Only three books in the NT1 can be seriously supposed to admit even of the discussion of this hypothesis with regard to their contents. Chief among these is (a) the gospel of Matthew. The Papias - tradition of Matthew's Aramaic Logia (Eus. HE, III. 39, éẞpaidi diaλéкTO Tà λóyia συνεγράψατο (ν. 1. συνετάξατο), ἡρμήνευσε δ ̓ αὐτὰ ὡς ἦν δυνατὸς ἕκαστος) naturally led scholars of later ages to naïvely confuse or to deliberately identify this Aramaic compilation with the canonical gospel. The motives for such a belief were obvious. It secured apostolicity for the gospel, and it seemed to explain satisfactorily some of its linguistic and theological features. But if one result is certain in synoptic criticism, it is that the extant Matthew is no translation. The Logia to which Papias refers formed one of its sources, but even this already existed in a Greek translation as it lay before the final author of the gospel, along with his other main source, the Greek Mark. Even apart from its dependence upon these documents, the linguistic phenomena of the gospel afford evidence that is practically decisive, e.g. the comparatively smooth Greek, the number of OT quotations that necessarily imply a use of the LXX, phrases of peculiarly Greek assonance and rhythm (like 67, Barraλογήσητε πολυλογία; 616, ἀφανίζουσιν φανῶσιν ; 2141 247. 30), etc. The relation between this Áramaic (Dalman) or Hebrew (Resch,3 TU, x. 1. p. 90 f.) compilation of Logia and the canonical Matthew is extremely intricate (on the whole question, cp. Holtzmann, Theol. Jahresbericht, 1889, pp. 99-103, and Harnack's frank note, Chron. pp. 692-694). But at any rate the identification of the two is precarious in the extreme. It is even doubtful whether λóyia at that time could have been applied to a NT writing; and from what we know of the Hebrew "Matthew," the scanty traces of its nature and contents (in Origen and Jerome) indicate that the writing was very different from our extant gospel. Some editors, however, like Schanz (Comm. über das Evglm. d. heiligen Matthäus, pp. 8-23) and Carr (CGT, pp. xx-xxiii), still adhere to the translation hypothesis,* while Blass among others (including Nestle) goes back even to an Aramaic original not only for the first part of Acts, but even for Mark's Gospel

...

1 Leaving out of account the possibly Jewish (Hebrew) sources which, it has been conjectured, underlie the earlier chapters of Matthew and Luke, and portions of the Apocalypse. It is curious that an attempt has recently been made by Dr. H. P. Chajes to reconstruct the Hebrew original of Mark (Markus-Studien, 1899)

2 Cp. the statement and discussion in Weiss, Matthäus-Evangelium, pp. 35-48; Roberts' Greek the Language of Christ and his Apostles (1888), chaps. x.-xiii.; and Conybeare, DB, ii. p. 262. This position, reached by critics of the synoptic problem, has been recently corroborated, from the standpoint of an expert in Aramaic, by Dalman (Die Worte Jesu, pp. 47-57), and is conclusively stated by Weiss (-Meyer, 1898, Matthäus, pp. 4-13). Cp. also W. C. Allen (Exp. Ti. xi. pp. 135-137), who, however, seems impressed by the Aramaic phraseology of Mark (Exp. i. pp. 436-443). See further in Addenda.

6

3 He gives a lucid summary of his position in Th.St, pp. 95-128, a study of 17 y. For Zahn's theory, see his Einl. ii. pp. 295-322, a collection of good material and less acceptable inferences.

4 Cp. also Gla (Die Originalsprache des Mt.-Evglms. 1887), who holds to an Aramaic original for the gospel, but will not identify it with the Hebrew gospel. For the cognate theory that an original Aramaic gospel once existed, see Marshall's acute and elaborate papers (Exp. iii.-iv., résumé in Exp. Ti. iv. pp. 260-267). This and the theories of A. Meyer and Wellhausen upon the primitive form and dialect of the Urevangelium are discussed by Dalman, op. cit. Einleitung, VI.

5 One good feature of Swete's recent edition of Mark (also of Salmond's article, DB. iii. pp. 251, 252) is the reasoned opposition offered to such a hypothesis, which contradicts the earliest tradition (Papias), is not absolutely necessary for the textual phenomena, and must be pronounced a tissue of improbabilities.

5

(PG, pp. 190-218); but the most reasonable conclusion, with reference not merely to one but to all those gospels, is that, while the matrix of their original tradition was the Aramaic vernacular of Palestine, the extant gospels as well as their immediate sources-so far as these can be traced and felt-were composed with practical entirety in Greek.1

(b) The idea of an Aramaic original for the epistle of James has also been unconvincingly revived by Wordsworth (Studia Biblica, i. p. 144 f.),2 who conjectures that our present text forms one of two translations. The real impulse to this theory is the desire to do justice to the excellent Greek style of the epistle and at the same time to preserve its apostolic origin. But the hypothesis will not hold water. No NT writer moves with such vigour and freshness in Hellenistic Greek as the author of James. His book has assonances and idioms that preclude any idea of a translation, and ally him to the wisdom literature of Alexandria as well as to the Greek classics. The style of James embraces Hebraisms, as was to be expected; but it is as distinctively and independently Greek as a page of Marcus Aurelius.

