PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 % 
 
 Shelf..-. 
 
 Division j[^^^.*^.£L.^ 
 
 Section .v./j...l.^ 
 
 Number 
 
ESSAYS 
 
 CHIEFLY ON 
 
 THE ORIGINAL TEXTS 
 
 OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. 
 
BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 
 
 SIGHT AND TOUCH. 8vo. s^f. 6,i. 
 
 KANT'S CRITIQITE OF PRACTICAL REASON, and 
 other Works on the Theory of Ethics. Fourth Edition . 
 8vo. 12^. 6i/. 
 
 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. .Second Edition. 3^. 
 
 ELEMENTARY THEORY OF THE TIDES, zs. 
 
 OTJR ABC. 2d. 
 
 CHWOLSON ON THE VOWEL LETTERS IN ANCIENT 
 HEBREW ORTHOGRAPHY. Translated. 2s. 
 
 EVANGELIA ANTEHIERONYMIANA. 8vo. 2 vols. 2is. 
 
 CODEX RESCRIPTTTS DTJBLINENSIS. 4to. 21s. 
 
 In the Press. 
 
 SHORT NOTES ON ST. PAUL'S EPISTLES TO THE 
 ROMANS, CORINTHIANS, GALATIANS, EPHES- 
 SIANS, PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 LOCKE'S ESSAY on the HUMAN UNDERSTANDING, 
 with Notes, for the use of Students. 
 
ESSAYS 
 
 CHIEFLY ON 
 
 THE ORIGINAL TEXTS 
 
 OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. 
 
 BY 
 
 T. K. ABBOTT, B.D., Litt.D, 
 
 FELLOW AND TUTOH, TRIN. COLL. DUBLIN ; 
 PROFESSOR OF HEBREW IN THE UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 LONGMANS, GKEEN. AND CO 
 
 1801. 
 
DUBLIN : 
 
 PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS, 
 
 BY PONSONBY AND WELDRICK. 
 
PEEFACE. 
 
 The first three of the following Essays appeared 
 originally in the Church Quarterly Review. In the 
 third, however, considerable additions have been 
 made partly from Papers published in the Classical 
 Revietv and Ilermathena. The fourth Paper appeared 
 in the Journal of Biblical Exegesis (American). Of the 
 fifth the nucleus only has been already published 
 (in the Classical Review). The sixth appeared in the 
 British and Foreign Evangelical Review in 1876. The 
 last two are from Hermathena. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 I. THE MASSORETIC TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, ... 1 
 
 II. THE HEBREW TEXT BEFORE THE MA8S0RETES, .... 39 
 
 III. NEW TESTAMENT LEXICOGRAPHr, ...... 65 
 
 IV. HAS nOIEIN IN THE NEW TESTAMENT A SACRIFICIAL MEANING? , 110 
 
 V. TO WHAT EXTENT WAS GREEK THE LANGUAGE OP GALILEE IN 
 
 THE TIME OF CHRIST ? 129 
 
 VI. ON HISTORICAL EVIDENCE AND THE MIRACLE OF THE HOLY 
 
 THORN, . . . . . . .183 
 
 VII. CRITICAL NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTA- 
 MENT : 
 
 I. ON THE ALPHABETICAL ARRANGEMENT OF THE NINTH AND 
 
 TENTH PSALMS, ....... 200 
 
 11. MISCELLANEOUS PASSAGES, ...... 207 
 
THE MASSORETIC TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 Is the Received Text of the Old Testament more sound or less 
 sound than that of the New ? The question is no new one ; it 
 was raised as soon as the critical study of the Grreek Testament 
 showed what a vast number of various readings was found in 
 the Greek mss. It was not without a struggle that the exis- 
 tence of these was admitted. When it could no longer be 
 questioned, the battleground was changed to the text of the 
 Hebrew Bible. Here, at least, it was said (as it is sometimes 
 said even now), there cannot be any errors: first, because of 
 the great care taken of the sacred books by the Jews, and 
 secondly, because as a matter of fact the mss. (it was alleged) 
 all agreed. Some, indeed, went farther, and taking " the high 
 priori road," asserted that all copies wherever made must neces- 
 sarily agree, since it would be inconsistent with the Divine 
 goodness to allow errors .to enter into books which contain the 
 Divine revelation. This was a consideration which might have 
 had weight as long as the variations in the text of the Gospels 
 and Epistles were unknown, but which one would think would 
 commend itself to few who held the New Testament to be quite 
 as important as the Old, and who saw how many variations 
 were exhibited in Mill's edition of the former. 
 
 ^i 
 
2 THE MASSORETIC TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 The other reasons sounded more plausible, but they also 
 had to give way to facts. For as soon as the mss. were exa- 
 mined it appeared that Jewish scribes were no more infallible 
 than Grreeks or Eomans. Mistakes of letters similar in form or 
 in sound, repetitions, omissions, occur frequently. Indeed the 
 first kind of error from confusion of letters similar in form is, 
 from the peculiarity of the alphabet, more common in Hebrew 
 than in Grreek or Latin. 
 
 To take the example of one or two mss. The ms. which 
 Kennicott numbers 5 contains a note by Rabbi Leon Modena, 
 dated 1628, in which he states that after careful examination 
 he has found it faithfully transcribed. He assigns it to the 
 year 1304. Yet this " faithful transcript " omits nine words 
 in Gen. xix. 30 (from homoeoteleuton, i.e. the same word recur- 
 ring), and in Exod. viii. omits two entire verses (10 and 11). 
 
 From another ms. characterized as good and ancient (Ken- 
 nicott's 1) we note the following : Gen. xxix. 10, three words 
 omitted ("from the well's mouth"); ih. 15, "my brother" 
 omitted ; ih. 34, " a son " omitted ; Gen. xxxi. 52, ten words 
 omitted (from " this heap " to " this heap") ; xxxiii. 18, "when 
 he came from Padan-Aram " omitted ; xxxiv. 24, from " gate 
 of his city " to " gate of his city " omitted ; Exod. xxvii. 12, 
 written twice ; Levit. xix. 3, three words repeated ; Levit. v. 9, 
 this MS. (not alone) inserts " [of the] congregation " after 
 " sin-offering ; " Levit. xxiii. 29, it adds three words, " [that 
 soul] shall be cut off from [the midst of] his people." 
 
 Another ms. has in 1 Sam. xxiii. 10 two letters inserted 
 from the line below ; the scribe discovered his error before 
 completing the word, but has not erased the letters. In 2 Sam. 
 V. 2, the same scribe has similarly inserted, after the word 
 " said," the first four letters of " Israel " from the line above, 
 and has left them unerased. Again in 2 Kings v. 9, the same 
 scribe has inserted " and stood " a second time before the word 
 " of-Elisha." 
 
 Let us take a different point of view, and glance at the 
 variations of different mss. in a single passage, ex. gr. 1 Chron. 
 xi. In this one chapter we find that one ms. has twenty-two 
 
THK MASSORETlf TEXT OF TIIK OLD TESTAMENT. O 
 
 variations from tlie printed text. Amongst those are tlio omis- 
 sion of five words in r. 6, of eleven words in v. 18, six words 
 in t\ 23, and 3 in v. 30, all from horaoeoteleuton. A second 
 MS. has seventeen deviations, including the same omission of 
 eleven words in v. 18. Another has thirteen deviations, and 
 again another twenty-eight, including an interpolation of three 
 words iu v. 2. 
 
 The frequency of omissions from homoooteleuton deserves 
 particular notice in view of the fact that there are good reasons 
 for suspecting such omissions in our present text of some of the 
 sacred books. No rules can make scribes info,lli})le. But were 
 not faulty copies destroyed ? The answer to this is the fact 
 that faulty copies exist in hundreds ; nay, that no copy, even 
 the most esteemed, is without faults. 
 
 But if such errors as the above have occurred whilst the 
 scribes have been supposed to be subject to strict rules, and 
 since the compilation of the Massorah, what may not have 
 occurred before ? For, be it observed, this care came too late to 
 save the text from many corruptions. Witli what precision has 
 the Textus Receptus of the Greek Testament been reproduced 
 since the age of printing ! Is there any reason to suppose that 
 the Books of Samuel, or any particular P.salms, were regarded 
 for two or three centuries after their first publication with as 
 much reverence as the early Christians felt for the Grospels and 
 Epistles ? It is to a period far earlier than any of our existing 
 authorities that we owe such errors as may exist in the Hebrew 
 text. Critics speak of ancient and very ancient mss. But what 
 is implied in the word " ancient ? " Antiquity is relative. The 
 true antiquity of a ms., from a critical point of view, consists, 
 not in its distance from ns, but in its nearness to the author. A 
 twelfth-century ms. of a work written in the eleventh century 
 would be justly called very ancient : not so a twelfth- century 
 MS. of the Grospels. Of these again we possess mss. not more 
 than three or four centuiies removed from the authors, and 
 these we rightly call very ancient. A copy of Isaiah or of the 
 older Psalms of the same relative antiquity, would date several 
 centuries before Christ. Now, the Revisers' Preface has made 
 
 B 2 
 
4 THE MASSORETIC TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 every reader acquainted with the fact that the oldest certainly 
 dated ms. of any jxirt of the Hebrew Bible is a copy of the 
 Prophets written a.d. 916 (now in Odessa).^ In other words, 
 the true antiquity of our copies of the older Prophets for ex- 
 ample, is not greater than that of a copy of the New Testament 
 written in the seventeenth century. If all Greek mss. older 
 than the fifteenth century had perished, we should be in a 
 better position as to the text of the New Testament than we 
 are at present as to that of the Old Testament. 
 
 But not only are our Hebrew mss. thus comparatively 
 recent, but the Hebrew text has gone through more perilous 
 vicissitudes than the Grreek ; and we can point to more than 
 one period in which the channel of transmission became con- 
 tracted in a very serious manner. First in order we may notice 
 the change of the characters in which the text was written. 
 The older Hebrew character, as is now well known, was similar 
 to that exhibited on the Moabite stone and in the Siloam in- 
 scription. According to ancient Jewish writers the change to 
 the characters now employed, called the square or Assyrian 
 character, was made by Ezra, a man worthy, as they say, to 
 have had the Law given by him, but who had at least the 
 honour of altering the writing of it. As Jewish tradition, 
 however, ascribes to Ezra everything that cannot be ascribed to 
 Moses, it deserves little attention. In the present case, indeed, 
 there is some plausibility in the suggestion. The change points 
 to a time when the people had ceased to be familiar with the 
 ancient — that is, the Hebrew — character, and employed the 
 Aramaic. This corresponds with the period of the Babylonian 
 captivity, when the Hebrew tongue itself probably fell into 
 disuse except partially for literary purposes. It would not, 
 
 1 The subscription in the Odessa Pentateuch stating that this book was 
 corrected 1300 years after the Captivity, i.e. a.d. 580 (Smith's Diet. Bill. 
 ii. p. 604, col. 2), has been proved to be a forgery (Strack, Theol. Studien u. 
 Kritiken, 1876). Of the Firkowitsch Collection of mss. (now in St. Peters- 
 burgh) Strack remarks that the whole collection does not contain a single 
 certainly-dated epigraph ; and in particular all dates towards the end of 
 the twelfth century are unquestionably falsified {ibid. p. 544). 
 
THE MASSORETIC TEXT OF THE OLD TKSTAMENT. 
 
 then, be unreasonable to suppose that the copy of the Law 
 which Ezra brought with him to Palestine was in the new 
 character, and that tliis became the archetype of the recension 
 thereafter current. For there appears no reason to think that 
 copies were more numerous in Palestine amongst the poor left 
 behind in the land than in the days of Josiah, when the finding 
 of a copy in the Temple created so much interest. Certainly 
 the intervening period had not been favourable to the multipli- 
 cation of copies. The transference of the other books into the 
 new character was probably gradual. Considering the history 
 of the times, we can hardly suppose that there would be a 
 demand for copies for private reading. Nor is it to be assumed 
 that all the books of our canon were regarded as sacred at that 
 time. Of some we know certainly that they were not then 
 canonical. 
 
 Whether the change of the wi'itten character was begun by 
 Ezra or, as is generally thought, at a later period, is of no con- 
 sequence, but it is important to note that the change largely 
 increased the chances of errors from the resemblance of letters. 
 Hence in the critical study of the text we have to take into 
 account tlie possible confusion of letters in the older alphabet 
 as well as in the later. 
 
 It may naturally be supposed that after the transference of 
 the ancient books into the new character the older copies would 
 be carefully if not superstitiously preserved. The age of a ms. 
 would be marked by the nature of its writing more decisively 
 than the age of an uncial ms. of the New Testament. The 
 supposition is falsified by the facts. Indeed, it became a rule 
 that books written in the Hebrew character were not sacred. 
 This was no doubt partly owing to the circumstance that the 
 hated Samaritans still preserved the old letters, eveu in writing 
 their own dialect, and thus the new writing made an additional 
 distinction between them and the Jews. Thus it was said that 
 the Samaritans wrote their Aramaic books in the Hebrew cha- 
 racter, while the Jews wrote their Hebrew books in the Aramaic 
 character. Even at a mucli later period, however, the Jews 
 showed their reverence for ancient copies of sacred books in a 
 
6 THE MASSORETIC TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 fashion very different from ours. We carefully treasure such 
 old books as the Yatican and Alexandrian ; the Jews would 
 have buried them. What happened to the copies in the older 
 Hebrew character we do not know, but, as above suggested, 
 they were probably extremely few. Certain it is that no such 
 copies existed within the memory or knowledge of any ancient 
 writer known to us. 
 
 Another change was the introduction of the vowel-letters 
 (not to be confounded with that of the vowels). The books as 
 originally written had few, if any, indications of vowel sounds. 
 In later times it became more and more necessary to fix the 
 pronunciation in ambiguous cases, and the vowel-letters, or 
 maires lectionis, were inserted. The process was gradual, and 
 we may observe two things about it : first, the absence of that 
 reverence for the letter of the sacred text which prevailed at a 
 later period, and which would have effectually barred any such 
 meddling with it ; and, secondly, the complete disappearance of 
 the older mss. The vowel-letters were regarded by the Masso- 
 retes as part of the original text, and they exhibit no knowledge 
 of any mss. in which they were not found. There are many in- 
 stances in which it is important for purposes of criticism to bear 
 in mind that the vowel- letters are not part of the original text.' 
 Now, such a change could not be introduced into many 
 copies independently without much more variation than we 
 actually find. We may, therefore, not unreasonably conjecture 
 that at this epoch the channel of transmission was limited to a 
 very few, perhaps one or two, codices. The addition of the 
 vowel-points marks another stage in the history of the text, 
 on which, however, we need not dwell, as these are universally 
 admitted to be comparatively recent ; that is, not- earlier than 
 the seventh century. 
 
 In addition to these internal changes we may notice at 
 least three periods of peril from without. First, in the time 
 of Antiochus Epiphanes, when the Temple was burnt and his 
 soldiers destroyed every copy of the Law on which they could 
 
 1 On this subject see Chwolson's Essay On the Qmescentes in Old Hebrew 
 Orthography, translated in Hehraica, March and April, 1890. 
 
THE MASSORETIC TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 7 
 
 lay hands, and doubtless showed no consideration for other 
 books, since to them all Hebrew books would look pretty much 
 tlie same. Again at the destruction of Jerusalem, and, lastly, 
 half a century later, in the time of Hadrian, at Bethur, where 
 the Jews made their final stand, and where it is said that 
 tliousands of scholars and their books were cast into the flames. 
 After making all allowance for exaggeration, there remains 
 enough to show that there was a very large destruction of 
 copies of the Scriptures. 
 
 In these successive catastrophes, the like of which has never 
 occurred to the New Testament, the accuracy of a copy would 
 give it no greater chance of preservation. " The survival of 
 the fittest" would not be the law which governed this. On 
 the contrary, the more public copies, which we may suppose 
 would be also the most correct, would be the most certain to be 
 found and destroyed. The copy of the Law brought to Eome 
 by Titus was doubtless the standard Temple copy. 
 
 Mention of the Temple copy leads us to remark that, while 
 the Pentateuch was usually copied by men acquainted with the 
 Law, the other books were in the hands of a class of copyists 
 wlio made this their special business, in addition to being em- 
 ployed as elementary teachers and public readers. These were 
 generally poor, and many of them thought only of speed in 
 their work. It was said of them that their poverty was a judg- 
 ment on them for their neglect in copying, of which, indeed, 
 we have already given some instances. One old writer, enu- 
 merating those for whom Gehenna is prepared, includes these 
 copyists. The best of them, however, devoted much labour 
 and intelligence to the verbal study of the Scriptures. To 
 these we owe the vowel-points, introduced at first in order to 
 assist in teaching the young. To them also we owe the begin- 
 nings of the Massorah. This may be summarily described as a 
 mass of grammatical, lexicographical, and coucordantial notices. 
 These are not, indeed, what the modern reader might expect 
 from this description, for they do not contain comments or 
 explanations of the peculiarities noted, but merely catalogue 
 the facts as in an index. A short extract will give a better 
 
O THE MASSORETIC TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 idea of the Massorah as it appears in the Rabbinic Bible than 
 any description. We take the extract from Exodus ii. : — 
 
 Ver. 1. " ' And there went a man of the house of : ' twice, thus con- 
 nected, and the references are ' And there went a man of the house 
 of Levi ; ' ' of the house of Lehem [_i.e. of Bethlehem] Judah.' 
 
 Ver. 2. " ' And she hid him : ' not again. ' Three months : ' ' months ' 
 four times. ' And hid him three months ; ' ' for the precious 
 things of the growth of ' [the moons^ Deut. xxxiii. 14] ; ' Canst 
 thou number the months that they fulfil ' [Job. xxxix. 2]. 
 
 Yer. 3. " ' And [when] she could not : ' twice ; 'hide-him: ' not again. 
 ' Papyrus : ' thrice : ' and she took for him an ark of ; ' ' and in 
 vessels of papyrus upon the waters ' [Is. xviii. 2] ; ' can the 
 papyrus grow ' [Job. viii. 11]. Also once ' and-papyrus : ' 'grass 
 with seeds and-papyrus ' [Is. xxxv. 7] : ' and-daubed-it : ' one of 
 fifteen words in which the final He is not marked with mappik 
 [as it might be expected to be since it stands for the suffix ' it'], 
 and which are likely to mislead. [These are enumerated in the 
 ' Great Massorah ' at the end of the Rabbinic Bible, to which the 
 more lengthy notices were relegated by the editor. There is a note 
 here to that effect.] 
 
 Ver. 5. " ' At the river :' five times [which are enumerated]." 
 
 The word here rendered " river " is not the equivalent of 
 " flumen," but is a word appropriated to the Nile and its 
 channels. The Massorah does not mention this, but simply 
 gives references to the places where it occurs. 
 
 Sometimes a menioria technica is given, as, for example, 
 with reference to the irregularity of " all the days was," instead 
 of " were," in the case of Enoch, Lamech, and Noah (doubtless 
 a mere clerical error) ; the memoria technica is made up of the 
 initials of these three names. Some Massoretes give only two 
 of these instances, and many mss. read " were." Sometimes, 
 again, a slightly different reading is mentioned either as Q-ere 
 (of which more presently) or as conjecture, but no information 
 is given either as to ms. authority or as to signification. The 
 nearest approach to this is when a word is said e.g. to occur 
 twice " in two significations."^ 
 
 Much of the contents of the Massorah finds its nearest 
 
 ^ A notable instance is Is. xxxviii. 13, where the Massorah states that 
 "^"1 J|^2 occurs twice in two significations, the other passage being Ps. xxii. 15. 
 
THE MASSORETIC TEXT OF THE 01,1) TESTAMENT. 9 
 
 modern analogy in the marginal notes in Alford's Greek Tes- 
 tament which inform us by means of symbols whether certain 
 words, phrases, or constructions are unique, or, if they occur 
 only two or three times, give us references to these occurrences. 
 If instead of chapter and verse tliese references were by a few 
 words of the context, the resemblance would be at once manifest ; 
 but the Massoretes did not possess the convenience of numbered 
 chapters and verses. These notices are the result of the obser- 
 vations of many generations of scholars ; they are not the work 
 of an authoritative college of revisers or editors. Moreover 
 these scholars presuppose a received text ; they did not con- 
 stitute it. 
 
 There is one part of the Massorah which appears in every 
 printed edition — namely, the marginal readings, to which is 
 prefixed the initial letter of " Qere," "read" { = lectum, or rather 
 legendiim, not = lege), the textual reading being called "Kethibh " 
 or "written."^ It is important to ascertain the nature and 
 source of these readings. In the first place, when a coarse ex- 
 pression occurs in the text a more decent word is substituted ; 
 secondly, grammatical forms supposed to be incorrect are 
 corrected in the margin ; and, thirdly, letters supposed to be 
 wrongly written are corrected, so that the sense is different. 
 In a few cases either a word written in the text is omitted or a 
 word omitted in the text is supplied. There are some words 
 of frequent occurrence which are always altered by the reader, 
 and in the case of these there is no marginal note, the vowels in 
 the text being suflScient to remind the reader of the necessary 
 substitution. Each of these is called a Qere jierpefinim. 
 
 It would be a mistake to suppose that we owe all these 
 marginal readings to the Massoretes. Some of them at least 
 we know to be much older, and possibly all may be so. Now, 
 the question arises, Are these Qeres various readings from mss. 
 or not ? Here we observe in the first place that some at least 
 are certainly not so (those, namely, which substitute a more 
 
 ^ "^Tp is the correct punctuation. See Kautzscb, Gram, des Bibl. Aram., 
 p. 81, note. 
 
10 THE MASSORETIC TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 decent for a coarse expression), and that there is no difference 
 in the way in which these and the others are introduced. This 
 is already against the supposition that the latter are ms. read- 
 ings. But again we are not without information as to the 
 way in which various readings were dealt with by the early 
 pre-Massoretic critics. It is related in the Talmud that once 
 upon a time three copies of the Law were found in the Temple, 
 each of which had one reading different from the other two. 
 In each instance the reading of the two was adopted, and that 
 of the one rejected. Most likely there were other differences, 
 and one is mentioned merely as a specimen. This method of 
 deciding between two readings by numbering mss. without 
 weighing them is characteristic of the infancy of criticism, 
 especially in the present case, where one of the readings was 
 not even Hebrew, but a Greek word adopted into Aramaic (the 
 word ^rjTrjTai). Yet the ms. which exhibited this obviously 
 corrupt text was treated as of equal authority with the others. 
 We learn from this narrative not only that corrupt readings 
 were known to have crept into mss., but that even the standard 
 MSS. were not free from them, and that no attempt was made 
 to discriminate between the good and the bad copies. But we 
 learn further that the reading believed to be correct was put in 
 the text. This may seem so inevitable as to make the state- 
 ment superfluous. But those who regard the Qeres as readings 
 gathered from mss. must tacitly suppose the reverse. For there 
 is no uncertainty about the Qere ; it is not introduced with 
 " perhaps thus " or " some read thus," but with an implicit 
 direction to read so and so. The text is only " written," the 
 margin is " read." Nay the Massoretes who supplied the vowel 
 points have done their best to put it out of the power of the 
 reader to read the text as written. If it is a word that is to be 
 omitted, they give it no vowels ; if a word is to be added, the 
 vowels stand in their place without the consonants ; if one word 
 is to be substituted for another, the vowels of the word " read " 
 appear in the text, and cannot be read with the " written " 
 consonants without impropriety, sometimes not without pro- 
 ducing a grammatical monstrosity. There is no doubt, then, 
 
THE MASSOKETIC TEXT OF THE OLD lESTAMENT. 11 
 
 about the preference given to tlie Qere. But what should we 
 think of critics who, having compared Mss. and judged one of two 
 readings to be better supported than the other, place the wrong 
 reading in the text and banish the correct one to the margin 'i 
 There is no analogy to the case of an editor of a printed text 
 who may retain a reading which he tliinks not tlie best sup- 
 ported. A printed text is in occupation of the field in a way 
 that no MS. can be, for it means the same identical text in the 
 hands of thousands of persons, and moreover carries with it the 
 prcejadiciiuii that its editor, with possibly the same materials, 
 regarded its text as the best supported. Yet even the editor of 
 a printed text, when he does not venture on emendation, does 
 not hesitate to correct obvious misprints. Suppose we found 
 in a printed book " By the side of the wav," margin, " read 
 M?«^;" " alein," margin, "read alien ',^' " thoart," margin, 
 *' read throat;" "the broad . . . ," margin, "read broad road;" 
 " the length five five cubits," margin, " omit the second Jice :" 
 should we think that the editor was giving the result of a colla- 
 tion of Jiss. ? Should we not rather conclude with certainty 
 that he was giving in his text an exact reproduction of a single 
 MS. ? Now there are amongst the Cleres exact parallels to each 
 of these hypothetical instances.^ We infer, then, with equally 
 
 * Compare the following: 1 Sam. iv. 13, Eli sat on the seat, "^TTf "^^ 
 where ^^ is no more a word than "wav." The Qere is "T^. Possibly the 
 true reading is "^mn ^ v* ^^^ Driver on Samiiel, p. 3S. For transpo- 
 sition op. 1 Chron. iii. 24 Tm^^Tin (* proper name) corrected to ^^^^^■T^^• 
 Ezra viii. 17 SVIi^ *» mVi^- Psalm Ixxiii. 2 i^^^ corrected to 
 VtD3* ^'^^ ^^ omission corrected cp, Judg. xx. 13 IQ^JH TQJ^ X'? 
 
 where the Qere supplies ^J^ before l/^^JQ. It was lost owing to the 
 repetition of the same letters. "Five five cubits" actually occurs, Ezek. 
 xlviii. 16. For instances of a letter accidentally added in the text, see 
 2 Sam, xxiii. 21, where "^'^'^^ is written for ^^'^i^ ( = \l'i^) 5 - Kings xix. 
 23 3D"I2 for 212; Josh. viii. 12 -)V for V; Prov. xv. H ^J^ for 
 ^^. For a letter omitted cp. 1 Kings ix. 18 ~1/DJ1 for "j^^il (Tadmor) 
 2 Sam. xxiii. 20 ^n for ^^^ ; Amos viii. 8 ripZ'2 for HVp^^- ^^ ^ 
 Chron. xi. 18 Rehoboam, according to the text, (Kethibh), married a 
 
12 THE MASSORETIC TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 good reason, that these are not various readings collected from 
 Mss., but critical emendations of a text judged to be corrupt. 
 They attest, not the presence, but the absence of ms. authority, 
 and it is this alone that explains the fact that the reading 
 believed to be genuine was not put in tlie text. It also ex- 
 plains why the changes are so small, not always as to sense, but 
 as to the letters : just such as a cautious and reverent critic 
 would limit himself to. They are sufficient to show that these 
 ancient critics thought that the text needed correction ; they 
 rarely give help where more than a single letter is astray. 
 
 It is no objection to this that some mss. in certain cases 
 exhibit the Qere in the text and the Kethibh in the margin. 
 Some copyists would naturally on the authority of the Masso- 
 retes insert the Uere in the text ; others, not inquiring into 
 the original intention, would regard these as various readings. 
 And in the same way some of the later Q-eres may really 
 have been various readings. The translators of the English 
 Bible appear to have thought themselves at liberty to choose 
 between the Qere and the Kethibh as of equal authority. 
 But if any of the Ueres are really various readings, not con- 
 jectural, we have no means of distinguishing them from the 
 rest. There is another class of marginal readings which openly 
 profess to be conjectures, " Sebirim." These are not without 
 importance, but for our purpose it is sufficient to mention the 
 fact of their existence.^ 
 
 The scantiness of ms. resources thus indicated is only what 
 we might have expected from the history of the text as sketched 
 above. Indeed, it would hardly be matter of astonishment 
 should we find that all existing copies were derived from a 
 single one, or even that at more than one epoch only one copy 
 — we do not say existed, but — served as archetype to our 
 present text. 
 
 "son" of Jerimoth. The Q,ere substitutes J^3 io^' \'2- (Compare Gen. 
 xxxvi. 2, where the Hebrew text (not the Samaritan) has "daughter" in 
 error for son, Anah being a man (ver. 24). As the error here was not self- 
 evident it is not corrected.) 
 
 ^ Graetz considers that these are really various readings from mss. 
 [Kritischer C'ommetitar zti den Psalmen, p. 115, f.). 
 
THE MASSORETIC TEXT OF THE OI,I) TUSTAMENT. 13 
 
 If this had been actiuiliy tlie fact, how should wo ho able 
 to discover it ? Mere uniformity of reading miglit support a 
 conjecture, but would bo insufficient for proof of a commou 
 source, since the coincident readings miglit possibly bo original. 
 Even an ingenious conjecture might be borrowed by one copyist 
 from another. If, however, there is reason to suppose some of 
 these coincident readings not to be genuine, then we have ad- 
 vanced a step towards the proof that the agreeing mss. are 
 derived from a common source. This might only mean that 
 they represent a single critical recension. In general this in- 
 ference as to the genuineness of particular readings can only 
 reach probability in a higher or lower degree ; but in one class 
 of readings, if we may call them so, it reaches certainty : we 
 mean in the case of palpable errors. If two or more mss., for 
 instance, agree very frequently in their errors of omission or 
 repetition or of transcription of single words, this can only be 
 explained on the hypothesis of a common origin, not in this 
 case from one critical recension, but from one uncorrected copy. 
 Now, let us see whether traces of this kind are to be found 
 in our Hebrew text. We have seen already that omissions 
 (chiefly from homcooteleuton) are not unusual in existing 
 copies. We shall find evidence of the like omissions in the 
 Massoretic text. The first we shall notice is Joshua xxi. 36, 
 37 (the names of the four cities of refuge in the tribe of 
 Reuben). These verses are, indeed, in many printed texts and 
 in many mss., but we have the authority of the Massorah for the 
 statement that they were absent from all "correct" copies. The 
 omission was so obvious and important and so easily corrected 
 from 1 Chron. vi. 78, 79, that many copyists and editors 
 thought fit to supply the missing words either in the margin 
 or in the text. 
 
 Other omissions equally certain were not so obtrusive, and 
 have consequently not been corrected by the copyists. As one 
 example let us take Gen. xxxvi. 11. Here we read: "The 
 sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, and Gatam, and 
 Kenaz, And Timna [was concubine to Eliphaz, Esau's son, and 
 she bare to Eliphaz] Amalek." Now, in 1 Chron. i. 36 the 
 
14 THE MASSORETIC TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 bracketed words are omitted (" and," which is then obviously 
 necessary, being inserted before "Amalek"). The omitted 
 words constituted exactly one line of the usual length. By 
 the omission Timna is made to be a son of Eliphaz instead of 
 his concubine. 
 
 Another instance. In 2 Sam. xxiii. 9-12 we read : — 
 
 " After him was Eleazar the son of Dodo the Ahohite, one of the three 
 mighty men with David, when they defied the Philistines that were gathered 
 together to hattle [and the men of Israel were gone away. He arose, and 
 smote the Philistines until his hand was weary, and his hand clave unto the 
 sword : and the Lord wrought a great victory that day ; and the people 
 returned after him only to spoil. And after him was Shammah the son of 
 Agee the Hararite. And the Philistines were gathered together into a 
 troop], where was a piece of ground full of lentiles ('barley,' Chron.) ; and 
 the people fled from the Philistines. But he (' they,' Chron.) stood in the 
 midst of the ground, and defended it, and slew the Philistines ; and the 
 Lord wrought a great victory." 
 
 In 1 Chron. xi. 13 all the words in brackets are omitted, thus 
 leaving out entirely the exploit of one of the three and the 
 name of the next, by which the exploit of the third is wrongly 
 attributed to the second.^ 
 
 1 Chron. iv. 3 : " These were the father of Etam." Either 
 " father " is a mistake for " sons" (which the Sept. and Vulg. 
 have), or " sons of " is omitted before " father." Some modern 
 copyists have adopted one or other of these corrections. 
 
 Again, 1 Chron. vi. 13 (E. Y. 28), the Hebrew text reads : 
 " The sons of Samuel, the first-born and second and Abiah." 
 The first-born was Joel (1 Sam. viii. 2). His name being 
 omitted, " and second " is treated as his name, and the word 
 " and " inserted before Abiah. In the previous verse the name 
 of Samuel as son of Elkanah is omitted.^ 
 
 1 As the text stands in Samuel the omission would not be accounted for 
 by homoeoteleuton, but a slight difference \\\ the original text of Chronicles 
 would make it intelligible. 
 
 ■' There is also an error in v. 11 (E. V. 26) : " Elkanah his son, Elkanah." 
 Here ^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^*' ^^ corrected to ^JQ in the Q,ere (which the E.V. 
 translates). This is another instance of a Qere which is a correction of a 
 manifest blunder. The error lay deeper, but this change made it possible 
 to construe the text. 
 
THE MASSORETIC TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 15 
 
 Repetitions are generally due to eye-error of the same kind 
 as that which produces omissions. One or two examples may 
 be cited. 2 Sam. vi. 3, 4 : — 
 
 " And they set the ark of God upon a new cart [Heb. a cart a new] and 
 brought it out of the house of Abinadab that was in Gibeah ; and Uzzah 
 and Ahio, the sons of Abinadab, drave the new cart [Ilfb. the cart a 7tew'] 
 and brought it out of the house of Abinadab that teas m Gibeah with the 
 ark of God." 
 
 The italicized words are a repetition occasioned by the eye of 
 the scribe goinj? back about two lines from the second "cart'* 
 to the first. The A. V. makes some slight changes, but the 
 Hebrew words are identical with those preceding. The repeti- 
 tion causes a solecism, since the adjective ought to have the 
 article when it is joined with a noun having the article. 
 
 Prov. X. 10: "But a prating fool shall fall" is repeated 
 from V. 8. This repetition displaces the genuine conclusion 
 of V. 10 (quoted later on). 
 
 Ezek. xvi. 6, four words are repeated. 
 
 A very remarkable repetition is that of 1 Chron. viii. 29-38 
 in the following chapter ix. 35-44, a repetition occasioned 
 doubtless by the occurrence of the words "dwelt in Jerusalem " 
 in both places. A comparison shows us further an omission 
 of "and Ahaz " in ix. 41 ; of "and Ner" in viii. 30; and of 
 " and Mikloth " in viii. 31 ; probably also of " Jeliiel " in viii. 
 29 ; besides other minor differences. 
 
 We may be permitted to direct attention to two instances 
 of repetition (as it seems to us) which have not been generally 
 recognized. The first is in Levit. xx. 10 : — 
 
 " A man that commits adultery with the wife of 
 a man that commits adultery with the wife of 
 his neighbour." 
 
 Here the punctuators have endeavoured to make sense of the 
 repetition by placing a stop after the second "man." But "the 
 wife of a man " for " the wife of another man " or " of his 
 neighbour" is a strange expression if even possible.' 
 
 1 Geiger {Urschrift, p. 241), while finding the text corrupt, misses the 
 simple explanation, being strangely trammelled by the accents. 
 
16 THE MASSORETIC TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 The other instance is Exod. xxx. 6 : " Thou shalt put it 
 [the altar of incense] before the vail that is by the ark of the 
 testimony [before the mercy seat that is over the testimony]." 
 *' Over " is the same word as " by," and the word for " mercy 
 seat " differs from that for " vail " only in the order of the 
 letters.^ The repetition makes the verse somewhat difficult, 
 and it is absent from both the Samaritan text and the LXX. 
 
 Another kind of error we said to be common in modern 
 Hebrew mss,, viz. the slipping in of a word from a line above 
 or below. Of this also we have undoubted instances in the 
 Massoretic text. Thus 2 Sam. xvii. 28 : " flour and parched 
 and beans and lentiles and parched." In 1 Chron. xx. 5 we 
 read : " And slew Elhanan the son of Jair eth-Lahmi, the 
 brother of Groliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like 
 a beam of the weavers." In 2 Sam. xxi. 19 the parallel pas- 
 sage reads : " And slew Elhanan the son of Jaare weavers 
 [oregini] beth haLahmi eth-Goliath the Gittite, the staff of 
 whose spear was like a beam of the weavers." Here it is 
 obvious that the word " weavers " [oregini] has slipped in after 
 the name of Jair from the next line. With lines of the normal 
 Hebrew length the word stood just below, as it does in the 
 edition of the Bible Society. The word " brother of " [achi] 
 has been misread as the sign of the accusative " eth," and then 
 in harmony with this " eth-Lahmi " has been supposed to stand 
 for " beth ha lahmi " = " the Bethlehemite," or more probably it 
 was first read as " beth lahmi," and then by way of gramma- 
 tical correction the article was inserted. However, if anyone 
 prefers to give a different account of the corruption it is the 
 same for our purpose. One of the texts, at least, is corrupt, if 
 not both.^ 
 
 Another notable instance occurs in the history of David's 
 mighty men. In 1 Chron. xi. 11 we read of the exploit of 
 Jashobeam, the son of Hachmoni. In 2 Sam. xxiii. 7, 8, we 
 read as follows : " Shall be utterly burned with fire in the seat 
 [A. V. 'in the same place']. These be the names of the 
 
 ^ ilDID = "^^il ; n*lS]D ~ mercy seat. - See Driver on Samuel, p. 272. 
 
THE MASSORETIC TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 17 
 
 mighty men whom David had : Josheb in the seat Tahchmoni," 
 Here, again, according to the regular length of the line of the 
 ancient scribes, the second " in the seat " is just under the first. 
 And there can be no doubt that it slipped in by an error of 
 eye. The consonants of "Josheb" are the same as the first 
 three of " Jashobeam," and the present vocalization, which 
 makes it mean "sitting," is of course due to the words "in 
 the seat" which now follow. There is reason to believe that 
 " Jashobeam " is not the original form of the name ; but this 
 does not now concern us.' It is to our purpose, however, to 
 observe that there is another error in the latter part of the 
 same verse, which reads thus (according to the Qere, which the 
 A. V. follows) : " He [was] Adino the Ezuite against eight 
 hundred." The parallel in Chronicles has " he lifted up his 
 spear against three hundred." Not to dwell on the difference 
 in the number, it is manifest that " Adino the Eznite " must 
 stand for some words meaning " lifted up his spear." A slight 
 alteration in the letters of the text gives two words which, 
 interpreted from the Arabic, yield this sense.^ The A. V. 
 supplies (from Chronicles) the words " he lift up his spear," 
 just as in 2 Sam. xxi. 19 it adds " brother of," both additions 
 being in fact conjectural emendations of the Hebrew text. 
 Readers are so accustomed to these and a few other emenda- 
 tions in the A. Y. that they forget their real significance.^ Or 
 do they think that the right of critical emendation belonged to 
 Jewish scribes in early times and to English scholars up to 
 1611, and then was lost ? 
 
 A third example we take from 1 Kings vi. 8 : " The door 
 of the middle chamber [was] in the right side of the house, 
 and they went up with winding stairs into the middle, and out 
 
 ' The LXX have here 'U^oaOe [i. e. Ishbosheth, e for c ), or in Lucian's 
 recension 'Ua^aaX (=Ishbaal), and in Chron. 'le(re3o5o = Ishbaal (A = A), in 
 Lucian's text 'le(r«;3aoA. The original name, therefore, was Ishbaal, altered 
 to Ishbosheth, as explained in the following essay. 
 
 2 This is Gesenius' suggestion : (?) IJV^n 131^^ ^^T\ (Lex. s. v. 
 
 p;;). 
 
 * See other instances : Josh. xxii. 34; 2 Sam. iii. 7 ; v. 8 ; Ps. xxxiv. 17. 
 
 C 
 
18 THE MASSORETIC TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 of the middle into the third." Here the first " middle " has 
 slipped in from the line helow instead of " lowest " (compare 
 verse 6). 
 
 Nor can we doubt that the same explanation is to be given 
 of the difference between Psalm xviii. 4 and 2 Sam. xxii, 5 : 
 " The sorrows [Heb. cords] of death compassed me, and the 
 floods of ungodly men made me afraid." The text in Samuel 
 has " the billows of death compassed me," which agrees well 
 with the parallelism, and " cords " may easily have slipped in 
 from the following verse. 
 
 Transposition of lines or verses arises probably from a line 
 or verse being in the first instance omitted, and then supplied 
 in the margin and inserted in the wrong place. An example 
 of such transposition is found in Isaiah xxxviii. 21, 24 : " And 
 Isaiah said, Let them take a lump of figs," &c. " And Heze- 
 kiah said. What is the sign that I shall go up to the house of 
 the Lord ?" The A. V. renders the verbs as pluperfect, which 
 is in fact not grammatically admissible. When they are cor- 
 rectly rendered the inversion is obvious. The parallel passage 
 in 2 Kings xx. 7, 8 has the verses in the right order. No 
 doubt verse 22 was at first omitted, the eye of the scribe pass- 
 ing from " the house of the Lord " in verse 20 to the same 
 words in the following verse. 
 
 An undoubted transposition of two words occurs in Psalm 
 XXXV. 7 : " Without cause have they, hid for me a pit ; their 
 net without cause have they digged for my soul." Punc- 
 tuators, commentators, and translators (not excepting the Re- 
 vised Version) have variously attempted to make sense out of 
 the words in their present order. What is required is simply 
 to transpose the words " a pit " and " their net." 
 
 The letters D and E. were similar in the older writing, but 
 much more so in the later. In fact, in many texts it requires 
 close attention to distinguish them. Where the confusion only 
 turns Hadadezer into Hadarezer, or Benhadad into Benhadar, 
 it is a slight matter ; but when it changes Edom into Syria 
 (Aram), or vice versa, it is serious. Now, this happens, for 
 example, in 2 Sam. viii. 12, 13, compared with 1 Chron. xviii. 
 
THE MASSORETIC TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 19 
 
 11, 12. In tho latter of these two verses we read : in Samuel, 
 " David gat him a name [or made him a monument] when he 
 returned from smiting Syria in the valley of salt eighteen 
 thousand men." In Chronicles, we have : "Moreover, Abishai 
 the son of Zeruiah smoto Edom in the valley of salt eighteen 
 thousand men." In the superscription of Psalm Ix. we read 
 that, after David's war with Syria, " Joab returned and smote 
 Edoin in the valley of salt eighteen thousand men." It is 
 probable, indeed, that there is omission in Samuel of some 
 words such as " and he smote Edom " (which some versions 
 have) ; as, with the change only of Aram to Edom, tlie mention 
 of this great victory is strangely indirect. A similar correction 
 of Edom for Aram is made by the Massorah itself (Qere in 
 2 Kings xvi. 6). 
 
 A notable instance of the confusion of D and E- is in 
 Joshua ix. 4, where it is said that the Gribeonites " went and 
 made-as-if-they-were-ambassadors," &c. This is an ingenious 
 interpretation of a word not elsewhere found ; it is open to 
 the objection that they were really ambassadors, not merely 
 in pretence. A substitution of D for R gives us the same 
 word that occurs in verse 12, "gat them provision." A few 
 Mss. have this reading, which the Versions support.^ 
 
 In 2 Sam. xxii. 11 we read : " And he rode upon a cherub, 
 and did fly, and was seen on the wings of the wind." That 
 the Almighty was " seen " on the wind is not a poetical but 
 an extravagant idea, and the last that would occur to a Hebrew 
 poet. The text of the Psalm (xviii. 11) supplies the correct 
 rendering, " came flying," the difference being only that be- 
 tween D and R." The verb being rarer than the verb to " see," 
 the mistake easily occurred. In this case, however, a large 
 number of mss. in Samuel have the reading of the Psalm 
 (probably taken from it), whilst a few in the Psalms have the 
 reading of the Book of Samuel. 
 
 M'l^tDI^^ for T1"^CDV^» n^V occurs = " messenger " : the verb is no- 
 where found. 
 
 ' ST^I for i^"!"! . 
 
 ;.. . T"- 
 
 C 2 
 
20 THE MASSORETIC TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 The same confusion and in the same root has given rise to 
 a doublet in Deut. xiv. 13 (compare Levit. xi. 14). Amongst 
 the birds that may not be eaten the latter book enumerates two 
 of the hawk kind : the danh and ayah. The Book of Deut. has 
 instead, the raali and the ayah and the dayah. Not only is the 
 raah an entirely unknown bird, but it is unreasonable to sup- 
 pose an addition to the list of forbidden birds. It is, on the 
 contrary, very reasonable to suppose a mistake of D for R. 
 But how has the third word got in ? Perhaps it was a 
 marginal correction for raah, and has crept into the text as 
 marginal emendations often do, and its form may be due to an 
 error of assimilation to the preceding word, or it may be a 
 genuine alternative form of the name daah} 
 
 In 2 Chron. xxii. 10, we read (in the Massoretic text) that 
 Athaliah " arose and spake all the seed royal." Probably no 
 advocate of the received Hebrew text will defend this. Part of 
 the error is the mistake of D for R, the remainder is probably 
 due to the oscitancy of the scribe. A few mss. read "destroyed," 
 but in such a case this is almost certainly a correction from 
 recollection of the parallel in the Book of Kings.^ 
 
 There is another remarkable error partly of ear and partly 
 of eye which we must not omit to mention. It is in 2 Sam. 
 vi. 5, where we read that " David and all the house of Israel 
 rejoiced before Jehovah with all [manner of instruments made 
 of] firwood" (or cypress). "Manner of" may fairly be added 
 by a translator, but hardly " instruments of." The literal 
 rendering is "with all kinds of sticks of firtrees, and on 
 harps," &c. Their music was doubtless what we should con- 
 sider rude, but scarcely so rude as this would make it. The 
 Book of Chronicles (1 Chron. xiii. 8) gives us what is no doubt 
 the true reading, " with all their might and with singing." 
 
 1 Or we might suppose that dayah got into the text first by this error of 
 assimilation, and that there was a marginal correction daah which was mis- 
 read raah, and in this form entered the text. But it is more likely that the 
 order of the names was the same in both places. 
 
 2 2 Kings xi. 1 T^J^rn- Chron. has l^ljll- 
 
THE MASSORETIC TEXT OF THK OLD TESTAMENT. 21 
 
 Tlie difference in the Ilebrew letters is inconsiderable, the chief 
 being that between two sibilants, easily confounded.' 
 
 There are many instances in which according to the Mas- 
 sorah itself, prepositions, &c., of similar sound but different 
 significations arc confounded.- These errors do not appear in 
 the A. v., which in such cases gives the correct sense. 
 
 We mention another instance in which the confusion of 
 D and li is combined with a transposition of letters. Isa. viii. 
 12, 13 : " Say ye not, A confederacy, to all them to whom this 
 people shall say, A confederacy ; neither fear ye their fear, nor 
 be afraid. Sanctify Jehovah of Hosts Himself, and let Him 
 be your fear, and let Him be your dread." By the changes 
 mentioned we substitute for " a confederacy," a "holy thing."' 
 " Call not that holy which this people call holy, neither fear 
 ye their fear," &c. Thus the two clauses of this verse corre- 
 spond to the clauses of verse 13. 
 
 A few other palpable errors in the Massoretic text are : — 
 
 1 Sam. xiii. 1 : " Saul was a year old when he began to 
 reign." So the Hebrew, as the Revisers correctly state in their 
 margin. 
 
 2 Sam. iii. 7 : the name of " Ishbosheth " omitted (suggested 
 by Versions). 
 
 2 Chron. iii. 4 : the height of the porch " an hundred and 
 twenty cubits" (the height of the house being thirty, 1 Kgs. vi.2). 
 
 2 Chron. xxii. 6: "to be healed in Jezreel because of the 
 wounds." The English " because of " is as incorrect as a 
 translation as would be a similar translation of the Greek on. 
 The Eevisers very properly note the error of the Hebrew text 
 in their margin, and follow in their text the parallel passage 
 and the Versions. 
 
 Jer. xxvii. 1 : " Jehoiakim" instead of " Zedekiah." 
 
 Josh. xxii. 34 : " And the children of Reuben and the 
 children of Gad called the altar ... for it is a witness between 
 us." The name of the altar (no doubt " Ed " = " witness," as 
 in the Syriac) has fallen out. 
 
 1 Samuel : Q^I^IIQ 1^;;; ^22- Chron. : Dn^:^^ *}! ^22- 
 - As '7^ and ^^. ^ Reading H/^D for "l^i/p. 
 
22 THE MASSORETIC TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 The textual errors which, obtrude themselves most on the 
 English reader are those in numerical statements detected by 
 the aid of parallel passages : such as the " eight hundred " in 
 
 1 Chron. xi. 11, against "three hundred" in Samuel; "seven 
 thousand " in 1 Chron. xix. 18, against " seven hundred " in 
 
 2 Sam. X. 18 ; "seven thousand" in 1 Chron. xviii. 4, against 
 " seven hundred " in 2 Sam. viii. 4 (if we adopt the word 
 " chariots " conjecturally supplied from Chronicles by the 
 English Version, otherwise " seventeen hundred ") ; Solomon's 
 " forty thousand " stalls for his horses, 1 Kings iv. 26, against 
 " four thousand " in 2 Chron. ix. 25 ; the " forty-two years " of 
 Ahaziah when he began to reign, 2 Chron. xxii, 12, against 
 " twenty-two " in 2 Kings viii. 26, and the fact that his father 
 was only forty at his death ; with very many others. The 
 point of view from which these are usually looked at, is that 
 of discrepancies to be reconciled, and the reconciliation is 
 effected by showing how easily a scribe might mistake one 
 numerical letter for another, or, after a numeration founded 
 on the Arabic was adopted, add a cipher. Very good ; but 
 let us understand all that is involved in this explanation. As 
 an explanation of such errors in a single ms. it is perfect ; 
 when it is applied to the phenomenon of all or nearly all mss. 
 agreeing in the same errors, it means that they are all derived 
 from one copy in which these errors existed. To suppose that 
 several copyists, or even two, should fall into the same series 
 of errors in the same places, all copying correctly in one place 
 and all committing just the same error in the same context in 
 another place : this is to suppose something utterly beyond 
 belief. 
 
 The evidence thus furnished that our mss. are all derived 
 from one copy, and that a copy far from bein^ faultless, is so 
 decisive that it scarcely needs further support. But further 
 evidence there is, and of a very curious kind. 
 
 There are several words which have one or all their letters 
 dotted. These dots are of great antiquity, much older than 
 the Massoretes ; they are mentioned by Jerome, and discussed 
 in the Talmud and Midrashim, where some rather farfetched 
 
THE MASSORETIC TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 23 
 
 explanations are given. For instance in the account of the 
 meeting of Esau and Jacob (Gen. xxxiii. 4), the word " and- 
 kissed-him," has every letter dotted. This, says one, is to show 
 tliat the kiss was sincere. Nay, but to show that it was insin- 
 cere, says another. It indicates, says a third, that Esau really 
 meant to bite Jacob, but the neck of the latter was miraculously 
 turned to marble : the dots are the teeth of Esau. Such ab- 
 surdities have a value as indications that the dots had been 
 hauded down with the text for so long a time, that their mean- 
 ing was forgotten. But their true significance was understood 
 by some of the Rabbinical autliorities, nor is it far to seek. 
 Everyone who has studied mss. knows that it is the custom of 
 scribes when they have written a word or letter erroneously to 
 mark the error by dots. In some beautifully-written mss. these 
 dots are within the letter, not above. Thus while the attentive 
 reader is admonished and the character of the scribe saved, the 
 beauty of his ms. is not spoiled as it would be had he drawn his 
 pen through the erroneous letters or erased them. Not only is 
 this the case with Greek and Latin scribes, but also in our 
 Hebrew mss. there are instances of the same practice. And 
 that this was the true account of these ancient dots was well 
 understood by an ancient Jewish authority, who attributes the 
 dots to Ezra. When Ezra, says he, was asked why he dotted 
 these letters, he replied : " When Elijah comes, if he asks me 
 why I have written so-and-so, I shall answer I have already 
 dotted it [i.e. ' expunged ' it], but if he asks me why I have 
 dotted the letters, then I will erase the dots." One has heard of 
 students at an examination, who, when uncertain whether what 
 they have written is correct, draw the pen lightly through it, 
 trusting that if it is right the examiner will give them credit 
 for it, and that if it is wrong he will give them credit for the 
 erasure. They are probably not aware that the device, if not 
 as old as Ezra, is at least as old as the Rabbi who relates the 
 story. 
 
 In Numbers iii. 39, the word " and- Aaron," is dotted be- 
 cause, as the Midrash rightly remarks, Aaron did not join Moses 
 in the numbering. "Moses and Aaron" was so frequent a 
 
24 THE MASSORETIC TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 combination that the scribe erroneously wrote it here, and 
 detecting his error, marked the latter word with the sign of 
 deletion. 
 
 In Numbers xxi. 30, the last letter of '5/ir = " which " is 
 dotted, i.e. deleted, leaving the word 's/i = "fire," viz. "with 
 fire." So the Septuagint reads : " We have laid them waste 
 even unto Nophah, with fire even unto Medeba." 
 
 Psalm xxvii. 13 reads, in the A. V., ^^ I had fainted unless I 
 had believed to see the goodness of the Lord in the land of the 
 living." " I had fainted " is rather too strong an ellipsis.^ But 
 the word " unless " is dotted." Probably in this case the dots 
 are only partially right. Taking the consonants alone they 
 yield the two words /d = "to him" and /o' = "not": forms 
 often confounded. It is possible that the former word was 
 first written, then the scribe, observing his error, dotted it and 
 wrote the correct form. On this supposition we obtain the 
 excellent sense " I did not believe that I should see the good- 
 ness of the Lord in the land of the living." Some critics, 
 retaining the first 16, connect it with the previous verse, trans- 
 lating verse 13 in the same way. The LXX seem to have 
 done this. In following the dots we are following a far more 
 ancient authority than the Massoretes, who vocalize the con- 
 sonants so as to make the sense " unless." In this, as in most 
 of the instances which have been adduced, the Revisers have 
 left the Authorized Version unchanged. 
 
 In Isaiah xliv. 9 the first " they " is dotted, and the Re- 
 visers, following this indication, have omitted it. It is in fact 
 an erroneous repetition of the preceding syllable. (The second 
 " they " is included in the verb.) 
 
 Further, when a passage had been written in a wrong place 
 it was enclosed in square brackets. These brackets having the 
 shape of the Hebrew letter Nun inverted, were called " inverted 
 
 1 We have heard a preacher dwell with emphasis on this " very forcible 
 expression of the Psalmist." Yet without being a Hebrew scholar he needed 
 only to look at the Bible Version to see that the expression is not the 
 Psalmist's but the translators'. 
 
THE MASSORETIC TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 25 
 
 Nuns," and fanciful meanings were assigned to tliem by some. 
 But the more learned Rabbis knew their true meaning. An 
 example is Numbers x. 35, 36, wliich, according to some autho- 
 rities, were thus marked as constituting a book of themselves, 
 thus dividing the Pentateuch into seven books. These verses, 
 it may be remarked, are placed in the LXX before verse 34, 
 which is probably where the corrector intended them to stand. 
 
 There are many other peculiarities affecting single letters 
 which are faithfully reproduced in all correct copies, and the 
 antiquity and supposed authority of which are attested (as of 
 those just mentioned) by the Massorah and the Talmud as well 
 as other authorities. These were all faithfully copied, recorded, 
 and commented on, because they were regarded as part of the 
 sacred text. The ancient Rabbinical authorities know nothing 
 of a difference in this respect between different copies. But 
 that even two scribes should make the same slips and the same 
 corrections in the same places, and in these only, is an incredible 
 supposition. The conclusion is inevitable, that the traditional 
 text was derived from a single copy in which these peculiarities 
 existed. These remarkable coincidences have one advantage 
 over those previously discussed : they carry us back to a period 
 centuries earlier than the Massorah itself. It appears, then, 
 that the Revisers have not been too bold when they asserted 
 tliat all our copies are derived from one recension. 
 
 In this state of things what is our resource ? Not in mss. 
 The utmost that these can do is to enable us to restore the text 
 of, say, the seventh century. 
 
 Nothing remains but the Versions, and of these the oldest, 
 and for this purpose tlie most important, is that of the LXX. 
 What ! some one may exclaim ; employ a version to emend 
 the original ? Would you correct the text of Shakespeare, for 
 example, from a German translation? No, we reply; we do 
 not propose to emend the original text, but to restore it. The 
 word " original " tends to impose on the reader. The text in 
 the original tongue is frequently not the original text. If it 
 would be absurd to use a translation of Shakespeare to correct 
 our copies, it is because we possess the identical copy which the 
 
26 THE MASSORETIC TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 translator must have used, since for critical purposes all copies 
 of the same printed edition may he considered identical. But 
 if all the English copies older than the nineteenth century had 
 perished (with all critical commentaries) a translation executed 
 in the sixteenth century would be very valuable. We might 
 have to learn from it that, e.g., " 'a babbled o' green fields" 
 was not the original text. No doubt, indeed, the suggestion 
 that this happy touch of nature was not Shakespeare's, but was 
 due to a prosy commentator, would be rejected with ridicule. 
 Again, if the Septuagint and the Old Latin versions of the 
 Psalms had been lost, the English Prayer-Book version would 
 often enable us to recover them. Thus, " Bring unto the Lord, 
 O ye mighty, bring young rams unto the Lord," would reveal 
 the fact that the later Grreek copies contained side by side two 
 versions of the same Hebrew words, and critical sagacity might 
 succeed even in ascertaining what the original words were. If, 
 in addition, we had the Bible version, those Hebrew words 
 could be restored with certainty. 
 
