TLB OF CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES ANDER ROBERTS, D.D ■ ',V ■ ^ft PRINCETON, N. J. Shelf. BS 2.3.8 7 Nunu H r ';,'*^ ■ ^ > ft i. ■ ■ ■ .-.'J.'sfc ■ r>'im I *w bl TO I ■ I THE BIBLE OF CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES. THE BIBLE OF CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES. ALEXAXDER' / ROBERTS, D.D., Professor of Humanity in the University of St. Andrews. Airip/iiTjye'jev avroTs iv irdcrais reus ypcupcus. St. Luke xxiv. 27. Cassell, Petter, Galpin & Co. : LONDON, PARIS § NEW YORK. [IlLL rights reserved.] vVvW**"* PREFACE. The subject handled in the following pages forms only a portion of a larger question which I have treated at length elsewhere. In the first part of rny Discussions on the Gospels, it is my object to prove that Greek was the language habitually made use of by our Lord and His Disciples. The argument, as there developed, is many-sided, but its success may be safely staked on the one point to which atten- VI PREFACE. tion is specially called in this treatise. If it can be proved that the Greek version of the Septuagint was the Bible constantly appealed to by Christ and His Apostles, it will follow as an undeniable conclusion that Greek was the language which they usually employed. This will be found further adverted to in the concluding chapter. As was to be expected, the views which I ventured some years ago to propound as to the language of Christ have met with strong, not to say violent, opposition. Some very uncomplimentary epithets have been applied to them, but of these I shall PREFACE Vll take no notice ; some able efforts have also been made to refute them, and these I have carefully considered; but I still feel constrained to abide by the position which I formerly assumed. If anything has recently occurred to make me doubt the security of that position, it is the fact that such a master of logic as the present Archbishop of York has declared himself against it. But His Grace has expressly declined to argue the question (Speaker s Commentary on New Testament, i., p. 22), and has decided against me, so far as appears (p. 29), simply on a priori grounds. In these circumstances I hope Vlll PREFACE. I may still, without being deemed guilty of presumption, submit the following pages to the consideration of Biblical scholars. A. R. The University, St. Andrews, August 23rd, 1879. CONTENTS. Page Introduction' ... ... ... ... ... ... xi CHAPTER I. First hypothesis : That Christ and His Apostles, in reading and referring to the Old Testament Scriptures, made use of the original Hebrew text ... 17 CHAPTER II. Second hypothesis : That Christ and His Apostles, in reading and referring to the Old Testament Scriptures, made use of an Aramaic version ... ... 53 CHAPTER III. Third hypothesis: That Christ and His Apostles, in reading and referring to the Old Testament Scriptures, made use of the Septuagint translation ... 102 CHAPTER IV. The Text of the Septuagint, and the Language spoken by Christ and His Disciples ... ... ... ... 148 THEOLOGICAL INTRODUCTION. There is hardly a more interesting ques- tion connected with New Testament criti- cism than that which respects the form in which the Old Testament was made use of by our Lord and His Disciples. We constantly come upon passages in the Gospels in which appeal is made to the Scriptures both by Christ and those whom He addressed. And the inquiry naturally suggests itself — What were the writings thus in the hands of our Lord and His contemporaries, writings which, it is every- Xll INTRODUCTION. where assumed, were quite familiar alike to Him and His Disciples, and to the people of Palestine among whom they mingled ? Did Christ and His contem- poraries read and quote from the original Hebrew text ? Or was it an Aramaic ver- sion of the Old Testament which they had in their hands, and to which they appealed? Or, finally, did they make use of the Sep- tuagint Greek translation, which we know had been begun to be formed between two and three hundred years before the Chris- tian era, and which had gradually attained completion ? Much contrariety of opinion and great apparent confusion of thought are to be INTRODUCTION. Xlll found on this subject in the writings of Biblical scholars. As we shall soon see, there is perhaps no critical question con- nected with the Scriptures which has con- tinued to be treated in a more unscientific spirit. Suppositions are rested in, to the neglect of facts. Theories of an a priori character are accepted, though demon- strably opposed to positive evidence. One difficulty is evaded only by adopting another ; and there is a general cling- ing to traditional