ilipV 
 Bipv ■'■■■• 
 
 "2)5242 
 
 
Shelf. 
 
 /.e.J.-'-"" 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. "^' 
 
 i 
 
 Division X).0 J^'^.K- \ 
 
 iSAf^«;?f»r.....'..o. o......^..O Cb 
 
 Mumker 
 
 i 
 

';/*/ 
 
 n 
 
 1 
 
GREEK THE LANGUAGE OF CHRIST 
 
A SHORT PROOF THAT GREEK 
 
 WAS THE 
 
 LANGUAGE OF CHRIST 
 
 BY 
 
 / 
 
 Pkofessor ROBERTS, D.D. 
 
 St. Andrews 
 
 ALEXANDER GARDNER 
 
 Publisher to Her Majesty the Queen 
 PAISLEY; and PATERNOSTER SQUARE, LONDON 
 
 1893 
 
PREFATORY NOTE. 
 
 It has been suggested to me that many, 
 who are not hkely ever to meet with my 
 large work on the Language habitually 
 spoken by Christ, might welcome a little 
 treatise like the present. I here confine 
 myself to a single argument. That argu- 
 ment I believe to be of itself conclusive. 
 If I am wrong in holding such a belief, 
 my error will, doubtless, soon be demon- 
 strated by the critics. 
 
6 Prefatory Note. 
 
 Prefixed to the argument, I have in 
 Chapter I. given a brief history of the 
 question, so far as I am personally con- 
 cerned. 
 
 A. E. 
 
 University, St. Andrews, 
 April 20, 1893. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 CHAPTER I., - - - - 9 
 
 Sketch of the History of the Question 
 as respects the present writer. 
 
 CHAPTER n., - - - - 23 
 
 A People's Bible circulated in Palestine 
 in the time of Christ. 
 
 CHAPTER III., - - - - 33 
 
 The Hebrew Original was not the People's 
 Bible in the time of Christ. 
 
8 Contents. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 CHAPTER IV., - - - - 49 
 
 An Aramaic Version of the Hebrew 
 Original was not the People's Bible in 
 the time of Christ. 
 
 CHAPTER v., - - - - 68 
 
 The Greek Version of the Old Testa- 
 ment was the People's Bible in the time 
 of Christ. 
 
 CHAPTER VI., - - - - 97 
 
 Greek was the Language of Christ. 
 
GREEK THE LANGUAGE OF CHRIST. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 SKETCH OF THE HISTORY OF THE QUESTION 
 AS RESPECTS THE PRESENT WRITER. 
 
 It has been usual to regard the Greek 
 Gospels as containing mere translations of 
 the words of Christ. He is supposed to 
 have really spoken some Hebrew dialect, 
 of which no very definite description can 
 be given. Some have called it Syriac, 
 
10 Greek the Language of Christ. 
 
 others Syro-Chaldaic, and others Aramaic. 
 But, as is pretty widely known, I have 
 laboured for many years to show that all 
 such views are mistaken, and Lave endea- 
 voured in numerous writings to prove that 
 Greek was, in reality, the language used 
 by Christ throughout the whole course of 
 His public ministry. 
 
 To that opinion I still firmly adhere, 
 and even yet, notwithstanding all the 
 opposition I have met with, I am san- 
 guine enough to hope that I may win 
 over to my side not a few of the readers 
 of this little work, and that by means of 
 a very simjDle argument. Before, however, 
 proceeding to state that argument, I de- 
 
Greek the Language of Christ. 11 
 
 sire to give a brief sketch of the history 
 of this question, so far as I am personally 
 concerned. 
 
 My first publication on the subject 
 dates so far back as 1859. It was en- 
 titled — " Inquiry into the Original Lang- 
 uage of St. Matthew's Gospel ; with 
 relative discussions on the Language of 
 Palestine in the time of Christ, and on 
 the Origin of the Gospels." This work 
 contained the germ of the whole argument 
 which I developed in subsequent publica- 
 tions. In it I took up the position which 
 I have ever since maintained, that Greek 
 was the language made use of by Christ 
 
12 Greeh the Language of Christ. 
 
 in all His public intercoui^se with His 
 disciples and others. I remember well the 
 struggle it cost me to work round to this 
 belief from the opinion which was then 
 held by all the highest Biblical authorities. 
 But the evidence appeared to me de- 
 cisive. And, in looking now at this 
 production of more than thirty years ago, 
 I feel that, while it bears in it too clearly 
 the marks of youthful indiscretion, the 
 proofs which I brought forward of the 
 prevalence of Greek in Palestine at the 
 period in question were even then con- 
 clusive. The work, however, attracted 
 very little attention, and, though kindly 
 spoken of by some able writers, such as 
 
Greek the Language of Christ. 13 
 
 Dean Mansel and Isaac Taylor, was, in 
 general, treated with contempt. 
 
 Pursuing my researches, I next pub- 
 lished in 1862 the first edition of my 
 " Discussions on the Gospels." Many 
 additional arguments were presented in 
 this work to show that Greek was the 
 habitual language of Christ. And it 
 certainly fared much better than its pre- 
 decessor. It brought me valuable recogni- 
 tion and encouragement from various 
 quarters. But, as was to be expected in 
 the case of a book running counter to 
 views so long entertained, prejudice (as I 
 could not but regard it) still proved, in 
 most cases, superior to argument. 
 
14 Greek the Language of Christ, 
 
 Now, however, two notable events 
 occurred in my experience. The first was 
 the appearance of a long and laudatory 
 notice of my work in the Saturday 
 Review (Nov. 29, 1862). In the judgment 
 of the learned writer of that article, I had 
 fully succeeded in proving my point. 
 " The result," he said, " at which Mr. 
 Roberts arrives is that ' Christ spoke for 
 the most part in Greek, and only now 
 and then in Aramaic,' and he establishes 
 this conclusion by an amount of evidence 
 which can hardly leave a doubt in the 
 minds of unprejudiced readers." I may 
 add that another of my reviewers spoke 
 of the question I had discussed as being 
 
Greek the Language of Christ. 15 
 
 absolutely " settled," and henceforth to be 
 reckoned among those subjects which John 
 Foster used to describe as " laid on the 
 shelf," — admitting of no further contro- 
 versy or hesitation. But alas ! I have 
 found the fact far otherwise. I had at 
 that time, after all, only made — 
 
 " that foot-print upon sand 
 Which old-recurring waves of prejudice 
 Re-smooth to nothing " — 
 
 and, after the lapse of an entire genera- 
 tion, I still feel it necessary to do battle 
 for what, as some said, was so long ago 
 shown to be the truth. 
 
 The other event to which I have re- 
 ferred, was the receipt of a most kind, 
 
16 Greek tlie Language of Christ. 
 
 and indeed, far too flattering letter from 
 the celebrated Lord Lytton on the subject 
 of my book. I have often been urged by 
 friends to publish this letter ; but for 
 reasons which will easily be understood, 
 have hitherto refrained. In now at length 
 yielding to their advice, I am influenced 
 by more than one consideration. I wish, 
 ere finishing my term of active service on 
 the field of literature, to put on record 
 my strong obligations to Lord Lytton for 
 his generous appreciation of the work of 
 one who was to him an absolute stranger; 
 and I desire also, through means of this 
 letter, to furnish a practical reply to those 
 writers who still deem my argument 
 
Greek the Language of Christ. 17 
 
 worthy only of ridicule or neglect. The 
 letter was as follows : — 
 
 Knebworth, Stevenage, 
 Jan. 22, 1864. 
 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 I am fairly in your book at 
 p. 109, and I cannot read farther without 
 conveying to you my thanks for sending 
 it to me, and my cordial, and I may say 
 enthusiastic admiration, of what appears to 
 me one of the ablest masterpieces of 
 critical controversy which our age has 
 produced. 
 
 I cannot pretend to speak as a Biblical 
 scholar, but one of the great merits of 
 the work seems to me that, merely 
 assuming the authorities given to be fairly 
 
18 Greek the Language of Christ. 
 
 cited, the main argument is so clearly 
 stated, and so logically enforced, that I 
 am not sure that a Biblical scholar will 
 be a better judge of its value than any 
 other educated reader. The fine temper, 
 the candour, and the dignity of mildness 
 which you exhibit towards those who 
 take different views, appear to me the 
 perfection of controversy on subjects so 
 sacred. 
 
 You cannot over-rate the interest of 
 the question on which you display such 
 masterly power of reasoning. I can con- 
 ceive no question, indeed, appertaining to 
 the department of high criticism, more 
 interesting than the consideration — What 
 was the language in which words that 
 have changed the face of the civilized 
 universe were uttered — How near do we 
 approach to the ipsissima verba in which 
 
Greek the Language of Christ. 19 
 
 the sermon on the Mount was dehvered ? 
 And to my mind, our reverence for the 
 Gospels, and even the respect with which 
 a Deist of fine understanding would view 
 them, are increased by all that tends to 
 render it probable that we are not read- 
 ing- that paraphrase which words rendered 
 into another language from that in which 
 they were spoken can scarcely fail to be, 
 but viewing the mind that spake in the 
 language it employed. 
 
