Section First. The Original Language Of The New Testament. In the more exact and scientific study of the Sacred Scriptures, the first object, in the order of nature, that calls for examination, has respect to the state of the original records. The possession of a pure text is an indispensable preliminary to a thoroughly correct and trustworthy exposition. And, as well from its importance as from the peculiar character of the investigations belonging to it, this is now fitly assigned to a distinct branch of Biblical study. Next to it in order, and certainly not inferior in importance, is a correct and discriminating acquaintance with the original language of Scripture, and the principles that should guide our inquiries into its meaning and purport. All theology that is really sound, and that will stand the test of time, must have its foundation here. The reformers, to their credit, clearly perceived this, and were hence led to doctrinal results, which, in the main, never have been, and never can be displaced. They proceeded on the sound maxim of Melancthon, that Scripture cannot be understood theologically, unless it has been already understood grammatically, (Scriptura non potest intelligi theologice, nisi an-tea sit intellecta grammatice.) In such statements, of course, the term grammatical must be taken in its wider sense, as comprehending all that is necessary to a just discernment of the import and spirit of the original. And if such a critical acquaintance with the mere language of sacred Scripture be but one element of success, it still is an element of very peculiar moment to the well-furnished theologian; since it has respect to the ultimate source of all that is sound and valuable in theological attainment. As regards the Scriptures of the New Testament, with which alone we have properly to do at present, it is only the Greek language that comes directly into notice; since the whole of the writings that compose the New Testament are found, as to their original form, in no other language than that of the Greek. If any of them ever existed in a prior original, it no longer does so. Nor, with the exception of St. Matthew’s Gospel, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, has it ever been imagined, but by a few dreaming and speculative minds, that the books of the New Testament appeared originally in any other language. The Epistle to the Hebrews is now also held by all men of competent learning to have been originally composed in Greek. And there only remains the gospel of St. Matthew about which there may still be some room for difference of opinion—though, even in regard to it, the conviction has of late been growing in favour of the proper originality of its present form, which was certainly in current use before the close of the apostolic age.
Whence, then, did this predilection for the Greek arise? Were our Lord’s discourses, and the writings of the Evangelists, as well as of the apostles, transmitted to us in Greek, because that was the current language of the place and time? Was this really the language in which our Lord and his apostles usually spoke? So, some have been disposed to maintain; and though it is a question rather of antiquarian interest, than of any vital moment for the interpretation of Scripture, it is entitled to some consideration at our hands. It has also a certain bearing on the dispute respecting the original language of St. Matthew’s Gospel. Indeed, it was chiefly in connexion with this more special question, that the other pressed itself on the attention of Biblical students. Thus Hug, in his introduction to the New Testament, went at considerable length into the investigation of the subject, for the purpose of vindicating the proper originality of the Greek gospel of Matthew; and endeavoured to prove, that the Greek language was in current use throughout Palestine at the commencement of the Christian era—so much so, that the people generally understood it, that our Lord himself often employed it, nor had His evangelists and apostles any proper reason for resorting to another in those writings, which were intended for circulation in Palestine and the neighbouring regions. But the fullest and, we believe, also the ablest defence of this view, is to be found in the treatise of an Italian Ecclesiastic, Dominici Diodati, entitled De Christo Greece loquente exercitatio, originally published at Naples in 1767, and re-published in this country not many years since. In this treatise the subject is discussed, partly on general grounds, as on its own account interesting and important to the Biblical student, and partly also with reference to its bearing on the question of the original language of Matthew’s Gospel. The position which the author labours to establish, is, that “neither Hebrew, Syriac, nor Latin, was the vernacular language of the Saviour, but Greek.” It will be readily understood, on the other side, that those who held the contrary opinion respecting Matthew’s Gospel—viz., that it was originally written in Hebrew for the use of the Jewish believers in Syria—were naturally led to controvert the position, that Greek was generally spoken and understood in Palestine: they held, that not Greek, but Aramaic, a sort of broken Hebrew, was the only language in general use, and that also commonly employed by our Lord and his apostles in their public discourses.