 An objection often made to the critical use of the LXX is 
 that the translators were often ignorant, made great mistakes, 
 or paraphrased the text rather than translated it, so that it is 
 often impossible to say what the text before them actually was. 
 These objections, however plausible, are really fallacious. Let 
 us illustrate the case by that of mss. If two mss. are offered 
 to us, one of which is distinctly and, as regards orthography, 
 correctly written, and perfect, while the other is mutilated, full 
 of such blunders in spelling as ignorant scribes are wont to 
 make, and sometimes quite illegible, the ordinary reader would 
 have no hesitation in preferring the former. But the critio 
 may have good reason for preferring the other. If he does 
 not, it will be for reasons of a quite different kind. He knows 
 that the corruptions most difficult to deal with are those that 
 are purposely introduced by learned and ingenious copyists. 
 Mistakes in spelling and the like he can allow for, but inten- 
 tional emendations cannot be removed without the help of 
 other codices. It is just the same with translations. The more 
 unskilful a translator is and the more negligent he is of the 
 
THE MASSORETIC TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 27 
 
 difference of idiom in the two languages, the more easy it is to 
 restore the original. As to paraphrase, the fact is that in some 
 parts of the Old Testament the translator is painfully literal. 
 The translator who writes (2 Sam. xxiv. 3) irfjoaOuii Kvpiog 6 
 Otoe; TTfibi: Tuv \ubv waTrep avToiig koX wainp avTovc has indeed 
 translated badly, but he has enabled us to retranslate his text 
 with infallible certainty. We are not, however, required to 
 retranslate the Greek text into its original Hebrew ; the prob- 
 lem is a much simpler one. It is whether the Grreek can be 
 reconciled with our present Hebrew consonants, and, if not, 
 whether the difference can be accounted for by error, on one 
 side or the other, of the kind usual with scribes ? This is 
 frequently very easy to do. A somewhat extreme illustration 
 of this is furnished by the passage in Judges xii. 6. This 
 passage stands alone in this respect, that not only could we not 
 reproduce the Hebrew from the Septuagint Version, but that 
 from no possible Greek version could this be done. For the 
 point of it lies in the difference between two sounds, which a 
 Greek-speaking Jew could no more distinguish than a German 
 Jew could distinguish English fh from t, or the Hebrew word 
 which we call Mikraoth from Mikraos. Such a translator 
 might attempt to write the Hebrew word in Greek characters, 
 and then he would have to say that the Ephi'aimites were toM 
 to say " Sibboleth " and said " Sibboleth," or he might trans- 
 late the word, or, thirdly, seeing the absurdity of this, he might 
 simply say that the men wore asked to say some password. We 
 have specimens of the last two attempts at translation ; and, 
 notwithstanding the insuperable difficulty in the way of the 
 Greek translators, no reader can fail to see that they had our 
 present text before them. 
 
 13 ut what we wish particularly to impress on the reader is 
 that the difficulty of ascertaining the translator's Hebrew text 
 has notliing whatever to do with the value of it when ascer- 
 tained. It is just as in the case of the illegible ms. of which 
 we spoke. There are valuable mss., the reading of which in 
 some passages is very uncertain, and which different critics 
 read in different ways ; but no one ever thought that this 
 
28 THE MASSORETIC TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 lessens the importance of those readings about which there is 
 no doubt. 
 
 What should we not give for a Hebrew ms. of the Psalms 
 or the Prophets dating from a.d. 1, even if it were an almost 
 illegible palimpsest ! Now, the version of the LXX is to us 
 exactly what such a ms. badly written and sometimes illegible 
 would be ; but then this ms. is a thousand years older than any 
 known Hebrew ms. We have spoken of it as if it were one, 
 but it is not to be forgotten that the versions of the different 
 parts of the Hebrew Bible were actually made at different 
 times and by different persons, some of whom were more skilled, 
 some more closely literal, than others. Does it not seem rather 
 inconsistent to maintain that Jewish copyists were so scrupu- 
 lously exact that the text of the sacred books was transmitted 
 accurately for more than a thousand, or in some cases nearly 
 two thousand, years, and yet that of the whole series of trans- 
 lators not one was able to obtain a correct text ? to say nothing 
 of the later Syriac and Greek translators, who must have been 
 equally unfortunate. These translators were indeed much later, 
 and in that respect of less value ; but this circumstance rather 
 adds to the weight of their agreement with the LXX when 
 they happen to be opposed to the Massoretic text. Then we 
 have Jerome, too late, indeed, to give traces of the early state 
 of the text, but whose critical study of it and his constant 
 intercourse with his Jewish teachers place him as a witness far 
 above any single contemporary ms., if such existed. And he, 
 be it remembered, is much older than the Massorah. When 
 the LXX and Syriac agree, their combined weight is very 
 great, though not equally so in all the books. When Jerome 
 and the older translators agree, the external evidence for their 
 reading is preponderating. When a commentator rejects a 
 reading thus supported on the ground that "not a single 
 Hebrew ms. " reads so, it is as reasonable as if a reading of 
 i^ A B C in the Greek Testament were rejected because not 
 found in a single copy later than the sixteenth century. 
 
 The prestige attaching to numbers is so natural that a few 
 lines may be well devoted to showing how ill-founded it is. 
 
THE MASSORKTIC TEXT OF Tllli OLD TESTAMENT. 29 
 
 Perhaps the fallacy is fostered by the habit of calling mss. 
 *' witnesses." The copies made immediately from the original 
 are indeed direct witnesses to its reading, but all others are 
 so only very indirectly. In the case of these first copies the 
 reading of a majority would certainly have a presumption in 
 its favour, and yet it is pretty certain that sometimes the 
 minority would be right. Let us suppose tliat there were five 
 of these first copies ; each of these would probably become the 
 source of one or more. But their fecundity would be unequal, 
 and would depend on extraneous circumstances. One might be 
 the parent of five, another of three, a third perhaps of one or 
 none. It is not only possible, but probable, that in the second 
 stage the produce of two copies should be more numerous than 
 that of the other three, and thus already some readings which 
 had a majority in their favour in the first stage would now be 
 found only in a minority. At every stage the same kind of 
 thing would happen, and the presumption in favour of the ma- 
 jority of so-called witnesses would rapidly diminish. The vast 
 majority of mss. would not improbably be the descendants of a 
 few early copies which happened to be in a locality where the 
 demand was greatest. Some early copies might disappear 
 without leaving any successors, and yet these might have been 
 the only witnesses to some genuine readings. 
 
 So far we have supposed the first copies to be all of equal 
 value, and those in the next stage to be faithfully copied from 
 them. Of course neither supposition is correct. The second 
 copies would introduce errors of their own, not only in new 
 places, but sometimes where there was already variation. The 
 first copies themselves would not be equally correct, and it 
 would be a mere chance whether the most correct or the least 
 correct would become the source of the greatest number of 
 copies. This would depend on wholly different circumstances 
 of local convenience and local demand. It would not be until 
 copies began to be pretty numerous in the same place that 
 scribes would have the opportunity of comparing different 
 copies, or that any distinction would be made between the 
 better and the worse. When the epoch of comparison arrived 
 
30 THE MASSORETIC TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 corrections might be made, of which we can only say that they 
 would be made on principles which at the present day we should 
 not consider sound. Thereafter some corrected copy might 
 obtain reputation from the name of the reviser, or for other 
 reasons, and would influence by its readings many others not 
 directly taken from it. Thus there are some Hebrew codices 
 of great repute referred to by name in the margin of many 
 existing mss.^ 
 
 It will be seen that after this epoch of correction, if not 
 long before, the presumption that the reading of a majority of 
 Mss. was the reading of a majority of the first copies, the true 
 " witnesses," would have ceased to exist, and a fortiori the 
 presumption that it was the reading of the original. 
 
 It follows that all readings known to be equally ancient are 
 so far entitled to equal consideration. In the case of compara- 
 tively recent mss., such as the Hebrew, when it is a question 
 whether a particular reading is a mistake or invention of a 
 recent scribe, number is of importance, and the same considera- 
 tion applies to older authorities, though in a less degree in 
 proportion as they approach nearer to the original. Nothing 
 is required to give a reading a locua standi except the proof that 
 it actually existed in the earliest period to which we can trace 
 the history of the text. Now, a single early ms. or a single 
 version might prove this as effectively as a hundred late 
 copies. 
 
 There are a few instances in which the genuine reading is 
 preserved by a minority, sometimes a small minority, of exist- 
 ing MSS. Thus, in Joshua ix. 4, already mentioned, about six 
 MSS. have the correct reading. (The Eevisers give it in the 
 margin.) This, however, may be a correction suggested by 
 V. 12, perhaps also by the Targum, or the scribe may have mis- 
 taken the R in the text before him for D, and hit on the 
 right reading only by accident. In Jeremiah xlix. 23, " they 
 are faint-hearted; there is sorrow on the sea; it cannot be 
 quiet," the correct reading is probably " with unrest like that 
 
 ^ These codices were not older than the seventh century. 
 
THE MASSORETIC TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 31 
 
 of the sea which cannot be quiet," which is the reading of 
 several mss.' 
 
 Zechariah xiv. 5 : " The Lord my God shall come, and all 
 the holy ones witli thee." Many mss. (with the Versions) read 
 " with him," which the sense requires. 
 
 Psalm xvi. 2 : " Thou hast said unto the Lord," where 
 the English Version supplies " my soul." Twenty-two mss. 
 liave " I have said," which is certainly the true reading, and is 
 moreover that of the Versions. It is adopted by the Revised 
 Version. 
 
 Psalm lix. 9 : " His strength I will w^ait upon thee." 
 A. V. prefixes " because of," but even this fails to make a 
 reasonable sense. Ten mss. with the Versions read : " Upon 
 thee, my strength, will I wait." The Revisers have rightly 
 adopted this also. 
 
 Isaiah xxvii. 2 : " Sing ye unto her, A vineyard of red- 
 wine." Read with some mss. (as in the Revisers' margin), "A 
 vineyard of pleasure." The difference is that between D and 
 R before referred to. 
 
 Jeremiah v. 7 : " Fed them to the full," Authorized Version, 
 is an emendation. The Massoretic text has "made them to 
 swear."" 
 
 Other instances might be given, but when the number of 
 MSS. is small, there must always be a doubt whether the read- 
 ing has not been suggested by some of the Versions, especially 
 the Targums, or by a parallel passage where it exists. 
 
 There is one element of the Massoretic text which is ad- 
 mittedly of no authority, namely, all that belongs to the vocali- 
 zation, punctuation (or accentuation), and division of words. As 
 a system no doubt the vocalization rests on a sound tradition, 
 but this fact does not warrant us in assuming its correctness in 
 any individual instance. The vowels and accents, in short. 
 
 ' D^3 ^0^" D'^3- T^® confusion of 3 and ^ is noted several times 
 thus by the Massorah : 2 Kings iii. 24 ; 2 Chron. xxxiii. 16 ; Ezra viii. 14 ; 
 Neh. iii. 20. 
 
 Textj/nj^f^SI ; read ^/ni^'^SI- 
 
32 THE MASSORETIC TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 embody the exegesis as well as the pronunciation of the punc- 
 tuators. If we possessed a commentary by the ablest Hebraist 
 of the seventh century we should yield to his opinions just that 
 respect which his learning and sagacity commanded; no one 
 would dream of rejecting a well-supported interpretation simply 
 because it was opposed to the views of this learned Eabbi, or even 
 of many such Rabbis. Tet we frequently find commentators 
 alleging as a serious objection to some rendering that it violates 
 the vowel-points or the accents. One fact alone is sufficient to 
 destroy the authority of the accentuation. It is that the super- 
 scription of some of the Psalms is treated as part of the first 
 verse (see, for example, Psalms xxiii., xxiv., ciii., cix,, cxxxix. ; 
 "and he said" in Ps. xviii. begins the second verse). Thus 
 the chant in Ps. xxiv. would run : " To David a psalm, to 
 Jehovah the earth and its fulness : the round world and they 
 that dwell therein." The word " selah," also, is closely con- 
 nected with the words preceding, as in Psalms ix. 20 ; xx. 3, 
 "And thy burnt sacrifice, accept selah;" xxi. 2, "And the 
 request of his lips, thou hast not withholden selah." 
 
 We might adduce many instances in which modern exegesis 
 departs from that indicated by the accents. One may suffice : 
 Isaiah ix. 6 (5 in the Hebrew text) reads, according to the 
 pointing and accents, as follows : " The Wonderful Counsellor 
 the Mighty God shall call his name, Everlasting Father Prince 
 of Peace." 
 
 The maxim of Aben Ezra, quoted apparently with approval 
 by some moderns, that no interpretation is to be listened to 
 which violates the accents, is not a whit less irrational than it 
 would be to say that no interpretation of the Greek Testa- 
 ment should be listened to which violates the punctuation of 
 Stephens' text. 
 
 One or two wrong divisions of words may be mentioned : — 
 
 Genesis xlix. 19, 20 reads thus in the Revised Version : 
 " Gad, a troop shall press upon him : but he shall press upon 
 [their] heel. Out of Asher his bread shall be fat, and he shall 
 yield royal dainties." The word "their" ought to be in 
 italics ; it is not in the original. But it is indispensable to the 
 
THE MASSORETIC TKXT OK THE OLD TESTAMENT. 33 
 
 sense, and the single letter which is required to express it is 
 found at the beginning of verse 20, where it not only interferes 
 with the luiiforraity of arrangement by which the name of each 
 tribe stands first in the blessing, but, what is worse, confuses 
 the sense. By simply attaching the letter to tlie last word of 
 verse 19 everything is made correct. The LXX is right. 
 
 Another instance which we regard as certain occurs in 
 Jeremiah xxiii. 33 : " "When this people, or the prophet, or a 
 priest, shall ask thee, saying, What is the burden of Jehovah ? 
 then shalt thou say unto them. What burden ? and I will cast 
 you off, saith Jehovah." A simple change in the division of 
 words makes this read : " Then slialt thou say unto them. Ye 
 are the burden, and I will cast you off," a play on the two 
 senses of the word "burden," such as occurs again in verse 36.' 
 Not only do we thus get a better sense, but, in fact, the exist- 
 ing text is ungrammatical. The Septuagint and Vulgate are 
 right. 
 
 Psalm Ixxiii. 4 reads thus in Authorized Version (aud in 
 lie vised Version) : " For there are no bands in tlieir death : 
 but their strength is firm." A change even slighter than the 
 last — namely, dividing one woz'd into two — gives us the sense : 
 " They have no tortures : perfect and firm is their strength."- 
 
 It is scarcely necessary to recall to the mind of the reader 
 Ps. xlii. 5, 6, where the only question is whether the word 
 " my God," which certainly belongs to the end of verse 5, has 
 merely dropped out before the same word in verse 6, or belongs 
 to verse 5 only. The latter view is adopted by most commen- 
 tators, and has the support of the Septuagint, Syriac, and 
 Vulgate, besides a few Hebrew mss., which perhaps some may 
 think more important. The reader who is unacquainted with 
 Hebrew may require to be told that " his countenance " consists 
 of the same letters as " my countenance and." Even if the 
 Versions were silent, the emendation would be certain. 
 
 ' ^'fj^n Dii^ instead of i^'m-nD-r^^' 
 
 • I.e. instead of DniQ7 read 0]^ 1^^- This emendation was £rst 
 
 T : T T 
 
 proposed by Moerlius in 1737. 
 
 D 
 
34 THE MASSORETIC TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 In Amos vi. 12 we read : " Shall horses run upon the rock ? 
 "Will one plow [there] with oxen ?" The word " there " is an 
 insertion of the translators. A separation of what is now one 
 word into two gives us " Will one plow the sea with oxen ? "' 
 
 There are several instances in which the division of words 
 in the text is corrected by the Qere.^ 
 
 Of errors in the vowel-points we shall now give a few 
 specimens : — 
 
 1 Kings xiii. 12 : " And their father said unto them, What 
 way went he ? For his sons had seen what way the man of 
 God went which came from Judah, And he said unto his sons, 
 Saddle me the ass." As the text stands, nothing is said of the 
 answer to the question, while a perfectly superfluous remark 
 appears instead. What is worse, the rules of Hebrew syntax 
 are violated by the present text. A change in the vowels gives 
 us, " And his sons showed him what way," &c. This is also 
 the reading of the LXX, the Syriac, and Vulgate. It is in the 
 Revisers' margin.^ 
 
 Isaiah xvi. 4 : " Let mine outcasts dwell with thee, Moab." 
 The context shows that the outcasts of Moab are spoken of : 
 " Let the outcasts of Moab dwell with thee." So the Sept., 
 Syriac, and Targum. 
 
 Job xxxiv. 17, 18, 19, reads in the Authorized Version: 
 " Wilt thou condemn him that is most just ? Is it fit to say to 
 a king, Thou art wicked ? and to Princes, Ye are ungodly? How 
 much less to him that accepteth not the person of princes," &o. 
 A text which requires to be supplemented in this fashion is 
 probably wrong. Now a change of points gives us in verse 18, 
 "That saith to a king. Wicked! and to princes. Ungodly!" 
 (as in margin of Revised Version). Thus the whole passage 
 is coherent, and no supplement is required to complete the 
 sense. 
 
 i/.e. for Dnpnn read Q^ ip22' 
 
 * Cp. 1 Sam. ix. 1 ; 2 Sam. v. 2 ; xxi. 12 ; 1 Chron. xxvii. 12 ; 2 Chron» 
 xxxiv. 6 ; Ps. x. 10; Iv. 16 ; Lam. iv. 3, 16; Ezek. xlii. 9. 
 ' ^^yj) for ^IJ^-j^l. 
 
THE MASSORETIC TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 35 
 
 In Job iii. 6 the Authorized Version departs from the 
 vowel points, reading " Let it not be joined unto the days of 
 the year," the Massoretic text being " Let it not rejoice among 
 the days," Opinions may differ as to the correctness of this 
 emendation. The Revised Version follows the Massoretic text. 
 
 As we have already given illustrations of the help to be 
 obtained from the Versions in confirming emendations other- 
 wise suggested, we shall give a few instances in which omis- 
 sions, &e., in the Hebrew text are supplied by the Versions. 
 
 Proverbs x. 10 has been referred to as an example of 
 erroneous repetition in the second clause. The Sept. and 
 Syriac supply the genuine second clause : " He that winketh 
 witli the eye causeth sorrow ; but he that rebuketh boldly 
 bringeth peace." (So the margin of E-evised Version.) 
 
 Proverbs xi. 16: "A gracious woman obtaineth {or re- 
 tainetli) honour, and the violent obtain [or retain) riches." 
 The word here rendered " violent " is rendered by the A. V. 
 " strong," but is not used in a good sense. The LXX enable 
 us to restore the text thus : "A gracious woman obtaineth 
 honour : but a seat of shame is a woman that hateth right- 
 eousness. Indolence will lack wealth, but the diligent retain 
 riches." 
 
 These are no inventions of the translator, nor is the follow- 
 ing (2 Sam. xvii. 3). The A. V. reads : " And I will bring 
 back all the people unto thee : the man whom thou seekest is 
 as if all returned (literally : as the return of all the man whom 
 thou seekest) : so all the people shall be in peace." The LXX 
 gives : " I will bring back all the people unto thee as a bride 
 returneth to her husband ; thou shalt seek only the life of one 
 man, and all the people shall be in peace." The omission in 
 the Hebrew is easily accounted for by homoeoteleuton.' Nor 
 can the following be an invention, 1 Sam. xiv. 41. The A. V. 
 reads : " Saul said unto the Lord God of Israel, Give a perfect 
 lot:' Revised Version has : " Show the right." The LXX 
 (confirmed by the Vulgate) reads : " Saul said, Lord God of 
 
 • Cp. Driver on Samuel, p. 249. 
 D 2 
 
36 THE MASSORETIC TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 Israel, Wherefore hast thou not answered thy servant this day ? 
 If the iniquity be in me or in Jonathan my son, Lord God 
 of Israel, give Urim, and if it be in thy people Israel, give 
 Thummim." The letters of " give Thummim " are the same 
 as of the words rendered " give a perfect lot.'" The omission 
 is easily accounted for by homceoteleuton (Israel . . . Israel) ; 
 whereas the interpolation of the words would be inexplicable, 
 as the Massoretic text nowhere gives a hint of this distinction 
 between the responses of Urim and Thummim. Moreover the 
 translator of the Books of Samuel is so averse from conjecture 
 that frequently when the word before him was obscure he has 
 simply reproduced it in Greek letters. 
 
 Job xxiii. 12 reads in the Hebrew : " I have hidden the 
 words of his mouth more than my law." The A. V. renders 
 this : " I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my 
 necessary foocir The Revised Version merely substitutes 
 " treasured up " for " esteemed," and in the margin suggests 
 for the last three words " my own law." None of these ren- 
 derings can be considered satisfactory. Now, the consonants 
 of " law " and " bosom " are the same, and by simply reading 
 B for M as the prefix preposition the LXX and Vulgate give 
 the excellent sense : "I have hidden in my bosom the words of 
 his mouth." 
 
 Job xxvii. 18 : " He buildeth his house as a moth, and as a 
 booth which the keeper maketh." The moth does not build 
 houses. A letter has dropped out and the true reading is 
 " spider," which has the support of the LXX and the Syriae.^ 
 
 Psalm XXX vi. 1 is translated as follows in the A. V. : *' The 
 transgression of the wicked saith within my heart that there is 
 no fear of God before his eyes." The word rendered " saith " 
 means " an oracle," " effatum." The literal rendering is " An 
 oracle of transgression to the wicked within my heart," &c. 
 This is, to say the least, impossible. The Syriac and Jerome 
 give "his heart." The correction is the slightest possible, the 
 difference between " his " and " my " being only that between 
 
 ' ^2^}!^ for l^^^. 
 
THE MASSORETIC TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 37 
 
 Yav and Yod, and the confusion between these two letters 
 being extremely frequent. Three mss. also read " his," but the 
 number is too small to be attributed to a correct tradition, 
 accidental confusion of these letters being so frequent.' 
 
 The last we shall note is Micah i. 5 : " What is the trans- 
 gression of Jacob ? is it not iSumaria ? and what the high places 
 of Judah? are they not Jerusalem ?" The Septuagint, Syriac, 
 and Targum read for " high places " " sin," as the sense ob- 
 viously requires.^ These three witnesses are decisive. 
 
 Wo have said nothing of the use of the Septuagint by the 
 writers of the New Testament. Yet in tlie minds of many 
 it is not unimportant that St. James appeals to the Greek 
 version of Amos ix. 12, which differs considerably from the 
 Hebrew in sense (" that the residue of men may seek after 
 the Lord " instead of " that they may possess the remnant of 
 Edom"). It is easy to restore the Hebrew text corresponding 
 to tlie former version, and it differs very slightly in letters from 
 the received."^ 
 
 St. Paul also (Gal. iii. 10) cites Deut. xxvi. 27, with the 
 important word " all," which is not in the Massoretic text, 
 although it is in the English Version. 
 
 It is singular that some writers who refuse to accept the 
 versions as evidence for a reading, yet lay stress on their ren- 
 derings as evidence of the meaning of the original. This is the 
 same thing as refusing to admit a witness's testimony to a fact 
 and accepting his opinion as evidence. 
 
 In connexion with our English Version it is worth while 
 remembering that the only truly Authorized Version of the 
 Psalms, the Prayer-book version, is lineally descended from 
 the LXX, and that, too, in an unrevised text. Thus in the 
 14th Psalm several verses are added which not only are not in 
 the Hebrew, but form no part of the genuine text of the LXX. 
 In another very important particular the Authorized Version 
 
 ' The verse probably requires further correction. 
 
 ■ n^^::^ for t\M2Zi- 
 
38 THE MASSORETIC TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 follows the LXX, viz. in the order of the books. If the Ee- 
 visers had returned to the order of the Hebrew, and placed tlie 
 Hagiographa with a separate title after the other books, the 
 rearrangement would have led the intelligent reader to make 
 some interesting inquiries. 
 
 It may be conceded that the LXX make more mistakes 
 in single letters, such as D and E, than the Massoretio text. 
 Probably the ms. they used was sometimes difficult to read. It 
 has already been remarked that there are differences in the 
 character of the LXX version of different books. The Mas- 
 soretio text also is more correct in some books than in others. 
 In the Book of Samuel, for instance, it is very incorrect, not 
 only in particular readings, but in consequence of omissions and 
 interpolations. In the Book of Jeremiah also there are frequent 
 interpolations. It must be remembered that the books com- 
 posing the Old Testament must have been separately copied, 
 some of them frequently, before they made part of the larger 
 collection. Most even of our modern mss. contain only the 
 Pentateuch, or the Prophets ("earlier" or "later"), or the 
 Hagiographa. It must have been more rare in earlier times to 
 find these parts united in one volume. And before these smaller 
 collections were made, each of their components must have been 
 copied separately. The several Psalms were doubtless copied 
 more than once before their collection into the five books which 
 subsequently were again combined in one volume. Thus the 
 text of some Psalms has clearly become more corrupt than that 
 of others. But we must not dwell further on this. 
 
 We have not aimed at bringing forward new suggestions : 
 it was more proper for our purpose to adduce only that which 
 was certain or nearly so. The general conclusion is that the 
 Massoretic text contains errors as many and various as might 
 have been expected in a text with such a history. And we 
 infer that the exegete need have no hesitation in correcting 
 palpable errors. The duty of a translator is somewhat different ; 
 but when a reading in itself preferable has the support of the 
 Versions the translator also is justified in adopting it, if not 
 indeed rather bound to do so. 
 
II. 
 
 THE HEBREW TEXT BEFORE THE MASSORETKS. 
 
 Critics of a former generation not unfrequently brought 
 against the Jews the charge of wilfully corrupting the Hebrew 
 text from polemical motives. It has generally been acknow- 
 ledged by their successors that the charge of corruption from 
 dishonest motives cannot be sustained. But this admission 
 does not exclude the possibility of alterations having been made 
 from motives not dishonest. There was a time when the letter 
 of the sacred books was thought of less importance than the 
 spirit, a time when, in fact, with the exception of the Books of 
 the Law, the very words of the Scriptures were not regarded as 
 sacred things which it would be sacrilege to alter, and this even 
 after the books had been received into the Canon, not much less 
 than before. If, then, an expression seemed likely to occasion 
 misconception or sounded irreverent, there was no hesitation 
 about altering it. Even when the text as a whole was regarded 
 as sacred, it doubtless seemed to these editors — if we may so 
 call them — that its sacredness was better secured and preserved 
 by removing from it these offending expressions than by a 
 superstitious regard for the mere letter. The modern feeling 
 is different, yet, as we shall presently see, we are even now, to 
 some extent, under the influence of the older one. Sometimes, 
 indeed, nothing was required except a change in the older 
 
40 THE HEBREW TEXT BKFORE THE MASSORETES. 
 
 pronimciation. As the original writing was without vowels, it 
 might well be thought that the reader was at perfect liberty to 
 adopt whatever pronunciation appeared most suitable, all things 
 considered. Aud this, of course, was true, always supposing 
 that the grammar and connexion of the passage were allowed 
 full weight. 
 
 Amongst the expressions which caused offence in this way 
 were those which savoured of Anthropomorphism. The desire 
 to avoid these appears very clearly in the versions, and, what is 
 important for us to note, also in the Samaritan text of the Pen- 
 tateuch. The Samaritan Pentateuch, it must be borne in mind, 
 is simply another recension of the Hebrew text, older than tbat 
 represented by the Massoretic text, and written in the ancient 
 character. Although it sometimes preserves a more correct 
 reading than the latter, on the other hand it retains traces of 
 the more free treatment of the text, from the motives just men- 
 tioned, where the careful editing of the Jewisb critics has given 
 us the uncorrupted reading. We refer to these merely as illus- 
 trations of the fact that the sacredness of the books did not 
 prevent tampering with the text. 
 
 An interesting instance of the influence of motives of re- 
 verence on the pronunciation (that is, on the vowel points) is in 
 the phrase often occurring in the English Bible, " appear before 
 Grod " (see Exod. xxiii, 15, xxxiv. 20, 23; Deut. xvi. 16; 
 Isaiah i. 12 ; Ps. xlii, 2, &c.). Now, if the text of any of 
 these places were presented to a Hebrew grammarian (/. e. the 
 consonants without the vowels), he would have no hesitation in 
 reading, "see my face," "see the face of Grod." Not only is 
 the form of expression exactly the same that, in every case 
 where the name of God does not occur, is translated thus, but 
 the word " face " is sometimes definitely marked as the object, 
 and there is no word equivalent to " before." In fact, our text 
 and translation are almost as ungrammatical as if, on finding 
 in a Latin ms. "vider faciem," we should complete the verb 
 thus, " videri," and translate *' appear before." The reason 
 why in reading the Hebrew text tlie construction does not 
 strike us at once as impossible, is simply that as the phrase 
 
THK HKHHEW TKXT BEFORE THE MASSORETES, 41 
 
 often occurs and the same vocalization is everywhere adopted, 
 grammarians have invented a rule to suit this expression. But 
 if the vocalization is uugrammatical, why was it ever adopted ? 
 The answer is that the expression " see the face of God," 
 seemed inconsistent witli Exod. xxxiii. 20, " Thou canst not 
 see ray face : for there shall no man see me, and live." The 
 pronunciation was no doubt adopted bond fide, those who first 
 introduced it being persuaded by the verse just quoted that the 
 verb could not be in the active voice. In one place the correct 
 vocalization remains. It is Exod. xxiv. 10, 11, where it is said 
 that Moses and the elders " saw the God of Israel," " and they 
 beheld God, and did eat and drink." But here the text was 
 explicit, and could not be affected by any change in pronun- 
 ciation. Translators, however, felt themselves at liberty to 
 modify the text, and accordingly we find in the Septuagint 
 u^ov Tov TOTTov ov uGTi'iKii 6 OeoQ Tov 'I(Tpo»)/\, aud iu vcrse 11 
 io(pdti(Tav Iv TM TUTTio TOV Oiov. Tho Targum has " saw the 
 glory of God," the Arabic " saw the angel of God." 
 
 But the reader may think that he has detected a flaw in 
 our reasoning when he calls to mind Ps, xvii. 15, " I will be- 
 hold thy face " ; Ps. Ixiii. 2, " So as I have seen thee in the 
 sanctuary"; Job xix. 26, "I shall see God." Why, he will 
 ask, were these passages not altered ? Now, in all these cases 
 the verb employed is a different one, and is the same that occurs 
 in Exod. xxiv. 11, just referred to, and the change could not be 
 made. The two passages from the Psalms strongly confirm the 
 correctness of the construction " see the face of God," while the 
 treatment of the passages by the versions confirms what has 
 been said of the unwillingness of Jewish readers to accept it. 
 In the two passages in the Psalms the LXX render by the 
 passive {6(p9i]cyofxai, locpdijv), in Job they have a different read- 
 ing, possibly correct ("these " for " God "). 
 
 In Gen. xxii. 14, there seems to be a similar change of the 
 verb " see." " Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah- 
 jireh : as it is said to this day, In the mount of the Lord it 
 shall be seen [provided P. V.]." We are led to expect in the 
 second clause of the verse some allusion to the name in the 
 
42 THE HEBREW TEXT BEFORE THE MASSORETES. 
 
 first clause, but the allusiou as the text stauds is very feeble, 
 half the name only being referred to. But on looking at the 
 original text, and disregarding the vowels, we observe that the 
 words " of the Lord it shall be seen [or provided] " are exactly 
 the same as *' Jehovah-jireh " in the preceding clause. The 
 words read, " Abraham called the name of that place IHVH 
 IR'H : as it is said to this day, In the mount IHVH IR'H." 
 Can there be any doubt that the pronunciation is intended to 
 be the same in both clauses ? " As it is said to this day, In 
 the mount Jehovah-jireh." The most natural sujDposition is 
 that the verb in both places should be passive ("ieraeh"), 
 i.e. "Jehovah is seen." If this were the older reading we can 
 easily understand why the verb should be changed to the active 
 in the first clause, while in the second the same end was at- 
 tained by separating " Jehovah " from the verb and joining 
 it to the substantive " mount." This would also agree per- 
 fectly with the name Moriah, " vision of Jah." Yet the words 
 of Abraham iu verse 8, " God will provide " (Elohim jireh), 
 may be thought to favour the hypothesis that the original form 
 of the verb in both clauses of verse 14 was active (as the Vulgate 
 renders). But then the change to the passive in the second 
 clause, and in that only, would be unaccountable. It would 
 seem, then, that on this hypothesis we should suppose an in- 
 termediate stage, in which both verbs were read in the passive, 
 and this reading, if not original, might have been suggested 
 by the meaning of "Moriah." The LXX read in the same 
 way as the Massoretes, only joining the words diflterently, 
 ev Til) upei Kvpiog (jj(pOr]. 
 
 To the sacred writers themselves and their earlier readers 
 the' expression "see the face of Grod" presented no difiiculty. 
 To see the face of anyone was to come into his presence ; and 
 " to see the face of God " was to come into the tabernacle or 
 temple. 
 
 But admitting that a departure from the original pronun- 
 ciation might be adopted without hesitation from motives of 
 reverence, is there any reason to suppose that a change in "tlie 
 consonants, that is, in the actual text, would be ventured on ? 
 
THE HEBREW TEXT BEFORE THE MASSORETES. 43 
 
 To this question Jewish tradition itself helps lis to give an 
 affirmative answer. We refer in particular to the " Corrections 
 of the Scribes " or " Tiqqune Soplierim." Although these are 
 frequently alluded to, it is not easy for the English reader to 
 obtain definite iuformation about them ; it will therefore not be 
 out of place to give some details. There are several different 
 lists of these " corrections " in different authorities : some in 
 early Jewish commentaries, and some in the Massorah. One 
 list contains seven, another (said to be the earliest) eleven, 
 others eighteen. The Massorah expressly affirms that the 
 number is eighteen, but its enumeration differs from that in 
 the Tauchuma (ancient commentary on Exodus], and indeed 
 the Massoretic lists differ in different manuscripts. Probably 
 the lists were not originally intended to be exhaustive; cer- 
 tainly we have reason to think that they were not actually so. 
 The references in these lists are usually concise, and even re- 
 served, the original reading not being always stated, nor even 
 the word in which the variation was supposed to exist. Some 
 later writers, unwilling to admit that there had been any 
 change in the text, explained the tradition as meaning that 
 the original author would naturally have written so-and-so, but 
 from a feeling of reverence adopted the less suitable existing 
 reading. Some modern scholars again have supposed that tlie 
 tradition merely expresses a vague reminiscence that a dif- 
 ferent reading once existed. 
 
 A few specimens will make the nature of these " correc- 
 tions " more intelligible : Gen. xviii. 22, " Abraham stood yet 
 before Jehovah." Tradition says that the reading was "Je- 
 hovah stood yet before Abraham " ; and the verse is quoted in 
 the Talmud in support of the statement that God Himself 
 set the example of standing before the grey head (!). Job 
 xxxii. 3, " Also against his three friends was his wrath kindled, 
 because they had found no answer, and yet had condemned 
 Job." The tradition alleges that the original reading for 
 "Job" was "God," the sense being "and thus had imputed 
 guilt to God." This seems to suit the context better than 
 the actual reading ; but, assuming it to be coi-rect, we might 
 
44 THE HEBREW TEXT BEFORE THE MASSORETES. 
 
 account for the variation by the similarity between the letters 
 of " Elohim " and " Elihu," which might have led to tlie 
 accidental omission of the former, the name " Job " being 
 subsequently inserted to complete the sense. However, the 
 explanation suggested by the tradition obviously is that the 
 change was made in order to avoid the apparent irreverence 
 of the expression. 
 
 In the same book, chap. vii. 20, where we now read, "Why 
 hast thou set me as a mark against thee [for thee E. V.], so 
 that I am a burden to myself ?" we are told that the original 
 reading was " so that I am a burden upon thee." And so the 
 Septuagint reads, which is some confirmation of the tradition. 
 Again, in Numbers xi. 15, in the supplication of Moses, we 
 read, " Kill me, I pray thee, out of hand, if I have found 
 favour in thy sight ; and let me not see my wretchedness " (or 
 " my evil"). This is a correction for " thine evil" — i.e. "the 
 evil thou bringest on this people," the connexion of the word 
 " evil " with tlie pronoun referring to God having given 
 offence. 
 
 A very noticeable instance is 1 Sam. iii. 13, where we read 
 in the A. V. of Eli's sons, " his sons made themselves vile."^ 
 This rendering is certainly erroneous, as the verb does not 
 mean " to make vile," but " to treat as vile," " to curse " or 
 " revile." The E. V. adopts the rendering " did bring a curse 
 on themselves." This is also Gresenius' rendering, but although 
 better lexically than the A. Y. it also involves giving the verb 
 an unexampled sense and an unexampled construction. The 
 idea " to bring a curse on oneself " is expressed in Genesis 
 xxvii. 12 in a different form and one exactly corresponding 
 to the English. It is not easy to see how in the Hebrew 
 language the word used in the passage before us could have 
 this signification. Besides, it does not give a suitable sense. 
 According to this reading Eli is punished because his sons 
 were punished. In these circumstances a critic who should pro- 
 pose to read instead of LHM, " on them," 'LHM (=Elohim), 
 
THK Hi:i!KKW VKXV IJKFORH THK M ASSORKl ES. 45 
 
 " God," would be tliouglit to have made a brilliant conjecture, 
 satisfying grammar, lexicon, and connexion. Now, this is 
 what the tradition suggests to have been the original reading, 
 and in tliis it is confirmed by the Septuagint.* Whether the 
 existing reading arose accidentally or not, the preference for 
 it was probably due to the reluctance to utter or write such an 
 expression as "cursed or reviled God." There was indeed an 
 additional reason for tlie reluctance in this case — namely, the 
 unwillingness to attribute so great a sin to the sons of the high 
 priest. We have indications in tlie Talmud of a desire to 
 mitigate their offences. The Septuagint translators on the 
 other hand had no difficulty in retaining Of<n>, because they 
 were able to soften the verb, tlius : KUKoXoyovvrtg toi> Beov. 
 
 An instance of a " correction " adopted in order to avoid 
 anthropomorphism occurs in Zech. ii. 8, " He that toucheth 
 you toucheth the apple of his eye." The correction consists 
 in the substitution of " his eye " for " mine eye," which is 
 obviously the reading required Ijy the connexion. 
 
 The last we shall mention is Hab. i. 12 : " Art not thou 
 from everlasting, Jehovah my God, mine Holy One ? We 
 shall not die." Here the original reading, according to the 
 tradition was, " Thou canst not die," or " thou diest not." 
 lieverence suggested the change as if to mention dying in 
 connexion with God, even to deny it, gave offence. 
 
 The Massorah, as we have said, states that the number of 
 " corrections " is eighteen ; but in their enumeration they refer 
 to only sixteen verses. In this apparent discrepancy some 
 theologians have discovered a mare's-nest. It is clear, say 
 they, that there were two other passages which they were un- 
 willing to mention, and there can be no doubt that these two 
 were Psalm xxii. 16 : "They pierced my hands and niy feet," 
 or "as a lion my hands and my feet"; and Zech. xii. 10: 
 "They shall look on him whom they pierced," or "on me 
 whom tliey pierced." The allegation is made by Bishop 
 Pearson in his exposition of the Creed, and has been repeated 
 
 ' The Tanchuma indeed gives as the original, " LI," "me." 
 
46 THE HEBREW TEXT BEFORE THE MASSORETES. 
 
 by other writers. It is, however, absolutely groundless. If 
 the Massoretes wished to suppress the fact of a " tiqqun " why 
 need they include it in their reckoning ? As we have seen, 
 there was considerable variation as to the number, so that there 
 could be no idea of any obligation to mention just eighteen. 
 Further, if they had thought fit, they could have made up the 
 eighteen from passages mentioned by other authorities. As to 
 the passage in Psalm xxii., the Massoretes in their note say (as 
 Pearson himself notices) that the word in question occurs twice 
 " in two significations." The other passage is Isa. xxxviii. 13, 
 where it certainly means " as a lion." This is, therefore, a 
 positive statement, as express as the Massorah ever is, that this 
 is not the sense in the Psalm. They could not, therefore, sup- 
 pose that the reading had been adopted in order to secure this 
 meaning.* In the passage in Zeehariah there is still less ground 
 for supposing an " intentional change," for the very good reason 
 that the reading " me," which Pearson supposes to have been 
 rejected, is actually the reading of the vulgar text, and more- 
 over does not agree with the context as well as the reading 
 " him." 
 
 The simple explanation of the apparent discrepancy between 
 the sixteen verses referred to and the eighteen stated to be the 
 number of corrections, is that in two verses there are four cor- 
 rections, the same change being made in each case. One of 
 these is 2 Sam. xx. 1, where we read, " Every man to his tents, 
 
 Israel " ; and we are told that the older reading was " Every 
 man to his gods," a reading which differs from the former only 
 in the order of two letters." The same " correction " occurs in 
 
 1 Kings xii. 16, and 2 Chron. x. 16. In these instances few 
 will doubt that the present text is the genuine one, the other 
 being due to the disposition of the Jews after idolatry had been 
 extinguished to regard all the movements in the northern tribes 
 
 * A Jewish auttioritj-, however (R. Moses Hadarshan), is referred to as 
 reckoning T^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^ Tiqqun S6pherim (Davidson, Critical Hevtswn of 
 the Hehretv Text). 
 
 ' ybn^"! and ^^"l'7^^^ 
 
THK HKIIRKW TKXT HF.KOKK THE MASSORETES. 47 
 
 as a going after strange gods. We may infer from this tliat 
 the allegation of a " tiqqun sopherim " did not always rest on 
 authentic tradition, but may even have arisen in some instances 
 from mere conjecture. Still they show that such alterations 
 were not considered inconsistent with the reverence due to the 
 sacred text. 
 
 Further illustration of this is supplied by an instance (not 
 numbered among the " corrections ") in which we can see a 
 change growing up, as we might say, under our very eyes. In 
 Judges xviii. 30, we read that " Jonathan, tlie son of Gershom, 
 the son of Manasseli," was priest to the graven image in 
 Dan. In the printed Hebrew Bibles, as in the most approved 
 manuscripts, the name of Manasseh is written somewhat thus, 
 M^SH, the N being, as it is called, "suspended." If it be 
 neglected the word reads Mosheh = Moses, and this, which the 
 Revisers have followed, is beyond all question the true reading. 
 Not only so, but it was known to be so by the Jewish scholars. 
 But it was thought too shocking a tiling that a grandson of 
 Moses should figure in such a connexion. Rashi himself says, 
 " for the honour of Moses N is written, but it is written sus- 
 pended to indicate that it was not Manasseh but Moses." To 
 change the name directly would be too flagrant, so they simply 
 placed the letter N in such a position that it seemed to plead 
 for admission into the text, and that the unlearned reader might 
 think it actually had a riglit there. Accordingly the trans- 
 lators, all with the exception of Jerome, read Manasseh. 
 Copyists were also misled, and the latter name is written in 
 the ordinary way in many manuscripts. 
 
 We have seen in the example from 1 Sam. iii. 13 how by 
 a slight change, not seriously altering the sense of the passage, 
 the conjunction of a word of cursing with the Divine Name 
 was avoided. But this could not always be effected so easily. 
 In certain other places " bless " was euphemistically substituted 
 for " curse " or " blaspheme," where the name of God followed. 
 This is the case in 1 Kings xxi. 10, 13, and Job ii. 9. There 
 is no reasonable doubt that " bless " in these places is a eu- 
 phemism, and is not used in the sense of "bid farewell to," as 
 
48 THE HEBREW TEXT BEFORE THE MASSOHETES. 
 
 has sometimes been suggested. The question with respect to 
 wliich critics are not agreed is whether the euphemism is 
 due to the original author or to a subsequent editor. As it is 
 only in immediate connexion with the name of God that tlie 
 euphemism occurs, it is in either case an example of the feeling 
 of which we are speaking. The view that it is due to the 
 author is strenuously and learnedly defended by Consul Wetz- 
 stein in an excursus appended to Delitzsch's Commentary on 
 the Psalms. Many of his illustrations are very curious. Thus 
 in Damascus, if one asks after an invalid and receives the 
 auswer, " He is well, may thy head be safe ! " this means " he 
 is dead." A dangerous illness is called " an act of grace " 
 (namely, of God) . In an Arabic geographical lexicon it is said, 
 " one bitten by the suake is called safe for the sake of good 
 omen," and accordingly in an Arabic account of a certain town 
 it is said: " There are there many venomous scorpions ; he who 
 is safe from them is incurable " — i.e. he who is bitten by them. 
 Tell a Syrian that his enemy is prospering, he uncovers his 
 head, raises his arm to heaven, and cries, " God, make his 
 good fortune perfect " — that is, " destroy him," because when a 
 man has reached the summit of prosperity he begins to fall. 
 None of these euphemisms seem parallel to those now in question. 
 The last, according to Wetzstein's own explanation, is not a 
 euphemism "per antiphrasin" at all; the others appear to be 
 adopted in order to avoid using an expression of ill omen or 
 giving offence to invisible powers. We do not, however, insist 
 on this, and we are willing for the sake of argument to admit 
 that such euphemisms as are supposed in the passages quoted, 
 would be used by a modern Arabic writer or speaker. Yet, 
 notwithstanding what is called the unchangeableness of Oriental 
 peoples, we must not hastily argue from the speech of Arabs of 
 to-day to that of Hebrews some thousands of years ago. If 
 indeed we found it customary with the Old Testament writers 
 to use "bless" where "curse" was meant, then the Arabic 
 usage would come in usefully to illustrate this, and to prevent 
 our lexicographers from giving the significations of the verb 
 quite barely as " 1, to bless ; 2, to curse." 
 
TIIK HEBREW TEXT liEEOKE THE MASSORETES. 49 
 
 But when we inquire into the practice of Liblical writers 
 do we find either on their part or on that of the persons of the 
 narrative any reluctance to use words of cursing or any disposi- 
 tion to soften them ? We think the answer must be, Not in 
 the least. We have only to look at the words for cursing, &c,, 
 in a Hebrew concordance, or even (discounting tlie three pas- 
 sages in question) an English concordance, to be satisfied of 
 this. Even when the name of God is tlie object, it is only 
 when it stands next the verb that the expression becomes a 
 stumbling-block. The English reader may perhaps call to mind 
 the words, "Wherefore should the wicked blaspheme God?" 
 (Ps. X. 13, P. B. v., " contemn " A. V.), and ask why the word 
 " blaspheme " was retained here. The fact is that in the 
 Hebrew it does not stand next the name of God, the order 
 being " Wherefore blasphemeth tlie wicked man, God ?" And 
 surely the most unlikelj' of all places in which to introduce an 
 exceptional euphemism would be the indictment for blasphemy 
 brought against Naboth. On the other hand, the facts adduced 
 by AVetzstein are valuable as illustrating the alleged disposition 
 of scribes of a later date. The change, first made in reading, 
 would easily be adopted in writing, and the rarity of it under 
 such circumstances would require no explanation. 
 
 The reason that we have dwelt upon this point is that tlie 
 conclusion throws light on a difiicult passage in Ps. x. 3, " The 
 wicked . . . blesseth the covetous, whom the Lord abhorreth," 
 A. V. The words run smoothly enough in the A. Y., although 
 not making very good sense, since the covetous are not usually 
 blessed, except by themselves. But the words in the original do 
 not run smoothly. In the first place the order is, "The covetous 
 blesseth abhorreth the Lord." It is not too much to say that 
 this order could not be adopted by a writer wishing to convey 
 the sense expressed in the A. V. But secondly, the word 
 rendered " abhorreth " has not that sense ; it is the same word 
 that is rendered in verse 13 (14 P. B. V.), "contemn" ("blas- 
 phemeth " P. B. Y.). Hupfeld renders the clause, " blesseth 
 the covetous, blasphemeth Jehovah." Hengstenberg translates, 
 "the covetous blesseth, scorneth Jehovah," i.e. indifferently 
 
50 THE HEBREW TEXT BEFORE THE MASSORETES. 
 
 blesses or scorns, Delitzsch gives " berek " the sense " blas- 
 phemeth," and renders, " the covetous blasphemeth, scorneth 
 Jehovah." The Revisers have similarly, "the covetous re- 
 nounceth, yea contemneth the Lord." This seems to involve 
 an inexplicable combination of euphemism and the opposite. 
 If " berek " is used for " blaspheme " it could only be from an 
 unwillingness to utter the word " niec," or the like, which is 
 tlie proper word for blasphemy. But here " niec " itself would 
 immediately follow. This fact seems directly to refute the 
 notion of a " euphemistic antiphrasis " on the part of the 
 author. 
 
 The true solution, as it appears to us (by whom first sug- 
 gested we do not know), is that this is a case of "doublet" or 
 " conflate reading." The original text had only one of the two 
 words— i. e. that which now stands second, " blasphemeth " ; 
 then the euphemism "blesseth" was introduced. Probably 
 this was written in the text with the intention that it should be 
 read instead of the following word. This would be thought 
 quite as justifiable as the substitution in another class of cases 
 of decorous for coarse expressions, a substitution which the 
 Hebrew margin expressly prescribes. Or else " berek " may 
 have slipped in from the margin. The later scholars who sup- 
 plied the accents, but who never ventured to alter the text, have 
 inserted a separating line (called Paseq) to insure a pause being 
 made between the utterance of the word " nie9 " and that of 
 the name of God. 
 
 There was still another way of escaping the objectionable 
 juxtaposition, and this we find adopted in 2 Sam. xii. 14, 
 " Thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to 
 blaspheme."* The verb here is the same as in the last passage 
 ("blaspheming, thou hast blasphemed"), and although the 
 translators have extracted a meaning out of the words, or rather 
 put it into them, it is at the expense of violence done to the 
 signification of the verb. No doubt grammarians will give us 
 instances of verbs putting on a causative sense ; we have 
 
THE IIKHKEW TEXT BEFORE THE MASSORETES. 51 
 
 instances of the kind in Englisli also, but the cases adduced are 
 not analogous to this. If they can give an instance in which 
 " to slay the man " is used to mean " to cause the man to slay," 
 or "to accuse the man " to mean " to cause the man to accuse," 
 then indeed we should have au analogy to the change assumed 
 in the present passage. Nothing short of this would be parallel. 
 The text should read, " Thou hast greatly blasphemed the 
 Lord." 
 
 We have an example of a similar interpolation for a dif- 
 ferent reason in 1 Sam. xxv. 22, where David swears to destroy 
 all the men of Nabal's house. But, instead of invoking evil 
 on himself in case of failure to carry out his threat (as in Ruth 
 i. 17; 1 Sam. xx. 13; 2 Sam. iii. 9, 35, xix. 13, &c.), he 
 invokes evil on his enemies — that is, good to himself — " So, 
 and more also, do God unto the enemies of David, if," &c. 
 What would be the force of a threat so expressed, or where is 
 there a parallel ? The Septuagint have not the words " the 
 enemies of." This reading (noted in the margin of R. V.) is 
 unquestionably correct. But why should it be altered ? Simply 
 because David did not carry out his threat, but yielded to the 
 entreaties of Abigail. The genuine text then seemed to make 
 David imprecate evil on himself, subject to a condition which 
 he actually fulfilled. This was enough to induce the scribe to 
 interpose " the enemies of," which no doubt he would have put 
 in square brackets, as we do with words not belonging to the 
 text, if square brackets had been in use for such purpose. We 
 may observe that it is customary in the Talmud and elsewhere, 
 when imprecations on Israel are spoken of or quoted, to inter- 
 polate the words "the enemies of." May it not be that in 
 1 Sam. xiv. 44, we have an omission occasioned by a similar 
 motive — " God do so, and more also, for thou shalt surely die, 
 Jonathan " ? Saul having been turned from his purpose, there 
 was an unwillingness to record the imprecation on himself. 
 
 Readers who may be disposed to protest against such ways 
 of dealing with the written text may well be reminded that our 
 English translators, including the latest Revisers, have given 
 their sanction to a similar proceeding by adopting in their text 
 
 E 2 
 
52 THE HEBREW TEXT BEFORE THE MASSORETES. 
 
 a reading wliich has not even made its way into the Hebrew 
 text, but has been traditionally substituted by Jewish readers 
 for the genuine text. We refer, of course, to their expulsion 
 (all but complete) of the name Jehovah from the text, and sub- 
 stitution of " the Lord." It is worth our while to dwell on 
 tliis at some length. 
 
 The name Jehovah (or Yahveh), as the distinctive name of 
 the true Grod, known only to the people of Israel, was very 
 early regarded with peculiar reverence, which gradually led 
 to the avoidance of its use in ordinary discourse, and later to 
 a reluctance to utter it even when it occurred in the reading of 
 the Scriptures. Traces of the indisposition to use it freely are 
 found in the actual text of some of the Psalms, especially in 
 the second book (xlii. to Ixxii.). This book, no doubt (as well 
 as the others), formed at one time a separate collection, and 
 was separately copied. Now, the fifty-third Psalm is another 
 copy or edition of the fourteenth, and the reader will find that 
 the word Elohim is substituted in it for Jehovah. So also 
 Psalm Ixx. is another copy of the last five verses of Psalm xl. 
 In it Jehovah is twice replaced by Elohim. True, the former 
 name occurs twice, but in one of these passages many manu- 
 scripts read Elohim. Again, Psalm Ivii. 7-11, is the same as 
 Psalm cviii. 1-6, but in verse 9 we have Adonai in place of 
 Jehovah. The latter is clearly alone suitable. " I will j^raise 
 thee, O Jehovah, among the nations." Again, in several in- 
 stances we have the phrase, " Grod, our Grod," " God, my Grod," 
 " Grod, the God of Israel " (xlv. 7 ; Ixiii. 1 ; Ixvii. 6 ; Ixviii. 8). 
 It is probable, nay, morally certain, that in all these the first 
 word was originally Jehovah. For the addition " the God of 
 Israel," for example, would be inappropriate if what preceded 
 was only the unexclusive appellation Elohim. And, indeed, 
 the verse Ixviii. 8 is part of a quotation from the song of 
 Deborah, in which in both clauses, as well as in the verse pre- 
 ceding, the name Jehovah is read. The first verse of this Psalm 
 also is a quotation of Numbers x. 35, " Let Jehovah arise, and 
 let his enemies be scattered," but here again with Elohim 
 substituted much less appropriately. There is no probability 
 
THE HEBREW TEXT BEFORE THE MASSORETES. 53 
 
 that the author of the Psalm made these alterations. Bearing 
 this in mind, it is not unreasonable to conjecture that the word 
 " Adonai," inverses 11, 17, 21, 26, 32, replaces an original 
 " Jehovah." In all these places the latter would be much more 
 appropriate. There are obvious reasons wliy tlie Psalms should 
 have been more liable to such changes tlian tlie other books. 
 As they do not occur in the first book (Psalms i. to xli.) we 
 may, perhaps, conclude that it was after the reception of that 
 book into the Canon, and while the second book was not yet 
 admitted, but was in familiar use, that the feeling to which the 
 change was due sprang up. 
 
 The practice of substituting " Adonai " for " Jehovah " (or 
 Yahveh) in reading the text of the sacred books appears to be 
 as old as the Septuagint, which always uses Kvpiog to repre- 
 sent IHVH. The Jews of Palestine, however, did not at first 
 adopt this practice, which probably seemed to them an improper 
 altering of the text, or else they regarded the name Adonai as 
 itself too sacred to be thus used. Accordingly, they substituted 
 the word " hashshem," " the name." This had the advantage 
 that the hearer knew what the reader had before him. And to 
 this day the Samaritans in reading the Law, whenever they 
 meet with the name IHVH, simply read " the name." It is 
 customary also with modern writers of Hebrew, as it was with 
 the older writers, when they quote a passage of Scripture in 
 which the name occurs, to write simply H, the initial letter of 
 " hashshem." Doubtless we have in Levit. xxiv. 11, an in- 
 stance of this substitution : " The son of the Israelitish woman 
 blasphemed the name and cursed." Nowhere else in Scripture 
 is " the name " used thus absolutely, and the juxtaposition of 
 the word " blasphemed," a strong word in the original,^ sug- 
 gests a sufficient motive for the change here.- The LXX 
 throughout the narrative replace. the word "blaspheme" by 
 ovofxaKtiv. In the actual law given in verse 16, of course the 
 
 ^ It is the word used as " curse " in Num. xxiii. 8, 25 (3pJ )• 
 - It may be some confirmation of this that in the second clause of verse 
 IG " shem " has not the article. 
 
64 THE HEBREW TEXT BEFORE THE MASSORETES. 
 
 name itself could not be left out. Here the LXX reads, 
 " Whoever names the name of the Lord shall die." The 
 Chaldee and Syriac Versions similarly have for " blaspheme," 
 "express the name." It was easy to justify this rendering, 
 since the verb does not primarily signify " blaspheme " or 
 "curse," but "pierce," and one of its secondary senses is "to 
 specify by name." If it were not for verse 16, we might sup- 
 pose that in verse 11 it had this sense. But in verse 16 " and 
 curseth " is not added, so that we must here give the verb the 
 sense which it often has, of cursing {e.g. Num. xxiii. 8, 25). 
 The official Jewish interpretation agreed with the LXX and 
 Targum, only understanding that in verse 16 cursing was im- 
 plied. Hence, in administering this law, it was held by the 
 Jewish authorities that it was necessary to prove that the accused 
 person had distinctly uttered the most sacred name and cursed. 
 The witnesses were obliged, therefore, to repeat the precise 
 words heard. We see from this also why it was impossible to 
 read " Adonai " here as in other cases. The only possible way 
 of avoiding a collocation of words which would shock the ear 
 was that adopted of substituting " the name." And if the 
 substitution had been limited to the text as read aloud, it would 
 have been, we think, laudable. Doubtless the interpretation 
 above mentioned confirmed, if it did not rather give rise to, the 
 prohibition of the utterance of the name. 
 
 At a somewhat later period the orthodox party amongst the 
 Jews seem to have looked on this avoidance of the name as 
 connected with heretical notions, and vindicated the use of it 
 even in salutations, appealing to the example of Boaz, in Huth 
 ii. 4. But the feeling was too strong for them, and later on we 
 find a Rabbi declaring that whoever utters the name sliall have 
 no part in the world to come. It thus came to pass (the vowels 
 not being written) that the true pronunciation was lost, and 
 this circumstance again gave rise to the idea that it involved 
 a deep mystery and possessed miraculous power. It was said 
 that when the High Priest pronounced the name it was heard 
 as far as to Jericho, yet that those present immediately forgot 
 it. Other traditions say that he uttered it in a low voice, or 
 
THE HEBREW TEXT HKFORE THE MASSORETES. 55 
 
 absorbed the name into the preceding word. Certain later 
 stories, not denying the miracles of Jesus, but rather exag- 
 gerating them to absurdity, attribute His wonder-working 
 power to the utterance of the sacred name, of His learning 
 which they give a monstrous account. 
 
 When the vowel points were introduced, then, in accord- 
 ance with the rule observed of supplying the points of the word 
 to be read, not those of the word written, the letters IHVH 
 were provided with the vowels belonging to Adonai, " Lord," 
 except when that word occurred in immediate connexion, in 
 which case the vowels of Elohim were written. The form 
 " Jehovah " adopted in the English version is due to the utter- 
 ance of these vowels with the consonants of the text, to which 
 they do not belong, and is comparatively modern. We are 
 not, however, without means of judging with probability what 
 the original pronunciation was. Besides the etymological record 
 in Exodus, we have the testimony of some early Christian 
 writers, as Epiphanius and Theodoret. These give the pro- 
 nunciation as 'lal5i (the latter ascribing it to the Samaritans). 
 The fact that Theodoret gives this as the Samaritan, not the 
 Jewish, pronunciation is of no consequence, since it is clear that 
 he could not learn the Jewish pronunciation. 'law, which he 
 gives as Jewish, is really a contraction of the name, formed by 
 the first three letters. With the later Grreek sound of /3, 'lajSe 
 is exactly = Jahveh. It is perhaps unnecessary to remind the 
 reader that the sound which we give to the initial J of Jehovah, 
 as well as to J generally, whether in Hebrew or Latin, is a 
 mere blunder, that letter having been adopted to represent the 
 consonant sound of I ( = Y). We retain the true sound in the 
 word Hallelujah. 
 
