant language of Christ and his disciples, 275, 316, 519; interest of this fact, 523 Greeks seeking Christ, language of, 127; how dealt with, 128 Greg's " Creed of Christendom" referred to, 549 Greswell on the language of Palestine, 66, 284; on gift of tongues, 71; on loss of words of Christ, 249; on original language of St Matthew's Gospel, 319; on Greek Gospel of St Matthew, 360 ; referred to on double hypothesis, 447; 'on coinci- dences in Synoptic Gospels, 478 Griesbach's canons of criticism, 432 Grimm, Dr W., on 0. T. Apocrypha, 59, 61, 65 Grinfield on spread of Greek in Pales- tine, 79, 312, 314; on use of LXX 119; on speech of St Stephen, 177; on quotations in N. T., 265; on hymn of Virgin Mary, 270 Grotius on style of Epistle to Hebrews, 222; on use of terms Alpha and Omega, 274 Gruteri Inscriptiones quoted, 106 Hackett, Prof., on language of Lystra, 18 Hales, Dr, on statement of Irenajus re- specting St Matthew's Gospel, 409 ; on Bp. Marsh's hypothesis, 454 Hardouin on language of Palestine, 8 ; on original language of New Testa- ment, 69 36—2 564 INDEX. Havernick on disuse of Ancient He- bi-ew among the Jews, 1 1 1 Hebraistic idiom of N. T. 262, 364. Hebrew, ancient, little known to the Jews of the time of Christ, 97 ; date at which it ceased to be a living language, in; how far known to writers of N. T., 264; some charac- teristics of, 362 ; generally unknown to Fathers, 406 " Hebrew tongue," meaning of in N. T., 308 Hebrews, Gospel of, its character, 418; its origin, 422, 441 Hebrews who, as distinguished from Hellenists, 155, 158, 173, 184, 228 Hebrews, Epistle to, argument from to prevalence of Greek in Palestine, 70, 79, 80, 242 ; its literary character, 197; questions agitated regarding, 198; original language of, 199; au- thorship of, 200 ; different hypotheses respecting this, 208, 213, 219; its original destination, 227; different views respecting this, 233; conchision regarding, 236 Hegesippus on St James, 247 Heidegger on St Matthew's Gospel, 337 Heinsius on Greek of N. T., 256 Hellenists and Hebrews, who, 155, 175; different opinions regarding, 156 Hellenistic Greek, impropriety of term, 262 Helvetii employed Greek, 29 Hengstenberg on disuse of ancient He- brew among the Jews, 1 1 1, 280 Henoch, book of, 57 Herod Antipas, his Hellenic tendencies, 38 Herod the Great spoke in Greek, 54 Hertzog's " Real-Encyc." referred to, 52, 57, 112, 248, 294 Hilgenfeld referred to, 42 1 ; quoted on Gospel of Hebrews, 423 Historical criticism, principles of, 384, 392 Hody, Archdeacon, referred to, 295, 299 Hofman on St Matthew's Gospel, 337 Holkotus, Rob., quoted on poUcy of William the Conqueror towards the English, 39 Holy Spirit, his operations on the hu- man mind, 73, 541 Honert's Syntagma referred to, 72 Home's "Introd." referred to, 58, Co, 65, 240, 323 Horace quoted, 278, 403 Hug, Prof., on spread of Greek, 2j; on Hellenists and Hebrews, 157; on Origen's language respecting Epistle to Hebrews, 206 ; on original readers of Epistle to Hebrews, 229 ; on state- ments of Josephus, 290; on original language of St Matthew's Gospel, 325 ; on 0. T. quotations, in, 370 ; on St John's Gospel, 396 Hume's view of miracles referred to, 514 Ignatius wrote in Greek, 34; refeiTed to, 387 Importance of original inquiry on bib- Heal topics, 23; of question as to original language of St Matthew's Gospel, 548; of right views of in- spiration, 541 ; of question respecting origin of Gospels, 549 Independence of Synoptics, 45S, 474, 499» 550 Inductive reasoning applied to language of Christ, 15, 17 Inscriptions, Greek, in Palestine, 39, 46; on cross, 314 Inspiration, how to be viewed, 76, 470, 485, 540 Interdependence, supj^osed of Synop- tics, 477 Interest of conclusion as to language of Christ, 521 Interpreter, none between Christ and Pilate, or between Pilate and the Jews, 130, 134 Ionian Islands, linguistic condition of, 4 INDEX. 