¦^^fisv;; 'T^ILEoWMITiflEl^SinrY" DISCUSSIONS ON THE GOSPELS. '0 oipavis Kal ij 7^ vapeXeiffovrai, 0! Si \6yoi Mow oi ui] iraplKOwai. St Matt. xxiT. 35; St Mabk xiii 31; SiXukexxLSS. DISCUSSIONS ON THE GOSPELS IN TWO PARTS. PART I. ON THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED BY OUR LORD AND HIS DISCIPLES. PART II. ON THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF ST MATTHEW'S GOSPEL, AND ON THE OEIGIN AND AUTHENTICITY OF THE GOSPELS. BY ALEXANDER ROBERTS, D.D. SECOND EDITION REVISED AND ENLARGED. etambrtUge an& Hontron, MACMILLAN AND CO, 1864. The_RigM 0/ Trantlatim and Reprodmtim is reserved. CTambtiKse : PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. at the UNTTEEaTY FEESS. rll-L't'O Siixrb 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 uumber 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 cohfidence 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 Aihenceum, 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 Aramaean? Nor was Greek the language used by our Lord Himself in most of His discourses. He usually spoke Aramaean." Athenceum, 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 demohshed, 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 spoke for the most part in Greek, and only noio and then in Aramaic,' and he establishes this conclusion by an amount of evidence which can hardly leave a doubt in the minds of unprejudiced readers." Saturday Review, Nov. 29, 1862. ^\? q"fts^^'"" flq ^" ^^^ ^"¦^nipg^ mndr n^r nf by the Snp nf nnd nn por.tb^ in nnn nf rlnnp tyxf^ hallnwed infot-Qof fr^ f]^o whole — niivigfi'cm ¦ffr<-.rld 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 perplexities 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 Scriptures 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 FIEST 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 Httle opposition, and was in some quarters treated with utter contempt. I X PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. am inchned 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 I 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 Redeemer. A. R. St John's Wood, London, March 20, 1862. CONTENTS. PART I. ON THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED BY OUR LORD AND HIS DISCIPLES. CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION — STATEMENT OF THESIS. PAaE Proposition of this Work ' 1 Different Views Trhich have been held on the Question . . 5 Preliminary Observations 9 Sources of Evidence 22 CHAPTER II. HISTORICAL PROOFS OF THE PREVALENCE OF eEBBK IN PALESTINE IN THE TIMES OF CHEIST AND HIS APOSTLES. General Diffusion of the Greek Language at the commencement of the Christian Bra 26 Causes which led to the Prevalence of Greek in Palestine . . 36 Various Proofs of this Prevalence 39 Greek Inscriptions "^^ Numismatic Evidence *7 The Mischna ""9 Xll . CONTENTS. PAGE The Works of Philo 50 The Works of Josephus 51 The Apocryphal Books 56 CHAPTER III. PROOF FEOM A 6BNEEAL SUEVEY OP 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 Disdourse 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 CHEIST AND HIS APOSTLES, Narrative of Events on the Day of Pentecost ... i^q Succeeding Speeches of the Apostles ... 152 Different Opinions regarding the Hellenists and Hebrews . . 156 CONTENTS, .- xiiiPAGE Discussion of the Question 158 Speech of St Stephen before the Sanhedrim , , . , 176 Succeeding Chapters 179 Council of Jerusalem 181 Tumult excited against St Paul 187 Concluding Chapters of the Acts 190 Recapitulation I94 CHAPTER VL PROOF FEOM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBEEWS OP THE PEBVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE IN THE TIMES OP 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 originally Addressed Different Opinions regarding this Point Conclusion and Inference 196 200 208 213219227233 241 CHAPTER VIL FURTHER PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT THAT GREEK WAS THE PREVAILING L-VNGUAGB OF PALESTINE IN THE TIMES OF CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES. Style of the Epistle of James 244 All Records of Christ's Teaching are in Greek .... 249 Existence and Origin of Hellenistic Greek 256 Use of the Septuagint by the Writers of the New Testament . 282 Hymn of the Virgin Mary 269 Intercourse of the Soldiers with John tho Baptist . . . 270 Narrative of St Paul's Conversion 272 Use of the terms Alpha and Omega by Christ .... 274 Conclusion 275 XIV CONTENTS. CHAPTER VIII. CONSIDEEATION OP OBJECTIONS TO THE VIEW THAT GEEEK WAS THE PREVALENT LANGUAGE OF PALESTINE IN THE TIMES OP CHEIST AND HIS APOSTLES. PAGE A priori Objection 276 Objection from the Existence and Employment of Aramaic among the Jews 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 PART II. ON THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF ST MATTHEW'S GOSPEL, THE ORIGIN AND AUTHENTICITY OF THE GOSPELS. CHAPTER L STATEMENT OP THE QUESTION EBSPEOTING ST MATTHEW'S GOSPEL, AND OP THE METHOD IN WHICH THE INQUIEY SHOULD BE CONDUCTED. The Different Opinions stated 319 First Principle of Inquiry stated and illustrated ... 328 Second Principle of Inquiry stated and illustrated ... 338 Third Principle of Inquiry stated and illustrated . . . 344 Bearing of the Conclusion formerly reached on the Present Question ogj CONTENTS. XV CHAPTER IL INTERNAL EVIDENCE OP THE ORIGINALITY OP 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 THB~ORIGINALITY OP THE EXISTING GREEK GOSPEL OP^ST MATTHEW. Unfounded Assertions of the Advocates of the Hebrew Original on this Point 382 Proof of the Di-dne Authority of the existing Greek Gospel . 386 Proof of its Authorship by St Matthew 387 Manner in which we should deal 'svith the Statements of the Fathers . 390 The Greeh 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 ^^^ XVI CONTENTS. Statement of Papias as to the Original Language of St Matthew's Gospel 404 Testimony of Irenseus 408 Testimony of Pantsenus 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 HYPOTHESES 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 Cureton's Argument 429 His Syriac Gospel of St MatthSw derived from the Greek . 431 Its Unauthorised Additions 432 Its Unauthorised Omissions 434 Mistaken and Inexact Renderings 43G Its Origin 439 Hypothesisof a Twofold Original of St Matthew's Gospel . . 411 Destitute of Evidence 442 Opposed to Phenomena existing in the Greek Gospel . . 445 CHAPTER VL ORIGIN OF THE GOSPELS. DifiBculties of the Question . Eichhom's Hypothesis Bishop Marsh's Hypothesis Eichhorn's Amended Hypothesis Hypothesis of this Work Explains the Coincidences . Other Suppositious made in order to Accomplish this Object 449451 4534.55458 465 470 CONTENTS. XVll 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 OP THE GOSPELS. M. Renan'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. Renan's Work . . , , 513 Historical Value of the Gospels 516 CHAPTER VIIL CONCLUSION — APPLICATIONS AND RESULTS. Consideration of the First Point established .... 518 Interest of the Conclusion that Christ made use of the Greek Language Illustrations of its Practical Importance , . , . Application of it to the Question concerning the Authorship of the Apocalypse Its Bearing on the Interpretation of the Gospels generally Consideration of the Second Point established Its bearing on the General Question of Inspiration , Its Importance in respect to the existing Gospel of St Matthew Consideration of the Third Point established It removes DiflSculties hitherto felt Insuperable It confirms the Divine Authority of the Gospels Preciousness ofthe Inspired Word of God Conclusion 520524530534537540544 548 550551553555 PART I. ON THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED BY OUR LORD AND HIS DISCIPLES. 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 bilingues, that is, they understood Greek, the common language of the civilised world, and their own vernacular dialect, the proper national tongue of the region in which they lived. In this view of the case, the two languages, both commonly made use of by the Jews of Palestine, (though, as we shall see, generally for different 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 Z 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 English colonies at the present day. In several of these, we find two or more different languages 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 ofthe 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 English 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 Caflfrarian 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 Aramaean or Syro-Chaldaic language, except where it is plainly stated that the ancient Hebrew is intended. STATEMENT OF THESIS. 3 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 thfe 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 Enghsh 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, ofthe 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 INTRODUCTION. 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 language 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, was 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.", Sth ed. Art. Ionian Islands. ' STATEMENT OF THESIS. 5 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. Neapolitan!, de Christo Grsece loquente," Svo, 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 tbe Catholic faith," 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 gratulandum huic juveni est, quem licet non sit ex Ecclesiasticorum ordine, cum juris scientia socias fecisse sinctorum voluminura scientiam, atque orientalium linguarum peritiam, atque ad communem Christianorum utilitatem, ac queestum tot skcu- lorum intercapedine ignotam banc sacrse historise potissimam, ac prin- cipem partem sane quam erudite 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 worid, 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 t.ie genius and abihty 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 Rossi, which had been pub lished at Parma in 1772. Respecting De Rossi, 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 published in this country in Vol. 11. of Clark's Cabinet Library. We shall have occasion in the sequel to advert to some of the halting conclusions of this writer ; meanwhile, in illustration of what is said above, I may simply refer to page 15 of the translation, where we find the translator naively remark- INTRODUCTION. 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 1 741*. It has been adopted by a few Roman 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 Vulgate 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 "Palaeoro- mg on a statement in the original, " It was not good in Dr Pf. to keep for himself the more decisive proofs !" * 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 enim scripsisse Latine qusecunque scripserunt ; nonnulla etiam Greece fortassis : Ebraice etiam Apocalypsim fuisse scriptam, non Latine tantum." The views of Hardouin were fully refuted by Lamius in his very curious work, "De Eruditione Apostolorum," &c. pp. 1072 — 1135. + The chief of these is Molckenluhr, who thinks that, on every ground, there is reason to believe that the New Testament was written, not in Greek, but in Latin. He says, (p. 46,) " Die Sache bios d, priori betrachtet, ist es wahrscheinlicher, dass, wie Harduin meynet, das Neue Testament ursprunglich nicht in griechischen, sondem in lateinischer Sprache geschrieben sei. A posteriori aber ; was wirklich geschehen ist, kommt es auf ausserliche Zeugnisse, und inneriiche Kenntzeichen an." He was conclusively answered by Binterim, another Roman Ca tholic priest, in a work entitled, " De Lingua Originali Novi Testamenti non Latina," &c. STATEMENT OF THESIS. 9 maica," a work published anonymously in Loudon 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 opposition to be encountered on the part of many eminent biblical scholars. As Vossius long ago remarked, " It has come, in some way or other, to be an accepted opinion among the learned, that our Lord and His apostles employed not the Greek, but * The title of this curious work is as follows: — " Palseoromaica, or Historical and Philological Disquisitions, inquiring whether the Hellen istic Style is not Latinistic ? Whether the many new words in the Elze vir Greek Testament are not formed from the Latin ? And, Whether the hypothesis that the Greek text of many MSS. of the New Testament is a translation or retranslation from the Latm, seems not to elucidate numerous passages ; to account for the different recensions ; and to explain many phenomena hitherto inexplicable to BibUcal Critics 1" London, Murray, 1822. Among those who pubUshed 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 ofthe 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 * " Verum nescio qua ratione factum sit ut hoc nostro sseculo pleri- que fere docti Christum et Apostolos Hebraice semper locutos fuisse, existiment, non autem Greece Nullis profecto vel argumentis vel testimoniis nititur h»c opinio."—/^. 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. Vem. J. C") the foUo-wing sentences : — " Quam hnguam Jesu Christo, nostro Servatori optimo, tandem vemaculam attribuemus 1 Hic vero ancipiti dubitatione nulla distrahemur, neque anxio conatu occupabimur circa illud, quod citra laborem doceri posse dudum Erpe- nius judicavit, sed Chaldaeo-Syriacam Servatori nostro benignissimo asseremus, quam historia, usus, et communis doctorum opinio hue usque illi adseruerunt. Nostra equidem charta non patietur, ut in testimoniis theologorum et philologorum evagemur; verum tamen intrepid! 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. DrFairhairn 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 public 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 Westcott, 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 Renan, not to men- " Dictionary of the Bible," expresses himself as follows : — " The position of Palestine (in respect to language) was peculiar. The Aramaic, which waa the national dialect after the Return, existed side by side with the Grieek. Both languages seem to have been generally understood, though, if we may judge from other intances of bilingual countries, the Aramaic would be the chosen language for the common intercourse of Jews (2 Mace. vii. S, 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. But if so, I can only say that, the more I have examined the subject, the more has my confidence in the views propounded in this work increased. And I have a humble hope that, however much opposed to reigning opinions these views may be felt to be, they will not be re garded by biblical scholars as the offspring of mere folly or presumption, but will be taken for what they are worth, as the earnest, though most imperfect, fruit of some study on the part of one whose highest ambition it is to promote, in however small a degree, the interests of sacred truth. It may be observed, however, that, of late years, there has been some tendency shewn among scholars to reconsider this question, and, more or less, to accept what I believe to be the truth regarding it. Most df our leading critics, native and foreign, now acknow ledge that the Greek language was far more gene- * Ewald' s 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- biicher der Biblischen Wissenschaft," ii. 185. Renan simply says :— « Nous pensons que le Syro-ChaldaYque e'tait la langue la plus rdpandue en Jude'e, et que le Christ ne dut pas en avoir d'autre dans ses entre- tiens populaires."— " Histoire des Langues Semitiques," p. 223, 2nd ed. See, for a criticism of M. Renan's views as set forth in his " Vie de Je'sus," 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 " Real-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 era ployed that language t." Yet, even among those who advance farthest in this direction, there still appears a backwardness to trust only to facts for the ultimate conclusion to be held on this subject. They seem to be unduly influenced by various d priori considera tions. Admitting that, " for literary purposes, Greek was, undoubtedly, the prevaihng 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. Sprache. + "Manner, welche zwar kein 'wissenschaftliches Sprachstudiura trieben, aber das griechische bestandig sprechen horten, und sehr 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 aU 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 * "Westmmster 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 Hkely or the unHkely 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, essayist, and lecturer, as well as poet ; a fact not to be doubted when we consider how familiar to the multitude those writings must have been, when a casual quotation by a comic author, or even an indirect allusion by a rival poet, could find an immediate response in the vast assembly of the Athenian theatre." — Paley's Mschylus, 1861, p. xx-vi. To those who have puzzled over the obscurities of jEschylus, the fact of such familiarity with his verses might seem a priori not a little questionable. 16 INTRODUCTION. terrogatio Scripturce on the subject, and not to be deprived of this by that anticipatio Scripturce which pronounces that certain things cannot be supposed or believed. I do not undertake to prove that our Lord and His followers never made use of the Hebrew language. That would be a rash, and, I think, un tenable assertion. But what I maintain, and mean to prove, is, that Greek was the language which they habitually used in their public addresses; so that if any one affirms that Hebrew was used on some occa sions, when their discourses have been reported in Greek, it remains with him to 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 I venture to maintain is, that He spoke for the most part in Greek, and ONLY now and THEN IN Hebrew. And all I ask is to be allowed a fair trial. If I fail to adduce sufficient proof that Greek was the tongue thus spoken by our Lord and His disciples, then let judgment be given accordingly ; but if I do succeed in producing such evidence, let not its force be blunted, and the cause of truth injured, by any d 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 the conclusion that He always or generally em ployed that language. But the supposition is first made that He did continually make use of that form of speech, and then these rare instances of its em ployment are referred to as examples of the practice which has already been assumed as habitual; or again, some abstract principle, such as the 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 ir-f 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 addressino- a lame man who attracted his attention in the crowd, ofthe cure which was accomplished by his words, ofthe 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 inhabitants 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, 'AvdcrTt}GieTr\Tovi\a>v TrKaTOiviCei. — Photius, "Bib, Graec," p, 151,) This author was born about the year 20 b,c., and with all his learning, and zeal for the institutions of his country, seems to have been almost entirely ignorant of the Hebrew language. His works bear conclusive evidence of this, and 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, referring to the eariy Rabbis, "do weU near ac knowledge the Greek for their mother-tongue even in Judaea."— ii^Ai- foot's Works, by Pitman, vol. xi. 25. ¦*¦ Comp. Renan, " Histoire des Langues Se'mitiques," p. 158, first edit., or p. 166, second edit. Dr Pfannkuche asserts, (p. 83 ofthe English translation,) that Philo was familiar with Aramaic; also, (p. 14,) that the Egyptian Jews contemporaiy with Josephus spoke that language; and stiU further, (p. 39,) that tlie Alexandrine version was made, not from the Hebrew original, but from very ancient Targums ! WeU might an eminent German scholar recently remark, " Bei De Rossi 'wie bei Pfann- PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 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 Jewish 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, finden sich manche nnrichtige und iibertriebene Behauptungen, was das Verhaltniss des Aramaischen zum Griechischen betrifft." — Bleek, " Einl. in das Alt. Test." p. 51. Berlin, 1860. '* Referring to the ignorance of ancient Hebrew which is betrayed by both Philo and Josephus, Renan remarks, " Les explications qu'ils donnaient de certains mots hebreux depassent les plus etranges hallu cinations des anciens en fait d'etymologie." — "Histoire des Langues Semitiques," ut sup. t Fritzsche observes on this point, " Joseph, ist mehr von der LXX. 4—2 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 Judeea 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, — rwaiKeloi irvpyot ("Wars," V, 2, 2), KdKvfx^>')Qpa "Ocpewv (lb, V. 3. 2), 'Ittttikos TTvpyos (lb, V. 3, 5,) EfffTo's wvpyo's (lb. V. 4, 2), &c.* It is plain from several passages, as, for in stance, the last quoted, that Josephus did not translate these names, but gave them in the form in which they were current among the inhabitants, for he preserves side by side with them Hebrew names, such as Bethso and Gennath, untranslated. Some places seem to have been equally known by a Greek als vom liebr. T. abhangig," and refers in confirmation to the treatises of Sinttler and Scharfe/iberg on the subject. Hertzog's " Real-Encyclo- padie," Art. Alexandrinische Bibeliibersetzung. To the same effect, De Wette remarks respecting the Septuagint, " PhUo benutzt sie allein, und selbst Josephus maclit von ihr mehr als vom hebraischen Texte Gebrauch."— " Einl. in das A. T." § 43. Even Gesenius simply claims some knowledge of ancient Hebrew for Josephus, saying "Ausser seiner aramaischen Muttersprache wird man ihm auch einige althebraische Sprachkenntniss nicht streitig machen konnen, indessen fehlt es ihm, wie den Alexandrinern, vornehmlich an etymologischer Kenntniss, an Genauigkeit und Griindlichkeit, vorzuglich graramatischer Art."— " Gesch. der Hebr. Spr." § 23. For exaraples of the etymological and other blunders committed by Josephus, see Gesenius, loc. cit. '* Corap. Ewald, "Gesch. des Volk. Isr." iv. 266, &c.; and Porter, " Greek Inscriptions," &c. p. 25. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 53 and Hebrew appellation, so that, in referring to them, Josephus uses either form indifferently, as in the case of Bezetha, a district of Jerusalem, which, he tells us ("Wars," ii. 19. 4), was also called KoivottoXk*. All this points to the familiar and constant use of the Greek language. Josephus also reports many speeches and conver sations which seem necessarily to imply the habitual use of the Greek language in Palestine. The highest and lowest in the country are spoken of in such a way as leaves the impression that they all understood and employed it. We find it stated that the decrees of Julius Caesar were ordered to be published at Jerusa lem, as at other places, in Latin and Greek letters, ("Antiq." xiv. 10. 3). Josephus himself manifestly spoke to Vespasian in the Greek language ("Wars," iii. 8. 9). The Jews apparently held such direct in tercourse with the Roman soldiers during the siege of Jerusalem, as to imply that they conversed in a language common to both; and that could be no other than Greek, ("Wars," v. 3- 3, 4 ; v, 7, 4 ; v, 13, 2.) It may be inferred from the last chapter of the An tiquities ("Antiq." xx. 11. 2,) that the very slaves among the Jews then had access to a thorough ac quaintance with the Greek, and that, on account of the commonness of the accomplishment, it was under valued by those who aimed at a high reputation f, '* In like raanner St John speaks in his Gospel (xix. 13) of " the place called AiBoarpaTos, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.'' Comp. also ver. 17. + Such is the inference, and it seems a fair one, which Wiseman in his " Horse Syriacae " derives from the passage. His words 'are, " Josephi temporibus, etiam servi linguam Graecam callebant." — ^"Hor Syr.," p. 71. 54 HISTORICAL PROOFS OF THE It seems even that a mere boy was able to negotiate with the Roman soldiery without the aid of any interpreter ("Wars," vi, 6, i); and this could have been done only by their common employment of the Greek language. In what language, let us next inquire, were those many speeches of Herod the Great delivered, which are recorded by Josephus? Not to mention other considerations, there is especially this one, which seems to shew that it must have been Greek. We know that Herod was extremely solicitous to intro duce foreign practices into Judaea {Jos., "Antiq," XV, 8 ; lb, xvi, 5) ; and that being the case, he is not likely to have continued to employ in his public addresses the old vernacular language. He seems, in fact, to have gone the utmost lengths compatible with safety, in the efforts which he made to plant and nurture Greek customs among his subjects. He had games established in the country in imitation of the famous Olympian contests, ("Antiq," xvi. 5. i,) built cities to which he gave Greek names, (lb, § 2,) and shewed, in all respects, such a leaning towards the Gentile culture and habits, that the historian, in summing up his character, declares, (lb. § 4), that, while he was ever harsh towards his own countrymen, he was kind and liberal to foreigners. Now, with such strong Hellenic tendencies, it can hardly be supposed that Herod would encourage by his example the continued use of the national tongue, or that the many speeches attributed to him by Josephus ("Antiq.," XV. 5. 3 ; xvi. 4, 6, &c,), were delivered in any other than the Greek language. Respecting one of these, at least, it seems there can be no doubt as PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE, 55 to the language employed. We are informed by Josephus, ("Antiq.," xvii. 5), that Quinctilian Varus, the Roman Governor of Syria, was present in Jerusa lem at the trial of Herod's son, Antipater, and took a direct and important part in the proceedings. The speeches then made by Herod, Varus, Nicolaus of Damascus, and Antipater, were evidently delivered in a language common to the several speakers, as well as the whole assembly, — of course, therefore, in the Greek language. The same conclusion must, I believe, be reached, respecting the speech of Archelaus at Jerusalem on his accession, ("Antiq.," xvii. 8, 4) ; of the Jews at Ptolemais, in addressing the Roman Governor, (lb, xviii, 8, 2) ; of Petronius at Tiberias, in reply to the representations of the Jews, (lb, xviii, 8, 5); of Herod Agrippa to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, ("Wars,"ii. 16, 4); and of Simon to the people of Scythopolis, (lb, ii, 18, 4), If it be possible to question our statement with respect to some of these cases, it seems quite impossible in regard to others. It must be plain that when a Roman magistrate held direct intercourse with the people of Judsea, as Petronius is said to have done, that could only be by means of their common employment of Greek ; and it is also perfectly evident that, when Simon addressed the in habitants of Scythopolis — a well-known Greek city — he necessarily made use of the Greek language. These, then, are some proofs, which may be col lected from Josephus, in support ofthe proposition of this work. Further references to various passages in the same author will be made as we proceed ; and we shall also have occasion to notice, in a subsequent 56 HISTORICAL PROOFS OF THE chapter, some statements in his writings, which are generally referred to as opposed to those views which it is the design of this work to establish. It only remains now that, before proceeding to the New Testament itself, we glance at the important evidence in our favour which is afforded by the Apo cryphal Books of the Old Testament*. Much uncer tainty rests on the questions as to where, when, and by whom, these books were severally composed. But it is almost certain that the latest of them was writ ten before the commencement of our era, while the others range, at uncertain dates, from that period up to perhaps the third century before Christ, Now, it at once strikes us as a suggestive fact connected with these books that they exist only in Greek. One of them, we know, was at first written in Hebrew, but the original was soon replaced by a translation. Another one is generally believed to have been composed in Hebrew ; but of it, too, all traces of the supposed original have perished. Some of the rest are conjectured by critics to have been partly written in Greek, and partly in the ancient tongue of Palestine; but of all, without exception, it * I include under this title the books which are enumerated in the sixth Article of the Church of England, viz.:— The Third Book of Es- dras, The Fourth Book of Bsdras, The Book of Tobias, The Book of Judith, The rest of the Book of Esther, The Book of Wisdom, Jesus the Son of Sirach, Baruch the Prophet, The Song of the Three Chil dren, The Story of Susanna, Of Bel and the Dragon, The Prayer of Manasses, The First Book of Maccabees, The Second Book of Macca bees. The other writings sometiraes spoken of as belonging to the Apocryphal Books ofthe Old Testament, and collected by Fdbricius in his "Codex Pseudepigraphus Veteris Testamenti," do not here faU under our notice, as, with a few doubtful exceptions, they were all com posed since the commenceraent of the Christian era. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE, 57 holds true that only in their Greek form were they generally known to the Jews of old, and only in that form are they known to us at the present day. In this consideration, there seems an argument w*hich will weigh much with every unprejudiced mind in the controversy respecting the prevailing language of Palestine in the time of Christ. The Jewish LITERATURE was then Greek. Writings intended for the people, and commonly current among them, were composed in the Greek language. Of that fact, the most cursory glance at the Apocrypha is sufficient to convince us; and the impression thus made in favour of the general employment of Greek in Palestine for several generations before Christ, is strengthened when we look a little more particularly at the several books*. The Third Book of Esdras (First in English) is deemed by some a translation from the Hebrew; the Fourth Book (Second in English) is universally allowed to have been composed in Greek. It is cer- '* A useful synopsis of the Jewish literature belonging to this period is given by Westcott in his "Introduction to the Gospels," London, 1860, pp, 83, 84. The dates of several books, which he assigns to the firsit or second centuries before Christ, are very doubtful. But to whatever period such writings as the Apocalypse of Henoch, or the Psalms of Solomon, may be ascribed, there is no adequate reason to doubt that they were originally composed in Greek. See Fdbricius, "Cod. Pseudepig," p. 179, and p, 915; Hertzog's « Real-Encyc." Art. Henoch, &c. As a mere expression of opinion, and, without assigning it the character of testimony, to which it has no claim, I may here ob serve that the Syriac Bishop, " George of the Gentiles," in seeking to account for the omission of the three kings in the genealogy of our Lord contained in the Greek Gospel of St Matthew, makes the following, among other remarks, that, at the period in question, '^ Hd>r(eorum plerique Grceco sermone utebantur." See the passage, as quoted from Dionysius Bar-SaUbi, in Asseman. " Bib. Orient." ii. pp. 160-1, 58 HISTORICAL PROOFS OF THE tain, respecting the former, that it was current in Greek during the first century before Christ, Jose phus makes use of it in several places (comp, Antiq. xi. 2, with chap. ii. i6, seq, ; and Antiq. x. 4. 5, with chap. i. i, seq.); and although we have not such sure evidence of the early existence of the Fourth Book, the probabihty is that it was composed before the days of our Saviour. Both works seem to have been written by Jews of Palestine* . The Book of Tobit dates about the Maccabean period — a little earlier or later. It is agreed by all that its author could be no other than a Jew of Pa lestine. On this account solely, the originality of the existing Greek has been denied by some criticsf . But this denial manifestly sjorings from a precon ceived opinion as to the language in which alone a Jew of Palestine would write. Other critics have impugned the originality ofthe Greek, on the ground of mistakes which they fancy they have discovered as committed by the supposed translator:]:. But the truth is, there is no evidence worth speaking of, either internal or external, to shew that the work, as we now have it, is a translation; and the conclusion of the most recent criticism is, that, though written by a Jew of Palestine, and for the natives of that country, it was undoubtedly composed in Greek §. * It is simply the common prejudice as to the prevailing language of Palestine at the time, which has led sorae critics to doubt or deny the validity of these stateraents. See e.g. Dr Davidson's " Introduction to the Old Testament," iii. 355, 363. t Dr Davidson, in Home's " Introduction," ii. p, 998 ; and " In troduction to Old Testament," iii. 370. t De Wette, " Einl. in das Alt. Test." p. 456. § See especially, on the whole subject of the Apocryphal Books, the following work, " Kurtzgofasstes exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apok- PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE, 59 The Book of Judith is dated by Ewald about 130 before Christ; while other writers, such as De Wette, building on the circumstance that it is first plainly referred to by Clement of Rome (Ep. ad Cor. cap. 55), assign it a somewhat later date. All admit that it was written by a Jew of Palestine. Some critics, such as Fritzsche and Davidson, have deemed the existing Greek a translation from the Hebrew, while others, such as Eichhorn and Jahn, maintain its originality. There seems no sufficient reason to doubt that it was composed in the language in which we still possess it. At all events, a necessity was soon felt for translating it into Greek, for it is certain that the existing work is nearly as old as the supposed Hebrew original*. The Apocryphal additions to the Book of Esther were beyond all question originally composed in Greek. De Rossi's fanciful hypothesis regarding them has long been exploded; and the opinion of Scholz that they are a translation from the Hebrew or Aramaic, has no supporters. It is doubtful when or where they were composed, but it appears from the writings of Josephus, ("Antiq," xi, 6, i, seq.), that he was acquainted with them, ryphen des Alten Testaments. Bearbeitet von Dr 0. F. Fritzsche, und Dr W. Grimm" Leipzig, 1851 — 60. In the brief remarks made above on the several books, I beg to be understood as stating with great diffi dence my o'wn conclusions in regard to the obscure questions connected with the Apocrypha. The great unquestionable fact is, that Greek was the language in which, almost exclusively, these books were known of old among the Jews, '* It has been supposed that, in this book as in others, there are marks of mistranslation from the Hebrew ; but the great reason which has weighed with some in deeraing it a translation is suggested in these words of De Wette: " Wirklich muss das Original in der Sprache Palas- tina's geschrieben gewesen seyn." — " Einl." p. 451. 60 HISTORICAL PROOFS OF THE The Book of Wisdom must be assigned to the second century before Christ, although neither Philo nor Josephus refers to it. There is a decided allu sion to it in Clement of Rome (Ep, ad Cor., cap, 27, compared with Wisd. chap, xi, 22, and xii, 12). No critic doubts the originality of the Greek text; and there is little, except a prejudice on the subject of its language, to support the prevailing opinion that it was written by a Jew of Alexandria, and not of Palestine*. The Wisdom of the Son of Sirach, or Ecclesias- ticus, was undoubtedly at first composed in Hebrew. This much is stated in the prologue to the existing work ; but it is doubtful whether the ancient or modern Hebrew is intended. For several reasons, I assign to the term 'E/Sjoaio-rJ, employed by the trans lator, the same meaning which it bears in the New Testament, and believe the work to have been written at first in Aramaic. The date of the original writing was, probably, about the end of the third century be fore Christ. But, though this book was composed in Hebrew, the grandson of the author found it expe dient, some half century afterwards, to translate it into Greek ; and the translation henceforth superseded the original. Both the original author and the trans lator were Jews of Palestine, The Book of Baruch is generally admitted to have been written partly, at least, in Greek, But some critics have imagined that there are marks of two '* Dr Davidson says, in the style usually employed on such ques tions, " The writer was not a Palestinian Jew of the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, else he would not have written in Greek but in Hebrew." —Home's "Introduction," n. p. 1017. So, also, in "Introduction to Old Testament,' ui. 404. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE, 61 different authors in it ; and have argued that, as the first section was probably written in Palestine, it must have been composed in the Hebrew language. This is a mere assumption, as is also the opinion that the other section was written at Alexandria, The whole book was probably composed in Palestine. The Song of the Three Children; The Story of Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon ; The Prayer of Manasseh; and the Letter of Jeremiah, are admitted by the most recent critics to have been composed in Greek*. These writings, probably, all belong to the first or second century before Christ ; and if some of them were composed in Egypt, all seem to have been current in Palestine. Looking, now, at the First and Second Books of Maccabees, we find still more clear and decisive evi dence of the prevalence of Greek in Palestine before the days of Christ, It is not necessary to enter here into the disputed question as to whether or not the first book was originally written in Hebrew. Admitting, in the face of some manifest difficulties that it was so t, we know for certain that both books were current among the Jews in their present form during the century which preceded the birth of our Saviour. And it must surely be conceded by all, that the intercourse which the first book narrates as ¦* See Fritzsche and Grimm, ut sup., " Erste Lieferung,'' and Da vidson, " Introduction to Old Testament," iu. 435, &c. + Grimm, whUe deciding that the book is a translation from the Hebrew, acknowledges one of these diflBculties, when he remarks that the Septuagint, and not the original Hebrew, is followed in the quotations from the Old Testament which occur in it, e.g. at chap, vii, 9: "Diese Abhangigkeit," he says, " des Buchs von den LXX. konnte einen Augen- blick geneigt machen den griechischen Text des Buchs fiir das Original zu halten." See ut sup., dritt. Lief., xv. 62 HISTORICAL PROOFS OF THE having been carried on between the Jews and the LacedcBmonians, was conducted in Greek, At chap. xii, 5—18, we find a copy of a letter which Jonathan, the high priest of the Jews, wrote to the Spartans ; and at ver, 19 — 23 ofthe same chapter, we have also a copy of a letter sent to Onias, a former high-priest, by Oniares, or Areus, king of the Lacedaemonians. Again, at chap, xiv, 16—23, we have an account of another communication received from the Spartans, and respecting which it is expressly said that "it was read in the presence of the church at Jerusalem," No hint is given of any interpreter being employed on these occasions, or of the least interpretation being requi site ; so that we naturally infer that the Jewish people were quite famihar with the Greek language*. That this was the case appears from several other considera tions which the book suggests. It cannot, I beHeve, be even plausibly denied that Greek was then the language of that portion of the great kingdom of Syria which lay next to Palestine. I am aware, in- '* This conclusion is not, of course, in the least invalidated, though the following statement of Dr Davidson with respect to these letters be admitted — " The copies of the letter of Areus king of the Lacedse- monians to Onias (xii. 20 — 23), and of the Spartan letter in xiv. 20 — 23, are not literally authentic. So also the letter of the Romans in xv. 16 — 21 is not exactly given, because Lucius Calpurnius Piso stands for Cneius C. Piso ; and there is no mention of a second consul as there should be. A careful examination of the documents given by the author will shew, that however correct in substance, their form and minute details are not always so."—" Introd. to Old Testament," iii. 438, Dean Milman expresses hiraself still more scepticaUy (" Hist, of the Jews," ii, 18) with respect to the connexion between Jerusalem and Lacedsemon, but even he is disposed to admit "some truth" in the account ; and if the fact of communication between the two cities be conceded at all, my argument, as above stated, will, in so far, hold good. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE, 63 deed, that it is not uncommon to meet, in the writings of eminent scholars, with expressions that seem to imply that they suppose Aramaic to have been the prevailing language of Antioch and the adjacent region, under Alexander's successors. But, for many reasons, I humbly conceive this opinion to be mis taken. The dynasty of the Seleucidae is expressly denominated, in the eighth chapter of this book, (ver, i8), "the kingdom of the Greeks," {t^v ^aaiKe'iav Twv 'EkXrivwv) ; and it will surely be admitted that Greeks spoke the Greek language*. We know, moreover, that these Greek princes, from Seleucus Nicator downwards, were keen supporters of Greek literature and usages, and took every means of ex tending and establishing these among their subjectst. It can scarcely be doubted, therefore, that Greek was the language employed by those soldiers who were stationed by Antiochus Epiphanes, and others, in '* Teicitus makes an observation which clearly shews that Greek was the language of the inhabitants of Antioch, Speaking of Mucian, a partisan of Vespasian, he remarks, (Hist. u. 80,) "Tum Antiochen- sium theatrum ingressus, ubi illis consultare mos est, concurrentes, et in adulationem effuses adloquitur ; satis decorus etiam Grseca facundia, omniumque quae diceret atque ageret, arte quadam ostentator," Jo sephus (Bell. Jud. u. 13. 7, compared with ii. 14. 4) uses the terms Supoi and "EXXijj/es as convertible. t Vaillant, in his work entitled " Seleucidarum imperium, sive His toria regum Syrise, ad fidem numismatum accoraraodata," observes respecting the founder of the kingdom of Syria (b.c. 312), "Seleucus Nicator, Syria occupata, in ea dominationis sedcm meditans, non solum ut tradidit Appianus, plurima nomina Grseca urbibus Sj-rise imposuit, sed et linguam Grsecam populis communicavit, et in publicis monu mentis usurpare jussit," p. 109. Comp. Norisius, "Annus et Epochse Syro-Macedonum in vetustis urbium Syrise nuramis prjesertim Medi- cseis expositse,'' Diss. i. cap. 3 ; and see on the whole subject, Diodati, ut sup. pars i. cap. i. prop. 3. In the above remarks, I refer, of course, only to Syria cis Euphratem. 64 HISTORICAL PROOFS OF THE the tower of Jerusalem. And this being granted, its common use by the inhabitants of Palestine is a manifest and necessary consequence. We find it stated in this book, (chap. vi. 21 — 27), that some of the heathen soldiers in Jerusalem were joined by a number of the Jews, and betook themselves to King Antiochus, in whose presence these apostate Israelites urged the importance of immediate steps being taken for the preservation of the king's supremacy in Pa lestine. Much the same thing is again narrated at chap. vii. 5. 