 The Jews of a later period adopted other devices in order to 
 avoid writing the name. By merely omitting the left-hand 
 stroke of the Hebrew letter H it became D. Thus they wrote 
 IDYH, or IHVD, or IDVD. Another familiar Eabbinical 
 device was to write two yods only, or three — thus, ^^"^ — a device 
 in which some Christian controversialists saw a hidden reference 
 to the Trinity. This aversion to write the sacred name went 
 
56 THK HEBRKW TEXT BEFORE THE MASSORETES. 
 
 even further. The short form which appears in our English 
 Version as Jah consists simply of the two letters IH. In the 
 Hebrew system of numeration, in which 1 = 10 and H = 5, the 
 normal way of writing 15 would be IH. But this was objec- 
 tionable as being a form of the Divine name, therefore 15 was 
 written 0V= 9, 6, and for a similar reason 16 was written, not 
 IV, but eZ = 9, 7. 
 
 This aversion to uttering the Divine name afterwards ex- 
 tended to Elohim, and hence we occasionally find in Jewish 
 writers Eloqim substituted. It is an analogous feeling of re- 
 verence that has led to the substitution of " bleu " for " Dieu '* 
 in the oaths of the French.^ The Irish in like manner have 
 mitigated the profanity of their oaths by changes which give 
 them an unmeaning instead of a profane sound. The Ameri- 
 cans of the United States often do the same. In the case of 
 oaths, indeed, one can only be glad of such a mitigation ; but 
 the Jewish practice, when adopted in reading the Scriptures, 
 is merely superstition — a superstition, too, founded on the 
 baseless notion that IHVH is in some sense the essential 
 "proper name" of Grod. To the ancient Israelite, indeed, 
 surrounded by worshippers of false gods with many names, it 
 served in a sense the purpose of a proper name to distinguish 
 the true Grod in a way in which the word " God " would not 
 serve. But to us the notion of a " proper name " of God, 
 distinct from the name " God " itself, is unmeaning, and only 
 suggestive of polytheism, or of merely national religion. It 
 is, we venture to think, matter of very great regret that the 
 Revisers did not emancipate themselves from this Jewish 
 superstition. It is not a case of incorrect translation, but of 
 actual alteration of the text. Nor is the alteration insignifi- 
 cant ; on the contrary, it takes away the point and force of 
 many passages in which the name is expressly emphasized. 
 Take, for example, the whole of Psalm xcvi. : " Jehovah is 
 great, and greatly to be praised : he is to be feared above all 
 
 ' A curious analogy is the practice of some copyists of the Latin Gospels 
 to write " zabulus " for " diabolus." 
 
THE HEBREW TEXT HEFOHE THK MASSORETES, 57 
 
 gods. For all tlie gods of tlie nations are idols: but Jeliovah 
 made the heavens. . . . Say among the heathen that Jehovali 
 reigneth." Or Psalm xcix. : " Exalt ye Jehovah our God, and 
 worship at his holy hill." Or Psalm c. : " Know that Jehovah, 
 he is God." The word " Lord " being a mere appellative 
 which might be applied by any people to its God, we lose 
 altogether the expression of pious patriotism and rightful pride 
 in the consciousness that the God of Israel was the true God, 
 Maker of heaven and earth. " Blessed is the nation whose 
 God is Jehovah, and the people whom he hath chosen for his 
 own inheritance" (Psalm xxxiii. 12); "Jehovah hath chosen 
 Jacob for himself, and Israel for his peculiar treasure " (Psalm 
 cxxxv.) ; " For I know that Jehovah is great, and our Lord is 
 above all gods " [ibid. 6) ; " Jehovah, thy name endureth for 
 ever" [ibid. 13); "Blessed be Jehovah out of Zion, which 
 dwelleth at Jerusalem." It is only of Jehovah as the God of 
 Israel that this can be said. In Psalm cxli. 8, the word God 
 stands for Jehovah : " Mine eyes are unto thee, Jehovah, 
 Lord " (or, as probably should be read, changing a vowel, 
 " my Lord "). But the illustrations that might be taken from 
 the Psalms are endless. How the stirring history of the contest 
 between Elijah and the prophets of Baal is spoiled by the loss 
 of the opposition between the name Baal and the name Jehovah 
 (1 Kings xviii.) : "If Jehovah be God, follow him: but if 
 Baal, then follow him." Elijah prays : " Jehovah, God of 
 Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, . . . that this people may know 
 that thou, Jehovah, art God " (not " that thou art the Lord 
 God").' The people exclaim, " Jehovah, he is God." 
 
 Everywhere that the expressions " Jehovah, the God of 
 your fathers," " Jehovah, the God of Israel," occur, the point 
 is lost by the mistranslation " the Lord God of your fathers," 
 " the Lord God of Israel." Moses goes to Pharaoh with a 
 message from " Jehovah, the God of Israel," and Pharaoh 
 replies, " Who is Jehovah ? . , . I know not Jehovah " (Exodus 
 
 ' So 2 Kings xix. 19, "that all the kingdonis of the earth may know 
 that thou, Jehovah, art God, thou only." Also Joel ii. 27, " Ye shall know 
 that I, Jehovah, am your God, and none else." 
 
58 THE HEBREW TEXT BEFORE THE MASS0RETE8. 
 
 V, 1, 2, 3 ; vii. 16, &c.). Pharaoh afterwards asks Moses to 
 entreat Jehovah for him, declaring that he has sinned " against 
 Jehovah, your God." The Egyptians speak of Jehovah as 
 fighting against them. But throughout Pharaoh and his 
 people only regard Jehovah as the God of the Hebrews, not 
 as " the Lord God." The English Version gives a false 
 impression of the whole matter. We may refer in connexion 
 with these passages to the introduction to the first command- 
 ment — " I am Jehovah, thy God, which brought thee out of the 
 land of Egypt " ; and especially to the third commandment — 
 *' the name of Jehovah, thy God." Again, when Joshua says, 
 *' If it seem evil to you to serve Jehovah, choose you this day 
 whom ye will serve ; . . . but as for me and my house we will 
 serve Jehovah," and (not to quote the whole answer of the 
 people) they reply, " We will serve Jehovah, for he is our 
 God," the passage loses much by the departure from the text. 
 Once more, when Cyrus declares that Jehovah, the God of 
 Heaven, has given him the kingdoms, the significance is lost 
 in our version. Compare also Judges xi. 24 : " Wilt not thou 
 possess that whieli Chemosh, thy God, giveth thee to possess ? 
 So whomsoever Jehovah our God hath dispossessed from before 
 us, that will we possess." And 2 Kings xviii. 25, where Rab- 
 shakeh pretends that Jehovah had sent him against Jerusalem ; 
 and ibid. 35 : " Who are they among the gods of the countries, 
 that have delivered their country out of mine hand, that 
 Jehovah should deliver Jerusalem out of mine hand?" Even 
 in Exodus iii. 15, where "Jehovah" is expressly called the 
 name of the God of Abraham, the name does not appear in the 
 Euglish Version or R. V. Moses had asked what answer he 
 should give when asked what was the name of the God of their 
 fathers, and he is told to say, "Jehovah, the God of your 
 fathers, . . . hath sent me unto you ; this is my name for ever." 
 This ; what ? The name is suppressed in our version, and the 
 question remains unanswered. So again, in Exodus xxxiv. 5, 6, 
 wJiere the " name of Jehovah " is proclaimed ; in Deut. xxviii. 
 58, " that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, 
 Jehovah thy God;" in Isaiah xlii. 8, "I am Jehovah, that is 
 
THE HEBREW TEXT BEFORE THE MASSORETES. 59 
 
 my name," no name at all appears in the English Version, 
 Authorised or lievised. 
 
 As examples of passages where for IHYH Elohim was 
 substituted we may refer to 2 Sam. vii. 28, "And now Jehovah, 
 Lord, thou art God" {ibid. 18, 19, 20, 29) ; Isa. xxviii. 16, 
 " Thus saith the Lord Jehovah " {ibicL 22, xxx. 15, xlix. 22) ; 
 1. 4, 5, 7, 9, " The Lord Jehovah hath given me the tongue of 
 the learned," &c. ; Jeremiah xxxii. 17, 20, Ezekiel ii. 4, iv. 
 14, &c.— indeed very frequently in Ezekiel, the word Adonai 
 being, in all probability, inserted in order to be read instead 
 of Jehovah. Yet surely to us the most sacred of all names is 
 the name of God, and no one will allege that a greater sacred- 
 ness is to be ascribed to a name whicli, whatever its etymology 
 in the Hebrew tongue, to us merely designates God, as the 
 God of Israel. 
 
 This, we repeat, is not a question of mere propriety of 
 translation, it is one of actual departure from the text. The 
 word " Lord " or " God " is adopted, nut because it has any 
 pretence to represent " Jehovah " in meaning or otherwise, but 
 because it is the rendering of the word which Jewish supersti- 
 tion substituted for it. When this is done by the best scholars 
 of our own day, have we any right to find fault with the Jewish 
 scribes, readers, or copyists of ancient times who made greater 
 changes ? We cannot imagine any sound reason for this ad- 
 herence to an admitted corruption of the text. Two reasons, 
 indeed, have been suggested. The first, that we do not possess 
 the exact pronunciation of the name. As if the exact pronun- 
 ciation were a matter of anything but secondary cousequence 
 and antiquarian interest. Of what names do we retain the 
 correct pronunciation ? Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, James and 
 John, have but a remote resemblance to the Hebrew or Greek 
 pronunciation. Even the name Jesus has not in our mouths 
 the sound it had in those of His contemporaries. In this case, 
 as in the others mentioned, we know enough to approximate 
 pretty closely to the correct pronunciation, yet who would 
 think it desirable to make the change ? Jehovah is the recog- 
 nized English form of the name IHVH, and the Revisers have 
 
60 THE HEBREW TEXT BEFORE THE MASSORETES. 
 
 themselves admitted this by retaining it in one or two places, 
 so that they could not themselves consistently adopt this ob- 
 jection. If any have a scruple about the utterance of the 
 name, the fact that it is so altered from the original pronun- 
 ciation may be to them a ground of satisfaction. The other 
 alleged reason is that in the case of quotations from the Old 
 Testament in the New the adoption of the name in the former 
 would introduce a difference which would be undesirable. But 
 unless it is proposed that the quotations in the New Testament 
 should in all cases be assimilated to the original Hebrew, we 
 cannot see any force in this. On the contrary, there are cases 
 in which much would be gained by the reader being able to 
 recognize that the word " Lord " in the New Testament 
 represented the word "Jehovah" in the passage quoted from 
 the Old. 
 
 There is another way in which this change may have left 
 traces in the present Hebrew text. We have seen that when 
 the Massoretes wish to direct the reader to substitute Adonai 
 for Jehovah, they do so by placing the vowel points of the 
 former under the letters in the text. But before the introduc- 
 tion of the points what help could be given ? We can answer 
 this question as far as it concerns single letters thought to be 
 erroneous. The right letter was written while the wrong one 
 remained. This is the case in Exod. xxv. 31, where the con- 
 sonants of " thou shalt make " and "he shall make " are in the 
 text side by side, as if we should write " faciest " ; and this is 
 believed with probability to be the true explanation of several 
 grammatical anomalies. Now it was conjectured long ago by 
 Kennicott that the combination Jehovah Elohim in Genesis was 
 to be accounted for in this way, and some recent critics, e.g. 
 Wellhausen, have adopted the same view. 
 
 It is easy to understand how a scribe accustomed to read 
 Adonai where the letters of IHVH met his eye should some- 
 times confound the words in writing ; and accordingly we find 
 a considerable variety in manuscripts in this particular. 
 
 The word Hallelujah supplies another curious instance of 
 
THE IIKHRKW TEXT BKFOllE THE MASSORETES. 61 
 
 the reverential avoidance of the sacred name. Everyone knows 
 that Hallelujah, though written as one word, is really two ; and 
 in the Bible version of the Psalms it is regularly translated 
 "Praise the Loud." How does it come to be retained in its 
 original form, but written as one word, in the Prayer-book ? 
 The Prayer-book Version, as is well known, has descended to 
 us from the Septuagint, which writes the word 'A\\t}\ovia, and 
 of course the Latin translators retained it. The word was a 
 puzzle to the Fathers, who were ignorant of Hebrew. We find 
 such explanations of it as the following : — " al = salvum ; le = me ; 
 lu = fac ; ia=Domine." Or, "alle = pater ; lu = filius ; ia=spiritu8 
 sanctus." Or, "alle = lux; lu=vita; ia = salus." Or, again, 
 " al[tissimus] ; le[vatus in cruce] ; lu[gebant apostoli] ; ia[m 
 resurrexit]." Now the question is natural, why did the LXX 
 retain the Hebrew word, or rather words ? Light is thrown on 
 this by passages in the Talmud, e.g. Sopherim 5, 10, which 
 raise the question whether Hallelujah is one word or two. The 
 answer is that it is one, but the reason given is singularly 
 illogical. It was the rule that if the name of Grod had been 
 written by mistake it must not be erased. Now it is said that 
 in Hallelujah it is lawful to erase the final syllable ; therefore 
 it is not the name of Grod. We are not concerned with the 
 validity of the reasoning, but with the illustration it furnishes 
 of one device for avoiding the irreverent utterance of the name 
 of God, viz. attaching it so closely to the preceding word that 
 it should seem part of it. This, of coui-se, was only possible 
 with the monosyllable form of the name. It must be observed 
 that this was not the work of the Massoretes ; on the contrary, 
 they have done their best to restore the correct pronunciation, 
 and to secure a distinct Titterance, not only separating the 
 words, but placing a " mappik " in the final H. Hallelujah is 
 not the only pair of words in which this device was adopted in 
 olden times. Thus, in Ps. cxviii. 5, the final lAH is in some 
 copies joined to the preceding word, and it was so treated by 
 the LXX and Syriac. Editions generally separate the words, 
 and mark the H with " mappik." In the former clause of the 
 same verse the Massoretes have " dageshed " the i/od of lAH, 
 
62 THE HEBREW TEXT BEFORE THE MASSORETES. 
 
 this being an additional precaution against absorption, thought 
 necessary on account of the preceding word ending with the 
 same letter; so also in v. 18. 
 
 In Exod. xvi. 2, " My strength and my song is lAH," and 
 in Psalm cxviii. 14, and Isa. xii. 2, where these words are 
 quoted, although the Massoretic text correctly separates the 
 last two words, it retains traces of the earlier absorption, the 
 yod which ought to terminate the preceding word (" zimrath ") 
 having disappeared. We might reasonably think this a mere 
 slip of the scribe, due to the fact that the succeeding letter was 
 the same, but for the fact that in the other two passages the 
 same thing occurs. Moreover, in Exodus the Samaritan text 
 reads the two words as one, and the LXX has done the same. 
 In the other passage, Isa. xii. 2, there is probably another trace 
 of the ancient absorption of lAH, in the addition of the fuller 
 name IHYH, inserted, perhaps, in order to restore the sense. 
 The Septuagint, Syriac, and Yulgate express the name only 
 once, and some Hebrew mss. also omit IHVH. 
 
 There is another class of cases in which a substitution 
 somewhat analogous to that of Adonai for Jehovah was made 
 at a still earlier period, not indeed in the text, but before 
 the histories were written ; we refer to the substitution of 
 " bosheth " = " shame " for "Baal." When we find the same 
 person called "shame's man " (Ish-bosheth) and "Baal's man" 
 (Esh-baal, 1 Chron. ix. 39), we see at once that the latter was 
 his real name, and that it was changed as an expression of 
 contempt for Baal. It is, indeed, incredible that Saul or any 
 other king should name his son "man of shame." In Chroni- 
 cles the name Baal remaining in the text, the signification 
 " Baal's man" is avoided by pronouncing Esh-baal instead of 
 Ish-baal. A later Ishbosheth or Ishbaal has been referred to 
 in the preceding essay, p. 17. Another instance of the same 
 kind is " Mephibosheth," whose real name was " Merib-baal " 
 (1 Chron. ix. 40). The change of R into P may have been due 
 to a clerical error or to a different etymologising of the name. 
 The name of Jerubbaal again becomes, in 2 Sam. xi. 21, 
 Jerubbesheth. This is an interesting example, being the only 
 
THE HEBREW TEXT BEFORE THE MASSORETES. 63 
 
 instance in which tliis particular name was changed. Moreover, 
 in this case the change has not touohed the LXX, whicli lias 
 'lipoftuaX. What preserved "Jerubbaal" from change wlien 
 the other names were changed was doubtless its etymology 
 as explained in Judges vi. Ji2, which removed all motive for 
 alteration. When " Baal " was at the beginning of the name, 
 as in that of a son of David, called '* Baaljada " = " Baal 
 knows" (1 Chron. xiv. 7), a different means of getting rid 
 of the offensive word was adopted. Either the pronunciation 
 was changed so that, in the place referred to, our text is printed 
 " Beeljada," or Baal was altered to " El," so that the same 
 person is in 1 Chron. iii. 8, and in 2 Sam. v. 16, called 
 " Eliada." 
 
 But perhaps the reader will exclaim, Are we asked to sup- 
 pose that Saul, for example, who is not charged with idolatry, 
 and who called his son " Jonathan " = " Jehovah gives," called 
 another son after the false deity Baal ? or that Jonathan him- 
 self did the like in the case of his son Merib-baal ? Not at all ; 
 the true inference is, that at that time the word " baal " had 
 not become specialized as the name of a false deity, but was 
 used simply in its sense of " Lord " (which is its proper and 
 familiar signification in Hebrew), and in that sense was used of 
 the true God.' One of David's men is even called Bealjah, i.e. 
 " Jah is Lord " (1 Chron. xii. 5). Of this use we have distinct 
 mention in Hosea ii. 16, " It shall be at that day, saith Je- 
 hovah, that thou shalt call me Ishi ; and shalt call me no more 
 Baali." And in making the changes referred to, the people 
 acted in literal accordance with the following verse : " I will 
 take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth," so that in 
 consequence of its association with the name of the false deity 
 it should no more be applied to Grod in its sense of " Lord." 
 
 The substitution of " Bosheth," '' Shame," for '' Baal " was 
 probably suggested by the words of Hosea in ch. ix. 10, " they 
 went to Baalpeor, and separated themselves to the Shame." 
 
 ' A grand-uncle of Saul bore the name of " Baal" simply (1 Chron. 
 viii. 30). 
 
64 THE HEBREW TEXT BEFORE THE MASSORETES. 
 
 Jeremiah also suggests it in eh. xi. 13, " Te have set up altars 
 to the Sliame, even altars to burn incense unto Baal." ^ The 
 reader will remember Hosea's change of " Bethel " to " Beth- 
 aven," " House of Grod " to " House of Nothingness " or " of 
 idols" (iv. 15; x. 5). Although the name Baal has not been 
 displaced from the Hebrew text, the version of the LXX gives 
 reason to suppose that sometimes, at least, the reader substituted 
 ^'Bosheth." In 1 Kings xviii. 19, 25, the LXX have for 
 " Baal " T} alcrxvvt). The text known as 17 Kotvrj compromises 
 by writing 1) (SaaX. And this (as Dillmann has pointed out) is 
 the true explanation of the use of the feminine article with 
 (5aa\, a usage most consistently carried out in the Book of 
 Jeremiah, and which commentators have unsuccessfully tried 
 to explain in other ways, as, for instance, that Baal was an 
 androgynous deity, or that the feminine was used by way of 
 contempt. 
 
 It is clear from what we have shown that the Massoretes 
 deserve the credit of an honest determination to present a cor- 
 rect text, and moreover of skill and sagacity in carrying out this 
 determination so far as their resources enabled them to do so. 
 It was from want of manuscript authority that they were 
 unable to grapple with the many corruptions of the only text 
 they possessed, or even to suspect their existence. But we see 
 also that there were earlier scribes who were less skilful and 
 less careful of the integrity of the text. 
 
 1 Compare Hosea iv. 7, where the correct reading is: "They have 
 exchanged their Glory for Shame." " Their Glory " is used to signify 
 Jehovah also in Jer. ii. 11. 
 
III. 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT LEXICOGRAPHY. 
 
 A CONTEMPORARY scliolar, who has devoted a considerable part 
 of his life to the collection and editing of fragments of the 
 Greek comic poets, has included in his collection a portion of 
 the sublime words of St. Paul in 2 Tim. iv. 6, " I am now 
 
 ready to be offered, and the time of my " Here his 
 
 extract ends. He finds that the first four words would make 
 half an iambic tetrameter, and makes the remark that although 
 they are " ipsa nocte obscuriora," they are manifestly the rem- 
 nant of an iambic tetrameter, extracted (viz. by the gramma- 
 rian in whom he finds them) from a comedy ! This may serve 
 as an illustration of the strangeness of the vocabulary of the 
 Greek Testament to a purely classical scholar, although no 
 doubt in this case it was not so much the word <nrivSofxai itself 
 as the figure involved, that proved such a stumbling-block. 
 Hence the ordinary lexicons are entirely inadequate — it would 
 hardly be too much to say, useless — to the student of the New 
 Testament. Indeed, until recently they were of little use even 
 to the student of Aristotle. There is a great gap between the 
 vocabulary of Aristotle, and that, not merely of the dramatists, 
 but even of Plato. But between Aristotle and St. Paul there 
 is an interval of four centuries, as great as between Cicero 
 and Jerome, or between Chaucer and Johnson. Besides the 
 
66 NEW TESTAMENT LEXICOGRAPHY. 
 
 distance in time, which of itself would account for great difference 
 in vocabulary, there is the difference in the circumstances of 
 place and society to be taken into account. Connected with 
 this is, of course, the influence of Hebrew habits of thought. 
 This is, as far as the language is concerned, less than is some- 
 times supposed. Expressions characterized as Hebraisms may 
 in not a few instances be paralleled in classical writers, the 
 difference being in their frequency. As these Hebraisms, 
 however, affect the phraseology more than the vocabulary, we 
 shall not dwell on them. 
 
 There is another circumstance which must not be omitted. 
 The writers of the New Testament were for the most part not 
 literary persons, or authors by profession. St. Paul, indeed, 
 had literary culture, but all his writings are letters written 
 clearly without regard to literary form. Indeed, the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews is the only piece of what may be called literary 
 work in the whole volume. What should we have thought of 
 some of even Cicero's Letters if they had dated from a.d. 300, 
 and if Plautus had not survived to show that what appears 
 novel is merely colloquial ? We have no similar monument of 
 colloquial Greek, and it is very curious that Cicero himself 
 sometimes uses in his Letters a Greek expression which must 
 have been familiar, and yet which we do not find in any clas- 
 sical Greek author. By the labours of many scholars the Greek 
 of the New Testament has attained its proper recognition as a 
 legitimate form of Hellenic speech, with a style and character 
 and dignity of its own, perfectly adapted to its own purpose, 
 and governed essentially by the same principles as other Hel- 
 lenic speech. Commentators of our own day have shown that 
 we gain rather than lose by applying to its interpretation the 
 strictest rules of lexicon and grammar. 
 
 The latest and most important labourers in the field of 
 lexicography are Grimm, Cremer, and Thayer, to whom we 
 may add the name of Eield, although he has not produced a 
 lexicon. With him, as he says in his preface, " the study of 
 the Greek language and literature, especially in connexion 
 with the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and 
 
NEW TESTAMENT LEXICOGRAPHY. 67 
 
 New Testaments, has been not so much the 2)ii>'suit as the passion 
 of a life protracted far beyond the ordinary limits." His small 
 book, modestly entitled Otium Norvicense : Pars Tevtia, is full 
 of valuaLlo observations and illustrations from the less read and 
 later Greek authors, 
 
 Cremer's Lexicon does not aim at completeness. It is, as 
 its title professes, a Biblico- Theological Lexicon, and is particu- 
 larly full and useful on theological terms. Grimm's Lexicon 
 aims at completeness. It first appeared as a revised edition of 
 Wilke's Clavis, in which, however, little of the original Wilke 
 remained. Its value has been long known to students, and in 
 Professor Thayer's translation this value is very much enhanced. 
 Everywhere the Professor has supplied new matter of a most 
 useful kind, including additional references to ancient authors, 
 as well as to the most recent English and foreign works in 
 which fresh light may be looked for. The readings of Westcott 
 and Hort are carefully noted. Some articles have received 
 large additions, e.g. alu)v. In its present form the book is 
 simply indispensable to the student of the Greek Testament. 
 
 Some interesting studies in lexicography will be found in 
 the second of Dr. Hatcli's most interesting and valuable Essai/s 
 in Biblical Greek. We shall have occasion presently to refer 
 critically to some of his conclusions.^ 
 
 The amount of the influence of the Septuagint Version on 
 the language of the New Testament is very often exaggerated. 
 It must be remembered that it was a translation for the most 
 part very literal, although in some books frequently giving the 
 sense rather than the literal rendering. The occurrence, there- 
 fore, of peculiarities in the use either of words or of phrases 
 which result from the literal rendering of the Hebrew is no 
 evidence of usage, nor does it, except in special cases, create 
 a usage. Perhaps the best illustration of tliis is furnished by 
 
 ' It is proper to observe that the present article had actually been passed 
 for press before the unexpected and lamented death of Dr. Hatch. It is 
 believed that the Concordance to the Septuagint in which he was engaged 
 is in a state sufficiently advanced to admit readily of completion and 
 publication. 
 
 F2 
 
68 NEW TESTAMENT LEXICOGRAPHY. 
 
 the English Bible itself, which, however, is by no means so 
 literal as the Septuagint Version, and has exercised a far greater 
 influence on the English language generally than the Greek 
 Version is known to have exercised on any Grreek dialect. 
 Take, for example, the word " peculiar " in " peculiar people." 
 The Biblical use of the word has in no wise affected its signi- 
 ficance ; on the contrary, its ordinary sense has obscured its 
 Biblical meaning, so that even professional theologians liave 
 frequently been misled by it to the perversion of the apostolic 
 words ; yet these theologians are supposed to have the original 
 text at hand, and to be able to consult it, not to speak of the 
 multitude of secondary aids which they possess. A similar 
 remark applies to the word " offend," " giving offence," i. e. 
 occasion of stumbling. This, which is almost exclusively the 
 usage in the New Testament, never occurs in modern writers. 
 
 So with regard to phrases. " Accept persons," so common 
 in the New Testament, is never used, although it has no exact 
 equivalent. Earely indeed have we met even professed students 
 of theology who had any idea of the meaning of the words 
 " led captivity captive," although the occurrence of the phrase 
 in the Song of Deborah might have taught them that it simply 
 meant " led captive a body of captives." The false interpre- 
 tation suggested by the English idiom is even embodied in a 
 hymn by Dr. Haweis, sung by many a congregation with a 
 good meaning of its own no doubt, but without the slightest 
 inkling of its Biblical meaning, 
 
 " Shadow of death " is another phrase to which we shall 
 presently have to refer, adopted indeed from the Bible, but not 
 in its Biblical signification. It is universally employed in the 
 sense which it would have had if framed by our English authors. 
 Similarly, *' to take God's name in vain " has become a current 
 phrase, but the meaning it has in the Old Testament is entirely 
 lost, even theologians often ignoring it. It means, we need 
 hardly say, " to swear falsely." 
 
 Again, "to see eye to eye " is a phrase borrowed from the 
 Bible (Is. lii. 8), but applied by the most intelligent borrowers 
 in a sense which is neither Biblical nor natural. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT LEXICOGRAPHY. 69 
 
 Nor has the English Bible been able to preserve either 
 words or significations once current from disappearing. A 
 notable example is " quick " in the sense of " living," although 
 it is not only in the Bible but in the Creed. "Hell" and 
 " damn " are other important examples ; the number of those 
 less important is very great. For our part, when we read the 
 Septuagint what strikes us is its unlikeness to the language of 
 the New Testament. Taking as one example the Slst Psalm, 
 which must have been very familiar, and noting only words 
 which might easily have found a place in the New Testament, 
 we have ai'o/i>j/xa, aKovri^Wj avravaipiio, aja6vvo>, tuooKew With 
 an accusative (not in the New Testament, except in a quotation 
 from this psalm), lyKaiviKo) in the sense "renew," while in 
 the New Testament it has only the sense " consecrate " or 
 " inaugurate." Glancing at the preceding psalm (50), we find 
 in one verse (19) TrepnrXtKU), SoXiorrje, and the verb 7rA£oi'a^o>, 
 " to increase," a signification which it has not in the New 
 Testament. Similar instances are furnished by nearly every 
 page. Then as to phrases : TroitXv pruna is common in the 
 LXX, but never occurs in the New Testament ; uvai slg with 
 accusative, instead of tlvai with the nominative, is a common 
 LXX construction, but is found in the New Testament only in 
 quotations. Aaf.i(5avnv tt/ooVwttoi' is a phrase which has got into 
 use from the LXX, but not in the LXX signification. In the 
 Old Testament it means simply " to show favour " ; in the New 
 "to show partiality." The phrase was adopted from the Sep- 
 tuagint, but not the meaning, which was apparently determined 
 by the influence of the common Grreek use of irpofTwiTov as a 
 character assumed. 
 
 Amongst the very useful tables appended to Professor 
 Thayer's Lexicon is a list of post-Aristotelian words in the 
 New Testament. This list does not include the words which 
 first made their appearance between B.C. 150 and B.C. 100. It 
 contains 318 words, of which only fifteen are found in the 
 Septuagint (or Apocrypha), and none are confined to these. 
 Another list is of " Biblical Words." This includes words 
 which first appeared in secular authors between B.C. 150 and 
 
70 NEW TESTAMENT LEXICOGRAPHY. 
 
 B.C. 100, as well as those which first appeared between a.ti. 50 
 and A.D. 100 (these [76] are also in the former list). This list 
 includes 767 words, of which only 191, just one-fourth, are 
 found in the Septuagint ; but about half of these are in other 
 writers also, as the body of the Lexicon shows. A third table 
 is of " Biblical Significations." The total number is 375, of 
 which only 160, or less than lialf, occui' in the Septuagint 
 (including the Apocrypha, which furnishes 20). Several of 
 these instances, moreover, are only quotations from the Septua- 
 gint. On the other hand, if we examine the vocabulary of the 
 New Testament we find numerous words and significations not 
 included in these lists, and not found in the Septuagint. For 
 example, (daara^o), found twenty-seven times in the New 
 Testament, occurs twice in the Apocrypha, and once only in 
 the version of canonical books. The same is the case with 
 /3f/3atoc. Bapih) is not either in Sej)tuagint or Apocrypha, 
 nor j3paSt'c> ftpa^vvu), or (5pa^vTi)g. 'Ai^iog occurs once in the 
 Apocrypha, not elsewhere ; aidiwr never. 
 
 'AyaTTTj is worth dwelling on for a moment. This is a 
 peculiarly Biblical word, not found in profane authors (except 
 once in Philo), although they use the verb ayawab), from 
 which we may infer that the substantive must have been at one 
 time in use. However, the substantive in actual use was the 
 verbal derivative ayaTrr)(rig. 'Ayain] is specially appropriated 
 in the New Testament to what Aristotle calls ^iXia avev 
 iraBovQ Kol Tov artpyHv,^ and accordingly is applied to the 
 love of God and to Grod, as well as to the love to one another 
 which is a duty but does not include affection. There is no 
 trace of this in the Septuagint. The word occurs there in all 
 fifteen times, of which two are in Ecclesiastes (ix. 1, 6) and 
 eleven in Canticles. Of the remaining passages one is 2 Sam. 
 xiii. 15 (Amnon and Tamar), where it applies to sexual love, 
 and the other Jer, ii. 2. The classical word ayawriaig occurs in 
 about six places, and in four of these it expresses what in the 
 New Testament is ayairri. Ex.gr. Jer. xxxi. 3, " I have loved 
 thee with an everlasting love;" Hosea xi. 4, "I drew them 
 
 1 Eth. Nic. IV. vi. 5. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT LEXICOGRAPHY. 71 
 
 with bands of love ;" alsoZeph. iii. 17, and Ps. cix. 5. In the 
 fifth passage (1 Sam. i. 26) it occurs twice, " Thy love for me 
 was wonderful, passing the love of women." Now if the Sep- 
 tuagint usage had been the guide, ayan^aiq, and not ayairr], 
 would have been the word adopted. The verb ayarrau), it 
 may be observed, is used of sexual love in the Septuagint, as 
 well as occasionally in later writers. Professor Thayer, cor- 
 recting Grimm, who says it cannot be so used, refers (under 
 (piXiu)) to two passages in Plutarch where it is so used, but 
 has not observed that it also occui'S in the Septuagint, cx.gr. 
 1 Kings xi. 2 ; Hosea iii. 1 ; Is. Ivii. 8 ; Ezek. xvi. 37. A 
 third word for love, (piXia, is found six times in the Book of 
 Proverbs (in two of which it is sexual love), and only once in 
 the New Testament (James iv. 4, '' friendship of the world"). 
 The word vwofiovii, again, so familiar as the name of a Chris- 
 tian virtue, although occurring in the Septuagint, has there 
 an entirely different meaning, viz. " expectation." "A^Eo-tc, a 
 regular term in the New Testament for " remission " of sins, 
 never has that sense in the Septuagint. It means " release, 
 dismissal," a sense which in the New Testament it has only in 
 a quotation. 
 
 Again, the technical sense of Kotvo'c, " common or unclean," 
 is one which might be supposed to have been peculiarly Hel- 
 lenistic. But it is not found in the canonical books, where, 
 indeed, the word itself occurs but twice, and with the significa- 
 tion " in common." The New Testament sense appears, indeed, 
 twice in the First Book of tlie Maccabees. The verb koivooj 
 does not occur at all. KaraKpivio, again, occurs once only in 
 the canonical books, viz. in Esther. But we need not multiply 
 these illustrations. The instances we have selected are of words 
 which there was occasion for using. 
 
 Such facts as these show that the influence of the Septua- 
 gint version on the vocabulary of the New Testament was not 
 predominant, and that to make the usage of the former deter- 
 mine the interpretation of the latter, except in the case of terms 
 of Hebrew theology, is quite out of the question. 
 
 It will be seen from what we have said that we cannot 
 
72 NEW TESTAMENT LEXICOGRAPHY. 
 
 agree with Dr. Hatch that the fact of the Septuagint or other 
 Grreek translators rendering a Hebrew word generally or even 
 uniformly by a certain Greek word is a proof that the meaning 
 of the latter is the same as that of the former. He lays down 
 as canons " almost self-evident " : — " (1) A word which is used 
 uniformly or with few and intelligible exceptions, as the trans- 
 lation of the same Hebrew word, must be held to have in Bib- 
 lical Greek the same meaning as that Hebrew word ; (2) words 
 which are used interchangeably as translations of the same 
 Hebrew word, or group of cognate words, must be held to have 
 in Biblical Greek an allied or virtually identical meaning." 
 However apparently self-evident these canons may be they 
 are really fallacious. An example or two will best show the 
 grounds for our hesitation. The first we take is the word 
 vn-oKpiTTjQ. This is used by Aquila, Symmachus and Theodo- 
 tion as a rendering of the Hebrew word ^{IH, which means 
 " impious," and which the Septuagint translators had rendered 
 by aaejS/icj or the like. Dr. Hatch thinks that " these facts 
 seem to show that early in the second century, and among 
 Greek-speaking Jews, v7roKpiTr]Q had come to mean more than 
 merely ' the actor of a false part in life.' It connoted positive 
 badness." And he proceeds to say that this sense seems more 
 appropriate than any other in certain passages of the Synoptic 
 Gospels (Matt. xxiv. 51 ; xxiii. 28 ; Mark xii, 15). But Jerome 
 also renders the Hebrew word by " hypocrita " as the Author- 
 ized Version does by " hypocrite," yet it would hardly be said 
 that these words must therefore be synonymous with the He- 
 brew. The explanation is simply this : in the later Hebrew 
 the word did mean " hypocrite," and this meaning passed even 
 into Hebrew lexicons, in some of which it appears to the present 
 day.^ And this accounts for the fact that the Hexapla trans- 
 lators thought proper to substitute for the Septuagint rendering 
 offf j3»jc another which seemed to them, not a synonymous word, 
 but the true meaning of the Hebrew. As to the New Testa- 
 
 ^ It is the word given for "hypocrite" in Joseph's English- Hebrew 
 Lexicon. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT LEXICOGRAPHY. 73 
 
 ment, surely in Matt, xxiii. it is not simply badness or impiety 
 of the Pharisee^ that is denounced, but the inconsistency of 
 thoir punctilious observance of small matters and neglect of the 
 more essential. In fact the verses describe tlie very type of 
 hypocrisy. And in Mark xii. 15, "knowing their hypocrisy," 
 the parallels iravovpyia in Luke and Trovi^pia in Matthew do 
 not prove that vTroKpiaig has lost its special meaning. The 
 question referred to was essentially hypocritical. St. Luke's 
 iravovpyia, which is rather " knavishness " than " malice," in- 
 dicates the same thing ; but though the three words were all 
 applicable, they are not synonymous. The question being 
 hypocritically put, the conduct of the questioners might be 
 called more generally knavishness, and still more generally 
 wickedness. 
 
 Not very dissimilar is the case of SiKatoavvrf. According 
 to Dr. Hatch, while the classical meaning of this word is found 
 both in the Septuagint and in the New Testament, there is 
 intertwined with it another meaning which is peculiar to 
 Hellenistic Greek, viz. kindness, tXtrjjuocTvvj). In fact " the 
 meanings of the two words SiKaioavvi] and IXsr^/jLoavvi] had in- 
 terpenetrated each other." This inference is based on the fact 
 that the word for "kindness" ("Tpn) usually {i.e. more than 
 one hundred times) rendered by iXeog or the like, is nine times 
 rendered by ^iKoiorrvvi] and once by SiKaiog, while the word 
 npTV' " justice," usually (about one hundred and twenty-eight 
 times) rendered by diKuiocrvvri, is nine times translated eXejjjuo- 
 avvn f-^d three times tXeog.^ Here again it is in the Hebrew 
 tliat we find the explanation of the facts. In the later Hebrew 
 npTV means " almsgiving." Thus it is said, " He that doeth 
 righteousness [i. e. giveth alms] in secret is greater than Moses." 
 The transition of meaning is analogous to that of our own word 
 " charity." What the Septuagint translation proves is, not 
 that the Greek word cAetj/uoctui'?/ had changed its meaning, but 
 that this special notion was attached to the Hebrew word even 
 in their day. Indeed, some interpreters have thought that it 
 
 • The masculine form p^V ^^ rendered iiKaioavvj) 82 times. 
 
74 NEW TESTAMENT LEXICOGRAPHY. 
 
 was used in the sense of " liberality " or " kindness " in the 
 Hebrew text itself, e.g. Prov. x. 2; xi. 5. 
 
 As to the rendering of the word "TpH, it is to be observed 
 that this word means not only " kindness," but " piety " or 
 *' godliness." The adjective connected with it is the regular 
 word for "saints." In. Isaiah Ivii. 1, "men of 'chesed'" is 
 actually synonymous with " righteous." " The righteous per- 
 isheth, and no man layeth it to heart, and ' men of piety ' are 
 taken away, none considering that the righteous is taken away 
 from the evil to come." Here the LXX have ^UaioQ three 
 times, quite correctly as to sense. The English Version has 
 " merciful men," but the last clause makes it evident that the 
 meaning is "righteous" (Revised Version, margin, "godly"). 
 In Hosea vi. 5 we have a similar use of the word : " Eph- 
 raim, what shall I do unto thee ? Judah, what shall I do 
 unto thee ? for your ' goodness ' is as a morning cloud, and as 
 the early dew it goeth away." Here the LXX wrongly have 
 iXhoq. (Compare Prov. xxi. 21.) In 2 Chron. vi. 42, xxxii. 32, 
 the good deeds of David and Hezekiah are called by the same 
 word. In Ps. ci. 1 the Psalmist says he will sing of " chesed " 
 and judgment. Now he sings of righteousness and judgment ; 
 there is not a word of " mercy." In Prov. xx. 28 it is said 
 that the king's throne is upholden by " chesed," and, in the 
 former part of the verse, that he is preserved by " chesed " and 
 truth. Elsewhere often it is said that the king's throne is 
 established by righteousness (as in Prov. xxv. 5). 
 
 These examples show that the rendering occasionally 
 adopted by the LXX can be accounted for by the connota- 
 tion of the Hebrew word, without having recourse to the sup- 
 position that the Grreek word had put on a new meaning. This 
 is confirmed by the fact that the subsequent Greek translators 
 give no hint of such a meaning of the Greek. This circum- 
 stance has, indeed, induced Dr. Hatch to suggest that it was a 
 local peculiarity. 
 
 There is one passage in the New Testament in which Dr. 
 Hatch thinks the above-mentioned meaning of ^iKaioavvn " is 
 fio clear that scribes who were unaware of its existence altered 
 
NEW TESTAMENT I.EXICOGRAPHY. 75 
 
 the text " — viz. Matt. vi. 1, where the genuiae reading is 
 BiKaioavvri. It appears to us much better, with Fritzsche and 
 Meyer, to suppose that vor. 1 gives a general precept, which is 
 then applied in particular to almsgiving (ver. 2), to prayer 
 (ver. 5), and to fasting (ver. 16). Copyists, not seeing this, 
 thought that ver. 1 was equivalent to ver. 2, and cliauged the 
 word. 
 
 Dr. Hatch on similar grounds interprets the adjective 
 SiKaioQ in Matt. i. 19 as " kindly "—" Joseph being a kindly 
 man." Now there is still less reason for supposing such a 
 transition of meaning in the adjective than in the substantive ; 
 but Dr. Hatch is so far right in his conclusion that BiKaiog is 
 not to be taken as meaning " severely just." It is often " fair, 
 good." Of this we have instances in classical writers, who use 
 it of a good physician, a good chariot, good land, &c.' In the 
 New Testament (1 John i. 9) TriaTog koX ^Uaiog, " faithful and 
 just," it certainly does not mean "exacting what justice re- 
 quires," nor even " giving what has been deserved." In Matt. 
 v. 45 "the just and the unjust" = " the evil and the good." 
 In Matt. xiii. 4, 7 it is " whatever is fair ye shall receive." 
 Joseph of Arimathea, also, is said to have been "just and 
 good." In liom. v. 7 it seems to be used synonymously with 
 ayaOog, as in the passage of St. Matthew just quoted — " Hardly 
 for a righteous man will one die, [hardly, I say,] for perhaps 
 for such a man one might die." The attempts to make a con- 
 trast here have not succeeded. Aikuioq nowhere appears as 
 contrasted with ayaOog.'^ This also illustrates Eom. iii. 26. 
 
 Dr. Hatch endeavours to prove that aoeTrj had in the LXX 
 the meaning " praise," and he regards this as the most appro- 
 priate sense in Phil. iv. 8 : " Finally, brethren, whatsoever 
 things are true, whatsoever things are honourable . . . just . . . 
 pure . . . lovely ... of good report (rather, ' gracious ') ; if there 
 
 ' 5. i-nrpSs, Hippocr. p. 19, 22 ; Su/ia, id. apfxa, Xen. Cyr. 2, 2, 26 ; 
 liriros, id. Mem. 4, 4, 5; 'I. Trivyvddou, Pollux 1, 196 ; yvStov, Xen. Cyr. 8, 3, 'M. 
 
 ■ Plato supplies au admirable illustration of this : 6 SUatos ^m*"" a.vair4<f>ai'- 
 Toi &v ayadds re Ka\ ffo(p6s {Hep. 350 c). This might be taken as a definition. 
 
76 NEW TESTAMENT LEXICOGRAPHY. 
 
 be any virtue, and if there be any praise, tliink on these things." 
 His inference is founded on the fact that the word is used in 
 the Septuagint four times (in Isaiah) where the Hebrew has 
 " praises [tehilldth) of God," and twice similarly for " glory." 
 So far as this usage can be said to exist, it is classical, not Hel- 
 lenistic. There are several passages in Plato where agtr-n is 
 co-ordinated with ^6^a. Ex.gr. Symp. 208 : vTrtp aperfjc aQav- 
 UTOv Kni ToiavTiqc; Sosjjc iVKXeovg iravreg Travra iroiovcnv. Thu- 
 cydides has: ^ipuvaa tg fxtv rovg TToXXovg apart'iv (i. 32). 
 Sophocles, again : (having gone through labour) aOavarou 
 aptTrjv eaxov [Philoct. 1406). In these, and other instances, 
 interpreters have given the word the signification " fame " or 
 the like. Eost and Palm's Lexicon rightly dissents from this, 
 saying that the word means " moral greatness and the recogni- 
 tion of it." It is, indeed, a grave fault in a lexicographer or 
 interpreter to assume that because a word has a modified 
 meaning when used in a particular connexion, therefore it may 
 2oer se bear the same. As to aptrj) there is, in fact, much less 
 ground for assigning it the meaning " praise " in the LXX 
 than in Plato or Thucydides. In the four passages referred 
 to (Is. xlii. 8, 12 ; xliii. 21 ; Ixiii. 7), where aperri = tehilldth, it 
 is the praises of Grod that are spoken of ; and in three of them 
 the publication of these. In Is. Ixiii. 7, " I will make mention 
 of the loving-kindness of the Lord and the praises of the Lord 
 . . . and the great goodness . . . which he hath bestowed," all 
 the modern commentators whom we have at hand, including 
 Bredenkamp, Cheyne, Delitzsch, and Knobel, interpret the 
 Hebrew word as = " deeds of renown " or the like. Gesenius 
 recognizes as one of the meanings of tehillah "object of praise." 
 This is the natural, and indeed necessary, interpretation where- 
 ever the declaration or showing forth of God's " praises " is 
 mentioned, as in Is. xliii. 21, " My people whom I acquired to 
 relate my praises." What are we to understand by the expres- 
 sion in the Song of Moses, " Who is like thee, glorious in holi- 
 ness,- fearful in praises {OavfxaaTog tv do^aig), doing wonders ? " 
 (Exod. XV. 11). Surely the "praises" of God here are his 
 glorious perfections. Is it not reasonable to suppose that the 
 
NEW TESTAMENT LEXICOGRAPHY. 77 
 
 translator of Isaiah used the word aoeTrj to express this ; and 
 does he not show his discrimination by using the word only in 
 this connexion ? And would not the translator of Ps. ix. 14 
 have done better had he used aperrj instead of alverrigy which 
 Schleusner finds himself there compelled to interpret as = 
 " laudes, h. e. facta insignia ac laude digna."' Truly the 
 translator's fate was hard ! If he adheres to the literal ren- 
 dering of the Hebrew, it is intimated that he is stupidly literal ; 
 if with tolerable correctness he departs from the literal render- 
 ing and gives the sense, he gets no credit ; he is assumed to 
 have intended to be literal and to have hit on a suitable word 
 only because he did not know its meaning. 
 
 In Hab. iii. 3, where apcrj) = " glory " (E. V.), we have a 
 glowing poetical description of the manifestation of the Divine 
 Majesty, " Grod came from Teman, and the Holy One from 
 Mount Paran. His glory (optrjj) covered the heavens, and the 
 earth was full of his praise" (alvsaig). Here it is surely not 
 " praise " but manifested glory that covered the heavens. Here 
 luvicTig is not well chosen. The translator of Isaiah would 
 probably have given us ^6^a and apev)). That apsrii was not 
 = " praise " is shown by the fact that it is not used for " praise " 
 simply (where atvecng, for example, would be better), but only 
 for the praise of God. The later translators wishing to adhere 
 more closely to the Hebrew, substituted the more literal ren- 
 derings, vfivrimg, iiraivog, &c. And it may be added that the 
 passage in Philippians would lose rather than gain by Dr. 
 Hatch's interpretation. St. Paul exhorts his converts to think 
 on or take account of whatever is noble, honourable, gracious. 
 What a descent to tell them to make fame and praise their 
 object ! How thoroughly unapostolic ! Rather does aptTi) 
 determine the meaning of iiraivog here to be, according to a 
 usual figure, like the Latin " laus," " deserving of praise." 
 1 Pet. ii. 9 is different, but then this is an actual quotation 
 from the LXX. In 2 Pet. i. 3 aov KoXiaavTOg rifiag Sm Sosrjc 
 KOI aptrrig (or ISin So^y Kcu apery), it is not easy to see what 
 
 ' Cf. Ps. Ixv. 1 : SSre S6^av TJ) aJveVej auToC =" majestati ejus" (Schleusner). 
 
78 NEW TESTAMENT LEXICOGRAPHY. 
 
 interpretation Dr. Hatch can have had in his mind which would 
 make the rendering " praise " even possible. 
 
 There are other suggestions of Dr. Hatch which impress us 
 more favourably : for example, his interpretation o-f inipaanoQ 
 as =" trial," i.e. " tribulation, affliction," a signification which 
 is, indeed, recognized once in the Authorized Version (1 Pet. 
 iv. 12), and oftener in the Revised (Acts xx. 19, text ; Rev. iii. 
 10, text ; Jas. i. 2, margin ; 1 Pet. i. 6, margin), and which 
 might well have been adopted also in St. Luke viii. 13. Dr. 
 Hatch would adopt this sense also in the Lord's Prayer, and a 
 similar sense for the verb in Heb. iv. 15, as well as in St. Matt, 
 iv. 1 and the parallels. In all this, however, he has been anti- 
 cipated by Bretschneider. 
 
 A group of words discussed by Dr. Hatch in illustration of 
 his principles is irivrig, TTpavg, Trrw^oc, and TaTTsivog. These 
 words, he says, " are in the LXX so constantly interchanged 
 as to exclude the possibility of any sharp distinction between 
 them." We shall not controvert this as regards Trivrjc and 
 TTTwxoC) l^ut the fact only supplies another instance of the dif- 
 ference between the vocabulary of the LXX and that of the 
 New Testament ; for irivvg does not enter the latter at all (its 
 one occurrence being in a quotation), and 7rrw;^6c retains its 
 distinctive signification. 
 
 The word which interests us, however, is irpavg, which, 
 according to Dr. Hatch, is used " interchangeably " with the 
 other three to render the Hebrew words 'dni, " afflicted," and 
 ^dndv, " meek." Such interchange would seem rather to prove 
 that the translators did not properly distinguish the Hebrew 
 words than that they confounded the Greek. But in fact it is 
 not possible to draw such a sharp distinction between these two 
 Hebrew words except on the assumption that we are free to 
 alter the Hebrew text in accordance with it — an assumption 
 which, however admissible in itself, would be fatal to Dr. 
 Hatch's inference, which requires that the LXX should have 
 had the same reading that we have. The ordinary lexicons 
 assign both meanings to both words, and with the present text 
 this is unavoidable. Indeed, Bottcher regards the words as 
 
NEW TESTAMENT LEXICOGRAPHY. 79 
 
 identical, ^dndv being- only an archaic and poetic form. How- 
 ever, the graphical difference between the words is so slight 
 that they are very liable to be confounded, and, in fact, the 
 Massorah indicates several places in which they have been mis- 
 taken one for the other. It is curious that Dr. Hutch cites 
 indifferently the textual and marginal readings of such pas- 
 sages. Thus he states that ^dndv is rendered 7rru>;^oc in Prov. 
 xiv. 21, and rainivog in Prov. iii. 34, whereas in both passages 
 the text has '«/«'. Again, he states that 'diii is rendered irpavq 
 in Job xxiv. 4, irivi]Q in Ps. ix. 19, and TairHvoq in Is. xxxii. 7, 
 in all which cases the textual reading is ^dndv. On the other 
 hand, in Ps. ix. 13 (quoted for 'dni = irivr]q) the marginal read- 
 ing is %ndv.^ 
 
 These notes of the Massorah show that in very early times 
 the words were believed to have been sometimes confounded ; 
 and either their meanings were interchanged or this confusion 
 occurred in other instances not mentioned in tlie Massorah. 
 The former supposition is expressly adopted by some lexico- 
 graphers, ex. (jr. Fiirst, but the latter is perhaps preferable. 
 One such passage is Zech. ix. 9 : " Behold, thy King cometh 
 unto thee . . . lowly and riding upon an ass." Here the text has 
 'a;//, without any marginal correction, but the sense is doubtless 
 that given in the Authorized Version and retained in the Re- 
 vised. The Targum, moreover, renders *' lowly " here, as also 
 in Zeph. iii. 12 and Is. xlix. 13. Another instance in which 
 the same sense is required is Is. Ixvi. 2 : "To this man will I 
 look, even to him that is lowly and of a contrite spirit." Here 
 again the Targum has "lowly " (E. Y. "poor," LXX Ta-rruvoq). 
 On the other hand, in several instances where ^dndv is read 
 " poor " suits the connexion better than " meek," cv.gr. Is. Ixi. 1. 
 In Ps. X. 17 several manuscripts actually read ''dni. In these 
 circumstances it seems clear that no inference can be drawn as 
 to the signification attached to the Greek words by the trans- 
 
 1 In Amos ii. 7, cited as an instance of 'ani = raTreivSs, the word in the 
 text is *dndv, with no marginal variation. Dr. Hatch has probably been 
 misled by Trommius, as Trommius was by Kircher. Another instance of 
 the confusion of the two words. 
 
80 NEW TESTAMENT LEXICOGRAPHY. 
 
 lators who used them to render either Hebrew word. But at 
 least before drawing such an inference we ought to examine 
 the passages more closely, in order to see whether the LXX 
 may not have had some good reason for varying their rendering. 
 
 Now as to Tt-pavg. There are just three passages alleged 
 by Dr. Hatch in which it is used to translate ^dni (properly 
 = " afflicted," "poor"), viz. Job xxiv. 4, Zech. ix. 9, and Is. 
 xxvi. 6. In the first of these, as we have just mentioned, the 
 reading of even our present text is not 'an^; in the second 
 translators and lexicographers agree with the interpretation of 
 the LXX. Either the translator of Zechariah read 'dndv, or, 
 like the moderns, he judged that 'dni was here used in the sense 
 of 'a»dr. The agreement of the Targum would of itself put out 
 of the question the supposition of a peculiarly Greek mistake ; 
 but indeed the appropriateness of the rendering proves that the 
 Greek translator did not choose irpavg at random or confound 
 it with Trevrjc. There remains one passage in which 'dni is 
 rendered irpavg when Trtvrjc would have been better. Even if 
 this were an undeniable error, still the fact that out of eighty 
 occurrences of 'dni it is once by an indifferent translator wrongly 
 rendered would be but a slender basis on which to build a theory 
 as to the accepted signification of the Greek word, or its use in 
 the New Testament. But, as we have seen, the rendering is 
 defensible, and, what is more, the Targum actually agrees with 
 the rendering npavg. Thus of Dr. Hatch's three passages one 
 is not a case of 'dni at all, in the second irpavg has beyond 
 question its usual meaning and is the correct rendering, and in 
 the third all that can be said is that it is not the best transla- 
 tion. Surely the fact that of the many translators whom we 
 group as the LXX one only falls into this error (if it be one) 
 is decisive proof that the distinction between irivrjg and irpavg 
 was in no degree obscured.^ 
 
 As to the instances in which irivric or wrioxog is used to 
 translate 'dndvj an examination will show that these words liave 
 
 * It deserves to be noticed that in this place, as well as in Is. Ixvi. 2, 
 uhere Aquila has irpabf, which the sense requires, in Ps. xviii. 28, where 
 Symmachus has trpaov, which agrees with the parallel clause, and in 
 
NEW TESTAMENT LEXICOGRAPHY. 8.1 
 
 not been chosen at random, or because they were not distin- 
 guished from iroavg — for example, Ps. xxi. 27, " The poor shall 
 eat and shall be satisfied." In Is. xxix. 19 the parallel clause 
 has 'eb/ijon, " needy." Again, in Is. Lxi. 1, "To preach good 
 tidings to the poor." In these places " poor " suits the sense 
 better than " meek." We may add Ps. x. 17, where, as already 
 remarked, several MSS. read 'diii, and Ps. Ixix. 33. In all 
 these places the rendering is at least quite suitable, and if the 
 true reading is not 'dni, then 'diidv means "oppressed, afflicted." 
 Indeed, Gesenius assigns this as the first meaning of the word, 
 duly remarking that the accessory notion of humility or weak- 
 ness is always included. He gives the simple meaning " meek " 
 to the word in one passage only, viz. Numb. xii. 3. In Prov. 
 xiv. 21, where the sense requires " poor " (" he that hath pity 
 on the poor ") and the text has 'd«/, the margin substitutes 
 'dndv, showing that the ancient Sopherim did not make a verj-- 
 sharp distinction between the words, if indeed they regarded 
 them as more than different forms of the same word. As to 
 Tairtivog, this is used by classical writers, both with reference to 
 condition and to character, and not always with a suggestion of 
 moral disparagement.* The translators, therefore, were per- 
 fectly justified in employing it for either Hebrew word (and 
 for other similar words) if they saw fit. The translator of the 
 Psalms was doubtless right in using it for 'dni in Ps. xviii. 27, 
 where the antithetic parallelism has " high looks," as was also 
 the translator of Isaiah in Ixvi. 2, where the word is coupled 
 with " a contrite spirit." 
 
 That the same class of persons is designated, in the latter 
 books at least, by 'dni, 'dndv, and 'eblijon, is probable ; but we 
 see no reason for believing, with Dr. Hatch, that this class was 
 " the peasantry oxfellahiu who then, as now, for the most part 
 
 Zech. ix. 9, ^ani is singular. Now 'dndv occurs in the singular once only, 
 and there it is altered by the margin. Either the singular went out of use 
 and ^dni was used instead of it, or it was strange to the copyists, who sub- 
 stituted 'dni. 
 
 ' For example, Plato, Legg. 716 a, and Demosthenes in 3Iidtam, § 186. 
 In the latter passage it appears from the context to be = /xirptos. 
 
 G 
 
82 NEW TESTAMENT LEXICOGRAPHY. 
 
 lived quiet and religious lives, but who were the victims of 
 constant ill-treatment and plunder at the hands not only of 
 tyrannical rulers, hut also of powerful and lawless neighbours." 
 The conjecture of Grraetz is more probable that they were the 
 poor pious Levites, who, from their dependent position, when 
 religion decayed or idolatry prevailed, would be liable to be 
 brought to poverty by their faithfulness and piety. 
 