565 Irenaeus wrote in Greek, 34 ; his state- ment with respect to original lan- guage of St Matthew's Gospel con- sidered, 408 James, St, his use of Greek, 78; style of his Epistle, 244; his elegant diction accounted for, 246 Jeremiah, letter of, 61 Jerome on spread of Greek, 45 ; on original destination of Epistle to He- brews, 229 ; on source of O. T. quo- tations in St Matthew's Gospel, 369 ; on persons to whom supposed Hebrew Gospel of St Matthew was alone in- telligible, 406 ; his statements regard- ing original language of St Matthew's Gospel considered, 417 Jerusalem, council of, 183 Jerusalem -Syriac version of Gospels, 255, 271 Jews of Christ's day Z*;7i»^ucs, i, 20, 40, 66 John, St, his general use of Greek in reporting Christ's sayings, 89 ; was acquainted with the Synoptics, 394, 398; authenticity of his Gospel, 506; style of considered, 508; substance of his Gospel why different from Sy- noptics, 5ir, 512 John the Baptist used Greek, 270 John the Presbyter referred to, 404, 531 Jonathan, Targum of, 117 Jones on original language of St Mat- thew's Gospel, 325 ; " on the Canon" referred to, 387, 388; on authority of supposed Greek translation of St Matthew's Gospel, 546 Joppa, language of, 180 Josephus on Hellenism, 38, 45, 46 ; character of his works, 51, 288; his imperfect knowledge of ancient He- brew, 52 ; his testimony to spread of Greek in Palestine, 53 — 56; on cities of Decapolis, 103; on language of Tyre and Sidon, 104; on Samaritans, 123; his "Life" referred to, 159; objections derived from liis works to I general use of Greek in Palestine, 286, 2S8, 289, 291 Jost, his liistory of Judaism referred to, 46 ' ' Journal of Sacred Literature, " referred to> 265, 335, 389, 459 Jowett in "Essays and Reviews" re- ferred to, 24 ; on spread of Greek, 44 ; on quotations in N. T., 264; on origin of Gospels, 549 Judith, book of, 59 Justin Maz'tyr wrote in Greek, 34 Juvenal on use of Greek, 31, 32 Kirchhofer on statement of Pantfenus, 413; his "Quellensaminlung" re- ferred to, 419, 423; on authority of Apocalypse, 530 Lacedaemonians, correspondence of with Jews, 62 Lamius against Hardouin, 8; on Ara- maic expressions in Gospels, 90 Lange on the " widows " of primitive Church, 165; on Aceldama, 504; on source of 0. T. quotations in St Mat- thew's Gospel, 369 ; on unity of St Matthew's Gospel, 494 Languages, gradual changes in, 277; special causes favouring change in, 279 Lardner's " Credibility" referred to, 387 Latham on use of English language abroad, 2 Lechler on language of Galilee, 135, 149 Lee, Dr, on twofold original of St Matthew's Gospel, 443 ; on theories of origin of Gospels, 549 Legend, impossibility of its existence in canonical Gospels, 496, 517 Lewis, Sir G. C, on historical evidence, 39- " Life of Christ," expression remarked on, 501 Lightfoot on spread of Greek in Pales- 566 INDEX. tine, 49 ; on Targums, 121; on Rab- binical writings, 297 ; on dialect of Galilee, 313; on original language of St Matthew's Gospel, 334 "Literary Churchman" quoted, 109, •282, 301 Livy, his Roman history referred to, 384 "London Quarterly Review" quoted, 439 Liicke on St John's Gospel, 395 ; on authorship of Apocalypse, 531 Ludwig on original destination of Epis- tle to Hebrews, 234 Luke, St, his account of Sermon on Mount, 104; his nationality referred to, 170, 277; discussed, 491 ; his con- nexion with authorship of Ejjistle to Hebrews, 214, 221, 226; authenticity of his Gospel, 490 Luther on authorship of Epistle to He- brews, 215 Lyra on original