6; the employment of the Greek lan guage by the Jews being evident on both occasions. But still more decisive of the point in question is the account contained in chap. x. i — 8. Deme trius, king of Syria, being threatened on his throne by the impostor, Alexander, sent letters to Jerusalem to secure the friendship of the governor, Jonathan, in view of the conflict which lay before him. These letters were unquestionably written in Greek; and let the reader mark what is said regarding them, "And Jonathan," we are told (ver. 7,) "came to Jerusalem, and read the letters in the ears of all the people, and of them belonging to the toiver." The obvious meaning of these words, is, that the letters of Demetrius were read at the same time in the hearing of a promiscuous multitude of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and of those Gentile soldiers who had been stationed among them. No interpreter was employ ed on either side; the epistles ofthe king were equally intelligible to both parties; and this being so, the inference is surely irresistible, that the dwellers in Jerusalem were then thoroughly familiar with the Greek language. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 6o Not less evident is the proof of this fact to be derived from several passages in the Second Book of Maccabees. There can be no reasonable doubt that this book, as a whole, was written in Greek*. Some critics, under the influence of that prejudice which has so largely prevailed Avith respect to the language of Palestine at the time, have maintained that the two epistles prefixed were first written in Hebrewf, but without a shadow of evidence. These were un doubtedly composed, like the rest of the book, in the language in which they still exist, and thus of them selves bear the strongest testimony to the wide ac quaintance with Greek which was then possessed in Palestine, The same thing strikingly appears from some passages which contain allusions to the ancient vernacular language of the country. In the seventh chapter, we have a remarkable account of the heroic conduct of a mother and her seven sons, when sub jected to torture in the presence of Antiochus Epi phanes. Mention is again and again made in the narrative, of the sufferers having made use of their own national tongue in addressing each other, while, at the same time, it is evident that they also under stood and employed Greek, At ver. 21, we are told, respecting the mother, that, full of the noblest cour age, she exhorted each of her sons, " in their native tongue," to suffer patiently; and, at ver. 24, we read that the king, not understanding the language which was used, and suspecting that it was meant to mock '* Grimm remarks, ut sup. " Das Buch gibt sich auf den ersten Blick als griechisch Original zu erkennen." t Dr Davidson, in Home's "Introduction," 11. p. 1050. His lan guage is somewhat less confident in " Introduction to Old Testament," III. 451. 5 66 HISTORICAL PROOFS OF THE his power, put forth his utmost efforts to win over to his purpose the youngest brother, who still remained ahve. And then, at ver, 26, 'we find the mother addressed by the monarch, evidently in Greek ; but only replying to his exhortation by again appealing to her son (ver, 27) in "the native tongue;" while, at ver, 31 — 38, we read of the young man directly addressing the king in words of severe rebuke and resolute defiance. Some writers have argued from this, and similar passages in the book, (chap. xii. 37, XV, 29,") as if they furnished proof that Greek was still unknown in the country, and that the ancient vernacular tongue only 'was employed*. It seems marvellous that such an argument should ever have been used. These very passages suggest to the reader that the employment of Hebrew was exceptional, and thus rather tend to support than subvert our proposi tion. It is manifest that both the mother and her sons whose courage is celebrated in the seventh chapter were bilingues; for, while they spoke between themselves in Hebrew, they also addressed Antiochus in Greek. The whole book, in short, bears unmistake- able evidence of the sway then possessed by Hellenic influence in Palestine, No one can read it, in a spirit of candour, without being convinced, as the writer himself declares, that "a kind of acme of Hellenism" {aKfxYi ris 'EXXtivKT/xov, chap, iv. 1 3) had then been reached in the land; and that, in accordance with '* See, for exaraple, Gresieell, " Dissertations on the Gospels," m. p. 335. If this learned writer means to deduce from the passage simply what Dr Pfannkuche infers from it, "that the national Aramaic was not extinguislied in Palestine by the tyranny of Antiochus Epi phanes," (p. 23 of Eng. trans.) then, of course, his argument is not in any way opposed to the views maintained in this work. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 67 this state of things, the people generally had become quite familiar with the Greek language. Our way is now prepared for entering on an ex amination of the New Testament itself And what has been said in the preceding pages may at least avail somewhat to shake that prejudice, which so generally prevails, against the opinion, that Greek was the language usually eraployed by our Lord and His disciples. The reader will carry, I trust, from the perusal of this chapter, a disposition to deal fairly with whatever evidence may be produced in favour of our assertion. And all I request is, that the matter be judged, not by prepossession, but proof. Let us proceed to look with an impartial eye into the New Testament itself, and inquire, with a simple desire to know the truth, what evidence it bears, both in its general texture, and its special intimations, as to the language which was coraraonly made use of by our Saviour and His apostles. 5—2 CHAPTER III, PROOF FROM A GENERAL SURVEY OF THE NEW TESTA MENT THAT GREEK WAS THE PREVAILING LANGUAGE OF PALESTINE IN THE TIMES OF CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES, We now proceed to what has been announced as the principal object contemplated in the first Part of this 'work — the production of proof from the New Testa ment itself, that Greek was the dominant language of Judaea at the commencement of our era, and was con sequently the language, for the most part, made use of by our Lord and His disciples. Several distinct lines of argument here present themselves. Some of these are more general, and others more specific, but all will be found converging to the same conclusion. They will engage our attention in this and the four succeeding chapters; and, in the first place, we pro pose to consider the evidence in our favour which may be derived from a general survey of the whole Neio Testament. In entering on this part of the argument, I may begin by remarking, that the p>rimd 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 siraple 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 by 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 language*. 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 would 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 scarcely, at the present day, be disputed. The attempts made by Hardouin to shew that Latin was the original language of sever.il books, — by ^ertholdt, to prove that some were compo3cd in Syro-Chaldaic, — and by Michaelis, to establish the Hebrew original of at least the Epistle to the Hebrews — are now universally 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. Credner, "Gesch. des N. T. Kanon," pp. 137-8 ; and Maltby' s Serraon, entitled "Tlie 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. We may willingly admit the universal, as well as particular, design of the Epistle ; we may gratefully ackno'wledge that it is firaught 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 written; and, keeping these facts in view, we can not suppose that, however wide the field which its divinely-inspired 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 ¦v\'ell 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 wiU 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 Judaea, — have written in Greek, unless that were the language which raen 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 were then more or less familiar ? There is only one mode of escaping from the con clusion which follows frora 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 iraplied in the following words of Greswell, in his learned and laborious work upon the Gcspels: "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 * Greswell, "Harmony of the Gospels," i. p, 141, 72 GENERAL PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT tongues, they 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 while the hypothesis of Greswell and others, as to the supernatural imparta- tlon 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 asrree 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 done Linguarum," says, in reply to Erasmus, (who properly held that the gift of tongues did not imply a supernatural communication of Greek to the apostles, though erring in his view of tho miracle of Pentecost,) " Quid er jo 1 A quo prseceptore Graecara Unguam ilU didicerunt ? ' Nil mirum,' inquit, ' Apostolos citra miraculum Graece novisse, cum ^gyptus ac Syria tolaque CiUcia vulgo Grsece loqueretur.' Id vero Erasmus prdbet, Judseis Grjecum idioma tara fuisse familiare ut idiotis ac piscatoribus notum esse potuerit."-~ Honert's "Syntagma Dissertationum de Stylo Nov. Test. Greece ;" or, see Beza on Acts x. 46. The alternative, thus suggested, exactly brings out the realrequiiements of the case. OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 73 in which the Spirit of God operates upon it. He who has made us as we are, graciously and wisely accora- modates His actings to that spiritual and intellectual nature which He has imparted; and ever honours His own workmanship, as displayed in our raental 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," Aud 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 GENER.VL PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT 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 testiraony of antiquity, and the nature of the case, lead us to the conclusion that no language, hitherto unknown to the apostles, was then coramunicated to thera for ordinary use in their subsequent career, as preachers or as writers in the service of the gospel. The rairacle witnessed on the day of Pentecost seems to have had quite another object. It was intended, in a manner specially striking, to demonstrate the reality of a supernatural influence at work among the disciples of Jesus, It had, also, a symbolical import, * Alford, in loc. ; see also Conyh. and Howson, i. p. 470; Alexander on the Acts, I. p. 45, and almost every recent critical work on this por tion of Scripture. 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 apostles 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 thera. 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, xui, 15, and xiv. 11. OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 75 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 CorneUus, "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 poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost, For they heard thera speak with tongues, and magnify God." In this case, it is almost beyond dispute that the object of the rairaculous 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, (chap. 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 thera, as on 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 the 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 parts 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 c'est I'homme;" 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 coraposition, and to have pressed 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 writings, while exhibiting their several characters and gifts, yet possess in common the attribute of Divine inspiration. But how it could be consistent with the mil 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, 77 which the apostles spoke and wrote — strongly marked as it is by local and individual peculiarities — was directly conveyed to thera 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, Jaraes, 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 iraraediately draws after it another. If Peter and James naturally made use of the Greek language, that language must have been known to all classes in the comraunity. 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 eraployed. But then, as I maintain, this concession implies that it was in coraraon use by the great body of the popu lation. These first disciples of Jesus were taken '* Neander well remarks : " As to the Greek language, the mode in which the apostles expressed theraselves 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 laws of lingual acquirement:' — "Planting and Training of the Church," p. 10, Eng. edit. 78 GENERAL PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT frora the lower ranks araong 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 their intercourse wdth 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 Hebrew 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. How, 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 peopled. * It is necessary to urge this point ; for numerous writers, while not affirming that the apostles were taught Greek supernaturally, seem obUvious 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 was not commonly employed by those among whom he mingled? Are we to suppose that he, or any other of the apostles, devoted hiraself to the study of languages ? See 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 loiver ranks among the people, their em ployment of the Greek language does not prove that it was generally OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTli^'E, 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 understood 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 writers of the New Testament, it cannot be supposed that their readers were supernaturally endowed to understand it. And as it is impossible to believe that such an Epistle as that of St Paul (or whoever else may have been the author) to the Hebrews, that is, in the first place, to inhabitants of Palestine, or the Epistle of St Jaraes "to 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 Credner, when he somewhat strangely writes : "So geschah es, dass in Palastina die griechische Sprache vorzuglich unter den niedem 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 Grinfield, when he says, " The knowledge of Greek was confined chiefly to the tipper orders, and to the Roman officers." — " Apology 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 Siaa-nopa 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 not in a dialect like the Aramaean, 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 raust come who, admitting the Palestinian designation of the Epistle to the Hebrews, hold that Hebrew was, on any account, the proper language of religious address among the Jews in the days of Christ and His apostles. The Christians of Jerusalem and Judaea, they concede, were addressed in Greek by the writer of that Epistle which specially bears their name ; and this, it is said, was done, not because that was the most fitting language in which to 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 necessar}' 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 Greek, and not in the Hebrew language*. But, on the other hand, if the proposition of this work be admitted, that Greek was then the fitting language of popular address in Palestine, as in the rest of the civilised world, how illustriously does the wisdom of God shine forth ! He had by His provi dence gradually brought the world into such a con dition, that without any violent interference on His part, there was existing on the earth, at the com menceraent of our era, a language which was known in coraraon 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 full discussion of these points. The diffi culty above suggested applies, of course, with double force to those who imagine that Hebrew was the prevailing language of Palestine at the time referred to, and yet are inclined to believe that the Gospel of St Matthew was at first written in Greek. That the evangelist, in 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 familiar language to the inhabitants of Palestine? And why strive to reach any other conclusion? Why perplex and confound such a simple case as that of men writing naturally in a language which they themselves understood, to others in a language which they understood also, by supposing that the writers w-ere led to compose their works in a language which they theraselves 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, "JesMSsaid," or "He spoke these words," and that whether it happens to be Greek or Hebrew which they record as the language which was uttered. Not the least indication is ever furnished by the Evangelists that, for the most part, they convey to us only a trans lation of the words of Christ. And the supposition that such is the case, must be justified, if it can be justified at all, by considerations entirely extraneous to the tenor of the narrative. It is quite gratuitous, for instance, so far as the record is coneerned, 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, TereAeo-rai. 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 probandi therefore manifestly falls upon those who assert that, in either case, it is only a version of our Lord's words which has been preserved; for the natural impression raade upon our raind 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 proper to notice a remark made on this passage as it stood in my former work. The writer of a review in " Evangelical Christendom," (May 1860), says of it: "We fancy every one wiU 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 suspect 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 comraented on, I ara siraply on the defensice, guarding against the assumption which is so generally made, that the discourses of our Lord, contained in the Gospels, are transla tions frora the Hebrew. If they are so, prove it ; but there is at least, I maintain, no 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 spoken of by the reviewer as if it were set forth as a positive or leading argument. — (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 this point, as being here unnecessary, 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 hira, soraetimes trans lated by the writer, and sometiraes 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, naturaUy 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 eraployed. 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 tiraes 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 f 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 Redeeraer. We have mo means of learning what tongue He generally made use of except from the Gospel-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, t/iat 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 reraarked, the very same mode of ex pression is made use of by thera, 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 siraply 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, " Encyclopedic Theo^ logique," Vol. ni. Art. Matthieu ; and (though, in this case, with some iraportant qualifying reraarks,) Trench "On the Miracles," p. 186. As one of the latest specimens of the mode of reasoning referred 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 prove 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 made use of an Aramaic expres sion. 80 GENERAL PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT The fact seems to be, that the occasional occur rence of Araraaic expressions in the Gospels, instead of proving that Christ habitually made use of that dialect, rather tends to prove the contrary. If it be maintained that Syro-Chaldaic was the language which He generally employed, the question at once occurs, why we have a few such words, and a few only, preserved to us as having been used by Him on rare occasions. On the supposition that He spoke usually in Greek, these words, we may see, come in naturally enough as exceptions to the general rule, and are specially inserted as such, just as in the reported discussions of Cicero we often find a few Greek terms introduced; and, as in our own lan guage, a French or German expression may every now and then occur. But if, on the other hand, it be supposed that Christ really for the most part made use of the Araraaic, 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 appear to be brought in as excep tional to our Saviour's practice; and when regarded in that light, their occurrence can cause little diffi culty, even although no evident reason may be found for His use of Aramaic on these particular occasions. But, when the opposite opinion is maintained, and when these words are looked on as being really speci mens of His ordinary language, there is no principle of reason which can be suggested as likely to have guided the Evangelists in their preservation and in sertion. The most improbable, and even absurd, ex- OF THE PREVALENCE OF GEEEK IN PALESTINE, 87 planations 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, Markxv, 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 sorae by-standers, cried for help from Elias. 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 sarae predicament as the authors of the Alexandrine version, who, now and then, did retain, probably from mere inadvertence, a single Hebrew word*," &c. It is needless to notice the weakness of this expla- * On this passage the English translator of Pfannkuche, whUe fa vourable to the general view maintained by his author, reraarks, with his usual candour, " The translator is not rauch 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 weak." He then goes on to shew this, and adds, " After all, Dr Pfannkuche here only presupposes, and has not proved that the Greek Gospels are only translations." Ex uno disce 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 narae of explana tion. The dishonour which it does to the character of our Gospels, as written by intelligent, not to say inspired raen, raust 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 cumi — no doubt as having something especially solemn in them ; as he does the Ephphatha 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 rae very far from satisfac tory. There are numerous occasions, at least equally solemn, on which our Lord's words are given in Greek, — such as those majestic terras 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 soleranity 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 Miracles," p. 186. OF THE PREVALENCE OP GREEK IN PALESTINE. 89 ployed, there are no occasions on which this feeling could have operated more strongly than on those which have been mentioned. Surely also, in such a case, we might have expected to have had preserved-, in their original form, more of those impressive words which He spoke upon the cross. Only one of His seven cries is given in Aramaic; the rest in Greek. And can it be conceived that the beloved disciple, who is so ready, on other occasions, to report the Hebrew terms which his Lord and those about Him employed*, would have failed to preserve some of these in their original form, had they really been uttered in Aramaic? John stood with a bleeding heart by the cross of his Master. Alone of all the apostles he was an eye-witness of the crucifixion. He heard, with his own ears, the words which the Saviour 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, rvvat, iSe 6 i/'tos aov, while to him He added, 'iSi r/ fitjTrjp aov. And the same pen, I believe, has accurately preserved, in its original form, that one word Ai\lrw, the utterance of which both indicated the intense anguish of our Lord at the moment, and accom plished the last predicted circumstance of His suffer ings, — as weU as that still more significant Tere- Xearai, the WORD ofwords among all that ever passed * See, e.g., St John's Gospel, chap. i. 42, 43; ix. 2; xx. 16, &c. 90 GENERAL PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT human lips, and which, when it issued from the mouth of the Divine Redeemer indicated that His sufferings were over, and His work fulfilled, I must reject, then, as altogether insufficient, that explana tion of the Aramaic terms in question, which would account for them on the ground of the solemnity of the circumstances in which they were uttered; and I cannot but reckon their insertion in the inspired re cord utterly inexplicable, if it be supposed that Christ commonly made use ofthe Hebrew language*. But now it may be asked — Can any explanation of the occurrence of these Araraaic expressions be given on the theory maintained in this work — that our Lord spoke for the most part in Greek, and only now and then in Hebrew? In answer to this ques tion, it seems almost sufficient to repeat the state ment which has already oftener than once been made, as to the relation which is conceived to have existed between the two languages. Let it be remembered, that I admit and maintain the simultaneous exist ence in Palestine, at the date referred to, of both the '* I deem it needless to notice particularly other explanations which have been atterapted of the occurrence of these Aramaic expressions in the Greek Gospels, on the supposition that they are really speciraens of our Lord's ordinary language. The foUowing may be quoted with out comment. Lamius, after stating that no ingenuity could account for the insertion of the terras in question, nevertheless makes an effort, with regard to two of them, when he adds, " Quanquara de Talitha- cumi dicere possum, retenta fuisse ilia Syro-Chaldsea verba, quod esseiit veluti verba concepta, et formula qua Judsei uti solebant, cnm medicamenta segrotis adhiberent, dicentes, Surge a m^irbo tuo, ut recte ac scite adnota-vit Erasmus. Quod autem ad vocem Ephpheta attinet, exarata Syriace ab Evangelista 'videatur, quod gemitu et clamore quodara eraisso, Christus subspirans eara pronunciaverit, ut sonus ipsis- siraus quodammodo iUius clamoris perciperetur, vel saltem meminisse- mus." Lamius, " De Eruditione Apostolorum," p. 1093. OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 91 Aramaic and Greek, the former' language being, no doubt, in many respects subordinate to the latter, but still the mother-tongue of most of the native popu lation ; and how natural the supposition that, in such circumstances, our Lord should have sometimes found it expedient to depart from His usual practice, and make use of the debased, but still vernacular, language of the country. Occasions may easily be imagined on which He would find it suitable to do so; just as a public teacher in many countries at the present day, while generally employing the language of literature there prevalent, would find it edifying and instructive at times to introduce a pithy expres sion, or a familiar and homely phrase, from the com mon, everyday language of the people*. * I may give the following illustrations. On one occasion Dr Chal mers, the great Scottish preacher, was labouring, with all the power of his earnest and eloquent lips, to convey to a poor woman whom he had visited an acquaintance with the nature oi faith. He tried to repre sent his meaning under every forra of speech which the English lan guage afforded, but in vain. There was stiU no sign of answering intel ligence on the part of his hearer ; when at last, deserting the EngUsh language altogether, he cried, "Just lippen to Him." This word "lippen" is the common Scotch expression for confide or trust; and it was no sooner uttered than the idea wished to be conveyed was appre hended. What all the illustrative power of Chalmers failed to effect by means of English, was at once accomplished by his use of this Scotch expression ; and yet it could surely never be argued from this that his addresses, even to the humblest audiences, generally were, or should have been, delivered in the latter language. — In many parts of England even, the common dialect differs so much from that of books and education, that the people may be said to employ two different languages. This has been recently noticed in some educational reports. " In Teesdale," for instance, we are told, " though the presence of edu cation is such that the adult population generally understand any ordi nary English book, they still use the local dialect as their everyday medium. It would be deemed affectation to do otherwise. Hence children find the language of books strange for a tirae." — Quoted in "Times," Sept. 2, 1861. Now, in circumstances like these, occasions 92 GENERAL PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT The necessity for explanation, then, is, on our hypothesis, much less stringent than on the opposite. If it be supposed that our Lord spoke almost always in Aramaic, it seems truly singular that so very few of His sayings in that language should have been preserved by the Evangelists, and that no hint should have been given that they were then specially reporting to us the very words which He eraployed. If, on the other hand, Greek was the language which He generally made use of, and if, accordingly. His discourses, so far as preserved, are reported to us almost verbatim by the writers of the Gospels, there is no ground for surprise that an Aramaic word or phrase should now and then occur, even although we may not perceive the reason why that language was then employed by our Lord, or why its employment was particularly noticed by the Evangelists. But I am willing to go further than this. I am humbly inclined to believe that sorae reasons may be ga thered from the special circumstances in which the few Aramaic expressions of a striking nature which are preserved in the Gospels were made use of, why that language, rather than the Greek, should have been employed, and why its employment should have been expressly recorded in the narrative. The first passage calling for explanation is Mark V. 41, which is thus rendered in our English version: " He took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha-cumi, which is, being interpreted, Damsel, (I will doubtless often arise when it is found necessary or beneficial, in the course of public instruction, to introduce a word or two from the popular dialect ; while, at the same time, it is the English of educated men which is the language of aU ordinary public addresses, just as wc conceive the Greek to have been in Palestine in the time of Christ. OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 93 say unto thee,) arise." Now, on the supposition that Greek was our Lord's usual forra of address, I cannot but think that a very good and satisfactory reason may be perceived for the exception which is here par ticularly noted. The language which He employed at this time was of course iraraaterial, so far as the result was concerned ; the designed effect would have followed, whatever words, or, although no words, had been made use of; and, as the English translator of Pfannkuche's work has remarked, " whether the peo ple standing by understood thera or not, was of no moment." It must then have been from considera tions connected with the damsel herself, that our Lord's choice of a. language on this occasion was de termined; and I venture to propose the following, as sufficient to account for His having raade use of the Araraaic. The person on whora the miracle was per formed was of tender years ; and, being the daughter of a strictly Jewish* family, she was probably as yet but little acquainted with the Greek. At any rate, Greek was to her, as to every native Jew, a language not generally employed in the domestic circle; and it was to Hebrew that her ears frora infancy had been accustomed. How beautifully accordant, then, with the character of Him whose heart was tenderness it self, that now, as He bent over the lifeless frarae of '* It is scarcely needful to remind the reader that her father is described as being "a ruler of the synagogue" — apxi-(r\ivayayos — a fact which it seems of sorae importance to keep in mind while seeking to account for our Lord's employment of Aramaic on this occasion. Com mon as Greek was throughout the country, it was exactly of such a case as hers that it raight be said, (as in the analogous case referred to in the preceding note,) with respect to the language of literature and orduiary pubUc address, that children found it strange for a time. 94 GENERAL PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT the maiden, and breathed that hfe-giving whisper into her ear, it should have been in the loved and faraihar accents of her mother-tongue! Although dead and insensible the moment before the words were uttered, yet, ere the sound of thera passed away, there was life and sensibility within her. Does not every reader therefore perceive, in the thoughtful tenderness of the act, a most sufficient reason why it was in Hebrew, and not in Cjrreek, that our Lord now addressed her ? And do we not also discover a cause why the fact of His having done so should be specially noticed by the Evangelist? Are we not thus furnished with a new and affecting example of our Saviour's graciousness ? And do we not feel that St Mark — the most minutely descriptive of all the evangelists — deserves our gratitude for having taken pains to record it? Softly and sweetly must the tones of that loving voice, speaking in the lan guage of her childhood, have fallen on the sleeping spirit of the maiden ; and by words of tenderness, no less than words of power, was she thus recalled to life and happiness. Equally natural, as I am inclined to think it, is the explanation, which may, on the hypothesis of this work, be given of our Lord's use of the Aramaic language in the case of the deaf and dumb raan, of which we find a record in Mark vii, 32 — 37, At verse 34, we read that the Saviour, having gone through those impressive preliminaries by which this miracle was preceded, said to the sufferer, "Ephpha tha." And "straightway," it is added, "his ears were opened, and the string of his tongue was loosed, and he spake plain," Now here, as before, our OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE, 95 Lord's choice of a particular language could have been deterrained only by a regard to the man himself And, as the slightest additional reason for His selection of one language rather than another must have been quite enough for Him who never violated propriety, in even the lowest degree, we may be satisfied if we can discover, in the peculiar circum stances of this man, the least possible ground for the preference here given by our Lord to the Aramaic over the Greek, Supposing, then, as some comraen- tators do, that the raan had been hitherto entirely deaf and speechless, it will, perhaps, appear to every one fitting and proper that the very first sounds which fell upon his ears, and the first which his liberated tongue would naturally attempt to imitate, should be those of the vernacular language of his country. So far as respected the power of articulate speech, this raan was a child. He had to learn to speak, as the infant gradually does ; and, while Jesus removed the impediments which had hitherto pre vented this. He did not, of course, convey to the man a miraculous acquaintance with any language. The faculty of speech was imparted ; but it had to be used by the man himself, in order to lead to those attainments of which till now he had been destitute ; and, dealing with him as with a child, which in respect to speech he was, the Saviour now kindly and graciously addressed him in the mother-tongue of his native land. But a soraewhat different view may be taken of this man's case, and one which, with Trench and others, I prefer. It would seem, frora sorae expres sions raade use of in the narrative, that the man was 96 GENERAL PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT not entirely destitute of the power of speech, nor, of course, in that case, of hearing. He is said to have been fxoyiXdXos, and, after the miracle was performed, to have spoken opOm — both of which terms appear to imply that he had previously been able, in a measure, to speak and hear, though very defectively. And, on this supposition, it is perhaps still more easy to see why our Lord addressed him in Aramaic, In addition to the consideration formerly mentioned, there is now this one, that that was the only lan guage of which it was at all likely the sufferer could possess any knowledge. He was dealt with throughout as an intelligent being. The various signs employed, doubtless, conveyed a meaning to his mind; and when, at last, the decisive word was spoken, it was in the highest degree proper that that also should be intelligible to him. It was, there fore, graciously uttered in a language which alone, in his afflicted circumstances, he could have learned at all to understand — the mother-tongue of his native country. In the only other remarkable 'instance, recorded in the Gospels, of our Lord's use of Hebrew instead of Greek — His cry upon the cross — an obvious reason, which we may venture to assign for His having chosen the one language in preference to the other, will, I am disposed to believe, present itself to every reader. His thoughts naturally reverted, in that hour of suffering, to the very words which His illustrious type had used in the time of his distress — words on which the Saviour's mind had, no doubt, often before pondered, and words therefore, which then spontaneously rose to His lips, in their original OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 97 form, as He now experienced the hidings of His Father's countenance*. And, on the hypothesis that our Lord spoke for the raost part in Greek, we can also very naturally account for those isolated and occasional Hebrew * In 'wi'iting thus, I am, of course, perfectly aware that, as the words in question stand in the Greek Gospels, they are in the form, not of ancient, but modern Hebrew, But, even though actually spoken as recorded by St Mark, the language used with respect to them .above could scarcely be regarded as altogether inappropriate, for they might still be said, even in their most Aramaised form, when compared 'with the corresponding Greek, to re-echo the very tones of the Psalmist. And I venture to think it by no means certain that our Lord did not, in fact, employ the exact expressions of David. Supposing Him to have done so, it is still probable, I think, that the evangelists would have preserved the words in Aramaic. This I reckon probtible, both because we have every reason to believe that the writers were but little acquainted with ancient Hebrew, and because the evangelic nar rative having been often repeated to those who understood (besides Greek) only modern Hebrew, the passage in question would soon come to be expressed in that corrupted form of the ancient language. And in the variations which are here found in the respective texts of Matthew and Mark, we seera to trace the process of deflection from tho original words, as perhaps spoken by our Saviour. St Matthew, accord ing to the received text, differs only by a single word (a-a^ax6avl for 'JPI3tJ)) from the Hebrew of the Psalms, while St Mark inip.arts a stronger Aramaic colouring to the whole exclamation. And the remark of Beza (in loc.) seems here in point: "Ego arbitror Christum Hebrseas Davidis voces usurpasse, ut apparet ex manifestiori paronomasia Eli et Eliee" — It raay 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 solicitous, as are the other evangelists, to preserve the exact words which our Lord employed, (compare e.g. chap. viii. 54 with Mark v. 41, and, generaUy, the Gospel 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 beUeve that, though preserved to us in Greek, it was really expressed 7 98 GENERAL PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT^ terms which occur in His discourses. The Aramaic had, as a matter of course, no small influence upon the Greek of the country ; and necessarily insinuated many of its idioms and expressions into the coexist ing language. Hence the occurrence of such words as Amen, Corban, Rabbi, &c., of such designations as Cephas, Boanerges, &c., and of such phrases as ¦n-poawTTOv Xaix(iaveiv, yeveaOai Qavarov, &C. It seeniS 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 Mafj.fxoiya, (Luke xvi, II,) wliilo 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 our 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, He simply adopts, and adapts to His own circumstances, the sentiment expressed by David. OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE, 99 It appears, then, from a general survey of the 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 eraployed; — 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 CHAPTER 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 hope of discovering evidence in their intimations, that Greek was the language which 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 alraost universal opinion. 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 the language now employed by our Lord was Greek, influenced, in doing so, by the following considerations. To WHOM was that discourse addressed? This question has obviously a most important bearing on the other as to the language in which it was spoken. Our Lord, of course, intended that all His hearers should understand Him, He did not, therefore, employ a form of speech, which, while it might be understood by some, would be unintelligible to others; but, ignoring provincial or local peculiarities 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 kingdora, and healing all manner of sickness, and all manner of disease among the people; and his farae 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 frora Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and frora Judaea, 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 hira, and he opened his mouth 102 SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE GOSPELS OF THE and taught them, saying," &c. There can be no doubt that the discourse was addressed to the whole assemblage, so far as the mere hearing of it was concerned. Several passages, indeed, such as chap, V, 13; vi, 9; vii, 6, indicate that our Lord spoke more iraraediately to His disciples. But it is also plain frora other passages, that He spoke so as to be heard and understood by the raultitude at large; for we are told chap, vii, 28, that "when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people (oi o^^Aoi) were asto nished at His doctrine," — thus proving that they had all been addressed in His discourse, and had all listened with sorae degree of intelligence to the in structions which He delivered*. Now, have we any reason to believe that the inhabitants oi Decapolis understood Hebrew? Is it not, on the contrary, well known that the ten cities which gave narae 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 His dis ciples. He accordingly ascended a mountain there, that He might teach His disciples,' f^Meyer on Matt. v. 2). No doubt the multitude must be regarded as hearers (v, 1, vu. 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 s.ame footing witk the prophets, (comp. hiha^r,, ver. 19, and vii, 6,) evidently refer to teachers. Hence, we raust 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 p-adriTm, whom St Luke vi. 13, 17, distinguishes from the otootoXoi; and beyond them stood the crowd."— Tholuck' s "Sermon on the Mount," Introd. p. 14 ; Clark's " For. Theol. Library," Edin. 