 Dr. Hatch, again, infers a close similarity of meaning be- 
 tween Ovaia and Swpov, from the fact that both words are used 
 to render the Hebrew minchah. But the Hebrew word is used 
 both of offerings to God and of gifts or tribute to men, and the 
 Greek translators very properly varied their rendering accord- 
 ingly, as the English translators have also done, sometimes 
 translating the word " gift " and sometimes " offering." Is 
 this evidence that the translators in either case ignored the dis- 
 tinction between the words they used ? Does Dr. Hatch really 
 think that the Greek translators would have shown a more 
 exact appreciation of the meaning of the Greek words if they 
 had used Qvaia where a gift to men was spoken of, or ^wpov 
 where an offering to God was in question ? Surely in order to 
 obtain any useful result in such inquiries we must have some 
 regard to the possible varieties of meaning of the Hebrew 
 word. 
 
 Another thing which we must take into account is that we 
 are not dealing with the work of a single translator, but with 
 a work executed by different persons at different times. This 
 is illustrated by another of Dr. Hatch's examples, the pair of 
 words iraQa^oXri and irapoifxla, the former properly " a simili- 
 tude," the latter " a proverbial illustration." Having referred 
 to the passages in which these words occur, he says, " These 
 facts, that irapafioX^ and irapoifxia are used by the LXX to 
 translate the same Hebrew word, and that the other translators 
 and revisers frequently substitute the one for the other, show 
 that between the two words there existed a close relationship, 
 and that the sharp distinction which has been sometimes drawn 
 between them does not hold in the Greek versions of the O.T.," 
 or, as he expresses it afterwards, " that they were convertible 
 
NEW TESTAMENT LEXICOGRAPHY 83 
 
 terms, or at least that their meanings were so closely allied that 
 one could be substituted for the other." Now if it were the 
 case that these words were used indifferently by the same 
 translator as the rendering of the Hebrew word [mds/idl) in the 
 same sense, then there might be some ground for the inference, 
 assuming (a pretty strong assumption) that the translator was 
 a master of his art. But let us look into the facts. The word 
 vids/idl has more than one meaning. Gesenius gives it the 
 following significatioiis :— " (1) A similitude, parable; (2) a 
 sententious saying, yvwfxr\, or apophthegm ; (3) a proverb, 
 Tiapoifxia ; (4) a poem, song, verse," especially of prophecy, or 
 a didactic discourse or poem, comparing the Arabic mathal, 
 " parable," " fable," " sentence," but in the plural " verses." 
 Hence the word might, according to circumstances, be rendered 
 7ra/oa/3oAj;, Trapoijjiia, tji'Stj, Bprivoq. But it is characteristic of 
 second-rate translators that instead of correctly representing 
 the varying significations, or rather shades of meaning, of a 
 word like this, they adhere to a stereotyped rendering. The 
 English translators, notwithstanding their love of variety, illus- 
 trate this in the case of this very word. They vary indeed 
 between " parable " and " proverb," but they use both words 
 where they are not suitable. Indeed, they may be fairly said 
 to use them " interchangeably," since " take up a proverb " in 
 Is. xiv. 4, Hab. ii. 6 is equivalent to " take up a parable " in 
 Micah ii. 4. Moreover, they adopt the reuderilig " byword " 
 twice, and once in the margin " taunting speech " (Hab. ii. 6). 
 Yet it would be an error to conclude that the English words 
 " parable," " proverb," " byword " are synonymous. 
 
 Now the LXX translators of all the books except Isaiah, 
 Job, and Proverbs, adhere almost invariably to the rendering 
 7rapo/3oX//. Indeed, the only exceptions are two instances in 
 which "to become a proverb" is paraphrased {a(pavi<jn6q). 
 The word mdshdl occurs only once in Isaiah, and is there 
 rendered Optivoq. On the other hand the translator of Pro- 
 verbs uses Trapotfiia once certainly, perhaps twice (the reading 
 being doubtful), and once Trai^tiu ; once also TrapfijSoX/;. In 
 Job the translator read mdshdl live times, since in xxv. 2, where 
 
 02 
 
84 NEW TESTAMENT LEXICOGRAPHY. 
 
 our text vocalizes the word as a verb, he reads it as a noun. 
 Thrice he renders irpooifxiov. It is tempting, no doubt, to 
 correct this into irapoifiia, but the conjecture cannot really be 
 considered probable. We should have to suppose that the 
 mistake was made in all three places — that is, always in Job, 
 and in no other book. Moreover in two of them the article 
 would make the mistake less easy ; and, in fact, Troooifxiov is 
 not more unsuitable, rather less so, than wapoifxia. We may 
 abide, therefore, by the received text. In the fourth passage 
 the translator has OpvWiifxa (xvii. 6). In the fifth (xiii. 12), 
 in which Dr. Hatch thinks the Greek " is so far from the 
 Hebrew as to afford no evidence," the translator took quashal 
 in the sense of " likeness." ^ Thus he never uses either irapa- 
 [5oXri or irapoiixia. When Dr. Hatch says that "it wiU be 
 seen in a majority of the cases in which TrapaldoXrj was not 
 used to translate mashal irapoifxia was used instead of it," his 
 majority consists of exactly three passages, two of which he has 
 obtained by the conjectural alteration of irpooipiov to irapoin'ia. 
 The acceptance of this alteration makes no practical difference, 
 since the case would then be that some translators use one word 
 and some the other, just as one English translator might use 
 " proverb " and another " parable." Dr. Hatch's evidence, 
 however, for the equivalence of the two words is not founded 
 on the LXX alone, but on the instances in which the Hexapla 
 revisers substitute -rrapoipia for 7rapa(5o\r). At first sight one 
 would say that when a reviser alters the existing translation it 
 is because he thinks it not accurate, and therefore such substi- 
 tution is evidence that the words were not synonymous. In 
 the present case, closer examination, we think, only confirms 
 this view. The older translators, adhering to irapa(ioXi], had 
 employed it often where it was unsuitable. In the following 
 passages, for instance, we have clear examples of " proverbs " : 
 
 1 The English Version has here, " Your remembrances are like unto 
 ashes." The Greek translator rendered the former word yavpia/xa, "Tour 
 glorying shall be like unto ashes," taa <riroS£. The true rendering is pro- 
 bably, " Your maxims are proverbs of ashes." 
 
NEW TESTAMENT LEXICOGRAPHY. 85 
 
 1 Sam. X. 12, " Is Saul also among the prophets? " ibid. xxiv. 
 14, '* Wickedness proeeedeth from the wicked ;" Ezek. xviii. 2, 
 " The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth 
 are set on edge." In all these cases later translators have most 
 properly substituted Trapoifiia. In Ps. Ixxviii. 2, where the 
 Psalmist clearly identifies his mdshdl with " dark sayings of 
 old," Symmachus, not without reason, gave irapoipiia, as the 
 Enghsh translators have given "proverb." And in Eccles. 
 xii. 9, where the many " proverbs " of the preacher are men- 
 tioned, Aquila very naturally thought irapoifxia more suitable 
 than napa\io\i]. On what principle we are to infer from these 
 judicious alterations that the revisers made no sharp distinction 
 between the two words it is impossible to discern. We should 
 not hesitate to adduce them as proofs of the contrary. In Prov. 
 XXV. 1 Aquila and Theodotion have 7rapci/3oAjj where the LXX 
 had a different rendering.' 
 
 The nature of the " proverbs " in these chapters sufficiently 
 explains the alteration. They are all " similitudes," and irapa- 
 /3oXf) was the more suitable word. This is a striking example 
 of clear discernment of the distinction between this word and 
 irupotpia, and the same may be said of Symmachus' similar 
 reading in xxvi. 7. 
 
 We may compare the treatment of mdshdl by the Greek 
 translators to that of ciaOt'iKri in the English Bible. In the 
 first printed Bible the word was in a few instances rendered 
 "covenant,' but more often "testament" (especially throughout 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews). Subsequent revisers substituted 
 " covenant " for " testament " in several instances ; Dr. Hatch 
 himself would always render the word " covenant." On his 
 principles, as just exemplified in. irapajioXi) and irapoipia, these 
 facts prove that there is no sharp distinction between the Eng- 
 lish words "covenant" and "testament." 
 
 The English Version would supply many other instructive 
 
 > The reading of the LXX here is uncertain. It was probably xaiSeia. 
 Some manuscripts have Tapoifiia, but according to the Syro-hexaplar this 
 was the reading of Symmachus. 
 
86 NEW TESTAMENT LEXICOGRAPHY. 
 
 analogies, one or two of which we may mention. Thus, by 
 Dr. Hatch's method, we should conclude that " Comforter " 
 and " Advocate " were synonymous, the word TrapaicXrjroc, 
 which they both represent, having unquestionably the same 
 meaning in all its occurrences. Apart from difference of judg- 
 ment as to the rendering of a word, there are very few trans- 
 lators whose work can be safely taken as a standard of the 
 usage of their own language. The English Version stands 
 high in this respect, yet we find words incorrectly used in it : 
 for example, " soul," where " life " is meant. We are not, 
 however, to infer that " soul," " life," " appetite," " person," 
 "creature," are synonymous because they translate the same 
 word, nephesh, which has indeed a dozen other renderings in the 
 English Bible.' Yet the English Version is much more homo- 
 geneous than the Septuagint, which is really a collection of 
 versions made by a series of independent translators, differing 
 both in their knowledge of Hebrew and in their command of 
 Greek. 
 
 The foregoing discussion of a few of Dr. Hatch's own 
 examples is, in our judgment, sufficient to show the unsound- 
 ness of his method of determining the meaning of New Testa- 
 ment Greek, and makes it unnecessary to enter on any more 
 abstract discussion of the principles which he formulates. 
 When we have made allowance, first for legitimate diversity 
 in the interpretation of the Hebrew, and secondly for want of 
 skill in the translator, who may either fail to seize the precise 
 
 1 We have seen more than once special attention drawn to the marked 
 contrast between the term " living creature " applied to the lower animals 
 in Gen. i. and "living soul" applied to man — the fact being, as our 
 readers know, that the original is the same. But the authors who comment 
 on the supposed contrast make the same supposition regarding the English 
 Version that Dr. Hatch makes with regard to the Septuagint — that the 
 translators accurately represent the original ; only, knowing that the 
 English words are not synonymous, they assume that the original words are 
 different. If they knew the Hebrew they ought, on Dr. Hatch's principles, 
 to infer that the translators (and the recent revisers) made no sharp dis- 
 tinction between " creature" and " soul." 
 
NEW TESTAMENT LEXICOGRAPHY. 87 
 
 meaning of the Hebrew or to select the appropriate Greek 
 word, little occasion will remain for the extreme supposition of 
 a dialectic confusion between distinct Greek words. 
 
 The number of instances in whicli the Septuagint alone 
 vouches for the use of particular words, small comparatively 
 as it is, would no doubt be considerably diminished if our 
 knowledge of the current popular language was greater. An 
 illustration of this may be found in the remarkable fact that 
 Cicero frequently employs in his letters Greek words wliich do 
 not occur elsewhere, yet which, from his use of them, we may 
 infer were tolerably familiar. Even such a technical word as 
 vwofivriiiaTKTfxog, in the sense of a decree of the Areopagus, 
 appears not to be found in Greek writers. And the New Tes- 
 tament usage itself receives illustration from Cicero. For 
 example, o-kuAXw, which occurs in the Gospels in the sense 
 " to annoy," is found in profane Greek writers before the 
 second century only in its literal meaning, " to skin or rend." 
 But Cicero has the substantive aKvXfxog in the sense of " vexa- 
 tion." Again, av^riTtiaig appears to be found only in Cicero 
 and Philo, aBir^aig and rpoirocpopiiv in Cicero only. The 
 remarkable word irep-mpivofiai (" Charity vaunteth not itself ") 
 is found outside the New Testament only in the later writer 
 Antoninus. But Cicero has the compound tvewepirtpevadpriv 
 in nearly the same sense. Telling Atticus of the speech he 
 made in the senate after Pompey's return from the East, 
 " Heavens ! " he exclaims, " how I showed myself off before 
 my new hearer Pompey ! There were shouts of applause. For 
 my subject was the dignity of our order, the unanimity of 
 Italy, the extinction of the conspiracy, peace and plenty. You 
 know how I can thunder when treating such subjects."' It is 
 clear from this that Cicero used the word in the same sense 
 as St. Paul, and that Grimm is mistaken in saying (after 
 Schleusner) that he means "how I extolled Pompey." 
 
 It is most interesting to note how often a word or phrase 
 thought to be peculiarly Hellenistic is found in profane, and 
 
 ' Ad Alt. i. 14. 
 
88 NEW TESTAMENT LEXICOGRAPHY. 
 
 even strictly classical writers. For example, juepta/ioc and 
 Biafiepiaiuog, both condemned by ancient grammarians, are both 
 found in Plato ; vijdw, also condemned, is also in Plato ; so 
 also is xptvafia, and aiTi]ixa in the sense of " request," both 
 mentioned by Planck as only found in later writers. Aristotle 
 again vouches for aadivrijua, Beanuv, tcrffrjcrfc? ^^nd KvriSeiv, as 
 well as iKTptjjfia. XapTi]g, reckoned by some as borrowed from 
 the Aramaic, but which was really borrowed by Aramaic from 
 Greek, has been found in Plato Comicus (fifth century B.C.) 
 and Cebes. Neo^utoc, " newly planted," is only known from 
 an ancient grammarian to have been used by Aristophanes. 
 OiKoSECTTTorijc, said not to be used by the earlier Greeks (who 
 instead of it used oIkov dianoTrtg), is nevertheless found in a 
 comic poet of the fourth century B.C., as testified by Pollux. 
 
 An example of Professor Thayer's care in correcting 
 Grimm's references occurs under avrXrj^a, which, according 
 to Grimm, was used by Plutarch in the sense of the " act of 
 drawing water ; " but Professor Thayer points out, and rightly, 
 that in the passage referred to it has the sense of "bucket," as 
 in the New Testament. What Plutarch there mentions are, in 
 fact, TTepiaKTa avrX/ijuara, buckets worked by animals going in 
 a round. There are other words, of which no early classical 
 example exists, the early existence of which may nevertheless 
 be inferred from the use of their derivatives. Such is aayrivri 
 (from which our word " seine " is derived), which occurs first in 
 the Septuagint, and afterwards in Plutarch and Lucian. But 
 the derived verb traynvivio is found in Herodotus and Plato, 
 and no doubt o-ayrV*) was in familiar use amongst those who 
 employed the thing. It might not be easy to find an example 
 of our word " seine " in our native classics. 
 
 We shall now proceed to notice some specially interesting 
 words more in detail. First we take /xvarripiov. This word 
 has much misled commentators, who frequently try to bring 
 out of it the notion of what in English is " mysteriousness," a 
 notion which does not belong to the word in the New Testa- 
 ment at all. It is well rendered by Liddell and Scott " a 
 revealed secret." It is known of course to everyone that to. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT LEXICOGRAPHY. 89 
 
 fxvarijpia were secrets known only to the initiated, and it may 
 be observed that anyone might be initiated in the Eleusinian 
 mysteries — in fact, not to be initiated was rather discreditable. 
 It seems to have been thought by scholars until recently that 
 the singular was found only in the Greek Testament. But, in 
 fact, it occurs in a fragment of Menauder, and simply in the 
 sense of " secret " — " Do not tell your /uuot/j/oiov to your 
 friend." Similarly Cicero, writing to Atticus, uses the word of 
 a domestic matter known to himself and his correspondent, but 
 which he did not desire to be known to others who might chance 
 to see his letters. And for better concealment he writes about 
 tliese private matters in Greek, calling them fivaTiKwrtpa. The 
 English word " mystery " has another idea attached to it besides 
 that of secrecy, viz. that of being beyond comprehension, or 
 being an unsolved puzzle. This meaning has probably been 
 fostered by confusion with a word of different etymology, 
 namely, "mistery," meaning an art or profession requiring 
 special training, the secrets of which are " mysteries " to the 
 uninitiated. Now this sense, as we have said, never belongs to 
 lxvaTi]piov in the New Testament. The word simply means 
 " a secret revealed," and except in the Apocalypse is always 
 used of doctrines revealed. St. Paul's words in Rom. xvi. 25, 
 26, are almost a definition : " The mystery which hath been 
 kept in silence through times eternal, but is now manifested 
 and . . . made known to all the nations." 
 
 The passage on which interpreters chiefly rely as an instance 
 of the word meaning something unintelligible is 1 Cor. xiv. 2 : 
 " he that speaketh in a tongue speaketh not unto men but unto 
 God, for no man understandeth ; howbeit [R. V. but] in the 
 spirit he speaketh mysteries." The last words are usually ex- 
 plained as equivalent to the preceding " no man understandeth." 
 This would be tautology of the worst kind, repeating in an 
 obscure form what had just been said quite clearly. To make 
 the interpretation even tolerable, ovZCig yap cikovh should 
 follow, not precede. Interpreters have, as it seems, been carried 
 away by the associations of the English word as if that were 
 the most natural meaning to give the Greek. But in truth we 
 
90 NEW TESTAMENT LEXICOGRAPHY. 
 
 get a much better sense by adhering to the usual signification. 
 The sense is : *' No doubt he is unfolding spiritual truths." 
 Tlie qualification is of exactly the same kind as that which St. 
 Paul introduces a few verses later (ver. 17), when he says of 
 the man who gives thanks in an unknown tongue, " thou verily 
 givest tliauks well." Instead of stating this as a possibility, 
 he more effectively asserts it categorically. Similarly in Rom. 
 xiv. 6, " He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, and giveth Grod 
 thanks." The usual interpretation substitutes for this delicate 
 and characteristic qualification of his censure a flat tautology, 
 and to gain this introduces an otherwise unexampled meaning 
 of the word, besides making TrvaOfxari unmeaning.^ 
 
 In the preceding chapter, xiii. 2, " though I understand all 
 mysteries and all knowledge," the sense is obviously the same ; 
 also in St. Matt. xiii. 11, " To you it is given to know the 
 mysteries of the kingdom of heaven " — that is, the teachings or 
 revelations of the Grospel. There is no ground for introducing 
 the notion of "purposes" as Grimm does; "the secret purposes 
 relating to the kingdom of God," nor with Robinson to under- 
 stand " the mysterious things of the kingdom," neither of 
 which meanings is so suitable as the simple one just mentioned. 
 Nor, again, is there any ground for importing the idea of 
 incomprehensibility as many do into 1 Tim. iii. 9, 16, " the 
 mystery of the faith," " the mystery of godliness," both being 
 equivalent to " the revealed teaching of the Gospel." There was 
 one particular doctrine which, as commentators have noticed, 
 St. Paul spoke of as the mystery of the Gospel for which he 
 was in bonds — namely, the doctrine of the admission of the 
 Gentiles. But there was nothing specially " mysterious " or 
 incomprehensible in this. 
 
 What about 1 Cor. ii. 7, where the Apostle says that he 
 speaks "the wisdom of God in a mystery"? Does this mean 
 " in an incomprehensible manner (or matter) " ? If the words 
 " in a mystery " were to be joined with the word " hidden," 
 
 ^ The only commentator, as far as I have seen, who gives the correct 
 interpretation is Dr. Edwards. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT LEXICOGRAPHY. 91 
 
 this might be so, hut tlie best commentators rightly join them 
 witli the preceding words. Now observe that in the following 
 verses St. Paul describes this wisdom as hitherto concealed, 
 but revealed to us. Was he likely to say, " Tlie wisdom (or 
 philosophy) wliich God has revealed to me I preach in an 
 incomprehensible ' mystery ' " ? Nay ; but " a Divine philo- 
 sophy consisting in matters taught by revelation." We note, 
 merely in passing, that " philosophy " is the word which seems 
 best to express St. Paul's meaning in these verses. " My 
 speech was not with persuasive words of philosophy . . . howbeit 
 we speak philosophy among those that are matm-e, not indeed 
 a philosophy of this world, . . . but a Divine philosophy of 
 revelation." 
 
 In the Apocalypse we seem to have a modification of this 
 meaning. Thus, in i. 20, " the mystery of the seven stars," i. e. 
 as we might say, " the secret of the seven stars " — that is, tlie 
 hidden thing signified. This agrees with the use of the word 
 in the Septuagint, in Daniel ii. 18, 27-30, where the English 
 Version has "secret," which use is indeed, as we have seen, 
 quite classical. But there is no reason for supposing that 
 fivariipiov signifies " a hidden meaning " any more than that 
 the English " secret " does so. The secret of a puzzle is the 
 solution of it, but " secret " is not therefore = " solution." And 
 in the passage in question the English word " secret " might 
 be perfectly well substituted : " the secret of the woman ; " 
 " the secret of the stars." These being obviously symbolical of 
 something, the secret belonging to them is the thing signified 
 by them ; but it is not the word /xvariipiov that carries witli 
 it the notion of " symbol." So when St. Paul says that the 
 Gospel of the uucircumcision was committed to him, i. e. the 
 preaching of the Gospel to the uncircumcised, it would be 
 obviously wrong to infer that avayjiXiov meant "preaching 
 the gospel." 
 
 In both places it may be further noted that it is not the 
 symbol that is called /xvaTijoiov, but the thing symbolized. 
 Hence these passages do not justify us in interpreting Eph. 
 V. 32 as " this symbol [sc. of the joining of husband and wife 
 
92 NEW TESTAMENT LEXICOGRAPHY. 
 
 into one flesh] is a great one " (Dr. Hatch). If the expression 
 had heen " the fivarripiov of this," there might have been more 
 plausibility in the suggestion. 
 
 The passage just referred to is somewhat difficult — " This 
 is a great ' mystery,' but I speak concerning Christ and His 
 Church." This rendering is very misleading. It is hard 
 enough for the English reader in any case to keep clear of 
 tlie association of " mystery " with " mysterious," but the 
 adjective "great," here makes it impossible, and he inevitably 
 takes the words to mean " This is a very mysterious thing." 
 The Revised Version has "this mystery is great," which though 
 more correct, yet suggests the same misconception. Even if 
 fivoTijpiov meant a " mysterious thing," still to fiv(TTi]piov tovto 
 fitja lariv could by no means bear the meaning suggested 
 by the English words. Such a use of " great " is English not 
 Greek. Grimm regards the passage as an example of the mean- 
 ing "the hidden sense," viz. of the saying quoted in verse 31, 
 " For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother," &c. 
 We cannot see how to fxvaTijpiov tovto could mean this. And 
 surely it is not the hidden sense of this text that is called 
 " great," but the doctrine about Christ and His Church. 
 Indeed, the Apostle goes on to make this clear to his readers 
 by adding iytb Sc Xiyuj slg Xoiotov koI tic; rriv eKKXriaiav, that 
 is, " This teaching is deep ; I, however, mean it with reference 
 to Christ and His Church." Then he passes back to the subject 
 of marriage with 77X171;. 
 
 Grimm's explanation of the origin of the phrase o-Kta 
 OavoTov, " shadow of death," is not that adopted by recent 
 Hebrew scholars. The expression thus rendered by the Sep- 
 tuagint, and so intended to be read by the scholars who pointed 
 the Hebrew text, is really a single word having no connexion 
 with " death," but meaning " dense darkness." Indeed, this is 
 necessarily the meaning of the phrase, whatever its origin. 
 Doubtless the association of " death " with the idea " valley of 
 the shadow " is too firmly fixed to be easily dissolved ; yet a 
 comparison of the passages in which the phrase occurs ought to 
 have taught even the English reader that the words in Ps. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT LEXICOGRAPHY. 93 
 
 xxiii. should not be joined " the valley-of-the-shadow of 
 death," but "the valley of the shade w-of-death." Thus, in 
 Job xxviii. 3, the miner is said to search out the shadow of 
 death. In xiii. 22 God is said to bring to light the shadow of 
 death. In xxxiv. 22, " There is no darkness nor shadow of 
 death where the workers of iniquity may hide themselves." 
 Again, in Amos v. 8, " Seek him that . . . turneth the shadow 
 of death into the morning and maketh the day dark with 
 night." 
 
 Accordingly in the 23rd Psalm, what is spoken of is the 
 darkness of deep trouble. Has not the misunderstanding of 
 this verse done much to foster the notion that the normal 
 Scriptural view of death is that of a dark and gloomy passage ? 
 Doubtless to many it is so, but this is not a view to be encou- 
 raged. It is the survivors, indeed, who have often most truly 
 to pass through the valley of the shadow. 
 
 Under evToairtXia, Grimm refers to Aristotle as giving the 
 word a milder sense than St. Paul {Efh. Nic. ii. 7, 13) ; and 
 Professor Thayer quotes the definition given in Ehet. ii. 12, 16, 
 Treiraidtviuivi] v^ipig. But it is worth noticing that in another 
 place {Eth. Nic. iv. 8, 4) Aristotle expressly states that the word 
 was commonly applied to the vicious excess properly called /3w/uo- 
 \o\ta. The words are : eTrnroXdKovTog St tov ycXo/ow, kui t(ov 
 TrXticTTOJv \aip6vT(i)v ry Trai^Kf (cat t(^ aKO)TrT£iv paWov rj Btl, koi ol 
 pu)fio\6\oi ivrpaiTiXoi irpoaayopevovTai <jjg\apitvT£g. Time would 
 naturally confirm this use of the word ; so that St. Paul's con- 
 demnation of ivrpamXia is fully accounted for even without the 
 supposition of an ethical difference between him and Aristotle. 
 
 Grimm di'aws a questionable distinction between okoveiv 
 <pu)VTiig and uKoveiv ^wv/jv. The former, according to him, 
 means *' to perceive the distinct words of a voice." Now the 
 most important passages bearing on this distinction are Acts 
 ix. 4, 7 and xxii. 7, 9. In ix. 4 we are told that Saul "heard 
 a voice saying " (ace.) ; in xxii. 7 lie himself says, " I heard a 
 voice saj'ing " (gen.). Here the expressions seem to be synony- 
 mous. But now consider what is said of his companions. In 
 ix. 7 they " heard the voice " (gen.), whereas in xxii. 9 they 
 
94 NEW TESTAMENT LEXICOGRAPHY. 
 
 " heard not the voice " (ace). We can imagine a writer recon- 
 ciling these passages by a distinction the reverse of Grimm's. 
 How they can be reconciled with his distinction we do not see. 
 Karo7rrp<^o//f)'Oi, in 2 Cor. iii. 18, is explained by Grimm (as by 
 most interpreters) "beholding as in a mirror." It is not easy 
 to see how the verb can have this sense. KaroTrrpi^Ety in 
 Plutarch [De Placitis Phil. 3, 5, 11) means "mirroring"; not, 
 however, as " showing in a mirror," but " showing by reflec- 
 tion." The passage is about the rainbow, which they say 
 [Ipi-V Hvai\ avaKXaaiv airo v(<povg ttuki'Ou Trig ilAiaicfic irspi- 
 (pejyetag, KaravTiKpi) c)£ row KaTOWTpi^ovTog avTO aarapog 
 ^tmravTog 'iaraadai. Here it will be observed, it is the sun 
 that KaTOTTTpiZit. The middle voice may mean to " reflect 
 oneself in a mirror," which practically is to look at oneself ; 
 but it is the reflection, not the looking, that the verb expresses. 
 Philo uses it somewhat differently, /un^E KaroirTpiaaiprtv iv 
 aAA(j> TLv\ TYiv ariv l^iav rj Iv <to\ tm Oso^). Here again it is 
 not " behold as in a mirror," but " represent to myself, form 
 an image to myself." In 2 Cor. iii. 18 then the word with the 
 object Tj/v ^o^av Tov Kvpiov may very naturally mean " mirror- 
 ing in ourselves," " reflecting" (so the Revised Version). The 
 common interpretation " behold as in a mirror " seems to in- 
 volve a rather violent forcing of the sense of the verb. 
 
 As Dr. Hatch's principles, so far as they are new, are 
 in my judgment utterly fallacious, while they have been 
 accepted by some scholars as marking an important advance in 
 N. T. lexicography, I have thought it well to examine every 
 illustration which he has given of the application of these prin- 
 ciples. I therefore add the following notes on the remaining 
 words selected by him as examples. 
 
 It is unnecessary to notice those words the use of which he 
 illustrates from late secular writers and not from the Septuagint. 
 Such are ayyapevnv, airoaTopaTi^^^fiv, avayivwcrKHv, yXwcrcroKopov 
 (on which Dr. Field should also be consulted), olKovopog, irapa- 
 kAjjtoc. His notes on some of these are valuable and interest- 
 ing, but they are not exemplificatious of the fallacious principles 
 alluded to. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT LEXICOGRAPHY. 95 
 
 A/a/3oAoc. I have nothing to remark on this. 'ErotiuaZeiv, 
 tToi/iiaaia, fVo/juoc- The verb, he thinks, came to liave some of 
 the special meanings of the Hebrew ]T3 " to set upright," " to 
 establisli," " to make firm." First because it is used inter- 
 changeably witll avopBovv, i)t}.it\iovvy KctropOovv, (mptovv, as 
 the translation of ]13. Similarly the substantive and adjective 
 render derivatives of the same verb. On the value of this argu- 
 ment I have already remarked. It ignores the fact that an 
 indifferent translator often adheres to the common rendering of 
 a word where it is not appropriate. 
 
 Ho thinks this strongly confirmed by the fact that the 
 Hoxaplar translators replace those words by others " of whose 
 use in the proper sense of ]12) there is no doubt." I cannot 
 fathom the reasoning by which their departure from a render- 
 ing is held to prove their approval of it. We might more 
 reasonably infer from the change that they did not consider 
 the Greek word equivalent to the Hebrew, There is more 
 reason in the argument from the next group of facts, viz. that 
 these translators sometimes substituted the words in question 
 for other words used in the Septuagint as translations of ]13. 
 But taking both facts together is it not more likely that the 
 true solution is that the translators were not always judicious 
 in their rendering ? However, what concerns us is the New 
 Testament usage. Dr. Hatch admits tliat in the majority of 
 passages in which iToifxa^eiv, 'iroifiog occur, their ordinary mean- 
 ings are sufficient to cover tlie sense required. But he finds a 
 few passages in which *' tlie secondary meaning " which they 
 bear in the LXX and Hexapla is appropriate if not necessary. 
 All of these are places in which the verb is used with a dative 
 of the person for whom a thing is provided, ex. gr. 1 Cor. ii. 9, 
 a riroinaaev 6 Babg To7g ayairwcriv avrov. This construction 
 has no resemblance to the supposed parallel from 2 Sam. v. 12, 
 iyvto AauiS ort ijToifxaaev avTov KvpiOQ ilg (BaaiXia tir\ 'icpa/'/A ; 
 and the translation he suggests, viz. " destined," is not at all the 
 same as the " secondary meaning " referred to, viz. " establish." 
 There is only one instance of the use of hoifiaaia in the N. T., 
 viz. Eph. vi. 15, and here Dr. Hatch thinks tlie meaning "firm 
 
96 NEW TESTAMENT LEXICOGRAPHY. 
 
 foundation," " firm footing," most appropriate. " Having your 
 feet shod with the firm footing of the gospel of peace." Surely 
 one does not shoe one's feet with a firm footing ; nor do the 
 other expressions in the passage support the idea that hoifiaaia 
 has any reference to the foot or foundation. For a breastplate — 
 righteousness ; for a shield — faith ; for a girdle— truth ; for a 
 helmet — salvation. Why should we require in the sandals a 
 more rhetorical precision of metaphor? 
 
 dpncfKiia. Dr. Hatch's note on this is quite correct, but 
 contains nothing that has not long been familiar. 
 
 It is however not an example of the peculiar use of the 
 Septuagint which Dr. Hatch advocates, for the word occurs 
 there only in the Apocrypha. But it is found in Herodotus 
 and Dionysius Halic. as well as in Philo and Josephus. Thayer 
 gives abundant references. 
 
 o/ixoOviJiadov. The word is used in the LXX to translate 
 in'' or Tin^ meaning " together." In the N. T. it occurs 
 nine (in some codices ten) times in the Acts, and once in 
 Romans. Dr. Hatch says " in none of these passages is there 
 any reason for assuming that the word has any other meaning 
 than that which it has in the Greek versions of the 0. T., viz. 
 ' together.' " But the question is, not whether there is reason 
 to depart from the LXX, but whether there is reason to depart 
 from ordinary Greek usage. The passages referred to include : 
 " Lifted up their voices " ; " continued steadfast in prayer " ; 
 "rushed upon him"; "rushed into the theatre"; "rose up 
 against Paul " ; " that ye may glorify God." So far from 
 agreeing with Dr. Hatch I should say that there is only 
 one place or, at most, two where the meaning " together " is 
 plausible, in Acts v. 12 (" they were all . . . in Solomon's 
 porch "), and perhaps xv. 25, " It seemed good to us." 
 ytvofxivoig OjUoOujuaSoi'. Possibly this was a colloquial use 
 not derived from the LXX, though exemplified by it, for there 
 was no reason why the Hebrew words should suggest this par- 
 ticular rendering. It is remarkable that, with one exception, 
 the word is found only in St. Luke, certainly not the writer 
 most influenced by the LXX. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT LEXICOGRAPHY. 97 
 
 TTo^rjpoc, TTovripia. Dr. Hatch cites from the LXX several 
 passages iu which these words are applied to what is not merely 
 passively bad, but actively harmful, such as '* bad figs," *' evil 
 diseases." But these prove nothing except that, like our word 
 " evil," the words were used pretty comprehensively. In fact, 
 as far as the adjective is concerned, the English translators use 
 the word " evil " in nearly all the passages cited. 
 
 There is really no ground for asserting that the word of 
 itself connoted mischief in the LXX, any more tlian in classical 
 authors. For in these also the word irovi^pbg is used of harmful 
 things, as of diseases. Still less does the use of the word in the 
 LXX, as a glance at the article in E,ost and Palm's Lexicon 
 will show, justify us in importing that idea into it in the N. T., 
 unless the context should require it, which is certainly not the 
 case in the instances Dr. Hatch adduces, except Matt. v. 39, 
 " resist not evil," jurj avriaTtivai t^ Trovr^pt^. Not surely in 
 Matt. V. 11, which he cites with some hesitation: "Happy are 
 ye when men shall say irav irovt^pov KaO' vfxwv. 
 
 As to the other signification of 7roi^»/jOoc, which Dr. Hatch 
 applies to the explanation of Matt. vi. 19 ; vii. 11 ; xx. 15, viz. 
 " grudging," it is not from the canonical Septuagint that he 
 supports it, but from the Son of Sirach. It is remarkable tliat 
 the Hebrew ^"1 ]^i/ " an evil eye," is not rendered 6(p0a\fxb(; 
 TTuvripoc; in the Septuagint itself (Prov. xxiii. 6; xxviii. 22). I 
 have, however, nothing to object to in the method of the argu- 
 ment ; but both the interpretation and the reference to Sir. are 
 in Grimm. 
 
 7rapaKA»)roc. Dr. Hatch's inference from Philo's use of this 
 word that it signifies " a helper in general," coincides with 
 Grimm's ; and of his six references to Philo five are given by 
 Grimm, whose limits, however, forbade full quotation such as 
 Dr. Hatch gives. The word was discussed by Bishop Pearson, 
 who showed long ago that the meaning " comforter " was 
 untenable. 
 
 TTiariQ. Dr. Hatch's discussion of this important word is 
 full and instructive, chiefly founded on Philo. 
 
 viroaTaaiq. This word is variously used in the Septuagint. 
 
 H 
 
98 NEW TESTAMENT LEXICOGRAPHY. 
 
 Thrice it occurs as the rendering of Hebrew words meaning 
 " hope," " expectation," from which Dr. Hatch gives it the 
 signification " ground of hope," and hence, " by a natural 
 transition," " hope itself." Hence he explains its use in several 
 passages of the N. T. But the meaning which it has in several 
 passages in Polybius, Diodorus, and Josephus, seems to fit these 
 much better, viz. " steadiness," " firmness." Hence " confi- 
 dence," "assurance." See especially 2 Cor. ix. 4; xi. 17; 
 Heb. xi. 1. 
 
 The only word remaining is avKocpavrdv. On this Dr. 
 Hatch throws valuable light by his quotation of an Egyptian 
 document (papyrus) of 145 b.c. 
 
 The conclusion from the whole is that where Dr. Hatch 
 tries to apply to the N. T. a signification peculiar to the LXX, 
 or ascertained according to the maxims he lays down, he is in 
 no one instance successful. Where he illustrates the N. T. 
 from other writers he is often useful and interesting. His full 
 citations and discussions of this kind are so interesting that I 
 should not have made their want of novelty a subject of remark, 
 had it not been that he states on his first page that there is no 
 good lexicon of the language of the N. T. " The language of 
 the N. T.," he remarks, " has not yet attracted the special 
 attention of any considerable scholar. There is no good lexicon. 
 There is no philological commentary. There is no adequate 
 grammar." The discussions of particular words to which I 
 have referred are put forward as new ; and indeed one not 
 acquainted with the subject would gather from the essays the 
 impression that nothing had ever been done before to illustrate 
 the Greek Testament from the Septuagiut, or from Philo, or 
 Josephus. 
 
 Had Dr. Hatch consulted Grimm's articles on OpriOKiia and 
 irapaKXriTog, for example, before printing his own discussions, 
 he woiJd either have acknowledged that he had been antici- 
 pated both in his renderings and his justifying references, or 
 more probably would have cancelled his own articles, as his 
 declared purpose was not to repeat what was already known, 
 but to advance the knowledge of Biblical Greek. I am obliged 
 
NEW TESTAMENT LEXICOGRAPHY. 99 
 
 to conclude that when he wrote he was not acquainted with the 
 work. Tliis may seem improbable, yet it is not many years 
 since a work of much labour and ability was published on tlie 
 language of the New Testament, the autlior of which confessed 
 in his preface that he had only learned tlie existence of Grimm's 
 Lexicon (or apparently of any later tlian Schleusner) after he 
 had written his own work, while AViner's admirable Graramnr 
 he seems never to have heard of. It is, therefore, not incredible 
 that Dr. Hatch may have been equally unacquainted with the 
 labours of previous scholars. This is at all events more credible 
 than the alternative supposition that he at once disparaged 
 them, and gave as examples of an improved method articles 
 which added notliing to their work. 
 
 It is by a fallacy similar to tliat of Dr. Hatch that some 
 writers vindicate the interpretation of yevta in Matt. xxiv. 34 
 as = " century," namely, on the ground that in the LXX version 
 of Gen. XV. 16 " yevta means a generation." It would be quite 
 as correct to say that the English " generation " or the Latin 
 " generatio " means " a century." These words are used by 
 the respective translators, not because tliey mean " century," but 
 because they are the usual representatives of the Hebrew dor. 
 We might just as reasonably assert that ''brother" may mean 
 " nephew" or even "cousin," because it is used to render the 
 Hebrew word applied to Lot in relation to Abraham, or the 
 Greek word applied to those who are supposed (I do not say 
 rightly supposed) to be cousins of tlie Lord. Among the Druses 
 a fatlier-in-law is called " father's brother," even when not so. 
 If a writer quoting the words of a Druse sliould retain this 
 expression, would it be said that in English " father's brother " 
 might mean " father-in-law " ? 
 
 Had space permitted we should have liked to make some 
 remarks on the Aramaic and Latin words in the New Testa- 
 ment. We shall notice only the word Hosanna, which has a 
 special interest. Everyone knows that it is a Hebrew word 
 meaning " save now." But in St. Matt. xxi. 9, 15, it occurs 
 followed by a dative, " Hosanna to the son of David." In 
 order to connect this grammatically with the word Hosanna, 
 
 H 2 
 
100 NEW TESTAMENT LEXICOGRAPHY. 
 
 Grimm renders the latter " Be propitious." But the Hebrew 
 word does not bear this interpretation any more than would 
 the Greek afocrov by which the Septuagint render it. How, 
 then, is the dative to be explained ? The answer that occurs 
 to us is, that the word was one which was familiar to every 
 Jew from the frequency of its use at the feast of tabernacles, 
 which feast was even called by this name, as were also the 
 prayers used during it, and even the boughs of myrtle and 
 willow, but that it came to be used simply as an expression 
 of exultation, the meaning of which was forgotten, perhaps 
 unknown, to the crowd. So the word Hallelujah is used in a 
 hymn of the late Bishop Wordsworth, followed by the dative, 
 " Hallelujah to the Saviour," although it includes its object in 
 itself. 
 
 On proper names Grimm's Lexicon is full. Under 'HpwSrjc, 
 for instance, we have two columns giving a very complete ac- 
 count of the family. Under Kvprtvioq Professor Thayer supplies 
 the references which will enable the reader to understand the 
 present state of knowledge. 
 
 Both Grimm and his editor accept without hesitation the 
 identification of Alphseus with Clopas. It is, indeed, con- 
 stantly asserted as if it were open to no objection on the part 
 of Hebrew scholars. We cannot here discuss the philological 
 question, but may mention that the highest authority of our day 
 on Hebrew philology, Franz Delitzsch, declares it impossible 
 that the latter name can be a phonetic variation of the former.^ 
 
 Some of the older lexicographers multiply the significations 
 of words by not keeping in view the distinction between the 
 meaning of a word and its application. In the case of substan- 
 tives this is the logical distinction between connotation and 
 denotation. In all languages it is common to use a more 
 general word instead of one more definite, where there is no 
 danger of mistake. Thus we may speak of a " weapon " when 
 we mean a " sword," " men " when we mean " soldiers." With 
 a few verbs of very general meaning there is a similar usage. 
 
 ' ZeitschriJ't fiir lutherische Theologie und Kirche, 1876, p. 603. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT LEXICOGRAPHY. 101 
 
 The English verb " do " is an example. Colloquially it is used 
 to suggest almost any kind of action, the particular kind being 
 indicated by the object of the verb, or having been definitely 
 expressed just before. Tims wo speak of "doing" "some 
 sketches," " a message " (Shakespeare), " doing the grand tour," 
 " doing a Greek exercise," " doing a bill," " doing a chop," &c. 
 Or, again, to avoid repetition, we may say, " When you have 
 watered these plants do those outside," " Sweep this room and 
 arrange the flowers and books tidily, and then do the next." 
 Sometimes it is the occupation of the person speaking or spoken 
 to that supplies the necessary limitation. For instance, address- 
 ing even an amateur photographer, we might suggest his 
 " doing " a particular building or the like. But these are not 
 different meanings of the verb " do " any more than " quad- 
 ruped" has different meanings when used of horses, of cows, 
 of rabbits, &c., else we might take Mark Twain's suggestion 
 seriously and abolish half the verbs in the language. 
 
 The true test of a technical sense is the occurrence of the 
 word in a phrase which would not be correctly understood 
 without the knowledge of this special meaning ; for example, 
 the word " road " = " raid " in " Whither did ye make a road 
 to-day ?" " to lead " in printing, " caput," used of citizenship ; 
 " discedere," of dividing in the senate. 
 
 Dr. Field's book is really a delightful one. It consists of 
 only 155 pages, but every page is full of matter and throws 
 new light on some passage. The reader will, we are sure, 
 thank us for giving a few examples of Dr. Field's results. We 
 cannot, indeed, do much more than give results, as to give his 
 proofs would involve encumbering our pages with Greek quota- 
 tions. We confine ourselves to lexical matter. ^Aywvla is an 
 important word.' Dr. Field shows that its radical idea is " fear 
 more or less intense." Diogenes Laertius defines it as fear of 
 something uncertain. So also the Etymologicon Magnum says 
 the word is used of one who is about to enter into a contest or 
 
 1 St. Luke, xxii. 44. 
 
102 NEW TESTAMENT LEXICOGRAPHY. 
 
 aju)v, and hence, of fear simply. Accordingly, we find both 
 the substantive and its verb ayioviav constantly joined with 
 words expressive of fear. Instances are quoted from Demos- 
 thenes, Josephus, Plutarch, Chrysostom, and others, to which 
 we might add 2 Mace. iii. 14, 16, 20. Servius on Virgil, JEn. 
 xii. 737, tells us that it corresponds to the Latin " trepidatio," 
 " Dum trepidat, i. e. dura turbatur, festinat, quod Grrsecis 
 Iv ayujviq. etrriv." And in the Greek versions of the Old Tes- 
 tament, the verb aytwiaio is used in this sense. 
 
 Of course the verb oywi/t^oi is not derived from ajMvia and 
 does not mean " agonize." 
 
 Another interesting note is on St. Mark xiv. 72, iirifiaXwu 
 iKXaie, for which Dr. Field adopts the rendering vindicated by 
 Salmasius and Fritzsche, " he covered his head, and wept." 
 The other three renderings, two of which are given in the 
 margin of the A. V., viz. " When he thought thereon he wept," 
 " he wept abundantly," and " he began to weep," are, he re- 
 marks, frigid and lifeless (especially the first) ; they enfeeble 
 the description instead of enlivening it. " The chord was struck, 
 the sluices were opened, when Peter called to mind the word 
 that Jesus had said to him." Then, say St. Matthew and St. 
 Luke, " Peter went out, and wept bitterly." Instead of the 
 epithet, St. Mark introduces an additional action, E7ri(3a\u}v 
 iKXaie, " he did something and wept." He might have done 
 many things to show the intensity of his grief. He might have 
 thrown himself on the ground as some persons in Xenophon ; 
 he might have turned himself about like Joseph, Gren. xlii. 24 ; 
 he might have covered his face like David, 2 Sam. xix. 4. Any 
 of these actions would have expressed in a lively manner the 
 tjcXauat TTtKowc of the other Evangelists ; and the last may be 
 shown to be supported on linguistic grounds. Dr. Field pro- 
 ceeds to quote illustrations of the custom of covering the head 
 in weeping, showing also that this covering is expressed in 
 various ways, one of which is tyKaXv^afisvog. ^vyKaXv\paiJ.evot: 
 is also used. The question is, would tTrtjSaXwi; be likely to 
 convey the same idea to a Grreek reader as either of these 
 words, and this is answered by the fact that it did so to Theo- 
 
NEW TESTAMENT LEXICOGRAPHY. 103 
 
 phylact, who explains it by iiriKaXuxpafxevog Tt)v KtrpaXi'iv. It is 
 no objection to this that Ifxanov or the like must be mentally 
 supplied, for there is the same ellipsis in tlie case of the other 
 two words quoted, and even with the expression Tnpippi^^ufAivoc: 
 eicAate, which occurs in Chariton Aphrodisiensis.' And we know 
 that iiriftaXilv may be used of putting on apparel. This expla- 
 nation is not to be summarily rejected as " fanciful " ; the word 
 may have been a colloquial one, " such as would have stirred 
 the bile of a Phrynichus or a Thomas Magister, who would 
 have inserted it in their Index Expurgatorins with a caution, 
 'E7rtj3aAa»i/ /xjj Atyc aXAa tyKaXv\pa/j.evog T] l^^^KaXv\lla/^tvog." 
 
 It seems to us that Dr. Field (with Meyer) has again bit 
 tlie mark in 1 Cor. iv. 6, in his interpretation of //6ra(T;^r)juart^w. 
 The verb means " to change the outward appearance of any- 
 thing, the thing itself remaining the same." Thus it is used 
 by Symmachus of Saul disguising himself, and similarly by 
 Theodotian of Jeroboam's wife. So in the present case the 
 Apostle " had been speaking the truth, but, as he now declares, 
 truth in disguise." That is, that, instead of naming the leaders 
 or favourite teachers to whom the several parties attached 
 themselves, or even describing them anonymously, St. Paul 
 gives the names of himself, Apollos, Cephas, and even Christ. 
 Those to whom he wrote knew that he was speaking " by a 
 fiction " from the first ; but for the sake of others he here, 
 having accomplished his purpose, throws off the disguise, and 
 declares plainly his object in assuming it. " These things, 
 brethren, I have by a fiction transferred to myself and Apollos 
 for your sakes, that ye might learn in us," &c. This was the 
 view taken by Chrysostom ^ : — 
 
 '* As when a sick child kicks and turns away from the food offered by 
 the physicians, the attendants call the father or the tutor and bid them 
 take the food from the physicians' hands and bring it, so that out of fear 
 towards them he may take it and be quiet; so also Paul, intending to find 
 fault with the Corinthians on behalf of certain other persons (of some as 
 being injured, of others as being honoured above measure), did not set down 
 
 ' Tlepl Xaipe'of k.t.A. i. 3. ' In Epist. ad Cor, I. Horn. xi. 
 
104 NEW TESTAMENT LEXICOGRAPHY. 
 
 the persons themselves, but conducted the arg-ument in his own name and 
 that of Apollos in order that reverencing these they might receive his mode 
 of cure. But that once received, he presently makes known in whose 
 behalf he was so expressing himself. Now this was not hypocrisy, but 
 condescension and management." 
 
 On Phil. ii. 16, Aoyov ^wfjc lirixovTiq (" holding forth the 
 word of life," A. V. and E,. Y.), Dr. Field maintains a view 
 which we had not seen elsewhere, interpreting the passage : 
 " Among whom ye appear as lights in the world, being (to it) 
 in the stead of life." The sense of lirixnv required by the 
 common version is not supported by any sound example, and, 
 moreover, the absence of the article is to be noted. The actual 
 phrase \6yov lirexnv occurs not infrequently in later authors, 
 and always in the sense " corresponding to " or " being analo- 
 gous to." We may quote St. Basil, Hexaem. ix. : kukov St 
 Tray appwoTia tpv^VQi V Se apsTrj Xoyov vyidag l7re\ii. This 
 use has been illustrated by Wetstein, and the interpretation, 
 which is that of the older Syriac translator, has been adopted 
 by some other moderns. 
 
 On KaTajSpajdevsiv, Col. ii. 18 {fxr}^sig v/nag icarajSjoa/BtwIrcu, 
 " Let no man rob you of your reward," R. V.), Dr. Field argues 
 with much reason that the word means " condemn " without 
 any reference to a prize. The single word (ipaftevHv, in all 
 the examples we have of it, is used, in the sense of arbitrating 
 or deciding, without the notion of a prize. This view agrees 
 with the definition of KarajSpajSevstv given by Phavorinus and 
 with the Syriac versions. The word is found in Eustathius on 
 Iliad A. 402 with reference to Briareus, who, in opposition to 
 his father Poseidon, assisted Zeus. The remark of Eustathius 
 is that as amongst men sons are often unlike their father or 
 disagree with him, so the mythical Briareus, here preferring 
 justice to natural aifection, opposes his father, and so Kara- 
 j3joa/3£wei avTov, " as the ancients say." The only example 
 extant in an earlier writer is in Demosthenes {Adv. Midiam), 
 where the sense is apparently " to procure a condemnation 
 unfairly." " If any by-sense was in the Apostle's mind in 
 choosing this word in preference to KaroKpivnv, it may possibly 
 
NEW TESTAMENT LEXICOGRAPHY. 105 
 
 have been that of assumption and officialism, as it follows hkii 
 ipvariovfxtvog. 
 
 Anotlier note, quoted by Dr. Field from Wetstein, is worth 
 mentioning. It refers to St. John xxi. 5, which reads in the 
 A. v., " Children, have ye any meat ? " and in R. V., " Have 
 ye aught to eat ? " Dr. Field renders, " Have ye taken any 
 fish?" The scholiast on Aristoph. Nuhcs, 781, tells us expressly 
 that the word was commonly used by fishers and fowlers, who 
 say c'xf tc Ti ; 
 
 Perhaps we may be permitted to add one more note from 
 Dr. Field, on irapaKviPag, St. Luke xxiv. 12, St. John xx. 5, 
 11, "Stooping and looking in," R. V. The idea of stooping 
 down is not in the word, which is used, for example, Gren. 
 xxvi. 8, " looking through the window " (so Prov. vii. 6). In 
 Eccles. xxi. 23 it is rendered in E. Y. " peep in " — " A fool 
 will peep in at the door into the house." Casaubon long ago 
 rejected " stooping," remarking that what the word means is 
 stretching out the neck with a slight bending of the body, 
 " protensionem colli cum modica corporis incurvatione." This 
 disposes of the argument founded on the use of this word as to 
 the position of the tomb. Compare Jas. i. 25 ; 1 Pet. i. 12. 
 
 Dr. Field undertakes the defence of the old rendering of 
 ^eiaidaiij.ov£(TTipovg in Acts xvii. 22 with a slight modification 
 as in the Revised Version, "somewhat superstitious," in oppo- 
 sition to a "distinguished prelate" who rendered it "unusually 
 God-fearing," saying that the Apostle " thus struck the one 
 chord to which their hearts would vibrate." That the latter 
 rendering gives an erroneous idea must be admitted, as " Grod- 
 f earing " is an expression which not only implies commenda- 
 tion but also reference to the One Supreme Grod, yet it is nearer 
 the truth than " superstitious." Tliat the word was used in a 
 good sense by classical writers (including Xenophon and Aris- 
 totle) is admitted. But Dr. Field shows by quotations from 
 Plutarch (to which we might add others from Polybius) that 
 the general use of the word was in malani j)artem as expressing 
 " the religious feeliug carried to excess " ; and Theophrastus's 
 well-known description of the BtKri^uifxcw agrees with this. 
 
106 NEW TESTAMENT LEXICOGRAPHY. 
 
 Dr. Hatch takes tlie same view, quoting also Philo, who fre- 
 quently distinguishes SeicFidaiiuLovia from evael5eia, " piety." It 
 seems to us that it may be fairly said that what is proved by 
 these passages is, not that the word itself implied blame, but 
 that the thing was blamed by the writers ; in other words, that 
 persons of whom it might justly be used would not regard it 
 as offensive.^ An admirable illustration of this is supplied by 
 Polybius (xii. 24, 5) in his comparison of the Roman state with 
 others. It is, he says, in their views about the gods that the 
 Romans are especially distinguished for the better, and the 
 thing to which the Roman state owes its stability is just this, 
 which amongst other men is censured, namely ^eLai^ainovta, 
 which has been carried to such an extreme both in private and 
 public matters as cannot be surpassed. He adds, in the spirit 
 of a scoffing unbeliever, that the notions about gods and things 
 of the other world were spread by the ancients as a matter of 
 policy, as it is only by fear of the unknown and such like 
 dramatic fictions that the multitude can be controlled. Now 
 for the consequence. Amongst the Grreeks, says he, men who 
 handle public money even to the value of a talent, though they 
 have ten check-clerks and as many seals, and twice as many 
 witnesses, cannot keep faith ; but amongst the Romans, men 
 who in magistracies and embassies handle very large sums, are 
 honest from simple regard to their oath. In other nations it is 
 a rare thing to find a man keeping his hand off public property, 
 whereas amongst the Romans it is a rare thing for a man 
 to be found doing anything of the kind. Would a Roman 
 regard it as censure if in such circumstances he was called 
 SHCTi^aifxoviaTipog ? 
 
 In St. Paul's speech the internal evidence appears to us 
 decisive that no blame was intended. In the first place, this 
 view makes the Apostle commence his address with an offen- 
 sive expression, a thing quite opposed to his practice. In the 
 next place, what is the ground of this implied censure ? The 
 
 ^ Compare the use of the words " Puritan " and " Puritanical." " The 
 Puritan," like ^ SfiffiSai/xwy, was the subject of a play. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT LEXICOGRAPHY. 107 
 
 inscription " To a God unknown." Even a less sympathetio 
 missionary than St. Paul, seeing altars to Aphrodite, Zeus, 
 Dionysius, and the rest, would doubtless find in the inscription 
 to an unknown Grod just the one title that was least open to 
 objection. Is it conceivable that St. Paul should produce just 
 this as a mark of " religious feeling carried to excess " or of 
 " superstition " ? Does he proceed to say anything which can 
 be construed into a reason for condemning this instance of 
 superstition ? On the contrary, he lays hold of it as just the 
 one sign-post pointing in the right direction, just the one thing 
 in their religion which he could make use of as a help to induce 
 them to listen to the truth. What would be the meaning of 
 saying " Ye carry your religious feeling to excess when in 
 addition to Zeus, &c., ye venerate a God whom ye confess ye 
 do not know. This is mere superstition ; therefore I will tell 
 you that this unknown God is the only one to be worshipped 
 at all " ? 
 
 If no other instance occurred of the word being used with- 
 out implying censure, this passage would of itself furnish one. 
 But we not only have such instances in Xenophon and Aristotle, 
 but (if these be objected to as too classical) in a later writer, 
 Diodorus Siculus. Speaking of the instructions given to each 
 Egyptian king by the priest, he says, " This he did, urging the 
 king to Seiai^aifiovia and a God-pleasing life " (i. 70). Ai^ain, 
 speaking of the asylum afforded by a temple in Palica to slaves 
 who lied from cruel masters, and who remained there until they 
 received satisfactory pledges, he adds : " No one is related to 
 have ever broken the faith thus pledged to his slaves ; for 
 when they have sworn, their Seiai^uifxovla towards the gods 
 makes them keep faith with their slaves" (xi. 89). Dr. Ilatch 
 himself quotes a seiiatus consultiim of J58 B.C., preserved in 
 an inscription, in which the word signifies simply " religious 
 observances." 
 
 It is curious to observe in the case of the word o/a0>y(c»;, 
 not only the divergence of Dr. Field and Dr. Hatch, but the 
 absolute confidence of each that his own view is the only pos- 
 sible one. The former, on Heb. ix. 16, 17, remarks: "If the 
 
108 NEW TESTAMENT LEXICOGRAPHY. 
 
 question were put to any person of common intelligence, ' What 
 document is that which is of no force at all in the lifetime of 
 the person who executed it ? ' the answer can only be ' A man's 
 will or testament.^ A covenant is out of the question." On the 
 other hand, Dr. Hatch with equal confidence affirms : " There 
 can be little doubt that the word must be invariably taken in 
 this sense of ' covenant ' in the New Testament, and especially 
 in a book which is so impregnated with the language of the 
 LXX as the Epistle to the Hebrews." There are no doubt 
 great difficulties on both sides : on the latter, the fact that the 
 statements in Heb. ix. 16, 17 are not true of a covenant, but 
 are true of a testament ; on the former, that in the Mosaic 
 haO{]Kri there was no death of the " testator." May not the 
 solution be that the writer did not distinguish the two senses in 
 his own mind ? This seems to be the view taken by Grimm. 
 