destination of Epistle to Hebrews, 234 Lystra, linguistic condition of, 17, 19, Macaulay's, Lord, history quoted, 315 Maccabees, first book of, 61 ; second, 65, 123 Maltby, Bp., answers " PalaBoromaica," 9 ; on original language of N. T., 69; on influence of LXX on writers of N. T., 261 Mai, Cardinal, quoted, 435 Manasseh, prayer of, 61 Mark, St, supposed, date and purpose of his Gospel, 421; statements re- specting its original language, 422; its authenticity, 489; characteristic tendency of noted, 524 Marsh, Bp., on age of Peschito, 3S8; on origin of Gospels, 453 Martial on use of Greek, 31 Mary the Virgin, her song, 269 Mary Magdalene, her conversation with Christ, 140 Matthew, St, Gospel of, specially ad- dressed to Jews of Palestine, 81 ; opinions respecting original language of, 319, 321, 322 ; cause of contrariety of opinions, 326; principles of inquiry to be observed on dealing with ques- tion regarding, 328, 338, 344; ex- ternal proofs of originality of Greek ; 357) 380; its freedom from all the marks of translation, 361; quotations of 0. T. in, 366 ; explanations of He- brew terms in, 370; its universal, as well as special, destination, 374 ; La- tinistic forms in 375 ; use of imperfect tense in, 377 ; unusual Greek expres- sions in, 379 ; internal evidence in favour of originality of Greek, 388, 398; fluctuating opinions of fathers respecting its original language, 416; origin of the error regarding, 421 ; supposed discoveries of Hebrew ori- ginal, 425; hypothesis of a two-fold original of, 441; arguments against this hypothesis, 442, 445, 447 ; im- portance of question as to original language of, 548 Meuschen on Talmud referred to, 296 Michaelis on original language of Epis- tle to Hebrews, 69, 231; on Syriac and Chaldee languages, 122 ; on age of Peschito, 388 ; on authority of sup- posed Greek translation of St Mat- thew's Gospel, 546 Middleton, Bp., on original language of St Matthew's Gospel, 364 Migne, his " Ency. Theol," referred to, 85 Mill, Prof., on coincidences in Synoptic Gospels, 471 Milman, Dean, on language of Pales- tine, 10, 135, 311 ; on correspondence of Lacedaemonians with Jews, 62 ; on Hellenists and Hebrews, 157 ; on speech of Tertullus, 190; on language used in synagogues, 298 Milton's " Paradise Lost " referred to, 38 r Mischna, evidence of, as to use of Greek in Palestine, 49 INDEX. ^Q7 MolckenbuJir supports Hardouiu's views, 8 "Morning Post" on language of Ire- nseus, 34 Miiller, Max, Prof., on linguistic condi- tion of Rome, 32 ; on age of Targums, 116; on progressive changes in lan- guage, 278; his "Lectures on Lan- guage" referred to, 474 Muratori, Canon of, referred to, 224 Mynster, on original destination of Ep. to Hebrews, 234 Nares, on copying hypothesis referred to, 477 Narrative portions of Synoptic Gospels, coincidences in, how explained, 467 Nazarenes, who, 422 Neander on use of Greek by Apostles, 77 New Testament, chief soiirce of evidence as to language of Christ and the Apostles, 25 ; original language of, 69 Newton, Sir I., on original destination of Ep. to Hebrews, 233 Nosselt on ditto, 234 Norisius, his work on Syrian coins re- ferred to, 63 - Norton on coincidences in Synoptic Gospels, 464, 469 ; on copying hy- pothesis, 475, 477 Numismatic evidence as to spread of Greek in Palestine, 47 Olsliausen on supposed mockery of Christ by the Jews, 1 38 ; on two-fold origi- nal of St Matthew's Gospel, 443 ; referred to, 540 Origen on authorship of Ep. to He- brews, 205, 207, 210; on original language of St Matthew's Gospel, 413 Origin of Synoptical Gospels, true theory of, 458, 486; importance of the ques- tion, 548 Original-Gospel, what, 502 Original works, how distinguished from translations, 