opinions on the subject, while a very brief consideration is suffi- cient to prove these destitute of any solid foundation. If this be so, we may safely predict XIV INTRODUCTION. that such a state" of things cannot last. The demand of our day is that a supreme deference should be paid to facts. All theories, however plausible, and all tra- ditions, however venerable, must be set aside if found to be unsupported by sub- stantial and sufficient evidence. Truth, at all hazards, is what mankind most passionately desire. And in pursuit of this noble aim many views which for- merly prevailed have become modified, while some have been altogether aban- doned. Nor can it ultimately be other- wise in regard to the subject before us. Truth will prevail against tradition. And, as I shall endeavour to show, the truth INTRODUCTION. XV here offers itself very clearly to our ac- ceptance, provided we are willing to look at the question in the genuine spirit of science, determined to lay aside all pre- possessions, and to allow ourselves to be guided by evidence alone to a conclusion. I have above suggested three answers which might be given to the question about to be discussed, and these may be regarded as exhausting all the possibili- ties of the case. Christ and His Apostles either used the Old Testament Scriptures (1) in the original Hebrew, or (2) in an Aramaic version, or (3) in the Septuagint translation. A remarkable combination of the second and third views has, in- Xvi INTRODUCTION. deed, recently been propounded, and will, as we proceed, receive due consideration. But if the subject be treated under the threefold division which has been men- tioned, we shall find a natural opportu- nity of noticing all the opinions that have been entertained regarding it. I proceed, then, to an examination of the several hypotheses, with the simple desire of ascertaining which of them is in ac- cordance with the facts of the case, and has therefore a claim, however much opposed to deep-rooted and long-prevalent views, to be accepted with the homage ever due to the majesty of Truth. THE BIBLE OF CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES. CHAPTER I. First hypothesis : That Christ and His Apostles, in reading and referring- to the Old Testament Scriptures, made tise of the original Hebrew text. In the case of those persons who have not thought much upon the subject, this is, doubtless, the prevailing impression. They are aware that the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, and when they find our Lord and His Apostles quoting from it, they naturally suppose that this B 18 THE BIBLE OE CHRIST was done in the original language. It lias never occurred to them to question the fact, so that they quietly repose in the conclusion stated, without giving it the smallest consideration. While this is the position occupied by readers of the New Testament in general, it is not uncommon to find, even among professed Biblical scholars, the same be- lief expressed or implied. Evidently with- out having reflected on the point, they write as if there could be no doubt that Hebrew was the language in which the Old Testament was known to Christ and His contemporaries. Thus, to give only one notable example : the highly accom- AND HIS APOSTLES. 19 plished and widely-learned Dean of West- minster tells us, in his Sermons in the East, with respect to Christ in the syna- gogue at Nazareth, that " the roll of the Hebreiv Scriptures was delivered to Him," and that He unrolled it and read, the supposition being apparently made that in so doing He was perfectly intelligible to His hearers. 1 The Dean may be re- garded as being in this matter represen- tative of a multitude of others. His attention had probably never been specially directed to the point ; and he therefore naturally assumed that when our Lord read from the Old Testament to the people 1 Stanley's Sermons in the East, p. 45. 20 THE BIBLE OF CHRIST in the synagogue He did so in the original Hebrew lanefuasfe. But the consensus of scholars proclaims that this could not have been the case. It is almost universally admitted that in the days of our Lord the language of the Old Testament books had long been dead, and was not understood by the great body of the people. It, no doubt, continued to be studied and taught by the learned. As the venerable language of the sacred books of the nation, such would, of course, be the case ; but acquaintance with it was confined to a comparatively limited class. The " He- brew " mentioned in the New Testament AND HIS APOSTLES. 