 We venture to suggest that a similar solution is applicable 
 in some other instances where interpreters find it hard to decide 
 which of two senses to assign to an ambiguous expression in 
 the original. One important example occurs to us : StKotocruvTj 
 Qiov, in Rom. i. 17, which may either be righteousness as an 
 attribute of God (as seems to be required by the antithesis of 
 6p7?7 Qiov in the next verse) or righteousness " flowing from 
 God and acceptable to Him," as subsequent developments 
 suggest. In fact, the expression preserved its vagueness to the 
 writer himself until, in the course of his argument, he found it 
 needful to separate the two ideas, which he does in iii. 26, 
 " that He might Himself be just and the Justifier of him that 
 hath faith in Jesus." A consideration of the whole passage 
 must convince us that ^iKaioavvt] Oeov cannot have an entirely 
 different sense in i. 17 and in iii. 26, since iii. 21 resumes the 
 subject of i. 17, which had been interrupted by a digression. 
 
 We have referred to the Tables appended to Professor 
 Thayer's Lexicon. In addition to those already mentioned, 
 there are lists of words peculiar to the respective New Testa- 
 ment writers. As showing the completeness of these lists, it 
 may be stated that while Dr. Schaff, in his valuable Cotnpanton 
 to the Greek Testament and the English Version, reckons 71 words 
 
NEW TESTAMENT LEXICOGRAPHY. 109 
 
 peculiar to St. Matthew, and 45 to St. Mark, Professor Thayer's 
 number for tlie former is 137, and for the latter 102 ; or, leav- 
 ing out words of which the reading is doubtful, II G and 70 
 respectively. St. Luke's Gospel furnishes no less than 312, 
 besides 61 which are found also in the Acts, but there only. 
 This leads us to observe that in discussing New Testament 
 usage we must not lose sight of the fact that we are dealing 
 with writings of at least ten different authors of different 
 degrees of education and knowledge of Greek. It may well 
 be that one of these writers may, for example, carefully dis- 
 tinguish synonyms which another confounds, or may in other 
 respects be more exact in his use of words. Of course the best 
 commentators do take note of this, but there is a great tendency 
 to forget it. 
 
 One thing will, we think, be clear from what we have said 
 in these pages : namely, that while there has been really 
 splendid work done in the department of New Testament 
 lexicography, the field has by no means been exhausted, and 
 there still remains much scope for the energy of fresh 
 labourers. 
 
IV. 
 
 HAS nOIEIN IN THE NEW TESTAMENT A 
 SACEIFICIAL MEANING? 
 
 The opinion that irou'lv has a special sacrificial meaning has 
 obtained in recent times a wide acceptance, on what seem to 
 me entirely inadequate grounds. I propose to examine these 
 grounds on strictly philological principles. The opinion is 
 usually supported by the statement that in the LXX iroielv 
 has such a sense, sometimes it is said " constantly," or 
 "ordinarily"; sometimes, "forty or fifty times." The state- 
 ment is, as I shall show, erroneous. But even if it were 
 correct, a different impression would doubtless be produced 
 if the same alleged facts were put in the form that once in 
 fifty times it has this sense ; for ttoiuv, it must be remembered, 
 occurs in the LXX about two thousand five hundred times. 
 The reader would then see that even in the LXX we should 
 not be justified in assuming a sacrificial meaning of the verb 
 as the most likely one, prior to an examination of the eon- 
 text. 
 
 The assertion that iroialv has a sacrificial sense must mean 
 that the word of itself, i.e. apart from considerations of the 
 context, does at least suggest this sense. Now let us see first 
 what is the usage of the verb in classical Grreek. Here it 
 includes, first, nearly all the senses of the English " make," 
 " cause," etc. ; secondly, many of those of the English " do " ; 
 
HAS nOlEIN IN THE N. T. A SACRIFICIAL MEANING? Ill 
 
 besides, thirdly, some additional senses, such as " do to," " do 
 with." It is, in fact, the most general word for " doing." 
 There are two or three of its uses whicli for the present purpose 
 require to be particularly mentioned, because they are paralleled 
 by the Hebrew Hli^'^, and are found in the LXX : 
 
 1. "To do to, or with," apjvpiov tujvto tovto £7ro/££, " he 
 did this same thing with the silver," Herod, iv. 166 ; a tVo/jjo-e 
 Twv ^Afji<pnro\iTU)v tovq TrapaSovTag, Demosth. Oil/nth. i. 5. So 
 ev, KttKujg, KUKa, ayada, KaXa iTOieiv riva (passim). 
 
 2. "To keep (a feast)," tadfxia tto/hi', Demosth.; koprriv 
 iroit'iv, a quite classical phrase. 
 
 3. "To perform (sacred rites or sacrifices)," Ipa ttohXv, 
 Herod. ; Ovalav iroitiaBai, Plato, Sympos. 174 c, also in Xeuo- 
 phon, Cyrop. vi. 2, 6. The verb is also used even without 
 Ovaiav when followed by the name of a deity, ry Fy, etc., like 
 the Latin facere in the sense of sacrifice ; i%vaav n^ Aa . . . 
 tTTSiTa Ti^ 'HXld) . . . tTTiiTa Fy (j(j)a^avTeg wg igr^yi'iaavTO ol 
 fiayoi, iTr(Hi)(Tav, Xen. Cyrop. viii. 3, 24. 
 
 4. It is used as a substitute for a more special verb, to 
 avoid repetition where the special verb has already occurred or 
 has been indirectly implied. For example, in Herod, v. 97, 
 " If he was unable to impose on Cleomenes alone, but did this 
 [to] {tovto iTToiridi) thirty thousand of the Athenians." Simi- 
 larly Xenoph., Tavra iTroii]Cfav Tovg Toig (3(Jj\oic jiaXXovrag (i.e. 
 struck them on the neck and back), Cyrop. ii. 3, 18. 
 
 This is a very common use of the English " do," especially 
 where the action is not expressed by a single verb : thus, " If 
 you correct tliis sheet and verify the references, I will do the 
 other " ; " When I have painted and varnished this panel, I 
 will do that one." (Compare p. 101, ante.) 
 
 Tiie Hebrew verb which corresponds generally in its range 
 of application with irouXv, including the signification of " do," 
 " make," " cause," etc., is Hi^'I/, which occurs about two thou- 
 sand five hundred times. Hence, as was inevitable, the Greek 
 translators almost always rendered it by Trotar, i.e. in about 
 ninety-two per cent of its occurrences, and very rarely did they 
 use TToifiv to render any other word. It follows that in the 
 
112 HAS nOIEIN IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 LXX we find irou'iv used not only in its classical senses, but in 
 others. 
 
 Thus it is used of " trimming " (the beard), 2 Sam. xix. 
 24; for "provide" (singing men), Eccl. ii. 8; "provide for" 
 (my own house), Gen. xxx. 30; "prepare" (horses and 
 chariots), 2 Sam. xv. 1; "produce" (fruit) (classical), Isa. v. 
 2,4; "keep" (a feast) (classical), often, as Deut. xvi. 1, 
 2 Chron. xxx. 13, 21; "dress, cook, prepare (food)" (classical),^ 
 with " food," Gen. xxvii. 4, 7, 9, etc., 2 Sam. xiii. 5, 7, 10 ; 
 Ezek. iv. 15 ; with "meal and oil," 1 Kings xvii. 12, 13 ; with 
 " sheep," 1 Sam. xxv. 18 ; with " lamb," 2 Sam. xii. 4 ; " calf," 
 Gen. xviii. 7, 8, It is " do with," or " deal with " oxen and 
 sheep, Exod. xxii. 30 ; a vineyard, Exod. xxiii. 11 ; an ass, 
 Deut. xxii. 3 ; "do for " (a hundred talents), 2 Chron. xxv. 9 ; 
 " do with or about," Josh. vii. 9 ; " offer" (sacrifice), of which 
 presently. 
 
 These, indeed, would be more properly called different 
 applications than distinct meanings. However, it is to be 
 observed that this extension of range does not make the verb 
 more definite, but less so. It becomes even more necessary 
 than before to look to the connexion. Monsignor Patterson's 
 statement, which has been largely followed, is that " iroieiv 
 when joined with a noun signifying anything capable of being 
 offered to God constantly has this [sacrificial] meaning."^ Let 
 us now examine the passages by which this signification is 
 supposed to be established. 
 
 In the first place we have those in which the connexion is 
 TToialv TO iracTxci- Now it is capable of distinct proof that this 
 means " keep the feast of the passover," not " offer, or sacrifice 
 the passover." First, iraaxa, although it sometimes is used for 
 the lamb, is frequently (and indeed more properly) the feast. 
 Thus we have " the morrow of tlie passover," Num. xxxiii. 3, 
 
 1 Cf. Xen. Ci/rop. iv. 6, 1 ; vin. 5. 5 ; Lac. vi. 4. 
 
 2 "Certain Sacrificial words used by St. Paul" in "Essays on Religion 
 and Literature, by various writers, edited by Archbishop Manning." 
 Second Series, London, 1867. 
 
A SACRIFICIAL MEANING ? 11$ 
 
 Josh. V. 11 [codd.] ; " in the fourteenth day ye shall have the 
 passover, a feast of seven days," Ezek. xlv. 21 ; " such a pass- 
 over was not kept, ovk iyzvi]Qr\ to iraaxa tovto,'^ 2 Kings xxiii. 
 22, and 23 tyevi'idt) to Tra(T\a. 
 
 The usage of the New Testament confirms this. There 
 waaxa generally means the feast. A few instances will suffice : 
 /XBTa Suo i)fiipaQ TO iTa(T)(a. yiveTut, Matt. xxvi. 2 ; ijv to Tra<T\a 
 Koi TO. aZvfxa ju£ra Suo ri/jLipag, Mark xiv. 1 ; iiyji^i i) kopTX) tCjv 
 atlvfXdJV i) AfyOjUfvrj iraaxa, Luke xxii. 1 ; iyyvq ijv to Tra.a-)(ay 
 John ii. 13, vi. 4, xi. 55; Iv tc^ iraffx" ^^ ''V f^opTy, ii. 23; 
 irpb Tov Trao-^a, xi. 55 ; a7roAi»<rto tv Ttjji Tracr^^o, xviii. 39 ; /utra 
 TO iraaxdi Acts xii. 4. 
 
 Secondly, iroulv is regularly used of " keeping " a feast. 
 This, as "we have seen, was a classical usage ; it is also found in 
 the LXX. 7ro(£7i' iopTiiv occurs Exod. xxiii. 16, xxxiv. 22, 
 and in at least a dozen other places ; sometimes ttoihv t>)v 
 iopTTjv Tijjv al^vpwvy as Ezra vi. 22 ; ttouTv o-a|3j3aToi' also occurs 
 Exod. xxxi. 16 and 1 Sam. xvii. 18 [codd.]. 
 
 Add that the passover is seldom said to be sacrificed, and 
 never to be offered,^ and we have sufiicient reason to conclude 
 that TToiiXv TO TTuaxa, " to perform, or do the passover," means 
 " to keep the feast of the passover." But any possible doubt is 
 excluded by the use of the phrase where it can mean nothing 
 else. Thus Exod. xii. 48, where the stranger sojourning with 
 an Israelite is said ttohIv to Traa\a ; also 2 Chron. xxxv. 17, 
 18, 19, " The children of Israel that were present kept the 
 passover and the feast of unleavened bread (£7rot)><rav to <paalK 
 K-ai rjji/ iop-i'iv). And there was no passover like to that 'kept* 
 (iyivtTo) in Israel from the days of Samuel the prophet, neither 
 did all the kings of Israel keep such a passover as Josiah kept 
 {ovk £7roi>j«rav to (paatK o tiroh^aev Iwdtac, koi oi hpug . . . Tt^ 
 OKTtoKaictKUTi^ tTti TTiQ j^aaiXiiag 'Iwgiov iiroitjOi] to ^acrfK 
 Touro)." Here it is clear that (paatK is the feast, and iroitXv 
 TO <j>a(TiK = " to keep the feast." So in 2 Chron. xxx. iroiriaai 
 TO (paatK in verse 2 and verse 5 is obviously the same as Tronjcrat 
 
 1 Oflfering a gift at the Passover is mentioned Num. ix. 7, 13, vpoatvfyKo.L 
 
 Th SwpOV, 
 
 I 
 
114 HAS nOIEIN IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 Tjjv iofjTrfv TU)v aZyVfxwv in verses 13 and 21. Here again we 
 may make use of the New Testament, Our Lord speaks of 
 irouXv TO Trdaxa in a private room, where the paschal lamb 
 certainly could not be sacrificed or offered. Accordingly Troit'iv 
 TO Traax^ ^''^ Matt. xxvi. 18 is represented by (jjqjhv to vaaxa 
 in Mark xiv. 14 and Luke xxii. 11. There is nothing to set 
 against this ; for this signification is applicable wherever the 
 phrase occurs. There is not a shadow of a reason for supposing 
 that iroiilv to iracrxa can mean " offer the passover," although 
 it is true that the ceremonial killing was a part of the keeping. 
 
 Another class of cases consists of those in which the object 
 of iroiHv is a word which itself means sacrifice. As the verb is 
 used of " doing " anything, it is natural that when the thing 
 done is sacrifice this verb should still be used, although not 
 itself Laving any sacrificial force. Thus we have Tronlv Ovatav, 
 oXoKavTwima, KapTrwfxa. These are, indeed, notable examples of 
 " things capable of being offered." 
 
 These and the like are simply instances of the adoption of 
 an indefinite verb where the definition is supplied by the object, 
 a usage not peculiar to Hebrew or Greek. In English we use 
 ** do " thus with many different objects, even with " sacrifice." 
 The circumstance that the thing done is sacrifice gives no reason 
 to attribute to the verb iroiuv a specific sacrificial meaning. 
 That it may be convenient to translate it " offer " is nothing to 
 the point. 
 
 A similar remark applies to the phrase ttoluv IttX tov 
 OvauKTTr^piov, which may be illustrated by the English phrase 
 *' do in the oven," and the like. All that these instances prove 
 is, that a word meaning " make " or " do " may be joined with 
 a word meaning " offering" or " sacrifice," and the two words 
 will mean " make an offering " or " do sacrifice," — not a very 
 important proposition, except for those who write Greek exer- 
 cises. Is it supposed that we must always say " offer an 
 offering," " sacrifice a sacrifice," or substitute a synonymous 
 verb? Even in English we can speak of "doing sacrifice," 
 '' bringing an offering," witliout its being supposed that " do " 
 or " bring " have put on any special meaning. 
 
A SACRIFICIAL MEANING? 115 
 
 The last class of passages consists of those in which iroitiv 
 is used in the familiar way to avoid the repetition of a specific 
 word or complex description contained in the preceding context. 
 These, which are but few, are the only passages that give any 
 plausibility to the suggestion that the verb means " offer"; but 
 it is, after all, only a superficial plausibility. 
 
 For example, in Lev. iv. detailed directions are given as to 
 what is to be done with the bullock for a sin-offering ; directions 
 occupying several verses. These are partially repeated with 
 respect to the sin-offering for the congregation, and in verse 
 20 occurs the more concise direction, " he shall do with the 
 bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin-offering, so shall 
 he do with this," koi ironiau rbv fx6a\ov ov Tpoirov liroirjai tov 
 fiOCT^ov TOV TTJg a/iapTiag ovtu) TroirjOijcreTai. This is rightly 
 translated "he shall do with the bullock, etc."; indeed, col- 
 loquial English would admit " do the bullock." In Exod. 
 xxix. 39, TOV a/Livov TOV fVa irouiaeig to irpwi K.r.A., the sort of 
 iroieXv is understood from the preceding verse, irouiauQ kirX tov 
 OvaiaaTTipiovy and there is merely an ellipsis of these three 
 words, an ellipsis precisely parallel to that which is so familiar 
 with the English verb " do." Psalm Ixv. 15 (E. V. Ixvi. 15) is 
 similar : 6Ao(cai/ra>/.jaTa . . . avoi(T(t) aoi fiSTo. OvfiiaixuTOQ . . • 
 TTon'iau) <joi (ioag fisTo. xifiapwv. The poetical parallelism makes 
 the brevity of expression less harsh. Possibly the expression 
 TToiiiv fioaxov for " do to " may seem strange to some readers, 
 but it is precisely parallel to the usage quoted above from 
 classical writers as well as from the LXX, and to the colloquial 
 English use of " do." 
 
 In 1 Kings xviii. 23, 25 we have another instance of TroieXv 
 used to replace the description of a complex action. " Let 
 them choose one bullock for themselves, and cut it in pieces and 
 lay it on the wood, and put no fire under ; and I will dress 
 (noifiaio) the other bullock, and lay it on the wood, and put no 
 fire under "; " choose you one bullock for yourselves, and dress 
 it first {nouiaaTE Trpwrot)." "And they took the bullock, and 
 they dressed it (tTroifjirav)." I do not include these verses 
 amongst those which give even a superficial plausibility to the 
 
 2 I 
 
116 HAS nOIEIN IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 meaning " offer," for offering is not even part of the action 
 specified. This is simply the preparing for' the sacrifice, the 
 killing and cutting in pieces, as well as in 25, 26 the laying on 
 wood. This may well be included even in verse 23, although 
 specially added in consequence of the important stipulation to 
 put no fire under. Colloquial English would allow the use of 
 the word " do " in this passage. 
 
 There are other passages in which iroutv, although used in 
 connexion with sacrifice, yet clearly excludes the sense " offer," 
 
 Lev. ii. 7, "If thy oblation be a meat-offering of the 
 frying-pan it shall be made of fine flour with oil," atfii^aXig Iv 
 eXaitt) 7roir}di](TiTai, koi irpoaoiaei tt]v uvaiav r]v av TToi^aij Ik 
 TovTiov T(j) Kvpiw Koi TTpoaoiasi TTpog Tov hpia, followed in verse 
 9 by the offering on the altar. Lev. ii. 11, vacrav Bvaiav fjv av 
 7rpO(T0f/O7}rf Kvpictj ov TTOUjaeTi K^fxtoTOv. Num. XV. 8, 11, 12, 
 13, lav TTOjrjrs utto riov jioMV elg 6\oKavT0)aii> rj tit: Bvcriav 
 fisyaXvvai tv^r]v, . . . ovTto Troiijaeig tm fxoa^i^ T(j^ kvi . . . Kara 
 TOV apiOfxbv wv lav iroaicrriTe ovrwg TTOt/jo'trE Ttf) £iu . . . irag 
 6 axfToxOivv TTou](jii ovTwg. Also in Ezek. xlv. 22, 23 ; xlvi. 
 12, etc., where the prince is said to "prepare" the offerings. 
 Thus in xlv. 17 it is said to be the prince's part to " give " the 
 offerings [^la tov a^rjyoujuf i/ou torat), and then he is said ttoihv 
 the several offerings. The prince, however, was not to perform 
 the office of the priest. Some Jewish expositors, indeed, sup- 
 posed the " prince " here to mean the high-priest. In that 
 case TToiHv might be taken as = " offer," but this meaning must 
 be determined solely by the fact that the doer was the priest^ 
 and that the whole discourse was about sacrifice. 
 
 Perhaps we may add to this Lev. vi. 21, 22. In 21 -noiiiv 
 is certainly "make," IttX rrjyavou Iv IXait^ iroir^OijaeTai. In the 
 following verse the Hebrew word certainly means " offer," but 
 apparently the LXX did not so understand the word. For in 
 the last clause of the verse, instead of " it shall be wholly burnt 
 to the Lord," they have oTrav iTriTeX^aBrjtreTai. This would 
 agree with the view that ttoihv in the beginning of the verse 
 was taken in the same sense as in verse 21. But it must be 
 observed that the subject of the verb is 6 ispiiig 6 xpto^^oe. It 
 
A SACRIFICIAL MEANING ? 117 
 
 is this subject and the following context that determine the 
 meaning of the verb in the Hebrew. No inference, then, can 
 be drawn from the nse of ttouTv here to its use where no such 
 elements of determination exist. Indeed, apart from any par- 
 ticular context, the whole book of Leviticus is sacrificial, as is 
 the above quoted section of Ezekiel. If we met the word 
 " operate " in a treatise on surgery we should interpret it of 
 surgical operations; if in a book on the stock exchange, of 
 stock-dealing operations. The word " work " would have one 
 meaning as used by students, another as used by ladies, and 
 again another in tlie mouth of an ai'tist.' 
 
 Instead of saying that irotHv joined with one of the objects 
 capable of being offered means " offer," it would be more cor- 
 rect to say tliat it may be used of an object capable of being 
 " made," " offered," " cooked for food," " prepared," " done 
 [something] to," etc., instead of any more definite verb, pro- 
 vided that the definition is supplied by the object or by the 
 preceding context. And it is important, further, to note that 
 in every case of the signification " offer " not only is the con- 
 nexion sacrificial, but the object is a thing familiarly offered. 
 
 But before we reckon even this limited application to 
 offering as belonging to the Hellenistic idiom we must consult 
 the Hebrew. For it is possible that the translators, instead of 
 selecting ttoihv as the most suitable word in the particular 
 connexion, adopted it simply because it was the literal and 
 usual equivalent of the Hebrew word. How can this be 
 decided ? Obviously by examining whether ttoihv is used to 
 render Hebrew words which properly signify " offer," or occurs 
 in connexion with " offering " only where the original has 
 nti/}! {'dsdh). If it really had to a Hellenistic writer the special 
 sense " offer," it would, of course, be sometimes used to render 
 the special Hebrew words. It is not. It never renders 
 
 ^ " Lex tota sacrificiis frequentissimis instituendis comparata est, unde 
 non mirum fuerit, si iuterdum concise et oinissa aliqua dictione brevitatis 
 causa loqueretur de rebus quibiis usque adco lectorum mentes implet." 
 Gussetius, Commcntarii Linguae Ebraicae, Amst. 1702, p. 651b. 
 
118 HAS nOIEIN IN THE. NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 ^"^"Ipn (hiqnb), which is rendered by ■rrpoa(l>ipio, etc., eighty 
 times;' and it but once represents the hiphil of HTi^, which also 
 is rendered by vpooipipw, avacjjipo), etc., about eighty times. In 
 this one instance, moreover (Job xlii. 8), the object is Kapiruyfia. 
 That is to say, that while iroitiv was often suggested to the 
 translators by the word 'dsdh, as was natural, it was practically 
 never suggested by the idea of " offering." This is absolutely 
 decisive. Actually a stronger case could be made for a sacri- 
 ficial meaning of the English " do," which is used four times 
 with sacrifice where neither 'd>idh nor ttoiuv is found in the 
 original, viz. Exod. v. 17 ; viii. 8 ; 2 Kings x. 19 ; Acts xiv. 
 13. 
 
 In two places 'dsdh is used without an object in the sense 
 " offer "; but in these the LXX understand it differently. One 
 is Hosea ii. 8, aQyvpa koi \pvcia, liroir\ai rrj BaaX (R. V. " used 
 for Baal," marg. " made into the image of Baal"); the other is 
 2 Kings xvii. 32, iiroiriaav lavTotg Iv otKW tiov v^r}\u)v. 
 
 But if TToidv had no special sacrificial meaning in the idiom 
 used by the LXX translators, is it not possible that the frequent 
 
 1 Levit. xvii. 4 is not an exception. The current text of the LXX there 
 is as follows : — /c«l &s o;' (repair] e^w Trjs ■Kapejj.fioKrjs, KaX iirl t^v Qvpav Tr\s crKr]V7Js 
 rov fj.apTvpiov jx^ ere7/cj;>[o5crT€ Troiriaai avTh els oKoKavrwixa ^ awr-qpiov Kvpi(f) BeKrhv 
 els offfxijv evojSias Kol ts hv (rtpd^rj e|co Kal iirl r^v Qvpav rrjs (XKTjuris rov jxapTvpiou 
 jjLT] eVe'y/CT?] ahrh, liiaTi wpoffevfyKai Swpov tiS Kvpia: anivavri rris (TK7)V7Js Kvpiov. 
 
 The whole of the clauses in brackets has nothing corresponding to it in 
 the Hebrew. It frequently happens that we have in the received text two 
 different translations of the Hebrew in juxtaposition. In the present case 
 the two clauses cannot be translations of the same Hebrew text, which has 
 nothing that could be rendered 6\oKavroona, or acDT-npioy, or SeKTSv, or oo-jut? 
 ei/wSias, or that even by a possible change of consonants could be so 
 rendered. Unless we are prepared to show that these words are a render- 
 ing of qorbdn (which would be absurd), we have no right to assume that 
 ■iroiTja-ai. is a rendering of haqrib. Either the Greek text is a combination of 
 the translations of two difl'erent Hebrew texts,, or it is a translation of a 
 Hebrew text in which the two readings were already combined. And in 
 fact, the Samaritan edition of the Hebrew text does present the Hebrew 
 original of both, and in it 'dsah corresponds to -noiriaai. An iinknown 
 translator renders hiqrib once by iroie'iv, Num. xxviii. 27, where the LXX 
 has irpoad^ere. There, also, the object is a word for sacrifice, oXoKavrwfia. 
 
A SACRIFICIAL MEANING? 110 
 
 use of the word in connexion with sacrifice may have given it 
 a sacrificial meaning in the minds of the writers of the New 
 Testament, who were familiar with that version ? It is indeed 
 often assumed, and not least in reference to the present ques- 
 tion, that the LXX usage exercises a predominant influence 
 over that of the New Testament. The assumption is by no 
 means borne out by facts.' 
 
 In the first place, many of the ideas in reference to which 
 we should most of all expect the Septuagint vocabulary to in- 
 fluence that of the New Testament are differently expressed. 
 " To confess " is in the LXX t^ayooevw or (once) t^riyovfxuiy 
 neither of which occurs in the N. T. f^o/uoXoyou^ua* often in 
 the N. T. = *' confess," has in the LXX only the meaning 
 " praise.'' "Forgiveness" of sins is in the LXX iXaa/jLog, but 
 in the N. T. a^tatg. The latter word never has this sense in 
 the LXX, although the verb occurs in the sense " forgive." 
 
 "To divorce" is in the LXX l^aTroaTiXXeiv, but in the 
 N. T., even where the reference is to the 0. T., it is awoXvtiv. 
 "Persecute" is in the LXX usually Kara^iuiKtiv, but in the 
 N.T. ^livKstv. The former word occurs once in the N. T., but 
 means "follow" (Mark i. 36). " To condemn (judicially)" is in 
 the N. T. KaraKpivvt), which occurs in LXX once only (Esther 
 ii. 1). 
 
 Agahi, words common to both Testaments have frequently 
 entirely different meanings, and this is true even of semi- 
 technical terms. Thus Koivog, which in the N. T. has the 
 technical sense " common or unclean," is found in the canonical 
 books of the 0. T. only twice, and then with the meaning " in 
 common." The verb koivoio is not in the LXX. ^Ayawt] has 
 not in the LXX' the meaning given to it in the N. T. ; on the 
 contrary, it is used of sexual love in 2 Sam. xiii. 15 and in 
 Canticles. 'Yttohovi'i in the LXX means " expectation," not 
 " steadfastness." In the LXX arojjut and Xvu) are both used 
 in the sense " forgive," which they never have in the N. T. 
 ofioXoyia in the LXX means " free-will offering " or " vow." 
 
 » See p. 67. 
 
120 HAS nOIEIN IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 The verb oiuoXojih) also means "swear," "vow," "admit"; 
 in the Apocrypha it occurs = " confess." Kpljna in the sense 
 "justice," "ordinance," is common in the LXX, but never 
 occurs in this sense in the N. T. 
 
 These examples might be multiplied if it were worth the 
 trouble. But it will, perhaps, be more useful to take a section 
 of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the writer of which is sometimes 
 said to be impregnated with the language of the LXX. His 
 familiarity with it is indeed shown by his abundant use of it in 
 the way of quotations interwoven with his text ; all the more 
 striking is it to Und how independent his own vocabulary is. 
 The section I have taken (pretty much at haphazard) is chap, v. 
 11 to vi. 20 (twenty-four verses). Here we find the following 
 words which do not occur in the canonical Septuagint at all : 
 Sw(T£pju//vfu7oc (the verb epfxrfvtvu) occurs once, but = " trans- 
 late"); (TToix^'ia (but in Wisdom); yv/xvaZo) (in Mace, but = 
 "harass"); didaxri (only in the title of Psalm lix.); ^(opea (in 
 Wisdom and received text of Daniel); a/x£ro0Eroc ; fxifxnTr]Q (the 
 verb occurs in Wisdom); /xeaiTevoj ; ayKupa ; jSljSatoc (Wisdom); 
 fiiTaXafxI^avb) (only in Apocrypha). Of course I do not reckon 
 avaaravpow. 
 
 Of words used in a different sense^ we may enumerate 
 mdSriHjpia (" the walls of my heart ") ; 'iKig (" body ") 
 (TTspeoQ ; (carajSaAXw (" cast down ") ; eirldeaig (" deceit," etc.) 
 ^laKpiaig (" separation " [of the clouds] Job xxxvii. 16) 
 adoKtuog (only with apyvpov) ; vwdpog (found in Prov. xxii. 
 29 only, but twice in Ecclus.) ; fxaKpodvfxiaj (once only, but = 
 "not soon angry," Prov. xix. 11), so fxaKpodvpia; TrpoSpomog 
 (LXX = "first-fruits"); eTTi^eiKW/xi; tv^uKWfxi', (dtfiaiojmg ', 
 Trapa^siyfiaTi^io. 
 
 This is a considerable gleaning for so short a passage, and 
 that from a writer who is supposed to be peculiarly imbued 
 with the language of the LXX. The coincidences with the 
 Book of Wisdom deserve notice ; had this been one of the 
 books from which the writer so freely quotes, these would 
 
 1 The Septuagint meaning is given in brackets. 
 
A SACRIFICIAL MEANING ? 121 
 
 ■doubtless be thought to bear out the hypothesis of his depen- 
 dence on the vocabulary of the LXX ; as it is, they only 
 indicate that the two writers used the same form of Greek. 
 
 It follows, I think, clearly that the existence of a particular 
 usage in the LXX gives of itself no ground for expecting to 
 find the same in the New Testament, even if it be not a 
 Hebraism, and a fortiori if it is. How does the case stand 
 with the verb in question, iroitiv ? It occurs nearly six 
 liundred times in the N. T., but never in any of the peculiar 
 senses which the LXX imitated from the Hebrew 'dadh. 
 Even the obvious and simple phrase ttohIv Ovaiav never occurs; 
 7ro(£tv SiKaio(Tvvi]v only in St. John (Epist.) ; woitlv Kpifxu, 
 frequent in the LXX in the sense " do justice," is also foreign 
 to the N. T., the usage of which, in fact, hardly differs from 
 the classical, except as the more familiar use might be expected 
 to differ from the literary ; TroteTi; KopTrov, as already observed, 
 is classical, and occurs in Aristotle. 
 
 It must be borne in mind also that on the most liberal 
 calculation, it is only in a small minority of cases of "offering" 
 that irouTv occurs in the LXX. 
 
 The phrase, however, with which we have to do is tovto 
 Troiiire. To understand this to mean " offer " would be to go 
 far beyond any usage of Troitlv in the LXX. It need hardly 
 be remarked that it is never safe to argue from the meaning 
 which a word has only in a special connexion to its meaning in 
 another connexion quite different. It is more than unsafe 
 when such a special meaning is introduced into a connexion 
 in which a different meaning is familiar. Now, since ttouIv 
 means "do" in the widest sense, it is natural that tovto ttouIv 
 should be as familiar to a Greek as "do this " is to an English 
 speaking person. And so in fact we find it was. The phrase 
 occurs frequently in classical Greek, and always = " do this." 
 It also occurs frequently in the LXX, and always in this sense. 
 Lastly it frequently occurs in the N. T. (about twenty times), 
 and everywhere in the same sense. No writer or speaker 
 wishing to be intelligible would use tovto iroLtlTi. for " offer 
 this," nor could any hearer so understand the words. On the 
 
122 HAS nOIEIN IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 other hand, " do this " could not be expressed, in any other 
 way. 
 
 The general conclusion so far is — 
 
 1. That in the LXX ttouIv = "offer" only where the 
 ohject of the verb, or at least the preceding context, defines 
 the " doing " as sacrificial. 
 
 2. That so far as this usage of the LXX goes beyond that 
 of classical writers it is not a Hellenistic idiom, but a Hebraism^ 
 due to literalness of translation, which there is no reason to 
 suppose would pass into the New Testament. 
 
 3. That the limitations of this usage, even in the LXX, are 
 such as to exclude such a combination as tovto Troielv. 
 
 Hence, whatever be the meaning of the words elg tyjv sfxriv 
 avafivnaiv, tovto iroiaiTa cannot possibly mean anything but 
 "do this." 
 
 It is, however, asserted that avaf^vt^aig is a specially 
 sacrificial word, and that so decidedly that it must determine 
 the meaning of woibIv to be " offer." The assertion is in fact 
 entirely without foundation. It has, indeed, been said that 
 avafivrjaiQ occurs frequently in the LXX, and always in con- 
 nexion with sacrifice. By some inscrutable mistake the 
 frequency has been made out by an enumeration of passages 
 in which the word is not found at all. In fact, in the text of 
 the LXX {i.e. apart from Psalm-titles) it occurs just twice, and 
 twice only, viz. Lev. xxiv. 7 and Num. x. 10. These require 
 to be considered sej^arately. The latter passage runs thus in 
 the Bevised Version : " Also in the day of your gladness, and 
 in your set feasts, and in the beginnings of your months, j& 
 shall blow with your trumpets over your burnt- offerings, and 
 over the sacrifices of your peace-offerings ; and they shall be to 
 you for a memorial before your Grod." This rendering cer- 
 tainly seems to represent the sacrifices as a memorial. Even if 
 it were so, this would not help to prove that ava/Livi^GiQ had a 
 sacrificial meaning. As well might we consider that because 
 a scholarship in college is said to be in memoriam, therefore 
 " memoriam " means scholarship. But, first, the Hebrew 
 word, ]in3T, does not mean a memorial sacrifice. Secondly^ 
 
A SACRIFICIAL MEANING ? 123 
 
 the Greek version has the singular tarai : aaXniHre rale; 
 adXniy^iv iirl to~iq oXokuvtiouckti ku\ tnl raXt; Uv(Tiat(^ t(ov 
 awTtioliov vfxiov' Kul i<TTui vfxlv uvufivi]cn<^ tvavTi tov Qkov vjiiov. 
 The subject of taruL hero cannot be the sacrifices to. oXokuvtw- 
 fxara kqX al Ovaiai, but must be the action of blowing with the 
 trumpets. Not only is this necessarily the sense of the Greek, 
 but it is probably the meaning of tlie original also, for it agrees 
 well with the preceding context, " When ye go to war in your 
 land against the adversary that oppresseth you, then ye shall 
 sound an alarm with the trumpets; and ye shall be remembered 
 before the Lord your God, and ye shall be saved from your 
 enemies." It is clear that the blowing did not constitute the 
 sacrifices a memorial, as our version seems to imply ; but in 
 both verses the blowing is regarded as a sort of reminder to 
 the Almighty to bring his people to his mind. 
 
 The other passage is Lev. xxiv. 7, of the shewbread : " Thou 
 shalt put pure frankincense upon each row, that it may be to 
 the bread for a memorial, even an offering made by fire unto 
 the Lord." The Greek is, koI l-mBliatTs. lir\ to difxa \i[5avov 
 Kadapbv Koi (iXa koI icrovrai tig aprovg tig avafxvriaiv irpoKtifxiva 
 T(^ Kvpiii). Here the Hebrew word rendered by aj^a/ji'fjo-tc is 
 nn^TX {(iz/cdrdh). Now, everywhere else this word is rendered 
 uniformly (ivrtfjioavvov. Why did the LXX depart from this 
 rendering here ? Not without reason ; but to understand this we 
 must call to mind what the ozkdrdh was. It was that portion of 
 a meal offering which was consumed by fire, thus sanctifying 
 the whole as an offering.' Hence it was called the azkdrdh, or 
 " memorial" thereof. It was in fact a "reminder," sometliing 
 that brought to remembrance ; viz. it brought the offering and 
 the ofi'erer to remembrance before God. It is important to 
 notice that no offering is called by this name merely as an 
 offering, but as in relation to a whole of which it is a part ; 
 and further, that the English word " memorial " tends to 
 mislead, for the name has no reference to " memory " of a 
 thing past or absent. 
 
 > See Lev. ii. 2, 9, 16. 
 
J 24 HAS nOIEIN IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 Now, in the case of the shewbread no part of the cakes was 
 burned, but the frankincense which was placed on them (pro- 
 bably on trays, not on the bread itself) was burned, and served 
 as an azkdrdh to the bread. The LXX misses this by reading 
 ^n"? r without the article. Instead of rt^ apri^ or tolq aproig 
 they render elg aprovq. Having done this, they necessarily 
 missed the sense of azkdrdh, and this at once explains their 
 departure from the usual rendering fxvnp.6avvov. The Greek 
 words irrovTai iiQ aprovg tig avafxvriaiv cannot mean " shall 
 serve to the bread as an ov.," but must mean " shall serve as 
 bread for avafivri(ng," i-e. the bread itself was iig avafxvr\mv. 
 The translators knew well enough what an azkdrdh was, and 
 knew that the cakes which were not burned could not be that. 
 This is made still clearer by the fact that ^Ji^^5 at the end of 
 the verse is not rendered by the usual KapTrw^ua, but by irpoKd- 
 fieva ; or, perhaps it is more correct to say that they omit 
 ^t^^^, and insert TrpoKUfxeva to complete the sense. This word 
 is used of the table of shewbread in Num. iv. 7, and in Exod. 
 xxxix. 36 of the shewbread, rovg aprovg rovg irpoKHpivovg. 
 This places beyond all doubt the explanation above given. 
 The passage then is so far from proving that avafiv^^mg was 
 used as equivalent for azkdrdh in its ordinary sense, that it 
 goes to prove the contrary : avd/jivriaig is here used just because 
 <izkdrdh is not taken in its sacrificial sense ; if indeed the trans- 
 lator read the Hebrew text so.' 
 
 Before discussing the Psalm-titles I will refer to the 
 usage of the Hexaplar translators and of the writers of the 
 Apocryphal books, which is as important as that of the 
 LXX as evidence of the meaning of the Greek word. Now, 
 Symmachus has avapvnaLg in Ps. vi. 5 (" in death there is no 
 remembrance of thee ") ; an unnamed transla,tor (perhaps 
 Symmachus) has it in Ps. cxxxv. 13 (" thy memorial 
 [endureth] throughout all generations ") ; and in the Book 
 
 1 I leave it undecided whether the LXX may not have read the Hebrew 
 word a little differently (viz.: "Orn (= n'^^lH) for HlJli^ (= miirj^)) 
 according to the primitive orthography. 
 
A SACRIFICIAL MEANING ? 125 
 
 of Wisdom, xvi. 6, it is found in the connexion elg avanvi]aiv 
 
 tVToXlig VUJJLOV fJOU. 
 
 It would bo too little to say that avufivntrtc has been proved 
 not to be sacrificial ; in fact, there is not a shadow of reason for 
 the contrary assertion. 
 
 I now come to the two Psalni-titles in which ava^vrjo-tc 
 occurs, and in which the Hebrew is "l"^3Tri {hizhir). Some re- 
 cent commentators have adopted the view that this means " at 
 the offering of the azkdrd/i/' or "of incense"; basing the inter- 
 pretation on Isaiah Ixvi. 3, where, however, the verb is followed 
 by the word " incense." (" He that burneth frankincense," 
 R. V.) I am not, however, going to discuss the soundness of 
 this view ; I am content for argument's sake to admit that it is 
 correct. 
 
 Admitting this, however, this use of "l^^rn is at best rare, 
 and the literal meaning of the word is that which it has else- 
 where, viz. "to bring to remembrance."^ The Greek dg avd- 
 fivi}(nv, then, corresponds with the literal sense of the Hebrew, 
 and this being so, surely no philologist would think himself 
 justified in seeking farther or inferriug an otherwise unexam- 
 pled meaning of the Greek to correspond witli the rare meaning 
 of the Hebrew. Nothing short of verbal inspiration of the 
 Greek could justify such an inference. Preposterous as such 
 an argument would be in any case, in that of the Psalm-titles 
 it is utterly irrational. A few examples will make this 
 clear : — 
 
 To the Precentor is, dg to TtXog. 
 
 On Shoshannim (to the tune virlp twv dWoitjjSriaofjiivtJv. 
 
 "Lilies"). 
 
 On " Lily of the Testimony," virlp twv aXXoiwdnaofAtvwv en. 
 
 To a Gittite march or tune, virlp tCjv Xrjvwi;. 
 
 To 'Alamoth (virgin voices), vnlp tCov Kpvrptwv. 
 
 To the accompaniment of flutes, virtp ttiq KXtipovopovarig. 
 
 On stringed instruments, £i/ vpvoig. 
 
 1 n^DTn^ is rendered tov avaixpi\(rai more than once ; "l^^tD is i ava- 
 
126 HAS nOIEIN IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 Is it not obvious that in rendering the titles the translator 
 was absolutely at sea, and in obscure cases went by guesswork ? 
 In Ps. liii. he even gave up in despair, and wrote fxaeXed. 
 There is, I think, not one title not of obvious meaning which 
 he renders correctly according to modern views. He is inva- 
 riably either strictly literal or utterly wrong. Will anyone 
 seriously contend that we are to assign a perfectly novel mean- 
 ing to a Grreek word on the assumption that in one case this 
 translator's rendering, while apparently literal, was in reality 
 profoundly and subtilely correct, when nearly everyone else 
 went astray ? 
 
 It may be worth while to add that in Ps. Ixx. Aquila sub- 
 stitutes Tov avafxifxvy}(TKuv obviously in order to represent more 
 closely the grammatical form of the Hebrew, but showing that 
 he had no idea of the supposed sense of avafxvYiaLg. 
 
 The case is analogous to that of deciding between two 
 suggested causes of a given effect in natural philosophy. Here 
 we take for each cause its antecedent probability, and multiply 
 this by the chance that if it existed it would produce the effect ; 
 and a comparison of the results gives the relative probability of 
 the two causes. Now here we have on one side the probability 
 that the translator^ took "l^^Til in its literal sense, a very high 
 probability indeed when estimated from the other titles, multi- 
 plied by the probability that in that case he would render the 
 word avaiivr]aiQ, which is also pretty high, as avajuiinvijaKsiv is 
 frequently used for this verb. On the other side we have to 
 place the probability that he would discern the subtile and 
 elsewhere unknown sense of ""P^TH, a minute chance, indeed 
 evanescent, multiplied by the chance that he would think 
 avafxvr](Ttg a suitable word to express this meaning, a chance 
 too small to be measured, seeing the word is never found in 
 this sense. If the passage in Isaiah referred to above supports 
 the suggestion as to the meaning of the Hebrew word, it 
 ■certainly gives no support to this view of the Greek word, 
 which is not used there, for the rendering is 6 Sidovg At/3ai/oi; 
 
 In the N. T. avafivrjaig occurs, Heb. x. 3, " In those sacri- 
 
A SACRIFICIAL MEANING ? 127 
 
 fices there is a remembrance made of sins year by year." But 
 the circumstance that a sacrifice calls sins to mind does not go 
 to prove that whatever calls a thing to mind is a sacrifice. 
 
 "We are now in a position to estimate the value of the asser- 
 tion that in the LXX noitiv when joined with an object capable 
 of being offered has frequently or constantly the meaning 
 *' offer " ; and, secondly, that therefore this may be assumed 
 to be its meaning in the N. T. when so joined. 
 
 First, we have seen that it has this meaning only under 
 these conditions : first, that the object be not only capable of 
 being offered, but in fact habitually spoken of as offered : and, 
 secondly, that the connexion be unmistakably sacrificial. 
 
 Secondly, the usage of tlie LXX does not determine that 
 of the N. T., and there is notliing to show that even this limited 
 usage would be admitted in tlie dialect of the N. T. writers. 
 
 Thirdly, tovto Troielre or tovto to ttot^quw irntHTe in the 
 sense " offer this " or " offer this cup," has no analogy in the 
 LXX, and may be pronounced impossible. 
 
 Fourthly, tig avunvr^aiv nowhere and never had any sacri- 
 ficial signification at all. 
 
 To assume then that in the N. T. ttoiuv means " offer " 
 when neither of the above conditions is fulfilled is philologically 
 unjustifiable. 
 
 I may add that I do not know any theory of the Eucharist 
 which would make it correct to speak of it as an azkdrdh. 
 Possibly some writers may have been misled by the associa- 
 tions of tlie Englisli word " memorial." But from wliat was 
 said above it is plain that the azhdrah had nothing to do with 
 " memorial " in the sense of remembrance of a past event ; it 
 was a present calling to mind of the worshipper before God. 
 
 The preceding reasoning is to my mind so entirely con- 
 clusive that I am unwilling to add considerations of another 
 kind. Nevertheless tliere is one such consideration which seems 
 to me worthy of notice ; but I wish it to be regarded quite 
 independently of what precedes. 
 
 When TOVTO or " this " is used of an action, whether shown 
 or not, it usually is general ; that is, it means an action " such 
 
128 HAS nOIEIN IN THE N. T. A SACRIFICIAL MEANING ? 
 
 as this " : " this gesture," " this movement," &c. But if the 
 word is defined by an actual object shown and presented, then 
 it means this actual object only. Hence, if it were possible to 
 understand tovto as tovto to Trorijpiov it would mean this 
 actual cup, not a cup thus consecrated. No doubt after the 
 institution became established the case would be different, and 
 "this cup" would mean "the cup of this ceremony." 
 
 This may be illustrated as follows. Suppose the sovereign 
 to present a sword to a successful warrior, saying, " Wear this 
 sword for my sake," " this " would mean this individual sword. 
 But if an order of knighthood were thus instituted a subsequent 
 knight might speak of " this sword " meaning a sword thus 
 appropriated. It is thus that St. Paul speaks of "this cup," 
 " this bread," not defining by showing or presenting the object, 
 but by reference to the institution spoken of. Such usage, 
 however, is obviously quite different from that in the passage 
 in question, connected with the first institution. There " this " 
 must mean "this actual cup," and the words would therefore 
 refer only to a present action. This would of course be incon- 
 sistent with oauKig av Trtvrjrt, not to speak of other obvious 
 objections ; objections, too, which will at once suggest them- 
 selves even to the understanding ttoihts of a present offering 
 at all of " this my blood," or " this my body," which if tovto 
 means "this object " it must certainly include. 
 
 It would seem as if those who adopt this interpretation 
 unconsciously combine two interpretations of tovto ttolhts : 
 1, offer this cup ; 2, repeat this action. 
 
V. 
 
 TO WHAT EXTENT WAS GREEK THE LANGUAGE OF 
 GALILEE IN THE TIME OF CHRIST?^ 
 
 It is frequently taken for granted that Jesus Christ and his 
 apostles must have spoken Aramaic only, and that the original 
 records on which the Grospels were founded must also have been 
 in Aramaic. I have chosen the above heading for this paper 
 in order to emphasize the fact that even those scholars who 
 maintain that the Galileans spoke Aramaic only, yet admit 
 that sometimes, at least, uneducated Galileans did speak Greek, 
 and that fluently. This may seem to involve a contradiction, 
 but the contradiction is not mine. 
 
 On such questions a ^jriori arguments are of little value ; 
 we must examine the facts. 
 
 Tlie crucial passage is in Acts ii. 5 E., where we are told 
 that devout Jews *' out of every nation under heaven " heard 
 the Apostles address them in their own tongue. Some of these 
 men were from various parts of Asia Minor, " Cappadocia, 
 
 1 In the following I refer chiefly to " The Language of Palestine in the 
 Age of Christ and his Apostles, by De Rossi and Pfannkuche ; translated by 
 Thorl G. Repp" (Clark's Biblical Cabinet), 1833, and Dr. Neubauer's essay in 
 Stadia Jbiblica, Oxford, 1885. Dr. Roberts' work, " Greek the Language of 
 Christ arid His Apostles''^ was published in 1888. His earlier work was 
 entitled " Discussions on the Gospels.'''' 
 
 E 
 
130 TO WHAT EXTENT WAS GREEK THE LANGUAGE 
 
 Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia " ; others from 
 Egypt, Cyrene, Crete, and Eome. " All these Jews," says 
 Dr. Neubauer, " far away from Palestine spoke only Grreek, 
 with the exception of the few who learnt Hebrew in the schools 
 of Jerusalem, like St. Paul, or others who were but recent 
 immigrants from Palestine." Hence it is clear that these men, 
 at least, must have been addressed in Greek ; and so Dr. 
 Neubauer, as I understand him, admits. This being so, it 
 matters little whether Peter's speech was in Greek or not. 
 That, however, is no reason for allowing it to be assumed, 
 without proof, that it was not. Dr. Neubauer asks, " Would 
 anyone venture seriously to maintain that St. Peter spoke 
 Greek when he addresses himself to the ' men of Judea and 
 all that dwell at Jerusalem ' ? " The implied argument is, no 
 doubt, that expressed in Smith's Bible Dictionary, that these 
 hearers being called KciToiKovvngy were permanent dwellers at 
 Jerusalem, and therefore not Greek-speaking, being thus con- 
 trasted with the Cappadocians, &c., of verses 9, 10. Tliis 
 strangely overlooks the fact that the description in verse 14 
 is precisely the same as in verse 5, " There were dwelling 
 {KaroiKovvTio) in Jerusalem Jews out of every nation under 
 heaven." "Ye men of Judea (ye Jews), and all ye that dwell 
 in Jerusalem." The identity of his audience with the varied 
 multitude of the preceding verses is made as clear as possible. 
 If he spoke in Ai-amaic, then, he would be unintelligible to at 
 least a large part of his audience. But to which part of the 
 multitude would he be most likely to address himself ? Or 
 which part might he be most hopeful of influencing? The 
 Jews of Jerusalem, on whom the discourses and works of Jesus 
 himself had produced but little effect, or these immigrants, 
 these pious men, whose hearts might be supposed to be open 
 to conviction, but whose knowledge of Jesus had hitherto been 
 comparatively slight ? Can there be a doubt ? Then consider 
 the vast number added to the Church on that one day — three 
 thousand ! Is it credible that these were for the most part Jews 
 of Jerusalem ? Surely not. I conclude, therefore, with many 
 Bcholars (amongst whom I may name Dean Stanley, Canon 
 
OF GALILEE IN THE TIME OF CHRIST ? 131 
 
 Cook, and Dr. Salmon), that Peter's speech was in Greek. 
 Every indication in the text is in favour of this conclusion 
 and nothing against it. However, as this is disputed, I will 
 not insist on it, as for my purpose it is sufficient that some of 
 the a})ostles did unquestionably speak Grreek. 
 
 It was this incident of the Day of Pentecost which was 
 used by Paulus to prove that Greek was the vernacular of the 
 Galileans.^ De Sacy, in reply, appealed to the astonishment of 
 the " Cappadocians," &c., at hearing Galileans speak in their 
 tongue, and inferred that Galileans were ignorant of Gxeek. 
 How, then, did he account for their speaking it ? Simply by a 
 miracle. And this is obviously the only alternative. Some 
 subsequent writers, however, adopt De Sacy's argument from 
 the surprise of the Cappadocians, and speak of him as having 
 conclusively refuted Paulus, while they reject the hypothesis of 
 a miracle which alone made his " refutation " possible. Tliey 
 seem to see no difficulty in holding at one and the same 
 time two contradictory propositions : The Galileans understood 
 Aramaic only, and were able without a miracle to discourse in 
 Greek. 
 
 The argument from the surprise of the Cappadocians is 
 singularly weak unless we suppose that the Parthians, Medes, 
 and Elamites were also addressed in Greek. For there is not 
 a syllable in the text to limit the surprise to the Greek-speaking 
 portion of the audience, or to indicate that it was caused by the 
 Apostles speaking Greek. This was a pure assumption on the 
 part of De Sacy, in which, however, he has been unquestion- 
 ingly followed. But even granting both assumptions, I, for 
 ray part, should not attach more weight to the opinion of the 
 Cappadocians about Galilee than to that of an average English- 
 man about the language spoken in Connaught ; and this, I 
 need not say, would be valueless. On this I happen to be able 
 
 1 Paulus' work, " Verosimilia de Judaeis Palaestinensibus, Jesu atqtie 
 etiam Aposlolis iion Aramaea dialecto sola sed Graeca quoque Aramaizante 
 loeutis" Jenae, 1803, is known to me, as also to Dr. Neubauer and Dr. 
 Roberts, only through De Sacy's review in MiUin's Magazin Encyclo- 
 pidique, 1805, torn i. 
 
 K2 
 
132 TO WHAT EXTENT WAS GREEK THE LANGUAGE 
 
 to give documentary evidence. In a respectable educational 
 work recently issued I find it stated that in Connaught " the 
 native language of Erse is still chiefly spoken." In works of 
 a more ambitious character, such as Chambers' Encijclopcedia, it 
 is stated that Irish is still spoken commonly by the rural classes 
 and native land-owners in Connaught, Munster, and the south 
 of Leinster,^ while a third authority informs us that in the south 
 and west the native Irish is " giving way " to English. The facts 
 are that at the last census (1881) less than half the population of 
 Connaught were able to speak Irish at all, while all but four 
 per cent, could speak English ; or in other words more than 
 half were ignorant of Irish, while only one twenty-fifth were 
 ignorant of English. In Munster only one-third were able to 
 speak Irish, while only one and a-half per cent, were ignorant 
 of English. At the former census (1871) the proportion of 
 those able to speak Irish was even smaller, although that of 
 persons ignorant of English was larger. As to Leinster, there 
 were in 1881 only fifty persons in the whole province who 
 spoke Irish only. More than three hundred years ago Stani- 
 hurst^ (speaking of the English Pale) complained that English- 
 men were greatly astonished when they conversed with an 
 Irishman who confessed that he was ignorant of Irish, whereas 
 within the Pale the language was extinct ; and you might even 
 find toothless old men who hardly understood one or two words 
 of Irish, a fact, by the way, which pushes back the time at 
 which English began to predominate two or three generations, 
 for the parents of these old men cannot have been ignorant of 
 Englisli. Is there any reason to think that even educated 
 Cappadocians were better informed in such matters than pro- 
 fessed scholars and teachers, in these days of carefully ascer- 
 tained and published statistics, are about similar matters in 
 their own country ? 
 
 But possibly the surprise, whether it were of the Cappado- 
 cians or the Partliians, was not at the languages spoken, but at 
 
 ' This is not in the new edition. 
 
 - Stanihurst de Rehis Hibernicis, 1584, p. 29. 
 
OF GALILEE IN THE TIME OF CHRIST ? 133 
 
 the manner in which they were uttered. On this point, also, 
 my own experience supplies an incident strikingly parallel. I 
 once heard some members of a Middlesex congregation, who 
 had just been listening to a clergyman from the West of Ire- 
 land, express their surprise that they " could understand every 
 word he said." Yet tliey had not expected that he would 
 speak any language but English, or supposed that he usually 
 spoke any other tongue ; but knowing how hard it often is for 
 a southern Englishman to understand a northern, for example, 
 they expected to find a still greater difficulty in understanding 
 one whom they supposed to be a Connaughtman. This inci- 
 dent, trivial in itself, supplies a complete answer to the question 
 put by sundry scholars, Why should the Cappadocians, &c., 
 express surprise at the apostles speaking Greek if that was 
 their usual language ? In short, the argument, as we have 
 seen, rests on three assumptions, all but feebly justified, or not 
 at all — 1, that the surprise was on the part of the Grreek- 
 speaking hearers only ; 2, that it was at the fact that the 
 language they heard was not Aramaic but Greek ; and 3, that 
 these strangers must have had an exact knowledge of the extent 
 to which Greek was or was not known to Galileans. Whatever 
 their opinion may have been it cannot set aside the fact that 
 the apostles did actually speak Greek. Now to address au 
 assembly supposes a considerable familiarity with the language 
 used. As the apostles were ordinary Galilean peasants, of the 
 same class from which the audiences of our Lord were formed, 
 this is a demonstration that to some (or rather, many) of those 
 composing these audiences Greek was familiar.^ 
 
 It is not easy to see how this is to be reconciled with the 
 opinion as stated by Schiirer, for example, that "the sole 
 popular language was Aramaic." Mr. Neubauer asks, also, 
 " Why should the chief captain [Acts xxi. 37] wonder that 
 St. Paul could speak Greek if the Jews were generally 
 known to be familiar with it?" The question is answered 
 by the next words of the chief captain, " Art thou not that 
 
 ' Dr. Edersheim admits that Greek was generally known. 
 
134 TO WHAT EXTENT WAS GREEK THE LANGUAGE 
 
 Egyptian ?" If the question then proves anything, it must be 
 that the Egyptians did not speak Grreek. But Dr. Neubauer 
 holds that they did. The fact is that he has taken the argu- 
 ment from Pfannkuche, who, consistently enough, uses it 
 to prove that the Egyptian Jews spoke Hebrew. As Dr. 
 Neubauer rightly rejects this view, the question of the chief 
 captain only illustrates what has just been said as to the weak- 
 ness of arguments founded on such expressions of surprise. 
 
 Schiirer considers the opinion above quoted to be proved 
 by the Aramaic words found in the New Testament and 
 by the Aramaic names. Pfannkuche used the same argu- 
 ment which, in his opinion, amounted to "intuitive demon- 
 stration," and more recent writers have adopted it as 
 conclusive. Now with respect to these Aramaic words I 
 think a distinction should be made between those used by 
 Jesus himself on two or three occasions, and others which 
 seem to have been words in common use. But as Schiirer 
 and others have made no distinction I shall first consider 
 all those to which they refer in common. First, indeed, 
 we might fairly ask to be informed in what the vis consequent iae 
 is supposed to consist ? It cannot be meant that writers and 
 speakers in one language never use words borrowed from 
 another (as the Scots, for example, borrow " dour, douce, bien, 
 fash," from the French). This would be too obviously absurd. 
 And in fact Pfannkuche (p. 65) speaks expressly of the Ara- 
 maic borrowing words from Greek and Latin, adding that such 
 borrowing is admitted by every nation that does not live quite 
 isolated. If Aramaic from Grreek, why not Grreek in one dis- 
 trict from Aramaic ? But perhaps what is meant is that if in 
 any country one language has wholly or partially given way 
 to another, no words of the former will be retained by those 
 who speak the latter. This is equally false. 
 