345, 348 Ovid, on use of Greek, 31, 34 Palestine, use of Greek in, 35, 42, 99, 142, 194, 241, 262, 306, 316, &c. ; why researches in so attractive, 521 Paley's "^schylus" quoted, 15 Pantsenus, his opinion respecting au- thorship of Ep. to Hebrews, 204 ; his statement respecting St Matthew's Gospel considei'ed, 41 1 Papias referred to, 354, 391 ; his state- ment respecting original language of St Matthew's Gospel considered, 404 Paronomasia in St Matthew's Gospel, supposed, 362 Paul, St, wrote in Greek to Romans, 34 ; his liberal spirit, 1 86 ; his use of Greek at Jerusalem, 189: his apolo- gies, 192; his connexion wdth Ep. to Hebrews, 226; narrative of conver- sion of, 272; language ^ in which addi-essed by Christ, 307 ; his speech in Hebrew to the Jews, 309 Paulus, Dr., on use of Greek in Pales- tine, 296; on origin of error of fa- thers respecting original language of St Matthew's Gospel, 42 1 Pentecost, miracle of, what, 73, 147 People, common of Palestine used Greek, 133, &c. Peschito Syriac on meaning of ^e??e?iisfe, 155 ; reading of, at Acts xi. 20, 172 ; its rendering of soldiers by Romans, 271 ; referred to on use of imperfect tense, 378, 379; its testimony in favour of authenticity of St Matthew's Gospel, 388; of the four Gospels, 489 ; referred to, 526, 529 Peter St., spoke in Greek, 71, 151, 153, 180 Pfannkuche, Dr, on language of Pales- tine, 7 ; erroneous statements of, 48, 50, 66; on Ai-amaic expressions in Gospels, 87 ; on Hellenists and He- brews, 157 ; on the language in which St Paul was addressed by Christ, 307 Philip the evangelist, 163, 179 Philo on Hellenism, 45 ; character of his works, 50; his ignorance of ancient Hebrew, 51 568 INDEX. Pilate, intercourse of with Christ and people of the Jews, how conducted, Plato compared to St John, 513 Plutarch on influence of Alexander the Great, 45 Poli Synopsis, quoted, 322, 425 Polycarp, referred to, 387 Porter, Rev. J. L. on Greek inscriptions in Palestine, 47 Pressens^ on gift of tongues, 149 Protestants, dogmatic prejudices of, 323 ; the distinction which they make between irerpos and -n-irpa remarked on, 528 Providence, divine, illustrated in spread of Greek language, 8i ; how to be judged of by us, 329, 336 Quotations from 0. T. in what language made by Christ, no, 113, IT9; by the common people of the Jews, 113; in St Matthew's Gospel, 366 JRabbinical writers on LXX, 24, 296 ; on disuse of ancient Hebrew among Jews, 1 1 1 Keconciling theory as to St Matthew's Gospel, 322, 441; untenable, 445, 537 Eenan on language of Christ, 12, 497; on knowledge of ancient Hebrew pos- sessed by Philo and Josephus, 5 1 ; on Targums of O. T. 11 4, 120; on Samaritan Pentateuch, 124 ; on origi- nal Aramaic Gospels, 251 ; on spread of Jews in Babylonia, 301 ; his "Vie de J^sus," 487 ; his view of authen- ticity of Gospels, 488 ; of St Luke's Gospel, 490; of origin of Gospels, 492, 494, 498 ; of St John's Gospel, 502, 510; his final estimate of the Gospels, 513; his view of miracles, 514 Reuss on Hellenism, 46 ; on Syriac and Chaldee languages, 122; on Ep. to Hebrews, 2 1 2 Revelation, divine, proper attribute of man towards, 331 Rinck on original destination of Ep. to Hebrews, 234 Robinson on statement of Irensus re- specting St Matthew's Gospel, 409 Rohr on language used by Christ and Mary Magdalene, 142 Roman soldiers used Greek, 31, 54, 188, 270, 272 Romanists, dogmatic prejudices of, 212, 323 Rome, ancient, its linguistic condition, 31 ; its population, 32 Roth on original destination of Ep. to Hebrews, 234 Salmasius on Greek of N. T. 256 Samaria, language of, 123, 124,- woman of, her conversation with Chriat, 122 Samaritans, Hellenic tendencies of, 123 " Satm-day Review " quoted, 126 