 Allow me to add that, before I began 
 your book, I was one among the many 
 who took it for granted that our Lord 
 spoke the vernacular Hebrew or Aramaic 
 of the time, and that I had therefore a 
 prejudgment against your proposition, 
 which has kept my attention to its 
 development more alive. 
 
 I cannot, of course, yet say whether, on 
 
20 Greek the Language of Christ. 
 
 concluding the book, you will have gained 
 me to your side, or dispelled all the 
 doubts that now suggest themselves to 
 me. But sure I am that no future writer 
 on this subject, of an intellect worthy to 
 treat it, whether with you or against you, 
 can fail to refer to your work with 
 profound respect. Comfort yourself if it be 
 slow to make its way. I am persuaded 
 that it is among the books of our time 
 which will last, and influence the minds 
 of those who come after us. 
 
 Perhaps the German critics will be the 
 first to appreciate its value, and to make 
 that value more conceded by English 
 critics. 
 
 I repeat my thanks for one of the 
 highest delights I know of in this world, 
 viz : — the first introduction to a great 
 
Greek the Language of Christ. 21 
 
 intellect, duly disciplined and nobly em- 
 ployed. 
 
 Yours, my dear sir, 
 
 With all truth and respect, 
 
 E. B. I.YTTON. 
 
 I do not, of course, here enter on any 
 lengthened or comprehensive discussion of 
 the question which the above letter 
 describes as so full of interest. That I 
 have done elsewhere, and those who are 
 attracted to its consideration will find it 
 set forth in all its bearing's in my large 
 work entitled, " Greek the Language of 
 Christ and his Apostles." As has been 
 already suggested, all that I intend at 
 present is to touch upon one argument, 
 
22 Greek the Language of Christ, 
 
 which appears to me of itself conclusive. 
 And all that I request for it is the calm, 
 unbiassed consideration of those who may- 
 honour me with the perusal of this little 
 work. 
 
23 
 
 CHAPTER IL 
 
 A people's bible circulated in pales- 
 tine IN THE TIME OF CHRIST. 
 
 Every reader of the Gospels must have 
 noticed how frequently and how freely our 
 Lord appeals to " the Scriptures," or " the 
 Writings/' — ypacpai — in addressing even 
 the humblest of the people. Thus at St. 
 Mark xii. 35-37, we read, " And Jesus 
 answered and said while He taught in the 
 temple, How say the scribes that Christ 
 is the son of David ? For David himself 
 said by the Holy Ghost, The Lord said 
 
24 Greek the Language of Christ. 
 
 to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 
 till I make thine enemies thy footstool. 
 David therefore himself calleth him Lord ; 
 and whence is He then his Son ? And 
 the common people heard him gladly." 
 Here we find the people at large — 6 iroKvg 
 6x^09 — spoken of as quite easily under- 
 standing and following Christ, when He 
 quoted and commented on a passage from 
 the Old Testament. 
 
 Again, at St. Luke xxiv,, 27, we find it 
 stated that Christ, in speaking to two of 
 His disciples, " expounded to them in all 
 the Scriptures the things concerning Him- 
 self." Here, the expression " in all the 
 Scriptures " is especially noticeable, imply- 
 
Greek the Language of Christ. 25 
 
 ing, as it does, that the disciples referred 
 to had the whole of the sacred volume at 
 their command. They were acquainted 
 with no mere selections from the Old 
 Testament, but could intelligently compre- 
 hend the evangelical teachings of their 
 Master as He explained to them in the 
 various inspired books — ev irda-aig Tai<i 
 ypacpaig — those things which had been 
 written beforehand respecting Himself. 
 
 Moreover, His oft-repeated question, 
 " Have ye not read ? " takes for granted 
 the same intimate acquaintance with the 
 ancient Scriptures. Thus, to give only 
 one example, we find at St. Matthew xii. 
 
 1-5, the following passage which evidently 
 
 2 
 
26 Greek the Language of Christ. 
 
 implies familiarity with the Old Testament 
 in a written form, on the part both of 
 the disciples and the Pharisees, " At that 
 time Jesus went on the Sabbath Day 
 through the corn ; and his disciples were 
 an hungred, and began to pluck the ears 
 of corn, and to eat. But when the Phari- 
 sees saw^ it, they said unto Him, Behold 
 Thy disciples do that which is not lawful 
 to do upon the Sabbath Day. But He 
 said unto them. Have ye not read — Om 
 aveyvcore ; — what David did, when he was 
 an hungred, and they that were with 
 him ; how he entered into the house of 
 God, and did eat the shewbread, which 
 was not lawful for him to eat, neither for 
 
Greek the Language of Chnst. 27 
 
 them which were with him, but only for 
 the priests ? Or have ye not read in the 
 law, how that on the Sabbath Days the 
 priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, 
 and are blameless ? " 
 
 And now let us look at the matter in 
 a somewhat different light. The people, 
 for their part, were quite able and ready, 
 when occasion arose, to quote from the 
 ancient Scriptures. Thus at St. Luke 
 XX., 27, 28, we read, "Then came to Him 
 certain of the Sadducees, which deny that 
 there is any resurrection ; and they asked 
 Him saying, Master, Moses lorote unto us, 
 If any man's brother die, having a wife, 
 and he die without children, that his 
 
28 Greek the Language of Christ. 
 
 brother should take his wife, and raise up 
 seed unto his brother." Again, at St. 
 John ii., 17, we are told respecting the 
 disciples of Christ, that they " remembered 
 that it was ivritten, The zeal of thine 
 house hath eaten me up." Once more, we 
 find the common people — 6 o-xXo? — with 
 the greatest ease and naturalness, intro- 
 ducing into their discourse a quotation 
 from the Old Testament at St. John vi., 
 31. The context is as follows, — " When 
 the people therefore saw that Jesus was 
 not there, neither His disciples, they also 
 took shipping, and came to Capernaum, 
 seeking for Jesus. And when they had 
 found Him on the other side of the sea, 
 
Greek the Language of Christ. 29 
 
 they said unto Him, Rabbi, when earnest 
 thou hither ? Jesus answered them and 
 said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye 
 seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, 
 but because ye did eat of the loaves, and 
 were filled. Labour not for the meat 
 which perisheth, but for that meat which 
 endureth unto everlasting life, which the 
 Son of Man shall give unto you : for Him 
 hath God the Father sealed. Then said 
 they unto Him, What shall we do, that 
 we might work the works of God ? Jesus 
 answered and said unto them. This is the 
 work of God, that ye believe on Him 
 whom He hath sent. They said therefore 
 unto Him, what sign she west thou then. 
 
30 Greek the Language of Christ. 
 
 that we may see, and believe thee ? 
 What dost thou work ? Our fathers did 
 eat manna in the desert ; as it is ivritten. 
 He gave them bread from heaven to eat." 
 
 Now, it is surely a clear and necessary 
 inference from the above and other similar 
 passages, that, at the period in question, 
 the Old Testament Scriptures, as a whole, 
 were well known to the nation of the 
 Jews. These manifestly circulated among 
 them in some ivritten form with which 
 they were quite familiar. The sacred 
 writings were obviously not in the hands 
 exclusively of any sacerdotal or literary 
 caste. They were spread everywhere 
 
Greek the Language of Christ. 31 
 
 throughout the land, and could be 
 appealed to by any public teacher in 
 addressing all sorts of hearers, with the 
 assurance that they would at once be 
 appreciated and understood. 
 
 No reader, I believe, will hesitate for a 
 moment as to this conclusion. Universally 
 it will be granted, on the ground of what 
 has been said above, that the entire 
 Scriptures of the Old Testament were 
 then well known in Palestine. Every Jew 
 had access to them in a written form ; 
 could quote from them as occasion re- 
 quired ; and easily understood any refer- 
 ences which were made to them in his 
 hearing. So much results, as a matter 
 
32 Greek the Language of Christ. 
 
 of course, from a simple perusal of the 
 Gospels. 
 
 What, then, ivas the ivritten form in 
 which the Old Testament then circulated 
 amo7ig the Jews f 
 
33 
 
 CHAPTEH III. 
 
 the hebrew original was not the 
 people's bible in the time op 
 
 CHRIST. 
 
 It may surprise some readers, who have 
 not given much attention to the subject, 
 to be told that the nation of the Jews 
 in the days of Christ certainly did not 
 read the sacred writings in the ancient 
 Hebrew language. But that the case was 
 so stands beyond all doubt. Nothing is 
 more harmoniously agreed upon by Bib- 
 lical scholars at the present day, than 
 
34 Greek the Language of Christ. 
 
 that ancient Hebrew was then a dead 
 language, so far as the people at large 
 were concerned. It continued to be 
 studied by experts as the tongue in 
 which the Old Testament books had been 
 composed, but beyond the circle of such 
 scholars it was neither understood nor 
 spoken. What is called "Hebrew" in 
 the New Testament (Acts xxi. 40, xxii., 
 2, etc.,) was a totally different dialect. 
 It seems to have been a kind of patois, 
 formed from a mixture of Chaldee and 
 Syriac, with perhaps some other elements. 
 This sort of vernacular speech, which 
 existed side by side with the Greek 
 language, has never been better described 
 
Greek the Language of Christ. 35 
 
 than by the learned Father Simon to the 
 following effect : — " It is certain that the 
 language which is called Hebrew in the 
 New Testament is not properly either 
 Hebrew, or Syriac, or even Chaldaic, but 
 consists of a certain mixture of Hebrew 
 and Chaldee or Babylonian." '"" And it is 
 to be noted that the familiar use of this 
 impure Hebrew dialect left the people at 
 large utterly helpless when they were 
 
 * Hist. Grit. d. Text du Nouv. Test. p. 65. The kind of 
 Hebrew dialect which existed alongside of the Greek in the 
 time of Christ, and from which He sometimes borrowed a 
 word or two, was certainly not pure Aramaic. This is clearly- 
 shown by the manner in which such so-called Hebrew 
 expressions are transliterated into Greek. 
 