 If the conclusion is that Aramaic was not extinct, then 
 there is a complete ignoratio elenchi, for it is not asserted that 
 it was so. But even if it were, the assumption that no Aramaic 
 words would remain in the local dialect of Greek is demon- 
 strably false. I shall take the most striking instance I know, 
 
OF GALILEE IN THE TIME OF CHRIST? 135 
 
 being a living one, that of Ireland. Suppose a thousand years 
 hence a writer should argue thus : " Taking up any story of 
 Irish life I find in the conversations related numerous Celtic 
 words." The following, for example, is a possible narrative: — 
 " With a pipe in his caubeen and a stout pair of brogs he was 
 driving a couple of boneens down the boreen, leading a garran 
 with a kish of turf when he caught sight of his colleen bawn 
 coming to meet him, and said: 'Cead mile failte, avourneen.' 
 ' Come in, mo bouchal,' said she, ' and I will give you some 
 brochan and a sup of usquebaugh.' \Ah, budh ahusth acushla 
 machree,' said he, 'do you take me for an omadhaun ?' " Tiiis, 
 the supposed critic might say, proves that the sole popular 
 language was Celtic. And this, he would add, " is confirmed by 
 the remarkable fact, that the names given to dwellings, &c., 
 even near the metropolis, were frequently pure Celtic. For 
 instance, in a single suburb I find such names as Corruic-na- 
 Greina, Rarc-an-ilan, Inniscorrig, and many more. In the 
 heart of the city itself was a cwm, and its park was called 
 Fionn-uisge. Nicknames of individuals too were Celtic, such 
 as Rossa." 
 
 Now what are the facts as we contemporaries know them ? 
 That not twenty per cent, of the population of Ireland can 
 speak Irish at all, and in the whole province of Leinster not 
 three per cent. Yet all the Celtic words above used, and 
 many more are perfectly familiar, even in regions where the 
 Celtic lias been extinct for centuries. They simply form part 
 of the local English vocabulary. When we look a little more 
 closely at the list of Aramaic words given by Pfannkuche and 
 others, we are struck still more with the baselessness of their 
 inference. Setting aside the words used by Jesus on three 
 occasions they fall into two classes : either they are not Aramaic 
 words at all, or they are words which can be actually proved 
 to have formed part of the vocabulary of all Greek-speaking 
 Jews. The reader may think it hardly credible that a series of 
 writers capable at least of consulting Greek Lexicons should 
 one after another enumerate as Aramaic purely Greek or 
 Latin words. Yet, such are xapnig, aov^apiov, o-TrtKouAdroi/o, 
 
136 TO WHAT EXTENT WAS GREEK THE LANGUAGE 
 
 KoXwvia, Xeyetvv. Xaprjjc is a pure Grreek word occurring in 
 Plato Comicus, Cebes, Dioscorides, and inscriptions. The 
 Aramaic borrowed it from the Greek, but with a different 
 meaning, viz. " a royal law." ^ovcapiov, originally Latin, 
 was early borrowed by Greek writers ; it occurs in the Doric 
 form aojcapiov in a writer of the fifth century b.c. It is the 
 f-xact transliteration of the Latin word, not of the Aramaic 
 "llTD- STTEKouXaraip, again, is Latin, and is the exact trans- 
 literation of the Latin, not of the Aramaic, which, indeed, 
 would not tolerate such a spelling.^ But were it otherwise, 
 what can be more irrational than to assume, that unless a 
 Palestinian writer spoke Aramaic, he could not borrow a Latin 
 word ? The case of KoXwvia is even worse. It occurs. Acts 
 xvi. 12, used not by a Palestinian, but by a writer who was 
 probably not even a Jew, who certainly was a master of Greek, 
 and who had for some time been residing in the city which he 
 thus designates. Because a Greek traveller uses the correct 
 Latin designation of the city in which he was residing, he 
 must have borrowed the name from some speakers of Aramaic, 
 and therefore the Palestinians spoke Aramaic only ! I confess 
 I am unable to fathom this reasoning. Am I not right in 
 saying that writers on the subject have not taken the requisite 
 trouble to examine the facts which they adduce? I must 
 except Mr. Neubauer, who has been more discriminating, and 
 has omitted from his list these Latin words. I may add that 
 KoXwvm, like the previous words, is a transcription of the Latin 
 and not of the Aramaic. 
 
 The second class of words includes those which had beeu 
 retained by the LXX translators, and which therefore were 
 part of the vocabulary of every Greek-speaking Jew. Such 
 words are ttoo-xo, aUipa (which indeed only occurs in a quo- 
 tation from the LXX), o-aravtic, jkvva (Joshua xviii. 16). 
 Others, though not in the LXX, must have been familiar. Of 
 this class is Kop(5av, which as a legal term of constant use was 
 
 1 The Aramaic interposes a vowel between the v and the k, nlL07pDD 
 or nlLD'^pVZip. or prefixes J^ ; -nD'7P^lD^^• 
 
OF GALILEE IN THE TIME OF CHRIST? 137 
 
 as familiar to Greek-speaking Jews as habeas corpus is to us, 
 Mttraiag, /ua/3/3t', &c. Others are proper names, Bethesda ' 
 (Bethzatha, or Bethsaida), Gabbatlia, Golgotha. Names of 
 places are very persistent, and the fact that the old names 
 remain proves nothing. Pfannkuche, again, lays stress on the 
 significant geographical names, such as those compounded with 
 Beth, Capher, and En (Ain). 
 
 Ireland is full of names unaltered from the Celtic form, 
 in wliicli the etymology is obvious, especially of names com- 
 pounded -with Kill, Clon, Eath, Tober, &c., and that where 
 Irish has not been spoken for centuries. Nor is there any 
 tendency in such names to disappear. Indeed, the way in 
 which St. John introduces the first two names referred to is 
 exactly like the way in which writers and speakers in places 
 where Irish is little, if at all, known, mention disused Celtic 
 names. Thus we may see *' Dublin, called in Irish Baile-ath- 
 cliath," although in Dublin itself the latter name is unknown. 
 In a seaside place, where no Irish is spoken, a visitor is 
 informed about a particular pool " that is called in Irish Poll-a- 
 cappull." 
 
 As to the names of which Bar makes a part, Irish habits 
 illustrate this phenomenon also by the use of Mac. Thus an 
 Irish priest characterized a lately appointed and energetic 
 Protestant clergyman as " this Mac- Luther." The English 
 language did not admit of so terse a designation. Nor did the 
 Greek. Other forms of by-names are in familiar use in Irish 
 to distinguish persons who bear the same Christian and family 
 names, and are used where the Irish language is but little 
 spoken. An example is " Rossa " in the well-known name 
 O'Donovan Eossa, whom English writers mistakenly call 
 Mr. Eossa. 
 
 Some of the names referred to deserve special notice, for 
 example, " Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus." If the writer 
 had said " Bartimai, the son of Timaeus," we might regard 
 the latter words as a translation of the former ; but tliis is 
 
 ^ Dr. Edersheim suggests that the second part of this name may he a 
 Greek word Aramaized. 
 
138 TO WHAT EXTENT WAS GREEK THE LANGUAGE 
 
 excluded by the form BapTifrnTog, which treats the word as a 
 substantive name. The writer was clearly not thinking of 
 analyzing the name, and adds " son of Timaeus " as a fresh 
 particular. Moreover, Timaeus is Greek. Again, Nathanael 
 is called Bartholomew (we may assume the identity), but the 
 two names do not occur together. The latter is used by all 
 the Synoptic evangelists as a sufficient proper name. Again, 
 Joseph, who was surnamed Barsabas, was also surnamed 
 Justus, a Latin name. 
 
 Although these names then were given by persons who 
 knew Aramaic, their use in the Gospels and Acts tends to indi- 
 cate that they did not always carry with them a sense of their 
 meaning. 
 
 Of other names I shall have something to say presently. 
 
 'Aj3j3a 6 Trarrip does not seem to me to support the theory 
 that Aramaic was the language used. If Jesus used the word 
 "Abba" only, why should any Greek historian add 6 Trarrip ? 
 It would never occur, I suppose, to a modern translator having 
 7raTt)p before him to write, Pater, Father. On the other hand 
 on the bilingual theory it is easy to understand that Abba 
 being in use not merely in the sense of irariip, but as a title of 
 reverence, should be adopted by Greek-speaking Jews also, and 
 combined with 6 irariip, just as we might say "Hallelujah, 
 praise the Lord." That 'A/3/3a 6 iraTrjp was actually thus used 
 by Greek-speaking Christians we know from Eom. viii. 15, and 
 Gal. iv. 6. On Hosanna, see p. 100. 
 
 The most noteworthy expression under this head is cer- 
 tainly Maranatha, and to this some importance has been 
 attached, as it is said that it must have passed to the Greek- 
 speaking Christians of Asia Minor from the Palestinian Chris- 
 tians. In fact, however, there is nothing to show that it ever 
 passed to the Christians of Asia Minor at all. St. Paul, who 
 alone uses it, was indeed a native of that country, but he had 
 little intercourse with Palestinian Christians, and was himself 
 familiar with Aramaic. As it is to the Corinthians he uses the 
 phrase we may conclude that they had heard it from him. 
 Doubtless, had it occurred in a letter to a Jewish Church it 
 
OF GALILEE IN THE TIME OF CHRIST ? 139 
 
 would have been regarded as a decisive proof that the persons 
 addressed spoke Aramaic, if not that the epistle itself was 
 originally composed in that tongue. If I am challenged to 
 say whence St. Paul obtained the phrase, I reply, that not 
 improbably he was himself the first to use it. But I am not 
 really concerned to deny that it may have come from Pales- 
 tinian Christians, since I do not contend for the exclusive use 
 of Greek. 
 
 Again, it is asked (Sfudia Bib/ica, p. 55), *' What language 
 did Jesus speak when he said, ' Whosoever shall say to his 
 brother raca shall be in danger of the council : but whosoever 
 shall say moreh [sic] shall be in danger of hell fire,' but the 
 popular dialect in which raca {reqa) was a weaker expression 
 than moreh, for it is no unusual phenomenon for a foreign 
 word to have a stronger meaning than a native one ? " Dr. 
 Neubauer adds that " moreh in the Midrash became a standing 
 expression for ' fool,' " and refers to his letter in the AtJienceum 
 on the subject (1881, vol. ii., p. 779). "Not unusual"; but 
 tlie argument requires that the foreign word should be always, 
 or almost always, the stronger, unless it can be shown to have 
 been actually so with these words. On the contrary, I believe 
 the reverse is generally true, viz. that the native word is the 
 more forcible. In English such native words as " fool," 
 " liar," " scoundrel," are the strongest that can be em- 
 ployed, and this is equally so amongst the Euglish- speaking 
 Irish. 
 
 As to the particular word juwpt, no evidence is adduced to 
 show that it was to a Hebrew-speaking Jew stronger than 
 reqa, if indeed such Jews used it at all. There is, in fact, 
 evidence to the contrary. It is true the Greek word does occur 
 in the Midrash, but whether as an adopted word the reader 
 will form his own judgment from the passages quoted in Levy's 
 Neuhebraisches Lexicon, to which Dr. Neubauer refers. They 
 are as follow: — The first is on Num. xx. 10, "Hear now ye 
 rebels," where the Hebrew for rebels is murim (G^ID), "What 
 means the -svord imQ ? R. Reuben said : As in the Greek 
 tongue they call the fool /iwpoe." Another interpreter (on the 
 
140 TO WHAT EXTENT WAS. GREEK THE LANGUAGE 
 
 same passage), enumerating four possible senses of the word, 
 says, " so in the towns of the sea {i.e. Greece) they call fools.'* 
 Again, of the feminine H^^IIQ in Zeph. iii. 1 (which means 
 "rebellious"), Rabbi Reuben said, "in the Greek tongue they 
 call folly mora, (SIID)." Finally on Ps. ix. 21 (where 
 we translate " fear," this being the only place where the 
 Hebrew for " fear " is spelled with final H instead of S) the 
 Midrash says, " ' bring folly upon these,' for in Greek they call 
 folly mora." These passages are far from indicating that the 
 word was in use as stronger than reqa ; on the contrary, they 
 show decisively that the word was not in use at all ; for it is only 
 cited iu connexion with a Hebrew word of similar sound to 
 suggest a j)ossible (or fanciful) meaning for the latter ; and 
 in the first two passages, probably in order to avoid the 
 severe reproach "rebel." The expression, "in Greek they 
 call," shows that it was referred to as a word not in use 
 amongst Hebrew-speaking Jews. Suppose we found Greek 
 commentators on Matth. v. 22, explaining jUtopt, as some 
 moderns have done, by reference to the Hebrew for " rebel," 
 would any one infer that the Hebrew word was in familiar 
 use amongst Greek writers or speakers ? (These Midrashim, it 
 may be remarked, are comparatively modern.) Dr. Neubauer 
 himself (p. 74) cites a passage in which the Greek pronoun al 
 is applied in the very same way in illustration of Gen. xxii. 
 7, 8, " God will provide himself a lamb [seh, i.e. ai) ; " and 
 another from the Talmud in which ]n in Job xxviii. 28 is 
 explained from the Greek ei;, " Behold (]n i.e. 'iv) the fear of 
 the Lord," that is, " the fear of the Lord is the one thing." 
 I may add another instance from a Talmudical comment on 
 1 Kings xxii. 36, " There went a cry through the host 
 (iliin, i.e. Etp/jvj/)." His inference, as expressed in his letter 
 to the Athenceum, is certainly sound, viz. that fxiogl was as 
 current among the Greek-speaking Jews in Palestine (who, he 
 adds, were not a few) as the word JltDlIi', " fool," was in the 
 mouth of the Hebrew-speaking Jews. 
 
 On the other hand raca, or reqa, is just the sort of word 
 that would be sure to become current among Greek-speaking 
 
OF GALILEE IN THE TIME OF CHRIST? 141 
 
 Jews of Palestine, just as Irisli terms of similar import are 
 current amongst English-speaking Irish folk. It follows, 
 then, tliat if Jesus was speaking in Aramaic, /uw/oa is a trans- 
 lation. Why then did the Evangelist not translate raca 
 also ? To Dr. Neubauer's question then : " What language 
 did Jesus speak on this occasion?" the reply is, "obviously 
 Greek." 
 
 Let us see how the whole account stands with respect to 
 Aramaic words. Omitting names and the words used by Jesus 
 himself, there are in the Gospels about thirteen words reckoned 
 by Dr. Neubauer. Four of these are actually found in the 
 LXX. Five others we know to have been in such common 
 use that there can be no doubt that every Greek-speaking Jew 
 would be familiar with them, viz. Corban, Hosanna, Babbi, 
 Messias, Pharisaios. There remain four. Abba and Raca 
 have been already discussed ; Ilabboui will be referred to pre- 
 sently. The remaining word is Mammona. 
 
 The word Mammon is common in Aramaic in the sense 
 of " riches," " gain," " money." Its occurrence here rather 
 favours the view that the sayings in which it appears (Matthew 
 vi. 24 ; Luke xvi. 9, 11, 13) were originally Greek. Otherwise, 
 why should it be left untranslated, and that only here ? But 
 it will be observed that it is applied here in a contemptuous 
 manner — " unrighteous mammon " ; and in the first and last 
 cited verses (which are parallel) with a semi-personification. 
 Now a word familiar in an indifl^erent sense is, I think, less 
 likely to be applied in this way than one which being foreign, 
 or for some other reason less familiar, can be appropriated to 
 such a use. Thus we ourselves use "lucre" contemjituously, 
 or " £ 6'. rf. " ; and it would be more natural for an English 
 speaker to personify either of these, or the French word 
 " I'argent," than the familiar words " gold " or " money." 
 
 I do not, however, lay any stress on this ; but I must ask 
 the reader to remember that while the Aramaic words not 
 taken from the Septuagint are so few, there are in the Gospels 
 at least as many purely Latin words, including "modius," 
 " linteum," " semicinctium." Surely it is as easy to account 
 
142 TO WHAT EXTENT WAS' GREEK THE LANGUAGE 
 
 for a Greek- speaking Jew using an Aramaic as a Latin word. 
 In my judgment the books would look more like translations 
 if no Aramaic words appeared in them, such as must certainly 
 have been in use amongst Greek-speaking Jews. And it 
 deserves to be noticed that in St. Luke's Gospel only one such 
 word is found (besides Mammona), and that only in the first 
 chapter (which with the second stands on a different ground 
 from the rest of the Gospel), and in what is practically a 
 quotation from the LXX. 
 
 I now come to the phrases used by Jesus himself, " Talitha 
 cumi," " Ephphatha," and the words uttered on the cross, from 
 the 22nd Psalm. These require to be treated separately be- 
 cause they are not, like the preceding, instances of words in 
 familiar use. To take the last first. This is considered by 
 Schiirer and others as very decisive. These words were spoken, 
 it is said, under circumstances of exhaustion and pain, when a 
 person would naturally make use of his mother tongue. True ; 
 but admitting this, it only proves that the vernacular, or 
 language of his early years, was Aramaic. It would by no 
 means prove that he did not often, or even most frequently, 
 use Greek. But I need not dwell on this since the argument 
 is deprived of all weight by the fact that the words are a quo- 
 tation. The assumption that a dying and suffering man quoting 
 a Psalm would be sure to quote it in his vernacular, is disproved 
 by history. How many holy men of Christian times have died 
 with the words of a Latin Psalm on their lips ! One historical 
 instance is sufficient for my purpose. It is a very well known 
 one, that of St. Francis Xavier. As he lay on the sea-shore in 
 a burning fever, he uttered the words, " In te, Domine, speravi, 
 non confundar in aeternum." It must also be observed that 
 the bystanders did not understand the exclamation. They 
 caught the word Eli, Eli, and said that Jesus was calling for 
 Elias. These bystanders were clearly Jews of Jerusalem. Nor 
 should I omit to notice that these were not the only words 
 spoken on the cross. 
 
 There remain the two phrases, " Talitha cumi " and " Ephpha- 
 tha," which it may be admitted prove that Jesus sometimes spoke 
 
OF GALILEE IN THE TIME OF CHRIST ? 143 
 
 Aramaic. But. it is not to be forgotten that there are here two 
 facts to be accounted for, one the occurrence of the Aramaic 
 words in the records, the other that these are the only sayings 
 in that language. If he always spoke Aramaic, and the his- 
 torians have translated all his sayings except these three words, 
 why did they not translate these ? It is not because of their 
 importance. The " It is finished " on the cross was more 
 important ; so also were the words at the last supper, and 
 many others. The explanations of this fact attempted by 
 Pfannkuche and others are, I venture to say, ludicrously 
 inadequate. Pfannkuche thinks the words were retained acci- 
 dentally from inadvertence ! {Transl. p. 46, note) ; and I sup- 
 pose it was by a further inadvertence that the translation was 
 added ! His translator sensibly rejects the explanation, saying 
 that, on the contrary, there seems to be a design to make us 
 acquainted with the very sounds uttered by the Saviour when 
 performing these miracles ; and adding, that although he agrees 
 with Pfannkuche's general position, he thinks this argument 
 from Christ's speeches excessively weak. The words now under 
 consideration were, as he observes, not directly addressed to the 
 common people (he ought to have said not at all) ; and whether 
 they understood them or not was of no moment. The rational 
 explanation is that the use of Aramaic on these occasions was 
 exceptional. 
 
 I am not bound to account for Aramaic being used excep- 
 tionally on these two occasions; but as to one of them an obvious 
 reason does suggest itself. If Galilee was biKngual, there 
 would be some families more especially attached to the older 
 vernacular. The family of the ruler of the synagogue is just 
 the one in which we might expect such attachment to be found ; 
 and in that family a child would be the least likely to be familiar 
 with Greek. In the case of the deaf stammerer in Decapolis 
 there may have been a local or personal reason. Indeed, it is 
 not dijSicult to suggest such a reason. A man labouring under 
 such a defect, doubtless congenital, would be beliind his com- 
 patriots in intelligence, and would know only the language of 
 the least instructed of them. In the Irish-speaking parts of 
 
144 TO WHAT EXTENT WAS GREEK THE LANGUAGE 
 
 Ireland we should naturally expect a half-witted or half-mute 
 person to use Irish only. But the whole argument is not only 
 excessively weak, as Mr. Repp, with his usual candour, re- 
 marks, but is entirely worthless. Palestine is known and 
 admitted to have been to some extent, at least, a bilingual 
 country ; yet because a religious teacher on two occasions 
 addressing single individuals uses Aramaic, therefore it is 
 inferred that he never spoke any other language. Let us test 
 the argument again by a concrete analogy from Ireland. The 
 late Bishop of Cork (Dr. Gregg) when relating on Dublin 
 platforms incidents of his own or others' visits to Irish-speaking 
 districts, would often quote a terse Irish phrase. I have myself 
 heard him at a meeting in Dublin interrupt his speech in order 
 to address questions in Irish to teachers present from the West 
 (who nevertheless would have understood him had he spoken 
 English). If his speeches and narratives had been put into a 
 volume, some future Pfannkuche or Schiirer would argue that 
 he must have always spoken Irish, and more than that, that the 
 audiences he addressed in Dublin and elsewhere were predomi- 
 nantly Irish-speaking. If these scholars of the future should 
 learn further that when he made an excursion to some district 
 in the far south-west, he was able to attract crowded congrega- 
 tions to listen to his eloquent addresses in Irish, they would 
 entertain no doubt of the truth of these conclusions. Yet the 
 fact was, that with rare exceptions, he always spoke, taught, 
 and preached in English, which was strictly his own vernacular, 
 and to hearers who understood nothing else. The argument in 
 question then is not merely inconclusive, it is absolutely devoid 
 of force/ Yet this is the palmary argument of Schiirer and 
 others. 
 
 It is worth while to consider for a moment from what 
 source St. Mark may have derived these words which he alone 
 records. It cannot reasonably be supposed that he derived 
 them from an Aramaic record which he translated into Grreek, 
 retaining these two expressions alone in the original. And the 
 same remark would apply to any supposed earlier writer or 
 narrator founding on an Aramaic authority. The only solu- 
 
OF GALILEE IN THE TIME OF CHIUST ? 145 
 
 tion seems to me to bo that the two incidents in question were 
 related by an earwitness who told his story in Greek. Such a 
 one in telling the story would very naturally repeat the actual 
 words which were followed by the wonderful result. In one of 
 the two cases besides the parents of the child only Peter, James, 
 and John were present. If we accept the truth of the tradi- 
 tion that Peter was Mark's informant, we have another proof 
 that this apostle spoke Greek. But for my purpose it does 
 not matter which of the three apostles told the story in 
 Greek. 
 
 It is curious to observe the tendency of writers on the sub- 
 ject to magnify the number of these sayings. One speaks of 
 them as "fragments of speeches." Another calls them "nume- 
 rous sayings." A third says " there are several Aramaic words 
 used in the N. T., especially by Christ. They are almost all 
 of them utterances employed on some solemn occasion." Even 
 if we include the quotation used on the cross there are only 
 three sayings in Aramaic. If ancient writers had spoken in 
 such terms as these might it not have been plausibly argued 
 that the Gospels they used were not the same as ours ? Apart 
 from a quotation, it might be said, only one of our Gospels 
 contains Aramaic sayings of Christ, and this has only two ; 
 and no one would call three words " numerous sayings," or 
 speak of almost all of two. 
 
 The extreme feebleness of the argument is shown even 
 more conclusively by the consideration that Jesus was not an 
 ordinary Galilean, but one who consciously entered on a great 
 religious mission, and this not before thirty years of age. Now 
 put the most extreme supposition (one which I do not allege 
 as probable), that in his early years Greek was his only 
 language, while he knew that some, even though few, of his 
 countrymen were ignorant of it, wholly or partially. Is it 
 likely, is it even credible, that he would neglect to acquire the 
 power of communicating with this minority ? We have just 
 seen an instance of a religious teacher in Ireland, without any 
 special mission before him, and in the midst of other occupa- 
 tions mastering the Irish tongue. 
 
 L 
 
146 TO WHAT EXTENT WAS GREEK THE LANGUAGE 
 
 Can we imagine that Jesus, even in the extreme case sup- 
 posed, would have rested content during all those years of silent 
 preparation with ignorance of the tongue spoken by even a 
 small section of his countrymen ? To me this is wholly incre- 
 dible. Yet Schiirer and others, who use the argument referred 
 to, ask us to accept it as something too evident to require 
 statement. Twice, say they, he addressed individuals in Ara- 
 maic, therefore he never spoke in any other tongue ! 
 
 Following the same line of thought may we not say that 
 since some of the most familiar friends of Jesus were acquainted 
 with Greek, and since further there was at least in Jerusalem 
 a colony of Greek-speaking Jews, it is beyond all question 
 certain that he would qualify himself to be understood by these 
 latter, and would at least not be behind his apostles in the 
 power of addressing them ? It follows, I think, with certainty 
 that Jesus sometimes at least spoke Greek, and spoke it as well 
 as Peter, or James, or John. 
 
 Pfannkuche mentions further in support of his view Paul's 
 relation, that he " in an ecstasy was addressed by Jesus in the 
 modern Hebrew or Palestinian language." Dr. Neubauer 
 adopts tlie argument, saying, " It is a weak argument to say 
 that had Jesus always spoken in the popular dialect, viz. the 
 Galileo-Aramean, there would have been no occasion for the 
 author of the Acts to state that he spoke to St. Paul in 
 Hebrew ; and yet this is one of the chief arguments of writers 
 on the other side." I cannot discover any ground for this last 
 statement; certainly there is nothing to justify it in Dr. 
 Roberts' book, and least of all in the page to which Dr. 
 Neubauer refers us, which contains nothing relating to it. It 
 is the supporters of the opposite view, like De Possi and 
 Pfannkuche, who appeal to the statement, and Dr. Roberts 
 only refers to it in order to answer the objection it suggests ; 
 and, secondarily, to show that the escort did not understand 
 Hebrew, and therefore must have carried on their intercourse 
 with the Jews in Greek. But in his last edition this is, I 
 believe, omitted. It is Mr. Pepp, the candid translator of 
 Pfannkuche, who, although on the whole agreeing with his 
 
OV GALILEE IN THE TIME OF CHRIST? 147 
 
 opinion, makes the observation quoted by Dr. Neubauer; his 
 inference, however, being that Paul on this occasion was 
 addressed in ancient Hebrew. It is, indeed, easy to conceive 
 a reason for Greek not being used on this occasion, -as the words 
 were intended for Paul alone, and accordingly, although appa- 
 rently heard, were not understood by the others.' 
 
 But most singular is Dr. Neubauer's comment : " The 
 author of the Acts not remembering the Hebrew words 
 gpoken to St. Paul, or not being able to supply them from his 
 own knowledge of Hebrew, was obliged, in order to be believed, 
 to state that Jesus spoke to St. Paul in Hebrew." Surely it is 
 neither necessary nor usual for a historian, on pain of being 
 discredited, to specify what language was used on each occasion. 
 What then about Peter's speeches which Luke does not say 
 were in Hebrew ? Still more curious appears the comment, 
 when we remember that it is not the author of the Acts 
 that makes the statement; it is Paul himself in his speech 
 before Festus who does so, and certainly not for the reason 
 suggested. 
 
 I come now to another argument of Pfannkuche and Dr. 
 Neubauer. The latter states it thus (p. 68) : — " If we are not 
 mistaken, it is now generally admitted that the earliest writings 
 of the Christians in Palestine and the neighbouring countries, 
 where they took refuge after the destruction of Jerusalem, were 
 uniformly in a vernacular Hebrew, and not in Greek. Had a 
 majority of the Jews (he adds) sjpoken this language, some of 
 these records must have been composed in Greek." No doubt, 
 and so they were. Any statement to the contrary is made not 
 only without proof, but in the teeth of the clearest evidence 
 attainable. As to the " general admission " I need hardly say 
 that he is mistaken. His only reference is to a treatise by 
 M. Michel Nicolas.* 
 
 As Pfannkuche is more definite I shall examine his state- 
 ment first. He says : — " This position [that Greek even for 
 
 ' aKovovres rris (puurjs (Acts ix. 7); rijv Sh <pa)ui)v ovk fJKOvaap rov \a\ovvTos 
 (xxii. 9). 
 
 ^ iSludes sur les JEvatigtles Apocri/pJies, Paris, 1866. 
 
 L2 
 
148 TO WHAT EXTENT WAS GREEK THE LANGUAGE 
 
 several centuries after the fall of Jerusalem did not meet with 
 much favour among the Palestinians] is farther confirmed by 
 the Apocrypha, really or supposedly written in Palestine ; by 
 the very ancient gospels of the Nazarenes and Hebrews ; by 
 the more modern gospels of Barnabas, Bartholomew, and the 
 Nativity of Mary ; by Christ's letter to Abgar ; by Mary's 
 letter to the women of Messina; by Abdias' History of the 
 Apostles, &c. ; all of which works either really existed in the 
 Aramaic or Hebrew tongues, or at least according to the pre- 
 tence of those who put them into circulation, were translated 
 from one or other of these languages." Pfannkuche gives 
 very exact references to Fabricius for all these documents, so 
 that we have the advantage of being able to test his statements 
 by the actual authority on which he founded them. Most 
 readers would of course be satisfied with the fact that he does 
 refer to that author, and would take for granted that what he 
 says is borne out by Fabricius. Of the gospels of the Naza- 
 renes and the Hebrews, which are not two but one, I shall 
 speak presently. As to Barnabas, what Fabricius says is that 
 Casaubon states that Barnabas is said by some to have trans- 
 lated Matthew's Grospel into G-reek, but on what authority 
 Fabricius declares he does not know. He thinks, however, 
 that the opinion may have arisen from the tradition that Bar- 
 nabas' body was found with Matthew's Gospel on it written by 
 Barnabas' own hand. M. Nicolas takes a further step. He 
 says (p. 139) that "the Grospel of Barnabas" seems to have been 
 only one of the numerous Greek translations which were early 
 made of this same (Hebrew) Gospel ; and adds that Casaubon 
 has maintained this opinion not without some appearance of 
 reason ; thus leading the reader to suppose that that learned 
 author liad adduced arguments and facts in support of it. 
 M. Nicolas' statement is pure fiction. Casaubon has done 
 nothing of the kind. He is speaking of our Greek Gospel, 
 and says : " Auctorem textus Graeci fuisse Jacobum fratrem 
 Domini Athanasius gravis auctor memoriae prodidit. Jo- 
 hannem evangelistam alii dicunt ut legitur in vita Matthaei 
 et apud Theophylactum. Sunt qui Barnabae apostolo, sunt 
 
OF GALILEE IN THE TIME OF CHRIST ? 149 
 
 qui Lucae et Paulo id ipsum attribuunt." ' A writer who 
 can graft his own imagination in such a way on a simple 
 reference, and ascribe it to an author to whose work he refers 
 without ever having seen it, is wholly untrustworthy ; and no 
 statement or seeming quotation of his can be accepted without 
 scrutiny, which indeed in such a case is generally not worth 
 the labour. 
 
 Here is a pretty genealogy of modern tradition. Casaubon 
 quotes a conjecture about the Greek St. Matthew ; Fabricius 
 thinks he is referring to some ancient authority ; Pfann- 
 kuclie evolves a " gospel of Barnabas" ; and Nicolas affirms 
 that the learned Casaubon (who had said nothing about a 
 " gospel of Barnabas ") has maintained a certain opinion about 
 it. If this is what happened in the nineteenth century, what 
 may have happened in the second or third ? Were there no 
 MM. Nicolas then ? 
 
 The Gospel of Bartholomew is equally mythical. He is 
 said simply to have brought Matthew's Gospel to India. The 
 Nativity of Mary is mentioned in a forged letter pretending to 
 be from Chromatins and Heliodorus to Jerome asking him to 
 translate the Hebrew of Matthew, which he was said to have 
 found. There is a reply from the pseudo- Jerome, which I need 
 not quote, as it is admitted by M. Nicolas that this Latin 
 narration is not older than the middle of the fifth century. 
 Naturally such forgeries usually profess to come from some 
 obscure source ; and the most obvious thing to say was that it 
 had been found existing in Hebrew. Next we have Christ's 
 letter to Abgar, which as a reply to a letter of a Syrian prince, 
 was of course forged in Syriac. This very small production 
 is the only one of those cited by Pfannkuche which " really 
 
 ^ Casaubon, Exercitationes Contra Baronium Exerc. xv., $ 12, p. 388, 
 ed. 1614, M. Nicolas took the reference from Fabricius, but by way of 
 improving on it he expands " Exerc. xv." (which meant the 15th 
 Exercitatio) into " Exercitationes xv." He has only succeeded in showing 
 that he never saw the book, and that no assertion of his can be trusted. 
 This system of giving second-hand references without stating that they are 
 borrowed and without verification is very common, but not the less 
 deserving of strong reprobation. 
 
150 TO WHAT EXTENT WAS GREEK THE LANGUAGE 
 
 existed in the Aramaic tongue." Mary's letter is, according 
 to Fabricius (and, indeed, obviously), a ridiculous Latiu forgery 
 of modern times, although of course pretending to be from the 
 Hebrew. Abdias' History of the Apostles is a Latiu forgery 
 later than Rufinus. What can be more preposterous than to 
 use these late forgeries as tending to i)rove anything about the 
 language of Palestine in the first century ! If Pfannkuche's 
 " etc." includes anything feebler it is a marvel. 
 
 I come now to M. Nicolas, to whom Dr. Neubauer refers 
 in support of the statement above quoted. First we take the 
 Gospel according to the Hebrews. Let us see then on what 
 grounds M. Nicolas holds this to be older than our canonical 
 Gospel of St. Matthew. One example is Matth. vi. 11, " panem 
 nostrum supersubstantialem da nobis hodie," where Jerome 
 says that the Gospel according to the Hebrews had the word 
 iriD, meaning " of the morrow." This M. Nicolas thinks the 
 original reading apparently, because linovaiog is obscure ; and 
 he suggests that the Greek translator adopted the latter word 
 from some false spiritual view, namely, because of the saying 
 that man doth not live by bread alone, he made the prayer be 
 one for spiritual " supersubstantial " bread. He is quite easy 
 in the belief that l-movaiog means " supersubstantialis," and 
 that this means " spiritual." Comment on scholarship like 
 this is unnecessary. '^Triovaiog is by many interpreters held 
 to mean " for the morrow," and was therefore rightly, or at 
 any rate fairly, rendered in the Hebrew Gospel. But no Greek 
 translator would be likely to select this Greek word as a trans- 
 lation of the simple Hebrew. " Supersubstantialis " was of 
 course simply invented in imitation of the supposed etymology 
 of iinovaioQ, the meaning of which was obscure to the trans- 
 lator. His next instance is the substitution of " son of 
 Jehoiada " for " son of Barachias " in Matth. xxiii. 35. This 
 again is a case where for elementary critical reasons the latter 
 must be (and by all critics is) considered the older reading. 
 
 Two passages he cites where the same facts are related as 
 in our St. Matthew, but with a balance of verisimilitude on the 
 side of the apocryphal Gospel. The first corresponds to Matth. 
 
OF GALILEE IN THE TIME OF CHRIST P 151 
 
 xviii. 21, 22 : " If thy brother sin against thee in word and give 
 thee satisfaction, forgive him (suscipe eiim) seven times a-day. 
 Simon his disciple said to hira, Seven times a-day ? The Lord 
 answered and said to him, Yea, I say to thee, even seventy 
 times seven." Yet M. Nicolas cannot help admitting that 
 although this " a certainement plus de vivacite et de naturel," 
 yet it has less elevation than the precept in the canonical 
 G-ospel, and he proposes to remedy this by leaving out as later 
 additions " in word " and " give thee satisfaction." 
 
 The other is a longer narrative — too long to quote in full — 
 corresponding to Matth. xix. 16-24, the story of the rich man 
 who asked wliat he should do to inherit eternal life. Two 
 extracts will suffice. 
 
 On hearing the Lord's answer, " coepit dives scalpere caput 
 suum." This betrays not the liveliness of an eyewitness, but 
 the coarse touch of a vulgar manipulator. Indeed it is a 
 little too coarse for M. Nicolas, and he translates it " le riche se 
 mit a se frapper la tete."^ In the same passage he finds a 
 trait of gentleness in harmony with the character of Jesus, aud 
 in contrast with the rudeness of his words as recorded in St. 
 Matthew, inasmuch as the apocryphal Gospel states that he 
 turned and said " in a sort of aside," to Simon, who sat by 
 him, " Simon, son of John, it is easier for a camel to enter 
 through tlie eye of a needle than a rich man into the kingdom 
 of heaven." He has not observed that in St. Matthew it is not 
 till after the departure of the rich man that Jesus said this to 
 his disciples ; so that any appearance of rudeness certainly does 
 not belong to the canonical narrative. As to the rest of the 
 conversation, also, the balance of gentleness is not on the side 
 of the apocryphal Gospel, in which, for example, Jesus says, 
 " Thy house is full of good things, aud nothing ever goes out 
 of it to thy brethren who are dying of hunger." This also 
 bears the stamp of a later hand. 
 
 1 See the whole passage, with others, in Salmon's Introduction to the 
 New Testament, 4th ed., p. 180. He well remarks that the story impresses 
 him "as on a level with the versions of the New Testament stories which 
 good ladies sometimes publish for the use of children," p. 1.S4. 
 
152 TO WHAT EXTENT WAS GREEK THE LANGUAGE 
 
 The legend in the Gospel of the Hebrews of the interview 
 of the risen Jesus with James, " goes back incontestably to the 
 earliest period of Christianity." ^ Why? Because it appears 
 from St. Paul that it was universally admitted by the Chris- 
 tians of his day that the Lord appeared to James before show- 
 ing Himself to the Apostles. So that because the simple fact 
 is stated by St. Paul, he and his contemporaries must have 
 been acquainted with the decorative details ! In other words, 
 a legend must be as old as its simplest nucleus ! 
 
 Again, we find in this Grospel, says M. Nicolas, the infor- 
 mation that Barabbas had been condemned for sedition and 
 homicide. He dwells on the value and interest of this infor- 
 mation in ignorance of the fact that it is found in St. Luke's 
 Gospel. If it had really been found in the Gospel of the 
 Hebrews it would have helped to prove it later than St. Luke's. 
 But it was not. What Jerome says on Barabbas is : " Hoc 
 nomen evangelium juxta Hebraeos filius patris {' niagistri,' 
 Nicolas) eorum interpretatur : qui propter seditionem et ho- 
 micidium (' homic idam,' Nicolas) f uerat condemnatus." It is 
 clear that the interpretation alone is quoted from the Gospel in 
 question, the rest being Jerome's own remark taken from St. 
 Luke. 
 
 The account of the baptism is clearly a later development. 
 " Behold, the mother and the brethren of the Lord said to him, 
 John the Baptist baptizeth for the remission of sins ; let us go 
 and be baptized by him. But he said to them, Wherein 
 have I sinned that I should go and be baptized by him, 
 except perchance this very thing that I have said is ignor- 
 ance ?" 
 
 M. Nicolas has a pretty long discussion of Justin Martyr's 
 relation that Jesus was born in a cave near Bethlehem. This 
 addition to the canonical Gospels proves, he thinks, that Justin 
 derived his information from other sources ; and all doubts 
 disappear when we see that ancient documents, which he cer- 
 tainly knew, relate the facts on which he deviates from* the 
 canonical Gospels " exactly as he himself recounts them." 
 ^ For the legend see Salmon's Introduction, ed. 4, p. 178. 
 
OF GALILEE IN THE TIME OF CHRIST? 153 
 
 These books are the Judaizing Gospels, and in particular the 
 Gospel of the Apostles, i.e. the same Gospel of which we have 
 been speaking. But we do not possess the passage of this 
 Gospel which relates to the Nativity ; we only know that the 
 legend of the cave does appear in the later Gospels of the 
 Nativity ; and " as it could not have been formed in the anti- 
 Judaizing party, nor yet in the middle party (whose story is 
 in St. Matthew and St. Luke), therefore it must have been in 
 the Gospel of the Hebrews." But why might not Justin have 
 obtained the addition of the "cave " from an oral expansion of the 
 genuine story ? "What puts it beyond doubt that he was using 
 a written Gospel different from ours is that we find a story 
 exactly agreeing with his in a written document which he had 
 read." AVhen we say that we find nothing of the kind, and ask 
 to be shown the passage, we are told that it does not indeed 
 exist, but it must have been there, and it must have " exactly " 
 agreed with Justin because he must have been using a written 
 document ! Surely if Justin had half the imagination of M. 
 Nicolas he would have added the cave himself.' 
 
 I have dwelt at some length on this apocryphal Gospel 
 because, according to M. Nicolas, it was in fact the basis of 
 many others ; and if it was later than the canonical Gospel of 
 Matthew, then not only is the statement that all the earliest 
 writings of Palestinian Christians were in Aramaic disproved, 
 but there is no ground for affirming that even one of them was 
 so. That some early narratives existed in Aramaic is not im- 
 probable, but there is no trace of them. Most of the Gospels 
 of the Infancy, says M. Nicolas (p. 199), were at first written 
 in Syriac. But whether this was so we need not inquire, for 
 these were certainly later, as were also the rest. And I have 
 
 ^ Another instance of Nicolas' habit of translating conjecture into 
 positive assertion occurs with reference to the " Gospel of Peter." This, 
 he assures us, calls the brethren of Jesus children of Joseph by a former 
 marriage. It is Origen, he says, who informs us of this. Happily in this 
 instance he quotes his authority. What Origen says is, that some say this, 
 deriving it either from the tradition of the Gospel entitled Peter's, or from 
 the Book of James, thus admitting his ignorance of the source. 
 
154 TO WHAT EXTENT WAS GREEK THE LANGUAGE 
 
 given more space to M. Nicolas than his arguments deserve, 
 because he furnishes such a striking illustration of the import- 
 ance of the golden rule, " Verify your references." Here we 
 have a learned writer, on the authority of M. Nicolas, assuming 
 that a certain statement is proved ; and on referring to M. 
 Nicolas we find that his quotations are untrustworthy, his 
 judgment uncritical, and his scholarship unsound. 
 
 Having thus cleared the ground we can turn the tables 
 completely under this head of argument. Tlie earliest Chris- 
 tian writings, so far as we have any positive knowledge what- 
 ever, were written in Greek, even those written by and for 
 Palestinian Jews. Probably the earliest book in the New 
 Testament is the Epistle of James, written in Greek, and 
 showing a considerable mastery of the language. I am aware 
 that it has been conjectured that this was written in Aramaic, 
 but there is no proof of that, and I am dealing only with facts. 
 The first Epistle of Peter is addressed to the Greek-speaking 
 dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. 
 The Epistle of Jude is also Palestinian. The Epistle to the 
 Hebrews is especially remarkable as being addressed (in all 
 probability) to Palestinian Jews, and beyond question written 
 in Greek, since the author argues from the LXX where it differs 
 from the Hebrew. The writings of John are also Greek. 
 
 The G-ospel of St. Matthew deserves a little attention, 
 in consequence of the prevalent opinion that it was written 
 originally in Aramaic. I can have no objection to admit this 
 if there is sufficient evidence, since I do not suggest that Greek 
 had wholly superseded Aramaic. If Palestine was bilingual, it 
 is likely enough that one Evangelist at least would write in 
 that language. But when it is said that we have the unani- 
 mous " testimony " of antiquity to the Aramaic original of the 
 first Gospel, and that if we accept the " testimony " to the 
 authorship we must accept that to the original language, I 
 protest, and maintain that the word " testimony " is misapplied. 
 The statement of a writer about the contents or language of 
 a book which he himself had read is testimony ; the general 
 reception of a book as the work of a certain author by those 
 
OF GALILEE IN THE TIME OF CHRIST? 155 
 
 amongst whom it first circulated is (apart from mystification 
 and forgery) strong evidence of authorship, since a book would 
 be likely to have the author's name attached — I do not mean 
 necessarily in writing — and would carry this with it as it cir- 
 culated. Where the circumstances are such that a divergent 
 opinion, if it existed, would be known to us, this also is an 
 important consideration. But a writer's statement as to the 
 contents or authorship of a book which circulates in another 
 country, and wliich he has never seen, is certainly not testi- 
 mony ; and if many such writers repeat the opinion which one has 
 expressed, the number adds nothing to their weight. Of what 
 value would be the statement of a Londoner as to the author, 
 say, of the translation of the Gospels used by Irish-speaking 
 persons in Connaught ? Would anyone call such a statement 
 "testimony," or think that the unanimity of London writers 
 on this point made any difference ? 
 
 Now it is pretty much the same with those writers who 
 say that St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew. They had not seen 
 the Hebrew book. Most of them could not have read it if 
 they had. Origen, who repeats the tradition, and who had 
 taken such pains to compare the LXX with the Hebrew, yet, 
 when he mentions questions about texts in the Gospels, never 
 refers to the supposed Hebrew of Matthew. He mentions the 
 strangeness of tTriovaiog, which he thinks was invented by the 
 evangelists (plural), viz. Matthew and Luke, but does not 
 mention the Hebrew. So in other instances. Credner, whose 
 conclusion on the matter is " non liquet," throws out the 
 suggestion that the Hebrew Matthew did not exist in Origen's 
 day. This disappearance would certainly not be likely if it 
 had many readers. But then, if Origen had tried to get a 
 copy and failed, he would doubtless have said so. He must 
 have attached little weight to the tradition, and have been 
 satisfied that the Greek Gospel was authoritative. He is 
 certainly not a " witness" ; he knew the Gospel of the Hebrews, 
 but did not suppose this to be Matthew's. Where Origen was 
 ignorant or unprovided, no subsequent writer before Jerome was 
 likely to be better off; and, indeed, as a rule these writers were 
 
156 TO WHAT EXTENT WAS GREEK THE LANGUAGE 
 
 ignorant of Hebrew. What we want is a writer who had seen 
 the supposed Gospel and could form a critical judgment. Such 
 a writer we have in Jerome. He tells us that the book existed 
 in the library at Caesarea, and that the Nazarenes of Beroa, in 
 Syria, allowed him to make a copy of it. Ultimately he trans- 
 lated it into both Greek and Latin. The book turns out to 
 have been the same as the Gospel of the Hebrews, and as 
 Jerome became better acquainted with it, he expressed himself 
 with more reserve, describing it as the Gospel used by the 
 Nazarenes, "according to the apostles, or, as most persons think, 
 according to Matthew," just the way in which a writer might 
 express himself who had reluctantly abandoned an opinion that 
 was generally received, and which he himself had accepted 
 on the authority of tradition. It is not too much indeed to 
 regard this as a complete surrender of the traditional opinion. 
 So that instead of the unanimous " testimony " of the ancients, 
 what we find is, that the first author who actually read the 
 book found himself obliged to give up the traditional opinion, 
 which, for all that we can see, was nothing but a repetition 
 of what one writer (Papias) had said. And Jerome's identi- 
 fication of the book with the Gospel according to the Hebrews 
 explains the whole thing. This Gospel was evidently founded 
 on St. Matthew's work, with such additions and alterations as 
 we have just had specimens of. Thus it got the name of 
 Matthew ; the sectaries who used it naturally claimed it as the 
 original, and those who heard of the claim and had no means 
 of judging simply repeated the assertion. A very parallel case 
 is the claim made by the Venetians to the possession of " the 
 original Latin " of St. Mark's Gospel. 
 
 It may be asked, moreover, If Matthew's original Gospel 
 was in Aramaic, or if the Epistle of St. James was originally 
 in Aramaic, what became of these originals? Be it remem- 
 bered that Syrian Christians existed from the first, and that the 
 Syriac New Testament dates from a very early period. How 
 came they to accept translations instead of the originals, so 
 that among Syrian writers no trace remained of these supposed 
 Syriac books ? However, I repeat that my present argument 
 
OF GALILEE IN THE TIME OF CHRIST ? 157 
 
 by uo means requires me to deny tlie existence of a Syriac 
 Gospel or Epistle. 
 
 That our canonical Matthew's Gospel is not a translation 
 is not only pretty evident from its language generally, 
 but is put beyond question by the striking difference in 
 the treatment of quotations from the Old Testament, occur- 
 ring as part of the liistory, and in the comments of the 
 evangelist respectively, which was pointed out by Credner. 
 The former, which, except in one instance in the history 
 of the Temptation, are all by the Lord himself, with few 
 exceptions agree with the text of the LXX, either exactly 
 or with slight variation. These variations can hardly be 
 accounted for by the use of the Hebrew text. Matth. xxii. 37, 
 for example, has KapSia with the Hebrew where the LXX have 
 Siavoia, but then it has ^lavoia in the third place where the 
 LXX, agreeing with the Hebrew, has Svvafxig.^ 
 
 The cases that look most like approximation to the Hebrew 
 are Matth. xxvi. 31, " I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep 
 of the flock shall be scattered ; " where the common text of the 
 LXX has iKCTTToo-arf, but several MSS. have SiaaKopTriaOiicrovTat, 
 which may have been an early correction of the LXX. In 
 Matth. xi. 10, from Mai. iii. 1 (where the LXX has tTrt(5Xi\peTai 
 ocbv irpb irpocTivTrov /uoi»), the evangelist has KaraaKevacrei rrjv 
 oSov <Tov 'ifiTrpoaOiv aov. KaTaaKtvaan is an improvement on 
 lirifiXiiptTai, but Trjv oSom aov and tfiirpoaBiv aov do not agree 
 with the Hebrew. The variation resembles that in Matth. 
 xxii. 43, 44, which agrees exactly with the LXX, except in 
 having vTroKarw for vttotto^lov. But the latter is the exact 
 rendering of the Hebrew. Perhaps the most striking instance 
 of agreement with the Hebrew against the LXX is not in a 
 quotation, but an adaptation, "Ye shall find rest to your 
 souls." The LXX has ajvLafxov. 
 
 With the quotations of the Evangelist himself it is entirely 
 different. These never agree exactly with the LXX, and their 
 
 ' In the parallels (Mark xii. 29, 30, Luke x. 27) Mark and Luke agree 
 with the Hebrew, but with the addition of hiavoia ; they have, however, the 
 LXX preposition i| (Westcott and Hort give i^ once only in Luke). 
 
158 TO WHAT EXTENT AVAS GREEK THE LANGUAGE 
 
 variations sometimes are clear approximations to the Hebrew. 
 See, for example, the quotation from Is. liii. 4, in ch. viii. 17 : 
 avToq rag aadsi'dag rifxiov i\a(3ev Kat rag voaovg ifdaaratrev, 
 where the LXX has ovrog rcig afxapriag ri/xiov (pipst koX irspl 
 ■nfxojv d^vvarai. Compare also the quotation from Is. xlii. 1-4, 
 in ch. xii. 17-21, where in the whole of the first three verses 
 the evangelist, while, with one exception, closely following the 
 Hebrew, has scarcely a word the same as the LXX. The one 
 exception is elg vlKog, where the LXX, agreeing with the 
 Hebrew, has sic aXriBeiav. In the last verse indeed he agrees 
 with the LXX against the Hebrew in having rt^ ovofxan avrov, 
 where the Hebrew has " his law." 
 
 Such a distinction as this cannot be due to a translator. 
 
 Accordiogly, it is, I think, admitted by the best critics that 
 the canonical Gospel is not a translation. With reference to 
 the whole question of early Christian writings I quote Renan's 
 statement, which, it will be observed, is precisely the contrary 
 of Dr. Neubauer's : " It is certain that all the primitive monu- 
 ments of Christianity which remain to us, even the Grospel of 
 St. Matthew, notwithstanding the opinion formerly generally 
 accepted, were written in Greek. Were not these various 
 compositions preceded by a protevangelium written in Syro- 
 Chaldaic? This is a point which it is very hard to decide" 
 {Histoire, p. 224). 
 
 I have already alluded to the argument from personal names 
 adduced by Pfannkuche and others. I proceed to show that 
 an argument of an entirely different kind may be founded on 
 the names of Palestinian Jews occurring in the New Testa- 
 ment. These names may be divided into four classes. First, 
 there are purely Hebrew names, such as Gamaliel, Joseph, 
 Mariam, Chuza, Nathanael ; secondly, Hebrew names, with 
 a Greek termination only, as 'laicwjSoe, SavAoc, ZtjdtSaiog ; 
 thirdly, names originally Hebrew but Hellenized, i.e. with a 
 modification due to frequent use by speakers of Greek, such 
 as 'Iwavvjjc (three), 'loxr^c (two), "Awag ; and fourthly, 
 names purely Greek (or Latin). Of these are Nicodemus, 
 Philippus (two besides Herod's brother), Stephanus, with his 
 
OF GALILKE IN THE TIME OF CHRIST? 159 
 
 six fellow-deacons, Andreas, Cleopas, Clopas (not = Alpliaeus),' 
 Alexander, Iklagdalene, Marcus, Rlioda, Silvan us, Simon, 
 Maria. The last two approximate to the previous class. 
 
 Now as to the first class, the Hebrew names clearly prove 
 nothing. Hebrews have always been conservative in the matter 
 of names, and averse to giving those which have not been in 
 their family already (compare Luke i. 61). Accordingly Jews 
 to the present day retain such names as these. All the more 
 weight is to be attached to the exceptions. It is not credible 
 that Jewish parents would call their sons Philippus, Andreas, 
 or Stephanus, unless they spoke some Greek themselves, and 
 ■wished their sons to be Greek-speaking. It does not follow 
 that the persons so named, in the New Testament were neces- 
 sarily the first in their families to bear these names ; but the 
 farther these go back the longer the time gained for the spread 
 of the language. The names Simon and Maria were clearly 
 adopted on account of their similarity in sound to the names 
 Mariam and Simeon respectively. There is a similar pheno- 
 menon in Ireland where, for example, the Irish name Eoghain 
 has been turned iiito Eugenius and Eugene. In the case of 
 Simon and Maria it is to be noted that these names exist in 
 the New Testament side by side with Simeon and Mariam. 
 Thus while the Virgin '^ and the sister of Lazarus are called 
 Mariam, Mary of Clopas is called Maria. This shows that the 
 change is not due to a Greek translator, but that the two names 
 were simultaneously used, some persons bearing the Greek form 
 of the name, and some the Hebrew. Similarly, Simon Peter is 
 always called Simon, except by St. James at the Council in 
 Jerusalem (Acts xv. 14) ; while the devout man of Luke 
 ii. 25 is Simeon, as is also the prophet in Antioch {'2vfxtu)v). 
 Some persons, again, besides a Hebrew, had a Greek or 
 Latin name, as Petrus, Didymus, Simeon Niger, John Mark, 
 Joseph Justus. As to such names as 'Iwavvrig for Johanan, 
 these are names which have become modified through use 
 
 » See p. 100. 
 
 ^ Except twice in a few of the best MSS. (Westcutt and Hort). Mary 
 Magrdalene varies. 
 
160 TO WHAT EXTENT WAS GREEK THE LANGUAGE 
 
 by Greek-speaking people. Indeed as to this particular 
 name John, we know that it had been so modified in 
 Palestine long before the Grospels were written. It may in- 
 deed be suggested that these forms, otherwise familiar, were 
 substituted for their Hebrew equivalents by the historians ; but 
 this would be pure conjecture ; and what concerns us is the fact 
 that they were in familiar use. It deserves to be remarked 
 further that the father of Andreas and Simon was sometimes 
 called John.' 'Ifficaptwrrjc is a Grraecised name which must 
 have been formed by persons ignorant of the meaning of the 
 first syllable. 
 
 Dr. Neubauer alludes (p. 66) to the Grraecised names men- 
 tioned by Josephus (he might have added, and in 1 Maccabees), 
 such as Alkimos, Jason, Antigonos, which, he says, " do not 
 indicate more than that some of the Jews affected Greek 
 manners and customs; they prove nothing as to the bulk of 
 the nation." But he has not observed that the same pheno- 
 menon is found as above mentioned among the fishermen of 
 Galilee. Two purely Greek names, and three Graecised (not 
 counting terminations), amongst the twelve Apostles, is no 
 small proportion ; and we may add the double names, Petrus 
 and Didymus. As to those which are only modified by having 
 a Greek termination, it may be thought a very simple explana- 
 tion to say that this termination is due to the Greek writer. 
 This hypothesis, however, is open to the objection that it is 
 only some names, and indeed only names of certain persons, 
 that are thus treated. Why, for instance, have we four Jacobs 
 called Jacobus, while the patriarch and the father of Joseph 
 are still Jacob ? Why, again, are this Joseph and Joseph of 
 Arimathaea never called Josephus ? 
 
 Now let us return to the history itself, and see whether 
 what we find there bears out or contradicts our inferences. 
 We have already found Peter on the day of Pentecost address- 
 ing the multitude in Greek ; we also find him addressing 
 Cornelius and his friends, who were not Jews at all, in Greek ; 
 
 ^ So called in the fourth Gospel, but Jonah in the first. 
 
OF GALILEE IN THE TIME OF CHRIST ? 161 
 
 SO that we have from him two speeches and a letter in Greek 
 (I say nothing of the doubtful second Epistle). 
 
 James's knowledge of Greek and even his use of the Septu- 
 agint shown in his Epistle are confirmed by the report of his 
 speech in the Council at Jerusalem, where he founds an argu- 
 ment on the Greek version of Amos, where it differs from the 
 Hebrew. The reading of the LXX is likely enough to be 
 correct, but there is good reason to believe that our Hebrew text 
 is substantially the same that was in use in James's day. 
 
 Stephen's speech before the Council was in Greek, for he 
 uses the Soptuagint. It may be said that he was a Hellenistic 
 Jew ; but it is to be observed that he was understood appa- 
 rently by a considerable audience. 
 
 We find Zacharias in his song apparently borrowing from 
 the LXX not the Hebrew, where he says, " Whereby the 
 dayspring from on high hath visited us," using the word 
 avoToXii, which is the word used by the LXX in Jer. xxiii. 5, 
 and Zech. iii. 8 (9 LXX) and vi. 12 for " Branch."' But he 
 uses it in the sense " sunrising," for he adds, " to give light," 
 &c. Whether this is a play on the word avaroXi) or not it 
 could obviously have been suggested only by the Greek.^ In 
 the same section of St. Luke's Gospel we find a reminiscence 
 of the Septuagint (ch. i. 15) in the words of the angel to 
 Zacharias. 
 
 'EirioiKTivQ has already been mentioned as a word very un- 
 likely to have been invented by the Greek evangelists, who are 
 not given to inventing words ; indeed, if the original had been 
 a word so simple as THD, we may assume it is certain that no 
 translator would render it by lirioixriog. 
 
 Of the use of Greek by Jesus himself the narrative in 
 John xxi. supplies evidence. Whatever the difference between 
 (piXtiv and ayawav, it is manifest that a difference is intended. 
 