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 improbably, the name continued, while some of the cities, once comprehended under it, had sunk into decay. Different lists of these cities are given by ancient writers. Pliny, expressly noticing this diversity, mentions the following — Scythopolis, Hip pos, Gadara, Pella, Philadelphia, Gerasa, Dion, Ca- natha, Damascus, and Raphana. Josephus again, by stating ("Wars," iii. 9, 7) that Scythopolis was the largest city of Decapolis, seems plainly to exclude Damascus from the number; and yet other slight variations occur in the lists which have come down to us from antiquityf . But there is no doubt about the leading cities in the district, which were Gadara, Gerasa, Philadel phia, Hippos, Pella, and Scythopolis. And the im portant point to be noticed is, that, as Josephus informs us, these were thoroughly Greek cities. He expressly gives that narae to Gadara and Hippos j:; 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 DecapoUs as follows : " Ein District von 10 Stadten rait wesentlich heidnischer Bevolkerung." — Art. Decapolis. To the same effect, Abp. Trench reraarks, that "a great part of the population of DecapoUs was certainly Gentile."^ — " Notes on the Mira cles," p. 174. + See Smith's " Dictionary of the Bible," Art. Decapolis, for a state ment of these variations. + Tabapa Kai "litrtos 'EXXiji/iSf r ela-\ noKds. — Joseph., " Antiq." XVII. 11. 4; see also "Wars," 11. 6, 3. § Joseph. "Wars," 11. 18. 1. 104 SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE GOSPELS OF THE than that this region of Decapolis •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 was 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 language which St Luke employs with respect to the persons to whom the sermon which he reports was addressed. At chap, vi, 17, we find these described by the evangelist as follows : — "And He came down with them, (the apostles,) and stood in the plain, and the corapany of His disciples, and a great multitude of people out of all Judcea and Jerusalem, and from the sea-coast of Tyre and Sidon, who came to hear Him, and to be healed of their diseases," We thus learn that among our Lord's audience on this occasion, there were the inhabitants at once of Jerusalem and of Tyre and Sidon, In the discourse which follows, it is manifest that while, as in Matthew, some pas sages are specially applicable to the -apostles, the Avhole multitude was simultaneously addressed; and that, of course, in a language which all understood. What, then, loas that language ? Will any one maintain that it was Hebrew, in the face 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, which begins as follows : — " M. Antony, impe- rator, to the magistrates, senate, and people of Tyre, sendeth greeting. I have sent you ray decree, respecting which I will that ye take care that it be engraven in the public tables, in Roman and Greek letters, and that it stand engraven in the most conspicuous places, so as to be read by all."* It is plain from this that Greek was the language of the district, and that no other was coraraonly 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 Caesar sent a decree to its inhabitants, which contained the injunction that it should be " publicly set forth on a tablet of brass in the Greek and Latin languages."! Again, we are told 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 same Roman magistrate was ordered to be published at each of them in the Greek and Latin languages,:]: It seems too plain, from all this, to admit of any denial, that Greek was then the only language 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, X Ibid. XIV. 10. 3. § This conclusion is stiU further confirmed by two inscriptions found at Puteoli, the one being the copy of a letter which the inhabitants of that place addressed to the people of Tyre, and the other a copy of the answer which the Tyrians returned, both of which are written in 106 SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE GOSPELS OF THE understood by them must of necessity have been delivered in the Greek language. But if this conclusion be admitted, the whole controversy raay 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 wiU 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 were on the occasion or occasions referred to, the inhabitants of Judsea and Jerusalem, no less than of Decapolis, and Tyre and Sidon, among his hearers; and it is quite evident, from the evangelic narratives, that all equally understood Him, and were, therefore, all perfectly familiar with the Greek language. There are just two views which can be taken of the question we are now considering. Tlie sermon (or, if you will, sermons) referred to, was spoken either in Hebreiv 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 Decapohs 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 produced; and that, as has been already shewn, Greek was then the language of these districts*. As- the Greek language. See Gruteri, " Inscriptiones antiquse totius Orbis Romani," Tom. ii. p. 1105. Binterim remarks, "jEgyptios a tempore Ptol. Lagi Grsecam linguam locutos fuisse, sicut et Phmnicos constat,"— "De Lmgua," &c. p. 169. * Sperling, referring to the fact that all the Tyrian coins of this PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE, 107 sumptions may, no doubt, be met with in several writers, to the effect, that what they call a Syro- Phoenician dialect was then prevalent in these regions ; but not a vestige of evidence is presented, Gesenius, who will not be suspected of any undue leaning to wards the views maintained in this work, states, in his elaborate treatise on the ancient Language of Phoenicia, that, from the tirae of Alexander down wards, it was gradually encroached upon by the Greek, until, at length, it becarae altogether extinct*. He thinks, indeed, from the evidence of a few coins of uncertain date, that it continued to be used, " ali- quo mode," down to the times of the Antonines ; but is very far from suggesting that it was generally em ployed among the people in the days of our Saviour, And, even granting that this was the case, it would "still remain to be shewn that the Syro-Phcenician and Syro-Chaldaic dialects were identical ; or, if dif ferent, which of thera was now adopted by our Lord, since He had hearers at once from Tyre and Jeru- period bore Greek inscriptions, remarks, in explanation of this point : " Postquam enini Alexandri Magni successores et Graeci Syriam tenu- erunt, et Greece illic locuti sunt, et non nisi Grsece scripserunt, et Groecorum moribus res omnes administrarunt, ergo nummos quoque ; omnisque Tyria vel Phoenicia scriptio vetusta et inscriptio evanuit ac periit." — "De Numrais non cusis," p, 5K '* " Quo terapore prisci serraonis usus in Phoenicia interciderit Grse- coque cesserit, accurate definiri non potest, quanquara post Alexandri tempera et vigente Seleucidarum tempore id sensim accidisse debet ; diutius tamen quara apud Hebrseos et usque ad Antoninos aliquo mode eura perstitisse, quum alias ob causas credibile est (Hebrxorum enim lingua jam inde ab exilio ab invalcscente Aramsea sede sua deturbari cceperat, quum contra pacatiores Phcenicianim urbium res prisci serrao nis Usui faverent) tura numi ostendunt usque ad ilia tempera Phoenicia lingua literisque Phceniciis inscripti." — Gesenius, " Scripturse Linguseque Phoenicia Monumenta," p, 339. 108 SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE GOSPELS OF THE salem. The truth is, as I trust has been sufficiently proved, that neither the one nor the other was em ployed ; but that the very Greek, in substance, which is still preserved in the Gospels — the peculiar, orien talised Greek of Syria and Palestine, bearing through out such a strong, Shemitic colouring, and embalm ing, so to speak, some such Aramaic terras as Raca and More, which had, most naturally, forced their way into the language — was made use of by our Lord in this the solemn and impressive commence ment of His public ministry. But then, as I have already remarked, this is a ruling case with respect to the question under discus sion. If our Lord spoke in Greek on the occasion referred to, it is certain that the inhabitants of Judsea and Jerusalem were thoroughly familiar with that language; and it would, therefore, be quite arbitrary' to conclude that the Saviour ever employed any other in addressing thera, unless a special intimation to that effect is made by the evangelists, or some cir cumstances present themselves which render it pro bable that a departure from His usual practice did at any time take place*. '* Very few attempts have been made to set aside the above rea soning as to the language of the Sermon on the Mount. The two fol lowing, however, have come under my notice, and I think it only respectful to refer to thera, although I cannot help saying that the arguments appear to me hardly worthy of the manifestly able and learned writers who have advanced them. The first passage is taken frora a review of my work in " Evangelical Christendom," Aug. I862> p. 384. Referring to the proof given above that Greek was the lan guage of Tyre and Sidon at the time, the writer proceeds thus : — " But admitting this fact, which can, indeed, scarcely be gainsayed, are we necessitated thereby to admit his conclusion, that Greek must have been the language in which the people collected together from aU these various parts were addressed by our Lord? We would throw the onus PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 109 And here I cannot but observe that very many of the proofs adduced in this and the following chapters from the New Testament, must be held decisive of the controversy, unless these proofs can all be repelled as unsatisfactory. If it be once granted that our Lord inaugurated His public work as a teacher by delivering a long discourse to a promiscuous auditory in Greek, the conflict is virtually at an end ; and we expect only in future to find everywhere confirmatory evidence of the conclusion which has already been probandi here on Mr Roberts, and ask how he can prove that these people from GaUlee and from beyond Jordan, as well as from the other localities, were not a Hebrew-speaking people assembled to hear our Lord's teachiBg in their vernacular] How can it possibly be proved that there wore no Hebrew-speaking people residing among the Greek- speaking Jews in Tyre and Sidon ?" I readily grant that it is impossible for me or any other to prove the negative thus proposed. But surely it is enough for ray argument, if, as is admitted, 1 have shewn that Greek was the only language then commonly used by the n.atives of Tyre and Sidon. If any one grants that fact, and yet maintains that the people from these parts may have been acquainted with Hebrew, then the onus probandi manifestly falls upon him: he is bound to make good his proposition. We know beyond a doubt that Greek was understood by the generality of our Lord's auditors on this occasion : can it be shewn that Aramaic was known to more than only nfew of thera ? The only other objection to the validity of ray reasoning above, which I have seen, is the foUowing from the "Literary Churchman,'' June 16, 1862. " Mr Roberts argues that the Sermon on the Mount must have been spoken in Greek, because it is said (St Matt. vii. 28) that 'the people were astonished at his doctrine ;' people who, coming from Tyre and Sidon and from the Decapolis, &c., understood only one common language, Greek. But it is expressly stated that our Lord addressed Himself to His disciples, and taught thera (ch. v. 1, 2), so that by oi i-)(Koi is meant here, as in raany other places, not every individual that made up the o^kos, among which at least a few must have understood their native tongue, — ^but only some of these individuals." — See in reply to this the remarks already raade as to our Lord's audience on this occasion, and observe that the multitude are expressly said (Luke vi. 17) to have corae to hear Him — surely not to be tantalized by being addressed in a forra of speech wliich it Is adraitted only a few among them understood. — 1864. 110 SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE GOSPELS OF THE reached. And so with not a few of the examples about to be noticed. The argument is of a strikingly cumulative character. Each separate part of it gives strength to all the rest. And any one of the proofs, that our Lord employed Greek on ordinary occasions, being admitted as satisfactory, goes far to establish that point with respect to other cases, which in them selves might have been regarded as doubtful. Desiring the reader to bear this remark in mind, and to excuse that embarras des richesses which is almost the only difficulty that besets us in the fur ther prosecution of our argument, let me now direct attention to those passages in the Gospels, in which our Saviour on the one hand, or His hearers on the other, are represented as making quotations from the Old Testament. The question which here occurs is — In what language were these quotations made ? To this question it may be answered frst, that they were made directly from the original text, in ancient Hebrew ; or, secondly, that they were made in Ara maic ; or, thirdly, what I believe to be the only ten able opinion, that they were made, as they still stand in the Gospels, frora the Greek version of the Sep tuagint. Let us examine these three hypotheses, with the view of ascertaining which of them alone can be regarded as consistent with the facts ofthe case. First, then, there is probably an indefinite notion in the minds of many readers, that the citations referred to were made from the ancient Hebrew text. When we read, as we so often do, of the appeals which our Lord and those around Him made to the Scriptures, we think, of course, of the Old Testament; PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. Ill and the impression is perhaps received and rested in, that the references were made to the original Hebrew text. But a very few words are sufficient to refute this opinion. It is certain that, long before the birth of our Saviour, the ancient Hebrew had ceased to be generally known or eraployed araong the people. We cannot, indeed, fix the exact time when it ceased to be a living language, in the usual sense of these Avords, that is, ceased to be the ordinary language of speech and writing araong the Jews. Opinions differ araong the learned on this point. Sorae have inferred from the well-known passage in Nehemiah, (chap. viii. 8,) that even at the date of the return from the Captivity, (about 450 B.C.,) the knowledge of ancient Hebrew had been lost by the great body of the people, and was never again recovered. Others contend that the passage referred to merely implies that Ezra paraphrased or explained, not interpreted or trans lated, the portions which he then read from the sacred books*. But, whatever view may be adopted on ¦* As above remarked, the question as to the tirae when the ancient Hebrew ceased to be generally used among the Jews, is one on which opinion is much divided, and which does not seem to admit of definite settlement. The learned Jewish authorities. Rabbis and Talmudists, generally assume that it continued to be used only up to the time of the Exile, and was then gradually superseded by the Araraaic. This opinion has been adopted by raany Christian writers, such as Buxtorf and Walton, and has, more recently, been maintained by Hengstenberg, (" Authenticity of the Book of Daniel," Clark's " For. Theol. Lib." p. 242, seq.,) and by Havernick (" Introd. to the Old Test.," § 35). Others, again, such as Gesenius and Bleek, have contended against this opinion, as resting upon a mistaken apprehension of the meaning of the word E5nbp employed in Neh. viii. 8. Gesenius observes (" Heb. Gramm.," § 2, 6; comp, "Gesch. des Heb. Spr." § 13,) "It is a false impression, derived from a misinterpretation of Neh. viii. 8, that the Jews, during their exUe, had wholly forgotten their ancient langu,age, and were 112 SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE GOSPELS OF THE this subject, it is universally admitted, that at least a century before the commenceraent of our era the ancient Hebrew had ceased to be used in writing, as it had previously ceased to be employed in speech *; and that, while it continued to be studied by the learned as being the language of inspiration, it was, in the days of our Saviour, utterly unknown to the great majority of the Jewish people t. This being obliged to learn its meaning from the priests and scribes." And Bleek maintains (" Einl. in das A. T.," p. 96) that the true meaning of the dis puted word is not translated or interpreted, but distinct or clear, so tliat the pass.T,ge simply implies that Ezra explained those portions of the Old Testament which he read in the hearing of the people. G«- senius, {" Gesch.," ut sup>.,) while admitting that the ancient Hebrew gradually died out after the Captivity, aflBrnis it to be certain " dass zu Nehemia's Zeit das Volk noch hebraiscli redete (ri'''l-ln* Neh. xiii. 24,)" though it may fairly be questioned whether this passage -will bear the stress which he puts upon it. Either way, it is admitted on all hands that for a considerable time before the birth of Christ the an cient Hebrew had entirely ceased to be generally used among the Jews, and was then studied only by the learned as the venerable language of their sacred books. '* Even those admit this who maintain the late origin of Daniel, and some other canonical books. De Wette remarks : " Nach dem Exile verlor sich die hebraische Sprache nach und nach aus dem Munde des A'^olkes, und blieb nur noch als gelehrte und Schriftsprache iibrig ; und manche spatere Erzeugnisse der hebraischen Litteratur, z. B. Daniel. sind diesem kunstliohen Gebrauche dersolben zu danken." — "Einl. in das A. T.," § 34 ; comp. Art. Hebraische Sprache, Hertzog's " Real- Encyc." It seems to me a strong argument against the hypothesis, so generally accepted by modern critics, that the Book of Daniel belongs to the age of Antiochus Epiphanes, that, as we formerly saw, the Jewish literature of that period was almost exclusively Greek. In spite of all that has been so powerfully urged on the other side, I hold that the Book of Daniel is a genuine product of the time of the Exile. t Few, I conceive, ivill admit the assertion found in "Evangelical Christendom," Sept. 1860, (p. 470,) that the prevailing language of Pales tine in the times of our Lord and His apostles was such " as to allow still of the free use and reading of the Hebrew Scriptures in the syna gogues, and of their being understood of the people generally."— iVbw tali auxilv), &c. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 113 the case, it could not possibly have been in the ancient Hebrew that those quotations were made A\'hich occur in our Lord's addresses to the multitude, or which they employed at times in conversation with Hira. Refer for an example of the first kind of quo tation to Mark xii, 35 — 37, in which passage the Saviour is set before us teaching publicly in the tem ple, and introducing an Old Testament text into His discourse, "And Jesus answered and said," we read, "while he taught in the teraple. How say the scribes that Christ is the son of David ? For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool, David therefore himself call- eth him Lord ; and whence is he then his son ? And the common people (J ttoXus o-)(Xoi, who certainly knew nothing of ancient Hebrew) heard him gladly." Next, let us view the matter conversely, when the quota tion from the Old Testament is made, not by Christ, but by the people. Referring to John vi, 31, for an example, we find the multitude (o o;^\os, ver, 24) ad dressing the Saviour in these words, "Our fathers did eat manna in the desert, as it is written. He gave thera bread from heaven to eat." They thus quoted familiarly from the Book of Psalms, and in what lan guage was the quotation made ? Certainly not in the ancient Hebrew; for as has been already shewn, that language was then utterly unknown to almost the whole body of the people. But abandoning this first hypothesis, as all must of necessity do, many will be inclined to take their stand on the second, and maintain, that such quota- 8 114 SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE GOSPELS OF THE tions were raade in Aramaic*. This, however, may also be shewn to be an equally untenable opinion. We have no satisfactory evidence that a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures ever existed in the Syro- Chaldaic language. Frequent reference is no doubt made in the writings of modern biblical critics to ancient Targums, or translations and paraphrases of the Old Testament, which were formerly in use among the Jews. But, when we come to examine the mat ter, Ave find it is a mere assumption that these existed in the days of our Saviour ; or that, if known at all, they circulated in a written form among the people. Can it be supposed that it was to such versions our Lord referred, when He said to His hearers, "Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life ; and they are they which testify of me ?" These words evidently imply (whether the imperative, or indicative, rendering of epevvaTs be adopted) that the people had easy and familiar access to the inspired Avritings, and that they could read and compare these, from beginning to end, without any dependence on rabbinical or sacerdotal aid. Now, what proof is there that an Aramaic version of the Scriptures was then current among them ? What ground is there to believe that the ancient Hebrew writings, which were then a sealed book to the commonalty among the Jews, had been so fairly and fully rendered into the popular dialect, and were in this form so generally read among the people, that our Lord can be regarded * Renan, for instance, referring to the Targums, says : " II est pro bable que Jesus et ses premiers disciples se servaient de ces traduc tions ; peut-etre en fut il de meme pour I'historien Josfephe."—" Histoire des Langues Se'mitiques," p. 220 ; comp. Gesenius, " Gesch. d. Heb. Spr." § 21. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 115 as referring to such a version, when He used the words which have been quoted, and said to His hear ers, " Search the scriptures ?" Not the slightest trace of such a version is to be met with in the New Testaraent, unless, as sorae have fancied. Matt, xxvii, 46 contains a proof of its existence* — truly a some what slender foundation on which to rest such a hypothesis; — and not the least acquaintance with it is indicated by Josephus, unless the dream of Pfann kuche be accepted as a sober reality, that the Jewish historian, in using the Septuagint translation, was dependent after all, as his Alexandrine predecessors had been, on ancient Targums of the Hebrew Scrip tures f. The only approach which is made to an argument for the existence of such a version, is found in these two statements — that some ancient Chaldee translations of parts of the Hebrew Bible are extant at the present day, and that there is reason to sup pose, frora the necessities of the case, that such writ ten translations existed before and at the date of our Saviour's sojourn upon the earth. Let us look a little more closely at these two points. By far the oldest existing Targums are those of Onkelos and Jonathan. Much doubt rests upon the time when these were composed, but they are gene- * "Eine Spur targuniischer Uobersctzung Matt, xxvii. 46.'' — De Wette, " Einl. in das A. T.," § 57. t This opinion has been countenanced by some other scholars, but rests upon no solid foundation. Frankel, chief rabbi of the Jewish Church in Dresden and Leipzig, has shewn that it furnishes no satis factory explanation of the differences between the Septuagint and the Hebrew text. Sec his " Vorstudien zu der Scptuaginta," pp xv. 37, &c. 8—2 116 SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE GOSPELS OF THE rally placed about the second century after Christ*. Sorae have assigned them an earlier, and others a -jnuch later origin ; but it is at all events certain that neither the one nor the other existed before the first century of our era. As has been said, they are en tirely ignored both by Josephus and the writers of the New Testament, to whom may now be added the ancient fathers of the Church, even Origen and Jerome, who were acquainted with Hebrew litera ture. They are written in Chaldee, the language of Onkelos being very pure, while that of Jonathan is more corrupt. The Targura of Onkelos is a faith ful translation of the Five Books of Moses, following the original text very closely, except in the explana tions of figurative language which it admits, and its avoidance of anthropopathic and indelicate expres sions. The Targura of Jonathan on the Prophets is a rauch more paraphrastic work; and, although deeraed by a few more ancient than that of Onkelos, seems to bear evidence, in its internal character, that it was composed at a somewhat later date. These are all the remains of the most ancient Jewish translations which we possess, or of which Ave can trace almost the slightest indication. Some rabbinical notices occur of a supposed version of Job about the middle of the first century f; and hence it has been inferred by a great number of writers, that the other books of the Old Testament had also Max Muller may be regarded as expressing the average opinion of scholars on this point when he says, in reference to the Targums, The most ancient are those of Onkelos and Jonathan, in the second century after Christ."-" Lectures on Language," 1st Ser. p. 264. t De Wette, ut sup., § 57; and Zunz, " Vortrage," p, 61. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 117 been translated. But the very earliest date at which it can be affirmed, with any pretence to proof, that a written Chaldee translation of any part of the Hebrew Scriptures existed, is the middle of the first century. The learned German scholar Zunz, who has so thoroughly investigated this whole subject, assigns the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan to that date* ; and in the absence of all positive evi dence as to the exact period of their formation, this may be allowed. But, in my humble judgment, it is quite arbitrary when he asserts on the previous page, that "beyond doubt written translations of the most of the sacred books had existed in Araraaic e\"en during the times ofthe Maccabees f." If it were so, all proof at least is wanting. And when we reflect that even before the times of the Maccabees, as was formerly shewn, the Greek language had obtained a Avide prevalence in Palestine, and reraeraber that the Septuagint version of the Scriptures was probably completed by the end of the third century before Christ, we shall perhaps not feel that stringent neces sity for written Aramaic translations, which has been so rauch pressed by many critics. After the Hebrew ceased to be a living language, it was of '* After noticing the causes which he conceives to have long pre vented the formation of written Chaldee versions, he says : " Endlich aber erbUckte man doch eine gliickliche Losung der Aufgabe, sich gleich weit von Zusatzen als von buchstablichen tfbertragung zu hal ten, in der wahrend der ersten Halfte des ersten Jahrhunderts angefer- tigten Ubersetzungen des Gesetzes und der Propheten durch Onkelos den Proselyten und Jonathan ben Uziel einen Schiiler Hillels." — Zunz, " Die gottesdienstlichen Vortrage der Juden," p. 62. t " Geschriebene aramaische tjbersetzungen der moisten Biblischen Biicher hat es sicherlich schon unter den Hasmonaern gegeben." — Zunz, ut sup., p. 61. 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 frora 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 written 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 araong 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 araong 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 araong thera ; and we have now to consider whether that necessity raay not be shewn to have been met in another and better way than by assuraing 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 raade, 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 Testaraent, 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 meraory, or of a soraewhat different text of the LXX. having been followed from that which 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 GrinfiAd's " Apology for the Septuagint," passim. 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 large 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 though 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 famihar 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 enouo^h to find vague statements in the works of biblical critics, to the effect that Chaldee was then the prevailing language of Palestine. A learned German writer has brought out very clearly the fact that the language neither of Onkelos nor Jonathan represents the vulgar tongue of the inhabitants of Palestine in the times of Christ and His apostles*. In this opinion he is followed by M. Renan t, and * " Die Sprache der Paraphrasen, die nicht die Volkssprache der ge- wohnlichen Juden reprasentirt, ist araraaisch, wie es auch ausserhalb Babylonien zu finden war. Die gewohnliche jiid. Sprache war weder in Babylonien noch in Palastina, die rein-araraaische, sondern in Palas tina die palastinisch-aramaisch-hebraische und in Babylonien die baby- lonisch-aramaisch-hebraische (in welchen beiden die beiden Talmuden geschrieben sind) und iiberhaupt ist kein babylonischer, von dera sy- rischen verschiedener Dialect fiir jene Zeit erwiesen." — F-Ursfs " Lehr- gebaude der aramaischen Idiome," p. 5. + " On admettait generaleraent jusqu'ici que la langue des Targums representait a peu prfes la langue vulgaire de la Palestine a I'epoque du PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 121 was indeed, long before anticipated by our own Lightfoot, as will be plain from the following sen tences from the writings of that illustrious Hebrew and Rabbinical scholar. Having stated " that Jonathan the son of Uzziel, a scholar of Hillel, about the time of Christ's birth, rendered all the Prophets into the Chaldee language," and given sorae reasons why this translation was not made into Syriac, he adds, " None knew the (ancient) Hebrew but such as learned it by study. However, therefore, all the Jews inhabiting the land of Canaan did not so readily understand the Chaldee language as the Syriac, which was their mother-language, yet they much more readily understood that than the Hebrew, which to the unlearned was not known at all. Hence, it was not without necessity that the Prophets were turned into the Chaldee language by Jonathan, and the Law not rauch after by Onkelos, that they might a little be understood by the common people, by whom the Hebrew original was not known at aU"». Christ. M. Fiirst a eleve centre ce sentiment d'assez graves difficultes. En effet, la paraphrase d'Onkelos est le plus pur monuraent que nous ayons de la langue Arameenne ; or il est difiicile de croire que le peuple de la Palestine parlat un idiome aussi de'gage d'Hebra'ismes." — Renan, " Hist, des Lang. Sem.," p. 220 ; comp. pp. 226-7. '* Lightfoot's "Horse Hebraicse," ii., p. 20, GandeWs edit., Oxford, 1859. It wiU be observed that Lightfoot speaks in this passage of Syriac as having been the popular language of Palestine in the time of Christ. His authority on all points of Hebrew learning stands de servedly high, and has been greatly deferred to by bibUcal critics in this country, but they have completely departed from his views respect ing this matter. Instead of saying with him that Chaldee was but " a little understood" by the Jews of our Saviour's day, they have even identified that language with the Hebrew referred to in the New Tes tament as made use of by the inhabitants of Jerusalem. (See, e.g., Conyh. and Howson, Vol. l. 38 ; Alford on Matt. xxvu. 46, and many 122 SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE GOSPELS OF THE It is perfectly obvious that the words, 'EpeuvSre T-ds ypacpdu could never have been addressed by Christ to the people, if they had had access to these scriptures only in a language which they but " a little understood;" and as we have no evidence whatever that, in addition to these disputed, and but little available, Chaldee Targums, the Old Testament was then generally current in any other version than that of the Septuagint, we must conclude that our Lord's words referred to it — that His quotations were made from it — that it, in fact, then constituted the peo- f)le's Bible in Palestine, — and that, therefore, they must have been thoroughly familiar with the Greek language. Leaving this point, let us next glance at the account contained in the fourth chapter of St John's Gospel of our Lord's conversation with the woman of Samaria. Was that discourse carried on in Hebrew or Greek? Here, again, most readers will probably be inclined to say at once that it was Hebrew, in fluenced unwittingly by the prepossessions which pre- others.) Yet, while we are told by these -writers on one page that Chaldee was the " Hebrew" of the Testaraent, we read on another page that Syro-Chaldaic constituted the language in question. (Comp. Conyb. and Howson, Vol. i. 3 ; and Alford on Acts xxi. 40.) The truth seems to be, that neither the eastern branch of the Aramaic language, (Chaldee,) nor the western branch, (Syriac,) but a mixture of both these dialects -with the ancient Hebrew, formed the popular "Hebrew" of our Lord's time ; and that, therefore, no translations of the Old Testa ment, either in Chaldee or Syriac, would have been more than, as Lightfoot remarks respecting versions in the former language, "a little understood" among the people. Some have maintained that the Syriac and Chaldee languages were all but identical. See, e.g., "Ab- handlungvon der syrischen Sprache," by J. D. Michaelis, p. 52; but comp. with the above remarks, Reuss, "Gesch. der heil. Sch. N.T.," §40. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 123 vail upon the subject. But I have no hesitation in maintaining the contrary opinion, and affirming that the conversation was conducted in the same language in which it has been preserved by the evangelist. I do so, both on account of what we may infer from other sources, respecting the prevailing language of Samaria at the time, and what we are led to gather on the point in question from the special features and indications which the discourse itself presents. It appears very evident, both from the Second Book of Maccabees, and from Josephus, how eager the Samaritans were to yield to those Hellenic in fluences which were so powerfully at work in Pales tine, for some generations before the birth of Christ, We are told (2 Mace, vi, 2) that in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim was dedicated to Jupiter Xenius, "according to the wish of the inhabitants of the place," And the JcAvish historian, referring to the same event, gives a full account ("Antiq," xii. 5, 5) of the revolt of the Samaritans at that time frora all that was peculiarly Jewish, They addressed An tiochus in the most adulatory and even idolatrous terms, entreating the king to regard thera as "aliens from the nation and customs of the Jews," and begging that their teraple, which, they declared, had, as yet, no name at all, should be denominated after Jupiter Hellenius, To this raeraorial, as was to be expected, Antiochus returned a gracious answer. He readily granted the request they had made respecting their temple*; and in his answer spoke of them as '* It will be noticed that there is a slight discrepancy between tho statements made in the Second Book of Maccabees and by Josephus, 124 SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE GOSPELS OF THE " desiring to live according to the customs of the Greeks." It thus appears, that, from the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, the inhabitants of Samaria had become thoroughly Hellenized; and it cannot be doubted that, as an essential part of their Hel lenism, they readily adopted the Greek language. Like the other natives of Palestine they became bilingues, their national dialect still continuing to exist*, but being overshadowed by the more preva lent tongue of Greece. In these circumstances, it is easy to see that the Jews, in any necessary inter course which they had with the Samaritans, would not be likely to employ the form of speech peculiar to either people, but would make use of that one which was coraraon to both; so that the conversa tion which our Lord now entered into with a woman of Samaria, would be carried on, neither in the Gali- respecting the name which was given to the Samaritan temple. Ac cording to the one authority it was called Jupiter Xenius, according to the other Jupiter Hellenius. But both agree as to the essential fact, which indicates the decided Greek and Gentile tendencies then prevar lent among the Samaritans. * The Samaritan dialect, like the Jewish, consisted of a mixture of the Aramaic and Hebrew languages. {Fiirst, " Lehrg. der aram. Idiom.," p. 16.) The only specimens of it extant are furnished by the transla tion of the Pentateuch, (of which the date is unknown,) and some sacred poetry. See Gesenius, ut sup., § 24; and De Wette, §§ 32, 63. Renan observes on this point : " La version du Pentateuque, le plus ancien des ecrits Samaritains que nous restent, version que la plupart des critiques rapportent au 1'' sifecle de notre ere, et oii se trahit I'influ- ence du Targura d'Onkelos, presente de si nombreux Arabismes, qu'on est force d'adraettre qu'eUe a subi retouche aprfes I'lslamisrae. Un savant {M. Frankel) a meme ose soutenir, et non sans de bonnes rai- sons, qu'elle n'avait e'te composee que depuis cette epoque." — Renan, ut sup., p. 232. He adds the caution: "II ne faut pas confondre cette version avec le text Hebreu du Pentateuque en caractferes Samaritains, que possfedent aussi les Samaritains." PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 12.5 lean nor Samaritan dialect of Hebrew, but in the Greek language. Next, however, let the discourse speak for itself It is evident to any one who reads it, that the evan gelist takes all pains to report the conversation very accurately, in whatever language it raay be supposed to have been conducted. This is plain, among other proofs, from the 25th verse, which reads as follows: "The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias Cometh, who is called Christ; when he is come, he will tell us all things." The best critics hold, I be lieve correctly, that the parenthetical clause in this verse (o Xeyofxevo's Xpiaroi) is not an explanation of the evangelist, but was really uttered by the woman herself And if so, the point is settled : she spoke in Greek. But, even taking the opposite view, that these words were inserted by the Evangelist, we can account for his having taken the trouble to do this, instead of at once using the equivalent Greek term Christ, in relating the woman's portion of the dia logue, only by taking into account his extreme desire to report exactly the very terms which were employed. And in that case, why does he raake the woraan speak of Christ, and not Messiah, in ver. 29, and the men of the city declare in ver. 42, "We know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world ?" It is obvious that, in these two verses, the Apostle represents the Samaritans as employing the Greek term Xpiaros ; it is also plain, frora the accuracy with which he is writing, that he would not have done this, had they not actually used it; so that, even though the more improbable view be taken of the explanatory clause in ver, 2 5, it still remains clear 126 SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE GOSPELS OF THE that Greek was familiarly used among the Samar itans, and that this conversation therefore was pro bably carried on in that language. But this proba bility becomes a certainty, when we take into consi deration what has already been proved respecting the loner-continued Hellenic tendencies ofthe Samaritans; and thus we find, in the passage under review, what can hardly fail to be regarded as another undoubted exaraple of our Lord's employment of the Greek language*. '* Though of no essential importance to my argument, I cannot reprint this passage without noticing the following reraarks made upon it by a very able and friendly reviewer of my work : — " Throughout the whole of his book Mr Roberts has handled his problems in the most excellent spirit There is but one instance where he seems, for a time, to forget the position which, as an historian, he ought to occupy in ex amining the evidence supplied by different portions of the Gospel in support of his theory. When treating of the conversation between our Lord and the woman of Samaria, he points out with perfect truth that the Samaritans, even more than the Jews, had adopted at that time the language and the 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 25th 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 pai-enthetical clause, 'who is called Christ' (o Xtyo- p.evos Xpicrros) 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 have 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 ipsissima verba, but to convey to His disciples the same lesson , probably with greater fulness, which He had delivered to the ignorant and worldly woman of Samaria. And, waiving this, there stiU remains the further objection that the evangelist who wrote down 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, 1862. 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 Avere certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast: the same came therefore to Philip, who Avas of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying. Sir, we would see Jesus." It cannot be doubted for a moment, that these Greeks (^'EXXrjves) 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 natiA'e 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 rae 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. There 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 iraproba)>le that he should here again have so needlessly repeated his own words. Besides, as argued above, the wom.an 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 mserted 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 o Xpio-Tos is not here an interpolation) as making use of the term Me.mah, and not Christ ?' Comp. Alford in loc, but observe his unsatisfactory explanation of the use of the Greek word Xpia-Tos by the woraan. * It is doubtful what was the exact object of the desire which these Greeks expressed " to see Jesus." Some, like Alford, (in loc.) have held very decidedly that it was a priva'.e interview which they requested ; 128 SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE GOSPELS OF THE noAV 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 conclusion 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 altogether opposed to our Lord's habitual conduct towards the inquiring, to suppose that He did not, in some way, grant their earnest and respectful desire. If their words be regarded as pointing to a private interview with Jesus, their object in seeking it could only have been to inquire into the bearing of His work on the Gentile race to 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 foUowing 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 who rightly iraproved 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 Avorld, then formed part of the audience who listened to the words of our Saviour, They thus received a gracious answer to those questions which perhaps they desired to put to Hira; they heard from His own lips that the results of His great work were to be enjoyed by all nations ; and they received hints which might suffice to convince them of its sublime and majestic scope, both with respect to heaven and earth. The question then recurs — Were they p)resent on this occasion, or were they not ? It is, I believe, alraost 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 MattheAV (chap, xii, 20, 21), "A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgraent unto victory ; and in his name shall the Gentiles trust." But then, if these Greeks were present at this tirae, the Saviour undoubtedly spoke so as to be understood by thera, that is, in their own language. Yet, in doing this. He was evidently well understood, also by the inhabitants of Jerusalem, (ver. 34, aTreKpiOt] avT(p o o^Xof,) who formed, in fact, by far the largest por tion of His audience ; and it is thus again raade per fectly certain that the Jews of our Lord's day were thoroughly faraihar 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 the evangelic history which bears the clearest and most conclusive testimony to the valid ity of that position AA^hich 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, Avhen the Saviour was brought before him for iudffraent. No one will venture to raaintain that the Roraan 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 Avas employed between thera. And it must be allowed by all who are inclined to adopt this view, that 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. Referring, for example, to the Gospel of St Matthew, (chap, xxvii, ii — 14,) '* Credner justly remarks on this point: "Auch findet sich nirgends die geringste Spur, dass sich Jesus im Verkehr mit Griechisch Redenden Oder vor Gericht eines Dolmetschers bedient hatte, woraus denn her- vorgeht, dass von den Verfassern unserer EvangeUen jene Bekannt- schaft der Palastinenser mit der Griechischen Sprache als etwas ganz GewohnUches iiberall vorausgesetzt wird." — " Einl. in das N. T.," § 77. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 131 we have first an account of the 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 sayest. 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 Avord; 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 ?" 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 was 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, 1 5 — 25) as follows: "Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would. And they had then a notable prisoner, 9—2 132 SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE GOSPELS OF THE called Barabbas. Therefore Avhen 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 kncAV that for envy they had de livered him. When he Avas 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 tAvain 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 raade, he took water, and Avashed his hands before the raultitude, 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 j)assionate questionings and exclama tions, which were now exchanged between Pilate and the populace, Avere 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 lan- PREA'ALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 133 guage was Greek, and the common people of Jeru salem were then quite habituated to its employment. On turning 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 " the multitude (J o-^Xo^) 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 imagination of certain critics*? At any rate, it is unquestionable that Pilate lost no tirae in replying to the excited populace; for we irarae diately read (ver. 9) that he " ansAvered 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 Roman 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 he had called together the chief priests, and the rulers and the people, said unto thera, Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that pervert- eth the people ; and, behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching '* " What language, then, did our Lord use before Pilate 1 or what did Pilate use himself? the answer to these questions does not give us any concern. An interpreter raay have been used, although not mentioned," &c.— "Evan. Chr." ut sup., May 1860, p. 287. The writer forgets to ask, What language did the populace employ on the occasion in question ? 134 special proofs from the gospels of THE those things whereof ye accuse hira ;" frora 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, Ave find new and raost 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 sorae con versation Avith the prisoner before hira, Pilate " went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto thera, I find in him no fault at all. But ye have a custora, 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 interpreter, Avho Avas employed between Pilate and the people? Or, can such a supposition be tolerated for a moment, when A\'e 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 carae Jesus forth, Avearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto thera. Behold the raan ! When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify 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 laAV 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 people of the Jews conversed directly Avith 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 language *. I shall next direct the reader's attention to a notice, contained in the first two evangelists, of sorae remarks made by the bystanders around the cross, when our Lord exclaimed, "Eh, Eli, lama sabach thani?" We read in St MatthoAv's Gospel (chap. xxvii, 47 — 49), that "some of them that 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 Avhether Elias Avill come to save him," In the parallel passage in St Mark's Gospel, (chap, XV, 35, 36,) Ave read, that "some of thera that stood by, when they heard it, said. Behold, he calleth Elias, And one of thera ran and filled a sponge full of vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave hira 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 theraselves in difficulty, by seeking after some other than the natural import of the words. It is agreed '* It is not a little striking, after the clear and abundant 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 Milman declaring himself satisfied (" Bampton Lectures," p. 193) " that tho body of the native people in Palestine spoke tho Ara maic dialect, and no other." And quite recently (June, 1864), I find in Lechler's " Commentary on the Acts" ("p. 76), tho statement that " the inhabitants of Galilee were accustomed to speak only the Araraaic." — ¦ Clark's " For. Theol. Lib.," Third Series, Vol. xxi. 136 SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE GOSPELS OF THE upon by almost all recent critics, that none but Jews could have uttered them;* for, what would others, such as the Roman 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 with 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 slightest 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 ovto% Avliich 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 circurastances in Avhich events recorded in the Gospel- narrative occurred ; and Avould not, we raay believe, have failed to do so on this occasion, had there really been any such sting in the word olro^ as some have supposed. And let it be observed that, as we learn from Matthew, it AA'as " one of them" {eh e^ avrwi') who exclaimed, "This man calleth for Ehas," that now ran and procured the vinegar with Avhich to moisten the dying lips of our Saviour. There can be no doubt that this man acted, not in a spirit of malignity, but compassion; for, as we infer from * Alford, in loc, De Wette, and most others. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE, 137 St John's Gospel (chap. xix. 29), his conduct was prompted by our Lord's pathetic exclamation, " I thirst*." And, as we learn from St Mark's account, (ver. 36,) it was he who (first) exclaimed, as he per formed that act of kindness, " Let alone ; let us see whether Elias will come to take him down ;" while, as we gather from St Matthew's narrative, (ver. 49,) his companions re-echoed his exclamation, saying, " Let be, let us see whether Elias will corae to save him." Now, why should we suppose that the words which were certainly spoken by one in an earnest spirit, were repeated by the others in mockery and derision? The only exegetical ground on which it is attempted to put this construction on the language of St Matthew's Gospel, is found in that evangelist's employment of the term ovtos. This word, according to Alford, clearly indicates intended mockery. But it seems open to doubt, whether the learned writer has not laid undue stress upon this expression. Not to insist further on the fact, that it was one of the very persons that are conceived to have spoken in such tones of scorn, who immediately ran and ex hibited his sympathy for the suffering Saviour, it may be simply replied that the employraent of the pronoun ovtos of itself settles nothing. No doubt that word is frequently used in the classics'f to denote contempt ; but it is always plain from the connexion * It seems to be a previous, and quite different, incident which is recorded in Luke xxiii. 36, so that the argument which Calmet and others build upon this passage, to the effect that the words under con sideration must be referred to the Roman soldiers, falls to the ground. t Winer, in his section on the Demonstrative Pronouns, makes no reference to such a use of the word in the New Testament. See his " Gram, des Neut. Sprach.," pp. 142-7, sixth edition. 138 SPECIAL PROOFS PROM THE GOSPELS OF THE that such is the case. Here, however, it is merely assumed that mockery was intended by the word. There is nothing in the form of the sentence which indicates that such was the case. As well might it be argued, that the centurion, of whom we speedily read, intended to be sarcastic when he said, (ver. 54,) " Truly this man was the Son of God," as that such was the spirit in which the words under consideration were uttered, for the terra oIto^ occurs in the very same position in both exclamations*. And besides, the idea of mockery being intended by the Jews when they made such a jest of the Divine name, implies such open and dreadful blasphemy on their part, as to be altogether incredible. They might very well be regarded as heaping every indignity upon the Saviour; but, in order to do this, they would never have ventured to take liberties with that august name which they so deeply, and even superstitiously, venerated. Let it be remembered, moreover, that it was on a charge of blasphemy the Jews had got Christ Himself condemned at the judgment-seat of Caiaphas; and how utterly im probable then does it appear, that they should them selves have so publicly rushed into the committal of the same sin, and dared so flagrantly, and indeed foolishly, to make a mock ofthe eternal namef. '* Ver. 47, 'HXiav (^avei ovTos ; ver. 54, 'KXriBas vVos Beov rjv ovros. Olshausen justly reraarks, (in loc.,) " In the following verses, 47, et seq., it is mentioned that the bystanders misunderstood the exclamation of Christ. They thought He caUed for Elias, whom they expected as the forerunner of the Messiah. Several commentators have been disposed to regard these words as additional mockery, but this conclusion is not intimated by even one syllable." t This consideration seems to shew that Bishop BUicott, notwith- PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 139 But why this attempt at investing the words in question with the character of mockery ? Simply because preconceived notions prevent expositors from allowing them their natural interpretation. It is held correctly by most critics that the words were spoken by Jews ; but then it is added, that Jews must have understood our Lord's exclamation; and therefore recourse is had to the idea of mockery, in order to be able to attach any meaning whatever to the words. But if we allow the passage to produce its natural impression, we must derive from it what seems to many so obnoxious a conclusion, that some of the Jews did nqt understand the words which Christ employed. As before reraarked, I think it not improbable that though recorded by the evan gelists in the modern form, they Avere really uttered by the Saviour in ancient Hebrew. And in that case, no one will think it strange that they were mis understood by the Jews around the cross. I am quite willing to rest in this view of the matter, and infer no raore frora the passage than Avhat is well known frora other sources, that the people at large were then totally unacquainted with ancient Hebrew. standing his fine exegetical tact, is here at fault. He uses the following very strong language ; — " We shudder as we read that the words of that harrowing exclamation, words first spoken by the prophetic Psalmist, and the outward meaning of which no Jew could possibly have misun derstood, were studiously perverted by a Satanic malice, and that the most holy name of tho eternal Father was used by the Jewish repro bates that stood around, as that wherewith they now dared to make a mock at the eternal Son." — Ellicott's " Historical Lectures on the Life of Christ," p. 356. Surely, as above remarked, it is very unUkely that Jews, who had got our Lord condemned on the very ground of blas phemy, should now themselves so daringly have made a jest of the great name of that God whom they profetsed so highly to reverence. 140 SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE GOSPELS OF THE But if it be raain tained that the words were spoken in Araraaic, the consequence raust be accepted, that sorae of the inhabitants of Jerusalera did not even understand that forra of the national dialect ; and that they must therefore have been entirely depen dent, for every purpose, on their familiarity with the Greek language, I shall only refer further, before closing this chapter, to the conversation recorded in the Gospel of St John, as having taken place between the newly- risen Redeemer, and His affectionate follower Mary Magdalene*, We read (chap, xx, 14) that Mary, turning from the empty sepulchre, " saw Jesus stand ing, but knew not that it was Jesus," And then the narrative proceeds as follows (ver, 15 — 17): "Jesus saith unto her, Woraan, AA-hy Aveepest thou ? whom seekest thou ? She, supposing hira to be the gar dener, saith unto him. Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him aAvay. Jesus saith unto her, Mary, She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni ; which is to say. Master, Jesus saith unto her. Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." Now, there is certainly one, and perhaps two, Hebrew terms preserved in this passage, neither '* I have passed over without remark the passage, John vii. 35, he- cause it does not appear to me by any means decisive. The words of the Jews which it records, though they seem naturaUy to imply that our Lord was in the habit of spe.aking in Greek, and fit in thoroughly with that supposition, might certainly have been employed in strong irony, even though He had been accustomed to make use of the Hebrew language. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 141 of which would have any meaning, if the whole con versation had been carried on in that language, Jesus said to His affectionate follower, "Mary:"* this word at once recalled to her those tones which she had of old loved so well: she recognised her beloved Master in the person who now stood beside her; and under the influence of deep emotion she said unto Him, "Rabboni," making use of the sarae language in which He had probably uttered her name. We see at once a beauty and significance in the employment and preservation of these Hebrew terms, if the rest of the conversation was in Greek; but, if it be supposed that the language used by Christ and Mary throughout Avas Hebrew, the mean ing of these isolated expressions being retained in that tongue entirely disappears. According to the best texts, and prevailing MS, authority, the word 'Ejipaiari should be inserted before Rabboni. And this renders the argument to be derived frora the passage in favour of the usual employraent of Greek by Christ and His disciples, still more evident; for why should the Evangelist remark that Hebrew was the language now used by Mary, if that was, in fact, the form of speech which she and her fellow-disciples generally employed? It must, I think, be difficult for any one to read over the entire passage in the original, without feeling that it leaves a deep im pression in favour of the opinion that Greek was the language usually employed by Christ in discoursing with His followers, and that Hebrew was used only '* The Hebrew form of her name {Mariam) was probably the term employed by the Saviour, though the authority of the MSS. is much divided on this point. 142 SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE GOSPELS OF THE in their more private and familiar intercourse, or for special reasons, and on particular occasions*. Let us now look back, for a moment, on the evangelic history from its commencement to its close. At the very beginning of the Gospel narrative, (Matt. ii. 13, 15,) we are told of the flight of the Holy Family into Egypt, and of their stay in that country for a time, where it is certain that they must have employed the Greek language. We next find our Lord dwelling with His earthly parents at Na zareth in Galilee, (Matt, ii, 23, Luke ii, 39, 40;) and so well known was that district, for a long time pre vious, as the habitation of multitudes of foreigners, that it is styled even in the First Book of Maccabees, "Galilee the abode of aliens," (faXiXa/a aXXocpuXwi', I Mace. V. 15,) and in the Gospel itself, "Galilee of the Gentiles," (TaXiXaia twv eOi'wv, Matt, iv, I5.)t In that region, full of well-known Greek cities, such as Gadara, Tiberias, and Csesarea Philippi, the Saviour spent by far the greater portion both of His private and public life: there He chose His first disciples, '* The argument which I have derived from this passage has been pointed at even by some of those who incline to the views of Pfann kuche on the general question. Thus says Rohr, ("Palastina," Clark's "Bib. Cab.," Edin. 1843, p. 92,) "Mary, in her conversation with Christ, appears to have spoken Greek, untU she understood that He was risen from the dead, when she addressed Him in the more common Ara- msean, saying, Rabboni." This writer, like many others, does not see that the admission which he here makes is fatal to the theory which he maintains ; for surely if the Aramaean had been more common in public intercourse among the Jews of that period than the Greek, it would at once have been used by Mary in addressing one whom she supposed to be " the gardener;" and there would have been no indica tion in the narrative that any other language was generally employed by the Saviour and His disciples. t Compare Strabo, " Geog.," Lib. xvi. 34. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 143 Andrew and Peter and James and John ; and there both He and they must have become familiar with the Greek language. Next we find our Lord open ing His public ministry by a discourse delivered in Greek; and then we see Him employing that lan guage in His addresses to the people generally; in His conversation with the woman of Saraaria ; in the discourse which He delivered in presence of those Greeks who sought an introduction to Him at Jeru salem; and in the interview which He had with one of His disciples, iraraediately after His resurrection. These points have, I believe, been proved ; and if so, ALL is proved for which I contend. The Gospels bear witness frora beginning to end, that Greek was the language generally employed by our blessed Sa viour; and we have next to inquire how far this con clusion is confirmed by the succeeding book of the New Testament, — what testimony is borne by it as to the question whether the language, for the most part employed by Christ, was that also habitually made use of, after His departure, by His disciples. CHAPTER 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. The next portion of Scripture which we propose par ticularly to examine, is that very interesting and pre cious book which contains a brief account of the say ings and doings of some of the followers of Christ for the first thirty years after His ascension. It re cords a considerable variety of addresses Avhich were delivered by them in Jerusalem, and thus presents a supply of materials for testing, as well as illustrating, the truth of that position which it is the design of this work to establish. The testimony which it bears in favour of the conclusion already reached on other grounds, is, I believe, very abundant and conclusive. In fact, it may be shewn that there is not a single chapter in the whole book having any reference to Palestine but lends its aid in confirming our propo sition that Greek was then the language generally eraployed on all public occasions by the inhabitants of that country. As a presumptive evidence of this it may be no ticed, first of all, that it seems to be the habit of the SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE ACTS, &C. 145 Avriter expressly to mention when any other language than Greek was employed. There are two occasions on which he informs us that the Hebrew or Aramaic tongue was made use of by those of whora he writes. In the account which is given of St Paul's address to the excited multitude at Jerusalem, the historian tells us, (chap, xxi, 40, xxii. 2,) that the apostle spoke to the Jews " in the Hebrew dialect," that is, in the ordinary Aramaic of the country. And in that narrative of his conversion which Paul gives before Agrippa, as recorded in the twenty-sixth chapter, we find him stating (ver, 14) that the words which, at that solemn crisis in his history, fell upon his ears from heaven, were also spoken " in the Hebrew dia lect," that is, doubtless, as before, in the coraraon everyday dialect of Palestine, These are the only two occasions throughout the book, on which He brew is spoken of as being eraployed. And it would seera to follow from the very fact that its use on these occasions is expressly mentioned, that it was not the ordinary form of speech then employed in public intercourse among the Jews, I do not indeed raain tain that this presumption amounts to more than a slight probability, Reraerabering that St Luke in bis Gospel (chap, viii, 54) gives the words addressed to Jairus' daughter in Greek, without any intimation that they were really spoken in Hebrew, and that he does not notice in his first account of St Paul's conversion (Acts, chap, ix.) that it was in Hebrew the Saviour spoke on that occasion, we are not to attach a great deal of importance to the point now under consideration. Still, the entire absence through out the book of any hint to the effect that another 10 146 SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE ACTS OF THE language was used than the Greek, except on the two occasions which have been specified, is certainly so far in favour of our proposition. It throws the bur den of proof on such as maintain that there were times other than those specially mentioned by the historian, at which a different language was employed. If so, let them shew it ; and if no proof of any kind can be produced, we naturally rest in the conclusion that the language in which the historian reports the various discourses was that in which they were actu ally delivered. But let us now descend to particujars, and inquire if more definite and positive proof may not be found in our favour. Let us proceed to a consideration of the special circumstances in which the sermons and other addresses reported in this book were spoken, as well as the literary character with which they are severally impressed ; and we shall find, I believe, most clear and conclusive evidence that Greek was the language habitually employed by the apostles in proclaiming their message, whether at Antioch or Athens, at Jerusalem or Rome. Beginning, then, with a reference to the second chapter of the Acts*, let us reflect for a little on the stateraents made by the sacred writer in connexion with the events related to have occurred at Jerusa lem on the day of Pentecost. There are several points to be noticed in this narrative which serve to confirm our affirmation, that Greek was then familiarly known, and commonly used, by almost all Jews, whether dwelling in or beyond Palestine. We read as follows respecting the multitude then assembled * The first Chapter is specially noticed afterwards in Chap. vm. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 147 in Jerusalem, (chap. ii. 5 — 11): "And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad," (or rather, "when this sound was heard,") "the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his OAvn language. And they were all amazed and raarvelled, saying one to another, Be hold, are not all these which speak Galilseans ? and how hear we every raan in our own tongue, wherein we were born ? Parthians, and Modes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Jiidsea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pam- phylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God." With regard to the phenomenon thus described, it is plain, I think, in the first place, that the sacred historian raeans to convey to us the idea, that by a rairaculous power then conferred upon the apostles, the various repre sentatives of so raany different nations then assera- bled in Jerusalem, did all hear themselves addressed in their own vernacular languages. In some cases probably there were only differences of dialect among them; but at any rate, each nation heard itself ad dressed in what was deemed its own peculiar tongue. I believe, in spite of all the efforts which have been made by a certain school of critics, both at home and abroad, to explain away the miracle*, that, if the '* A comprehensive account of these various attempts by foreign critics (followed by some in this country) is given by De Wette, " Ex- eget. Handbuch Apostg.," pp. 18—26. The various arguments there 10—2 148 SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE ACTS OF THE fact just mentioned is not implied in the words of the writer, it is impossible to convey it by means of any words whatever. But while fully admitting, and earnestly contending for this, it is, I think, equally plain, in the second place, that it was not for the purpose of enabling them to proclaim to these people the way of salvation that the apostles were now en dowed with the power which has been mentioned. This was formerly sheAvn from the nature of the case, and from the facts of subsequent apostolic history*, but it also appears from the point now more especi ally soliciting our attention, that all these different tribes did in truth possess a common language. Two facts recorded in the narrative seem to make this un deniable. It appears first from the incidental remark of the historian that they all expressed astonishment among themselves on account of the wonder which had just been witnessed. "They were all amazed," we are told, "and marvelled, saying. Behold, are not all these which speak Galilseans ? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? .... We do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another. What meaneth this ?" their previous questionings having led to no satisfactory explanation. Now, it seems a fair and necessary inference from this account, that they all possessed a common language. Two or more men of the same nation would not have ex- enumerated seem amply sufficient to prove that the object of the miracle was certainly not to enable the apostles to preach the gospel, but are very far from invalidating the reality of the miracle as formerly explained. * See above, Chap. in. pp. 71 — 77. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE, 149 pressed their mutual wonder in such terms as are here employed; and the multitude in general, to Avhom the words v/hich have been quoted are evi dently to be ascribed, could not have expressed such wonder, unless they had possessed a common me dium of conversation. It is plain, then, that, in ad dition to the knowledge of their own proper lan guage or dialect which the various tribes possessed, they must also have known Greek, the world's lan guage, and thus been able to communicate with one another. But again, the same conclusion is derived frora the fact afterwards stated, or at least to ray mind clearly iraplied, that Peter addressed the whole mul titude at one time in the same language, and that they all understood hira. His serraon, which irarae diately followed the scene just described, must have been delivered in the Greek language. Had he spoken in Hebrew, he would have been intelligible to only the merest fraction of his hearers ; but, since it was proved by the result — the conversion of no less than three thousand — that they had all under stood hira, it is plain that he raust have used a form of speech familiar to them all, and that could only be the Greek language*. In entire consistency with '* I have said above oftener than once that the language common to all then addressed by the apostle could be no other than Greek, But, singularly enough, some have ventured to assert that the common language in question was the Aramaic. Thus Pressensi, while taking much the same view of the gift of tongues as has been given in this work, makes the following remark : — " On ne comprend pas d'abord le but du miracle, car les Juifs etrangers qui etaient a Jerusalem com- prenaient tous la langue Arameenne." — " Histoire des Trois Premiers SiScles," Vol, I. p. 486. To the same effect Lechler declares, " Peter doubtless addressed them in the Aramaic language, which was likewise 150 SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE ACTS OF THE this conclusion, we find that the quotations from the Old Testaraent, introduced by the apostle into his discourse, agree for the raost part with the phraseo logy of the Septuagint, presenting only those slight variations, omissions, and additions, Avhich Avould naturally occur in the case of one quoting from meraory, and which are generally found in the cita tions made by the writers of the New Testament. The very fact that such variations are preserved, while shewing the accuracy of the inspired narrator, also tends to prove that the quotations were actually made in the language in which they are presented to us by the sacred historian. Had they been made in Hebrew, they would either have been given in such Greek as exactly represented the original, or, if the reporter thought it advisable to adopt the Septuagint rendering, he would have done so accurately and consistently, and not with those strange deviations, which, in this and other passages of the "New Testa ment, are so apparent. We can easily understand how the apostle, quoting from meraory, and at the sarae tirae erapowered by the Holy Ghost operating within hira, to give a paraphrase or explanation, as suited his purpose, of the texts which he quoted, should soraetiraes have departed from the exact words understood by all." Clark's " For. Theol. Lib., Comm. on Acts," edited by Lange, and translated 1864. Was it then the Greek or Aramaic which was really the language common to all those " Jews out of every nation under heaven" 1 This is surely a question which it is not difficult to answer. I should thiiik that, if any argument be required at aU on the subject, it must be enough to convince every one that Aramaic could not have been the language in question, that we find in the list of those addressed by the Apostle, "men of Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes." WiU any one nijiintain that these per sons understood or employed Hebrew 1 PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 151 of the LXX.; but it seems impossible to conceive that, if St Peter had really made these quotations from the Hebrew, St Luke in reporting his words, and having abundant means of doing so correctly, would not either have given an exact version from the original, or been careful to adopt the generally received rendering which he found in the Septuagint. There can then, I believe, be no doubt whatever, that the citations from the Old Testament, here imbedded in St Peter's speech, were actually raade as still set before us by his inspired reporter — that he used the Greek version as alone intelligible to the vast majority of his hearers, and that the whole sermon which he at this tirae delivered was spoken as we still possess it — in the Greek language. Nor can there be the least doubt that both the native and foreign Jews were simultameously addressed on this occasion. This appears very plainly, among other proofs, from the exordium of the apostle. He begins his address thus — "Ye men of Judea, CAvSpe^ 'lov^aioi,) and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, {Kal ol KaroiKovvTef 'lepovaaXtj/ii aTrai/rey,) be this known unto you," &c. ; and by these different appellations he can only mean, as is agreed by all critics, the native Jews who were regularly resident in Jerusalem, and the temporary sojourners from other countries. Both classes were among his hearers ; both were addressed in the same speech; and that speech was dehvered in the Greek language. Can any one of these state ments be controverted or refuted? If so, let the argument which I build upon them fall to the ground. But if not so, if it raust be adraitted that we have here a clear instance of a Jew of Palestine addressing. 152 SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE ACTS OF THE among others, Jews of Palestine in the Greek lan guage, and so understood by thera that a vast multi tude repented and believed, the inference is .surely manifest, that Greek was then thoroughly familiar to the inhabitants of that country, and was regarded by them as a most fitting medium, in which either to convey or receive instruction*. If it be admitted then, as I believe it must be, that the sermon of Peter, just considered, was really uttered in Greek, we have obtained a valuable point d'appui, frora which to proceed to a consideration of the speeches which immediately follow. It is hardly to be supposed that another language would be made use of by the Apostle in his address recorded in the third chapter, as having been delivered to the people in the temple, than that which had already been employed. We read, (chap. iii. ii,) that on the occasion of the excitement which prevailed among the multitude, AA'hen the lame man was healed, Peter addressed a long discourse to the people; and, if we have already found that these very people, or their fellow-citizens, had been shortly before addressed by '* There is much reticence among the commentators generaUy, as to the language in which they conceive this address of Peter to have been delivered. AVith the usual vacillation and inconsistency which are found to prevail on the general question under consideration, it is not uncommon to meet with statements, in critical expositions of this passage, which seera. at one raoment to suppose that the apostle spoke in Greek, and the next, that he spoke in Hebrew. Even Alford appears to fall into some confusion on this point, unless (which I can hardly suppose) he beUeves that the discourse was really deUvered in the Hebrew language. (See his comment en the term dSivas, ver. 24.) Very few writers have, like Pressens^ and Lechler quoted in the previous note, expressly asserted this, but many have taken it for granted; and some have expressed themselves like Dr Schaff, when he says, "History of the Apostolic Church," p. 241, that "Peter's discourse to the assem bled multitude was delivered 2»-obably in the Hebrew language." PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 153 the same Apostle in Greek, the burden of proof falls heavily on those who assert that he now employ ed another language. No intimation to that effect is given by the sacred historian. On the contrary, the whole discourse (chap. iii. 12 — 26) proceeds as if given exactly in the form in which it was actually spoken. It contains two quotations frora the Old Testaraent, (-ver. 22 — 25,) both of which seem manifestly borrowed from the Septuagint, They differ, no doubt, in several expressions which they contain, frora the precise words of the LXX. ; but, in so differing, they do not approach nearer to the Hebrew. In what language, then, were they cited by the Apostle? If in the Hebrew of the Old Testament, (supposing that understood by his audi ence,) how can the peculiar forra in which they occur be accounted for? But if in Greek, the considerations above raentioned in regard to the analogous quotations in the second chapter, will explain their special charac ter, as differing soraewhat both from the Septuagint and from the original Hebrew text. Thus, also, we are furnished with another proof of the minute accu racy of the sacred historian, in preserving to us the exact expressions which were at this time made use of by the Apostle. The same remarks apply to the speeches and other addresses recorded in the fourth and fifth chap ters. At chap. V. 8 — 12, we find the report of a speech delivered by Peter before the ecclesiastical rulers; and there is no reason to suppose that it was spoken in any other tongue than that in which it is still preserved. On the contrary, it bears every mark of having been delivered in the Greek language. 154 SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE ACTS OF THE Interwoven with this address of the Apostle's, we 'find (ver, ii) a quotation frora Ps, cxviii, 22, given with the same free yet unmistakeable reference to the language of the Septuagint, by which, as we have already seen, St Peter's citations are generally distinguished. In the same chapter, (ver, 24 — 30,) we find a report of the joint supplication in which the disciples engaged when the two apostles returned to them, and related the events which had taken place, A quotation of considerable length from the second psalm occurs in this prayer, and is taken verbatim from the Septuagint. In the various conver sations and addresses contained in the fifth chapter, there is nothing which, by itself, indicates what lan guage was employed. After what has been already proved, however, the strong presumption is in favour of the Greek. To suppose that any other language was now used is a mere assumption, which cannot perhaps be formally refuted, but which is virtuallj'' con tradicted both by what goes before and what follows. The only fair and natural conclusion is, that, as in the second chapter the sermon of Peter was indisputably delivered in Greek, and as abundant proof will soon be produced to shew that Greek also was eraployed on those occasions Avhich are referred to in the chap ters iraraediately succeeding those now under consi deration, so, unless any special reason can be assigned for adopting the contrary opinion, the various dis courses, supplications, and conferences, reported in the third, fourth and fifth chapters, must also be held to have been carried on in the Greek language. We next proceed to a consideration of the sixth and seventh chapters; and, in doing so, pass to a PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE, 155 portion of the narrative which testifies very plainly to the common employraent of the Greek language in Jerusalem, In chapter vi, i — 6, an account is given us of the strife which arose between the Hellenists and the Hebrews, and of the measure to which the apostles had recourse in order to put an end to this unseemly and hurtful contention. And here, though the discussion will interrupt for a time the direct prosecution of our argument, it appears necessary to consider at some length the meaning of these two terms, Hellenists and Hebrews. This is a question which has been much agitated; it cannot be said with very certain or satisfactory results. The prevailing opinion among biblical scholars re specting the parties so designated is, that the Hellen ists were those Jews who, on one ground or another, employed the Greek language, while the Hebrews were such as adhered to the ancient vernacular lan guage of their country, I have presented in the notes below a sort of catena of opinions on this subject from Chrysostom downwards, and it will be observed that, however many the shades of difference to be found in the definitions given of the terms in question, the great majority of expositors agree in holding that the language which they employed was a marked characteristic of the two parties respec tively*. By most modern writers indeed, this is '* Even from the earliest times to which criticism can make any appeal, these two terms seem to have caused difficulty and confusion. The Syriac Peschito version translates 'eXXt/kio-t-oi in chap. vi. 1 as " the Greek disciples," while in chap. ix. 29 the sarae word is rendered "those Jews who were acquainted with Greek." The Latin Vulgate has siraply Grceci in both passages. Chrysostom, in Homily xiv. on the Acts of the Apostles, remarks 156 SPECIAL PROOFS FROM THE ACTS OF THE generally referred to as the one great outstanding on the sacred writer's use of the terms 'EXX. and 'E^'p. in Acts vi. 1, " 'EWrjvta-ras 8e olp,ai KaXftv tovs 'EWrjViaTi 6p6s, Bpcip.aTa Kal wopara, which occur in Hippocrates, suggest a writer, he thinks, who was familiar 'with that great medical authority 224 PROOF FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS other critics, that 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 prevaihng tra dition of antiquity. It accounts naturally for the markedly Pauline and Lucan characteristics Avhich 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 Avhich 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. iii. 16, 17,) in language which Avill 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 raeans. 