36 Greek the Language of Christ. 
 
 confronted with the true Hebrew of the 
 Old Testament. 
 
 Let it be observed, then, that the 
 " people's Bible " in the time of Christ 
 could not possibly have been found in the 
 original Hebrew text, for that was then 
 to the nation generally a dead letter. 
 Opinions differ among scholars as to the 
 exact date at which ancient Hebrew 
 ceased to be the common language of the 
 Jews. But those who are best entitled 
 to speak with authority on the subject 
 declare with almost one voice, that, for 
 a century at least before our era, Bibli- 
 cal Hebrew had ceased to be used in 
 writing, as it had previously ceased to 
 
Greek the Language of Christ. 37 
 
 be used in speech ; and that, though it 
 continued, as I have said, to be studied 
 by professed adepts as the language of 
 the sacred books, it was, in the time of 
 Christ, totally unknown to the great body 
 of the Jewish people. 
 
 Those readers who have not hitherto 
 had their attention specially turned to 
 this question will naturally desire to have 
 set before them the opinions of some 
 scholars whom all regard as supreme 
 authorities on such a point. And it may 
 be well therefore, here to bring forward a 
 few decisive statements from Hebraists of 
 the first rank, especially since there is a 
 strong tendency frequently evinced by 
 
38 Greek the Language of Christ. 
 
 mere popular writers on Scripture, and 
 even by some who should know better, to 
 suggest that the Jews of our Lord's day 
 did understand the ancient Hebrew, "^^ and 
 that, accordingly, it was through that 
 medium they became acquainted with the 
 books of the Old Testament. I trust, 
 then, that the following quotations from 
 works of writers of the highest standing 
 will be sufficient to guard every reader 
 from accepting such an erroneous opinion. 
 Ewald, one of the greatest of modern 
 
 * I may refer e.g., to a learned writer in the Church 
 Quarterly Review (April, 1887, p. 160), who in opposing my 
 views, maintains that the ancient Hebrew was then "univer- 
 sally known among the people ! " 
 
Greek the Language of Christ. 39 
 
 Hebrew scholars, declares that " the 
 Hebrew in the last centuries before Christ 
 became more and more an antique lang- 
 uage, and was acquired only by special 
 study." 
 
 De Wette writes : — " After the exile, 
 the Hebrew language gradually ceased to 
 be heard from the lips of the people, and 
 continued to survive only as the language 
 of learning and literature." 
 
 And Bleek, referring to the times of 
 Christ, remarks — " The ancient Hebrew 
 had already for a long time been, even 
 to the Jews of Palestine, a dead language, 
 the knowledge of which, so far as it was 
 necessary for the reading of the Holy 
 
40 Greek the Language of Christ. 
 
 Scriptures, continued only among those 
 who were devoted to such a special 
 study." 
 
 Quotations to the same effect might be 
 indefinitely multiplied from other eminent 
 scholars. But that appears needless, and 
 I shall merely add that views identical 
 with the above have been expressed by 
 Winer, Gesenius, Deutsch, and almost 
 every writer who has a claim to be heard 
 upon the subject. 
 
 In support of the conclusion which has 
 been stated, I may refer to an illustration 
 which will be intelligible to all. Josephus, 
 the well-known Jewish historian, was dis- 
 tinguished for his learning above most of 
 
Greek the Language of Christ. 41 
 
 his contemporaries. He says tliat this was 
 generally admitted. " Those of my own 
 nation," he tells us (Antiq., xx., 11, 2), 
 " willingly acknowledge that I far surpass 
 them in the learning belonging to the 
 Jews." This, then, is the very man of 
 all others likely to be well acquainted with 
 the ancient Hebrew, if that were at all 
 generally known among the Jews, Yet, 
 it is certain that Josephus had but a 
 slender acquaintance with the language. 
 He depends more in his writings on the 
 Greek translation of the Old Testament 
 than on the original text, and his etymo- 
 logical and other blunders are of the 
 grossest conceivable character. Eeferring 
 
42 Greeh the Language of Christ. 
 
 both to him and Philo, Renan remarks : — 
 " The explanations which they give of 
 certain Hebrew words surpass the strangest 
 hallucinations of the ancients on the field 
 of etymology." Here, then, we have a 
 crucial case. If a scholar so distinguished 
 among his contemporaries for Jewish learn- 
 ing as Josephus, is proved, after all, to 
 have been very deficient in a knowledge 
 of ancient Hebrew, there can be no hesi- 
 tation in concluding that to the community 
 at large those were sealed books which 
 were written in that language. 
 
 Another consideration may be added to 
 prove that the ancient Hebrew Scriptures 
 
Greek the Language of Christ. 43 
 
 could not have constituted the " people's 
 Bible " in the time of Christ. Not one 
 Jew in a hundred, to say the least, could 
 have afforded to purchase a Hebrew copy 
 even of the Law, far less of the entire 
 Scriptures. Greek books, on the other 
 hand, as we know from abundant evidence, 
 were produced at a very low rate, and 
 might easily be procured by almost the 
 poorest of the people. 
 
 Some pertinent statements on this point 
 occur in Dr. Edersheim's Life and Times 
 of Jesus the Messiah. He remarks (Vol. 
 i., 23, 24) : — " From the extreme labour 
 and care bestowed on them, Hebrew manu- 
 scripts of the Bible were enormously dear, 
 
44 Greek the Language of Christ. 
 
 as we infer from a curious Talmudical 
 notice, where a common woollen wrap, 
 which, of course, was very cheap, a copy 
 of the Psalms, of Job, and torn pieces 
 from Proverbs, are together valued at five 
 minahs, say, about £19. Although this 
 notice dates from the third or fourth cen- 
 tury, it is not likely that the cost of 
 Hebrew Biblical MSS. was much lower 
 at the time of Jesus. This would, of 
 course, put their possession well-nigh out 
 of common reach. On the other hand, we 
 are able to form an idea of the cheapness 
 of Greek manuscripts from what we know 
 of the price of books in Rome at the 
 beginning of our era. Hundreds of slaves 
 
Greek the Language of Christ. 45 
 
 were there engaged copying what one 
 dictated. The result was not only the 
 publication of as large editions as in our 
 days, but their production at only about 
 double the cost of what are now known 
 as * cheap ' or ' people's editions.' Probably 
 it would be safe to compute that as much 
 matter as would cover sixteen pages of 
 small print might, in such cases, be sold 
 at the rate of about sixpence, and in that 
 ratio. Accordingly, manuscripts in Greek 
 or Latin, although often incorrect, must 
 have been easily attainable, and this would 
 have considerable influence in making the 
 Greek version of the Old Testament the 
 'people's Bible.'" 
 
46 Greek the Language of Christ. 
 
 I am anxious tliat the ground should 
 be thoroughly cleared thus far before 
 another step is taken. And if any reader 
 has hitherto been resting in the belief that 
 the Bible circulating among the Jews of 
 Christ's day was the Hebrew text, I trust 
 he will carefully weigh the considerations 
 which have been stated. Let him reflect 
 that the ancient Hebrew had long been 
 a dead language to the Jewish people in 
 general. It was acquired, as we have 
 seen, only by study, and was known to 
 few but professional experts. There is 
 really nothing about which scholars at 
 the present day are more unanimous than 
 
Greek the Language of Christ. 47 
 
 this. Thej testify that Biblical Hebrew 
 was then as unintelligible to an ordinary 
 Jew as German is at the present day to 
 an Englishman who has never studied 
 that language. Let the reader also con- 
 sider that the cost of a Hebrew roll of the 
 entire Old Testament was such as to place 
 its possession utterly beyond the reach 
 of any except the wealthiest of the nation. 
 Either of these facts is sufficient to nega- 
 tive the idea that, when our Lord referred 
 His hearers, as He so often did, to the 
 Scriptures, He could have meant the 
 original Hebrew text. It will not, I hope, 
 be deemed going too far if I say that this 
 
48 Greek the Language of Christ. 
 
 is a point clearly and conclusively estab- 
 lished. 
 
 The Hehreiv original was not the " Peo- 
 ple's Bible " in the time of Christ. 
 
49 
 
 CHAPTER TV. 
 
 AN ARAMAIC VERSION OF THE HEBREW 
 ORIGINAL WAS NOT THE PEOPLe's 
 BIBLE IN THE TIME OF CHRIST. 
 