 ^ 'l5oi» 4yu &yw rhv hov\6v fxov ^ kvaTo\T)V (iii. 9); 'iSou avl)p, 'AvaroK^ ovofxa 
 ainifi (vi. 12). 
 
 - Dr. Edersheim feels obliged to give avaroK^ the meaning "branch" 
 here, but, of course, without thinking of any such inference as that in the 
 text. 
 
 M 
 
162 TO WHAT EXTENT WAS GREEK THE LANGUAGE 
 
 and commentators have often pointed out how the marked 
 contrast between the word at first used by the Lord and that 
 used by Peter, as well as the final adoption of the latter by 
 Jesus, are lost in our version. But they are equally lost in the 
 Syriac Peshitto version and in Delitzsch's Hebrew.^ It is true 
 the Philosenian attempts to reproduce the difference ; but this 
 was, doubtless, after attention had been drawn to it. 
 
 In the same narrative there is a distinction between the 
 two words for "feed"^ lost in the Authorized Version, but 
 imitated in the Eevised (" feed," " tend "). Delitzsch imitates 
 it in his Hebrew N. T., but his attempt is, I think, unsuccess- 
 ful : certainly the word he uses^ does not mean woifxaivav^ 
 "tend," it means to lead a flock (our "drive"). He must 
 have felt this himself, since in other passages such as Acts xx. 
 28; 1 Pet v. 2, he renders this verb by the word he uses here 
 for ^ooKHv. The Syriac Peshitto and Philoxenian both fail to 
 make any distinction. We may fairly conclude that the dis- 
 tinction was not an Aramaic one, nor can we suppose that this 
 any more than the former was introduced by the translators, 
 for it is necessary to the climax. Another less significant dis- 
 tinction is that between otSac, first used by Peter, and yivwaKuq, 
 which is the word in his last reply, and to which Dr. Edersheim 
 draws attention as meaning " perceivest." Whether he thought 
 that on this particular occasion Jesus spoke Greek I do not 
 know, but Aramaic does not admit the distinction. If the 
 question is asked then: What language did Jesus use in this 
 familiar conversation with his Apostles, the answer must be — 
 " Unquestionably Grreek." 
 
 In Matt. xix. 5, there is certainly prima facie appearance of 
 the use of the LXX, " they twain shall be one flesh ; so then 
 they are no more twain but one flesh." Here the words in the 
 latter clause, " they are no more twain," seem to imply that the 
 word " twain," ot 8uo, had occurred in the previous quotation 
 
 1 Delitzsch thought that our Lord and his Apostles thought and spoke 
 for the most part in Hebrew. 
 
 ^ BcJcr/fe and lioiiiaive. 3 J|"]J. 
 
OF GALILEE IN THE TIME OF CHRIST ? 163 
 
 as it does in the Greek text. But there is nothing corresponding 
 to it in the Hebrew. 
 
 There is another occasion in whicli f/Sjuatori occurs, altliough 
 not in the Textus Receptus, namely, in John xx. 16. Mary, 
 having spoken to Jesus, supposing him to be the gardener, 
 Jesus saith to her, " Mariam." She turned and " saith to him" 
 in Hebrew, " Rabboni." This certainly seems to indicate that 
 the previous words addressed to Jesus, when supposed to be the 
 gardener, were not spoken in Hebrew, This conclusion, I 
 may add, was drawn by Rohr, in his " Description of Pales- 
 tine" (quoted also in the translation of Pfannkuche, p. 90), 
 who holds it to be highly probable that Jesus understood and 
 spoke Greek as well as Aramaic. 
 
 Pfannkuche further appeals to the fact that Paul addressed 
 the Jews of Jerusalem who were excited against him in Hebrew 
 (Acts xxi. 40 ; xxii. 2). The attentive silence with whicb he 
 was heard, and the favourable impression which his acquaint- 
 ance with the Aramaic language made, prove, he thinks, " that 
 this language was predominant at Jerusalem, and that no man 
 was considered an orthodox Jew who was unable to express 
 himself with ease and fluency in that language." The first 
 part of his inference is not unreasonable ; the latter certainly 
 extracts too much meaning from the quietness of the hearers. 
 But what I wish to "notice is, that although the crowd were 
 pleased to hear Paul address them in Hebrew, it is plain that 
 they did not expect him to do so, and yet that they did expect 
 to understand him.^ This is exactly parallel to what we should 
 
 ^ Prof. Stapfer admits this. Having said that " all that the most 
 cultivated men could do was to read with tolerable ease the Greek exergue (I) 
 of the coins," he adds, "it is possible that this language was more widely 
 diffused than is generally supposed. Paul might have been able in the 
 discourse just referred to to express himself in Greek. It seems, according 
 to the text, that this was what he was expected to do, and that if he had 
 done so, a large part of his hearers would have understood him." It would 
 seem that in the former statement Prof. Stapfer was simply repeating 
 received opinion, and in this began to exercise his own judgment {Palestine 
 in the Time of Vlirist, p. 136). 
 
 M 2 
 
164 TO WHAT EXTENT WAS GREEK THE LANGUAGE 
 
 find in a bilingual district of Ireland. The life of Bishop Gregg, 
 already referred to, supplies an illustration of this. On one 
 occasion, when he was present at a meeting in which there was 
 a public discussion between a Protestant and a Roman Catholic 
 champion, we are told that when there was any approach to a 
 disturbance, a few words from him in Irish " acted as oil on the 
 troubled waters." The people were listening to English speeches, 
 but the Irish touched their hearts more nearly. And this is 
 only a typical instance. A man will get a hearing in Irish in 
 such places more easily than in English. The Jerusalem audi- 
 ence then in this case, as well as that of Stephen, understood 
 Greek. But we are concerned chiefly with Galilee, and it was 
 in Galilee and Persia more especially, according to Rohr, that 
 Greek had become generally known and current, vast numbers 
 of Greeks residing amongst the Jews. 
 
 Dr. Neubauer quotes from the Talmud a story containing 
 two passages which he thinks may be " original Aramaic words 
 in the New Testament." The story is about a "philosopher," 
 i. e. a Christian doctor, who had the reputation of being above 
 receiving bribes, so in order to have a laugh at him Rabban 
 Gamaliel and his sister refer to him a question as to the right 
 of a daughter to inherit with a son. Being bribed by the 
 daughter with a golden candlestick he decides in her favour, 
 saying it is written in the Evangelion, " The son and the 
 daughter shall inherit alike." Next day Gamaliel bribes him 
 with a Libyan ass. He then says that on reading to the end 
 of the book he found it written, " I am not come to take away 
 the Law of Moses, but (or according to another reading, nor) 
 to add to it. And in it is written, ' Where there is a son 
 a daughter shall not inherit ' " (which passage Gamaliel had 
 cited to him on the previous day). It must have been an 
 extraordinary ass which was worth more than a golden candle- 
 stick. Gildemanu understands not " an ass of gold " but a 
 " bushel of gold." A somewhat expensive joke ! Why the 
 story if genuine should be supposed to imply a written Aramaic 
 gospel I fail to see. Is it because the story is told in Aramaic ? 
 That is surely a very insufficient reason. Is it assumed that 
 
OF GALILEE IN THE TIME OF CHRIST? 165 
 
 the "philosopher" must have been incapable of reading a 
 Greek Gospel ? Or is it because his quotation is not found in 
 our Greek Gospels ? The words " I am not come to take away 
 from the Law of Moses," <S:c., have a resemblance to those in 
 Matt. V. 17. We possess the Law of Moses and know that it 
 contains no such passage as that cited by R. Gamaliel. The 
 writer of the story also had the Law of Moses before him. Is 
 it his absolute unfaithfulness in quoting from a book which he 
 knew that induces Giidemann and Dr. Neubauer to attribute to 
 liim exactness in quoting from a book that he had not seen ? 
 and must the corrupt judge who misquotes the Law be supposed 
 to be verbally exact when he quotes the Gospel ? In order to 
 justify Dr. Neubauer's suggestion both the philosopher and 
 the narrator must have been verbally accurate. 
 
 As to the sentence, " The son and daughter shall inherit 
 alike," though short, it is long enough to condemn any story 
 which attributes it to Jesus. It reminds one of the forged 
 begging letters that one sometimes receives, and which the 
 writing and spelling of a single syllable at once proclaim to be 
 forgeries. If the Gospels give anything like a fair picture of 
 Jesus at all, the notion of his pronouncing a decision on a 
 question of Jewish law is inconceivable. Dr. Giidemann indeed 
 compares this saying with the words in St. Luke xii. 13 ad- 
 dressed to the man {ti^) who asked Jesus to bid his brother divide 
 the inheritance with him, to whom Jesus replied, " Man, who 
 made me a judge or a divider over you,"^ following up with 
 a parable against covetousness. It does indeed remind us of 
 it, but by contrast. The two stories are utterly irreconcilable, 
 not because of a mere apparent contradiction, but because the 
 spheres of thought to which the sayings belong are irrecon- 
 cilable. Supposing the story to be historically true, why might 
 not the unprincipled philosopher have invented the decision ? 
 But must we suppose it to have any historical basis at all ? 
 
 ^ From what Dr. Neubauer says, I infer that Dr. Giidemann suggests 
 that T(s may have been a woman, though addressed as ifflpwjre, so as to 
 make the case more like that in the Talmud. 
 
166 TO WHAT EXTENT WAS GREEK THE LANGUAGE 
 
 Hebrew scholars have a singular tendency to set the Talmud 
 and other Hebrew writings above all canons of historical criti- 
 cism. Here is a story, the object of which is to raise a laugh 
 against the professors of a hostile religion, written, we know 
 not by whom, centuries after the supposed conversation took 
 place, recording that a Christian not named, found in a book 
 not named, a saying of Jesus Christ entirely irreconcilable 
 with his known habits as a teacher; and because it is in the 
 Talmud it must be accurate, and we must on its authority 
 suppose the existence of a book in which the saying was found, 
 and suppose that it was in the language of the story, and seri- 
 ously discuss whether it is from the Logia or the Grospel of the 
 Hebrews, and whether the Logia ended with this saying, because 
 the philosopher found it on reading to the end of his book ! 
 Imagine an anecdote about an Oxford Professor and a Jesuit, 
 in the time of Elizabeth, designed to cast ridicule on the Jesuits, 
 handed down orally in the University, and first written in our 
 day, would any sane scholar assume that the conversation was 
 related with verbal accuracy, and if part of it professed to be a 
 quotation from a known author, but not found in his works, 
 and not even like them in tone, would he go on to suggest that 
 this was from a work now lost, which, moreover, must have 
 been in English because the story was told in English ? The 
 supposition is ludicrously absurd. Once it was thought that 
 whatever errors Greek or Latin copyists might make, Jewish 
 copyists of the Scriptures never made a mistake ; now it seems 
 to be thought that Jewish story-tellers are infallible, and can 
 transmit a story orally for generations without variation. "We 
 know now that these copyists are as fallible as others even 
 when dealing with the sacred text, and I venture to think that 
 the story-tellers are not infallible even when relating jokes 
 against theological opponents. 
 
 If the Jews of Palestine knew Greek it is natural that they 
 should use the Septuagint Version to some extent at least, as we 
 find the New Testament writers doing. This we are told they 
 cannot have done, since "it is said in the Talmud that when 
 the Greek translation of the Seventy appeared, there came 
 
OF GALILEE IN THE TIME OF CHRIST ? 167 
 
 darkness upon the earth, and the day was as unfortunate for 
 Israel as that on which the golden calf was made." Now 
 such statements are found in later Hebrew writings;' but is 
 it legitimate to argue from these to the feeling of the Pales- 
 tinians in A. u. 30 ? The early Christian apologists in their 
 controversy with the Jews appealed to the Septuagint, the only 
 liible tliey knew, often where it differed from the Hebrew ; and 
 when it was pointed out that the Hebrew text ran otherwise, 
 they naturally enough did not hesitate to charge the Jews with 
 corrupting the latter. The necessary consequence was that the 
 Septuagint was disparaged. Other translations too were made, 
 and by-and-by such stories were invented as that a fast was 
 instituted on account of the profanation involved in the trans- 
 lation of the sacred books.- 
 
 Is it not highly uncritical to take the opinions of writers of 
 the third or fourth or eighth century as representing the views 
 of the people in the first century ? The Babyloniau Talmud 
 indeed represents the LXX as actuall}'' inspired ; and (not to 
 mention Philo, who was an Alexandrian, and treated the 
 LXX as if it were the original text) Josephus, although 
 acquainted with Hebrew, largely, and in the judgment of some 
 scholars predominantly, uses the Grreek text. In such a ques- 
 tion the evidence of the New Testament itself cannot be ignored, 
 and in it we find writings by and for Palestinians using the 
 LXX ; in particular, the writer to the Hebrews appears to 
 be entirely unacquainted with Hebrew, and therefore wholly 
 dependent on the LXX, with the language of which he is 
 thoroughly impregnated. 
 
 The author of the First Book of the Maccabees, too, was 
 
 ' Ex. f/r., in the tract Sopherim, which is a later addition to the 
 Tahnudical treatises, dating, perhaps, from the eighth or ninth century. 
 
 - Some later writers accepting the story of the fast, suggested that the 
 wise men chosen for the purpose of the translation appointed a fast, as 
 Esther did when going to the king, and Philo when going to Caesar on be- 
 half of his people, and that darkness covered the face of the Jews from 
 fear lest their ambassadors should be confounded by shame, &c. See 
 Hody, De Textibus Oriyinalibus, &c., p. 222. 
 
168 TO WHAT EXTENT WAS GREEK THE LANGUAGE 
 
 influenced by it, and the Son of Sirach speaks with no dis- 
 respect of it. There is not wanting evidence that the Jewish 
 Haggada itself was influenced by the Greek version. A 
 notable instance is the saying that the witch of Endor recognised 
 Saul by seeing Samuel come up on his feet, not on his head, as 
 spirits did to ordinary inquirers. Whence was such a strange 
 notion derived ? The answer is, from the LXX, which, mis- 
 taking ]pT for S^pT, rendered ofjdiov. 
 
 It deserves to be noticed that for the vast majority of the 
 Palestinians the Grreek Bible was the only one accessible. 
 The knowledge of the ancient Hebrew was confined to a few 
 scholars, in addition to which the Hebrew books were extremely 
 expensive. Written Targums most probably did not exist ; 
 hence if the Apostles and other uneducated Galileans did not 
 use the Greek Bible, they had none at all. That the Greek 
 Bible was used by them is proved by the New Testament ; that 
 it was used even by those who could consult the Hebrew is 
 proved by Josephus. 
 
 Too much labour has been spent by some writers in trying 
 to account for the deviations of the N. T. writers from the 
 Greek of the LXX or from the Hebrew. It surely cannot be 
 supposed that the writer of a letter or a narrative would have 
 beside him the several volumes constituting a Hebrew Bible, 
 and when he wanted to quote a text would stop to look it up. 
 In the first place there were no concordances, and even with 
 such helps, looking up would then have been no easy matter. 
 The text was not divided into numbered chapters and verses ; 
 there were no headings, no breaks or capitals to catch the eye. 
 Nay, the very words were probably often at least run together. 
 The absence of vowels added to the difficulty. We recognise a 
 word imperfectly seen or read, a portion of the letters with 
 their arrangement being sufficient often to suggest the rest ; 
 but where the vowels were unwritten and the words not sharply 
 marked off, such speedy recognition was impossible- Add to 
 this, that in fact in consequence of this absence of vowels only 
 persons specially trained could read the Hebrew Bible at all. 
 It is quite possible that it may sometimes have been quoted 
 
OF GALILEE IN THE TIME OF CHRIST ? 169 
 
 from recollection of wliat had been heard in the Synagogues, 
 and to this extent there may be a foundation for the suggestion 
 that some of the quotations in the Grospels were from a " tra- 
 ditional and unwritten Targum." But this will not account 
 for the coincidences with the Septuagint which do exist. Indeed 
 the difficulties just mentioned would help to encourage the 
 study of the Greek Bible. There was no written translation 
 in the vernacular Aramaic to be had ; tlie original Hebrew was 
 to the vast majority a sealed book, besides being difficult and 
 expensive to procure ; the Greek was easily procured, easily 
 read, and its language perfectly intelligible to multitudes. Yet 
 we cannot suppose either the original writers looking up every 
 quotation, or a translator of a (supposed) Aramaic original 
 hunting in his Greek Bible, in order to give the Septuagint 
 rendering of a text. Memory must have played a considerable 
 part. On the other hand, when we find a verbal coincidence 
 with the Septuagint, it is for a similar reason more likely to be 
 due to the original author than to a translator. 
 
 Let us see now what indications history gives us. In 
 2 Maccabees iv. 13, we find the passion for Greek customs in 
 the second century b. c. described.^ Paulus argued that this 
 must have extended to the language ; an inference which, con- 
 sidering the many reasons for preferring Greek, cannot be 
 thought unfounded. De Sacy's reply was, that there was 
 sufficient time afterwards for the Hebrew again to displace 
 Greek before the time of Christ. 
 
 Similarly, Dr. Neubauer (p. 66) says that " even if we were 
 to adopt the idea that under the friendly treatment which 
 they received at the hands of Alexander the Great and his imme- 
 diate successors, the Jews, in order to please their benefactors, 
 
 * " Such was the height of Greek fashions and increase of heathenish 
 manners through the exceeding profaneness of Jason, that ungodly wretch 
 and no high priest, that the priests had no courage to serve any more at the 
 altar, but despising the temple and neglecting the sacrifices, hastened to be 
 partakers of the unlawful allowance in the place of exercise after the game 
 of Discus called them forth ; not setting by the honours of their fathers, but 
 liking the glory of the Grecians best of all." 
 
170 TO WHAT EXTENT WAS GREEK THE LANGUAGE 
 
 endeavoured like the other conquered tribes to assimilate them- 
 selves to Greeks, the current in this direction would certainly 
 have ceased with their persecution by Antiochus Epiphanes." 
 I do not suppose that it was altogether or chiefly in order to 
 please their benefactors that the Jews learned Grreek, but rather 
 because they found an acquaintance with it advantageous to 
 themselves. 
 
 BohP also, to whose judgment Dr. Neubauer more than 
 once appeals, considers that under Antigonus of Sokho a tide 
 of Greek wisdom flowed in, as a result of which the LXX was 
 firmly established in Palestine. This remained after the tide 
 fell, and the popular Bible was in his opinion a translation of 
 it into Aramaic, a view not generally adopted. 
 
 Passing on now to the middle of the second century a. d., 
 it seems to be admitted that by that time Greek had practically 
 superseded Aramaic ; for we find R. Juda saying, " Of what 
 use is Syriac in the land of Israel ? Let us use either the holy 
 language or Greek." If Syriac was in use to any considerable 
 extent, he could not ask such a question. This is strongly 
 confirmed by what we know of Justin Martyr. He was born 
 and brought up near Sichem, early in the second century. 
 According to M. Nicolas, his quotations from the Gospels 
 were derived from Syriac documents circulating in his neigh- 
 bourhood. Now, we know from his writings that he was 
 wholly ignorant of Hebrew ;^ nor is it easy to suppose that 
 he had any knowledge of Aramaic who thought the differ- 
 ence between Abram and Abraham consisted in the double 
 a {'Afdpaam). He was absolutely dependent on the Septua- 
 gint version. We may take it for granted then that 
 by that time (a. d. 150) Greek had practically superseded 
 Aramaic. 
 
 Dr. Neubauer accounts for this in the following way : — 
 " The Galilean Pabbis were no longer able to pronounce 
 
 ^ Bohl's work is entitled, " Forschu7igen nach einer Volkshibel zur Zeit 
 Jesu." Wien, 1873. 
 
 ^ For instance, he derives "Israel" from " Isra," a man, and "el" 
 God. Had he no friend who knew better ? 
 
OF GALILEE IN THE TIME OF CHRIST? 171 
 
 against the study of Greek, having seen and heard from 
 travellers such as R. Aqiba and R, Meir, how important 
 and how widely spread the Greek language was amongst the 
 Jews in Asia Minor. Moreover, the Greek Jews undoubtedly 
 contributed to the support of the Rabbis and their schools in 
 Palestine, for the Jews here were by no means rich." 
 
 These causes seem entirely inadequate. Has any people 
 ever taken to speaking a language because travellers reported 
 that it was important and widely-spread ? And surely the 
 Palestinians had not to wait for R. Aqiba and R. Meir to 
 give them this information, when they were frequently meeting 
 crowds of Greek-speaking Jews "from every nation under 
 heaven." The wish not to offend their Greek-speaking sup- 
 porters miglit to some extent account for the withdrawal of 
 a ban on Greek studies ; but this withdrawal would not 
 account for the spread of the language ; still less for such a 
 complete change in about a century. Much more powerful 
 causes had long been at work. Dr. Hamburger writes : — 
 *' From the time of the Syrian rule there was in the coast 
 towns, which were recognized as free towns, a predominant 
 Greek population. Matters were in no better condition in 
 Galilee, which was decried as the district of the Gentiles. 
 Josephus reckons the towns Caesarea and Gaza in the west, 
 Gadara and Hippos in the east, as chiefly inhabited by Greeks. 
 Thus the Jews both in and out of Palestine were, as it were, 
 forced by their intercom-se with the Greeks to learn the Greek 
 tongue, and to adopt Greek customs and Greek manner of life. 
 In Jerusalem these Greek- speaking Jews from Gyrene, Alexan- 
 dria, Cilicia, and many other places, had their own synagogues, 
 and this was the case in other important towns of Palestine 
 also." "In Palestine, after the Maccabean victory, there 
 remained of Greek manners nothing but the language, perhaps 
 also the study of its literature. . . . The prohibition of the 
 learning of Greek wisdom concerned only Greek science ;^ the 
 Greek language was not touched by it. Considering the mixed 
 
172 TO WHAT EXTENT WAS GREEK THE LANGUAGE 
 
 population of the many towns of Palestine, such a prohibition 
 including the Grreek language was impossible."^ 
 
 According to the views of Bohl and, I suppose, De Sacy, if 
 not Dr. Neubauer, what we have to believe is not one change 
 of language, but to a certain extent three in about as many 
 centuries ; first Aramaic giving way partially to Greek, then 
 Greek to Aramaic, and finally Greek prevailing again. It is 
 more natural to suppose that when once Greek had gained a 
 footing, having so many circumstances in its favour, it would 
 continue to make its way. It must be remembered that during 
 all this time the Jews were not living an isolated life, but one 
 of constant intercourse, friendly or hostile, with Greek-speaking 
 people in their own land. 
 
 Dr. Neubauer thinks, indeed, that the Greek spoken by 
 the " small Jewish Greek colony " and others was a " Judeo- 
 Greek jargon." We know what is meant by a Judeo-Polish or 
 Judeo-German jargon. If by Judeo-Greek jargon anything of 
 this kind is intended, what evidence is tliere of its existence ? 
 None whatever. Dr. Neubauer refers, indeed, to Bernhardy 
 as making the statement. Of course that eminent scholar had 
 no special information on the subject ; but in fact he makes 
 no such statement. There is, however, a remark to this effect 
 in Bohl, who refers to Bernhardy, yet not as the author of 
 the remarks, but simply saying, "see Bernhardy."- The 
 only relevant remark I can find in the latter author relates 
 
 1 Hamburger, Real-Encyclopddie fur Bibel und Talmud, Abth.. il., 
 pp. 310, 311. 
 
 It is, perhaps, not generally known that the prohibition of Gentile 
 (Greek) literature has continued down to recent times, and in practice to 
 our own day, yet this does not, and cannot, hinder the Jews from adopting 
 the language of the country in which they live. In one respect, indeed, 
 the modern exclusiveness is maintained by a device which did not exist in 
 antiquity. Jews of the lower classes are taught to read and write the 
 vernacular German, for instance, in a peculiar character, and in that only, 
 so that while they are not wholly cut off from the advantages of reading 
 and writing, they are incapable of reading any Christian book. 
 
 2 Namely, in his " Grimdriss der Griechischen Litter atur,''^ p. 492 (4th 
 ed., p. 505) ; his remarks on Palestine are on p. 519 (4th ed., p. 533). 
 
OF GALILEE IN THE TIME OF CHRIST ? 173 
 
 to the provincialisms or other peculiarities of the translators of 
 some of the books of the Old Testament (Job in particular). 
 But however bad the Greek of these may sometimes be, it has 
 no resemblance in character to the Judeo- jargons ; in fact the 
 badness of the Greek is usually due to the attempt to render 
 closely an imperfectly understood original. Besides, these 
 translators were Alexandrians, and these are not supposed to 
 have spoken a jargon. In order to learn what sort of Greek 
 a Palestinian would write when not translating, we need not 
 go to an Alexandrian translator ; we have specimens in the 
 New Testament, and as we shall see hereafter elsewhere also. 
 
 The reference to Bernhardy supplies another instance of 
 the danger of second-hand quotations or references. In the 
 place referred to by Bohl, Bernhardy is not speaking of Pa- 
 lestine at all, but of places in the far interior of the Persian 
 empire. What he says of Palestine is entirely different, 
 namely, that although for a long period since Antiochus 
 Epiphanes, Palestine had been filled with a Greek population 
 (thus differing from the places of which he had previously 
 spoken), yet it was not until the time of Herod that a taste 
 was acquired for Greek and Roman culture, adding that " it 
 is clear from passages in Rabbinical writers cited by Tholuck 
 [Brief an diellchrder, 1850, p. 113 ff.) that Greek was the polite 
 language of conversation, the learned were acquainted with it, 
 and even esteemed it more than Aramaic." 
 
 Josephus is an important and often misquoted witness 
 respecting the question of the knowledge of Greek in Pales- 
 tine in the first century. In two places we find important 
 remarks bearing on the subject. One is in Antiquities (xx. 
 11. 2), where he asserts boldly that no one else, whether Jew 
 or foreigner, could have "so accurately" presented this matter to 
 the Greeks, for, says he, " I was admitted by mine own country- 
 men to surpass them very much in the learning of our country, 
 and I have exerted myself to become acquainted with Greek 
 literature, and have acquired grammatical skill, but my native 
 habit prevented me from acquiring accuracy in pronunciation 
 {tTipi Triv npofopav). For amongst us those persons are not 
 
174 TO WHAT EXTENT WAS GREEK THE LANGUAGE 
 
 esteemed who have learned the languages of many nations,* 
 because it is thought that this accomplishment is shared not 
 only by the common people amongst the freemen, but also by 
 any slaves who desire it. Those only are considered learned 
 who are well acquainted with the laws, and are able to explain 
 the meaning of the sacred writings." This exactly accords 
 with our own views. We do not call a man a scholar or 
 esteem him because he has a colloquial knowledge of two or 
 more languages like a courier, or a man in Donegal or Kerry 
 who can speak Irish and English. But the point of the above 
 passage lies in this, that Josephus says this accomplishment is — 
 not " confined to," but — " shared by," common people and slaves. 
 Pfannkuche mistranslates the passage, and then interprets it as 
 meaning that the knowledge of Grreek was confined to " the 
 refuse of freemen and slaves," and that this " ignorance of the 
 Greek language " was the chief reason why none of them could 
 write " such a work as his Jewish Archaeologia in the Greek 
 language." This is another misapprehension. What Josephus 
 says is that they could not write it ovrcog aKpi/3wc> ^-e- they 
 could not write as good Greek as he. Dr. Pfannkuche rather 
 coolly drops the essential qualification.- He further adds that 
 Josephus mentions his having learned " this foreign tongue " 
 as "an extraordinary and unusual circumstance." The reader 
 will see at once that he does nothing of the kind. On the con- 
 trary the passage distinctly implies that a knowledge of Greek, 
 though not a thorough knowledge, was common to rich and 
 poor. The other passage is in the preface to his " Jewish 
 Wars," where he states that he had at first written the work 
 in his native tongue for the upper barbarians [ol avoj jSapjSapot), 
 and afterwards resolved to turn it into Greek for those who 
 lived in the Roman Empire {roXg Kara tjjv 'Pwfxaiwv rtys/xoviav). 
 Pfannkuche interprets this to mean " not for Jews but for 
 
 1 Some MSS. add, "and who adorn their discourse with smoothness of 
 phrase." 
 
 2 Prof. Stapfer takes the passage to mean that those Jews who had come 
 to know Greek in spite of themselves would pride themselves on speaking 
 it badly. 
 
OF GALILEE IN THE TIME OF CHRIST ? 175 
 
 Greeks, and for that vast multitude of Bomans who were 
 acquainted with the Greek language," But surely Josephus 
 did not mean to exclude the Palestinians altogether ; and as 
 they certainly are not included among the " upper barbarians," 
 they must be included in the second class, " those under the 
 Roman dominion." The expression ol uv(o /3af>/3apot in this 
 connexion deserves notice. If fiapftapoi is used in its ordinary 
 sense of those who did not speak Greek, the very expression 
 implies that ol Karw did speak Greek.' 
 
 " But," says Dr. Neubauer, " no apocryphal book, as far as 
 our knowledge goes, was composed in Greek by a Palestinian 
 Jew." The argument is doubly weak. There were such books ; 
 but even if there were not, the fact would be of little weight. 
 For the apocryphal books are for the most part much older 
 than the time about which we are inquiring ; secondly, substi- 
 tute Aramaic for Greek and the proposition is equally true, yet 
 this is not supposed to prove that Aramaic was not the language 
 of Galilee. But the statement is not correct, if it is meant to 
 be more than an expression of Dr. Neubauer's private opinion. 
 The Book of Tobit, according to Fritzsche and others, was pro- 
 bably written in Greek either shortly before or shortly after the 
 Maccabean struggle. The Chaldee text, mentioned by Jerome, 
 was, according to these scholars, obviously a later production. 
 The Second Book of the Maccabees, which was certainly com- 
 posed in Greek, is regarded as Palestinian by Geiger, Ginsburg, 
 &c. With still more certainty we may say that the original 
 portion of the First Book of Esdras was written in Greek by a 
 Palestinian, and of the remainder (which is merely taken from 
 the canonical books) the translator was probably a Palestinian. 
 The additions to the Book of Esther (which were composed in 
 Greek) are assigned to an Alexandrian origin solely on the 
 ground of the author's familiarity with the language. As 
 Graetz says, neither the date nor the country of origin of these 
 
 > Dr. Neubauer inadvertently states that Josephus wrote his history in 
 Hebrew for the benefit of the Jewish nation, referring for this to the 
 Proemium to the Antiq^uities, a work which was written in Greek for 
 Gentiles. 
 
176 TO WHAT EXTENT. WAS GREEK THE LANGUAGE 
 
 pieces can be definitely fixed. The Prayer of Manasses is also 
 uncertain. Eichhorn supposed Judith to have been composed 
 in Greek. Graetz regards the question as undecided. I here 
 follow in general the judgment of Fritzsche, who cannot be said 
 to be prejudiced in favour of the view I advocate. I do not 
 question Dr. Neubauer's right to hold a different opinion even 
 as to 1 Esdras ; but his statement above quoted was not put 
 forward as an opinion but as an acknowledged fact. What then 
 remains on the side of Hebrew Apocrypha ? The First Book 
 of the Maccabees, the Book of Judith (probably), part (only) of 
 the Book of Baruch, the borrowed part of 1 Esdras, and the 
 Book of Ecclesiasticus. Yet, again, it may fairly be said that 
 if the writers of these books preferred Hebrew their readers pre- 
 ferred Greek, for the Hebrew originals soon disappeared almost 
 entirely. Even in the time of Origen, according to his Jewish 
 informants, the Hebrew of Judith did not exist. The Hebrew 
 of 1 Maccabees was unknown even to Josephus, who uses the 
 Greek largely, even taking from it the name 'A^at/oe/xa without 
 noticing that this was the well-known town Ephraim. The 
 translation of Ecclesiasticus was executed by the author's 
 grandson, himself a Palestinian Jew. The original of this 
 book seems to have existed in Jerome's time ; it is, however, far 
 from being certain that the Talmudists used a written Hebrew 
 copy; perhaps even the name Ber-Sira, J^T'D, by which the 
 author is known in the Talmud is against this, for if this had 
 been the correct form it is not easy to see how the author's 
 grandson could have written "Iisipax ', whereas nothing would 
 be easier than for "^eipax to pass into Sira. 
 
 The translator of the canonical Esther, as well as the 
 translator of the Hebrew part of 1 Esdras, " possibly " were 
 Palestinians. Translations are for our present purpose as 
 important as original works, especially as their date is nearer 
 to the period now in question. 
 
 The argument then that Dr. Neubauer founds on the sup- 
 posed absence of Palestinian Greek Apocrypha is not only 
 precarious at the best, but really admits of being retorted. We 
 have such Palestinian Greek Apocrypha, certainly one, most 
 
OF GALILEE IN THE TIME OF CHRIST ? 177 
 
 probably two, if not three, possibly more, besides Grreek trans- 
 lations by Palestinians.' "We cannot say as much of Aramaic. 
 
 In the present question there is no reason why we should 
 limit ourselves to works which have been numbered among the 
 Apocrypha. Other works written by Palestinians in Greek will 
 serve equally well to prove the prevalence of the language. Were 
 there any such books ? The reply is, Yes. For instance, that 
 of Theodotus, a poet who wrote while the temple on Gerizim 
 was standing, and with purpose to exalt that temple and the 
 Samaritans. He wrote therefore before 112 B.C., when that 
 temple was finally destroyed. Eupolemus (the second of that 
 name) was also a Samaritan. 
 
 Philo the elder wrote a poetical work in opposition to that 
 of Theodotus, and was doubtless a Palestinian; 
 
 Ezekielus, a tragic poet, who wrote before 60 b.c, was not 
 improbably a Palestinian. 
 
 Taking roughly the period from b. c. 170, and ending a. d. 
 160 or 150, we find at the beginning Greek was making its 
 way ; we find at the end that it had superseded Aramaic, and 
 in the middle of the period we find Galileans speaking and 
 writing Greek, and speeches in Greek made to the authorities 
 in Jerusalem. The inevitable inference is that the language 
 was steadily making its way all the time, the middle period 
 being one in which both languages were used, more or less. 
 
 Against all these facts is set an assumption wliich denies 
 the possibility of phenomena that are daily witnessed in bilin- 
 gual countries. 
 
 Pfannkuche and his translator (followed by Dr. Neubauer) 
 have endeavoured to show by induction the impossibility of 
 Greek having entirely displaced Aramaic. Their induction is 
 one-sided. They mention the survival of British in Wales, but 
 
 1 The disappearance of the Hebrew originals has been sometimes accoun- 
 ted for by the prohibition of the reading of " outside books " (so Geiger, p. 
 201). But the Palestinian tradition only distinguished the apocryphal 
 from the sacred books by saying that the former " do not defile the hands." 
 It is not generally agreed that the " outside books," the reading of which 
 was by some authorities condemned, were the apocrypha. 
 
 N 
 
178 TO WHAT EXTENT WAS GREEK THE LANGUAGE 
 
 not its entire extinction in Cornwall and Cumberland, or the 
 extinction of Irish over nearly the whole of Ireland ; the re- 
 tention of the old Iberian (?) by the Basques, but not its 
 disappearance from the rest of the Peninsula. In the neigh- 
 bourhood of Trebizond, while in some of the coast towns the 
 Greeks, though giving up their religion, have retained their 
 language ; yet in places in the interior, retaining their religion, 
 they have adopted the Turkish language even in their churches 
 and homes. The case of Egypt is important because the dates 
 are known. In Lower Egypt most of the inhabitants had 
 ceased to speak or understand Coptic before the tenth century 
 A.D., i.e. about two centuries after the Conquest by the Arabs. 
 In Upper Egypt Coptic (and Grreek) continued to be used for 
 five centuries longer. Notwithstanding the long disuse of 
 Coptic, the Scriptures are still read in the churches in that 
 language, but explained in Arabic. Coptic is also used in 
 prayers both in churches and in private by those Copts who 
 have been instructed at school (see Lane's Modern Egyptians, 
 Supplement I.). 
 
 A still more pertinent instance is the actual predominance 
 of Grreek over Aramaic in Palestine only a century later than 
 the period in question. 
 
 The cause that chiefly contributes to the maintenance 
 of a language in what might seem unfavourable circum- 
 stances is isolation, due either to the nature of the country 
 or other causes. Thus the parts of Ireland where the 
 Celtic tongue partially survives are such as the remote and 
 mountainous parts of Donegal, which have hardly any inter- 
 course with the civilized world. Such occasional intercourse as 
 is necessary at distant fairs, &c., is carried on by those who 
 have some knowledge of English, but who at other times speak 
 Irish. Strangers never come to reside in these regions. 
 
 Now there has perhaps never been a people less isolated 
 than the Palestinians for a couple of centuries before the time 
 of which we speak. In Galilee especially the population was 
 thoroughly mixed. And Greeks, for many obvious reasons, 
 would be extremely unlikely to take up Aramaic. On the other 
 
OF GALILEE IN THE TIME OF CHRIST ? 179 
 
 hand, Aramaic was not the sacred — not the ancient language of 
 the Jews ; and what is important, had no literature, no songs, 
 no tales, none in fact of the features which tend to give a 
 people a strong attachment to their language. Dr. Neubauer 
 mentions the Syrian Christians as a people who, " though like- 
 wise under the dominion of Rome, never gave up their own 
 language, which is spoken to the present day," for which he 
 refers to Kenan, Ilistoire des Langues S^miiiqties, p. 268. As 
 already stated, I do not attach much weight to arguments of 
 this kind, hut that is not a reason for letting the statement 
 pass without examination. The people to whom Renan refers^ 
 dwell near Lakes Van and Urumiah, who speak a Synao patois , 
 whicli some American missionaries have reformed on the model 
 of Ancient Syriac (Renan, p. 261). The district was indeed 
 for some time included in the Roman Empire, of which it 
 formed almost the extreme border. Certainly, if we wish for 
 the type of a people in circumstances favourable to a change of 
 language it is not to the mountains of Armenia that we should 
 look. 
 
 What opinion is to be formed of the persistence of the 
 Syriac tongue generally may be gathered from what Renan 
 states in other passages. In a.d .853, he tells us, the Caliph 
 Motawakkel issued an edict commanding Jews and Christians 
 to teach their children Hebrew and Syriac, and forbidding 
 them to employ Arabic. This edict, adds M. Renan, doubtless 
 not carried out, at least proves the eagerness with which the 
 Syrians studied the language of their conquerors. In the 13th 
 century the different Christian communities of Syria spoke 
 Arabic (p. 259). Barhebraeus (13th century) seems sometimes 
 to imply that in his time Syriac was spoken ; but Renan thinks 
 the passages in question only imply the use of it by learned 
 men, either in their writings (as Barhebraeus himself) or in 
 their mutual intercourse (p. 260). After him Arabic even 
 seized on sacred things, and Syriac became hardly more than 
 
 1 2iid ed., p. 270. The only allusion on p. 268 is to a statement of an 
 ancient Arabic writer. Perliaps Dr. Neubauer's reference is to the first 
 edition. 
 
 N 2 
 
180 TO WHAT EXTENT WAS GREEK THE LANGUAGE 
 
 an ecclesiastical idiom (p. 259). Eenan even questions the 
 reports of travellers that Syriac is still the vulgar tongue in 
 some villages of Anti-Lebanon, and that in particular in the 
 village of Malula, twelve leagues from Damascus, Syriac is still 
 spoken. Burckhardt, he remarks, in spite of the attention he 
 paid to the question, could discover nothing of the kind ; he 
 only found some monasteries in which Syriac was spoken with 
 ease, just as Latin was in the mediaeval convents. Later travel- 
 lers have established the trath of the report (see the references 
 in Wright, Lectures on Comparative Grammar, S^c., p. 19). This 
 Neo-Syriac is limited to the village just named and two ad- 
 joining. Some of the inhabitants are Mohammedans ; others 
 Christians of the Greek Churches, not of the Syrian.^ Their 
 liturgies are in Arabic, and the dialect is spoken with most purity 
 by the women, the children speaking nothing else.- But the 
 adults seem to be bilingual, for it was by the help of Arabic 
 that their vocabulary was ascertained. With the exception of 
 these three villages, Syriac is as a vernacular extinct. These 
 facts, however, are sufficient to show how little foundation 
 there is for Dr. Neubauer's comprehensive statement, and how 
 little support it gets from M. Eenan. 
 
 A few of Pf annkuche's and Dr. Neubauer' s auxiliary argu- 
 ments. I have not noticed, for example, that founded on the 
 statement in the Talmud as to the bad pronunciation of Hebrew 
 in Galilee. I cannot think that the fact that the Galileans — 
 at a period not specified — confounded certain Hebrew letters in 
 their pronunciation contributes at all to the decision of the 
 question, whether Aramaic ceased to be the sole popular lan- 
 guage before the middle of the first century or only a century 
 later. 
 
 It may be of interest to recur to our illustrations from 
 Ireland, and to note the rate at which Irish has been giving 
 way to English during a generation. I have already referred 
 to the proportion of the Irish-speaking to the whole population. 
 In considering the decay of the Irish tongue, it seems fairest to 
 
 1 Ferrette, Journal of Royal Asiatic Society, vol. xx. (1863), p. 436. 
 * Zeitschrift der D. M. G., vol. xxiv. (1870), p. 230. 
 
OF GALILEE IN THE TIME OF CHRIST? 181 
 
 take the percentage of those who spoke only Irish to the total 
 number who spoke Irish, since it is this latter class only that is 
 affected by tlie change. This percentage fell in Clare in thirty 
 years from 20 to 4; in Cork West Riding, from 24*4 to 5-3; 
 and in Waterford, from 25 to 6 ; in Mayo, from 28 to 6 ; and 
 in Sligo, from 21 to 1 J. It is interesting also to note that in 
 the whole country, of those who spoke Irish only, 47 per cent, 
 were over 50 years of age, and of those who spoke both tongues 
 36, whereas the proportion of persons over 50 in the whole 
 population was only 18. 
 
 To sum up. The positive evidence of facts seems to be 
 entirely in favour of the view that Greek was very generally 
 spoken. The apostles were as to education average specimens 
 of the Galileans who formed our Lord's audiences. It is 
 certain that they were able to speak Greek fluently, and some 
 of them at least were able to write Greek. This is more than 
 we can affirm of their knowledge of any other tongue ; nor is 
 it in itself likely that they would have equal command over 
 two languages. 
 
 It is also certain that the earliest known writings of 
 Palestinian Christians were in Greek, and a writing expressly 
 addressed to such persons was written in Greek, and assumed 
 their use of the Greek Bible. Any antecedent improbability 
 in this state of things is removed by the fact that generations 
 before we find Palestinians writing books in Greek for native 
 readers, and translating Hebrew books into Greek. This, again, 
 is more than we are able to affirm of Aramaic. We find further 
 in the following century the Aramaic-speaking Christians wholly 
 dependent on the Greek documents, even the Aramaic document 
 which by one sect was esteemed authoritative, being founded on 
 the Greek. 
 
 In the immediate family of Jesus himself we find two of 
 his *' brethren " writing letters in Greek, and one of them to 
 all appearance making a speech in Greek, and using the Greek 
 Bible. Two at least of the brethren bore thoroughly Hellenized 
 names. 
 
 Against all these facts and many others pointing to the 
 
182 TO WHAT EXTENT "WAS GREEK THE LANGUAGE, ETC. 
 
 same conclusion is opposed the circumstance that Jesus on two 
 occasions addressed individuals in Aramaic, to the extent of 
 three words altogether, and that he was familiar (let it be 
 admitted) with the Aramaic Psalter; and we are bidden to 
 infer that because he knew some Aramaic, therefore he cannot 
 have known any Greek. With incomparably more justice 
 might it be inferred that the apostles who delivered speeches 
 to the multitude in Greek knew no Aramaic. It is even calmly 
 assumed that a Greek-speaking Jew could not have used such 
 words as 7ra<T;^a or aaravag, although it is demonstrable that 
 every Greek-speaking Jew of necessity did so. It would be 
 tedious to repeat all the other gratuitous and false assumptions. 
 As far as I can see, the admitted facts are quite reconcilable 
 with the supposition that Aramaic was but little used, and by 
 a minority ; and are not reconcilable with the supposition that 
 Greek was not generally familiar. 
 
VI. 
 
 ON HISTOKICAL EVIDENCE AND THE MIEACLE OP 
 THE HOLY THORN. 
 
 Writers on " historical evidence " have recently confronted 
 the advocates of Christianity with the miracle of the Holy 
 Thorn, as an instance of a miraculous story, supported by the 
 strongest evidence, and yet rejected as incredible by every 
 Protestant at least. And they have accordingly challenged 
 those who disbeKeve this story to be consistent, and to reject 
 the Christian miracles for the same reasons. Writers, indeed, 
 of various schools of thought have spoken in the strongest 
 possible terms of the evidence for this miracle. " There is no 
 evidence for any fact in history," says Sir James Stephen,' 
 " better or more complete." *' The greatest genius, the most 
 profound scholar, and the most eminent advocate of that age, 
 all possessing the most ample means of knowledge, all carefully 
 investigated, all admitted, and all defended with their pens, 
 the miracle of the Holy Thorn. Europe at that time produced 
 no three men more profoundly conversant with the laws of the 
 material world, with the laws of the human mind, and with 
 the municipal law, than Pascal, Arnauld, and Le Maitre ; and 
 they were all sincere and earnest believers."- He adds that 
 
 * As quoted in Fraser's Mayazine, October, 1871. 
 
 * Stephen, Essays on Eccksiastical Bioyraphy, p. 308 (ed. 4). 
 
184 ox HISTORICAX EVIDENCE AND THE 
 
 the assent of such men to the story is a " standing wonder," 
 and that volumes might be well employed in answering the 
 question, why our Protestant incredulity rejects it in spite of 
 such mighty names. Certainly a few pages may be well em- 
 ployed in solving what to every writer who has treated of it 
 has appeared to be a difficult problem in historical evidence. 
 The most recent version of the story is thus given in Fraserh 
 Jilagazine for October, 1871 : — 
 
 " A little girl, niece of the great Pascal, residing in the convent [of Port 
 Koyalj, was sufiering from a malignant cancer in the eve, as testified hy 
 several physicians. She was about to undergo an operation of the most 
 serious description, when she was cured, suddenly and completely, by the 
 touch of this most holy reUc, taken from the veritable crown of thorns, 
 appUed at the moment of her receiving the communion." 
 
 That " no means were employed, mediate or immediate, except 
 the touch of the relic, accompanied by the prayers of the com- 
 munity," was, we are told, solemnly attested by " the abbess of 
 the convent, the Mere Angelique, one of the purest and most 
 high-minded women who ever lived." Sir J. Stephen supplies 
 some further particulars : — 
 
 " On the following day the surgeon appeared with his instruments. 
 The afflicted father was present, exhortations to patience were delivered, 
 every preparation was complete, when the astonished operator for the first 
 time perceived that every symptom of the disease had disappeared. ' ' 
 
 The date of the story, it may be remarked, is 1656. Xow it 
 will be observed that the following circumstances are of essential 
 importance in this narrative : — First, the serious, if not incur- 
 able, nature of the disease ; secondly, the short interval between 
 the determination of the physicians to operate and their dis- 
 covery that the patient was cured ; and thii'dly, the allegation 
 that no other means were used. This then is the story which 
 is said to be attested by Pascal, Nicole, Arnauld, &c., and the 
 evidence for which is characterized by Sir J. Stephen in the 
 words cited at the commencement of this article. ^ And M. 
 
 1 "^e take these words as quoted by the writer in Fraser, who adopts 
 them. But we have not found their exact expression in Sir J. Stephen's 
 
 essay. 
 
MIRACLE OF THE HOLY THORN. 185 
 
 A. Schimmelpenninck observes that, " incredible as the story 
 may seem, it may appear to other persons equally incredible 
 that Pascal, Tillemont, &c., should either wilfully publish an 
 imposture, or be deluded in a matter of fact." The wTiter 
 in Fraser's Magazine, who agrees with Sir J. Stephen in his 
 estimate, and who adduces the miracle as comparing favour- 
 ably with those of Christianity, blames him for not drawing 
 the " legitimate inference." What then, it may be asked, is the 
 legitimate inference ? A logician would answer, If the evidence 
 is really equal to that of any event in history, there are but 
 two alternatives — either to believe it, or to admit that no fact 
 in history is conclusively proved. The argument may be stated 
 in a simple syllogism. No evidence is conclusive which is not 
 better than what may be produced for an admittedly false 
 allegation. The best evidence for any historical fact is not 
 better, &c. The major being a fundamental principle of evi- 
 dence, we must either deny the minor or admit the conclusion. 
 Sir James Stephen, without actually accepting the conclusion, 
 betrays a consciousness of his uncomfortable position on the 
 horns of this dilemma when he states that the part taken 
 by Pascal, &c., is a " standing wonder," that is in plain words, 
 an exception to the ordinary rules by which we judge of 
 evidence. 
 
 His critic is wholly unconscious of the dilemma. According 
 to him the true conclusion is that no miraculous story is worthy 
 of belief. And no doubt this would be the inference drawn by 
 many readers, simply because they are disposed to admit this 
 on other grounds, and are not logical enough to see, that if 
 the premises do not justify a universal conclusion, they do not 
 justify any. The argument does not tell a whit more against 
 miraculous stories than against any other narratives whatever. 
 It is true that in the first instance it is only because this par- 
 ticular story is miraculous that we disbelieve the very strong 
 evidence for it. But when once we have learned that evidence 
 such as this is untrustworthy, our inference from its untrust- 
 worthiness does nc't depend on the way in which it was proved. 
 If a single witness, previously supposed to be truthful, is 
 
186 ON HISTORICAL EVIDENCE AND THE 
 
 convicted of telling a monstrous or impossible story, we cease to 
 trust him ; we do not continue to accept him as an unimpeach- 
 able witness in cases where we have no obvious proof of his 
 mendacity. This, however, is not the only nor the greatest 
 fallacy in this writer's argument ; it includes also a most pal- 
 pable logical circle. On what grounds in fact does he assume 
 that the story is false? There is not a particle of evidence 
 against it, direct or indirect. It is disbelieved solely because it 
 is miraculous, in virtue of the assumption that no miraculous 
 story is credible ; and this disbelief is then appealed to in proof 
 of the very proposition on which it rests. In Sir J. Stephen's 
 case, the inference which he is censured for not drawing would 
 have involved a still grosser circle. For Sir James Stephen's 
 disbelief was founded on a less general proposition ; he only 
 assumed that no miracle is credible which is alleged to have 
 occurred under such-and-such ordinary circumstances. He did 
 not consider the Christian miracles incredible. But we repeat 
 that, admitting his estimate of the evidence, there is no alterna- 
 tive but either to believe the story or to surrender all historical 
 certainty. Before we accept this alternative, it is worth while 
 to consider whether that estimate of the evidence is not wholly 
 mistaken. A reference to the original documents will, we think, 
 satisfy the reader, not only that the weight of evidence is 
 exaggerated, but that the original story is in some important 
 respects diiferent from that given by Sir J. Stephen and his 
 critic. It will be obvious that this is not a matter of mere 
 curiosity, but has very important bearings. The original docu- 
 ments (the principal of which is a letter from Mdlle. Pascal, 
 aunt to the child) are to be found in " Recueil de Pieces pour 
 Servir a I'Histoire de Port Royal," and in Father Clemencet's 
 " Histoire Grenerale." The reader will bear in mind that the 
 subject of the alleged miracle was a child of about eleven years. 
 Her name was Perrier. 
 
 In the first place, then, the disorder was not " malignant 
 cancer," but fistula lachrymalis of the kind called by the phy- 
 sicians of the day cegilops, a disease not ordinarily incurable 
 where the health is otherwise good. In this case, however, 
 
MIRACLE OF THE HOLY THORN. 187 
 
 it liad lasted for three years, and had resisted the ordinary 
 remedies. There was a swelling at the corner of the eye as 
 large as a small nut, from which matter exuded on pressure. 
 Matter also passed into the nose and mouth, and the bone of 
 the nose was believed to be carious. It is important to note 
 that when the swelling had been well pressed, it disappeared, 
 and did not begin to return for about a quarter of an hour. 
 In two or three hours it was as before. It may be inferred 
 from this that an unprofessional person would not be able to 
 form a correct judgment of the state of the child from a short 
 or casual inspection. This inference is further borne out by 
 the circumstance which is incidentally mentioned, that a sister, 
 who was combing little Perrier's hair after the " miracle," did 
 not notice that the eye was cured until she was informed of the 
 fact. There is no mention of the " loathsome ulcers," in addi- 
 tion to the fistula, which Sir J. Stephen says " disfigured her 
 face;" and it is clear that they are a mere rhetorical amplifi- 
 cation due to some second-hand reporter. It is necessary to 
 remark also that, in consequence of her illness, the child was 
 isolated from the other inmates of the convent, with the excep- 
 tion of the one sister who shared her room. 
 
 In the second place, it is not true that she was seen by the 
 surgeon on the day following the application of the Holy Thorn, 
 nor that he had seen her within a few days, or a week, or even 
 a month before. In fact he had not visited her for two months. 
 Nor is it true, that he came prepared to perform the " very 
 serious operation," the day for which had not been fixed. It 
 had simply been resolved, months before, that the cautery 
 should be applied " in the spring." The dramatic account 
 above quoted is in fact nothing but a myth. It is taken from 
 M. Fontaine, who wrote from hearsay before the original docu- 
 ments had been published ; and it furnishes a good illustration 
 of the growth of myths. It is strange, however, that Sir James 
 Stephen, and other writers in the nineteenth century, should 
 copy M. Fontaine's loose account, or even add to his errors, 
 when the letters of Mdlle. Pascal and of Angelique Arnauld, 
 
188 ON HISTORICAL EVIDENCE AND THE 
 
 inmates of the convent at the time, are easily accessible. Our 
 anonymous writer's citation of " the Abbess, Mere Angelique," 
 as attesting that no means were used except the prayers of the 
 community, is inaccurate in every particular. Mere Angelique 
 was not at that time the abbess. ^ We know that the usual 
 remedial measures had been adopted before ; and whether they 
 had been discontinued does not appear. The reference to the 
 " prayers of the community" is due to the writer's imagination. 
 Probably he thought the community were sure to pray for a 
 blessing on the touch of the relic applied in what by the story 
 appears to have been a public manner, " at the time of her 
 receiving the holy communion ;" and accordingly he has helped 
 the myth forward another stage or two. There were no prayers 
 of the community other than general prayers, for the simple 
 reason that the community knew nothing whatever about it. 
 The only person who knew that the thorn had been applied 
 was Sister Flavie, the mistress of the novices, who suggested 
 the application, and who herself said that she thought no more 
 about it. It was not at the moment of receiving the sacra- 
 ment that it was applied, but on the occasion of a procession 
 in honour of the relic, which was kissed by each of the nuns 
 and novices in turn ; and it was only at the moment that little 
 Pernor's turn arrived that the idea of touching the eye with 
 the thorn occurred to Sister Flavie, who, as we have just said, 
 " thought no more about it." This was at three o'clock p.m., 
 on the 24th March. At bedtime the same Sister Flavie over- 
 heard Perrier saying to her chamber-fellow, " The thorn has 
 cured me." She informed the abbess (Mere Marie des Anges 
 Suireau), and the abbess told Mdlle. Pascal next day ; but so 
 little was said about it that Father Clemencet says the reserve 
 used was a sort of second miracle ; so that a week after there 
 were sisters who had heard nothing of the case. It was exactly 
 a week after (31st March-) that M. Dalence, the physician, 
 
 1 She had been abbess from 1642 to 1654, when she was succeeded by 
 Marie des Anges Suireau, who remained in ofl&ce till 1657. 
 
 2 Misprinted 11th in some books, which Sir J. Stephen followed. 
 
MIRACLE OF THE HOLY THORN. 180 
 
 saw the girl, and finding her cured, asked whetlier this had 
 happened suddenly (" sur4e-cliamp "). On being assured that 
 it had, ho said he would attest that this was impossible without 
 a miracle. However, he resolved to wait another week in order 
 to be assured that the cure was perfect. On the 14tli April the 
 attestation of the miracle is signed by several surgeons, who 
 seem to have visited the girl then for the first time, although 
 they speak of M. Dalence's visits as if they had all taken part 
 in them. " As this cure," say they, " thus made in an instant 
 . . . must be extraordinary, however one takes it ... we judge 
 that it surpasses the ordinary forces of nature, and could not 
 take place without a miracle." 
 
 From the preceding account it appears unquestionable that 
 the ailment was in fact cured. But it further appears that 
 the attestation of the physicians to its miraculous character 
 was really conditional. The question of miracle or no miracle 
 turned, in their judgment, on the instantaneousness of the 
 cure. Now what witnesses have we of this instantaneousness ? 
 Strictly speaking, as far as we can discover, only the child her- 
 self. Everyone knows how little reliance can be placed on 
 most persons' testimony as to questions of time and degree ; 
 and it is obvious that if a cure took place in any way at this 
 time, the child was just in the disposition to ascribe it to the 
 relic. Indeed, it is related that when ill-attested miracles were 
 spoken of in her hearing, she said that if she were cured by the 
 touch of relics, she would believe that it was truly a miracle. 
 The statement that she " was nothing bettered, but rather grew 
 worse," cannot be connected with any time later than the visit 
 of the physician two months before. If she began to improve 
 after that, it would not be the first time that a patient began to 
 mend just when the doctors had begun to lose hope. If she 
 had been mending, who had an opportunity of noticing it ? 
 Sister Flavie, the mistress of the novices, who was in much 
 closer relations with her than the abbess, or perhaps anyone 
 else, except the companion of Perrier's chamber, whose evidence 
 we do not possess. Sister Flavie, then, may be considered as 
 coming nearest to the character of an eyewitness. Now, we 
 
190 ON HISTORICAL EVIDENCE AND THE 
 
 know a good deal about this person/ On her first sojourn at 
 Port Royal as a postulant, she had caused so much trouble by 
 her consummate artifice that she had been dismissed as unfit to 
 join the community. She then applied to Grif, and was there 
 admitted to profession. Here she adopted a new line of con- 
 duct. Her profession of sanctity was most demonstrative, and 
 she pretended to be favoured with a multitude of miraculous 
 interpositions and divine communications. Few weeks were 
 suffered to elapse without the Sister Flavie being attacked by 
 some malady which was regularly terminated by a miraculous 
 cure ; and this cure took place on some day when distinguished 
 visitors were expected. It was said to be almost impossible to 
 enumerate all the miracles of which she professed herself the 
 favoured subject. After some time she again applied for ad- 
 mission to Port Royal, and was successful. At first she was 
 more reserved with her miraculous stories here than she had 
 been at Grif, knowing no doubt from former experience that she 
 had more intelligent persons to deal with. She succeeded in 
 being appointed sub-mistress of the novices, and afterwards 
 superintendent of the girls' school. Hereupon she resumed the 
 line of conduct she had pursued at Grif. Whenever her con- 
 duct was impugned she pretended to be taken violently ill, 
 abandoned her duties, and took to bed. But no sooner had 
 the community assembled for the purpose of electing her suc- 
 cessor than she was cured again " by a miracle." Whenever 
 it became her duty to do any servile oflSce, her indisposition 
 invariably came on ; and as certainly it miraculously disap- 
 peared on the application of relics if she was called to any post 
 of honour. Probably these were some of the " miracles " with 
 reference to which little Perrier made the observation quoted 
 above. Further, as Sister Flavie possessed keys of the desks 
 in which the children's letters and journals were kept, she 
 availed herself of the knowledge she was thus enabled to gain, 
 
 1 See Schimmelpenninck's Select Mejnoirs, vol, i., p. 273, On the 
 possibility of a cure by natural process, see Beard's Port Royal, vol. i., 
 p, 314, 
 
MIRACLE OF THE HOLY THORN. 191 
 
 to persuade the children that she was able to divine their secret 
 thoughts. This deception was detected and stopped by Mere 
 Angelique, who was abbess at tliat time. To complete the 
 portrait of Sister Flavie, it must be mentioned that after the 
 time of which we are speaking, having failed in her ambitious 
 scheme of becoming the Superior of Port Royal, she became 
 a traitor to the community, and brought it into its greatest 
 troubles. 
 