Now, on a question of this kind, it is not difficult for an ingenious theorist, or an eager disputant, to sort and apply some scattered notices of ancient writers, either directly or indirectly bearing on the subject, in such a way as to give them a plausible appearance, and compel them to pay tribute to the side of the controversy he has espoused. But there are certain great principles applicable to the case which, with all sober and impartial minds, must go far to settle it, and which cannot be overthrown, or materially modified by any occasional statements or fragmentary notices culled out of ancient records. It is found, not in the history of one people, but in the history of nations generally, that there is nothing which is more tenacious of its grasp, and which more slowly yields to the force of foreign influences, than the vernacular language of a people. “Language is after all the most durable of human monuments. Conquerors may overthrow empires and states; earthquakes may swallow up cities; time may confound all things besides:—but the winged words, in which man gives utterance to his feelings and thoughts, often outlast all these ravages, and preserve the memory of nations long after they have ceased to exist. That which seems the most fragile, the most variable, the most evanescent of human attributes or possessions, becomes in reality the most permanent, the most indestructible. If no longer able to support an independent existence, it clings to and coalesces with some more recent and robust dialect:—if lost in one form, it is almost certain to re-appear in another—exhibiting amidst all changes and disfigurations incontestable traces of its origin. This law of decay and reproduction, of fluctuation yet permanence, is so general, that it is principally from analytical inquiries into the origin, composition, and affinities of language, that we derive what knowledge we possess of the early history and fortunes of nations.” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 7th ed., Art. ‘Hieroglyphics,’ 100: 2d) In confirmation of this, it is only necessary to point to a few well-known examples. One of the most striking is furnished by the ancient country of the Pharaohs, after the time that their dynasty came to an end, and a succession of conquests, followed by the ascendency of a foreign power, swept over the land. Persian, Macedonian, Roman, and Arabian conquerors in turn held possession of the throne of Egypt, each endeavouring to establish as firmly as possible their dominion over the vanquished, and to render their sway enduring and complete. Yet after this subduing and fusing process had been proceeding for twelve or fourteen centuries, we have the best grounds for believing that the language of the Pharaohs still survived, and continued, though not, we may well conceive, without the introduction of many foreign admixtures, to form the staple of the vernacular tongue of the people. What is called the Coptic language is. but a correct form of the old Egyptic, (as the name also, perhaps, is. [Α’ιγυπτος—Gyptos, Coptos, Coptic.]) Into this language the Scriptures were translated in the earlier ages of Christianity; a liturgy in common use probably about the fifth or sixth century, is still employed by the few remaining Copts of the present day—though the Coptic tongue in which it is written is no longer understood by them. They adhere to it merely as a venerable relic of the better past of their history; of which it forms an abiding, though a mournful and mummy-like witness. But its introduction into the churches of Egypt a few centuries after the Christian era testifies to the fact, that the substance of the ancient language had withstood the influences of foreign conquest and dominion for more than a thousand years.
We may, however, take an example nearer home. The Norman conquest took place in the year 1066; and it is well known to have been the policy of the first Norman kings—a policy, too, that was continued with steady aim by their successors—to get rid of the old Saxon entirely, and have it supplanted by their own Norman French. In this French the statutes of the realm were written; so also were commentaries upon the laws, and the decisions of the courts of justice. In many places it was at length introduced into the common schools; so that an old chronicler (Ralph Higden) complains of it as a thing “against the usage and manner of all other nations,” that “children in schools are compelled for to leave their own language, and to construe their lessons and their things in French.” A change in this respect only began to be introduced about the year 1385—more than three centuries after the conquest—when the English again resumed its place in the schools;—and though it was English materially altered, betraying in many respects the influence of Norman domination, yet it still retained its old Saxon root and trunk. The power and policy of the conquerors, though in active operation for more than three centuries, could prevail no further than to superinduce some partial changes upon the mother tongue of the people, and introduce some additional terms; and that, too, while this tongue itself was in a comparatively crude state, and very far from having reached its matured form.