 Here It may at once be stated that there 
 is no evidence of any such Version having 
 ever existed. As we shall soon see, all 
 the evidence worth considering points to 
 the very opposite conclusion. Whether 
 we listen to the old Rabbinical authorities, 
 or examine the pages of Josephus, or refer 
 to the writings of the early Christian 
 
50 Greek the Language of Christ. 
 
 Fathers, or take into consideration the 
 general facts of the case, — we are led to 
 believe that the idea of an Aramaic trans- 
 lation of the Old Testament havino- ever 
 been formed, and that this circulated in 
 Palestine at the beginning of our era, is 
 a mere chimera which owes its existence 
 to nothing better than imagination. 
 
 As we have already seen, and as should 
 be carefully noted, it is manifestly implied 
 throughout the Gospels that the Jews of 
 our Lord's time had access to the entire 
 Scriptures of the Old Testament in a 
 written form which was well understood. 
 Did, then, I ask, such a version exist in 
 Aramaic ? Some seem to think that it is 
 
Greek the Language of Christ. 51 
 
 sufficient to answer that this 7nust have 
 been the case. They assume certain 
 points as to the Hnguistic condition of 
 Palestine at the time, and then they 
 affirm a hypothesis as to the Bible in use 
 among its inhabitants. But nothing could 
 be more unscientific than such a mode of 
 dealing with the subject. And the day 
 has gone by when mere assertions of the 
 kind referred to carry weight in any de- 
 partment of knowledge. The demand of 
 our time is that a supreme deference should 
 be paid to facts. All theories, however 
 plausible, and all traditions, however 
 venerable, must be set aside, if found to 
 be unsupported by substantial and suffi- 
 
52 Greek the Language of Christ. 
 
 cient evidence. Truth, at all hazards, is 
 what mankind most passionately desire. 
 And, in pursuit of this noble aim, many 
 views which formerly prevailed have be- 
 come modified, while some have been 
 altogether abandoned. Proofs, facts, in- 
 controvertible arguments, are now called 
 for ; and, as we shall immediately see, are 
 with reference to the hypothesis now be- 
 fore us, lamentably deficient. Will the 
 reader, then, believe that, while what is 
 required is evidence that an entire 
 Aramaic version of the Old Testament 
 existed in the time of Christ, all that is 
 forthcoming is some slight reference to a 
 Targum (translation with explanation) of 
 
Greek the Language of Christ. 53 
 
 the Book of Job ? And even that, if it 
 existed, could not lawfully be used. As 
 we shall see from a passage to be 
 immediately quoted, it was held in such 
 detestation by a leading authority among 
 the Jews, that he caused it to be buried 
 in the earth ! And, if such were the 
 feelings of the time with respect to 
 written Aramaic versions of any portion of 
 Scripture, we may safely conclude that no 
 translation of the entire Old Testament in 
 that language could then have been in 
 general circulation. It is stated, indeed, 
 as will be seen, that written Targumim of 
 Scripture were strictly interdicted. 
 
 Let us hear, then, what Emmanuel 
 
54 Greek the Language of Christ. 
 
 Deutsch, the late celebrated Talmudical 
 scholar, has to say upon the subject. 
 Referring to the fact that Hebrew had 
 become a dead language to the Jews at 
 large, he remarks : — " If the common 
 people thus gradually had lost all know- 
 ledge of the tongue in which were written 
 the books to be read to them, it naturally 
 followed (in order ' that they might 
 understand them ' ) that recourse must be 
 had to a translation into the idiom with 
 which they were familiar — the Aramaic. 
 That farther, since a bare translation 
 could not in all cases sufi&ce, it was 
 necessary to add to the translation an ex- 
 planation, more particularly of the more 
 
Greek the Language of Christ. 55 
 
 difficult and obscure passages. Both trans- 
 lation and explanation were designated by 
 the term Targum. In the course of time 
 there sprang up a guild, whose special 
 office it was to act as interpreters in both 
 senses (Meturgeman) , while formerly the 
 learned alone volunteered their services. 
 These interpreters were subjected to cer- 
 tain bonds and regulations as to the form 
 and substance of their renderings. Thus 
 ' neither the reader nor the interpreter 
 are to raise their voices above the other ; ' 
 they have to wait for each other until 
 each have finished his verse ; ' ' the 
 Meturgeman is not to lean against a 
 
 pillar or a beam, but to stand with fear 
 
 4 
 
5Q Greek the Language of Christ. 
 
 and with reverence ; ' he is not to use a 
 written Targum, but he is to dehver his 
 translations viva voce lest it might appear 
 that he was reading out of the Torah 
 itself," etc. . . . The fear of the 
 adulterations and mutilations which the 
 Divine Word — amid the troubles within 
 and without the Commonwealth — must 
 undergo at the hands of incompetent or 
 impious exponents broke through the rule 
 that the Targum should only be oral, lest 
 it might acquire undue authority. Thus, 
 if a Targum of Job is mentioned as 
 having been highly disapproved by Gama- 
 liel the elder (middle of first century, 
 A.D.), who caused it to be hidden and 
 
Greek the Lcmguage of Christ. 57 
 
 buried out of sight, we find, on the other 
 hand, at the end of the second century 
 the practice of reading the Targum gen- 
 erally commended, and somewhat later 
 Jehoshua ben Levi enjoins it as a special 
 duty upon his sons. The Mishnah even 
 contains regulations about the manner in 
 which the Targum is to be written." * 
 
 This passage has been gravely ad- 
 duced t to prove, on the authority of Mr. 
 Deutsch, that a written Aramaic trans- 
 lation of the entire Old Testament cir- 
 
 * Deutscli's Literary Remains, p. 324, ff. 
 
 t The Expositor, First Series, Vol. VII., p. 384. 
 
58 Greek the Language of Christ. 
 
 culated in the time of Christ among: the 
 Jews of Palestine. If it does not prove 
 that, its citation is wholly irrelevant to 
 the point before us. The question is, 
 what were those ypacpal to which our 
 Lord so often appealed, and which He 
 took for granted were in the possession 
 of His hearers ? It is obvious that the 
 Scriptures referred to denoted the whole 
 Old Testament, in one form or another, 
 so that, if the above extract from Mr. 
 Deutsch does not imply that a written 
 Aramaic version of the entire Old Testa- 
 ment existed in the time of Christ, it 
 completely fails in effecting the purpose 
 for which it is produced. 
 
Greek the Language of Christ. 59 
 
 Now, the reader has only to let his eye 
 fall upon the passage to see that it does 
 not mean, and was never intended by its 
 author to mean, what has been so 
 strangely inferred from it. Mr. Deutsch 
 italicises the injunction that, at the period 
 with which alone we are concerned, the 
 Meturgeman was " not to use a written 
 Targum," and tells us that, even so late 
 as the middle of the first century A.D., 
 Gamaliel regarded a written translation of 
 the book of Job as an utter abomination. 
 It is needless to say that, if this were so, 
 the supposition that the entire Old Testa- 
 ment circulated in the days of Christ in 
 
60 Greek the Language of Christ. 
 
 an Aramaic version, contains its own 
 refutation. 
 
 And yet the passage above quoted has 
 been thought to prove against me that 
 there was an Aramaic version of the Old 
 Testament current among the Jews of 
 Palestine in the days of Christ. The able 
 and learned writer already referred to has 
 brought it forward with an air of 
 triumph, and then said, — " If Dr. Roberts 
 wishes to continue this controversy, it 
 would be instructive to know 
 what are his views on this matter."'^' 
 Well, my views have just been stated. 
 
 * Dr. Sanday in The Expositor, ut sup., p. 386. 
 
Greek the Language of Christ. 61 
 
 They are to the effect, that the state- 
 ments made by Mr. Deutsch, instead of 
 confirming the belief that an Aramaic 
 version of the Old Testament then circu- 
 lated in Palestine, clearly show the very 
 opposite. According to him, as well as 
 other competent scholars, * an oral inter- 
 pretation was alone as yet sanctioned ; so 
 that we conclude, with certainty, that 
 Christ must have referred to the Old 
 Testament books in some other form than 
 Aramaic, when he appealed, as He so 
 often did, to the sacred Scriptures. 
 
 So, e.g., Vitringa, De Synagorja Vetere, p. 1019. 
 
62 Greek the Language of Christ. 
 
 Turning now to the Jewish historian 
 Josephus, we find that he is totally silent 
 respecting any Aramaic version. As is 
 well known, he gives an account (Antiq. 
 xii., 2, 1, ff.) of the rise of the G7^eek 
 version of the Pentateuch ; and he very 
 frequently makes use of the Septuagint in 
 his writings. But none of his works con- 
 tain the slightest allusion to a translation 
 of the Hebrew Scriptures into Aramaic, 
 nor does he appear to have made any use 
 of such a version. Had it, then, any 
 existence in his day ? 
 
 Again, not one of the Christian Fathers 
 furnishes the slightest proof of the exis- 
 
Greek the Language of Christ. 63 
 
 tence of such a work. As will appear in 
 the following chapter, it is to the 
 Septuagint only that they refer, as being 
 in constant use among the Jews. Some 
 of the Fathers, we know, were very dili- 
 gent in examining into the history of the 
 ancient Scriptures, and they were not 
 likely to have overlooked the fact that 
 these had been translated into Aramaic, if 
 such had, in reality, been the case. Yet 
 even Origen, who understood Hebrew, 
 and who was unwearied in Biblical re- 
 searches, says not a word upon the 
 subject. 
 