Scaliger on Acts vi. 2, 164 SchafF, Dr, on St Peter's Pentecostal speech, 152; on Syriac word for rod; Schleiermacher referred to, 405 ; on origin of Gospels, 552 Schlosser on spread of Greek, 34 Scholiast, ancient, referred to on Hellen- ists, 156 Scholtz on additions to book of Esther, 59 Scythopolis a Greek city, 55, 103 Seetzen on Greek inscriptions in Pales- tine, 47 Seleucidas encouraged use of Greek, 63 Semler on original destination of Ep. to Hebrews, 234 Seneca on spread of Greek, 29, 31 Septuagiut, the source of quotations in N. T. no, 118, 122; variations of from Hebrew text accounted for, 119, 150; followed exclusively in Ep. to Hebrews, 233 ; its influence over writers of N. T. 260; how far used by sacred writers, 262, 266 ; read in synagogues of Palestine, 292, 297, 299; book of compared with Greek Gospel of St Matthew, 362 ; character INDEX. 5G9 of it as a translation, 365 ; bow quot- pd in St Matthew's Gospel, 368 Sermon on the Mount, original language of, 100; to whom addressed, 102 Simon, Father, his Critical History referred to, 299 ; on use of Greek in Palestine, 312; on original language of St Matthew's Gospel, 352 Sinaitic Codex, reading of, at Acts xi. 20, 172 Smith's " Dictionary of the Bible " re- ferred to, 105, 355, 473, 484 Socrates as represented by Xenophon and Plato respectively, 513 Soldiers in Palestine, who, 271; used Greek, 54, 272 Song of the Tliree Children, 6r Sources of evidence as to language of Christ and the Apostles, 22 Spanheim on ancient coins, 48 Sperling on language of Phcenicia, 107 Stanley, Dean, his "Sermons on the Apostolic age" refeiTed to, 24; his "Lectures on Jewish Church" quot- ed, 295; his "Sermons in the East" quoted, 300 Stein on original destination of Ep. to Hebrews, 234 Stephen, St, charge against, 161 ; his speech before Sanhedrim, 177 Stephen, Sir J., on language of Chi'ist, 527 Storr on original destination of Ep. to Hebrews, 234 Strabo referred to, 142 Strauss, his recent "Life of Christ" re- ferred to, 503 Stuart, Prof., on original destination of Ep. to Hebrews, 231 ; on original language of St Matthew's Gospel, 323 ; on character of Credner as a critic, 350 ; on Greek Gospel of St Matthew, 361; referred to on Gospel of He- brews, 423 Style of sacred writers, 76, 257, 288 Suetonius on use of Greek, 30, 31 Surenhusius, Mischna by, 49, 290; his "^/jSXos KaTaWayrjs," 264 Susanna, story of, 6r Synagogues in Jerusalem, 171; use of LXX in, 299 Synoptical Gospels, coincidences of, con- sidered, 465 ; diversities in, 473 ; their form explained, 500; compared with St John's Gospel, 509, 513 Syria cis Euphratem, Greek the lan- guage of, 62 "Syriac Gospels," Cureton's, origin of, 439 Syriac language supposed to have been used by Christ, 522 Syriac priest, discussion with Dr C. Bu- chanan, 252 Syro-Chaldaic dialect, what, 122; sup- posed version of N. T. in, 255 Tacitus on general use of Greek, 29, 31, 33 ; on policy of Epiphanes towards the Jews, 38; on language of An- tiooh, 6^ ; on character and conduct of the early Christians, 385, 400 "Talitha Cumi," its occurrence explain- ed, 92 Talmud, exaggerated importance ascrib- ed to some of its statements, 295 Targums of O. T., 1 15, 300 Tei-tullian on authorshijj of Ep. to He- brews, 213 Tertullus, speech of, 190 Textual criticism, its object and import- ance, 547 Theories of origin of Gospels, 457 ; how to be judged of, 551 Thesis of this work, i, 5, 16, 40, &c. Thiersch on language of Palestine, 10; on Hellenists and Hebrews, 157; on Ep. of James, 244; on Greek ofN.T., 260; on influence of LXX, 261 ; on original language of St Matthew's Gospel, 323, 405 Tholuck on Sermon on Mount, 102 ; on authorship of Ep. to Hebrews, 215; on original