21 was a very different dialect. It seems to have been a kind of patois, formed from a mixture of Syriac and Chaldee, with perhaps some other elements ; 1 and the common use of this so-called Hebrew in Palestine still left the people utterly help- less when confronted with the Hebrew of the Old Testament. At what time the language of their sacred books ceased to be a living lan- guage among the Jews cannot be posi- tively determined. There is a well-known 1 " II est certain que la langue qui est nominee Ebraique dans le Nouveau Testament n'est proprement ni Ebraique, ni Syriaque, ni nieme Caldaique, ayant quelque melange de l'Ebreu et du Caldaique on Babylonien." — R. Simon, Hist. Crit. d. Text, da Nouv. Test., p. 65. 2.2 THE BIBLE OF CHRIST passage in Neliemiah bearing upon the point. We are told (chap. viii. 8) that Ezra and his coadjutors read to the people " in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading." The question here is whether these words mean that Ezra translated the Hebrew into Aramaic, in order that the people might understand it, or whether he simply paraphrased and expounded the passage, so as to make its meaning clear. Scholars are divided in opinion upon this point. On the one side, the learned Jewish authorities, Eabbis and Talmudists, generally assume that AND HIS APOSTLES. 23 Hebrew continued to be used only up to the time of the exile, and was then gradually superseded by Aramaic. This view has also been adopted by many eminent Christian writers. Buxtorf and Walton may be named among scholars of a former age, and Hengstenberg 1 and Havernick 2 among recent writers. But, on the other side, Gesenius observes — " It is a false impression, derived from a mis- interpretation of Neh. viii. 8, that the Jews, during their exile, had wholly for- gotten their ancient language, and were obliged to learn its meaning from the 1 Booh of Daniel (Eng. Trans.), p. 242 ff. 2 Introd. to Old Test, § 35. 24 THE BIBLE OF CHRIST priests and scribes." 1 Bleek agrees with him in this, and maintains that the true meaning of the disputed word (tf£°) is not translated or interpreted, but distinct or clear, 2 so that the passage simply implies that Ezra explained those portions of the Old Testament which he read in the hear- ing of the people. It may be admitted that probability is rather in favour of this second view of the import of the passage. But the important point to be noticed is that all the above-named scholars, with multitudes of others, agree that the ancient 1 Heb. Ch\, §§ 2, 5 : comp. Gesch. d. Heb. Spr., § 13. 2 Einl. in das A. T., p. 96. AND HIS APOSTLES. 25 Hebrew had died out of common use among the Jews long before the coming of Christ. Opinions differ, as we have seen, with respect to the exact date at which this took place ; but those who are best entitled to speak with authority on the subject declare, with almost one voice, that for a century at least before our era the ancient Hebrew had ceased to be used in writing, as it had previously ceased to be used ia speech ; and that, though it continued to be studied by professed adepts as the language of the sacred books, it was, in the days of Christ and His Apostles, totally unknown to the great body of the Jewish people. 26 THE BIBLE OF CHRIST As this is a vital point in the present argument, let me give emphasis to it by expressly quoting the words of some lead- ing authorities among Biblical scholars. There is a constant tendency evinced by mere popular writers on Scripture, quietly to assume that the Jews of our Saviour's day did understand the ancient Hebrew, and that, accordingly, it was in that lan- guage they became acquainted with the books of the Old Testament. Let the following statements of scholars of the highest standing suffice to set aside such an opinion. Ewald declares that " the Hebrew in the last centuries before Christ became more and more an antique Ian- AND HIS APOSTLES. 27 guage, acquired only by special study." l De Wette writes : — " After the exile the Hebrew language gradually ceased to be heard from the lips of the people, and continued to survive only as the language of learning and literature." 2 Bleek, re- ferring to the times of Christ, remarks : — " The ancient Hebrew had already for a long time been, even to the Jews of Palestine, a dead language, the knowledge of which, so far as it was necessary for the reading of the Holy Scriptures, con- tinued only among those who were devoted to such a special study." 3 And, not to 1 Ausfuhr. Lehrb. d, Heb. Sjpr., p. 23. 2 Einl. in d. A. T„ § 34. 3 ffinl in d, N. T„ p. 53. 