 Moreover, as I beg to remind the 
 
64 Greek the Language of Christ. 
 
 reader, we found that the price of a 
 Hebrew copy of the ancient Scriptures 
 was so high as to be absolutely pro- 
 hibitory, except in the case of a very few 
 individuals. Now, the same thing would 
 as a matter of course, have been true re- 
 garding a complete copy of an Aramaic 
 version, supposing such a version to have 
 ever existed. How then could such a 
 wide-spread and intimate familiarity with 
 the Old Testament have been acquired as 
 is implied in almost every chapter of the 
 Gospels ? 
 
 Finally, it appears somewhat remark- 
 able that hardly anything which can 
 
Greek the Language of Christ. 65 
 
 possibly be deemed a vestige of the im- 
 agined version, has descended to our day. 
 We still possess the Samaritan Pentateuch 
 in a complete form. It can be traced, 
 from an early period, through references 
 which are made to it, both in the Tal- 
 mud and in the Fathers. In like manner, 
 had an Aramaic version of the Old Test- 
 ament existed among the Jews at the 
 commencement of our era, it too would 
 surely have been traceable, in whole or in 
 part, down to the present day. But not 
 a relic or reminiscence of it has been pre- 
 served ; while, as has just been remarked, 
 not a single reference to it is to be found 
 in the remains of patristic antiquity. 
 
66 Greek the Language of Christ. 
 
 No evidence, then, is forthcoming that 
 a written Aramaic translation of the 
 Hebrew Scriptures existed among the 
 Jews in the days of Christ. It is not, 
 therefore, a mere " subjective opinion " '^'^ of 
 mine which is put forward, when I re- 
 mark that the language addressed by our 
 Lord to His contemporaries — epevvare rag 
 ypa(pag — whether the imperative or in- 
 dicative rendering of the words be ac- 
 cepted, could not have referred to snch a 
 version. Hard words have, no doubt been 
 used regarding me, for thus refusing to 
 believe that the Bible of Christ and those 
 
 * It has been so called by Dr. Sanday, ut sup., p. 383. 
 
Greek the Language of Christ. 67 
 
 around Him was an Aramaic translation 
 of the Old Testament. But let the blame 
 still be borne, if it is thought to be still 
 deserved. 1 must repeat that no such 
 version ever had an existence. Fancy 
 may invent it, but facts testify against it; 
 and therefore I maintain that our Lord 
 had in view some other form in which 
 the sacred books of the Jews then really 
 circulated among them, when He referred 
 His hearers, as He so often did, to the 
 Holy Scriptures. 
 
 An Aramaic Version of the Old Testa- 
 ment ivas not the ''Peoples Bible" in the 
 time of Christ. 
 
68 
 
 CHAPTER y. 
 
 THE GREEK VERSION OF THE OLD TESTA- 
 MENT WAS THE people's BIBLE IN THE 
 TIME OF CHRIST. 
 
 The actual Hebrew Bible, and the imagi- 
 nary Aramaic Version, being both set 
 aside, as neither having constituted the 
 popular Bible of Palestine in the time of 
 Christ — what remains ? Simply, that the 
 Greek Version of the Old Testament 7nust 
 have been the Bible of which we are in 
 quest. By a process of exhaustion we are 
 
Greek the Language of Christ 69 
 
 led to this conclusion. No rival now re- 
 mains upon the field ; and we soon per- 
 ceive that the result which has been 
 reached fits in with all the existing facts 
 of the case. 
 
 Here, indeed, we do, at last, feel our- 
 selves on solid ground. It is known, 
 beyond all doubt, that a Greek version of 
 the ancient Scriptures did exist in our 
 Saviour's day. Although much that is 
 fabulous may have been mixed up with 
 the account given under the name of 
 Aristeas, and repeated by others, of the 
 formation of the Septuagint version, 
 certain points are admitted by all scholars 
 as undoubtedly historical. Among these 
 
70 Greek the Language of Christ. 
 
 are the following — that the translation was 
 begun about 280 B.C. — that it was gradu- 
 ally completed in the course of the 
 succeeding century — and that thus it had 
 existed, in its entirety, for several genera- 
 tions before the coming of Christ. 
 
 And then, on opening the Greek New 
 Testament, we find proof everywhere of 
 the use and influence of this version. We 
 see that the great majority of the Old 
 Testament passages cited in the New, are 
 expressed in the very words of the Sep- 
 tuagint, while others, though differing 
 slightly, are manifestly derived from it. 
 We also discover the most remarkable 
 harmony between the general diction of 
 
Greek the Language of Christ. 71 
 
 the New Testament and that of the Greek 
 version. A strong 'prima facie impression 
 is thus at once produced that the ques- 
 tion we have been agitating has, at 
 length, found its solution. But let us 
 proceed to a fuller and closer examination 
 of the whole facts of the case. 
 
 The number of passages quoted from 
 the Old Testament in the New has been 
 somewhat variously estimated by different 
 writers. And the reason is obvious. 
 There are a few cases in which it is 
 difficult to say whether the words in 
 question should be regarded as a direct 
 citation, or merely a reference ; and, 
 according as they are viewed in the one 
 
72 Gi'eek the Language of Christ. 
 
 aspect or the other, will be the sum total 
 of the quotations. We may perhaps say 
 that altogether 275 passages are quoted 
 from the Old Testament in the various 
 books of the New Testament writers. If 
 St. John vii. 38, vii. 42, and Eph. v. 14, 
 be added, the whole number of citations 
 will be brought up to 278. 
 
 Now, as I have said, in the vast 
 majority of these quotations the Septua- 
 gint is either exactly followed, or the 
 resemblance is so close as to be virtually 
 identical. As an example of perfect 
 agreement we may refer to Acts ii. 34, 35, 
 or Acts iv. 25, 26, in both of which 
 passages the New Testament corresponds. 
 
Greek the Language of Christ. 73 
 
 word for word, with the Greek version. 
 As an instance, again, of sHght variation, 
 we may turn to Bom, x. 5, or 1 Pet. ii. 
 9, and many similar passages. These, of 
 course, all tell their own tale, as being 
 directly and unquestionably derived from 
 the Septuagint. 
 
 There are again, many degrees of varia- 
 tion from the text of the Seventy, where 
 still there can be no doubt as to the source 
 whence the words were taken. Sometimes 
 nothing more than a faint reminiscence of 
 the Greek version seems to have been 
 present to the mind of the New Testa- 
 ment writer, while yet it is plain that he 
 had it in view in his citation. We may 
 
74 Greek the Language of Christ. 
 
 refer for an example to St. John xiii. 18, 
 where the Hebrew exactly corresponds 
 with the Greek translation, and it is 
 evident that the Evangelist had the 
 rendering of the latter in his mmd, though 
 he expressed its meaning otherwise in his 
 quotation. 
 
 But further, there are passages which 
 are quoted exactly from the Septuagint, 
 where that version departs from the 
 original Hebrew. An example is found at 
 St. Matt., xiii. 14, where an imperative 
 in the Hebrew is represented by a future 
 both in the Seventy and the Gospel ; and 
 at Rom. XV. 12, where v\'hat is in the 
 Hebrew — "which shall stand for an en- 
 
Greek the Language of Christ. 75 
 
 sign of the people ; to it shall the Gen- 
 tiles seek " — is represented both in the 
 Greek version and in the Epistle by 
 these words — " he that shall rise to rule 
 over the Gentiles ; in him shall the Gen- 
 tiles trust." In these and similar cases, 
 the meaning expressed in the Greek may- 
 be implied in the Hebrew ; but, so far as 
 the phraseology is concerned, the New 
 Testament departs entirely from the origi- 
 nal text, and adopts that of the version. 
 
 And, what is still more remarkable, 
 there are some instances in which the 
 quotation made in the New Testament 
 depends utterly for its pertinency and 
 force on words which are found in the 
 
76 Greek the Language of Christ. 
 
 Greek version, but not at all in the origi- 
 nal Hebrew. A very striking example 
 occurs at Acts, xv. 16, 17. The Greek, 
 as here quoted by the Apostle, is ren- 
 dered as follows in the Revised Version — 
 
 " After these things I will return, 
 And I will build again the tabernacle of David which 
 
 is fallen ; 
 And I will build again the ruins thereof, 
 And I will set it up : 
 
 That the residue of men may seek after the Lord, 
 And all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, 
 Saith the Lord, who maketh these things known 
 From the beginning of the world." 
 