Other examples might be referred to—such as the Welsh, the Gaelic, and the Irish-speaking portions of the British Isles, from which still more powerful and long-continued influences have not been sufficient to dislodge the ancient dialects from their place, as the customary vehicles of intercourse among the people. But it is needless to enlarge. The cases adduced are by no means singular; they are but specimens of a multitude—exemplifications of principles and habits that are inherent in human nature, operating equally among all races and in all climes. And is it, then, to be conceived, with such facts presenting themselves in the linguistic history of tribes and nations, that the effect of a foreign rule in Palestine—a rule that had not for more than two or three centuries possessed the form of a stringent and pervasive domination—the rule, too, of masters, who themselves spoke different languages, first Persian, then Greek, then Roman, and who never were so closely identified with the subjects of their sway as in the cases already noticed—is it yet to be conceived, that the effect here was to be such, as to bring about an entire revolution in the vernacular language of the people? The supposition is in the highest degree improbable—we may even say, morally impossible; the rather so, as the Jews had reasons connected with their religion, their history, and their prospects, for cleaving to their language, which no other people, either in ancient or in modern times, equally possessed. Every thing in the past and the future contributed to throw an air of sacredness and grandeur around the Hebrew language, which must have doubly endeared it to their minds, and, on the part of their conquerors, have greatly aggravated the difficulty of supplanting it by another altogether different.
It is, therefore, against all analogy, and in opposition to the strongest tendencies of human nature, to suppose that in such circumstances the Greek tongue should, in the age of our Lord and His apostles, have come into general use in Palestine, and to any considerable extent taken the place of Aramaic. With far more probability might it be maintained that Norman and not Anglo-Saxon was the language of common life among the English in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, or that in the present day English is understood and spoken by the mass of the population in the Principality of Wales, or in the Highlands of Scotland. It is true, however, that the ancient language of Palestine had undergone a certain change; it had in some degree suffered by the misfortunes of the people, and had lost its original purity. The long sojourn in Chaldea, in the first instance, then the intercourse kept up with the neighbouring Syrian tribes through commerce, war, and marriage relationships, naturally brought into it foreign elements, and imparted to it a Syro-Chaldaic form. Of this we have undoubted indications, both in the later books of the Old Testament, and in occasional notices and expressions that occur in the New. But these successive changes only affected the accidents of the language; they introduced new dialects, antiquated particular words and phrases, and obtained currency for others in their stead;, but—as in all similar cases—they left the bones and sinews of the language, its structure and essence, substantially what they were. The historical proofs of this are perfectly sufficient. Josephus, for example, constantly distinguishes between his native tongue and the Greek. While he speaks of having applied diligently to domestic and foreign literature, so as even to be acknowledged by all his countrymen as a person of superior learning, he yet confesses himself to have been so long accustomed to his own tongue (τάτριος συνήθεια) that he could not attain to an accurate pronunciation of the Greek, (Antiq. xx. 11, 2.) In the introduction, as well to the Antiquities as to the Wars, he speaks of writing in the Greek language and in his native tongue, as two distinct things, and says, that what he originally wrote in the one . he afterwards translated into the other, (Ἐλλάδι γλώ σση μεταβαλῲν, ἃ τοῖς βαρβάροίς τη πατρίω συντάςας, Bell. Jud. Proverbs 1, Antiq. Proverbs 2.) And once and again he represents the communicatices sent from Titus during the siege of Jerusalem as being interpreted by himself to the Jews, or by some other person who Hebraised (ἑβαῒζων as he terms it, or spake to them in their own tongue (πατρίω γλώσση, Bell., v. 9, 2, vi. 2, 11.) At the same time he shows, by occasional allusions to Syriac or Babylonian terms, that the Hebrew current in his day was not altogether identical with that of earlier times—as when, speaking of the high priest’s upper robe or girdle, he tells us the old designation for it had been dropt (אבְנֵט, abaneth,) and it was now called by the Babylonian name Emia, (Antiq. Iii. 7, 2,)—a proof that the foreign influence had reached even to the terms for sacred things, and if to these, then assuredly to many others. When we turn to the New Testament, the evidence is not less clear on both points—both, that the language in common use