28 THE BIBLE OF CHRIST multiply quotations, I shall simply add that similar views are also expressed by Winer, Gesenius, Deutsch, and almost every writer of reputation who has touched upon the subject. In support of the conclusion stated, I may refer to an illustration which will be intelligible to all. Josephus, the well- known Jewish historian, was distinguished for his learning above most of his con- temporaries. He says that this was generally admitted. " Those of my own nation," he tells us, " willingly acknow- ledge that I far surpass them in the learning belonging to the Jews." 1 This, 1 Antiq., xx., 11, 2. AXD HIS APOSTLES. 29 then, is the very man of all others likely to be well acquainted with the ancient Hebrew, if that were at all generally known among the Jews. Yet it is certain that Josephus knew comparatively little of the language. He depends more in his writings on the translation of the LXX. than on the original text; 1 and his etymological and other blunders are of the grossest conceivable character. Referring both to him and Philo, Renan remarks : — " The explanations which they give of certain Hebrew words surpass the strangest 1 " Joseph, ist inehr von der LXX. als voin hebr. T. abhangig." — Fritsche, in Hertzog's Beal-Eiicyclopadie, Art. " Alexand. Bibelubersets." 30 THE BIBLE OF CHRIST hallucinations of the ancients on the field of etymology." l Here, then, we find a crucial case. If a scholar so distinguished among his contemporaries for Jewish learning as Josephus, is proved, after all, to have been so deficient in an acquaint- ance with ancient Hebrew, there can be no hesitation in concluding that to the community at large those books were sealed which were written in that language. Such being the state of the case, I cannot but express surprise that a scholar of the calibre of Keim should have written as follows : — " The interesting question whether Jesus read the Scripture in the 1 Hist, des Lang. Semit., p. 166. AND HIS APOSTLES. 31 Greek translation rather than in the Hebrew text must be answered in the negative. Doubtless it has been before now maintained that the old Hebrew of the Bible had become a dead, unintelligible tongue to the Jews of that time who spoke Aramaic ; that only the scribes could still read it; that the people were pointed to the Greek translation if they wished to study the Scripture for themselves. This view is altogether at variance with the Jewish regard for the sacred relics of their country, and with their dislike to the Greek, of which even Paul was aware (Acts xxi. 40) — yes, to the Greek transla- tion itself, which found only slow accept- 32 THE BIBLE OF CHRIST ance ; at variance, too, with the linguistic fact that to go back from the Aramaic dialect to the nearly cognate ancient Hebrew was a hundredfold easier for the Jews than to have recourse to the Greek. Add to this the express statement that even the proselytes of the Jews learned their sacred language : Izates, the Prince of Assyrian Adiabene, under Caius Clau- dius, sent his five sons to Jerusalem to acquire accurately the language and culture of the country. As to Jesus, He after- wards not only spoke Aramaic, but ren- dered the Scripture in Aramaic with slight alteration from the Hebrew ; and, what is of more weight, He disputed times out of AND HIS APOSTLES. 33 number with the scribes concerning the word of Scripture, whose authority for them — and we may believe for Him too — lay solely in the original text. The only fact that would seem to speak for an employ- ment of the Greek version is that the Scriptural quotations made by Jesus in our Gospels are taken in the majority of cases from the text of that translation. He who would argue like a child nr&st come to the conclusion that Jesus mostly had recourse to the Greek, but now and then to the Hebrew. But these Scripture citations, as regards their definite lin- guistic garb, belong altogether to the Evangelists as such. 34 THE BIBLE OF CHRIST " This Hebrew text, and not the Greek, it must have been which the parents of Jesus also would best have understood, read, and taught. It was quite in keeping with the whole character of Jewish reve- rence for the Law that pious parents should themselves have a manuscript of the Law, and that in the ancient sacred language. As early as the age of the Hasmonseans there were a number of MSS. in private possession; and the rage of the Syrian king, who was for Hellenising the Jews, was specially levelled against these writings, which, like those of the Christians in later times under the Em- peror Diocletian, were torn and burnt. It AND HIS APOSTLES. 