 The corresponding Hebrew of Amos, ix. 
 11, is thus given in the Revised Old 
 Testament — " In that day will I raise up 
 the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and 
 close up the breaches thereof; and I will 
 
Greek the Language of Chnst. 11 
 
 raise up his ruins, and I will build it as 
 in the days of old ; that they may possess 
 the remnant of Edom, and all the nations, 
 which are called by my name, saith the 
 Lord that doeth this." No one doubts 
 that the Apostle's citation is from the 
 Septuagint, though, as is often the case, 
 there are slight variations. But the note- 
 worthy point is, that the Greek version 
 differs from the Hebrew in the very 
 words on which the stress of the arg-u- 
 ment depends. St. James is pleading for 
 the admission of Gentiles to the Christian 
 Church, without requiring them to submit 
 to the yoke of Jewish observances ; in 
 other words, he is pleading for an ac- 
 
78 Greek the Language of Christ. 
 
 knowledgment of the freedom and catho- 
 licity of the Gospel of Christ. Now, he 
 does so, as was natural, by quoting a 
 passage from the Old Testament, which 
 implied that God had, from the first, in- 
 tended that the new^ dispensation should 
 be of this character. For this end 
 nothing could be more apposite or effec- 
 tive than these words — " That the residue 
 of men may seek after the Lord, and all 
 the Gentiles upon whom my name is 
 called." But the Hebrew gives a totally 
 different turn to the passage, and cannot 
 be said even to imply the sense contained 
 in the Acts. So much has this been felt, 
 that many modern scholars hold that the 
 
Greek the Language of Christ. 79 
 
 original text of Amos has here been wil- 
 fully corrupted by the Jews. Others 
 think that the Seventy must have had a 
 different Hebrew text before them from 
 what at present exists. Be this as it 
 may, there can be no doubt that the 
 Apostle followed the reading of the Sep- 
 tuagint. He quoted from it as authori- 
 tative, in the hearing, not only of his 
 fellow -apostles, but of the multitude 
 (to 7r\T]6o9, ver. 12), and that, too, in the 
 heart of the Holy City. 
 
 Besides this constant use of the Greek 
 version by the New Testament writers in 
 quoting from the Old, it deserves to be 
 noticed how Septuagintal throughout is 
 
80 Greek the Language of Christ. 
 
 the phraseology of the New Testament. 
 This is strikingly apparent to anyone who 
 looks through such a book as Grinfield's 
 Novum Testame7itum, Editio Hdlenistica. 
 There is hardly a verse but is found to 
 possess a close linguistic affinity with the 
 Septuagint. This is especially noticeable 
 with respect to those great words which 
 embody in themselves the root-ideas of 
 Christianity. Many of these are scarcely 
 to be found in classical writers with any 
 approach to their Biblical meaning, but 
 are seen to have been got ready for use 
 in the pages of the Greek version. Let 
 us turn, for example to the Epistle to the 
 Romans. There we soon encounter the 
 
Greek the Language of Christ, 81 
 
 verb SiKaioco (il. 13; iii. 24; v. 1, etc.,) on 
 which so much depends in the New Testa- 
 ment. Its classical sense is " to make 
 right," or " to think fit " ; but such is 
 evidently not its import as employed by 
 St. Paul. It means in his writings " to 
 acquit" or "justify," or "free from 
 guilt " ; and it was prepared in the Sep- 
 tuagint for being so used (Exod. xxiii. 7 ; 
 Psalm cxlii. 2, etc.) Again, what a flood 
 of light is shed upon the Pauline phrase, 
 Trepl aixaprla^, as applied to Christ (Rom. 
 viii. 3,) when we observe that that ex- 
 pression is constantly used in the Septuagint 
 (Lev. v. 6; Num. vi. 11, etc.,) for "a sin- 
 offering." And, leaving the region of 
 
82 Greek the Language of Christ. 
 
 doctrine for that of ethics, we find such a 
 word as raireLvo^ (with its derivatives) 
 absolutely unintelligible, unless it is looked 
 at as employed by the Seventy. Where 
 found in the classics, raTreivo^ means only 
 loiu in a local sense, or in a bad moral 
 sense ; whereas in the Septuagint (Psalm 
 xxxiii. 18 ; Prov. xi 2,) it denotes 
 " humble " or " lowly," and in this sense 
 is applied (St. Matt. xi. 29,) by our Lord 
 to Himself. The Septuagint usage of 
 words is thus a most valuable guide to 
 their real meaning as employed in the 
 New Testament ; while a mere acquain- 
 tance with the same words, as occurring 
 
Greek the Language of Christ. 83 
 
 in the classics, would prove dangerously 
 misleading. 
 
 It being thus certain that the New 
 Testament phraseology is throughout based 
 upon the Septuagint, we are now war- 
 ranted in even asking this question — Did 
 the sacred writers ever quote directly from 
 the Hebrew ? Many have replied very 
 positively that such was the case. They 
 think that the comparatively few instances 
 in which the New Testament writers de- 
 part, to any marked degree, from the ex- 
 isting text of the Greek version, and seem 
 to have recourse to the Hebrew, are 
 sufficient to prove the point. But let us 
 consider. If any one of the human 
 
84 Greek the Language of Christ. 
 
 authors of the New Testament might be 
 expected to quote the Hebrew original, it 
 would be the Apostle Paul. He had 
 received a regular training under the 
 famous Kabbi Gamaliel, and was, to use 
 his own expression, a very " Hebrew of 
 the Hebrews." Yet an able and diligent 
 student of his writings in our own day- 
 expresses himself on the point before us 
 as follows — " The whole number of quo- 
 tations is about 87. . . . Of these 
 nearly half show a precise verbal agree- 
 ment with the Seventy ; while of the re- 
 maining passages, at least two-thirds ex- 
 hibit a degree of verbal similarity which 
 can only be accounted for by an acquain- 
 
Greek the Language of Christ. 85 
 
 tance with the Septuagint. None of these 
 passages offer any certain proof that the 
 Apostle ivas acquainted with the Hehrew 
 original. That he must have been ac- 
 quainted with it can hardly be doubted ; 
 yet it seems improbable that he could 
 have familiarly known it without straying 
 into parallelisms with the Hebrew text in 
 those passages in which it varies from the 
 Seventy. On the other hand, the Apostle 
 must have possessed a minute knowledge 
 of the Septuagint, as is found by the 
 fragmentary character of the quotations, 
 no less than their verbal agreement.^ 
 
 * Jowett's Epistles of St. Paul, 1, 401. 
 
86 Greek the Language of Christ. 
 
 I do not think it reasonable to doubt 
 that, considering the special education 
 which Sb. Paul had received, he must 
 have acquired some knowledge of the 
 ancient Hebrew. But the admission of 
 this fact only accentuates more strongly 
 the prevalence which then belonged to 
 the Greek version in Palestine. For, as 
 his writings clearly show, St. Paul, like 
 Josephus, depended far more on that ver- 
 sion for his quotations from the Old Tes- 
 tament, than he did on the Hebrew 
 original. And if the case be so with re- 
 spect even to him, far more ought we to 
 hesitate before ascribing a knowledge of 
 ancient Hebrew to any of the other 
 
Greek the Language of Christ. 87 
 
 sacred writers. They all seem in fact to 
 have belonged to the class of aypa^fiaroi 
 Koi ISiwrai, as they were styled by their 
 opponents (Acts iv. 13) — -men who, while 
 certainly possessed of a good general 
 education, were destitute of that technical 
 Jewish culture by which alone any know- 
 ledge of ancient Hebrew was likely to be 
 acquired. 
 
 But we may be told that they some- 
 times correct the Greek version by turn- 
 ing to the original Hebrew, and that, 
 therefore, they must have been acquainted 
 with that language. We may e.g., be re- 
 ferred to St. Matt. ii. 15, which contains 
 
 a quotation from Hos. xi. 1, where the 
 
 6 
 
88 Greek the Language of Christ. 
 
 Greek version reads tu reKva uvrov instead 
 of Tuv vLov fxov, which is an exact rendering 
 of the Hebrew, Now, there can be no 
 doubt that the Seventy followed in this 
 passage an erroneous text, and that St. 
 Matthew gives a correct rendering of the 
 true original. But that is very far from 
 proving — against all probabiUty, as we 
 have seen — that the Evangelist himself 
 possessed a knowledge of ancient Hebrew. 
 Let us take an analogous case. Suppose 
 a writer among ourselves is in 
 the habit of quoting the authorized 
 English version, but that he occasionally 
 gives it in an amended form — that, surely 
 would be no proof that he sometimes had 
 
Greek the Language of Chnst. 89 
 
 recourse, for himself, to tlie Hebrew or 
 Greek original. There are well-known 
 passages in which the Authorised Version 
 is defective or incorrect; and these are 
 quite familiar to mere English readers 
 who have given attention to the subject. 
 And so with the New Testament writers. 
 There were, doubtless, many emendations 
 on the Greek version current in Palestine. 
 Those scholars whose duty it was to study 
 the original, would suggest such improve- 
 ments ; and they would come to be 
 known among the people, just as correc- 
 tions of the common English translation 
 circulate among ourselves. And thus we 
 naturally account for the few cases in 
 
90 Greek the Language of Christ. 
 
 which the sacred writers depart from the 
 rendering of the Seventy, and give a 
 Greek translation more correctly represent- 
 ing the original. 
 
 Many able scholars have, I humbly 
 believe, gone far astray on this point. In 
 direct opposition to the facts already 
 established — such as the little acquaintance 
 with ancient Hebrew shown by such 
 scholars as St. Paul and Josephus — they 
 have supposed that men like St. Peter 
 and St. John, who were technically " un- 
 learned and ignorant," formed for them- 
 selves a translation from the original 
 Hebrew. This is, in view of all the facts, 
 incredible ; but there is no difficulty in 
 
Greek the Language of Christ. 91 
 
 conceiving that they took advantage at 
 times of emendations on the current Greek 
 version, which had been suggested by 
 those who professionally studied the sub- 
 ject. 
 