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 Muratori tends directly to support the above view of the authorship of the Epistle. Comp. Gaussen " On the Canon," p. 190. OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 225 tion of Paul with raine 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 ? Sorae have supposed the transition to be raade 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 19 th verse, in which it will be observed that the j^rs^ person singular is employed*. I conceive that St Luke, having said in the I Sth verse, " Pray for us, for we are confident A\'e 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 Avith great defer- '* It may be remarked that, properly speaking, the singular pronoun occurs here for Vcie first time in the epistle. The reading at chap. x. 34 should be toij Sea-p.iois, and not tois Sca-poU pov, 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 Gerraan 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 Trepiaaorepw^, which would thus be the first to rush from the glowing pen of the apostle. This is peculiarly a Pauline word. It does not occur at all in the writings of Luke, unless we take into account this epistle. An analogous form, indeed, is found oftener than once in his Gospel ; but the term before us is specially a favourite of St Paul's, (2 Cor. i. 12; Gal. i. 14; Philip, i. 14; i Thess. ii. 17, &c.) ; and seems very naturally to fit in Avith the supposi tion that it commenced that part of the epistle pecu- harly appertaining to the apostle. We may conclude, then, with Origen, " If any church holds this epistle as Paul's, it is in this matter worthy of commendation." According to the view which has been presented, it is perfectly proper to inscribe the epistle with the name of the great apo stle, though it was not the imraediate product of his pen. His presence overshadowed, so to speak, its composition; his thoughts were expressed by the freely-working mind of its accomplished writer; and his own hand, I am inclined to believe, added the verses, so redolent of his ardent Christian affection, with which it closes. In a word, Luke with me (Aov/cas /uer' ifiou) might have been the account of the authorship given by the apostle himself, had he seen fit to make any statement regarding it; as we cer tainly know that Luke only was with him at a period somewhat later in his history, (2 Tim, iv, 1 1,) when, having resigned all hope of being permitted again to visit the Jerusalera upon earth, he was looking for- OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE, 227 ward to a speedy removal to the " Jerusalem which is above*." We are now fully prepared for entering on the consideration of that other question connected with the Epistle to the Hebrews, which has such an im portant bearing on the proposition maintained in this work respecting the prevalent language of Palestine at this period — I mean the question as to the readers to whom the epistle was primarily addressed. It has already been incidentally stated in the previous dis cussion, that, in my judgment, these were specially the inhabitants of Jerusalera. The great peculiarity of the epistle — its anonymousness — seems most easily explicable on this supposition. For, if Paul had any hand in its composition, as we have seen reason to believe, we can easily perceive why he should not desire to force his narae very prorainently before his brethren in Palestine. It certainly is quite in har mony with the apostle's generally wise and concilia tory conduct, that, while he now felt himself called upon to address that portion of the Church with which he had ahvays had the least sympathy, he should gladly make use of the services of his faithful associate as a means of avoiding those peculiarities of style by which his own writings were so markedly dis tinguished, and should abstain from mentioning his own name in the course of the epistle. Thus the Pauline origin of the epistle, in any sense, being * It has been objected by some that, if Luke were, as is generally supposed, a GentUe, he could not have held that relation to the Epistle which is above supposed. But see the erroneous inference which has been derived from Col. iv, 1 1, exposed in Part ii, chap. vii. 15—2 228 PROOF FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS established, the fact of its being anonymous seems to me at once to suggest that its primary destination was Palestine; but we must now inquire more par ticularly into the reasons which may be assigned for this conclusion. The title of the epistle, as it stands in the best manuscripts, is simply n^oos 'Efipalovs. It has been doubted by some, Avhether even this had existed in the autograph of the writer, though if it be admitted that the composition is an epistle, it must also be allowed to have had a special designation from the first, and that could hardly have been simpler or shorter than the title quoted. But then, after the epistolary character of the writing is acknowledged, and after its inscription to the Hebrews is also ad mitted, the question arises — Who were the Hebrews intended as the primary readers of the epistle ? I have already had occasion to state and illustrate the meaning which I conceive ought to be attached to the term 'Ejipaloi in the New Testament*. We saw that these as distinguished from the ' EXXriviarai denoted the strictly national party among the Jews, and that, as was to be expected, these were principally to be found in Palestine. In consistency with this view, I believe that the epistle before us was priraarily ad dressed to the church of Jerusalera, though intended, of course, to have an influence upon all " Hebrews" throughout the world. It is not necessary therefore, on our ground, to attach any other meaning to the terra 'Efipaioi, as used in the superscription of this epistle, than what was forraerly assigned it. But very different is it with those who imagine that the '* See above, chap. v. pp. 155-176. OP THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 229 Hebrews of the New Testament were those who em ployed the Hebrew language. On that supposition, it is necessary to suppose either that this epistle was written in Hebrew, or to give here a different explana tion of the appellation in question, frora what was formerly adopted.. Neither of these alternatives is very pleasant to a biblical scholar; but one or other of them must be chosen by all who maintain that the Hebrews referred to in the Acts of the Apostles were so called specially on account of their employ ment of the HebreAV language. On looking into the epistle itself, we seem at once to find strong confirmatory evidence of the justness of the conclusion, already suggested by the title, that its primary destination was Palestine. The familiarity which it takes for granted, on the part of its readers, Avith the temple services, and with the whole enact ments and observances of the Levitical economy, as well as the danger, Avhich it constantly assumes they were in, of attaching an undue importance to the peculiarities of Judaism, harmonise exactly with the conclusion which has been stated, that the epistle was originally addressed to Palestine. And this accord ingly has, in spite of one great difficulty to be irarae diately noticed, been the opinion ofthe vast raajority of biblical- critics. The ancients with one voice ac quiesce in this conclusion. Clement of Alexandria, Jerome, Chrysostom, and others, all suppose the epistle to have been addressed to the Christians of Palestine. And in our own day. Hug, Tholuck, Bleek, Delitzsch, Avith many other erainent scholars, are of the sarae opinion. The whole coraplexion of the epistle is generally felt to be such as necessarily 230 PROOF FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS suggests that it was at first intended for such readers as Palestine, or more properly Jerusalem, could alone specially produce; and particular allusions, such as that found at chap. xiii. 12, (e^io t^s tj-JXjjs,) seem to lead naturally to the same conclusion. But then, this epistle having been written in Greek, how could it have been addressed to the in habitants of Palestine, or stiU less, specifically to those of Jerusalem ? Was not Aramaic their or dinary language, and could they have understood any other ? Or, supposing that Greek was, to some extent, intelligible to them, would any one who desired to obtain a favourable hearing from them have ad dressed them in that language? Surely, their ver nacular tongue would have been employed in such a case as that of our epistle, which must, on many accounts, from its obvious purpose and express decla rations, have been peculiarly distasteful to them; and we must therefore conclude that the Hebrews here addressed were not the inhabitants of Palestine, but some other community of Jewish Christians to be sought for in a different part ofthe world. Such is the great difficulty which has weighed with many modern critics, and induced them, in defiance of some very obvious considerations, to look about for some other body of Judaic Christians to whom the epistle might be supposed to have been sent, than the church in Palestine. The various de vices which have been tried to escape the difficulty, are all, to my mind, utterly unsatisfactory. In ancient times, most of the fathers avoided the perplexity which has been felt by modern biblical scholars, by first supposing, and then asserting, that the epistle OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 231 Avas not originally written in Greek but Hebrew.. This hypothesis (for it is nothing more) is certainly an easy way of escaping the difficulty. But then, it is alraost universally adraitted at the present day to be untenable. Michaelis indeed adopts it, and thus avoids the hard problera forced upon other critics, only, however, to be opposed at all hands by the phenomena presented by the epistle itself*. Moses Stuart finds a sort of comproraise between the dif ficulties connected with the question, by conceiving that the Hebrews addressed were those of Ceesarea. He cannot deny that the work bears evident marks of having been intended for Palestinian Christians; but, as Jerusalem, according to the coramon view, could not have furnished readers capable of under standing it, he has recourse to the political capital of Judsea as a place in which the Greek tongue raay be admitted to have been well understood. Conybeare and Howson again, argue that " a letter to the church of Palestine would surely have been written in the language of Palestine," and think that, while this consideration, above ^all others, serves "to negative the hypothesis that this epistle was addressed to a church situated in the Holy Land," there are several circumstances connected with it which "point to another church for which we may raore plausibly conceive it to have been intended, naraely, that of Alexandria t". And Alford {ut sup., p. 64) expresses himself against the Palestinian designation of the '* I deem it needless to take up any space 'with the illustration of this statement. Every one admits its force, as may be seen in any of the recent critical works on the epistle. t " Life and Epistles of St Paul," Vol. 11. p. 512, Orig. Edit. 232 PROOF FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS epistle on various grounds, the first mentioned of which is as follows:— "The language and style of our epistle, if it was addressed to Jews in Jerusalem or Palestine, is surely unaccountable. For, although Greek was commonly spoken in Palestine, yet, on the one hand, no writer "who wished to obtain a favour able hearing with Jews there, on matters regarding their own religion, would choose Greek as the medium of his communication (cf Acts xxii. 2.) . . . . And, on the other hand, not only is our epistle Greek, but it is such Greek as necessarily presupposes some acquaintance with literature, some practice not merely in the colloquial, but in the scholastic Greek of the day. And this surely was as far as possible from being the case with the churches of Jerusalera and Palestine." He is led therefore, on this among other grounds, to deny that the Hebrews of our epistle were the inhabitants of the Holy Land, and by a chain of reasoning which few readers, I venture to think, will deem satisfactory, he appears to himself to find them among the Jewish Christians of Rome. Such are some specimens of the mazes of specu lation in which biblical critics have been involved, by supposing that it was necessary to seek for the readejs specially addressed in this epistle, somewhere out of Jerusalem. On the one hand, it is obvious that none but Judaic Christians could have been primarily in the eye of the writer, and that the designation which the epistle bears on its front, as well as several of the references A\'hich it contains, seem to point naturally to the church of Palestine. But, on the other hand, the epistle is written in Greek, and that of such a kind as to argue familiarity with that tongue on the OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 233 part of its readers ; and the Old Testament quotations are taken frora the Septuagint even Avhen that version differs materially from the Hebrew, These facts excite no surpise, and create no difficulty, if the con clusion which I humbly think has been established in the preceding chapters of this work be admitted. On the contrary, they harraonise with it exactly, and readily lend their aid to illustrate and confirm its correctness. But, on the common supposition with respect to the prevailing language of Palestine at the time, the facts which have been mentioned at once prove exceedingly troublesome; and being deemed incompatible with the belief that the inhabitants of Jerusalem could have been intended as the primary recipients of this epistle, necessitate a search for the persons specially addressed in some other portion of the world. The dilemma, thus presented to biblical scholars, is undoubtedly formidable in both its aspects. As experience has proved, it is certainly a very difficult thing to find a comraunity of Christians anywhere out of Palestine, to whom this epistle can, with any preponderating probability, be viewed as having been originally sent. Every church almost, which had any connexion with Paul and his associates, has been fixed upon by different writers. Various lists of these may be found in the critical works on our epistle, and are so comprehensive as almost to exhaust the geo graphical notices which appear in apostolic history. The following is the list presented by Alford, (p, 66 :) — " Wall believed the epistle to have been written to the Hebrew Christians of Proconsular Asia, Mace donia, and Greece; Sir I. Newton, Bolten, and 234 PROOF FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS Bengel, to Jews who had left Jerusalem on account ofthe war, and Avere settled in Asia Minor; Credner, to those in Lycaonia ; Storr, Mynster, and Rinck, to those in Galatia; Lyra and Lud wig, to those in Spain; Semler and Nosselt, to those in Thessalonica; Bohrae, to those in Antioch; Stein, to those in Laodicea; Roth, to those in Antioch; Baumgarten- Crusius, to those at Ephesus and Colossse." It can scarcely be said that any one of these hypotheses possesses much advantage in point of evidence over the others. As their variety suggests, they have been adopted more from caprice, than on any solid grounds of argument. And, as Alford justly ob serves, " If it was to any one of these bodies of Jews that the epistle was addressed, we know so little about any one of them, that the holding of such an opinion on our part can only be founded on the vaguest and Avildest conjecture. To use arguments against such hypotheses, would be to fight with mere shadows," But, if too little is known of the circumstances of tbe several churches mentioned above, to render the supposition that our epistle was addressed to any one of them more than the most fanciful conjecture, I am afraid that too much is known of the condition of that church, the pretensions of which Alford himself up holds, to permit us to entertain his hypothesis. After Wetstein, and a very few other scholars, he supposes, as has been already noticed, the destination of the epistle to have been Rome, This idea must be ad mitted, I think, to be a priori improbable ; and when Ave come to exaraine the circumstances of the case, it appears to me utterly untenable. Not to mention other objections which might be brought forward, a OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE." 235 careful comparison of the Epistle to the Romans Avith that to the Hebrews seems to render the fact as plain as need be desired, that the two epistles were not directed to the same church. Even supposing that Paul had nothing to do Avith the composition of our epistle, and that its sole and independent author was ApoUos, we cannot conceive that, within a few years (at most, ten or twelve) two apostolic men should have drawn such different pictures of the condition of the same church, as are set before us in these two passages, Rom. XV 14. Heb. v. 11, 12. "And I myself also am per- "A'e are duU of hearing. For suaded of you, my brethren, that when for the time ye ought to be ye also are full of goodness, filled teachers, ye have need that one with all knowledge, able also to teach you again which he the first admonish one another." principles of the oracles of God." The strong antithesis presented by these tAvo passages seems wholly to have escaped the notice of those very few critics who have favoured the hypo thesis of Alford, and appears to me abundantly suffi cient, without another word, to refute the opinion that the original destination of our epistle could, by any possibility, have been Rome. The only other hypothesis which requires to be noticed, is that which supposes the epistle to haA'e been addressed to the church of Alexandria. A good deal may certainly be said in favour of this supposition. There was a Jewish teraple at Leonto- pohs in Egypt, to which, as Wieseler has argued, the allusions contained in our epistle more exactly correspond than to that at Jerusalera. But this is an assertion which cannot be raade good. Even Philo, Alexandrian as he was, when at any time he 236 -PROOF FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS speaks of the temple, always refers to the sanctuary of God on Mount Zion. And then, had the Jews of Alexandria' been intended above others, they surely would not have been addressed under the general appellation of Hebrews. Whether the coramon ex planation, or that which I have suggested, be attached to that terra, it would, as applied to Alexandrian Jews, have araounted to a misnomer. They neither eraployed the Hebrew language, nor were they dis tinguished for their strict adherence to the exclusive character or peculiar observances of Judaism, but were Hellenists in every sense of the word. The utter absence also in the early and frequent references which are made to our epistle by Alexandrine Avriters, of any hint that it was originally addressed to the church in that city, furnishes a negative proof, which is to my mind conclusive, that the place of its desti nation was certainly not Alexandria. We rest, then, in the ancient opinion that this epistle was addressed to the Jewish Christians in Palestine. In maintaining this position, I do not, of course, mean to assert that the epistle was intended to be confined to any particular church. Like all the other epistles, it was meant to have an encyclical character, and to possess an enduring value. The church of Jerusalem, I believe, first received it, as it was there the Hebrews were speciaUy to be found. But it was intended for the instruction of Christians throughout the world, and especially for all those who, as Jews by birth, were in danger of keeping up the Judaic spirit within the Christian Church*. It * If the special designation of the epistle be admitted, a point which seems to me certain from the particular allusions which it contains. OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 237 was also meant to be serviceable to the end of time, and is indeed felt by all readers of the New Testa ment at the present day to be one of the very richest portions of the apostolic writings. But all this has no influence on the question now under consideration. That question simply is — "Who were its original readers?" and the answer which, following ancient testimony and internal evidence, I give to the ques tion is, that it was primarily addressed to the church of Jerusalem. Leaving out of sight, in the meantime, the sup posed difficulty which rises up against this opinion from the language of the epistle, all the other objec tions which have been brought against its Palesti nian designation appear to rae rather to favour that conclusion. As has been already observed, the relation between St Paul and the church at Jerusalem seems to have been exactly that which will alone account for the anonymousness of the epistle. The salutation in chap, Xlll, 24, {daTrd^ovTai Vfj.a.'} o'l cltto t^s 'IraX/as,) of which Alford says (p. 65) that it is impossible on our hypothesis to give any satisfactory explanation, appears to present no difficulty whatever. We learn from the last chapter ofthe Acts, (ver. 21,) that the Jews in Jerusalera and Rome were in the habit of constant communication with each other; and if, as I believe, the epistle Avas written from the one city to the other, nothing could have been more natural than that the Christians of Ltaly (used rather than Rome probably to denote that members of several churches the words of Euthalius exactly express the view given above. He says of St Paul that, "having written to all the Gentiles," he also at last wrote "ncuri toIs ix 7r€piTop.rjs niarda-aaiv 'E^paiois." 238 PROOF FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS in the district besides that of the capital joined in the salutation) should have sent their kind Christian greeting to their brethren in Palestine. The other objections of Alford are derived from "the historical notices in our epistle," and appear quite as ground less as that which has just been mentioned. "The great notice," he says, "of chap. ii. 3, would be strictly true of any church rather than that of Jerusalem, or those in Palestine generally." He presses this objec tion, however, very faintly ; and no wonder, for surely it was most natural that Jewish Christians in Palestine, who had perhaps, some of them, seen and heard the Saviour himself, but who had at any rate enjoyed the teaching of all the apostles, should be addressed in these terms — " How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation ; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard hira ?" Again, he argues that the "historical notice found at chap. vi. 10 {^laKovrr aavres toTs dyioii Kal oiaKovovvTes;) WOuld be leSS appli cable to the churches of Jerusalera and Palestine, than to any others." He takes for granted here that the SiaKOfia predicated, can refer only, or chiefly, to pecuniary assistance. But, although that was one mode of ministering to the saints, it Avas not the only one, nor even the one on which raost stress is laid in the New Testament, It is personal service that is always spoken of as furnishing the greatest proof of affection — a service like that of Christ himself, who tells us, (Matt, xx, 28,) "The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister {^laKovijaai) •" and there is not the least ground to suppose that such a ministering as this, if no other, was not prac- OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 239 tised even by the poorest of the Christians in Pales tine. But we raust now glance at the other horn which the dileraraa, forraerly mentioned, presents to those who hold the common opinion respecting the lan guage then most prevalent in Palestine. Believing that modern HebrcAV, or Aramaic, was the tongue constantly employed and greatly preferred by the inhabitants of Jerusalem, they cannot, without the grossest inconsistency, suppose such a writing as that now before us to have been addressed to thera. It would have been ex hypothesi unintelligible to the majority, and must have gained very little favour even among those who could spell out its meaning, from the partiality which these also are supposed to have felt for their native language. It is plain, then, that all who hold that Aramaic was at that period the coraraon or favourite tongue among the Jews of Palestine, and that Greek Avas not, as I believe, the language which they habitually eraployed for all public purposes, are bound to seek sorae other cora raunity to whora this epistle was addressed, than can be found among the Judaeo-Christians of the Holy Land, The difficulty of finding any other church, which can, Avith even tolerable probability, be supposed to have first received our epistle, has already been pointed out; and this fact, of itself, ought to render those who hold the opinion in question as to the pre vailing language of Palestine at the tirae, suspicious that they may be labouring under some mistake. The epistle, in fact, left to speak for itself both by its designation and its contents, just proclaims over 240 PROOF FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS again very emphatically what has been so fully proved in the preceding pages, that Greek w^as then tho roughly familiar to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem*, Admitting, as everything seems to require we should do, that it was directed to Judaea, we cannot doubt that its author wrote in a tongue Avhich he was sure that his readers well understood. And I cannot but remark here, that the answers Avhich have often been given to those who affirm that if the epistle was addressed to Jewish Christians in Palestine, it must have been written in their national language, and that consequently the Greek which we now possess must be regarded as a translation, are, to a great extent, irrelevant and inconclusiA'e. Take for exam ple, the following, which we find in the last edition of Home's Introduction, "To this argument" (viz,, that if the epistle was addressed to Palestine, it must have been Avritten in Hebrew) "it has been rephed, first, That if it was proper that the apostle should write to thera in the Hebrew tongue, it must have" been equally proper for hira to write his letter to the Roraans in their own language; yet we know that St Paul's Epistle to the Roraans was not written in Latin, the language of Rome, but in Greek; nay, that all his epistles, and those of the other apostles were written in Greek, and not in the languages of '* I may here refer to the late eminent Prof. Bleek, as furnishing an iUustration of the difficulties which beset those critics who stiU shrink from the above conclusion. He agrees with me that the original lan guage of the Epistle was Greek, and that it was primarily addressed to the Church of Jerusalem, but, granting these two points, he is sorely perplexed by the position which he at the s.ame tirae raaintains, that Aramaic was the language of Palestine, See his " Einleitung," pp. 54, 526, &c. PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 241 the churches and persons to whora they were ad dressed. Secondly, The apostohcal epistles being intended for the use of the whole Christian Avorld in every age, as well as for the persons to whom they were sent, it was more proper that they should be written in Greek than in any provincial dialect; because the Greek language was then universally understood. The arguments adduced to shew that Greek was the original language of the New Testa ment generally, are equally applicable to prove that the Epistle to the Hebrews was never written in Hebrew*." The only clause in this quotation Avhich appears to me really to bear upon the question, and to be worthy of being called an argument, is this one, " The Greek language Avas then universally understood." That being adraitted, there is no longer any difficulty in the fact, that both the Christians of Jerusalera and Rome were written to in the Greek language. But to attempt to parry the objection against the Greek original of our epistle, by replying that the same objection will apply to the Greek original of the Epistle to the Romans, is just to double the difficulty, instead of removing it. And to say that it was more proper that the writings of the New Testaraent should be composed in Greek than in the special dialects of those to whom they were expressly addressed, is to make an assertion which cannot be maintained; unless it be adraitted, as is contended for in this Avork, that through many concurring providential cir curastances, it had been brought about that the per sons primarily addressed understood Greek as well as '* Home and Tregelles, " Introd.," Vol. rv, p. 569. 16 242 PROOF FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS, ETC. their ovra vernacular language. In a word, — and again to state the conclusion to which in this, as in the previous chapters we are led, — a thorough ac quaintance with Greek, at Jerusalem as well as Rome, is the only thing which will rationally account for the Christians of these two cities having been written to in the language and style which we find employed both in the Epistle to the Romans and in the Epistle to the Hebrews. CHAPTER VII. FURTHER PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT THAT GREEK WAS THE PREVAILING LANGUAGE OF PALES TINE IN THE TIMES OF CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES. It is proposed, in this chapter, to subject the views contended for in the preceding pages to a sort of cross-examination. There are several phenomena presented in the New Testament, which have been felt perplexing, if not inexplicable, on the opinion which has generally prevailed as to the language usually employed by the Saviour and His followers; and I desire now to eraploy these both as tests and evidences of the soundness of the opposite theory sought to be established in this work. The decisive proof of the validity of any hypothesis is, that it explains all the phenomena in question. As Aristotle has remarked, " Everything connected with a subject harmonises with the truth regarding it*;" and if we have, in fact, reached the truth respecting the point discussed in the previous chapters, we may justly expect that difficulties, otherwise formidable, will vanish when set in the light of it, and that, through its means, probleras will be easily solved, which re main insoluble on any hypothesis of error, '* "Tm piv yap aKrjdft navra a-vvqSei to. vnapxovTa." — Arist., "Nic. Eth.," I. 8. 16—2 244 FURTHER PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT There is, then, one great difficulty which has been felt and acknowledged by sorae of those able and candid critics who hold that Araraaean was the only language with which natives of Palestine could pro perly be said to be familiar at the time referred to — and that is, how to account for the very considerable command of Greek possessed by all the writers of the New Testament, and by sorae of them more than others. The idea long prevalent of ascribing this to a miraculous interposition, is now for the most part abandoned. And the question then comes to be — How such a raan as St James, for exaraple, who never apparently left Palestine all his life, should have been able to Avrite such Greek as is found in the epistle bearing his narae? The diction and style of that epistle are universally admitted to make a comparatively near approach to the classical models of Greek composition. Expressing the opinion which prevails on this point araong biblical critics. Dean Alford remarks, " The Greek of our epistle is pecuhar. It is comparatively free from Hebraisms; the words are weighty and expressive; the constructions for the most part, those found in the purer Greek,*, , , , The Greek style of this epistle must ever remain, con sidering the native place and position of its writer, one of those difficulties with which it is impossible for us now to deal satisfactorily '\ ." * Thus also, continental critics. Credner, e. g., says of this epistle, "Der A'erfasser des Briefes legt eine femere Bekanntschaft mit der griechischen Sprache an den Tag."— " Einl.," § 219. And Thiersch de scribes it as " Ein Brief welcher an Feinheit der griechischen Diction zu den hervorragendsten Abschnitten des Neuen Testaments gehort." — " Versuch," &c., p, 52. t Greek Test., Vol. iv. Part i. Proleg. p. 107. Winer feels and ex- OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 245 The sentence which I have printed in italics, contains a candid admission of the difficulty which the style of this epistle presents to every one who holds the prevalent views with respect to the relation then subsisting between the Greek and Hebrew lan guages in Palestine. To all who agree with the eminent writer quoted, that Syro-Chaldaic was the prevailing language of the country, the problem which is suggested by the Greek diction of this epistle of James raust ever remain, as he frankly confesses, one of which it is hopeless to attempt the explanation. But should not the very fact of such difficulty being felt, on the ground assumed by Alford and others, lead them to doubt whether, in standing where they do, they may not be in error? The hypothesis which they make with respect to the knowledge of Greek then possessed by the inhabitants of Palestine, is one which must be tested by facts, and it con fessedly fails when set face to face with some of them. But surely, if the phUosopher of old could say that " there is in nature nothing interpolated, or without connexion, as in a bad tragedy," we may as con fidently affirm that there is nothing in Scripture which is really out of harmony with the circurastances in which the inspired writings were composed. And when this epistle of Jaraes, on being appealed to in evidence either of the validity or unsoundness of that opinion which is generally held by scholars as to the knowledge of Greek then possessed by the natives presses the same difficulty when he says (" R.W.B." Art. Jacobus), "bleibt es unerklarlich, wie dieser palastinische Judenchrist zu solch einem gewahlten, ja bliihendcn griech. Style kam." 246 FURTHER PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT of Palestine, is found to declare against thera, should not that fact of itself suggest a doubt Avhether they may not possibly be mistaken? Under the pressure of that difficulty which they acknowledge to be con nected with this epistle, may they not, without offence, be asked to reconsider their position, and to inquire whether there be not another way of looking at the point in question, by which all the facts of the case are easily explicable, and no residuum of unexplained difficulty reraains to perplex and baffle the critical student? That the position raaintained in this work en tirely neutralises every such difficulty, is too plain to need any lengthened remarks. On the ground which I haA^e assumed and sought to make good, nothing could be more natural than that even the Palestinian James should write in the style which characterises his epistle. He lived in a country where the Greek tongue was constantly employed. On almost all public occasions he used it himself and heard it used by others. In the ciA'il transac tions taking place betAveen the Roraans as masters, and the Jews as subjects ; in the ecclesiastical courts held under the presidency of the high priest in Jeru salem, and in the Christian assemblies Avhich met in the sarae city, with the apostle" hiraself at their head, we have found that it was the tono-ue of Greece which was habitually eraployed*. In these circumstances, James could not but acquire a large acquaintance with that noble language. Continual use may easily be supposed to have given him such a command of it as appears in his epistle. And his very permanency * See above, Chaps, rv. and v. OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE, 247 in one settled sphere of labour would afford hira an opportunity, which the other apostles did not possess, of becoraing acquainted with some of the literary treasures Avhich it contained. It seems, indeed, too plain to be disputed, that he had read at least the works of some of the learned Jewish writers of the religio-philosophical school of Alexandria; and he could not have been familiar with the almost classical writings of Philo, without contracting some of that purity and polish by which they are so remarkably distinguished, and which are, in fact, so apparent in his own very elegant epistle*. Moreover, it may be noticed here, that the con clusion set forth in this work with respect to the prevalence of Greek in Palestine, is not only such as alone enables us to explain the appearances presented by the Epistle of James, but is also in striking har mony with some of the most ancieiit accounts which have been transmitted to us concerning its author. Hegesippus, who wrote about the raiddle of the second century, gives such an account of the apostle as necessarily iraplies his faraihar acquaintance with Greek, and also the common employment of that language in his day by the inhabitants of Jerusalem. The description of the apostle's character and death, quoted from that earliest of Church historians by Eusebius, ("H, E,," ii. 23,) certainly contains not a '* Credner, after remarking that the Epistle of James bears many traces of the author's acquaintance with the Greek apocryphal writ ings, adds : " Insbesondere ist es kaum glaublich, dass die Schriften eines Mannes, wie Philo, der mehrmals als Abgeordneter der Juden zu Alex, in Rom gewesen war, in Palastina batten ganz frerad bleiben soUen. In der That zeigt unser Brief des Jacobus vielfaoho Bcriihrung, mit den Schriften Philo's."—" Einl.," § 219. 248 FURTHER PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT little that is strange and questionable in itself, while it exhibits perhaps an irreconcilable discrepancy with the account of James given by Josephus ("Antiq.," XX. 9, i) ; but the particular parts of his narrative, to which alone I refer, do not suffer from any such objections. They clearly shew that in the opinion of Hegesippus, (himself probably a native of Palestine, and who is styled by Jerome " vicinus apostolicorum temporura*,") as well as of those frora whom he received the tradition, both James and his feUow- citizens were perfectly familiar with the Greek lan guage. He informs us that the unbelieving Jews in Jerusalem, deceived probably by the leaning which, as we learn from Scripture, James always shewed towards the Mosaic institutions, desired him at the feast of the passover to use his great influence in their favour, by persuading the multitudes, then assembled in the holy city, not to accept the prevail ing notions respecting Christ. For this purpose, they requested him to take his position on the pin nacle of the temple, that, as they said, "thy Avord may be plainly heard by all the people, for, on account of the passover, all the tribes are now here together, ALONG WITH THE GENTILES f." These words clearly imply that James was to speak in a language com mon to both the foreign and Palestinian Jews, as well as to the heathen proselytes, and that could be no other than the Greek. The same writer is quoted {Euseb., ut sup,) as declaring finaUy respecting St James, " This man was a true witness both to Jews * See the article " Hegesipp," by Weitz'dcker, in Hertzog's " Real- Encyclop." "t" " SweXijXv^ao-t Ttatrai al (f>v\a\ /xera Kal rav edvav." 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 raay next notice the fact, which appears to me a very important and suggestive one, that all the records which we possess of our Saviours teachitig 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 mati 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 thera remains behind. It is true that, on this hypothesis, we still have an inspired translation of His words; and, granting that that is aU, 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 oKriBfis 'lovSaiois re Kal "EXXijui ycyivrjTai, oti 'Itj- (Tovs 6 Xpiaros ioriv." — Ihid. t " Of Him," says Black, 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." — " Palaeoromaica," p. 11. So Greswell, refemng to the few Aramaic expressions contained in the Gospels, describes them as " the only instances in which the evangelists have preserved to us the very words of our Sa-viour." — " Harmony of the 250 FURTHER PROOFS FROM THE NEAV 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 words of the Son of God, if ever Avritten 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 docuraent has corae down to us, to exemplify the original form in which the teaching 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 tinent, 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 vulgar in the language of our Lord himself, who taught alicays in his mother-tongue. His apostles and evangelists, on the contrary, who wrote in Greek, were, in writing, obliged to translate the instructions received from hira into a foreign language of a very different structure, and for the use of people accustomed to a pecuhar idiom,"— " Diss." I. § 16. OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 251 by its existence, to the opinion that He did in reality make use of the Hebrew language. All the hypo theses which have been framed respecting an Ur- Evangeliura, 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 writings 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 sorae accounts of Christ's life and discourses were for a time extant in Aramaic as well as Greek. It natu rally follows frora the relation conceived in this work to have existed between the tAvo languages, that such would be the case. And, perhaps, it may not unrea sonably be supposed, (though I am far frora inclined to adopt the supposition) that, as in the introductory chapter of St Luke's Gospel, such narratives were eraployed to a slight extent in the coraposition of the canonical Greek Gospels. But so far as re spected our Lord's discourses, such Araraaic reports '* See this point fully iUustrated in Part ii. Chap. vi. t Thus Dean Alford (" Greek Test.," Vol. iv. Part i. Proleg. p. 64 ; comp. also Vol. i. Proleg. Chap. i. sec. 3), " There can be no doubt that the apostolic oral teaching on which our first three Gospels are founded was originaUy extant in Aramaic." Thus also the writer in " Evan. Chr.," formerly referred to (Sept. I860, p. 473), "That there were original Gos pels in Hebrew — that is, a Hebraistic dialect, Syro-Chaldaic Hebrew — not one merely, as Matt.'s, but several, perhaps even raany — cannot pos sibly be doubted." To the same effect Renan declares respecting the first records of our faith, " Ce que est indubitable, en tous cas, c'est que de trSs-bonne heure on mit par ecrit les discours de Jesus on 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 appears 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 sabachthani.) , . . . '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. 2.53 ciples did not record His parables in the Syriac language ; and that they should have recourse to the Greek ?' 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, ' that 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 salera could not read Greek, Had they no record in their hands of Christ's parables which they had heard, and of His sublirae discourses recorded by St John after His ascension ?' 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 raay as well admit St John, Or was one Gospel enough for the inhabitants of Jerusalem ?' I contended that there were many Greek and Roraan words in their OAvn 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 language in which accounts of His life and teaching were written was, of course, Syriac. And so the case stands, whatever the language which it is supposed He generally eraployed. If that be * Buchanan's " Christian Researches in Asia," p. 113. 254 FURTHER PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT called Syro-Chaldaic, then in Syro-Chaldaic would the first accounts be Avritten*, 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 unworthy of pre servation? and were they suffered so speedily to be eclipsed by a Hellenistic version? For my OA\m 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 hapj)ened, the accounts taken down from our Lord's own lijDS 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 beheve that Peter and John, those ardently attached foUoAvers of Christ, were willing to allow^ the records containing their beloved Master's words to fall into entire and hopeless ob livion ? It surely wiU not be said that this was a likely course for them to foUow ; 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 ofthe writer in "Evan. Chr.," as foUows: — ¦' If our Lord preached in Hebrew, and the people heard and learned frora His mouth in Hebrew, the first records of these things, which must have been written at the time they were preached and heard, must also have been in Hebrew In truth, that which we have auned at establishing is, that the first narratives of our Lord's sayings and doings were necessarily compositions 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 which 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 preserA^ed '* It may be here remarked, that, notwithstanding 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, Sth edit.) as foUows : " The Targums and the Talmud of Babylon are in the older Chaldee ; and a Syro-Chaldaic translation of the New Testament has been discovered to be still in existence." The writer probably refers in this last clause to the discovery o{ Adler of which Adelung says (" Mithridates," i. 373), " Entdeckte in Rom eme bisher ganz unbekannte Uebersetzung des N.T. im Syrish-Chaldaischen Dialect. Die Handschrift war 1030 geschrieben, die Uebersetzung aber zwischen dem 4ten und 6ten Jahrhundert." This version of the Gospels is now known as the Jerusalem-Syriac ; and according to Dr Tregelles, "the barbarism of the Syriac seems hardly consistent with a date so early as that assigned by kd\er." —Home and Tregelles, p. 287. 256 FURTHER PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT to US by His apostles, imparts, 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 wild 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 frequently 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 Avhich it is the object of this work to establish, that both Christ and His disciples habitually made use of the (zree^- language. But passing frora 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 forraerly carried on araong 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, whUe admitting the marked pecuUarities of the New Testament Greek, denies, on some technical grounds, that it ought to be styled a dialect. See his treatises " De Lingua HeUenistica " 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 different 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 coramon vieAV as to the pre vaihng 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 emplo3'^ment of it? nus Ling. HeU.;'' Heinsius, on the other hand, contends, with undue eagerness, that the Greek of the New Testament had the same title to be called the Hellenistic dialect as any of the classical dialects to bear their peculiar designations. See his " Exerc. de Ling. Hell." * "Evangelical Christendom," M.ay, 1860, p. 287. 