35 is not likely that the employment of these documents in houses should be afterwards more rare — rather would it continually increase under the exertions of the Scribes and Pharisees, if only as the symbol of resistance to the intrusion of foreign culture. Though, no doubt, considerable wealth was implied in the possession of a complete copy of the Old Testament in parchment or Egyptian papyrus, yet the Law, a Prophet, or a Psalter might adorn even a modest house, and single passages from the Law written on the door-posts and on slips of parchment — the ' memen- tos,' Tephillim, phylacteries — were to be found probably in every house, in accord- 36 THE BIBLE OF CHRIST ance with the letter of Moses and the customs of post-exilic times. According to the Talmud, rolls were given into the hands of children on which weighty por- tions of the Old Testament were marked/' 1 I have quoted the above passage at length, in order that the fullest justice might be done to both sides of the ques- tion. And it would he a cause of great satisfaction if those writers who differ from the views which I hold as to the prevalence of Greek in Palestine in the time of Christ would boldly take their stand with Keim, and maintain that the Jews still read the Old Testament in the 1 Keini's Jesus of Nazara, ii., p. 152 (Eng. Trans.). AND HIS APOSTLES. 37 ancient Hebrew text. We should then have to deal with something substantial, instead of being tantalised by the re- iterated mention of an Aramaic version of the Old Testament, for the existence of which, as we shall soon see, no evidence can be produced. The ancient Hebrew text undoubtedly existed at the date re- ferred to, and we should thus, I repeat, have something positive set before us, did scholars generally follow Keim, and say, That was the Bible in ordinary use among the Jews in the days of Christ and His Apostles. But, as we have seen, there is no hope of this. All critical opinion is dead in the teeth of such an assertion. It 38 THE BIBLE OF CHRIST is even a kind of commonplace among Biblical scholars that ancient Hebrew had been unintelligible to the Jewish people for generations before the coming of Christ. There is, indeed, not the smallest necessity at the present day for refuting the views of Keim, as set forth in the passage which has been quoted. Scholars, with consentient voice, call out against them. They are utterly opposed to the clearest evidence, such as that derived from the case of Josephus ; and, as has been shown, Ewald, Bleek, De Wette, G-esenius, "Winer, Deutsch, and many others, join in condemning them. But while hardly a single critic will be found AND HIS APOSTLES. 39 agreeing with Keim in his affirmation, that the Old Testament in ancient Hebrew was still commonly read by the Jewish people in the time of Christ, there is never- theless much in the tone of the passage quoted which falls in with prevailing impressions or prejudices, and which, therefore, calls for further consideration. First, we are told that the Jews of the period disliked Greek. This is a very com- mon assertion; but what say facts? Look, for instance, at the Apocryphal books of the Old Testament. These range from about the third century before Christ to the commencement of our era. Many of them were popular in Palestine, and in what Ian- 40 THE BIBLE OF CHRIST guage did they circulate ? Unquestion- ably in Greek. Several of them, indeed, were originally composed in that language, while those of them which were written in Hebrew (Aramaic) soon assumed a Greek dress, and the originals were left to perish. As I have remarked elsewhere, " the Jewish literature was then Greek. Writings intended for the people, and commonly current among them, were composed in the Greek language.' ' 1 Josephus wrote all his works in Greek, except his " History of the Jewish War, 5 ' which he composed at first in Aramaic for the use of " the barbarians of the interior." Justus of 1 Discussicnis on the Gospels, p. 57. AND HIS APOSTLES. 41 Tiberias, a contemporary of Josephus, also wrote in Greek, as is plain from the fact that his work on " The Chronology of the Kings of Judah " was read by Photius of Constantinople in the ninth century after Christ. And, as Credner has remarked, a familiar acquaintance with the Greek lan- guage by the inhabitants of Palestine is presumed throughout by the writers of our Gospels. 1 Let us hear no more, then, of the Jews' dislike to Greek. Any pas- sages from the Talmud winch seem to sanction such a statement must be re- garded as exceptional, or as referring to a later period than that under considera- 1 Einl. in das N. T., § 77. 42 THE BIBLE OF CHRIST tion. Accordingly, scholars of the highest repute in regard to their acquaintance with Jewish feeling about the time of Christ repudiate this notion of their dislike to the Greek language. Zunz (e.g.) tells us that "it stood among the learned Jewish authorities of Palestine in high esteem." * And Lightfoot, referring to the early Rabbis, declares that "the Jews do well near acknowledge the Greek for their mother-tongue even in Judgea." 