destination of, 229 Thomson, Abp., on original lanfuao-e of St Matthew's Gospel, 355 "Times" quoted, 91, 429 570 INDEX. Tobit, book of, 58 Townson on original language of St Matthew's Gospel, 323; on Latinis- tic forms in, 376 Tradition, how to be judged of, 409 Translation, marks of, 345 ; difficulties of, 360 Tregelles, Dr, on Jerusalem-Syriac ver- sion of Gospels, 255; on original lan- guage of St Matthew's Gospel, 319, 325, 335 ; his method of reasoning on, 338, 341, 401 ; on original and trans- lated works, 346 ; on internal charac- ter of Greek Gospel of St Matthew, 358 ; on explanations of Hebrew terms in, 371; on external evidence, 383; on authority of Greek Gospel of St Matthew, 386 ; his accusation against defenders of (ireek original, 389 ; his acceptance of DrCureton's views, 428; on theory of two-fold original of St Matthew's Gospel, 445 ; on coinci- dences in Synoptic Gospels, 483 ; his explanation of these, 485 ; his reason- ing in defence of supposed Gi'eek translation of StMatthew's Gospel, 538 Trench; Abp., on language of Palestine, 85 ; on Aramaic expressions used by Christ, 88 ; on population of Decapo- lis, 103; on Hellenists and Hebrews, 174; on evidence of a divine revela- tion, 332 ; on distinctions to be made between Greek terms in the Gospels, 538 Unusual Greek expressions in St Mat- thew's Gospel, 379; in Synoptical Gospels, 452 Urevangelium supposed in Aramaic, 450; theory of, examined, 472 Vaillant on spread of Greek in Syria, 63 Valerius Maximus on use of Greek, 30, 33 Vatican MS. referred to, 435 Virgin Mary, hymn of, 269 Vitringa on language used in syna- gogues of Palestine, 298 Vossius, Is., on language of Palestine, 10, 41 ; on original language of St Matthew's Gospel, 42; on use of LXX in synagogues, 299 ; on purpose for which he supposes St Matthew's Gos- pel to have been written in Hebrew, 356, 393 Wahl on Hellenists and Hebrews, 157 Walchius on language of Irenseus, 35 Wall on original destination of Ep. to Hebrews, 233 Walpole on use of Greek, 34 Walton, Bp, on policy of conquerors, 39; on disuse of ancient Hebrew among the Jews, 1 1 1 ; on language used in synagogues of Palestine, 300; on language used by Christ, 522 Weiss on origin of Gospels, 456 Westcott, Rev. B. F., on language of Christ, 10; on O.T. Apocrypha, 57; his " Introduction " referred to, 484 ; on " Antilegomena " of N. T., 539 "Westminster Review" quoted, 14, 2S2; referred to, 475 Wetstein quoted, 411 ; referred to, 423 Wieseler on authorship of Ep. to He- brews, 213; on original destination of, 235 Winer on language of Palestine, 13, 85 ; on Decapolis, 103; on Hellenists and Hebrews, 157; on Ep. of James, 244; on difference in customs of earlier and later synagogues, 297 ; on Targum of Onkelos, 300; on original language ofN.T., 366 Wisdom, book of, 60 Wiseman, Card., on use of Greek in Palestine, 53 Wood, Rob., on Greek inscriptions in Palestine, 47 Words of Christ, interest of possessing, 520, 536 Wordsworth, Dr, on language of Lys- tra, 18, 193 ; on spread of Greek, 28; on gift of tongues, 74 ; on speech of St Stephen, 177; on authorship of Ep. to Hebrews, 204 ; on St John's INDEX. 571 Gospel, 396; on statement of Ire- najus respecting St Matthew's Gospel, 409 Xenius Jupiter, name of Samaritan temple, 123 Xenophon compared to Synoptics, 513 Zedler's "Universal-Lexicon" quoted 337, 425 Zunz on Targums, 117, 300; referred to, 295 ; on estimation in which Greek was held in Palestine, 296 CAMBRIDGE: PlllNTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. K BS2555.4 .R64 1864 Discussions on the Gospels in two parts Princeton Theological Semmary-Speer Library 1 1012 00055 9502 Date Due J A ^ f) ^ 1212CD,. 323 B7-24-e7 32180 MS ^\