17 258 FURTHER PROOFS 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 frora all intiraate 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 practice of learned and elaborate writers, but from the rough and ready utterances of those who meet at church or market, and are there accustomed to address each other in language which is naturally tinged . by national characteristics and habits. No sort of salttis could have been made by 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 fact, therefore, that the inspired Avritings exhibit such a forraed and distinct species of diction, seeras 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 Avrite as much as possible in the style and character ofthe accepted models of Greek composition. It is to be observed, raoreover, that it is by natives of Palestine, alraost exclusively, that we find the so- caUed Hellenistic dialect employed. The writers of the New Testament (if we except St Paul and St OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 259 Luke) all belonged to that country. And even the two sacred writers excepted had lived so much in Palestine, that, on this ground alone, we naturally expect to find them composing their works in the style of Greek there prevalent. But, of course, the causes which had given rise to the Hebraeo-Greek dialect of Palestine, also operated, to some extent, among the Jews throughout the world. These were all accustomed to Hebrew modes of thought, and to the 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 tcrwards pure Greek coraposition, than could, in general, be the case with inhabitants of Palestine. Hence we find such a writer as Philo among the Jews of Alexandria in the first century of our era. Josephus, a Palestinian Jew, may make an approach towards the purity of his Alexandrian con temporaries; but, as he confesses, it is not Avithout 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, who had passed through no scholastic training, then naturaUy eraployed. The writings of '* See this point further noticed in Part ii. Chap. vm. 17—2 260 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 coraraon possession of its peculiarities, as to be necessarily assigned to writers who had been subject to the same influences, and lived in the same age and country*. 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 frora the type of Greek generally exhibited in the New Testament, this is just what was to be expected in the case of such as had travelled so much, and enjoyed such various culture, as was certainly the case with both these writers. But it may be said that the dialect in question was founded upon the Septuagint; and we may to a certain extent admit that this was the case. There can be no doubt, I believe, that all the sacred writers were thoroughly familiar with the version of the LXX. ; and that its style had no little influence on the diction which they themselves employed. But I cannot allow that a mere acquaiutance with the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures furnishes * Thiersch justly remarks : " Die sprachliche Charjikter der heiligen Schriften, und das Genus der Literatur, dem sie nicht eigentlich ange- horen, sondem welches sie vielmehr selbst constituiren, ist so eigen- thunilich und tragt in alien seinen Theilen so sehr das Geprage der Originalitat, dass der wahre Erforscher der Sprachengeschichte, und Beobachter verschiedenartigen Gestaltung des Styls, allerdings die be- deutsamsten Kriterien der Aechtheit dieser Werke ira Gantzen darin zu entdecken vermag."—" Versuch zur Harstellung des historischen Stand- punkts fur die Kritik der neutestamentlichen Schriften," Erlangeu, 1845 p. 43. ' OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 261 any adequate explanation of the point under con sideration. If, indeed, it be acknowledged that the Septuagint was in such common use among the in habitants of Palestine, as to form in fact the Bible which they generally employed, all is granted for which I contend : and I care not ,to discuss the point whether this common use of the LXX. 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 which we find to have so generally prevailed, even though it were possible to suppose that sufficient motive otherwise existed to lead to such a studied imitation. The influence of the Septuagint may have been strongly felt by the New Testaraent 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 Thiersch, ut sup,, p. 58, seq., and, more or less definitely, many other writers. Bishop Maltby observes, in language which I humbly conceive to set forth truth with some admixture of error, " Greek was the language to which all Jews whatever, whether living in Palestine or elsewhere, became habituated, in consequence ofthe trans lation of their ancient Scriptures into that tongue." — " Sermon," ut sup., p. 18. 262 FURTHER PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT universaUy employed by the Jews of Egypt, yet the Judaic writers of that country were very far from either designedly or unconsciously imitating its style. Philo, as was formerly shewn, depended entirely for his knowledge of the ancient Scriptures upon the Greek translation, yet his writings are framed on the classical, and not the Hellenistic model ; and the same thing is true of the fragments which have come down to us of the works of other Judaeo-Egyptian writers belonging to this period. Palestine alone can be said to be the country in which the dialect exhibited in the New Testament flourished. In their native land did the apostles learn the style of Greek in which their writings are composed; though, of course, subsequent practice and travel in other Greek- speaking countries somewhat modified the diction which they employed. With far greater reason, therefore, might the Greek of the New Testament be styled Hebraic, or Palestinian, than Hellenistic — a term which is in every respect inappropriate ; and the vigorous existence of such a dialect in Palestine, in the days of Christ and His apostles, can only, I believe, be accounted for on the ground that it was then the prevailing public language of the COUNTRY. Again, let us consider how the conclusion just stated corresponds with the facts which present them selves in the New Testament, with respect to the use ofthe Septuagint made by the sacred writers. If the Greek language was so commonly employed among the Jews as is here contended for, then, of course, the version of the LXX, would also be generally of the prevalence of greek in PALESTINE. 263 used, and the quotations from the Old Testament contained in the New will bear testimony to that effect. This seems, in fact, one of the most crucial tests to which the validity of our proposition could be subjected. If the language generally employed by the natives of Palestine was Hebrew in any of its raodifications, we naturally expect that their cita tions from the Old Testament would be made in the language of the original. And, on the other hand, if Ave find that this is not the case, but that the Greek version is generally followed, a very strong additional corroboration is furnished of the truth of that position here sought to be established. NoAV, on glancing at the New Testament, we are instantly freed from all dubiety respecting the point in question. We see, at once, that the vast majority of its quotations are taken frora the Septuagint. So manifestly is this the case, that hardly any one at tempts to deny it*. There are altogether above two hundred direct citations from the Old Testaraent in the New, besides almost innumerable references ; and a great part of these are immediately seen, beyond all dispute, to have been derived from the LXX, Some writers have attempted to classify the quo tations under distinct heads, according as they appear to agree most with the Hebrew or the Greek ; but this effort has not been attended with much success. The only clear result has been a demonstration of the vast preponderance of the citations manifestly * Dr Davidson expresses the almost universal judgment of biblical scholars on this point when he says {Horn^s " Introd.," ii. p. 175), " In the great majority of cases, the Greek version must be regarded as the source whence citations in the New Testament are derived." 264 further proofs from the new testament made frora the Greek over those which can be sup posed to have been taken directly from the Hebrew, Other writers, such as Surenhusius*, have sought to lay down rules by which from the introductory for mulae we might infer d priori the degree of accuracy with which the writer intended to quote. But this attempt also has proved a failure. Even the simple and common supposition that the New Testament writers were accustomed to quote from the Septua gint, except where it failed to represent correctly the original text, is one A\'hich cannot be maintained t. All that can be said is, that, beyond contradiction, the Greek version of the LXX. was the great source Avhence the apostles derived their Old Testament citations ; and without attempting to prove that they depended upon that source exclusively, I think it raust at least be adraitted that the fact stated points to their habitual use of the Greek, and not the Hebrew language J. * See his " Bi'/3Xoj KaraXXa-y^s, ' preliminary observations, f " Why the writers occasionally had recourse to the Hebrew is a difficult question to answer. Did they resort to it whenever the Greek was so incorrect as not to give the true sense 1 So it raight be thought by such as reason d priori. But there are phenoraena adverse to that hypothesis." — Dr Davidson in Home's "Introduction," ut sup. + I do not feel rayself competent to express a positive opinion as to the degree of acquaintance with ancient Hebrew which we are war ranted to infer from their citations of the Old Testament as having been possessed by the evangelists and apostles. That is a very difficult and delicate question. I am fully convinced, on the one hand, that their knowledge of ancient Hebrew has often been much overrated ; but I am not prepared, on the other hand, to affirm that it is doubtful whether even St Paul was familiar with the original text. Professor Joieett observes, in his very able essay " On the Quotations from the Old Testament in the New," ("Epistles of St Paul," Vol. i. p. 401), that of the eighty-seven quotations which he reckons as made by Paul in his epistles, " two-thirds exhibit a degree of verbal simUarity which can OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE, 265 But that we may deal fairly with the subject, it is necessary to go a little further into detail. There is manifestly an important difference in regard to this matter between the quotations which occur in the Epistles, on the one hand, and those which are found in the Gospels and some passages of the book of Acts, on the other. The Epistles being univer- only be accounted for by an acquaintance with the LXX. ;" and thinks that the remainder still leave the question doubtful whether or not the apostle was acquainted with the ancient Hebrew. And Mr Grinfield, who is well kno-wn to have devoted himself long and earnestly to the consideration of this subject, speaks very decidedly on the point. Com menting, in a letter to the "Journal of Sacred Literature " (July, 1861, pp. 415-16), on a remarkable note which appeared in the article on "Essays and Reviews" inthe "Edinburgh Review" (April, 1861, p. 483), aud which must have arrested the attention of every reader, he says, — " We are convinced, from a life-long study, that the best antidote to doubts respecting the inspiration and authority of the New Testament will be found in the study of that Greek version of the ancient Scrip tures which reigned supreme in the Christian Church for nearly four hundred years. AVe say nothing of its own inspiration further than it is endorsed hy Christ and the apostles. But to illustrate and explain the New Testaraent, we must necessarily resort to that book, which Christ, the evangeUsts, and apostles knew by heart. There is no evi dence to shew they were acquainted with original and bibUcal Hebrew, for wherever Hebrew words are introduced in the New Testament, they are couched in the vernacular Syriac of the day. Even the solemn ex clamation from the cross is not expressed in the words of the psalmist. It is spoken in the vernacular dialect. Yet such are our Piotestant prejudices, that in drawing up lists of the citations in the New Testa ment, we commonly compute about a moiety to be taken frora the Hebrew text ; but, as Mr Jowett reraarks, they are all, more or less, traceable to the LXX., the constant text-book of Christ and His apo stles ; the perpetual memorial of St Paul in his epistles ; and the em broidery of St John in the Apocalypse." It furnishes another curious illustration of the combinations of opinion which have been held by scholars with regard to the points treated of in this work, that Mr G., whUe expressing himself thus strongly in respect to the habitual use of the LXX. by our Saviour and His disciples, yet holds that they generally spoke in Hebrew! See "Apology for the Septuagint," pp. 12, 76, 110. 266 FURTHER PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT sally acknowledged as original compositions, there can be no doubt that the quotations were made by the writers exactly as we still possess them. But, on the supposition that Hebrew was the language generally employed by our Lord and His disciples, it is different with those quotations which occur in the Gospels, and in some portions of the Acts of the Apostles. Wherever Hebrew or a kindred language was used by the speaker, his citations would not, of course, be made from the Greek version, but from the Hebrew original. We may reasonably supjDose therefore, that, on this ground, we wiU perceive a difference in the citations as they appear in the Gos pels, and as they are found in the Epistles : we may expect to find something to indicate that, in the former case, we do not have the quotations in the same language in which they were made, while, in the latter, we do possess them in the very form in which they were adopted and applied by the sacred writers. Looking, then, at the Gospels, and such portions of the Acts as may be thought to belong to the same category, we naturally anticipate, in the first place, that, on the supposition of Hebrew having been employed by Christ, and the various other speakers whose words are preserved in the narrative, the quo tations will be seen exactly to harmonise with the original Hebrew text. But we soon find that this is not the case. Many of them, we discover, agree verbatim with the Septuagint, and that even in cases in which that version differs materially from the Hebrew. Our next supposition will then be, that, as the writers ofthe Gospels and Acts intended their OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 267 works for the A\'orld at large, in which the Septuagint version only was known, they preferred giving the quotations from the Old Testament, not in the form in which they were literally made by our Lord and others, but in the words of the LXX. Admitting this principle, we might have a tolerable explanation of the variations from the Hebrew text observable in the passages referred to; although it must be owned that, in some cases, not a httle liberty would thus have been taken with the words which were actually employed by the different speakers*. But, then, we expect, of course, that if this was the prin ciple on which the writers proceeded, it will be found consistently adhered to, so that by an application of it, we raay be able to explain the phenomena pre sented by their works. If they preferred using the version of the LXX., even where that differed from the Hebrew, to giving an exact rendering of their own of the Hebrew words which were actually em ployed, then we cannot but suppose that they will use that version throughout, and not adopt and depart from it in any apparently random or capricious mariner. But, again, facts prove hostile to our conclusion. We find that both in the Gospels and Acts, no less than in the Epistles, quotations from the Old Testaraent '* Let me give a single illustration of this statement. Dean Alford, referring to the difficulty which has been felt in explaining the phrase, Xucras ray dSlvas tov davarov (Acts ii. 24), reraarks (in loc), " The fact seeras to be, that Peter used the Hebrew words njD"73n, Ps. xvni. 5, ' the nets or hands of death,' i. e., the nets in which death held the Lord captive ; and that, in rendering the words into Greek, the LXX. rendering of the word in that place, and Ps. cxiv. 3, viz., wSicer, has been adopted." It is thus supposed that the apostle's meaning has been to some extent misrepresented, by adopting the LXX. version instead of giving an exact translation of his words. 268 FURTHER PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT are given with aU sorts and degrees of variation, both from the Greek and Hebrew. And thus, we are thrown back on the supposition that they were actuaUy made as they have been preserved. No principle can be discovered which wiU account for the phenoraena presented by those parts of the New Testament under consideration, if it be maintained that the citations referred to were originally made, not in the Greek, but in the Hebrew language. The only easy and satisfactory explanation of the extremely varied and complicated form in which they present them selves, is that they were at first made as they stiU exist, — sometimes verbatim from the Septuagint — sometiraes in substantial accordance with that ver sion, and manifestly derived from it, but altered according to the intention of the speaker, or differing slightly as memoriter quotations will necessarUy do — and sometiraes perhaps, though very rarely, made directly, by an independent translation into Greek, from the Hebrew original *. '* The various reasons which may be assigned for the differences often observable between the passages quoted by the New Testament writers and the text of the LXX., are well given by Dr Alexander of Edinburgh, in his learned and useful work on "The Connexion and llarraony of the Old and New Testaments :" — " Some of them are evi dently the result of intention on the part of the writer or speaker ; as, for instance, where a word or phrase is added for the fuller exposition of the passage, or when such grammatical changes are made as are re quired by the context into which the quotation is introduced. Many of thera, there is reason to think, are attributable to the circumstance, that since the days of the apostles the texts of Scripture have been subjected to numerous minute alterations, which have given rise to various readings, so that we cannot be certain that, at the time the autographs of the New Testament were issued, all the discrepancies existed which we now find on comparing their quotations with the LXX. This is confirmed by the fact that, in several instances where a discrepancy existed in the received text, it has been removed by a OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE, 269 It cannot then, I believe, be denied that the phenomena presented by the quotations from the ancient Scriptures which are imbedded in the Ncav Testament, find their only explanation in the supposi tion that the Septuagint version was, for the most part, eraployed by our Lord and His apostles; and that, consequently, in accordance with the views set forth in this work, both He and they were in the habit of making use of the Greek, and not the Hebrew language. In what language, I shall now venture to inquire, was the hymn of the Virgin Mary (Luke i. 46 — 55) originally composed? No doubt, some will scarcely have patience for a raoraent to consider this question, but will at once reply that it was, of course, in Hebrew. Nevertheless, this does not appear so certain as might be thought. It has been noted by some of those who are A'ery far from agreeing with the views set forth in this work, that the beautiful song of the Mother of our Lord is made up of " en- various reading suppUed by some of the MSS. (The Alexandrian MS. of the LXX., e. g., gives Isa. Ixv. 1 exactly as quoted by St Paul, Rom. X. 20.) In fine, it is to be remembered that the New Testament -writers appear to have, in the majority of cases, quoted from meraory, which will easUy account for their transposing and altering words and phrases, omitting words, or indicating in a general way, instead of fully quot ing the passage to which they refer. That they chiefly quoted from memory must be admitted, when we consider the circumstances in which their writings were for the most part composed, — sometimes on a journey — sometimes in prison — very seldom, if ever, where access to books could be had ; and observe the vagueness and generaUty which frequently characterise their references to the Old Testament scrip tures ; as when, instead of naming the book from which they cite, they merely say ea-n yeypappevov, or ^ ypa(j>ri Xtyet, Or, still more vaguely, hiepapTvparo hi trov tIs, ' Some one has somewhere testified,' Heb. ii. 6 ; E(/)j;Kf yap ttov, 'he hath somewhere said,' iv. 4." — Pp. 33, 34. 270 FURTHER PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT tirely Septuagintal expressions*." On this ground, it has been assuraed that Greek and not Hebrew, was the tongue which Mary then eraployed ; while, at the same time, it is supposed that her Divine Son generally made use of the Hebrew language. The incongruity of these two statements must, I think, be obvious to the reader. If there is really ground to believe that the Virgin even in giving utterance in private to those feelings excited within her by the Holy Ghost, made use of Greek, rauch raore must we suppose that this was the case with the Saviour in the course of His public ministry. It might be maintained that there is no reason to believe that Mary made use of any other language than Hebrew ; and d priori, there is nothing in the position maintained in this work which requires me to controvert such an assertion. But if, on examining the Magnificat, it is found to bear internal evidence of having been origin ally composed in Greek — and I agree Avith those who think so — then it seeras impossible, without utter inconsistency, to deny that Greek was perfectly fami liar at the period in question to the inhabitants of Palestine, and would, as a raatter of course, be generally made use of by our Lord and His disciples. I shall next refer to a passage of the Gospel of St Luke, which certainly fits in with, if it does not necessitate, the conclusion which has been already reached. We read, (Luke iii. 14,) that, among those who were attracted to the Baptist in quest of instruc tion, " the soldiers {aTpaTevonevoi) likewise demanded of him saying. And what shall we do ? And he said ¦* GrinfielcTs "Apology for the Septuagint," p. 185. OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 271 unto them. Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely ; and be content with your wages." Who the soldiers here referred to were, we have no certain means of determining. If it be held that they were Jews, the passage has no bearing on our argument. But if, as is more probable, they were Gentiles*, it seems next to certain that they could have conversed with the Baptist only through the medium of the Greek language. No doubt, soldiers stationed in a foreign country often pick up a slight acquaintance with the language of the inhabitants. But this happens rather from necessity than choice, and would not be likely to occur in cases in which a language common to both parties already existed. That the Roman soldiers stationed in Palestine remained totally unacquainted with Aramaic, is confirraed by the ac count given of Paul's conversion, which will imme diately be considered. And as the idea of an inter preter being employed between the soldiers and the Baptist cannot be entertained for a raoraent, I think it will be adraitted that, on the supposition of their having been Romans t, the inference is clear that John as well as Jesus, was accustomed to make use of the Greek language \. '* It is worthy of notice that the Jerusalem-Syriac version, in the part published by Adler, translates oi orpaTiaTaC (Matt, xxvii. 27), by " Romans," | i V)0? as if no other soldiers had been known in the country. Comp. Hug, "Introd.," I. § 79. See also Peschito version, Acts xxiii 10, 31. t Diodati attempts to prove that even the soldiers around the cross were Jews, but his reasoning is very far frora satisfactory. See his work, ut sup., pars iii. cap. i. § 3. X This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that John was accustomed to visit and preach in the court of Herod Antipas (Mark vi. 20), where it can scarcely be doubted (after what has been already proved) that Greek was the language commonly employed. 272 FURTHER PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT Again, we read (Acts xxii. 9) in the narrative of his conversion which Paul gives before the Sanhe drim, — "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of Him that spake to me." But in the account ofthe same event given by the historian, (chap. ix. 7,) we are told that " the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man," Some ¦ have fastened upon these two statements as involving a plain contradiction; and many of the attempts* which have been raade to explain the apparent discrepancy are evidently unsuccessful. But it humbly appears to me, that the key to the whole difficulty is found in the conclusion already reached, as to the language then commonly employed for all public purposes in Palestine, taken in connexion with the declaration made by the apostle in a third account which is given in the Acts, of the circumstances attending his conversion, Paul expressly tells us (chap. xxvi. 14,) that the words then addressed to him from heaven were spoken "in the Hebrew tongue." Now, on the ground here maintained as to the lan guage then prevalent in Palestine, this statement seeras entirely to remove the difficulty. They " who journeyed with him" were in all probability Roman soldiers who knew nothing of Aramaic, They had felt no necessity in intercourse with the natives of the country to acquire even a smattering of the national language, so that they were now utterly unable to coraprehend the raeaning of the words addressed to Paul from heaven. They heard the voice which spake * See, for an account of these, Alexander "On the Acts," A'^ol. 11. p. 297 ; and corap. Alford on Acts, chap. ix. 7 — a note which I cannot but deem unsatisfactory. OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 273 to him; they were conscious of listening to an articu late and definite form of speech, but being ignorant of the language which was used, they failed entirely to understand it. And, taking this view of the matter, we seem also to find an adequate explanation of the fact that it Avas Hebrew, and not Greek, which was made use of by our Lord on this occasion*. The object seems to have been to speak exclusively, and, therefore, all the more impressively, to him whose conversion was then so strikingly to be effected. As it still often happens, in cases of earnest awakening to spiritual things, that the persons effectively in fluenced feel as if personally addressed from heaven, and others who hear the very sarae words are as little raoved by them as if they were spoken in a foreign language, so now Paul alone both heard the voice and understood it, while those round about him siraply listened to it with the outward ear, without having any effect produced by it on their understandings or their hearts. They had been accustomed to hold intercourse with Paul and other Jews by means of Greek ; and now when the peculiar language of the country was used, they were altogether at a loss to conceive its meaning. The apparent contradiction be tween the two statements seeras in this way only to receive a satisfactory explanation t; and another illustration is furnished of the truth of our proposi tion — that Greek was then the language habitually employed for all public purposes by the Jews of Palestine, '* The objection to our views, based upon this fact, wi'.l be found considered in the foUowing chapter. t If it be supposed that Paul's companions were not Gentiles but native Jews, the difficulty involved in the narrative appears to me ab solutely in.superable. 18 274 FURTHER PROOFS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT It only remains to be noticed, further, that it fits in well with our conclusion, when we find the exalted Saviour represented in the book of the Revelation as making use erableraatically of the letters of the Greek alphabet. In three several passages of that book, (chap. i. 8, xxi. 6, xxii, 13,) the expression is used by our Lord, "I ara Alpha and Omega, {h Kal Q,) the beginning and the end, the first and the last," Now, there is certainly nothing irapossible in the supposition that the corresponding Hebrew form of this figurative description was, in point of fact, made use of by Christ ; and that, as Grotius has observed, "Joannes eam locutionem aptavit ad alphabetum Grsecum, quia ipse Grsece scribebat," But it can hardly be shewn that the analogous Hebrew form of expression A\'^as in use among the Jews of our Saviour's day. It seems also, as Diodati has re marked*, to have been the habit of John to insert Hebrew terms which were employed by those to AA'hom he listened in these apocalyptic visions, as well as to give their Greek equivalents, (corap, chap, ix. II, xvi, 16.) And it cannot, at all events, be denied, that it is raore easy and natural to regard the Greek expression now referred to as having been actually eraployed by our Lord ; and, as no sufficient reason can be suggested for His having adopted this forra of speech, except on the supposition that Greek had been generally eraployed by Him and His dis ciples, we find again, in the passages under remark, an additional corroboration of the truth of the pro position already so abundantly confirmed, that He and they did, for the most part, make use of the Greek language, * Part II. c. 2, § 5. OF THE PREVALENCE OF GREEK IN PALESTINE. 275 I here close the direct proof of that position which I have undertaken to establish. In the next chapter, we shall have to deal with the objections often brought forward against it; and shall find several of these, when closely examined, contributing still further to swell the evidence which has already been accumu lated in its favour. But it will not, I trust, be deeraed presumptuous, if I venture to assert in this place, that the thesis of this work has been established in the preceding chapters, by arguments such as no objections can materially weaken, or effectually set aside, I am not so sanguine as to hope that all the passages which have been referred to in the previous pages will present themselves in the same light to the reader as they have done to the writer; or that sorae of thera will not appear to have but little bearing on the point under consideration. But with respect to many of them, I feel warranted in humbly but confi dently maintaining, that by no fair process of reason ing which leaves the genuineness of the sacred writ ings untouched can they be raade to favour any other conclusion than that which has been deduced from "thera, and which is expressed in the oft-repeated proposition of this work — that our Lord and His disciples did, for the most part, make use of the Greek Language. 78—2 CHAPTER VIII. CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS TO THE VIEW THAT GREEK WAS THE PREVALENT LANGUAGE OF PALESTINE IN THE TIMES OF CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES. There is no proposition which does not contain a contradiction in terms but may possibly be true, and is therefore capable of being maintained with a greater or less degree of plausibUity. And, on the other hand, there is no proposition which does not rest on demonstrative evidence, but will be found, in some measure, open to objections, and must, how ever certain in itself, be defended against them. We may expect, then, to find, on the part of those who believe that our Lord and His disciples generally made use of Hebrew, that they will have objections to offer, some of thera, perhaps, at first sight very formidable, against the proposition which has been maintained in this work. I now proceed to as full an examination of these objections as can reasonably be demanded, and shaU endeavour to notice, in a fair and patient spirit, all that seem to have any claim upon our consideration. The first, and one of the most common of these objections is of a purely d priori character. It rests CONSIDEllATION OF OBJECTIONS. 277 on the alleged tenacity of vernacular language, and is usually accompanied by a statement of the spe cial unlikelihood which is supposed to have existed in the case of the Jews, that any other tongue should have supplanted their ailcient national language. I need not remind the readers of this A\'ork that I do not contend that the ancestral language of the Jews had been supplanted by any other in the days of Christ and His disciples, but merely that it had been superseded, for all public and literary purposes, by the general employment of Greek. Hebrew in a modified form was still, I believe, extant, and used pretty freely throughout the country; as the Celtic language is at the present day in several parts of Scotland, where English is, nevertheless, for the most part, employed on all public occasions; and as might be illustrated by the linguistic condition of many other modern nations. Even admitting, there fore, the full force ofthe objection as thus put, it is a telum imbelle so far as our position is concerned. But, in truth, the general principle which this d priori objection involves, is one which cannot be maintained. Numerous instances might be brought forward, in addition to those formerly referred to, in which the ancient vernacular language of a country has given place, more or less entirely, to another, under the pressure of external circumstances. Time itself — by which I mean the operation of constant, but unappreciable influences — is sufficient so greatly to change the language of a country, that what was formerly a tongue understood and employed by the whole people, gradually becomes a form of speech intelligible only to the scholars or antiquaries araong 278 CONSIDERATION gj^f^--" >. them. The well-known words of Horace proclaim a universal truth — " Ut sylvse foliis pronos mutantur in_ annos. Prima cadunt; ita verborum vetus interit setas, Et juvenum ritu florent mode nata vigentque.'' — Ars Poet., 60 seq. Many illustrations of this statement might be given. "Poly bins," for example, "teUs us (in. 22,) that the best-informed Romans could not make out without difficulty the language of the ancient trea ties between Rome and Carthage, Horace admits (Ep, II. I. 86,) that he could not understand the old Sahan poems, and he hints that no one else could. QuihtUian (i. 6, 40) says that the Salian priests could hardly understand their sacred hymns*." How dif ferent, again, both the colloquial and scholastic Eng lish of the present day, from that of Chaucer and Wychffe ! The pages both of the poet and reformer mentioned, are now, to a great extent, almost unin telligible to ordinary readers. So is it in Scotland with the writings of the Reformation poet, Sir David Lyndsay, No one who has not made himself fami har with the Scotch of that period could peruse with any pleasure the vigorous lines of that poet, however weU he might be acquainted with the Scotch of the present day. Nay, short as is the period which has elapsed since Burns wrote in the generally understood popular dialect, there are not now perhaps many Scotchmen who wiU not often find it necessary or useful to glance at the glossary in perusing any of the more decidedly Scottish effusions of the great national bard. "Few languages," it has been recently '* Max Mailer's " Lectures on Language," first scries, p. 56. OP OBJECTIONS. 279 said, "could be recognised as the same, after the lapse of but a thousand years. The language of Alfred is so different from the English of the present day, that we have to study it in the same manner as we study Greek and Latin. We can read Milton and Bacon, Shakspeare and Hooker ; we can make out Wycliff'e and Chaucer; but when we corae to the English of the thirteenth century, we can but guess its raeaning, and we fail even in this with works previous to the Ormulium and Layamon. The historical changes of language may be more or less rapid, but they take place at all times and in all countries* ." And if this be the case when no special external agencies are at work, much raore wUl it happen when a country is overrun by foreigners, and when nurae- rous settleraents of the conquerors take place araong its inhabitants. It was formerly shewn how wide became, in this way, the prevalence of the Greek tongue throughout the East; and the same causes have operated .since, though never in so striking a degree, to secure the ascendancy of other languages. The numerous countries in which French and Eng lish have obtained pre-erainence at the present day, to the entire exclusion, or comparative depression, of the vernacular dialects, are amply sufficient to prove that the fundamental principle on which the d priori objection rests is not one which can, as a general truth, be successfuUy defended. Nor, again, can it be maintained that the case of the Jews forraed a special exception to what has been observed in other countries. So far from this being the case, we know beyond a doubt, that, for centuries * Mux Muller, ut sup., p. 33 et seq. 280 CONSIDERATION before the birth of Christ, their native Hebrew had been entirely supplanted, as the popular language, by that which is generally known as the Aramaean or Syro-Chaldalo dialect. It is true, indeed, that the later language was radically connected with the ear lier, so that its adoption by the people of Palestine did not amount to such an entire linguistic revolu tion as has taken place in other cases. But this makes little difference in a practical point of view. The essential fact is, that their former national lan guage had been wholly superseded. It is universally admitted that the ancient biblical Hebrew, whatever its affinities to the kind of patois eraployed in fami liar intercourse among the Jews of our Saviour's day, had become a dead language, and was totally unin telligible to the people. Only a few scholars conti nued to study and understand it at the comraence- ment of the Christian era; and the sacred literary treasures which it contained were, until interpreted, as much sealed up to the common people, as if they had been written in the Latin or Egyptian lan guages*. I cannot, then, admit the truth of the principle involved in the d priori objection, either as con sidered generally, or in its special application to the nation of the Jews. But even granting its theoretic * See above, Chap. iv. ; and I raay here add the opinion of Heng stenberg with respect to the point in question. " If we should grant," he says, "to the Hebrew language a greater prevalence in the tiraes immediately succeeding the captivity than we are able to assign to it; 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 araong 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 priori 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 acknoAvdedging 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 ability in the special case which has engaged our attention in this work. Many and varied proofs have been adduced to shew that Greek was 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 reraains totally unaffected by any d priori considerations. They present the stubborn resistance ever offered hy 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 d 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 eraployed : — " We cannot conceive that Greek was eraployed 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 conteraporaries made use of*?" &c. Noav, I crave * I may quote a single specimen of this mode of argument from among the reviews of my former work. In a friendly 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, who would be 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 thoug'ntful person could gravely maintain, or seriously attempt to prove, for an instant. JVhy doubt that He spoke r^ ISla SiaXtKTQ) avrav 1 and that their own dialect was the same in which ' the field of blood' was called ' Aceldama' 1" 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 iu the preceding pages that even the populace (tixXos) of the Jews, while using their Hebrew patois in familiar intercourse, were yet thoroughly familiar with Greek, such objections as the .above will cause but little concern. A very sufficient answer, I be lieve, is given to the question, " Why doubt that Christ spoke in He brew ?" when we can shew that He did not.— In the same spirit as that indicated in the above extract, I find the Westminster Reviewer of the OP OBJECTIONS. 283 leave to retire from this ground altogether; not from any fear of being beaten on it, but because it is not the ground on which the controversy can ever be decided. The question is purely one o^ fact; and nothing else can properly be allowed any weiglit in settling it. Let the opponents of our views leave the shadowy realm of presumptive reasoning alto gether; and let us meet on the substantial ground of actual evidence, where alone the contest can find issue, and where the irresistible testimony of truth may be proved to belong either to the one side or the other. It is, then, with a feehng of satisfaction that I proceed to a consideration of those d posteriori argu ments by which the conclusions set forth in this work are sought to be invahdated. Many of these argu ments bear only against the opinion that Hebrew, in the form of Syro-Chaldaic, was not commonly employed for any purpose by the Jews of our Sa viour's day, and present, therefore, no really hostile aspect to the views maintained in this work. It is idle to prove that Aramaic was frequently used by the contemporaries of Christ and His disciples. The evidence of that fact is, I believe, abundant and con clusive. But when admitted to the fuUest extent, it by no means excludes the proposition of this work. As the doctrine of the true divinity of our Redeemer last edition of my work (July, 1862, p. 217) stiU saying, " In whatever strength the Hellenizers might be in the metropolis, we cannot imagine them to have had such an ascendancy in a remote place like Nazareth, that the Scriptures should there be read, and the exposition of them be given in Greek (Luke iv. 16-22)." How long wUl it be necessary to press the authority of demonstrated /ac<« against the influence of mere imagi nations ? 