2 Thus, facts that are incontrovertible com- bine with opinions that must be acknow- ledged weighty in setting aside the oft- 1 Vortrage, p. 10. * Vol. xi., p. 25 (Pitman's Edition). AND HIS APOSTLES. 43 repeated assertion that the Jews of the time of Christ disliked Greek, and in establishing the very opposite conclusion. But we are told above, that " even Paul was aware of" this dislike. The passage relied upon to prove this is Acts xxi. 40, or rather xxii. 2. But it proves nothing of the kind. It simply shows with what consummate tact the Apostle accommo- dated himself to the exigencies of his position, and how naturally the Jews were disarmed of the prejudices they entertained against him when they heard him so unexpectedly address them, not in the Greek, but the Hebrew language. They had imagined he was thoroughly alienated 44 THE BIBLE OF CHRIST from all that was distinctively Jewish, and had gone over entirely to the Gen- tiles. But his adoption of Hebrew for the nonce as the language of his address was an instant witness in his favour, so that " they kept the more silence," and allowed him to proceed with his speech, which they probably would not otherwise have done. It was no dislike to Greek which the Jews then felt : it was dislike to the man who was to address them ; and he took the readiest means available for propitiating them. This was the special reason for St. Paul speaking to them in Hebrew; while St. Stephen, on the other hand, having no such motive to AND HIS APOSTLES. 45 influence him, addressed even the San- hedrim (as all but the most prejudiced admit) in the Greek language. 1 The alleged dislike of the Jews to " the Greek translation " will be considered afterwards. Meanwhile, there may be noticed, further, in the above passage from Keim the wide generalisation which it derives from an individual case, to the effect that " the proselytes of the Jews 1 " If lie spoke in Hebrew (Syro-Chaldaic), then either those passages where the LXX. varies from the Hebrew text must owe their insertion in that shape to some Greek narrator or to Luke himself, or Stephen must have, in speaking, translated them, thus varying, into Hebrew : either supposition being in the highest degree improbable." — Alford on Acts vii. 46 THE BIBLE OF CHRIST learned their sacred language." Because the sons of King Izates were sent to Jerusalem to do so, therefore proselytes generally did so. This is much the same as if we were told that because an Indian prince, on his conversion to Christianity, might send his children to Europe to learn its customs or languages, therefore all converts followed the same course. Josephus evidently mentions the case of Izates as remarkable, and not as exem- plifying what usually took place. The assertion that the " Scripture cita- tions " found in the Gospels "belong alto- gether to the Evangelists as such u is simply one of those reckless statements AND HIS APOSTLES. 47 which deserve no refutation. It rests upon nothing but the subjective opinion of the critic, and seems opposed to all the probabilities of the case, as well as to the special features which the quota- tions present. Finally, to imagine that our Lord's hearers in general were possessed of Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament is opposed to well-known facts as to the cost at which these were produced. It is evi- dently taken for granted throughout the Gospels that the people of the Jews in the time of Christ had easy and familiar access to the entire Old Testament. Ap- peal is constantly made to the Scriptures 48 THE BIBLE OF CHRIST as being in their possession. But not one in a hundred, to say the least, could have afforded to purchase a Hebrew copy even of the Law, far less of the entire Scriptures. Greek books, on the other hand, as we know from abundant evidence, were produced at a very low rate, and might easily be procured by almost the poorest of the people. I trust nothing more need be said to convince the reader that when our Lord quoted from the Scriptures in His ad- dresses to the people, or when they, in turn, did so in conversation with Him, the original Hebrew text could in neither case be the medium employed. We may refer, AND HIS APOSTLES. 