in Palestine was of the Hebrew, not of the Greek character, yet Hebrew of the Aramaic, not of the older and purer Hebrew stamp. Thus, when our Lord appears in the attitude of addressing any one very familiarly, of giving or adopting designations for common use, He is represented as speaking in Aramaic:—as when He said to the daughter of Jairus, Talitha cumi, Mark 5:41,) and to the blind man, Ephphatha, (Mark 7:34;) or when He referred to the terms currently employed among the people·, such as raka, rabbi, corban; when he applied to His disciples such epithets as Cephas, Bar-jona, Boanerges, or when on the cross He exclaimed, Eli, Eli, lama Sabacthani. Similar indications are also to be found in the Acts of the Apostles— in the name, for example, reported to have been given by the Jews to the field purchased by the reward of Judas’ treachery, Aceldama, (properly Ἀκελδαμα Acts 1:19;) or of tabitha as the familiar term, the native word for the Greek δορκάς, (Acts 9:36;) or, finally, in the fact of St. Paul addressing the Jewish multitude on the occasion of his being apprehended in the temple, in the Hebrew tongue, and their giving, on that account, the more attentive heed to him, as addressing them through a medium which was at once intelligible and congenial to their minds, (Acts 22:1.) The composition also of Targums among the Eastern Jews, some time about the apostolic age, (certainly little if at all later,) can only be explained on the supposition that the Aramaic language in which they were written, was that currently employed at the time by the Jews in Palestine and the adjoining regions. Nor is there any clear or even probable evidence of the Greek translation of the Old Testament Scriptures ever having been used in the synagogues of Palestine and Syria. The efforts that have been made to establish this point, have utterly failed; indeed, it can scarcely be said, that so much as one of the proofs advanced by Diodati in support of it, has any proper bearing on the subject. (The arguments by Diodati are well met by Dr. Pfannkuche, in vol. II., of Bib. Cabinet. A fair summary of the arguments on both sides is given by Dr. Davidson, in his Introduction to the New Testament, I. pp. 38—40.) On all these grounds it appears to us a matter of historical certainty, that the Aramaic, or later Syro-Chaldaic form of the Hebrew, was in the age of our Lord the vernacular language of the Jewish people, and consequently the medium of intercourse on all ordinary occasions. At the same time, it cannot be reasonably doubted, on the other side, that from a long and varied concatenation of circumstances, the Greek language must have been very commonly understood by the higher and more educated classes throughout Syria. It was the policy both of Alexander and of his successors in that part of the world, to extend the language and culture, as well as ascendency of Greece. With this view cities were planted at convenient distances, which might be considered Grecian rather than Asiatic in their population and manners. The Syrian kings, by whom the Macedonian line of rulers was continued, kept up Greek as the court language, and were doubtless followed by their official representatives, and the influential classes generally throughout the country. The army, too, though not entirely, nor perhaps even in the major part, yet certainly in very considerable proportions, was composed of persons of Grecian origin, who could not fail to make the Greek language in some sense familiar at the various military stations in the regions of Syria. Even after the Macedonian rule had terminated, and all became subject to the sway of the Romans, it was still usually through the medium of the Greek tongue that official intercourse was maintained, and the decrees of government were made known. It is in the very nature of things impossible that so many Hellenizing influences should have continued in operation for two or three centuries, without leading somewhat generally to a partial knowledge of Greek among the better classes in all parts of Syria. There were also circumstances more strictly peculiar to the Jewish people, which require to be taken into account, and which could not be without their effect in bringing them to some extent acquainted with the Greek language. Partly from special encouragements held out to them at the founding of Alexandria, a Grecian city, and partly, perhaps, from the mercantile spirit which began to take possession of them from the time of the Babylonish exile, Alexandria became one of their great centres, where, as we are told by Philo, they formed about two-fifths of the entire population. They abounded also, as is clear alone from the Acts of the Apostles, in the Greek-speaking cities of Asia Minor, and in those of Greece itself. From whatever causes, the dispersion seems, for some generations previous to the Christian era, to have taken very much a western, and specially a Grecian direction; in everyplace of importance inhabited by Greeks, members of the stock of Israel had their homes and synagogues. It is only, too, what might have been expected in the