284 CONSIDERATION is not in the least impugned by the amplest evidence that He was also possessed of manhood; or, as the doctrine of the free agency of man is not necessarily set aside by the most cogent reasoning in favour of the absolute supreraacy of the Godhead ; so the con clusion which has been reached in this work, as to the general employment of Greek for all pubhc pur poses by the Jews of Palestine in the time of Christ, is not in the smallest degree inconsistent with evi dence which shoAvs that they also very frequently made use of Hebrew, Yet many have argued as if this were the case. They do not conceive of any such correlation having existed between the two languages as has been set forth in this work; and hence we often meet with passages like the following against the view whieh I have maintained as to the prevalence of the Greek language in Palestine : — "When Marsyas, the freedman of Herod Agrippa, brought him the news of Tiberius's death, he said to him in the Hebrew tongue, 'The Lion is dead,' {Jos. 'Antiq.' XVIII. 6, lo). In another place, ('Antiq.' XX. 3, 4,) Josephus tells us that Izates, king of the Adiabenes, who had embraced Judaism, sent five of his children to learn the vernacular language of Judsea, and to be instructed in the law at Jerusalem. In like manner, ('Bell.' iv, i, 5,) the Jews in Ga- mala, it is manifestly iraplied, were speaking a lan guage akin to Syriac, though their own tongue, when they were overheard by sorae Syrian soldiers of Ves pasian's array. The Jews, too, stationed on the towers of Jerusalem, to watch the discharge of the Roman ballistse, are said to have warned the defend ants of the approach of the stones, by crying out in OF OBJECTIONS. 285 their native tongue, o los epxerat, ('Bell.' v. 6, 3.) It was in their native tongue that Josephus, by com mand of Titus, addressed to the besieged the two harangues recorded in 'Bell.' v. 9, 2, 3, &c., and VI, 6, I ; and ' Contra Apionera,' i, g, the deserters or prisoners from among the Jews, at the time of the siege, must have spoken Hebrew, if, as he tells us, he alone understood what they said*." With the exception of the occasions referred to in the last sentence of this paragraph, and which will be specially noticed afterwards, there is not one of the testiraonies here cited that calls for the least consi deration. I willingly adrait, as has all along been evident, that the Jews of that period were, generally speaking, SiyXwrroi; and I entertain no doubt that, as in the instances quoted above, they often found it both convenient and agreeable to employ their na tional language. But thp admission of this fact does not in any way controvert the thesis of this work. Both truths rest on their own appropriate evidence; and the many proofs which may be brought forward to shew that the Jews were then acquainted with Hebrew, and often made use of it, stand in perfect harmony with the parallel proofs which have been adduced to evince that they were equally well acquainted with Greek, and generally employed it for all public and literary purposes. There are, however, some passages contained in Josephus, the rabbinical writers, and the New Tes tament, which are thought to run directly counter to our proposition. They are deemed altogether incon sistent with the belief that Greek was so coraraonly '* GreswelFs " Harmony of the Gospels," in. 347, 286 CONSIDERATION known, or so generally employed, in Palestine, as I have maintained; and are supposed to prove that that language could not have been usually eraployed by our Lord and His disciples. It is necessary, therefore, more particularly to examine thera; and, if the truth has already been reached, no fear need be felt for the result. Many, indeed, of the fancied objections will be found, as might be expected, when fully examined, not only to harmonise perfectly with the proposition of this AVork, but still raore clearly to illustrate and establish it, I shall begin by a consi deration of some stateraents which occur in the writ ings of Josephus, The first passage calling for reraark is found in the preface to his history of the Jewish war, and may be rendered in English as follows : — "I have devoted myself to the task of translating, for the sake of those who live under the go,vernment of the Roraans, the narrative Avhich I formerly composed in our national language, and transmitted to the Barbarians of the interior*," The exact meaning of this passage has been disputed, A question has arisen as to the persons intended by the appellation toI? avm (iapfid- pots. But it is now generally agreed on both sides, that Josephus here refers to the "mediterraneis bar- baris" — that is, the Jews of Babylon, Parthia, Arabia, and those beyond the Euphrates. The historian him self seems to make his meaning plain in the follow ing section, when he declares again, that the object which he had in view in re-writing his history was * " Upovdipriv f'yci ToTf Kara ttjv 'Papaiav ^yepoviav, 'EXXa8i yXaaarj pera^dKaiv, a Tois ava, ^ap^apois rfi naTplm a-vvra^as avewep-\lra irpmfpov, a(j>T]yria-aa-6at. ' OF OBJECTIONS. 287 that the Greeks and Romans, as well as " the Par thians, the Babylonians, the furthest Arabians, and the Jews beyond the Euphrates," might have access to a true narrative of the events. And thus, as appears to me, little difficulty is left with respect to the raeaning of the antithetical clause, Tots kuto. tjjc ' Pio/j.a'ia)v riyetxov'iav. Diodati restricts the meaning of these words to the Jews living under the sovereignty of Rome — that is, the Jews of Palestine. Others, on the contrary, think that the words exclude all Jews*, and refer only to the inhabitants of Greece, and such others in the Roraan empire as were acquainted with the Greek language. In my humble judgment, both views miss the natural import of the words. Josephus, in composing his history in Greek, intended it for the use generally of those who lived under the government of the Romans — manifestly therefore, though not exclusively, for his brethren in Palestine. The same thing appears from his not enumerating the Jews of Palestine among those for whom the Hebrew edition of his narrative was de signed; and thus, in full accordance with the views maintained in this work, we are led to infer from the passage in question, that a history intended for the natives of Palestine, among others, would naturally be composed in the Greek language. There are two other passages generally quoted from Josephus, ("Antiq." Procem, 2, and "Antiq." XX. II, 2,) in the former of which he speaks of the Greek in which he wrote his "Antiquities" as a ^eV*; Kal aXXoSa-rrtj SiaXeKTos ', and in the latter, tells us that he had devoted himself to the study of Greek learn - '* Davidson's " 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 -f. 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 irdrpios avi>tj9eia greatly hindered it. The Hebraistic Greek, to which he was accustomed, might almost have been reckoned a different lan guage frora that eraployed by the classical histori ans J. It was, therefore, an onerous task which Josephus undertook, when he engaged to write an account of the institutions of his country on the raodel of native Greek writers; and we wonder not that he required all the assistance he could procure '* "Twv 'EXKrjviKav 8e ypapparav ianovhaa-a perairx^'i-v, Trfv ypappan- Kijv ipireipiav avaXa^av, rrjv 8e Trepi Tr)V rrpo(l>opav aKpl^iiav Trarpios cKaXvae o-vvrjBeia." It appears to me evident that the narpios a^vijdeia here men tioned refers to the use of the Greek, and not the Hebrew language. t " Josephus imitates, with great care and considerable success, the writers of pure Greek, especially Polyhius, both in single words and in the tum of his sentences ; intermixing but few Hebraisms, and therein, as he himself says, departing from the custom of his fellow-countrymen." — Ernesti's " Institutes " {Clark's " Cabinet Library "), A^ol. ll. 184. X Dr Campbell, referring to the Hebrew coraplexion of the language of the New Testaraent, goes so far as to declare that phrases occur in it which in his apprehension " would not have been more intelligible to a Greek author than Arabic or Persian would have been." — Campbell "On the Gospels," Diss. i. OP OBJECTIONS. 289 in this undertaking, and excused the delay which had taken place in the publication of his work by a state ment of the difficulty Avhich he had experienced in composing it*. Other passages in the writings of Josephus which are frequently referred to, are those (" Wars," v. 9, 2 ; vi. 2, I,) in which he speaks of himself as having, by the coraraand of Titus, addressed his besieged country men Trj irarpup yXwaari and 'Efipd'i^cDV. Diodati has tried to maintain that these expressions may be so interpreted as to imply that, on the occasions men tioned, Josephus spoke in Greek. But this is to do violence to the plain import of the words. They manifestly acquaint us with the fact that Josephus then made use of Hebrew. And, however fatal such an admission might be to the theory of Diodati, it is jiot in the least opposed to that which I have main tained. Nothing could have been more natural in the circurastances in which the Jews were now placed, than that they should have fallen back, as much as possible, on the employraent of their national lan guage. But had not Greek formerly been generally current among thera, there seems little reason why Josephus should have mentioned that he now spoke to them in Hebrew. And the very fact that he so particularly notices this, seems to indicate that an other language might even yet have been eraployed. There were, however, urgent reasons why their na tional tongue should now be adopted by any one who '* In Ulustration of the above passages from Josephus, I may observe that it is not uncommon to find Scottish writers of the last century speaking in their prefaces of the pains which they had taken, often, as was felt, with but partial success, to write in correct and classical Eng Ush. Corap, e. g. the Preface to Campbell's work " On the Gospels." 19 290 CONSIDERATION wished to obtain a favourable hearing from them. Their state was now very different from what it had been during the comparatively peaceful period which our Lord spent upon the earth, A tremendous out burst of national fury had taken place. They were in arras against their Roman invaders, and we know that the greatest fanaticism then prevailed among them. There was a violent recoil from all that savoured of Gentilism, and this feeling would be sure to display itself in regard to language as in other particulars. In fact, as was formerly mentioned, we find a stateraent in the Mischna to the effect, that the employment of Greek for certain purposes was formally prohibited during the war with Titus* ; so that we have no difficulty in understanding why, on the occasions referred to, Josephus should have made use of the Hebrew languaget, ¦* " Mischna Gitt.," c. ix. 8 ; Surenhusius, lii. 304. t I may observe, that the objection derived from the above-mentioned passages is more than parried by the foUowing very acute remarks of Prof. Hug, in reference to another passage of i7b«i?/)A«w, ("Wars," vr. 6, 2): — "AVhen the revolters, in the last decisive moments, became ap parently more submissive, they requested a conference with Titus, He had never yet appeared in person in any negotiation. He approached, ordered a cessation of hostilities on the part of the Romans, had an in terpreter at his side — on-ep rpi rcKpi^piov TOV Kparetv, as Joscphus adds — and himself commenced the conference. Here he spoke through an in terpreter. Was this interpreter, then, employed to translate the words of Titus into Hebrew ? For that office he would no doubt have pre ferred Josephus himself But it waa not he ; if it had bec.i, he would have mentioned it, for he never forgets himself in his hist' ;¦}¦. Neither was the interpreter present to address the Jews in Hebrew, narpla yXaxTo-Tj, for Josephus would have mentioned it. For what purpose, then, it will be asked, was the interpreter needed ] The words of the histo rian, rightly understood, afford an explanation. The emperor spoke ex majestate itnperii, — /, e. in Latin, according to the old Roraan custom," and "the interpreter translated his words into a more intelligible language, but, as we have inferred from the usual custom of Josephus, OF OBJECTIONS. 291 There is, however, one passage in the works of this writer, which, if it is to be accepted in the sense Avhich Greswell and others put upon it, appears, I confess, altogether inexplicable. I refer to the state ment which Josephus makes (" Cont. Ap.," i, 9), Avhen, insisting on the peculiar advantages which he had enjoyed for becoraing accurately acquainted with the events of the Jewish A\'^ar, he declares that " being an eye-Avitness of what occurred in the Roraan carap, he wrote it down carefully, and A\'as the only person who understood — awiriv — the reports brought by the deserters frora the city," Neither Hug nor Diodati alludes to this passage, nor is it referred to by raany of the raost strenuous opponents of their views, so that we may suppose little importance is attached to it on either side. And in reply to those who do adduce it in opposition to our argument, it may sim ply be remarked that, if accepted in the sense which they put upon the words, it proves by far too much, and therefore proves nothing. Josephus is supposed to affirm that, of all in the Roman camp, he was the only one who understood Hebrew, or who, knowing both that language and the Greek, was capable of acting as interpreter between the Jewish deserters and the Romans. But this is in direct contradiction to numerous accounts contained in his own writings, which imply that there Avere many besides himself, then in the camp of Titus, who were acquainted with the common Hebrew of the country, as well as the not into Hebreie. What language, then, could it have been (but Greek ?) Moreover, in confirmation, Titus is praised ("Suidas," v.) for having made use of the Lafi)i language in state affairs, and the Greek in his literary recreations." — Hug's " Intnjd." 11. § 10. 19—2 292 CONSIDERATION no less common Greek*, Besides, it is certain from many passages, as was before shewn, that the Jews and Romans during the siege communicated directly with one another t. It is plain, then, that the only interpretation of this passage, which would prove in consistent with the views of this work, is one that cannot be maintained. If I may venture a suggestion regarding it, I would be inclined to take awl^i' not in the sense of understood, but became acquainted with, a meaning which the word might possibly bear. If this explanation of the difficulty be not accepted, I see no other resource than perhaps the most natural one of all — that of regarding the stateraent as one of the many exaggerations by which, in the course of his writings, Josephus seeks to magnify his own importance. We find nothing, then, in the works of the Jewish historian, that is at all opposed to the views already established; but not a little, as was forraerly shewn, which tends to confirra them. There can be no doubt that he styles the Hebrew Trdrpio^ yXwaatj, just as a native of Lystra would doubtless have done with re spect to the language of Lycaonia, Yet, as the men of Lystra thoroughly understood Greek, and habitu ally employed it in public intercourse, so we have found abundant reason to believe it generally was (until the spirit of fanaticism was excited during the siege of Jerusalem) with the inhabitants of Palestine, It is next contended that there is no evidence of the Septuagint translation having ever been used in * See, e.g. "Wars," iv. 1, 5; v. 13, 7, &c. f "Wars," VI. 2, 10 ; and see above, p. 54. OF OBJECTIONS, 293 the synagogues of Judsea, as might have been ex pected if the Greek language prevailed in that country. This objection has been strongly pressed by many learned writers, and in a tone of triumph which seems to indicate that it is deeraed unanswer able. Nevertheless, as appears to me, it is an objec tion which raay not only be shewn to be baseless, but which, when examined, resolves itself into an other confirmation of the views maintained in this work. What then, I would ask with great deference, is the nature of the evidence demanded on the point in question ? Is it no evidence that we find the passages quoted by our Lord in the synagogues agreeing alraost verbatim Avith the version of the LXX. * ? Is it no evidence that we learn from the Gospels throughout, that the ancient Scriptures Avere read in the syna gogues of Palestine, in a language well understood by the people ; and are at the same time sure that the biblical Hebrew was then totally unintelligible to the most of them; while we have no satisfactory proof that any written version of the Old Testament then existed, except that of the LXX,? Is it no evidence that we find the earliest fathers of the Church, who lived in times bordering on those of the apostles, unanimously speaking of the Septuagint as in habitual use among aU the Jews; and that it is not till we come down to Jerome that we find any doubts suggested as to that version having been employed by our Lord and His apostles? To my mind every available source of evidence, which is worth anything, points to the conclusion that the * See Luke iv. 16-20 ; and John vi. 26-65. 294 CONSIDERATION Greek translation of the Old Testament Scriptures was then regularly used in the synagogues of Pales tine. But before proceeding to state more fully my reasons for holding this opinion, it is necessary to notice the opposite reasons which have been thought by raany effectually to debar us from coming to any such conclusion. We are told that the Joavs of Palestine despised* their Greek-speaking brethren, and that they care fully shrunk frora the use of any other than the Hebrew text in their synagogues; that it was only as a matter of indulgence the Greek version Avas per mitted to be used by the Hellenists, and that the stricter Jews looked upon its employment as little less than a profanation; with other statements of the same sort. One critic repeats after another such declarations as have been quoted, while sorae, by atterapting to corabine these with what I humbly reckon the truth on the subject, render their account of the whole matter a strange mass of inconsistency and error t, * See, e.g. Biscoe "On the Acts," 2d edit., p. 83, for a stateraent to this effect ; and his words have been adopted by many subsequent writers, such as Milman, "Bampton Lectures," p. 180, Alford on Acts vi. 1, and a multitude of others. ¦)- Who, e.g. could form any clear and definite judgment on the question frora the following sentences of the learned Gerraan critic Fritzsche? After observing that Josephus is principally, and Philo entirely, dependent on the LXX. for their quotations from the Old Testament, he adds : — " Anders die palastinischen und strengern Juden. Zwar dass auch bei solchen sie in Synagogen, wenn schon nicht ohne Widerspruch, gebraucht wurde, erhellt deutlich aus jer. T. MegUla 16, Justhdan's Nov. 146, allein es war dies nur ein nothgedrungenes Zugestandniss. Auf ihrem Standpunkte konnten sie in der Uebers. nur Profanation, in ihrem gottesdienstlichen Gebrauche nur Gefahr fiir das Judenthura erblicken ; dazu stellten sich ja auch wichtige Differenzen vom Grundtexte heraus und bald trat der Conflict mit den Christen OF OBJECTIONS, 295 The whole confusion and inaccuracy have arisen from too readily transferring some statements of Jewish Avriters, who lived centuries after the com mencement of our era, to the days of our Lord and His apostles. Great injury has, I believe, been done to the interpretation of the New Testament by the undue importance which Vitringa, Lightfoot, and their followers have attached to the statements of the Talmud. They have applied passages which reflect the feelings and opinions of a rauch later age, to the epoch of our Lord and His disciples, and have thus been betrayed into some very serious errors. Many indeed of the delusions, which were once accepted on Talmudical authority, have now passed entirely away. The fable for instance which was formerly current, as to the annual fast held by the Jews on account of the formation of the version of the LXX,, is now rated at its proper value*. And many eminent scholars hinzu, vgl. Justin M., Dial. c. Tryph. 68, 71. So erscheint nach dem Sinne dieser Richtung, in der jiidischen Sage der Tag der Uebers. als ein Ungluckstag wie der, wo das goldne Kalb gemacht wurde (Tract. Sopher. 1) von welchem am 3 Tage Finstemiss iiber die Welt kam, (Meg. Taquith, f 50, c, 2.) Dennoch hat die Vorstellung von ihrer In spiration in den Talmud Eingang gefunden." — Hertzog's " Real-Encyc," Art. i^lexand. Uebers. I attach very little importance in the question under consideration to the edict of Justinian here mentioned, and of which so much has been made. It belongs to an age by far too late (a.d. 541) to throw any light upon the point in controversy. Comp. Zunz, "Vortrage," p 10. '* Compare, on such points, the reraarks of Hodius in his learned work " De Biblioruni Textibus Originalibus." I cannot but express sur prise to find such an able writer as Dean Stanley still rajiking use of such language as the following : " The Jews of Palestine in their horror of a rival text — ^perhaps of a translation which should render their sacred books accessible to aU the world — held that on the day on which the Seventy Translators met, a supernatural darkness overspread the earth ; and the day was to them one of their solemn periods of fasting and humiUatiou," — " Lectures on the Jewish Church," p, xxxv. 29G CONSIDERATION are now very far from joining in the opinion that the Jews of Palestine despised or condemned the use of the Greek language, Zunz, resting on the best and earliest Rabbinical authorities, declares, on the con trary, that they held Greek in the highest esteem*. In this opinion he is joined by the learned Jewish writer Frankel, who affirms that even in the Talmud itself the Septuagint is habitually referred to in terms of the greatest respect |. There are indeed some passages to be met with which speak with contempt and bitterness of the Greek language and hterature. But these are in clear opposition to other statements of the Rabbinical Avriters J. We find, in fact, as is noticed by Fritzsche, in the passage just quoted below, that they cA^en attributed Divine inspiration to the Greek version of the Old Testament ; and this fact of itself seems to suggest that, instead of being under valued, it was rather over-estimated, and might ac- ¦* "Die Sprache von Hellas war selbst in das aramaische und he braische eingedrungen, und stand bei den jiidischen Weisen Palastina's in hohem Ansehen." — " Vortrage," &c., p. 10. f "In Talmud selbst wird, wie § 4 erwahnt, der Scptuaginta nur ehrenvoU gedacht." — Frankel's "Vorstudien zu der Scptuaginta," p. 61. We need not dispute with this writer whether or not the ancient^ews ever esteemed the version of the LXX. as canonical. X The inconsistency observable on this point in the statements of the Talmudists was pointed out by Paulus in a work (which I know only frora a French review of it in Millin's " Magasin Encyclopedique," 1805) entitled, " A^erosimilia de Judseis Patestinensibus, Jesu atque etiam Apostolis non Aramsea dialecto sola, sed Graeca quoque Aramai- zante locutis." Jense, 1803. The reviewer says (p. 131), "Notre auteur discute assez longueraent ces autorites ; il fait voir que ces prohibitions out pour objet la philosophic des Grecs, et non leur langue, et oppose a ces passages d'autres citations des Talmuds, qui serablent, au contraire, prouver I'usage de la langue Grecque parmi les Juifs de la Palestine, et legitiraite reconnue de I'etude de cette langue." Comp. Meuschen, " Nov. Test, ex Talmude lUustratum," pp. 9, 10. OF OBJECTIONS, 297 cordingly have been employed for the most sacred purposes. But, as was before remarked, I do not attach much importance to the stateraents made by even the most trustworthy of these Jewish writers. In my humble judgment, they have been greatly overrated as autho rities on many points of New Testament criticism. Lightfoot himself bears witness to the teeraing absur dities oftheir writings, {nugis scatent;) and the least acquaintance with them is sufficient to verify the statement; so that they must be used with great caution, raerely as Ulustrative of the Judaic usages referred to in the New Testaraent*; and, as indepen dent sources of information with respect to the state of matters existing in our Saviour's day, they can hardly be regarded as possessed of any authority whatever. The fact is, that in this special question respect ing the use which was made of the Septuagint by the Jews of Palestine in our Lord's time, as in other simUar inquiries, our only certain information is to be derived frora the New Testament itself And, when we look into it with an unprejudiced eye, there seems little possibility of hesitation as to the conclusion to be formed. We see our Lord entering the synagogue at Nazareth and having a book put into His hands, from which He reads in the hearing of the people. In what language, then, was that book composed? This question, if it can be answered, is decisive of the * Winer weU remarks, "R.W.B.," Art. Synagogen, — "Ueberhaupt darf nicht AUes, was in der Gemara und bei Rabbin, von Synag. be- richtet wird, auf die im Zeitalter Jesu gewShnlichen ubergetragen wer den." Comp. Ernesti (" Institutes," ii. 308) on the exaggerated import ance which has been attached by Vitringa to the later Jewish writings. 293 CONSIDERATION point under discussion. Nor does there seem much difficulty in answering it. We know, beyond aU dis pute, that the ancient Hebrew could not have been the language of the book ; for, as Avas formerly shewn, that was then altogether uninteUigible to the people. The ground is narrowed, then, to the old question between the Septuagint translation, which was cer tainly then in existence, and a Avritten Chaldee para phrase which is summoned into being for the occasion. One should imagine that if there is anything required to decide between these competing claims, enough is found in the fact that no proof can be brought from the New Testament that even an oral Chaldee para phrase was then usually given in the synagogues of Palestine *, and that the passage in question is pre served by the Evangelist in almost the exact words of the LXX, version. And then, if we look at the statements of the early Christian writers, Ave find that they, Avith the greatest unanimity, corroborate this conclusion, Jus tin Martyr, Irenseus, and Tertullian all contain state- '* Even 'Fitringa, while alraost pathetically expressing his regret that any scholar should ever have believed the Greek version to have been used in the synagogues (" mirandum et dolendum," p, 954), and after reraarking that, on the Hebrew becoming a dead language, it was necessary that there should always be some one in the pubUc religious assemblies of the Jews, "qui Scripturam prselectam in vernaculum idioma transferret," is constrained to add, " Hujus vero sacri ritus in- terpretationis lectoe Scripturse nulla, quod sciam, exerta mentio occurrit in scriptis novi foederis." — Fitringa, "De Synagoga Vetere," pp. 1015, 1021. 'We a.re toldhj Dean Milman ("Hist, of Jews," new edit. II.464}, that " there was an officer in the synagogues out of Palestine, and pro bably even within its borders, called an interpreter, who translated the Law into the vernacular tongue, usually Greek in the first case, or Syro- Chaldaic in the latter." No evidence is produced in proof of this asser tion. OF OBJECTIONS, 299 ments which clearly testify to the habitual use of the version of the LXX, among the Jews *, It was not till the time of Jerome that the idea began to spread that any other form of the ancient Scriptures was generally employed by our Lord and His disciples f. In short, as there is nothing more than assertions to be found that the Old Testament Scriptures existed in any other form among the Jews of our Saviour's day than in the Hebrew original and the Greek trans lation, and as they certainly were not read in the synagogues by our Lord and His conteraporaries only in a dead language, we necessarUy conclude, in full accordance with the irapression derived from the earliest Christian and Jewish writers, and, above all, from the records contained in the New Testament, that the Greek version of the Old Testament was, in our Saviour's time, regularly employed in the syna gogues of Palestine;!:, * These testimonies are collected and considered by Archdeacon Hody in the w*rk above mentioned, p. 224 et seq. t The untenable character of the assertions of Jerome on this point, and the inconsistencies into which he is betrayed, are well exposed by Father Simon, " Critical History of the New Test," chap, xx. Comp., also, Hody, ut sup., p. 260. + Very probably tbis conclusion will stUl be strongly controverted. But if so, let it be disproved by some better arguments than those derived from the pages of late Talmudical writers. I am glad to find some shelter from attack on this point under the authority of writers whose erudition must be universaUy respected. Is. Vossius declares, in language soraewhat stronger than I think it necessary to employ, " Usque ad tempora Aquite n ulla alia lecta fuit Scriptura in omnibus Judseorum synagogis prseter illam LXX. interpretum." — " De Sibyllinis Oraculis," cap. xiv. The late Prof. Blunt writes as follows : — " When Jesus ' stood up for to read,' and the book of the prophet Isaiah was given Him, it was the Septu.agint translation. In St Stephen's speech before the Jewish councU, there are not less than twenty-eight distinct quotations from that version. In the Epistle of James to the twelve tribes scattered abroad, there is not a single quotation which is not 300 CONSIDERATION The existence of the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan, formerly described, has also been appealed to as an objection against the prevalence of the Greek language in Palestine. But nothing whatever can be founded on these ancient Jewish paraphrases of the Old Testament. As above reraarked, their date is altogether uncertain, and the strong probability is that they are at least somewhat later than the age of our Saviour*. Besides, it is alraost certain that they are of Babylonian, and not Palestinian, origin. Sorae indeed have endeavoured to maintain the contrary, but, so far as I can judge, without success t. The taken from the Septuagint. The Epistle to the Hebrews has been said, as far as language goes, to be a kind of mosaic, composed of bits and fragments ofthe Septuagint." — " History ofthe Christian Church," p. 135. The very learned Walton is led, with a curious admixture of both truth and error, to make the supposition, " Christum Dominum in Synagoga Nazarethena textum Jesaise ex translatione Grseca prselegisse, et prse- lectum in Syriacura idioma convertisse." I observe that Stanley ("Ser mons in the East," London, 1863,) remarks, 'with regard to our Lord in the synagogue at Nazareth, that " the roll of the Hebrew Scriptures was delivered to Him," and that he unrolled it and read. ? This is only a specimen of the manner in which the traditional, but untenable, opinion on this point is repeated by the ablest writers. '* The supposition made by many, and among others by Zunz, that Targums of most of the sacred books existed at a much earlier date than that generally assigned to the only extant works of the kind, was forraerly shewn to be without foundation. (See above. Chap, iv.) Bee- len observes on this point; — "Plurimorum sacrse Scripturse librorum Chaldaicas paraphrases sc'ripto exaratas tempore Machabseorura jam extitisse sentit Zimz ; qui tamen, ut suam sententiam confirmet nullum satis firraum affert argumentum." — '¦ Chrestomathia Rabbinica et Chal- daica, Notse in Select. Targ.," p. 91. To the sarae effect Bleek declares : — " SchriftUche Uebersetzungen der heiligen Biicher ins Araraaische gab es vor dem Zeitalter Christi hochst wahrscheinlich gar nicht, jedenfalls keine, die besonders verbreitet war und in Ansehen stand ;" and con cludes, as has been done above, that the great majority of the Jews of Palestine were dependent on the LXX. for their Imowledge of the Old Testament. See his " Einl. in das N. T.," pp. 53, 66. t Winer has sought to controvert the prevailing opinion on this OF OBJECTIONS. 301 general opinion of scholars is that they were com posed in Babylonia sorae time after the destruction of Jerusalem. For my own part, I should date their origin in one of the generations immediately suc ceeding that event, both on account of internal evi dence, and because we know that Babylon then be carae raore than ever the head-quarters of the Judseo- Chaldsean language and literature*. On account therefore of their probable date — first or second century after Christ — of the region in which they were produced — Babylonia, — and of the people for whose use they were primarily designed — Jews of Mesopotamia — their existence scarcely appears to have any bearing whatever on the question we have been considering as to the dominant language of Palestine in the days of our Lord and His apostles. Advancing now to a consideration of the objec tions derived from the New Testament itself, I shall notice, in the first place, those Aramaic words and phrases which occasionally present themselves, and on the occurrence of which not a little is often based. In fact, the few Hebrew words which are found in our Lord's discourses, have been frequently referred to as decisive of the whole question at issue t. The point in his work "DeOnkeloso ejusque Paraphrasi Chaldaica," § 1, Lips., 1820. * "Aprfes la destruction de Jerusalem, Babylon devint plus que jamais le centre du Juda'Isme, et le Chaldeen continua d'etre la langue vulgaire des Juifs disperses dans tout I'Orient." — Rhian, " Histoire des Langues Semitiques," p. 225. t Thus — "That our Lord did not habitually talk Greek, we really think is sufficiently established by His numerous (!) recorded sayings in the language of Palestine." — "Literary Churchman," Nov. 1, 1859, p. 393. 302 CONSIDERATION fallacy involved in such a mode of argument was formerly pointed out. It was remarked that nothing could be more natural than that such terras should from time to time occur, if the relation of the two languages were such as is here supposed. It was also shewn how difficult it is to account for the re tention of these few words in their original form, on the hypothesis that the language employed by our Lord and His disciples has, for the most part, been translated*. Thus far, in reference to the objection generally considered. Instead of proving hostile to. our views, it tends rather to support them ; and in stead of aiding opponents, it serves only to embarrass and confute them. But there is one such Araraaic term which de mands special notice, as it is particularly relied on by those Avho uphold the prevalence of Hebrew. I refer to the word Aceldama, which occurs in the narrative contained in the first chapter of the Acts of the Apo stles. We read, (ver. 15 — 22,) "And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of the names together were about an hundred and twenty,) Men and brethren, this scripture raust needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost, by the mouth of David, spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. Now this man pur chased a field with the reward of iniquity ; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is * See above, Chap. iir. OF OBJECTIONS. 303 called, in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say. The field of blood. For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein : and, his bishopric let another take. Wherefore of these men which have compa- nied Avith us all the tirae that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection*." Now, it is argued that in this passage "a peculiar dialect or tongue is said to characterise Jerusalera, and consequently the country of which it was the capital. The term which Luke adduces frora this dialect is Aramaean, shewing the prevalent languagef ." But there is more to be said on this passage than most of those who build such an argument upon it seem to iraagine. It is necessary to inquire first of all, whose are the words in the 19th verse, to which so much importance is attached. Those who argue frora them as to the prevalence of Hebrew in Pales tine, maintain, as a raatter of course, that they are an interpolation of St Luke's, in the speech of the apo stle here reported. This is perhaps a possible, but will, I think, be adraitted by every reader to be a somewhat unnatural view to take of them. Peter is formally introduced as speaking, and we naturally conceive that all included within the limits of the '* I have quoted this passage in full because it is important, as wUl immediately appear, that the reader should have the disputed verses before him, with the connexion in which they occur. The authorised English version has been used as sufficiently accurate for our present purpose. t Davidson's " Introd. to the New Test.," i. 40. 304 CONSIDERATION speech was really uttered by the apostle. It seems a very aAvkward supposition, and one quite at vari ance with the orderly character of Luke's narration, that, without a hint to that effect, he should break the thread of the apostle's address by sorae explana tory statements of his own. Moreover, the whole style and connexion of the passage are against the idea of such interpolation. The compound connective particle fi€v olv in ver. i8, clearly forbids such a sup position with respect to that verse*. And if not ver, 1 8, neither can ver, 19 be regarded as a note inserted by the historian ; for, as must be evident to every one, the two verses are inseparably connected together. This is admitted by raost modern critics; and indeed, but for the prepossessions which exist respecting the language of Palestine at the time, it seems scarcely credible that, in opposition to the whole tenor of the narrative, any one would ever have thought of discovering a comment of St Luke's in the very heart of a speech purporting to have been delivered by St Peter. Assuming, then, as everything warrants us in doing, that the disputed verse, or verses, forraed part of the address ofthe apostle f, let us see how, in this '* "This verse cannot be regarded as inserted hy Luke ; for (1) The place of its insertion would be most unnatural for a historical notice ; (2) The p.iv ovv forbids the supposition ; (3) The whole style of the verse is rhetorical, and not narrative." — Alford, in loc. ; so Dr Alexander, and most recent critics. t Dr Lange, while far from seeing or acknowledging the inferences which, as above she'wn, follow from this admission, remarks, " Olshausen maintains that vers. 18 and 19 are to be considered as a historical addi tion by Luke, so that ver. 20 must have immediately followed ver. 17 in Peter's address. But the necessary explanations would then be wanting for the address in ver. 20, without taking into account that the eSfi rrXij- OF OBJECTIONS. 305 point of view, the statements made bear upon the question of language in Palestine: "It became known," says Peter, " to all the dwellers in Jerusa lem, so that the field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say. The field of blood." We cannot hear these words falling from the lips of the apostle without immediately drawing some inferences from them, which, instead of being adverse, are emi nently favourable to our proposition. They clearly imply (i.) that St Peter was at the time speaking in Greek. The contrast which he suggests between the language which he was then eraploying, and what he calls the proper, or peculiar tongue of the inhabit ants of Jerusalem, manifestly proves that this was the case, Sorae, indeed, have iraagined that he now referred to an Araraaic dialect prevailing at Jerusa lera, as distinct frora that of Galilee. But several reasons corabine to shew that this opinion is incor rect. The compound term Aceldama which he quoted, is composed of two coraraon Araraaic words (K^*T /pri), which must have been equally well known to all speaking the language. And consider ing the mere difference of pronunciation which is believed to have forraed the chief distinction between the dialect of the capital and that of the provinces, it seems impossible to imagine that, had Peter alluded only to this, he would have referred to it so point edly as he does in this passage. The obvious con clusion, then, is, that it was simply to the Aramaic as such that the apostle directed the thoughts of his hearers, when, referring to the natives of Jerusalem, paBrjvai would then have to be referred to the fall of Judas himself, and not to his lot."— Lunge's " Life of Christ," Eng. edit. v. 156. 20 306 CONSIDERATION he spoke of " their proper tongue ;" and this implies that he was at the tirae speaking in the Greek lan guage. Again, it follows (2.) from this passage, that Greek, as well as Hebrew, was commonly employed in Jerusalem. This appears frora the fact just no ticed, that Peter was at the time speaking in Greek within the holy city, and, in all probability, had among his hundred and twenty hearers some who were natives of the place. The same thing may be inferred from his speaking of their " proper," that is, their national tongue, in referring to the inhabitants of Jerusalem ; for had they not been in the habit of making use of another language, such an epithet, or any epithet at all, would have been wholly unneces sary. And it seems also to be implied in this pas sage (3.) that Aramaic was far more prevalent in Jerusalem than in other parts of Palestine, It might be known and used to some extent throughout the whole land, but in such a district as Galilee, Greek was far more commonly employed for all purposes. Hence we explain the fact that St Peter, speak ing for himself and his Galilaean colleagues, deno minates the Araraaic in reference to the dwellers in Jerusalera their proper tongue, instead of say ing our, as he would naturally have done, had Hebrew, in any form, been the common language of Galilee. It thus appears that, so far from suffering any damage, our proposition rather derives additional support from a careful consideration of this passage. As was to be expected, the narrative naturally inter preted fits in with, and confirms what we have al ready seen abundant reason to regard as truth in the OP OBJECTIONS, 307 question under discussion*. And the same thing wUl be found to hold good in respect to some of the remaining objections which are now to engage our consideration. This is especially the case with a passage formerly quoted which is thought by many to favour the opinion, that Hebrew was the language which our Lord and His disciples usually eraployed. I allude to the statement made by Paul in the narrative of his conversion given before Agrippa, to the effect that the exalted Saviour then spoke to him "in the He brew tongue." The inference which many have drawn from this passage is, that Hebrew was then the prevaihng language of the country, and the lan guage accordingly which our Lord habitually made use of during His sojourn upon the eartht. But it requires only a little consideration to perceive that the stateraent made by the apostle is far from sanc tioning any such conclusion. Even the very trans lator of the work of Pfannkuche makes a remark which is sufficient to prove how very insecure is the foundation on which the argument in question rests. He appends the foUowing note on the passage as it '* I may quote the following sentences from Dean Alford (in loc.) to shew the difficulty in which he is involved by this passage. He says on ver. 19 : " It is principally from this verse that it has been inferred that the two verses, 18, 19, are inserted by Luke. But it is impossible to separate it frora ver. 18 ; and 1 am disposed to regard both as belong ing to Peter's speech, but freely Grsecised by Luke, inserting into the speech itself Wie explanations tjj I8iq 8idK. air., and Tovrea-Ttv x- dip., as if the speech had been spoken in Greek originally. This is much more natural than to parenthesise these clauses." Whether it be not more natural stiU to beUeve the speech to have been really spoken as the record of it seems to indicate, I leave to the judgment of the reader. t Pfannkuche, and most other writers holding his views. 