49 e.g. y to Mark xii. 35 — 37, in which pas- sage Christ is represented as teaching publicly in the Temple, and citing the Old Testament. "And Jesus answered and said/' we read, " while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the son of David ? For David him- self said by the Holy Ghost, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy foot- stool. David therefore himself calleth him Lord ; and whence is he then his son ? And the common people heard him gladly." Here we find the people at large (6 7ro\vs 6x^0^) spoken of as easily understanding our Lord when He quoted an Old Testa- 50 THE BIBLE OF CHRIST ment statement. And if we turn to such a passage as John vi. 31, we find a cita- tion from the ancient Scriptures made by the people themselves. They, the multi- tude (6 6^X09, v. 24), addressed the Saviour in these words : — " Our fathers did eat manna in the desert ; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat;" and they thus quoted familiarly from the Book of Psalms. Now, in what language were these citations made ? Certainly not in the ancient Hebrew; for, as we have seen, that was then, by the general consent of scholars, a dead language, so far as the inhabitants of Palestine gene- rally were concerned. It follows, there- AND HIS APOSTLES. 51 fore, that the first hypothesis, to the effect that the original Hebrew Scriptures con- stituted the Bible in the hands of Christ and His Disciples, cannot possibly be accepted. I am anxious that the ground should be thoroughly cleared thus far before another step is taken. And if any reader has been hitherto resting in the belief that our Lord's frequent references to the Old Testament were made to the Hebrew text, I trust he will carefully weigh the considerations which have been stated. Let him reflect that the ancient Hebrew had long been a dead language to the Jewish people in general. Let him con- 0.3 THE BIBLE OF CHRIST. sider, too, that the cost of a Hebrew roll of the entire Old Testament was such as to place its possession utterly beyond the reach of any except the wealthiest of the nation. Either of these facts is sufficient to negative the idea that when our Lord referred His hearers, as He so often did, to the Scriptures, He could have meant the original Hebrew text. It will not, I hope, be deemed going too far if I say that this is a point clearly and conclusively settled. And the first hypothesis being thus disposed of, we are now prepared to advance to the discussion of those other theories which have been mentioned. CHAPTER II. Second hypothesis : That Christ and His Apostles, in reading and referring to the Old Testament Scriptures, made use of an Aramaic version. Did a written Aramaic version of the Old Testament ever exist ? Many have as- sumed that such was the case, but on grounds which, I believe, will not bear even the slightest examination. This, I trust, will become plain to the reader as we proceed to a further examination of the subject. As has been already remarked, and as should be carefully noted, it is manifestly implied throughout the Gospels that the 54 THE BIBLE OF CHRIST Jews of our Lord's time had access to the entire Scriptures of the Old Testament in a written form which was well under- stood. This is plain, for instance, from the familiar words in John v. 39 — epevvare tcl$ ypafym — whether the indicative or imperative rendering of the passage be adopted. The declaration, " Ye search the Scriptures," or the injunction, " Search the Scriptures," obviously involves the existence at the time of a complete ver- sion of the Old Testament, with which the people of the Jews did, or might, make themselves familiar. It has, indeed, been observed, with apparent truth, that ol 'lovhcuoi (to whom this discourse was AND HIS APOSTLES. 55 specially addressed) never means " the multitude, but always those in authority of some kind," but it is truly added that St. John always puts these forward "as the representatives of the whole people in their rejection of the Lord." 1 This clearly implies that access to the sacred Scriptures was no mere class privilege, but extended to the whole body of the people. So much lies on the very surface of the passage, yet it has suffered strange distortion. Thus, Mr. Watkins, in his recent excellent Commentary on St. John's Gospel, thinks the words may be para- phrased as follows : " Ye make your Mid- 1 Alford, in loc. 56 THE BIBLE OF CHRIST rashim (Commentaries in the sense of Cassar's) on the Scriptures ; ye explain and comment, and seek for hidden mystic meaning ; ye do all this because ye think they contain eternal life ; their true mean- ing is not hidden ; they tell of life, and ye who seek it do not hear them, and will not come unto me that ye might have life" 1 — an extraordinary comment, surely, on the simple words ipewdre ras ypa(j>a<;. Another able writer, under the pressure of a felt diffi- culty, has supposed that these words were not addressed to the jDeople in general, but were " directed, in the first instance, to the scribes and lawyers, the authorised 1 Bishop Ellicott's New Testament Commentary, in loc. AND HIS APOSTLES. 