 If we now glance at the evidence 
 furnished by early Christian writers, we 
 find that Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and 
 Tertullian all contain statements which 
 clearly testify to the habitual use of the 
 version of the Seventy among the Jews.^^* 
 The truth is, that, until the time of St. 
 Jerome, none of the Fathers of the 
 
 * See those passages referred to, with other remarks bear- 
 ing upon the subject, in Greek the Language of Christ and his 
 Apostles, p. 140. 
 
92 Greek the Language of Christ. 
 
 Church imagined that the Old Testament 
 circulated generally among the Jews of 
 the apostolic age in any other form than 
 that of the Greek translation. Jerome 
 allowed himself to make some very base- 
 less and erroneous statements on the sub- 
 ject of the New Testament citations ; and 
 the groundlessness of these has been ex- 
 cellently exposed by several writers, such 
 as Morinus, Hody, and Father Simon. 
 There is a very thorough discussion of 
 the views of Jerome in the third of the 
 Exercitationes Bihlicae of Morinus ; and 
 his inconsistencies are there set forth in 
 the most telling and effective manner. 
 But, indeed, his own pupils sometimes 
 
Greek the Language of Christ. 93 
 
 showed him how untenable were his 
 positions. It was, for instance, a favourite 
 doctrine of his that the apostles never 
 cited the Seventy, unless the version 
 were in perfect concord with the Hebrew 
 text. But his illustrious female disciple, 
 Eustochium, one day staggered him by 
 referring him to Rom. iii. 10-18, in which 
 St. Paul quotes freely from the Greek 
 version, without regarding the Hebrew at 
 all. Upon this discovery, Jerome was 
 deeply agitated, and expressed himself in 
 the following pretty strong language — 
 " Quod cum audissem, quasi a fortissimo 
 pugile percussus essem, coepi tacitus 
 aestuare, et stuporem mentis vultus pallore 
 
94 Greek the Language of Christ. 
 
 signare : Hebraeus, inquam, ex Hebraeis^ 
 secundum legem Pharisaeus, eruditusque 
 ad pedes Gamallelis, ant ignoravit haec, 
 aut eorum qui lecturi erant abusus est 
 ignorantia ! " The worthy Father might 
 have been saved all this painful excite- 
 ment, if he had only, like others, ad- 
 mitted the simple and obvious fact, that 
 the Septuagint was the Bible of St. Paul, 
 as well as of the other writers of the 
 New Testament, and of the Jewish people 
 at large. 
 
 As was suggested in a former chapter, 
 the money-value of a Hebrew copy of 
 the sacred Scriptures might be said to 
 
Greek the Language of Christ. 95 
 
 have been equal to a prince's ransom. 
 Very few, therefore, could have had 
 access to the '' Writings," so often 
 spoken of, in their Hebrew form. But, 
 as I beg to repeat, the case was 
 totally different with respect to Greek 
 books. We have the amplest evidence 
 that these circulated at very low prices 
 throughout the vast Eoman Empire. 
 Multitudes of well-educated slaves or freed- 
 men were constantly at work in producing 
 them ; and they sold at rates scarcely 
 higher than those charged for cheap 
 editions of popular works at the present 
 day. There was nothing, therefore, to 
 prevent a respectable Jewish family from 
 
96 Greek the Language of Christ. 
 
 possessing a full Greek Bible in their 
 home ; and thus — thus only I believe — 
 are we enabled to account for that in- 
 timate acquaintance with the sacred vol- 
 ume which the Gospels everywhere assume 
 as existing among the Jews in our 
 Saviour's day. 
 
 The Greeh version of the Old Testament 
 loas the " People's Bible " in the time of 
 Christ. 
 
97 
 
 CHAPTEH VI. 
 
 GREEK WAS THE LANGUAGE OF CHRIST. 
 
 Has the reader felt the validity of my 
 argument up to this point ? Has it been 
 proved to his satisfaction, first, that a 
 "People's Bible" circulated in Palestine 
 in the time of Christ ; secondly, that 
 the Hebrew original was not the " Peo- 
 ple's Bible " ; thirdly, that neither did an 
 Aramaic version constitute the popular 
 Bible; and fourthly, that the Septuagint, 
 a Greek translation of the Old Testament, 
 
98 Greek the Language of Christ. 
 
 ivas the " People's Bible," which was 
 in universal use among the Jews when 
 Christ dwelt upon the earth ? 
 
 In that case, the conclusion is inevitable 
 and obvious. If it has been proved that 
 the Greek version of the Seventy really 
 constituted " the Scriptures " habitually 
 quoted and referred to by Christ, the 
 question is settled as to the language 
 made use of in His public addresses to 
 the people. His Bible and their Bible 
 being Greek, there can remain no doubt 
 that Greek — the singularly interesting and 
 well-marked Hebraistic Greek of the 
 country — was the language in which He 
 conveyed to the men of His day His 
 
Greek the Language of Christ. 99 
 
 divine instructions, and the language in 
 which they naturally expected'"" to be ad- 
 dressed. 
 
 The interest of the conclusion thus reached 
 as to the language spoken by Christ is 
 obvious, inasmuch as it implies that we 
 still possess His teachings in the form in 
 which they were originally uttered. Some 
 devout Christians, under the influence of 
 the opinion that our Lord spoke a Hebrew 
 
 * Such an expectation clearly existed in the case of the 
 multitude assembled in Jerusalem (Acts xxii., 2,) though for 
 special reasons, St. Paul then addressed them in the so-called 
 Hebrew language. See Greek the Language of Christ and His 
 Apostles, p. 469, ff. 
 
100 Greek the Language of Christ. 
 
 dialect, have set themselves to the study 
 of Syraic, in order that, by reading the 
 Peschito version, they might approximate 
 towards the language which He employed. 
 But, happily, the actual facts of the case 
 are far more satisfactory. The words of 
 the Divine Man have not passed away, as 
 if they had been " writ in water," if they 
 were ever written at all, but they still lie 
 before us in the existing Greek Gospels. 
 And thus all have access to them, who 
 will take the comparatively small trouble 
 of mastering the simple Greek in which 
 they have been forever enshrined. 
 
 Nor is the importance of the conclusion 
 we have reached less evident than the 
 
Greek the Language of Christ. 101 
 
 interest attaching to it. But for the proof 
 of this, I must refer to my large work 
 named in the first chapter. I shall only 
 say here that one of my critics in the 
 Saturday Review (Aug. 11, 1883,) has 
 admitted that, if the view for which I 
 contend be accepted, *' a revolution must 
 to a considerable extent, take place in the 
 science of Biblical criticism." As will at 
 once be obvious to every considerate 
 reader, such questions as the Origin and 
 Authenticity of the Gospels then present 
 a totally different asjoect from what they 
 do on the hypothesis as to the language 
 of Christ which has hitherto prevailed. 
 
102 Greek the Language of Christ. 
 
 I may here be allowed to remark that 
 many excellent writers, while resisting or 
 ignoring my view of this question, have, 
 nevertheless, expressed themselves in such 
 a manner as tacitly implies its acceptance. 
 They have refined on the special mean- 
 ings of Greek words and tenses, for which 
 there were certainly no exact Hebrew 
 equivalents. If our Lord really made use 
 of the expressions referred to, there may 
 be some ground for such remarks ; but, if 
 He spoke in a Hebrew dialect, as these 
 writers maintain, then the subtle distinc- 
 tions which they draw out are utterly 
 baseless. Archdeacon Farrar, for instance, 
 affirms {Life of Christ, i. 90) — " The lang- 
 
Greek the Language of Christ. 103 
 
 uage which our Lord commonly spoke 
 was Aramaic ; " but a reviewer of his 
 work, who, as was to be expected, agrees 
 with him on that point, remarks 
 (Quarterly Review, Jan. 1875, p. 181), 
 that the author "is at times forgetful in 
 drawing out delicate shades of meaning 
 from our Lord's words, that Greek was 
 not the language in which He must 
 ordinarily have expressed Himself." I 
 have given elsewhere illustrations of the 
 same inconsistency from the learned 
 writings of Bishop EUicott and Arch- 
 bishop Trench. ■^^' 
 
 * See Greek the Language of Christ and his Apostles, p. 
 484, flf. 
 
 7 
 
104 Greek the Language of Christ. 
 
 But, let me here bring forward what 
 is perhaps a still more striking example 
 of the way in which Archdeacon Farrar, 
 while " one among the many " referred to 
 in Lord Lytton's letter, glides, with 
 seeming unconsciousness, into acquiescence 
 in my view as to the original language of 
 the Sermon on the Mount. In his able 
 volume entitled Mercy and Judgment, we 
 find the following passage (p. 184), — 
 
 " Gehenna means a punishment which 
 for Jews was normally, and all but invari- 
 ably, terminable ; terminable, indeed, by 
 annihilation, if not by deliverance, for all 
 but a very few of the very worst 
 apostates, and jDossibly even for them. 
 