circumstances, that the culture and enterprise which distinguished the communities in those Grecian cities, would act with stimulating effect upon the Jewish mind, and bring its powers into more energetic play and freedom of action, than was likely to be found among the Palestinian Jews, who wre sealed up in their national bigotry and stagnant Pharisaism. Hence, the only moral and religious productions which are known to have appeared among the Jews between the closing of the Old Testament canon and the birth of Christ—those contained in the Apocryphal writings—came chiefly if not entirely from the pen of the Hellenistic Jews, and exist only —most probably never did exist but—in the Greek language. Hence also the Greek translation of the Old Testament, which was completed several generations before the Christian era, and which, there is good reason to believe, was in extensive use about that era among the Jewish people. So that, looking to the numbers, the higher intelligence, and varied resources of the Hellenistic Jews, and taking into account their frequent personal visits to Palestine at the ever-recurring festivals, we cannot doubt that they materially contributed to a partial knowledge and use of the Greek tongue among their brethren in Palestine. As regards the question, then, whether our Lord and his immediate disciples ever spoke in Greek to their countrymen in Judea, it may be admitted as perfectly possible, perhaps even probable, that they sometimes did so—but the reverse of probable, that such should have been their usual practice, or that their public addresses should have been originally delivered in that tongue;—the more so, as their intercourse for the most part lay, not with the more refined and educated, but with the humbler classes of society. But in respect to the further question, why in such a case the books of the New Testament, including those which contain our Lord’s personal discourses, should, with at most one exception—if the Gospel of St. Matthew he indeed an exception—have been originally composed in the Greek, rather than the Aramaic language? the answer is obvious—that at the time those books were written, and for the individuals and communities whose spiritual good they more immediately contemplated, the Greek language was on every account the fittest medium. It was comparatively but a small portion of the people resident in Jerusalem and Judea, who embraced the Christian faith; and those who did, having in the first instance enjoyed many opportunities of becoming personally acquainted with the facts of gospel history, and enjoying afterwards the ministry of apostles and evangelists, who were perfectly cognisant of the whole, were in a manner independent of any written records. Besides, the troubles which shortly after befel their native land, and which were distinctly foreseen by the founders of the Christian faith, destined, as they were, to scatter the power of the Jewish nation, and to render its land and people monuments of judgment, presented an anticipative reason against committing the sacred and permanent records of the Christian faith to the Hebrew language. That language, itself already corrupted and broken, was presently to become to all but the merest fragment of the Jews themselves, antiquated and obsolete. The real centres of Christianity—the places where it took firmest root, and from which it sent forth its regenerating power among the nations—from the time that authoritative records of its facts and expositions of its doctrines became necessary—were to be found in Greek-speaking communities—the communities scattered throughout the cities of Asia Minor, of Greece, at Rome and the West—where also the first converts to the faith consisted chiefly of those whose native tongue was Greek. Whether, therefore, respect were had to the immediate wants of the first Christian communities, or to the quarters in which the gospel was to find its most active agents and representatives, and the direction it was appointed to take in the world, the Greek was obviously the language in which its original and authoritative documents behooved to be written. Whatever reasons there were for the adherents of Judaism getting the Scriptures of the Old Testament rendered into Greek; whatever reasons also Josephus could have for translating into Greek his Jewish histories, and the authors of the Apocryphal writings for adopting that language in preference to Aramaic, the same reasons existed, and in far greater force, for the inspired writings, which were to form in earlier and later times the fundamental records of the Christian faith, being composed in the Greek language, and in that language committed to the faithful keeping of the church. Had they not been originally composed in Greek, the course of Providence would presently have required that they should be translated into Greek; and considering how much depended on the correct knowledge of them, and how many sources we have for illustrating Greek, as compared with Aramaic productions, it was unspeakably better that, from the first, they should have appeared in a Greek form.