20—2 308 CONSIDERATION stands in the original : " By Hebrew, the author no doubt means that we are to understand modern He brew, or Aramaic ;" and then adds, " The translator cannot help observing that Paul, being a learned Jew, would have understood ancient Hebrew as well ; and if Jesus had spoken to him in the language of the country, there seemed little occasion for the narrator to specify that He had addressed him in that language. All his hearers would expect nothing else than that the language of the country had been used, unless the apostle had told them something to the contrary ; frora which it seeras to follow that Paul on this occasion was addressed in ancient Hebrew." We are obliged to the translator on this, and several other occasions, for pointing out to us the weakness of his author's position ; but it is not difficult here to expose the equal weakness of his own. It is quite true, as he reraarks, that Paul would never have thought of particularly noticing the fact that Christ addressed hira in Hebrew, had that been the ordinary language of public intercourse in the country ; but to atterapt to escape from this difficulty by supposing that the Saviour then spoke in ancient, instead of modern Hebrew, is just to exchange one improba bility for another. The expression employed in the original is 'Efipoii^i ^laXeKTw; and the same phrase occurs in other two places, (Acts xxi. 40, xxii. 2,) in both which it is interpreted by coraraon consent as denoting Araraaic, or raodern Hebrew. It would, then, be the height of caprice to imagine that, in the present passage, it means not modern but ancient Hebrew ; and the same rendering must evidently be given it in all the three places in which it occurs. OF OBJECTIONS. 309 Dr Davidson has justly remarked* that "the opinion of Diodati that rfj 'Efipd'i^i SiaXeKTw, in chap. xxii. 2, means ancient Hebrew, which the people who list ened to Paul did not understand, though they alloAved him to proceed for a time in his address, is so pre posterous as to require no remark ;" and if not so absurd in the present instance, the proposed render ing is at least equally capricious and untenable. How, then, shall we escape from the dilemma ? How avoid the difficulty both of Pfannkuche and his trans lator, the one of whora makes the apostle utter an unmeaning statement, and the other of whom at taches an unwarranted signification to his words ? The way is plain : Greek, and not Hebrew, was the habitual language then eraployed in public inter course in Palestine ; and the apostle, therefore, raen tions it as something singular and striking, that he was on this occasion addressed by the Saviour in Aramaic, instead of the usual Greek which raight have been expected to be employed. And now it is necessary to consider another pas sage of the Acts, which is often referred to with great confidence as militating against our proposition. I refer to chap, xxii, 2, where we are told that "when the Jews heard that Paul spake to them in the Hebrew tongue, they kept the more silence ;" these last words especially being rested on by those who contend that our Lord and His disciples must have employed the Aramaic language. But a careful con sideration of the circumstances in which Paul was then placed, seeras quite sufficient to explain, in full consistency with the views advocated in this work, * " Introd. to the New Test.," i. 43. 310 CONSIDERATION both the fact that the apostle now made use of He brew, and the other fact that his hearers were agree ably surprised at being addressed by him in that language. It is plain to every reader of the narra tive, that the Jews expected on this occasion to be addressed in Greek — a point which proves both their familiarity with that language, and the habitual use which was made of it in public intercourse. It is manifest, therefore, from this very passage, that in accordance with what has been so repeatedly urged in the preceding pages of this work, Hebrew was not then the ordinary medium of communication em ployed by public speakers or instructors in Palestine, Why then, it will be asked, did the apostle now make choice of it ? and why were the Jews inclined to hear him more patiently on perceiving that he employed it ? Evidently, as appears to me, from the special circumstances in which, relatively to his auditors, the apostle was then placed. In the im mediately preceding context, we learn that a great uproar had been excited among the Jews on account of Paul's fancied opposition to all that they deeraed most sacred. On perceiving him in the temple, some Jews of Asia had cried out, saying, " Men of Israel, help : This is the man that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place ; and further, brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place." Now, such being the nature of the suspicions with which the minds of the Jews were filled against him, nothing was more fitted to win for him a patient hearing, if that were pos sible, than at once to commence his address to them in their national language. His adoption of the He- OF OBJECTIONS. 311 brew tongue was an instant witness in his favour. It proved that he was not so utterly estranged from all that was specially Jewish as his enemies had repre sented ; and no sooner, accordingly, had the sound of the old, ancestral language been heard from his lips, than the prepossessions against him lost much of their force, and there was manifested a greater disposition to hear him patiently. This seems to me the only satisfactory explanation of the passage. To infer from it that Hebrew was the usual language of public address among the Jews at this time, appears not only opposed to the narrative itself, but serves to strip the conduct of the apostle of all its significance. According to such a view, he had scarcely any option in respect to the language to be eraployed. It was necessary to speak to the multitude of Jews around him in Hebrew, simply that they might understand him, and thus mere common sense dictated the em ployment of that language* But, on the ground which I maintain, the conduct of the apostle at this time manifested that prudence and skill by which it was in general so remarkably distinguished. It can not be doubted, that, prevalent as the Greek tongue then was in Palestine, the Jews, like any other na tion, would be pleased, on such an occasion as the present, when their prejudices had been greatly ex cited, to listen so unexpectedly to the accents of their national tongue. And St Paul, with that consum mate wisdom which led hitn to become " all things to all men," now adapted himself to that most natural '* Thus Dean Milman, "Bampton Lectures," p. 184, speaks of St Paul's employment of Hebrew on this occasion, as having been " abso lutely necessary in order to make himself intelligible to the people." 312 CONSIDERATION feeling. To the Jew he became as a Jew, for the purpose of obtaining a favourable hearing ; just as formerly at Athens he had, for the same end, become as a Greek to the Greek, and expressed him self in the language and style of an accomplished Grecian. In close connexion with the passage just con sidered, we find another objection sometimes derived from the question of the Roman officer to Paul, (Acts xxi. 37,) "Canst thou speak Greek?" This question, according to Father Simon, " imphes a sup position that all the Jews of Jerusalem did not speak in that tongue*." But the Roman soldier, who need not be supposed very accurately informed regarding the linguistic condition of different countries, suffi ciently shews that this at least was not the bearing of his words, when he adds, "Art not thou then" (or rather, "Thou art not then") "that Egyptian, who before these days madest an uproar, and leddest out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers V This passage can hardly be regarded as at aU touching the question respecting the lan guage then generally employed in Jerusalem. And Paul by his ansAver shews, that whatever might be the case with the rude Egyptian referred to, it was nothing strange that a Jew like himself should be found acquainted with the Greek. " I am," said he, " a Jew of Tarsus, and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak to the people ;" a request which the chief cap tain immediately granted, doubtless expecting, as we have seen the people of Jerusalem themselves did, * " Critical History," p. 52, Eng. edit. ; comp. Grirfield, " Apology for the Sept.," p. 76. OP OBJECTIONS. 313 that Paul would now address the raultitude in the Greek language. Again, it is objected that we read (Matt, xxvi, 73, Mark xiv. 70) that Peter was discovered to be a native of Galilee by the dialect Avhich he employed, and must therefore have been speaking in Hebrew, Granting that this was the case, it proves nothing against the proposition of this work. It is, on the contrary, in the closest accordance with the view which has been exhibited of the relation subsisting: between the two languages. It was exactly in such circumstances as those referred to, that we would expect the vulgar tongue of the country to be em ployed ; and it is surely nothing strange that the dialect of it which Peter was accustomed at times to speak in Galilee, should now be stated to have been found different frora that generally prevalent in Jerusalera *. It is not needful, after what was formerly said, to do more than notice the objection brought forward by some, to the effect that "it is scarcely credible '* Lightfoot and others have given several examples from the Rah - binical writers of the difference which existed between the dialects of Jerusalem and GaUlee. I may mention, while resting in the explana tion given above, that sorae have questioned whether it was a Hebrew dialect at all which was spoken on the occasion in question. On this point Binterim (with much truth, as appears to me, in regard to the little value which he attaches to Rabbinical stateraents) observes : " Sed quod maximum nostrse indagationis est negotium, cujus originis hsec erat Gahlseorum locutio ; ChaldaiciB, an Syriacse, an Grsecoe, an Latinse ? Hoc ultimura neraini in mentom venit. Et si Talraudicis cre- damus, lis est decisa, eam fuisse Chaldaicas originis : hos sequuntur non- nuUi ex Christianis, At Rabbinorura ineptias dudura detexerunt nasuti critici, nosque docuerunt, nullius esse ponderis Talmudicorum asserta , et posterioris setatis...Probabilius mihi videtur eam Grsecoe fuisse origi nis."— "De Lingua," &c., p. 167. 314 CONSIDERATION that the poor woman who came out of the coasts of Tyre and Sidon could have uttered her cries and lamentations in Greek. She spoke the native lan guage of her country. It was Syro-Phenician or Syro-Chaldaic, and the same mixed language, with some variety of dialect, prevailed at that tirae over Judea, Samaria, and Galilee. There seems the high est probability that most of our Saviour's conversa tion Avith the scribes and Pharisees, and that all His addresses to the coraraon people, were spoken in this vernacular tongue. But when it was subsequently ordered that the New Testaraent should be composed in Hellenistic Greek, they were enabled by that Divine power which we term Inspiration, to convert this provincial and transient dialect into its present fixed and enduring form*." In answer to the state ments contained in this passage, I merely refer to what has been proved above. Few, I conceive, will be inclined to' attribute the Greek of the New Testa ment to inspiration, if it can be accounted for on natural grounds ; and equally few, I trust, will find any difficulty in believing that a woman of Tyre and Sidon, who is expressly styled by St Mark 'E\\»;i'/s, addressed her petition to Christ through the mediura of the Greek languaget. The only reraaining objection, or quasi-objection, which I have met with, is derived strangely enough from the languages in which the accusation placed over the cross of our Lord was written. Some have argued that Hebrew was employed, because that was the only language known to the inhabitants of the ¦* Grinfield, "Apology," p, 12. t See above, Chap. IV., on the language of Tyre and Sidon. OF OBJECTIONS, 315 place, while Greek was used merely for the sake of those Gentiles or foreign Jews who were then present in Jerusalem, Hardouin, again, imagines that he finds in the statement that Latin was used, support for his peculiar views as to the then prevailing lan guage of Jerusalem, But such arguments have no real foundation. The statement made, (Luke xxiii, 38,) that the superscription over the Redeemer's cross "was Avritten in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew*," does, in fact, form an excellent illustra tion of the \dews set forth in this work, as to the relation then subsisting between the languages of Palestine. There was, first of all, the Greek, almost universally understood and employed, especially for all literary purposes, and on all public occasions. There was, next, the Hebrew or Aramaic, coraraonly made use of in familiar intercourse by the natives of the country, but the employraent of which was scarcely a matter of absolute necessity to any. And there was, last of all, the Latin, a tongue scarcely ever heard among the Jewish inhabitants, but em ployed by their Roman rulers, as being the imperial language, for aU official purposest . '* Casatdion argues that St Luke preserves the real order in which the three languages were eraployed, the Greek holding the first place, as might be expected. " Exercit. xvi. ad Baron. Annal.," p. 563. t Although three languages were employed on this occasion, it seems to me evident that, for all practical purposes, Greek alone would have been quite sufficient. Many similar cases raight be quoted. Thus, we are told that when the youthful son of James II. was acknowledged by Louis XIV. as the heir of the crown of England, this was done " in Latin, French, and English." — Macaulay's " History of England," Vol. v. 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 be used. 316 CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS. It has been proved then, I believe, beyond the reach of aU 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 Avhom the illustrious testiraony 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 dehvered, 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 sarae language, unerringly com mitted to writing, while they literally experienced a fulfilment of the gracious promise, — " The Com forter, WHICH IS THE Holt Ghost, whom the Fa ther WILL SEND IN MT NAME, He SHALL TEACH TOU ALL THINGS, AND BRING ALL THINGS TO TOUR REMEM BRANCE, WHATSOEVER I HAVE SAID UNTO TOU." PART IL ON THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF ST MATTHEW'S GOSPEL, THE ORIGIN AND AUTHENTICITY OP THE GOSPELS. CHAPTER I. STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION RESPECTING ST MATTHEw's GOSPEL, AND OF THE METHOD IN WHICH THE INQUIRT SHOULD BE CONDUCTED. Three opinions are current araong 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 Aramsean 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 judgraent, all testimony is in favour of a Hebrew original of St Matthew's Gospel, and of that onlyt." '* GreswdVs " Harmony of the Gospels," i. 125. t Home and Tregelles, p. 420. 320 ORIGINAL LANGUAGE To the 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 affirras 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 Irenseus ' Against Here tics' is the original ofthe 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 theraselves as to the degree of authority which they are inclined to ascribe to the supposed translation. Sorae 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 au opposite course. They deera the supposed fact of the Greek Gospel being an anonyraous translation frora the Hebrew, a reason for our treating it (if we so please) Avith 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 iraagine to be an occasional slip of the translator, others openly contend that his task has been very inaccurately perforraed, and loudly charge hira with nuraerous and important errors. These varieties of judgment as to the inspiration and authority of the existing Gospel of St Matthew, Avhen it is viewed as a translation from the Hebrew, will be afterwards * " Edin. Review," July, 1859, p. 185. 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, CampbeU, 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, frora Matthew to the Apocalypse, were certainly Greek in the Apostolic autographs." Among the more celebrated defenders of this second opinion, I may narae, Erasraus, CalAdn, Lightfoot, Wetstein, Lardner, Hales, Hug, De Wette, Credner, Stuart, and Bleek. It wiU 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 Avrote his Gospel both in Greek and Hebrew, the two editions being either given to the world simultaneously, 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 '* " Hbbc nobilis controversia." — PoK " 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 originals than for contesting 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, Avith various modifications, has been defended by Kitto, Home, Lee, EUicott, 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 forra 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 sufficiently obvious from the fact that raost Roraish 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," t. 31. t Considerable confusion exists in the lists of writers usually given as holding the several hypotheses. Thus, the name of Whitby is men tioned in Horn^s "Introduction" (Vol. iv. 416 — 419) araong 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 raarked 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 ofthe three well-defined opinions. Our I'sts might have been greatly extended, but sufficient names have been given as speciraens, 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 ings 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 ofthe Word of God, in opposition to all merely ecclesiastical claims upon their reve rence and submission, and this they have felt no easy raatter 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 Avhich 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 foUovfing 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 naraes which raay be regarded as representative of many more — Hug, the celebrated Roraan Catholic professor in the university of Freyburg, is one of the most strenuous and successful defenders of the Greek original; while Tregelles, an erainent and earnest Protestant scholar among ourselves, is one of the ablest and most deterrained advocates of the opinion, that St Matthew wrote in Hebrew exclusively. Leaving 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 EvangeUura Matthsei He braice sit scriptura, et vero illud hodie non extet, ideo necessario ad divinam et infallibilem Ecclesice auctoritatem nobis recurrendum, qua negata nuUus sit Evangelii hujus usus, cum fides interpretis sit incerta et nomen ignotum." — Adami Contzenii "Comraentaria in quatuor Evan- gelia," 1626. Such a mode of argument is very commonly to be met with in the pages of Romish controversiaUsts ; and how much it was felt by Protestant writers will be plain from the foUowing examples : — " Si id serael constituatur," says Jl/". Flacius," 'Sov.Teat.," Basil., 1570, "hunc librum initio Hebraice, non Grsece scriptura, et ab aliquo ignoti nominis, authoritatisve ac etiam fidei horaine, tanta prsesertim libertate, conver- sum esse, non parum profecto de ejus auctoritate decesserit ; quod me- hercle Christianis nuUo modo ferendum est." Betraying the same anxiety to shelter the existing Gospel of St Matthew from the attacks of the Papists, Gerhard, " Annot. in Matt.," p. 38, remarks, " Cum ne- raine pugiiabimus, qui Matthaeum Hebraice scripsisse statuit, m,odo con- cedat, Grsecum textura Apostolum, vel Apostolicum virum auctorem habere, ac proinde esse authenticum." In the sarae spirit, Jones, in his very learned work on the Canon (iii. 252), observes, — "As we would therefore avoid this consequence of making the authority of this Gospel uncertain, we must conclude it not to he a translation!' 32G ORIGINAL LANGUAGE venture to suggest that such differences may, in many cases, find their explanation in the difference of priority and prominence 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 Avhich 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 Avill often be influenced more by the particular method in Avhich 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 raust admit, either side ofthe 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 rauch is this the case, that, as we have seen, raany think it best to admit the force of both classes of arguments as irresistible, and siraply on this ground to raaintain the hypothesis that the apostle raust have written both in Greek and Hebrew. We shall afterwards have occasion to consider at some length 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 order 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 aUuded to by writers who have manifestly done httle 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 coraplete survey of the whole evidence, assigned, as is believed, a juster value to the several parts, and at last reached a firra 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 seeking to reach tbe 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 I humbly think this question should be investigated, are simply these : — First, The question must be decided by evidence, only. Second, We raust take into account the whole 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 Word of God, is to be 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 ray 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, I 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 in 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 Avay 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 would 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 ORIGINAL 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 Uke truisms, that there may appear to some little necessity for raaking thera. But there is necessity. Although it raight seera that the least reflection on the relative positions of God and raan 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 sorae 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 whora are not Avanting in this country, who have certainly adopted a kind of pro cedure Avith respect to the Word of God which is as impious as it is indefensible. They have constituted themselves arbiters instead of inquirers; they have elevated their own reason to the tribunal of judg ment with respect to the subject-matter of revelation, instead of humbly eraploying 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 frora its only worthy position as a suprerae 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 sarae conderanation. It is a curious illustration ofthe common saying, "extremes meet," to find that the most violent opponents of rationalism have really at tiraes subjected themselves to the very same censure as that which they have go emphatically pronounced. For, what has, not unfre quently, been their manner of acting? They have, in contravention of all the laws of evidence, clungf to certain opinions or prepossessions, which have im bedded theraselves 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 sayino-, that the charge of presumption is far raore applicable '* Every one acquainted with the theological Uterature 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 iUustra tion of their existence and working among ourselves in the now notorious " Essays and Reviews." The fundamental error of that volume is the place which it assigns to the "verifying faculty" in our own minds, making the human understanding and conscience the supreme arbiter of aU truth, and thus destroying the possibility of any authoritative revela tion frora 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 ofthe 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 unwisely, 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 course, to such passages as 1 John v. 7, and Acts viii. 37, which, as every scholar knows, have no claim whatever to a place in the inspired Word of God ; and in the immediately preceding reraarks 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 exaraple, he expresses hiraself 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 hira 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 Noav Testament wrote in the Syriac language, unless Ave suppose them to have written in the ungraceful lan guage of an ungrateful nation, which certainly we OF ST MATTHEWS GOSPEL, 335 ought not to suppose. For, when the Jewish people were now to be cast off, and to be dooraed to eternal cursing, it was very improper 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 alleged 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 tions t." ¦*' " 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 appeared in the " Journal of Sacred Literature,'' first series, Vol. v. I 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 would or should have done ; we have only 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 raust 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 support, refer to this treatise in the following pages, as being one of the roost elaborate efforts which have recently been made to uphold the H«brew 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 raust 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 coraraon Thus says Heidegger, " Enchirid.," p. 707, — " Si Hebrtiice Evangelium Matthseus scripsisset, pro eo conservando et Dei Proridentia et Eccle- sise industria perenniter vigilasset indubie." In like munner, Hofman, " Ad Pritii. Introd.," p. 307, thus expresses himself, — " Provocamus ad Divinam Providentiam et sedulam Ecclesise curam in custodiendis et servandis libris N. T. canonicis. Qui cedat, Deum passura fuLsse, ut liber Divino impulsu et instinctu conscriptus, ad religionis Christianse normam et canonem pertinens, plane periret," &c. To the same efiect, Zedler, in his "Universal-Lexicon," 1739, says of St Matthew's Gospel, — "Hatte es der Evangelist darinnen \i. e. in Hebrew] 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 :— "AA'e 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 Greek, 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 supposed 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 preserved, with all the same care and energy that would have sufficed for the preservation of the original, is a hypothesis so utterly contradictory of aud derogatory to the wisdom, power, and excellency of God's providence, as to amount to an utter and extreme improbabUity ; an improbability so utterly ex treme, that we may pronounce it to be an impossibility on the part of 22 338 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 Avill no longer be the case when we proceed to observe — Secondly, That we 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. The 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."— Page 469. Unfortunately for such reasonings, there are nuraerous undoubted facts, both in nature and revelation, which, judged of d priori, would certainly appear to us as inconsistent with the perfections of the Most High, as can be any hypothesis connected with St Matthew's Gospel. 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. OP ST MATTHEWS GOSPEL. '330 the subject is sufficient to set his method of arguino- before us, "In the foUowing remarks," he says, "I propose to consider A\'hat 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 testiraony." By this "ancieiit 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 hira in settling the point at issue. But is it not raanifest that, in a question such as the present, there are other things 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 narae 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 Avriters 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, Ave should still be justified in considering the statements made regarding his work by ancient writers in the light of 9.7 o 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 probability or improbability of their assertions. But the case is much stronger when we actually hold in our hands a Gospel in Greek bearing the narae of the apostle, and transmitted to us from the earliest times as an integral portion ofthe 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 frora 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, Avhich 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 witli this question, the striking and iraportant fact, that our present Gospel of St Matthew abounds in verbal coincidences with the other Gospels, all of which are now universally admitted to have been written in OF ST MATTHEWS GOSPEL, 341 the Greek language? There may be a satisfactory mode of explaining 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 haA'e been tempted to forget 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 eagerly 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 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 ftdl 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 p)artial view of the various considerations which make up our available data for determining the question. Their opinion is forraed in favour of the Hebrew original while one iraportant branch of the evidence reraains 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 OP ST MATTHEAV 's GOSPEL Si'.j 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 whole 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 raust be guided by a fair and candid estiraation of the whole. In all questions, of course, except those capable of matheraatical 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 we should submit to the preponderating evidence, though perhaps unable fully to explain that which points to a different conclusion. Now such may be our position Avith 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 completely 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 raost 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 irapartial view of the entire evidence attainable, and then diffidently forming our judgment according to probability, 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 Avith 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 AA'hich 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 ara thus led to observe (though the point is of no essential iraportance) — 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 alraost 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 alloAving 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 ig 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 held that there is nothing which is more certainly within the power of literary tact and experience, than, in aU 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 original. A foreign 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 ORIGINAL 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, hoAvever, seeras inclined to deny this; and asks, in confirraation of his views, what traces the Lord's Prayer in English bears of being a translation. We raay adrait that no such traces are to be found, without any prejudice to our arguraent. 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 forra 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. 347 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 written, but by the manner in Avhich they reflect the life and habits of the age and country in Avhich they were respectively composed, as well as by the frequent allusions which they contain to national affairs and conteraporaiy occurrences, that they were written originally by the persons whose naraes they bear, and could not possibly have been translations made by thera at first, or by any others afterwards, from a different language. Not the most united external testimony would ever persuade the world 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 which renders it absolutely cer tain that our present Greek Gospel of St Matthew is not a translation, but an original work, 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 with respect to it, we may find, on turning to the Gospel itself, that that conclusion cannot be sustained, as being inconsistent with 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 opening and examining it, we raay 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 stateraents which have been made to that effect, may at once and most wiUingly 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 the 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 Avhich 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 recoramend itself to the approbation of the majority of readers, I can scarcely hope, indeed, that writers like Dr Tregelles, who is in the habit of almost ignoring internal evidence on all critical sub jects, wiU 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 seeras, 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 evidence 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 which 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 reraains, in fact, no evidence to be overlooked after demonstration 350 ORIGINAL LANGUAGE has been reached: all the counter-statements which raay 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 produced 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 criticisra, then," he says, " has to do in this matter, is simply to concern itself Avith the following question — whether or not our pre sent Gospel of St Matthew bears evidence in itself that it is a translation from the HebreAV*?" '* " Einl. in das N. T.," § 46. In his last work, " Geschichte des Neut. Kanon," published since his death, Credner repeats, in substance, the above stateraent as to the raanner in which the question respecting the original language of St Slatthew's Gospel must be settled, remarking of that Gospel, as well as of the Epistle to the Hebrews, "Aus inneren Gi'iinden eine ursprunglich hebraische Abfassung nicht stattgefunden haben kann," p. 136, I may take this opportunity of observing that, however much one may regret the strong rationalistic tendencies of Credner, it is irapossible not to admire the clearness and fulness with which he treats of every point which 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 M.VTTHEWS GOSl^EL. 351 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 tbis controversy, to an exhibition of the arguments which he imagines raay 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 theory he adopts be right or wrong ; 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 hiin on raany points, gratefully acknowledge rayself 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. '* " Entscheidender Beweis fiir einem hebraischen Grund-text : Feh- ler des griechischen Uebersetzers." — Eichhorn's " Binl, in das N, T.," I. 106. 352 ORIGINAL LANGUAGE Part of this work, as to the prevailing 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 hkely 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 hafh indeed been raore 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 hira 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 ofthe New Testament," by Richard Simon (from the French ; London, 1689), p. 43. t Even Ehrard, who grants that " Greek was very commonly under- OF ST Matthew's gospel. 353 important is the question respecting the 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 adraitted 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 foUoAvs 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 wiU 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 breAV with any view to its general diffusion, since that stood in Palestine," exclaims, "Just think of the native Israelite, an Apostle of the circumcision, writing the life of Jesus for Israelites (this is evident even from our Greek Matthew) ; is it Ukely that he would make use of a language which had been forced upon his nation, instead of the sacred tongue which Jesus imself had employed ?" " Gospel Histoid," p. 537. How completely this argument has been overthrown, and, whatever force it has, turned in the opposite direction, will be ob vious to every reader of this work. '* Simon, ut sup., p. 46. 23 354 ORIGINAL LANGUAGE language was at no tirae 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 sarae 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 generaUy 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 ofthe first Gospel. I have ventured to accept the chaUenge 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 estiraation of the raost 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 stateraents of antiquity, Papias and all his followers raust be declared in error. The originality of our existing Gospel of St Matthew is acknoAvledged to be established ; the error on which OF 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 respecting a very interesting and iraportant subject of investigation *. Such, according to raany able upholders of the Hebrew original of St Matthew's Gospel, is the result, if the conclusion airaed at in the First Part of this volurae 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 thera, siraply append to it the corollary, that St Matthew wrote 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 imagine, I can conceive that, though 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 to'i^ avw (iapfidpoK, at first published his History of the Jewish War in Hebrew. And the sarae or a similar object may have been contemplated by St Matthew '* Jt is somewhat surprising to find Abp. Thomson in Smith's " Dic tionary of the Bible " (Art. Matt.), taking no account of the linguistic condition of Palestine at the tirae, 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 stiU unsettled." ' 23—2 356 ORIGINAL LANGUAGE, ETC. in Avriting his Gospel. This supposition has, in fact, been raade by Isaac Vossius, who, strongly as he contends for the prevalence of Greek in Palestine, still thinks, as his views are stated in his treatise entitled "Ad Tertias Simonii Objectiones Responsio," that St Matthew wrote his Gospel "Hebraice in usura Gentium in Parthica viventium ditione, quibus Babylonius seu Chaldaicus sermo erat vernaculus." It reraains, therefore, that we exaraine both the Gospel itself and the ancient testimonies which have been handed down regarding it, in order to discover whether there is yet any ground for conceiving that it was originaUy written in Hebrew, and that the existing Greek is but a translation from that long- lost docuraent; or whether there is reason to believe that the evangelist published two editions of his Gospel, of which the former, in Hebrew, speedUy 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 frora the existing Greek Gospel of St Matthew, viewed by itself, in favour of its originality. On our hypothesis, sorae 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 sorae of those considerations arising from the character of the Gospel itself, which seem to rae harraoniously to corabine 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 reraark, — 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 work. The maintainors of the Hebrew original pretty 358 ST MATTHEW S GOSPEL : generally aUow 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 seera like a translation; that the language does not seera less original than the other New Testaraent writings; and that, unless we had external testimony, we should probably not have imagined it to be a version ; but aU this does not prove the contrary"^'." I am not inclined to press this point with him, nor is it at aU necessary to do so. There are many other grounds, as we shaU 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 ofthe Hebrew original. It may serve as a reply to very different allegations which haA'e been made by some others on the same side of the question. Eichhorn f, Davidson^, and Cure- ton §, aU imagine that there are manifest raarks 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, wiU not allow that there are any positive mistakes, (except, perhaps, in the translation w/fos, chap, xii. 20,) but traces the hand of the translator '* Tregelles, ut sup,, p. 15. t Eichhorn, "Einl. in das N. T.," § 106. J Davidson's "Introduct. to the N.T.," p. 47, &c. § Cureton's " Syriac Gospels," pp. vi. — xUv. 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 assuraed by Eichhorn, it would be a waste of tirae 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 Bertholdt reckon up, have no existence save in their own imagina tion*;" or, in those of Dr Davidson hiraself, that "those who irapugn the authority of the Greek Gospel desert antiquity in denying its identity with the Aramsean, written by Matthew, while they main tain the opinion of that same antiquity concerning the fact of Matthew Avriting 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. ¦» "Binl. 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 raade, — 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 iraraunity belong to itf Why should it be distinguished among all other Avorks 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 artem) has this one translator succeeded in entirely concealing the real nature of his work, and in imparting to it the whole appearance and irapress of an original? Every one Avho 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 raust 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 ofthe 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 tirae in perfectly accoraplishing these two objects? What translator has not felt himself compelled, at tiraes, 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 aUowed to possess all the characteristics which belong to an original work ; and if, notwithstanding, it must be accepted as a translation, it can only, in that case, be regarded as a sort of literary miracle, and one which is as unique as it is amazing, as solitary in kind as it is exalted in degree, " How can I read the Gospel of St Matthew, as it now lies before me," asks Professor Stuart*, and feel that I am reading a translation made in ancient times? Where is any version like it? The Septua gint? That is greatly diverse frora it in very many and iraportant 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 irapression. It is scarcely enough simply to affirm with the excellent critic quoted, that " in 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 the 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 more 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 siraplicity 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 Testaraent 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, sorae other word would be eraployed. Now, we find this Hebrew usage copied very reraarkably by the * I attach no importance in this investigation to the paronomasia which is supposed to occur in chap. vi. 16. Much as has been made of it by some writers, multitudes of better examples might be discovered in almost 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 siraply men tions it along with kukovs KOKas ano'Kfa-ei, chap. xxi. 41, and such expres sions as jSaTToXoyetv, and iroXvXoyia, as SO far in favour of the Greek original. " Eml.," 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 Kal is continually made to do service in the Septuagint in the sense of "then" or " when," the proper adverb is as constantly eraployed in the Gospel. It has been observed that rare occurs no less than ninety tiraes 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 weU-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 hteraUy translated is, " And Abraham added, and took a wife," to denote the idea that he again married; and in chap. 1. 24, Joseph is represented as addressing his brethren in words which, literally rendered, are "God visiting wiU visit you," to express the certainty with which DiAdne 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, Upoa9emevo