 Is it possible to describe or to imagine a more untrust- 
 worthy witness in any matter tending to bring herself into 
 prominence or to further her schemes, especially in connexion 
 with anything that could be made to look miraculous ? It is 
 not too much to say that she was a consummate liar, hypocrite, 
 and self-seeker. The evidence of such a person in such a case 
 is of less than no value ; like a negative quantity in algebra it 
 tells the other way. The very fact that she was mixed up with 
 the story at all, would be sufficient to raise doubts respecting 
 it. When we find in addition that the sick child was under her 
 especial care and instruction ; that the application of the relic 
 was first suggested by her ; that the first report of the cure 
 came from her, most reasonable persons will probably think it 
 unnecessary to inquire further, or to search out the precise point 
 in which the deception began. If it was the duty of Sister 
 Flavie, as it probably was, to see that the physician's orders 
 were carried out, it need hardly be said that they would be 
 attended to or neglected just as it suited her plans. Nay, if 
 one were to suggest that she used means to keep up the disease 
 until it suited her purpose that it should be miraculously cured, 
 we do not see how the conjecture could be called unjust or 
 improbable. The fact that Mere Angelique believed her, that 
 Pascal, Arnauld, and Le Maitre accepted the story, does not 
 add anything to the evidence. It is essential to bear in mind 
 that a man's belief is no evidence whatever of the truth of what 
 he believes, except as to matters which have fallen under his 
 own senses ; and the number of such believers adds nothing to 
 their value. It may be admitted that few men have existed 
 whose testimony would be of more weight than Pascal's ; and 
 
192 ON HISTORICAL EVIDENCE AND THE 
 
 if he and others like him are found to testify to what is inca- 
 pable of belief, the value of human testimony would be per- 
 manently lowered. On the other hand, if there were many 
 instances in which such men gave personal testimony to the 
 fact of a miracle, this would be fatal to the " argument from 
 induction " against miracles. But, however dazzling these 
 great names may be, the first question to be asked is. Are 
 they witnesses ? and to this the reply, must be an unqualified 
 negative. But then it is said, at least they " had ample means 
 of knowledge, and they carefully investigated the story." 
 Even if this were true, their belief would fall very far short 
 of testimony; it would only have the weight of their judg- 
 ment that there was sufficient evidence. But the statement is 
 devoid of evidence, and is against all probability. The fact 
 is, they simply accepted on what appeared prima facie to be 
 credible testimony a narrative which to them presented no 
 particular improbability. The " ample means of knowledge " 
 amounted simply to this, that they had it in their power to 
 ascertain that the whole rested on the assertion of the child 
 herself. But there was not the slightest inducement to be 
 critical or hesitating in accepting the story as it was related. 
 It fell in completely with their prepossessions, and their belief 
 in it led to no practical result whatever. It may be regarded 
 as proving that the story was told with the appearance of truth, 
 but it proves nothing more. 
 
 We are told, however, further that this narrative is unique 
 amongst modern miraculous stories in this respect, that it grew 
 up under the eyes of the Jesuits, the most bitter enemies of 
 Port Royal. This might be of some weight if it could be 
 alleged that a single Jesuit was convinced of its truth, or 
 induced thereby to give up his hostility to Port Royal. The 
 threatened persecution was indeed suspended by order of the 
 Queen, who had sent her own physician, M. Felix, to examine 
 the case, and was convinced by his report that a miracle had 
 occurred, M. Felix, however, could testify to nothing but the 
 completeness of the cure ; in every other respect he was depen- 
 dent on the sources of information to which we have already 
 
MIRACLE OF THE HOLY THORN. 193 
 
 referred. Is it not, however, preposterous to say of a story, 
 every incident of which from first to last was confined witliiu 
 the four walls of a convent, that it grew up under the eyes of 
 anyone outside those walls ? Few even within them had any 
 opportunity of seeing it grow. This was verily a thing " done 
 in a corner." Bearing in mind that the suddenness was the 
 vital point, it must he repeated that we cannot point to a single 
 adult who professed to be an " original witness." The person 
 who comes nearest to this condition, and who had the best 
 opportunities of being a witness, was a convicted impostor, 
 proved to be capable of saying or doing anything to promote 
 her own ends ; whose ends were promoted by the story ; and 
 who as soon as it suited her purpose turned against the interests 
 which the miracle was supposed to be intended by Providence 
 to support. The one " original witness " is the subject of the 
 miracle, a child of eleven years, under the special care of the 
 aforesaid impostor. The miracle was one belief in which would 
 have involved no inconvenience whatever, much less suffering. 
 It demanded merely an " otiose assent," as Paley calls it. Yet 
 it was believed only by those who had no temptation to dis- 
 believe it. 
 
 This then is the narrative of which we are seriously told 
 that it is better attested than almost any event in history, and 
 in particular that its evidence is fully equal, if not superior, to 
 that of the Resurrection ; a miracle which in the first place 
 admitted of no delusion, and of which those who professed to 
 be original vdtnesses proved their sincerity, not only by the 
 sufferings which they voluntarily underwent, but by what is to 
 many persons harder, submitting to new rules of conduct solely 
 in consequence of their conviction of what they had themselves 
 seen and heard. The writer whom we have quoted, like many 
 others, thinks he has set aside at once this consideration. The 
 grand point, he says, with the advocates of Christianity in the 
 last century was the honesty of the witnesses, which would now 
 be granted without a word ; and then he states their argument 
 thus : " They endured persecution and death for their opinions, 
 therefore their opinions were true." It is, of course, easy to 
 
 o 
 
194 ON HISTORICAL EVIDENCE AND THE 
 
 rihow that such reasoning as this would be invalid ; and the 
 writer need hardly have specified such cases as that of Sir 
 Thomas More dying for the doctrine of the Papal Supremacy, 
 or the Suttee of the Indian widow. The fact is that no Chris- 
 tian apologist, at least none of any weight, ever thought of 
 using such an argument. Bishop Butler clearlj^ exposed the 
 fallacy that underlies the objection — an objection which he 
 thought almost too transparent to impose on anyone : — 
 
 " They allege that numberless enthusiastic people in different ages and 
 countries expose themselves to the same difficulties which the primitive 
 Christians did, and are ready to give up their lives for the most idle follies 
 imaginable. But it is not very clear to what purpose this objection is 
 brought. For every one surely in every case must distinguish between 
 ojnnions and facts. And though testimony is no proof of enthusiastic 
 opinions, nor of any opinions at all, yet it is allowed in all other cases to 
 be a proof of facts. And a person laying down his life in attestation of 
 facts or of opinions is the strongest proof of his believing them. And if the 
 apostles or their contemporaries did believe the facts in attestation of which 
 they exposed themselves to sufferings and death, this their belief or rather 
 knowledge, must be a proof of those facts, for they were such as came 
 under the observation of their senses." 
 
 As long as the world lasts, human testimony will be the 
 strongest evidence we can have of facts, but no evidence at all 
 of the truth of opinions. Indeed it is an abuse of words to 
 speak of testimony to opinions, and it would be better to 
 state the distinction as one between opinion and testimony. 
 Experience has not taught us to distrust testimony more than 
 the unlearned do, but the contrary. The unscientific make 
 little or no distinction between the original testimony of eye 
 and ear witnesses and mere hearsay reports. If unlearned, 
 they credit both equallj' ; if learned, they discredit both equally, 
 and think it highly scientific to be incredulous of everytliing. 
 True science teaches us to draw a broad line of distinction 
 between the original witnesses to facts observed and mere 
 second-hand assertors of the same — a distinction drawn every 
 day in our courts of law. Scientific history, like law, attaches 
 little weight to the details of hearsay evidence, except by help- 
 ing us to ascertain what the original witnesses said or did. 
 
MIRACLK OF THE HOLY THORN. 195 
 
 This is not renll}' riii exception, for in this respect the secondary 
 witnesses s})eak of what they themselves saw and heard. Science 
 has taught us further to distinguish in the narrative of original 
 witnesses between fact and inference. The result of the appli- 
 cation of these two distinctions has not been to lessen the value 
 of testimony in general, but to increase it ; and many relations 
 which were formerly rejected as pure fictions are now admitted 
 to rest on a basis of fact. 
 
 By a curious inconsistency, the writer who ridicules the 
 argument founded on the sufferings of the first witnesses of 
 the Christian miracles, dwells on the sacrifices which Mere 
 Angelique made in tlie cause of what she believed to be truth, 
 as giving great weight to her so-called " evidence " in the 
 present case ; and this notwithstanding the facts that Mere 
 Angelique did not profess to be an original witness of the 
 alleged miracle, and that the sufferings she endured were itot 
 in attestation of it, nor at all in consequence of her belief in it. 
 In speaking of the Port Royal miracle, he studiously mistakes 
 belief for testimony, while in referring to the Christian miracles 
 he mistakes testimony for opinion. In fact, in his pretended 
 quotation from the Christian advocates of the last century, he 
 deliberately substitutes " opinion " for " testimony." The 
 belief of Pascal in something wliich he had been told, but 
 could not have seen himself, is described as evidence of the 
 highest kind ; while the conviction of the apostles, &c., as to 
 wliat they professed to have seen and heard (and lie admits 
 their honesty), is only " opinion." " In the face of such a fact 
 as this," he adds, " what value can we attach to the evidence of 
 the best and cleverest people in cases where their prepossessions 
 and desires are all one side, and in questions where they 
 probably do not feel themselves at liberty to apply the ordinary 
 rules of what constitutes evidence?" So far as the principle 
 implied in this question is sound, it is as fully recognized by 
 Paley as by anj'-one else, and he employs it to discredit stories 
 of pretended miracles. But the only illustration of the remark 
 that the present narrative supplies is furnished unconsciously 
 by the writer himself. Pascal and the others give no evidence 
 
 O 2 
 
196 ON HISTORICAL EVIDENCE AND THE 
 
 <it all; they simply believed what they were told by credible 
 persons, and what they had no reason to question. He, on the 
 contrary, testifies, as if from the results of his own study of the 
 history — First, that the story above quoted was the original 
 story, whereas it contains not less than eight distinct misstate- 
 ments, some of them important ; secondly, that Pascal, &c., 
 carefully examined it ; thirdly, that Pascal, &c., were witnesses 
 to its truth. This he several times assumes, notwithstanding 
 his own admissions elsewhere. Fourthly, that Madame Ange- 
 lique was abbess at the time, and gave " evidence." Possibly, 
 if she had been abbess, she would have been more critical as 
 to a story with which Sister Flavie was so deeply concerned, 
 whom she had herself on a previous occasion convicted of 
 imposture. 
 
 Let it be remembered that we did not undertake to adduce 
 arguments against the miracle of the Holy Thorn ; nor to show 
 that its circumstances rendered it less credible than the Chris- 
 tian miracles. Our task was to cross-examine the evidence for 
 it, with a view to ascertain whether this is really comparable 
 to the evidence for the best attested facts of history. The 
 reader is now in a position to judge whether there is anything 
 really so extraordinary in it, anything to distinguish it from 
 the modern " miracles," or any " standing wonder " in the part 
 taken by Pascal and other great men. To put the matter in 
 a practical point of view, setting aside altogether the a priori 
 improbability of miracles, would any jury convict a man of 
 felony on evidence such as this ? Or to put a closer analogy, 
 suppose Sister Flavie were the claimant to a property, her claim 
 depending on the truth of the miracle, what chance would she 
 have of establishing it ? Would any judge or juror dream of 
 saying that no fact in history was established on better evi- 
 dence ? 
 
 Mr. Matthew Arnold is of opinion that too much stress has 
 been laid on the argument fi'om induction against miracles. 
 He draws attention to another consideration which he thinks 
 equally conclusive, namely, that we can clearly see how 
 miraculous stories originate. This is what may be called the 
 
MIRACLE OF THE HOLY THORN. 197 
 
 common-sense practical way of looking at the question. We 
 may regard tlie allegation or belief of any fact as a phenomenon 
 of which we are seeking the cause, which cause may either be 
 tlie actual occurrence of the event alleged, or some other com- 
 bination of motives. Now, if the event is very improbable, 
 and if, on the other hand, it be easy to account for the belief 
 of it from other reasons; then we of course adopt the latter 
 explanation. But there is an important proviso. The plieno- 
 inenon to be explained must be regarded as including tlie 
 apparent evidence, if any, for the fact. In the case of almost 
 all alleged miracles we can, as the argument supposes, clearly 
 account for the origin of the story ; and this fairly justifies us 
 in meeting thus such miraculous stories as from time to time 
 crop up in similar circumstances. But if we are challenged in 
 any particular instance, or if any important interests are con- 
 cerned, we must be prepared to show that similar motives, &c., 
 either were or may have been in operation. Amongst these 
 motives in Christian times has always been the belief in the 
 New Testament miracles. But the evidence for these is of a 
 totally different kind. It is easy, by grouping the biblical 
 miracles together, and then taking that of Joshua as a type of 
 the whole, as a recent eminent writer has done, to represent 
 them as coming under the same category. But if some theo- 
 logians think the " miracle " of Joshua entitled to as much 
 credit as the miracles of Christ, it is because they connect it 
 by a chain of argument with the latter, not because of any 
 direct evidence for it.^ We may admit that, taken by itself, 
 the story of Joshua's " miracle " is easily accounted for ; but 
 
 ^ I write "miracle," because the original story quoted in Josh. x. 12, 
 13 from the Book of Jashar does not soem to me to be the story of a miracle 
 at all. It is merely a highly rhetorical or poetical description which the 
 later compiler appears to have understood prosaically. 1 might have called 
 the description " Oriental," but that the last journal of Bishop Hannington 
 supplies a most striking parallel: "How often I looked at the sun! It 
 stood still in the heavens nor would go down," p. 185. This furnishes the 
 best of all commentaries on the passage in Joshua. 
 
198 ON HISTORICAL EVIDENCE AND THE 
 
 surely no one will regard it as a satisfactory way of accounting 
 for the influence of belief in the resurrection on those who 
 professed to be actual witnesses of it, to say that many such 
 stories have arisen, and that it can be accounted for on the same 
 principles. It is alleged by its advocates that no story exists 
 like it in its evidence ; that the evidence, in short, is as unique 
 as the history itself. This is the point of Paley's celebrated 
 propositions, namely, " There is satisfactory evidence that 
 persons professing to be original witnesses of the Christian 
 miracles passed their lives in labours, dangers, and sufferings, 
 voluntarily undergone, in attestation of the accounts which 
 they delivered, and solely in consequence of their belief in 
 those accounts, and that they also, from the same motives, 
 submitted to new rules of conduct;" and, " There is not satis- 
 factory evidence that persons professing to be original witnesses 
 of other miracles, in their nature as certain as these," proved 
 their sincerity in the same way. The former proposition may 
 be regarded as certain. It is in no respect a question (as our 
 critic would have it) which of the evangelists gives the evidence 
 of eye-witnesses of the events he relates. Paley has shown 
 that the authorship of the Grospels is not an essential part of 
 the argument — indeed he shows incoutrovertibly that, even if 
 the four Gospels had never been written, it would have been 
 absolutely certain that the resurrection was asserted by the 
 first preachers of Christianity ; and that the first preachers 
 professed to be "original witnesses" is also certain. He care- 
 fully distinguishes testimony from belief. As to the second 
 proposition, the attempts to establish an exception to it have 
 generally, like that with which we have just dealt, betrayed a 
 fundamental confusion between testimony and belief. Believers 
 have been treated as " original witnesses ; " or the facts attested 
 have not necessarily been miraculous ; or they demanded merely 
 an " otiose assent." In the Port Eoyal story we find all these 
 three circumstances ; and in addition, the account originally 
 came merely " in affirmance of opiuions already formed." For 
 at least three distinct reasons then, Paley would have put this 
 
MIRACLE OF THE HOLY THORN. 199 
 
 story out of court. All honest attempts to disprove either of 
 l^aley's propositions should meet with the most candid con- 
 sideration. But until reason is shown for a far-reaching distrust 
 of all human testimony, such as would shake all historical 
 certainty, Paley's first proposition will continue to present an 
 insuperable difficulty to those who on d priori grounds hold 
 miracles impossible. 
 
VII. 
 
 CRITICAL NOTES ON PASSAGES IN THE TEXT OF THE 
 OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 I.— ON THE ALPHABETICAL AREANGEMENT OF THE 
 NINTH AND TENTH PSALMS. 
 
 The ninth and tenth Psalms are partly alphabetical : the 
 former including the first half of the alphabet, the latter, 
 imperfectly, the second half. They are treated as one Psalm 
 by the LXX and Yulgate, and by many moderns. There are, 
 however, obvious difficulties in this view. In Ps. ix. the writer 
 speaks with confidence and exultation of the destruction of the 
 impious ; whereas in Ps. x. the tone is one of complaint and 
 supplication. Supplication followed by confident hope would 
 be intelligible, but not the reverse. On the other hand, there 
 seems to be nothing improbable in the supposition that a writer 
 composing an alphabetical song should limit himself to half 
 the alphabet. Another writer may then have thought of deal- 
 ing similarly with the second half, either in connexion with 
 the former Psalm, or simply because he began with Hu?, 
 " Wherefore ? " 
 
 If the last two verses of Ps. ix. are an original part of the 
 Psalm, this seems the only possible hypothesis, for these cannot 
 be made to fit into the alphabetical arrangement except by the 
 forced supposition that p stands as the equivalent of D. These 
 verses, however, are probably an addition by a later writer. 
 
 However, my present purpose is not to discuss this secon- 
 dary question, but to see whether we can make any steps 
 
THE NINTH AND TENTH PSALMS. 201 
 
 towards restoring the alphabetical arrangement where it is 
 lost in the present text. 
 
 It is first to be observed that in both Psalms each letter has 
 four clauses, or, according to the received division, two verses. 
 Now Ps. ix., leaving out the last two verses, has only thirty- 
 six clauses. The last pair commence with D, and the pre- 
 ceding pair with ^. These are usually assigned together to ^ ; 
 but in that case the writer would have stopped one letter short 
 of lialf the alphabet, and the writer of Ps. x. would have left 
 out the same letter. Bickell, indeed, meets this by transposi- 
 tions in the latter Psalm, which he makes to commence with 
 v. 3. But we may not unreasonably suppose the two letters 
 ^ and 3 to have had originally only two clauses each. A more 
 serious defect is between v. 6 and v. 10. The former verse 
 begins with J, and then the alphabetical arrangement is lost 
 until we come to v. 10, which begins with ^, and there are 
 only eight clauses (instead of twelve) for } and tlie three fol- 
 lowing letters. Probably, therefore, some entire clauses have 
 been lost, or else the writer did not adhere throughout to the 
 tetrastich arrangement. On the former supposition, of course 
 complete restoration is impossible. 
 
 Now, as to the He stanza, we might expect to find v. 8 
 beginning with this letter. It does not ; but then the last word 
 in V. 7 begins with it and is out of place in that verse. It is 
 generally admitted that this word HOn should be transferred 
 to V. 8, and a verb such as TT2^^ (Delitzsch, Bickell) or ^^3^^^ 
 (Ley, Dyserinck, Graetz) supplied after it. Verse 7 is ob- 
 viously corrupt. The English Version, harsh as it is (" 
 thou enemy, destructions are come to a perpetual end"), does 
 not naturally arise out of the Hebrew. The verb ^DT^ does 
 not mean " have ceased," but " have been completed." The 
 same objection applies to the Eevised Version, which takes 
 m3"in as a second predicate to 2''l^^n, which is supposed 
 to be construed as if plural — (" The enemy are come to an end, 
 they are desolate for ever"). Literally, "ruins," not a very 
 suitable predicate for " enemy." Other interpretations are : 
 "The enemy, they are gone! Ruins for ever" (Koster). 
 
202 CRITICAL NOTES ON THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 " The enemy, completed are ruins for ever " (viz. of his build- 
 ings). Olshausen, who suggests the last, prefers to regard 
 3'^li^n as an interpolation, perhaps a gloss on }JU/1. Hitzig 
 corrects ni3"in to mD"in, " reproaches," retaining the ob- 
 jectionable explanation of ^f2^\ as " have ceased." 
 
 I propose to adopt this emendation, and then to change 
 IDn into ^721. Confusion of D and 1 is not without example : 
 cf . Ezek. xxii. 4, where the Eastern codices read n^' for T^ ; 
 Haggai i. 2, where the first Pi^ should be 1^ : i. e. instead of 
 *' the time is not come, the time," read " the time is not yet 
 come"; Prov. i. 11, where Ul should certainly be DH, "Let 
 us lay wait for the perfect," instead of " for blood." The 
 parallelism supports this, the next clause having " the inno- 
 cent." I would, further, transpose Il"^1Xn, which is certainly 
 out of place, and put it after mD"in, thus obtaining an 
 excellent sense : " Silenced are the reproaches of the enemy 
 for ever." Or, perhaps, H^T^^H may be a gloss on D^HI^, 
 translated '* cities." This word occurs Ps. cxxxix. 20, and in 
 two other places, in the Aramaic sense of " enemy." It is 
 probably a textual error in all these places ; but, as it is in the 
 text, a glosser might have thought it bore that sense here also. 
 It is true that the stanzas of J and T are by this reconstruction 
 shorter than we should expect, and it is possible that two verses 
 are lost ; but as the reconstruction not only gives us a verse 
 beginning with "7, but also a mucli improved sense, it is, I 
 think, probable. 
 
 Psalm X. is in a worse state. After Lamed, with which it 
 begins, we have no verse commencing with the proper letter 
 until the twelfth (p) ; that is, six letters are missing. But as 
 we know nearly the length of a stanza, we look about for the 
 missing letters, and we actually find three of them very near 
 the expected places. First, mH"^ T^J, now ending verse 3, 
 may very well commence verse 4, as it actually does in the 
 LXX and Yulgate. This agrees, moreover, with verse 13, 
 wliere the substance of the verse is repeated. As for the word 
 ']"I3, in verse 3, that is merely a euphemism, intended to 
 be substituted by the reader for the following word, V^}, the 
 
THK NINTH AND TENTH PSALMS. 203 
 
 utterance of which with the name of God was carefully avoided. 
 There are other passages in wliich ']n3 has taken the place of 
 Y^2 in the text itself, such as Job i. 5 ; ii. 5, 9 ; 1 Kings 
 xxi. 10. Some suppose that in these cases it was a euphemism 
 adopted by the original writer ; but in the present instance that 
 explanation is inadmissible, inasmuch as one of the words sup- 
 posed to be euphemistically avoided actually follows (see p. 49) . 
 
 We find the letter Pe beginning the second word of verse 7, 
 which reads, " of cursing his mouth is full, and deceit and 
 fraud." An obvious suggeslion is to transpose H^i^ after iwf2 
 (Bickell) ; and in favour of this it may be said that, from simi- 
 larity of sound, it might easily have dropped out here. But the 
 rhythmical balance is much better without the word, and so is 
 the sense, as " cursing, deceit, and fraud " do not go very well 
 together. Now it is to be observed that the words preceding 
 this (viz. at the end of the sixth verse) are corrupt, namely : 
 I/nZl ^^ "^'4/^ "n^ "1"f'7> " <^o generation and generation 
 who not in evil." A verb is clearly wanting. Olshausen 
 suggests that the verb may be found in "It^i^, for which he 
 proposes to read Dti'*^^, " I shall abide for ever, without being 
 in misfortune " ; but he admits that this negative addition does 
 not s<mud quite natural. Bickell adopts DC^'X, and adds ITT^XD, 
 Another suggestion is, to find the verb in ^13, which is then 
 altered to I/H^X, "I shall not bow down, i.e. fall" (cf. Ps. 
 XX. 9 and xvii. 13). This is Krochmal's conjecture, adopted 
 by Graetz, who, however, also changes "lJi^*^|» to "^"1^'Nl, " In 
 my goings I shall not fall." This seems to be quite unsuitable 
 to the verb ^"13, which means not to slip so as to fall, but to 
 bow down, and then to sink by collapse (as of Jehoram, when 
 wounded, it is said that he sank down in his chariot). 
 
 Now, as we have seen that verse 7 probably ought to begin 
 with in^D, it follows that ^7^^ may belong to verse 6. If 
 so, the missing verb may lurk in the letters ^^'7^y/")2. Paral- 
 lelism suggests that tlie meaning is probably " My footsteps 
 shall never slide." I have little doubt that Graetz is risrht in 
 
204 CRITICAL NOTES ON THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 suggesting """IJi^J^, instead of "lt^'^«t : the two words would 
 have been written alike in the original texts, but after the verb 
 was lost it was natural to adopt the latter reading. Now, can 
 we suggest any word that might be corrupted into n7i<^"l3 ? 
 There is a root 7i/"l, to which the meaning " tremble," 
 " reel," is assigned. The verb is found only in hophal = " be 
 
 brandished ; " but the substantive 7^1 is used of reeling 
 (from intoxication) in Zech. xii. 2 (" cup of reeling " — E.. Y.). 
 From the same root comes n^j^"ir), " staggering." We might 
 then suggest either n'7)/"lD = " in titubatione," or the verb 
 
 7i/")n or ny^^lD, pointing ''"IJi^S singular or plural, accord- 
 ingly. The confusion of 3 and n is not impossible : see 2 
 Sam. xxi. 18, where the Hebrew has 3J, and the LXX HJ, as 
 in verse 20. Or better, we might read the first person ri/j/IJ^, 
 " In my steps I shall not totter." The cohortative, though 
 rare with ^57, is possible ; I suggest it only as making it easier 
 
 to account for ^7^^. The rarity of the verb might easily lead to 
 its corruption. Tet it must be noted that the LXX and aXXog 
 read 1U^^ after ^")3. Whatever the original reading was, I 
 think it likely that H^^ is part of the corruption. Of course, 
 the T before HDIQ will have to be omitted. It was added 
 when (l/i^ was made part of verse 7. 
 
 I am inclined, however, to suspect that lli/^ has slipped 
 in = "iDt^ from the once preceding line. In the old alphabet, 
 12 and U/ are liable to be confounded : see Isaiah iii. 10, where 
 1")^^ should be '^*^Ji^^^ ; and there are reasons for supposing 
 that in early times the lines contained only fifteen or sixteen 
 letters. See the erroneous repetitions in Levit. xx. 10 ; Exod. 
 XXX. 6 (mentioned below, pp. 207, 208). If this is the case, 
 an easy correction of P1^ ^1 would be: 13]/^^ ^^7, "I shall 
 
 not pass away," a sense which 1!2^ sometimes has ; and n?^^ 
 might be transposed, as Bickell suggests. I do not venture 
 
 to suggest D71i/7 thus: DTI// "im^i^. In any case, verse 7 
 must begin with 2. 
 
THE NINTH AND TENTH PSALMS. 205 
 
 Next, j/ is found at the beginning of the third clause of 
 verse 8, just about where it ought to come, if it came after D. 
 There are other instances of this order, as in Lam. ii., iii., iv. ; 
 and originally perhaps in Ps. xxxiv. 
 
 Verse lOo ought to begin the V stanza: it is so short, that 
 it is clear a word is lost, if not two. Bickell supplies ^Ji^"l ^^^. 
 Or we might supply p^^y, and read the following word (witli 
 tlie margin) H^l^. In the older alphabet V and "^ were very 
 similar, and the eye would readily pass from TV to 1^. 
 
 There remain the Samech and Mem stanzas. Now, just 
 where D might be expected, we find D1"1D, which does not 
 yield a good sense. " Height are thy judgments from before 
 him " is a very bold expression even in poetry for " far distant 
 from him," and has, I think, no parallel. Besides, the context 
 requires that "judgments " be taken, not in the sense of " pre- 
 cepts," but of *' punishments," and to this DT1D would be 
 very unsuitable. 
 
 I propose to read 11 D, the final D being accounted for by 
 the same letter following. The sense this yields is good : 
 " Removed are thy judgments from before him." The letters 
 D and 12 are elsewhere apparently confounded. Compare 
 I Kings xxi. 4 with Ezek. iii. 14. See also 1 Sam. xv. 32, 
 where we should read "ID ID, "death is bitter, bitter!" If 
 for the word ITH^, just before, which is very difficult, we 
 
 read with the Targum TH'^/y'^, " are prosperous " (so Graetz 
 and de Lagarde), the clauses will correspond well in meaning. 
 The LXX have for DTID, avTavaipiirai, and the Yulgate 
 has " auferuntur." These readings suit 1")D better than D1"ID, 
 but they may be only interpretations. 
 
 The only letter unaccounted for is D, and its stanza has 
 only one clause remaining, so that restoration is impossible. 
 ']n3, in verse 3, is of course to be omitted, as already men- 
 tioned ; but, as part of the stanza is lost, we can hardly hope 
 to make good sense of this line. However, as a step towards 
 the solution of the problem, I venture to submit the following 
 
 remarks to the consideration of the reader : — First, '77n""^3, 
 

 
 
 
 adte 
 
 ^itte 
 
 -:!«es 3. i a». w\ 
 
73Z %1M1M Jl99 
 
 2*7 
 
 Tfiw ■mi! fiiiiiMii irtMMM "hi 
 
 ^ ^ics_ P&; an^ ""Ax-Tut^ n^ jb ^j^g- 
 lodk ior ^fii^B, s mat hm t ■litiiwii , xnd 2i 
 «—gBufl T ygbeed. fwiaMi^ i» giaitm te tike 
 
 . ■llii ihfi»iiiiiTmiiin Mill ■111 iiF 
 
 ."TS 
 
 rTc mt rat ^xr ~r3c rnr 
 
 *• IW ^HE. '!^3b: MMtiii--.*^-^ ■njtiilaHrj '•±2. aauuc •— rr'- - ^r^ sic: 
 S. T. - 
 
 idw^ «■! ia Ife l^imi^ ffic 
 
 1&^ *m ^t 1im3 tB^ VHB i m/ 1 Jl^K J^K *fl 
 
208 CRITICAL NOTES ON THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 Ji^''^^ nti'l^ .... Then either he or another wrote the 
 correction in the margin, and so both remain. 
 
 There is no need of this circuitous explanation, which is 
 interesting as showing the influence of the Massoretic punctua- 
 tion on those who do not admit it to be authoritative. Divide 
 the verse differently and it will be obvious that we have simply 
 a line accidentally repeated : 
 
 nu/ii n^ ^t^y i^i^ tl;^i^^ 
 nt^i^ n^^ ?l^^r "i::^^ iL/^t^ 
 
 II. 
 
 Exodus xxx. 6. 
 
 " And thou shalt put it [the altar of incense] before the veil that is by 
 the ark of the testimony, before the mercy -seat that is over the 
 testimony " (A. V. = R. V.). 
 
 The position of the altar is defined by the former clause ; 
 the latter is not only superfluous, but scarcely correct, for the 
 altar which was before the veil was not " before " the mercy- 
 seat. Kashi, indeed, explains the clause as specifying that the 
 altar was to be neither to the north nor to the south, but just 
 opposite the ark. If this were intended, he might expect 
 " before the ark " as in xl. 5, not " before the mercy-seat." 
 Further, the definition of the place of the mercy-seat is super- 
 fluous. The Samaritan text and the LXX omit the clause, 
 and although the omission might be easily accounted for from 
 the similarity of the clauses, yet in the circumstances it must 
 be allowed some weight. Repetition is as frequent a fault as 
 omission. Of course it is possible that we have here an 
 erroneous reading and its correction side by side, or the 
 repetition may have been purely accidental at first, and then 
 n^ISi in the second clause have been changed to n"lD3 from 
 design. 
 
MISCELLANEOUS PASSAGES. 209 
 
 HI. 
 
 2 Kings vii. Vi. 
 
 ** Let some take, I pray thee, live of the horses that remain, which are 
 left in the city \_JIeh. in it] (behold, they are as all the multitude 
 of Israel that are left in it : behold, they are as all the multitude 
 of Israel that are consumed) " (R. V.). 
 
 According to Thenius the repetition of DJil shows that 
 two distinct cases are supposed; safe return, and destruction 
 by the enemy ; in the former case they share the lot of those 
 that remain which are near deatli by starvation ; in the other, 
 that of those already dead. Similarly the note in the Variorum 
 Bible. It is, I think, a case of accidental repetition; and the 
 length of the repetition is about that of a line in the later 
 copies, so that it was easily occasioned by the recurrence of 
 nj^*J^ in about the same position in the line. The LXX have 
 not the repetition. 
 
 It may be interesting to give a few other instances of 
 repetition. The most striking one is in 1 Chron. ix. 35-44, 
 which whole passage is nothing but viii. 29-38 repeated. The 
 repetition was occasioned by the recurrence in ix. 34 of the 
 words of viii. 28. The comparison of the names in the two 
 places is very instructive. 
 
 2 Sam. vi. 3, 4 : we have a generally recognised repetition 
 of an entire line, occasioned by the recurrence of H/J^, and 
 betraying itself conspicuously by the ungraramatical absence 
 of the article from the adjective after HvJ^n. The LXX is 
 correct. 
 
210 CRITICAL NOTES ON THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 Ezek. xl. 8, 9 : there is also a well-recognised repetition of 
 about one line occasioned by the recurrence of the words 
 "l^Ji^n D/J^. The versions are correct and a few Hebrew 
 
 MSS. 
 
 Ps. xc, 17 is another instance, occasioned by the recurrence 
 
 of ir'?;;. 
 
 IV. 
 
 Job xxiv. 14. 
 
 " The murderer riseth with the light, he killeth the poor and needy, and 
 in the night he is as a thief " (R. V.). 
 
 This is inconsistent with the context, which deals with 
 the enmity of crime to light. Yerse 13, " They are of those 
 that rebel against the light ; they know not the ways thereof, 
 nor abide in the paths thereof. The murderer . . ." Yerse 15, 
 "The eye also of the adulterer waiteth for the twilight," etc. 
 The older commentators were not blind to this : some rendered 
 "11 ^^^ "before the light" (a quite impossible rendering), others 
 "at first dawn." Yet this does not escape the difficulty. Those 
 rise at dawn who wish to do their work in the light. Read 
 "n>^-^^'7, "When there is no light." 
 
 Psalm xli. 6. 
 
 Probably the true reading is w^^ (Bickell) . I mention this 
 only for the sake of the following : — 
 
MISCELI.ANKOUS rASSAfUvS. 211 
 
 Psalm xl. 8. 
 
 *' In the roll of the hook it is written of me " (R. V.). 
 
 Tlie words are a crux. Some render, ** in the volume of 
 the book it is prescribed to me." I remark, first, tliat the 
 Hebrew has not the article. It is, " in a roll of a book." 
 Secondly, the use of the participle DIHD with no subject 
 expressed, as in the first two renderings, appears to me in- 
 admissible (I state this with some hesitation, as grammarians 
 do not seem to have noticed it). The participle is properly an 
 adjective. With a subject expressed it can be used as a 
 predicate, the copula being as usual understood ; but it cannot, 
 I think, be used as itself including an impersonal subject ; i.e. 
 as = jiypawTai, impersonal. Another rendering is, " with the 
 roll of the book that is written for me." The first remark that 
 the article is not in the Hebrew holds against this also. And, 
 surely, with this interpretation 2^D2 ought to have the article. 
 Moreover, how poor a meaning we get ! It is possible, says 
 Ewald, that the poet may have brought a roll of the Pentateuch 
 with him, i.e. " Sacrifice thou wouldest not, so I have brought 
 a Bible " ! or, as Hitzig prefers, " I have brought on me a 
 written leaf," viz. of prophetic matter written by the poet him- 
 self. I may add that "3 ^5^3 means to " bring with one," e.g. 
 "an offering" (Ps. Ixvi. 13): not "to come, having with one 
 as one carries a book to church." Olshausen judges that 
 there is no resource left except to regard the verse as a 
 marginal note of a reader who could not reconcile himself 
 to the statement, that God had no pleasure in sacrifice, since 
 it was prescribed in the law (!), or more probably (because of 
 the suffix in ^7^), as an explanation of "jil^n in v. 9. 
 
 There is another resource. The words are a marginal note 
 recording a various reading : "In a roll of a book is written 
 v>/." This is a perfectly grammatical, if not, as I think, the 
 only grammatical rendering. The note might possibly refer to 
 
 p 2 
 
212 CRITICAL NOTES ON THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 '''7 in the preceding verse, but much more probably to "^7 in xli. 
 6, cited in the preceding note. 
 
 Examples of such notes finding their way into the text are 
 to be found in the Greek and Latin Biblical mss. For in- 
 stance, in 2 Cor. viii. 3, a codex of Wetstein's after ^i^aaOai 
 Vnag has tv TToAAotc T(ov avTiyparpiov ovTwg tvp})Tai k-at ov 
 k-a^wc r]\TTiaafxiv. In Luke xxiii. 15, we have in the Book of 
 Kells, " remisit eum in alio sic remisit eum ad vos." In 
 1 Sam. xiv. 41, a 9th century codex has " Domine Deus 
 Israel, da indicium in hoc loco vide ne quid praetermissum 
 sit." 
 
 The Hebrew text being written in columns, there is no 
 difficulty in the supposition that a note intended for xli. 6, 
 was supposed to belong to xl. 8. The interval is such that the 
 two verses might probably have stood at the same height in 
 adjoining columns. 
 
 This gloss being rejected, of course, TS^^Vh comes to de- 
 pend on ^"1J^3, "I come to do thy will"; and we naturally 
 read with Bickell, 7min3 instead of 'm. When Tmih 
 and T^i^D were separated by the gloss, it became necessary to 
 connect ^nVSH with the preceding, and so to write 1 for 3. 
 
 It may be interesting to mention other instances in which 
 a correction has got into the text along with the reading cor- 
 rected : 
 
 VI. 
 
 Psalm lix. 10, 11a. 
 
 Here IT^ is clearly wrong, and is corrected in the Qere to 
 Tj/. m^ti^J^ is also wrong; 7^^ "iQIi' does not mean "to 
 wait on." The most obvious correction is n")Dr^^. Lastly, 
 TTDH is an error for "^IDH, which is the Qere. Now, at the 
 end of the Psalm in v. 18 nearly the same words are found, 
 but with these errors corrected. It does not seem likely, if the 
 
misc?:llankous passages. 218 
 
 words were a refrain, that tlie scribe wlio had made three 
 blunders in them in v. 10, should write them correctly in v. 18, 
 and not observe his former error. Moreover, the last two 
 words "^"TDH "'^7^^ in r. 11 begin a new sentence; whereas in 
 18 they are in apposition to what precedes. Some critics 
 amend 10, 11; accordingly but Hare's suggestion is probable, 
 that 18 was originally meant as a correction of 10, IL. 
 
 VII. 
 
 Psalm Ixviii. 5, 33, 34. 
 
 \'2d^ ir'?;;! ^di:; .Tn uip-^D^ 
 
 The 68th Psalm is a thorough crux interprehim. There is 
 a Jewish story which amusingly illustrates this. It is said 
 that in Elj'sium some of the most eminent commentators de- 
 sired to be presented to King David, expecting to be received 
 by him with special marks of honour. He simply handed 
 them this psalm : " There, gentlemen, interpret that if you 
 please," whereupon they slunk away abashed. Much of the 
 difficulty is due to corruption of the text, and modern critics 
 have made some good emendations. One gloss at least has 
 been pointed out, namely, in v. 18 ]^^3£^ ^^/X, which appears 
 to be a gloss on D^T^QI. 
 
 In V. 5, above quoted, I think we may trace another gloss. 
 AVhen v. 5 and 33, 34 are placed side by side, as above, we 
 cannot fail to notice an intentional parallelism. (For ^ili^ in 
 v. 33, I should read T\W or mH^?). We first notice that 
 n 70 is entirely out of place in v. 33 ; and it is so like 170 of 
 r. 5, that the latter is probably the true reading (so Kennicott, 
 llupfeld, Dyserinck, Bickell, Graetz). But the words which 
 now concern us are M2^ H^D. For ^tZU} Hare and Seeker 
 
214 CRITICAT, NOTES ON THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 proposed ^r\Dil/, and the same suggestion has been made, or 
 adopted, by Dyserinck, Reifmann, Hilgenfeld. I suggest that 
 the words disguise a gloss on mm^n. This word means 
 *' in the deserts," but has been interpreted (probably from v. 
 33) as = "in the heavens" (so the Prayer-book and A. V.). 
 The LXX render it " the west," Svafxiov. In this ancient un- 
 certainty a gloss is not improbable. ]1Q"^Ii*"' {]}2ll}'^) which 
 occurs in v. 8 would be a correct gloss, and comes very near the 
 consonants of the text. 
 
 Verse 34 itself requires correction, viz. in D"Tp "^Dl^ ^D^. 
 Some critics would leave out one ^DJ^ (Ewald); others sub- 
 stitute ^^"^ for the second (Dyserinck) . We might more easily 
 read : DIpD D'^DJi'n. The resemblance between and ^ in 
 the old alphabet is considerable. This also gives a better 
 sense ; " the ancient heavens " would be a very strange 
 expression. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 Psalm xxxv. 14. 
 
 *' I behaved myself as though it had been my friend or my brother : 
 I bowed down mourning as one that bewaileth his mother " (K,. V.). 
 
 The former clause is incomplete, the attitude of mourning 
 not being indicated, whereas in the latter clause it is expressed 
 twice. Some critics transpose the verbs (Riehm, Delitzsch) ; 
 others remove lip and place it after w (Hupfeld, Bickell). 
 The latter device makes the former clause too heavy for the 
 second. But, besides this, jt/") is too feeble for the connexion, 
 as it does not mean "a dear friend "; it often means only an 
 acquaintance, or neighbour. I suggest pointing ^"1^, "Bowed 
 down as (were he) a brother to me I walked ; as one bewailing 
 a mother, in mourning I stooped." 
 
MISCKI.LANKOUS I'ASSAfJKS. 215 
 
 IX. 
 
 Psalm xlix. 8, 9, 10. 
 
 ^^^: ]riD "ip^ :i"ii):d D\n'7N*'7 in^-N^'? 
 
 " None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God 
 a ransom for him : (For the redemption of their soul is costly, and 
 must be let alone for ever :) That he should live alway, that he 
 should not see corruption " (R. V.). 
 
 The reader must be struck with the uuusually prosaic and 
 unrhythmical character of these verses in the E. V. The 
 parenthesis is awkward. It has been proposed by Olshausen 
 to transpose vei'ses 9 and 10, but this effects little improvement. 
 When we look at the Hebrew we find that tlie E. V. has, in 
 fact, improved upon it. There is no "for" in the original, but 
 " and," the verb 71)1 is without an expressed object, and so 
 used it means to " cease," not to " leave alone," or " be left 
 alone," and lastly, v. 9 is wholly unrhythmical, v. Ortenberg 
 omits it as a gloss, but it is not easy to see how in its present 
 form it could ever have come in as a gloss. I think a very 
 slight alteration will restore the text. But first, I must remind 
 the reader of the emendation in v. 8. adopted by Ewald, 
 Bottcher, and others, viz. '^^5 for HJ^, and iTlS^ for Hlii^. 
 First, then, I omit T before "Ip"*, and I take Ip^ in the sense of 
 price (Zech. xi. 13). Now, as to 7in, which is certainly 
 corrupt, by a transposition of 7 and T we get T/m, or (if 
 preferred) "T?!!^, '' that he should continue for ever." We 
 thus get a perfectly clear and coherent sequence of thought, 
 " No man can buy himself off, nor give to Grod his ransom, the 
 price of redemption of his soul, so that he should endure for 
 ever, and live still on perpetually, and should not see the pit." 
 
 7*tn is read by mistake for l/H in Isaiah xxxviii. II. It 
 may be objected, first, that l/H does not occur as a verb in 
 
216 CRITICAL NOTES ON THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 Hebrew ; and secondly, that the root-meaning, as given by 
 Gresenius, is quite different. To the latter objection I reply, 
 that the root-meaning assigned by Gesenius, viz. "to be smooth, 
 slippery, then to slip away, to fleet," is purely conjectural, and 
 very improbable, as the source of the meaning of the noun 
 IIT), " life," " world." The Arabic ji>- has the meaning 
 " to endure," even to endure for ever, and in accordance with 
 this the latest editors of Gesenius have adopted this as the root- 
 meaning. The non-occurrence of the verb is not of much 
 consequence, since *T7n as a substantive, in the sense of "life," 
 was so familiar. But there is certainly a superfluity of words 
 in vv. 9 and 10, and the restored test betrays a gloss, if not 
 two, in V. 9. IJi^DJ '^Vl^ "Ip"^ is clearly a gloss, as 1"ID2 ; 
 and in «?. 10 T^/'^n^l is probably a gloss on d'?!^^'? ibn^, the 
 latter rendered necessary perhaps by the rarity of the verb. 
 nVJ? may then be connected with the following words. It 
 frequently precedes its verb. 
 
 X. 
 
 Psalm xlix. 15. 
 
 In the following emendation on the same Psalm I have been 
 anticipated by van Ortenberg ; it has, however, sufiicient in- 
 terest to deserve record here — 
 
 d;;-)^ r\^D int^ b^i^l^h ]s*y3 
 
 '■•■ - T : T : •- 
 
 : ^b hn'^D h^^ti; n^b^b m^i^i 
 
 " They are appointed as a flock for Sbeol ; 
 Death shall be their shepherd. 
 
 And the upright shall have dominion over them in the morning, 
 And their beauty shall be for Sheol to consume, that there be no 
 habitation for it."— (R. V.) 
 
 The third clause is not easily intelligible. Delitzseh under- 
 stands it to mean that after the night of trouble the righteous 
 shall, like conquerors, trample on their oppressors; but the 
 
MISCELLANEOUS PASSAGES. 217 
 
 preceding clause seems to represent them as already dead and 
 buried. Otliers take the morning to mean the life after death 
 •which the righteous alone shall enjoy. But for the Psalmist 
 to use the word " morning " alone to signify this would be to 
 propose an enigma to his readers, and that in a Psalm whose 
 metaphors are not obscure, and to express the superiority of the 
 righteous in the future state by saying that they trample on 
 the deceased oppressors would be very strange. Besides, the 
 thought would unsuitably interrupt the connexion between the 
 second and fourth clauses. Point n")^"], combine the two 
 following words into one D'^"IJ^''Q2 {recta, cf. Prov. xxiii. 31, 
 "goeth down smoothly." — P. V.). So far we have made no 
 change in the consonants. *'They go down straight into . . . ." 
 Now we must write '1'2'pl for IpD?, " into the grave." The 
 word IDp has already suffered from a transposition of its letters 
 in r. 12, where the true reading is beyond question D^12p 
 (D^Dp), "graves are their houses for ever" (see margin P. V.}. 
 V. Ortenberg reads ^)^^h HIP (of- Ps. 1. 24), and after 
 emending, ejects the clause as a gloss. I think the transposi- 
 tion is more easily accounted for than a mistake of X for p. 
 That the clause is a gloss is highly j)robable. We can hardly 
 suppose that the Psalmist should first express his thought 
 poetically, and then in bald prose. Grraetz also adopts "13p7, 
 but makes other improbable emendations. It is well to remind 
 the reader that in the last clause we should certainly point 
 /3*P with Lowth, Ewald, Hitzig, Biehm. " Sheol is their 
 habitation." Doubtless also, for 1? we should read ID*? (Hare, 
 Krochmal, &c. = LXX Syr.). 
 
218 CRITICAL NOTES OlN THK TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 XI. 
 
 Psalm xiv. 5, 6. 
 
 ' ' There were they in great fear : for God is in the generation of the 
 
 righteous. 
 " Ye put to shame the counsel of the poor, because the Lord is his 
 
 refuge."— R. V. 
 
 Psalm liii. 5. 
 
 m^ iTH-i^'? "THii Mn^ nil; 
 
 " There were they in great fear, where no fear was : For God hath 
 scattered the bones of him that eucampeth against thee : Thou hast 
 put them to shame, because God hath rejected them." 
 
 It does not often happen that we can compare two ancient 
 copies of a Hebrew text, as we appear to be able to do here, 
 for these two Psalms are only different editions of one and the 
 same. Most of the verses are nearly identical, except that in 
 liii. Elohim takes the place of Jehovah in xiv. The variations 
 in verses 1 and 3 do not transcend the limits of transcriptional 
 error. But the differences in the verses above quoted are con- 
 siderable. Yet in Hebrew the similarity of sound is so great 
 that, taken in connexion with the identity of the rest of tlie 
 Psalm, no reasonable doubt can remain that both are modifi- 
 cations of the same original. The modifications are probably 
 due not so much to a copyist as to a reciter whose memory was 
 not exact. It has, however, been supposed by some critics that 
 the differences are due to an attempt to restore a partly illegible 
 text. According to others, in Ps. liii. a later poet has adapted 
 to a special occurrence the language of xiv. The similarity of 
 
MISCELLANEOUS PASSACKS. 210 
 
 sound In several of the words is too great to allow us to regard 
 this hypothesis as probable. Surely tlie resemblance between 
 nv;; and noy;;, (in)DnD and (D)DSD, "nn and nrii, cannot 
 be accidental, nor is the position of these words respectively 
 consistent with the hypothesis of imitation. Moreover, no 
 deep analysis is required to show that the text of liii. is 
 corrupt. It has clearly the advantage of xiv. in retaining the 
 clause " where no fear was." Tlie enemy then are smitten 
 with a groundless panic ; why ? Because their bones (or the 
 bones of their comrades) were scattered ! In such circum- 
 stances a panic is not exactly groundless. Tlien, in addition 
 to their bones being scattered, they are themselves put to 
 shame — a decided anticlimax. Neither expression would be 
 much to the credit of the later poet. An American Hebraist, 
 Mr. King, has suggested pointing Jll^^J^ (more correctly 
 mcyjL/), and taking the word in the sense "weighty counsels," 
 in support of which he refers to Isaiah xli. 21 : " Produce 
 your cause, saith the Lord ; bring forth your strong reasons 
 (DD^m^Xi^), saith the King of Jacob." There, however, the 
 notion of " reasons," or " proofs " (not " weighty counsels "), 
 is suggested by the word " cause " in the former clause ; it is 
 not contained in the word mCXJ/, which simply = rohora. 
 But a very slight cliange removes the absurdities, viz. read 
 mVi^lO (ny^D), " counsels." To " scatter devices " is a very 
 tolerable metaplior. It may be remarked, that in every in- 
 stance where mXi^^ occurs, except one [i.e. six times) it refers 
 to bad counsels. " God is in the generation of the righteous," 
 in xiv. 5, is a very strange expression. Now, "n^ is not only 
 like 1*^ in sound, but is its Aramaic equivalent, and is actually 
 the word by which in liii. 5 the Targura renders that word. It 
 might, therefore, readily have been substituted for it by a 
 copyist or reciter. A later editor, reading it as 1113, found 
 it necessary, in order to complete the sense, to add p^lV. This 
 is the only word in Ps. xiv. which has nothing resembling it iu 
 liii. Now, in xiv. 6, " Ye put to shame (or ' will put to 
 shame,' not ' have shamed,' as in E. V.) the counsel of the 
 poor, because the LOUD is his refuge," makes reasonable sense 
 
220 CRITICAL NOTES ON THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 only if we take the first clause as meant defiantly or interro- 
 gatively, " Ye may frustrate .... [if ye will, but ye cannot], 
 for." This supposes a rather harsh ellipsis. It is also deserv- 
 ing of notice, that ti^^^n does not elsewhere occur with an 
 impersonal object. I^H is a difficult word, and the suffix has 
 nothing in the context with which it can be connected. The 
 translation of the LXX avOpwwapiaKwv, suggested to Cappellus 
 the readiug ^JH. The LXX rendering does not, however, 
 support this conjecture, as they never so render ^JH. If we 
 have to construct a text from which both that of xiv. and that 
 of liii. may have been derived we might perhaps read as 
 follows : — 
 
 " There were they in great fear, where no fear was ; 
 For God hath scattered the devices of the impious. 
 The poor hath shamed him, because Jehovah is his refuge." 
 
 XII. 
 
 Psalm Ixxi. 20, 21. 
 
 : ^:h;:r\ mt^^n yi^n momriQi 
 
 (I read the suffixes in the singular with the Q,er^.) 
 " Thou shalt quicken me again, 
 And shalt bring me up again from the depths of the earth. 
 Increase thou my greatness. 
 And turn again and comfort me." 
 
 "Turn round and comfort me" appears to me a very 
 strange expression to use of God. 133D does not mean to turn 
 " again." Clearly, I think, the word should be y\ll}D. Ou 
 the other hand, y)^^!^ before '^jl^T) is, I venture to think, 
 unsuitable both in sense and rhythm. It is a marginal cor- 
 rection of 2Dry which has crept into the text. 
 
MlSCKIJ.ANKOrs PASSAOKS. 221 
 
 XIII. 
 
 TsALM Ixxii. 20. 
 
 " Tlie prayers of David the son of Jesse are ended." 
 
 Readers in general liave learned from tlie Revised Version 
 that tlie Psalms are in the Hehrew text divided into five books. 
 The 72ud Psalm is the last of the second book. It is almost 
 needless to prove that the words quoted above do not originally 
 belong to this Psalm itself, which, indeed, in the title is 
 attributed to Solomon. Had the editors found such a sub- 
 scription they would not have given it this title. On the other 
 liaud, if the title is the older, then again it is clear that the 
 subscription must have been intended to apply, not to this 
 particular Psalm, but to the preceding collection, this Psalm 
 being exceptionally included.' The Septuagint appears to have 
 read m/iin for nw^D, translating vfivoi, and this is, no 
 doubt, the right reading. It is, in fact, simply equivalent to 
 Finis Psalmorum David. The word was altered by later 
 editors, who supposed that the subscription proceeded from 
 the author of the Psalm, the difficulty of the title being sur- 
 mounted by interpreting it " For Solomon." 
 
 XIV. 
 
 PsAi.M cvi. 48. 
 
 " Blessed be the Lord God of Israel from everlasting to everlasting, and 
 let all the people say, Amen, praise ye the Lord." 
 
 This Psalm ends the fourth book. Each of the four books 
 ends with a doxology, that which ends the whole collection 
 being numbered as Ps. el. It has been suggested that this is 
 
 I Psalms xlii.-l. have probably been accidentally displaced from the 3rd 
 Book (Ewaldj. 
 
222 CRITICAL NOTES ON THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 merely due to selection, Psalms which ended with a doxology 
 being chosen to conclude the several books. But it is more 
 probable that the doxologies are a liturgical addition. I will 
 only remark that nowhere else does " Amen " occur, except 
 after " said," or " shall say." But Psalm cvi. is peculiar in 
 ending, " And let all the people say Amen." That this is a 
 liturgical direction will be obvious when it is considered that to 
 say Amen has no meaning, except with reference^ to words just 
 uttered, and generally uttered by another person. The incon- 
 gruity is striking when we hear a whole congregation sing the 
 words, and even more so when they are sung by a choir, which 
 neither expects nor intends all the people to say Amen. 
 
 1 Chron. xvi. confirms this. There we have at the end of a 
 Psalm made up of cv. and xcvi. the last two verses of this 
 Psalm, but the clause in question runs tlms (v. 36) : " And all 
 the people said Amen and praised the Lord." It seems that 
 the Chronicler looked on the words as a liturgical direction, and 
 simply recorded its fulfilment by the people. Another alterna- 
 tive is of course possible, that an editor, or copyist, of the 
 Psalm borrowed the words from Chron., changing the tense 
 to suit his purpose. This comes to the same in the end. 
 
 XV. 
 
 Isaiah xli. 6, 7. 
 
 " They helped every one his neighbour ; and every one said to his 
 brother, Be of good courage. So the carpenter encouraged the 
 goldsmith, and he that smootheth with the hammer him that 
 smiteth the anvil, saying of the soldering, It is good : and he 
 fastened it with nails, that it should not be moved." 
 
 This has no connexion whatever with the context. Verse 6 
 indeed might possibly be connected with v. 5, but falls more 
 naturally to v. 7. The verses really belong to the preceding 
 chapter after v. 20, " He that is so impoverished tliat he hath 
 no oblation, chooseth a tree that will not rot ; he seeketh unto 
 
MISCELLANEOUS PASSAGES. 223 
 
 liim a cunning workman to set up a graven image that shall 
 not be moved." It is not in the prophet's manner to break 
 off thus suddenly without some mocking details. The verses 
 quoted above fit in here very suitably, and it is to be 
 particularly observed, that v. 7 ends with the same words as 
 xl. 20, viz. CDID^ is7. Here is the clue to the derangement ; 
 the verses were at first omitted from homoeoteleuton, and being 
 supplied in the margin got into the wrong place. The interval 
 would make about a column. 
 
 As an example of similar displacement in the same book, I 
 may refer the reader to two known instances, ch. v. 18-25, 
 Avhich belongs to ix, 8-x. 4 ; also xxxviii. 21, 22, which have 
 their true place after v. 6. In their present place they are 
 ungrammatical, the tense used not admitting a pluperfect 
 rendering. 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 fflHBflMMvnr 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 GAYLORD 
 
 
 PRINTED IN U.S.A.