57 exponents of the Law, whose duty it was to study it in the original." 1 But even granting, against probability, as I think, that the words were thus limited, there are many other passages in the Gospels which necessarily imply that a popular version of the ancient Scriptures then circulated in Palestine. Thus, we are told at Matt. xxi. 42, of this appeal of Jesus in His public teaching — " Did ye never read in the Scriptures ? " And again, we find it stated at Luke xxiv. 45, respecting the private intercourse of Christ with His Disciples — " Then opened he their under- standings, that they might understand the 1 The Expositor, vol. vii., p. 383. 58 THE BIBLE OF CHRIST Scriptures." These are only two passages out of many which imply that in the days of our Lord the Old Testament was, in its entirety, in circulation among the Jews of Palestine, and that they were familiarly acquainted with its contents. That being the case, we return to the question — Did such a version exist in Aramaic ? Some seem to think that it is sufficient to answer that this must have been the case. They assume certain points as to the linguistic condition of Palestine at the time, and then they affirm a hypo- thesis as to the Bible in use among its inhabitants. But nothing could be more unscientific than such a mode of dealing AND HIS APOSTLES. 59 with the subject. And the day has gone by when mere assertions of the kind re- ferred to carry weight in any department of knowledge. Proofs, facts, incontrover- tible arguments are now called for, and, as we shall soon see, are, with reference to the hypothesis before us, lamentably wanting. Will the reader believe that, while what is required is evidence that an entire Aramaic version of the Old Testament existed in the time of Christ, all that is forthcoming is some slight re- ference to a Targum of the Book of Job ? And even that, if it existed, could not lawfully be used. As we shall see from a passage to be immediately quoted, it 00 THE BIBLE OF CHRIST was held in such detestation by a leading authority among the Jews that he caused it to be buried in the earth ! And if such were the feelings of the time in re- gard to written Aramaic versions of any portions of Scripture, we may safely con- clude that no translation of the entire Old Testament in that language could be in common use. It is stated, indeed, that written Targumim of Scripture were strictly interdicted. It may be argued, however, that if there is any reason to believe that a Targum of Job existed about the middle of the first century of our era, we may infer that there would also be a translation of AND HIS APOSTLES. 61 the other books of the Old Testament. Zunz has even gone so far as to main- tain that " written Aramaic translations of most of the books of the Bible had already undoubtedly existed under the Asmonaeans." 1 But in this opinion he has not been followed by scholars. Beelen declares that he brings forward no suffi- cient proof of the statement. 2 And Bleek says : — " The strong probability is that there were no written translations of the 1 " Gescbriebene aramaiscbe Uebersetzungen der meisten Bibliscben Biieber bat es siclierlicb schon unter den Has- monaern gegeben." — Vortrcige. p. 61. 2 " Ut suam sententiani confirmet nullum satis firmum affert argumentum." — Chresiomathia Rabbinica et Chal- daica, p. 91. 62 THE BIBLE OF CHRIST sacred books in Aramaic before the times of Christ — no one, at any rate, which obtained special circulation, and was held in esteem." 1 I should myself have no difficulty in believing that Aramaic versions of the Old Testament books circulated among the Jews for a considerable period after their return from the exile, were it not for the fact, noticed in the passage about to be quoted, that no written interpreta- tions were allowed. The Targum of the Book of Job, of which special mention is made, seems at last to have been re- duced to writing, but only, as will be seen, 1 BinL. in d. N. T., p. 53. AND HIS APOSTLES. 03 to be shrunk from with horror. We shall now listen to what Emmanuel Deutsch, the late celebrated Talmudical scholar, has to say upon the subject. Let the reader observe that while he speaks of an Ara- maic translation of Scripture being neces- sary after the ancient Hebrew ceased to be generally understood, the translation was oral, and not written. And let it be remembered, along with this, that it is some written version of Scripture — ypa