Greek the Language of Christ. 105 
 
 Hell is taken to mean a punishment never 
 terminable for any who enter it ! How 
 utterly unfit, then, is the word ' hell ' to 
 serve as a rendering for the word 
 Gehenna ! 
 
 " It is a translation which has become 
 positively misleading, because it connotes a 
 totally different order of conceptions in its 
 most important particular, namely, the 
 particular of its duration. 
 
 " And what makes the rendering more 
 painfully unfortunate — I had almost said 
 inexcusable — is, that our Lord and the 
 Apostles have themselves set us an un- 
 mistakable example as to how the word 
 should have been dealt with. 
 
106 Greek the Language of Christ. 
 
 " For Gehenna was a technical Hebrew 
 reh'gious term. It was a Hebrew term, 
 and not a Greek term. And yet exactly 
 because it was technical, and because no 
 Greek term could serve as its precise 
 equivalent, our Lord and the Apostles 
 would not translate it into Greek, but 
 they preserved it, as it was, in its precise 
 technical meaning; as though He and they 
 meant, in the most express manner, to 
 prevent it from being mingled up with 
 misleading conceptions which were alien 
 from it. 
 
 " We have suffered grievously, and I 
 fear shall continue to suffer, by not follow- 
 ing His divine example. It seems to me 
 
Greek the Language of Christ. 107 
 
 a positive duty to transliterate from 
 Hebrew into English the word which our 
 Lord would not alter, and which He 
 therefore transliterated from Hebrew into 
 Greek." 
 
 Now, the whole force of this reasoning 
 clearly depends on the supposition that 
 the Sermon on the Mount was delivered 
 in Greek. If Hebrew had been its lang- 
 uage, there was no room for the trans- 
 literation of Gehenna by Christ. That 
 Hebrew term simply came to be used by 
 Him at the proper place in His discourse, 
 as did the rest of the Hebrew by which 
 it was surrounded. There may possibly be 
 a great lesson for translators in the reten- 
 
108 Greek the Language of Christ. 
 
 tion of Gehenna by Christ, without any 
 attempt to represent it through means of 
 an equivalent Greek expression. But 
 then, in order to have any basis on which 
 to rest such a lesson, we must, of 
 necessity, believe that the discourse at 
 large was delivered in the Greek language. 
 I hold that it unquestionably was so. 
 And I have elsewhere given what I re- 
 gard as ample proof that such was the 
 case.* 
 
 If, then, (I may add) there is good 
 reason to believe that Christ inauofurated 
 His public ministry by the delivery of a 
 
 * Greek the Language of Christ and His Apostles, p. 145, ff. 
 
Greek the Language of Christ. 109 
 
 long discourse in Greek, it follows, as a 
 matter of course, that Greek was the 
 language which, as a Teacher, He con- 
 stantly employed. No doubt. He also 
 made use of an occasional Hebraic ex- 
 pression, as the Gospels indicate in several 
 passages. Nothing could have been more 
 natural than that He should do so, just 
 as in Scotland a public speaker may at 
 times, with great effect, introduce into the 
 English, which is the staple of his dis- 
 course, a word or two from the homely 
 vernacular. But it is like trying to rest 
 a pyramid on its apex, when any one 
 quotes the comparatively few Aramaic ex- 
 pressions which occur in the Gospels, to 
 
110 Greek the Language of Christ. 
 
 prove that Aramaic (in its debased form 
 as before explained), and not Greek, was 
 the usual language of Christ. The pas- 
 sages in question simply prove that our 
 Lord had recourse to a Hebrew dialect on 
 these occasions. They are never presented 
 to us as specimens of His ordinary lang- 
 uage, but, on the contrary, appear to be 
 brought in as exceptions to His usual 
 practice. And yet the occurrence of the 
 few expressions referred to has recently 
 been spoken of in the pages of an ably- 
 conducted paper, as if they were the sole 
 and sufficient reason for believing that 
 Christ's habitual language was Aramaic. 
 We thus read in the Guardian (Nov. 2, 
 
Greek the Language of Christ. Ill 
 
 1892), — "The ground which has convinced 
 most scholars that Aramaic and not Greek 
 was the language of our Lord, is that 
 sayings of His in that language are 
 occasionally quoted." But, as I have said, 
 these Aramaic terms really come in as ex- 
 ceptions, and, when so viewed, they are 
 easily explained. On the other hand, it 
 seems impossible to give any rational 
 account of their occurrence, if they are 
 regarded as representing the language 
 constantly spoken by our Lord Jesus 
 Christ. 
 
 Let it be accepted, then, as an indubit- 
 able fact, that the Greek Gospels still 
 
112 Greek the Language of Christ. 
 
 preserve to us the teaching of Christ in 
 its original form ; and from how many 
 diflSculties is the Bibhcal student thus im- 
 mediately set free ! No longer has he to 
 search after a Urevaiigelium, or original 
 Gospel, in the Aramaic language, which 
 was, by and bye, no one can tell how, 
 translated into Greek. No longer has he 
 to construct elaborate and intricate 
 schemes, accounting for the Origin of the 
 Gospels, such as those of Eichhorn and 
 Bishop Marsh, with the many others 
 which have vainly followed them. The 
 case is as simple as it is satisfactory. 
 Christ habitually made use of Greek in 
 His public teaching, and the Evangelists 
 
Greek the Language of Christ. 113 
 
 reported In the same language those 
 gracious and ever-living words which thus 
 proceeded out of His mouth. 
 
 Here I conclude my present argument. 
 I confidently rest the whole case on the 
 one line of proof to which I have re- 
 stricted myself in this little book. And 
 if the reasoning which has been pursued 
 cannot be invalidated, may I not humbly 
 hope that the conclusion to which it leads 
 will be admitted ? I have, indeed, been 
 told by the very able and friendly re- 
 viewer of my larger work in the Spectator 
 (April 14, 1888) that "scholars are prac- 
 tically unanimous in holding that our Lord 
 
114 Greek the Language of Christ. 
 
 spake for the most part in Hebrew (in 
 the form, that is, of Aramaic), and only 
 sometimes in Greek ; and, as a rule, they 
 have hitherto turned a deaf ear to the 
 arg-uments with which Professor Koberts 
 impugns that position. It is probable that 
 they will continue to do so, though he 
 has in the volume before us pressed those 
 arguments once more with fresh illus- 
 trations and supports. For, this position 
 of theirs has become a commonplace in 
 biblical literature. It is found in all com- 
 mentaries on the New Testament, whether 
 popular or critical, and is regarded by 
 writers of all sorts as an unquestionable 
 fact." 
 
Greek the Language of Christ. 115 
 
 These are certainly very disheartening 
 words. But I am unwilling to believe 
 that the position described will be the 
 final attitude of any fair-minded student 
 with respect to the question at issue. 
 Progress, to some extent, has already 
 been made towards what I regard as the 
 truth. No writer in this country would 
 now echo the language of Kenan when he 
 said (in 1863, Vie de Jesus, p. 32) con- 
 cerning Christ — II n' est pas probable 
 qu'il ait su le grec," or accept the state- 
 ment recently made by Father Didon (in 
 1891, Jesus Christ, p. 84) — "II ne semble 
 pas qu'il ait parle le grec." I have hope, 
 therefore, that the truth will yet be ac- 
 
116 Greek the Language of Christ. 
 
 cepted in all its fulness, if, as I humbly 
 think, I have had the happiness of setting 
 it forth. And then a new interest will 
 be felt to belong to the Gospels as em- 
 bodying the teachings of the Great Master 
 in the language in which He Himself 
 delivered them ; while a new solvent will 
 be found for many of the difficulties which 
 have perplexed Biblical students in con- 
 nection with the theory which has 
 hitherto prevailed as to the language of 
 Christ. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 
 
 Greek the Language of Christ 
 and his Apostles. 
 
 Svo., pp. 511. 18s. 
 LONDON: LONGMANS & CO. 
 
 " This admirable book. . . . We praise and commend it 
 unstintedly and heartily." — Spectator. 
 
 " He has made out a very strong case." — Academy. 
 
 " An able and learned book." — Guardian. 
 
 "His noble, arduous, and conscientious labours." — Saturday 
 Review. 
 
 " Full of information, ably given." — Scotsman. 
 
 "Dr. Roberts seems to have gathered up into this outcome of 
 his lengthened labours all the evidence that can be brought to 
 bear upon his theme, and has treated it with candour and great 
 ability." — Classical Review. 
 
 ' ' Professor Eoberts of St. Andrews is widely known as a 
 specialist in New Testament study. For more than a quarter of 
 a century, he has made one bit of ground all his own. . . The 
 whole subject is patiently followed out, and the arguments dealt 
 with in a complete and masterly manner." — Dundee Advertiser. 
 

 DATE DUE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 HIGHSMITH #45115 
 
 • 1^ * '. 
 
 
m 
 
 
 ^^^i^ 
 
 'tlS-if* .»-«</ •»<%.. '3 ,.■>* > ' r Xy\ '^ ■* »*-• *v» 
 
 .4t?Vs?=i't#*?-%|.?j<-.:- ..• ■:.. . ... '■^- 
 
 ^:i«;^ifi!;|.;|l» 
 
 
BS2421 .83.R58 
 
 A short proof that Greek was the 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 00013 2367