(c) At an early period Hebrews was widely imagined to be a translation by Luke of Paul's originally Hebrew composition (Euseb. HE, VI. 14. 2, γεγράφθαι δὲ Ἑβραίοις ἑβραϊκῇ φωνῇ, Λουκᾶν δὲ φιλοτίμως αὐτὴν μεθερμηνεύσαντα ἐκδοῦναι τοῖς Ἕλλησιν). Paul wrote it, says Jerome, “ ut Hebraeus, Hebraeis, Hebraice." The motive of this theory (from Clement to Thomas Aquinas) falls of course with the abandonment of the Pauline authorship. But it never had any real countenance from the internal evidence of the writing, with its verbal and close use of the LXX (especially 105. 10, also 17 1037 1221, etc.), its assonances (eμadev... éñadev, 58 ; καλοῦ Kakoυ, 514 11 87, etc.), and the fine rhetorical periods that mark its structure. In face of the excellent Greek of the epistle, the translation-hypothesis is nothing better than a curiosity of criticism (cp. Westcott, Hebrews, pp. xxxii-xxxv).

These and every other application of the translation-hypothesis to the NT literature may be therefore set aside with almost absolute confidence. It is wrecked repeatedly and fatally upon the evidence of style. It is in conflict with the fact that long before any NT writing-and especially a gospel--was composed, the church was becoming full of members who knew Greek (Ac 61 929) and no Aramaic. Their needs became more and more paramount, and it was to the situation created by their presence and requirements that the NT writings later than Paul were mainly addressed. The translation-hypothesis in fact is bound up with a conception of the early Christian development which places several of the

1 Extremely fair summaries of the critical position in Bovon, NTTh, i. pp. 72-84; Zahn, Einl. i. pp. 1–51; T. K. Abbott, Essays on Original Texts of Old and New Test., 1891, pp. 154-158; and Wernle, Synoptische Frage, pp. 117-121 (Matthew), 221-223 (Mark and Luke), with Schmiedel, EBi, ii. 1870-1872.

2 His arguments (based mainly on the Latin translation in Codex Corbey, which seems to presuppose a Greek original differing from the extant text) are taken very seriously and refuted with complete success by Mayor, Epistle of St. James, pp. xli-xlii, ccv-ccxiii. So Zahn (Einl. i. pp. 84, 85), who remarks that if the extant James were not the original, it would imply a mastery of the art of translation such as could not be paralleled in antiquity.

3 The view still seems to linger. Panek (Commentarius in epistolam beati Pauli apostoli ad Hebraeos, 1882) considers the epistle was originally written by Paul in Aramaic, and Dr. Schiller-Szinessy (Exp. iv. p. 326) is "fully convinced from internal evidence that the epistle to the Hebrews, in the original, belonged to St. Paul, and that only the Greek now in our hands is a somewhat inexact translation of it."

NT writings at a period too early for their real nature and characteristics. It has never won serious or extensive support, and seems less likely to do so than ever. On the contrary, one of the postulates of modern criticism is that the NT writings, whatever processes they may have gone through in the course of their composition, are extant in the language in which they passed from their final authors to those who first received the autographs.2

The following collateral topics, however, need more serious discussion, as they closely touch the problem of the NT. documents and their dates. (1) The possibility of interpolation. Substantially a writing may bear evidence that it has originated in a certain period, while nevertheless it contains sections or verses which obviously belong to a different age, earlier or later. In such a case the hypothesis of interpolation becomes legitimate. Its relevance is always disputable: hardly ever, its possibility. During the pre-canonical age, and indeed for some centuries afterwards, the NT texts were exposed, in the course of things, to the possibility of such additions and incorporations. Habent sua fata libelli. No less than the gospels, the other writings of the NT "arose not in the sort of world where depositions are taken, nor in the sort of world where manuscripts are guarded. They arose, and they passed many years," as Matthew Arnold proceeds to point out, " in the immense, underground, obscure, fluctuating world of the common people. Probably even neighbours and contemporaries never knew, or cared to know, quite accurately, the literary history of a document like one of our gospels; and beyond question the knowledge, if it ever existed, was soon lost irrecoverably." Within the second century especially MSS had their vicissitudes. These were due partly to their occasional obscurity, partly to their very popu larity and wide circulation. They were exposed to alteration, omission, addition at the hands alike of copyist and of reader. Traces of this still exist in our oldest MSS., e.g. the Marcan appendix (Ro 1624), and the Johannine pericopê (753-811). But there is no reason to deny the abstract probability of such interpolations even where the extant text no longer suggests any break. The history of the text does not in most cases reach back so accurately and so far, that room is not left between the autographs and the earliest known text for changes to have taken place. These changes

1 Nestle (SK, 1896, p. 102 f.; Phil. Sacra, passim) and Blass (Evangelium sec. Luc. pp. vi, xxi) have recently conjectured an Aramaic basis for the early part of Acts; but the linguistic evidence is not conclusive.

2 The case of the apocalyptic Jewish writings is scarcely analogous. As Gunkel points out (KAP, ii. p. 333), the number of "barbarian" languages in which so many of them are extant, is due to their historical fortunes. Jewish apocalyptic literature, he argues, has experienced two great catastrophes. One was the loss of the Hebrew originals, when the Jewish synagogue, on re-assembling after the Roman crisis, repudiated apocalyptic and Greek literature. That the whole Jewish-Greek literature did not perish at that time, was due to the fact that it had already flowed into the Christian churches, where the various translations made in languages so widely different show the popularity and enormous diffusion of the apocalyptic literature in this its second home. Yet it was there that a fresh catastrophe overtook it. The spirit of Greek philosophy, which possessed the Greek theologians, scented heresy; it would have nothing to do with the Oriental mythology in the apocalyptic literature. Hence the disappearance of Jewish apocalyptic from the Greek church. Hence, too, its preservation in "barbarian" tongues (Syrian, Armenian, Latin, Ethiopic, etc.).

3 God and the Bible, chap. vi. Cp. Schmiedel, HC, II. i. pp. 80, 81; Blass, PG, p. 77 f.; and Reuss, pp. 367-380. In 3rd Maccabees, for example, the opening leaf or the introduction has been evidently lost at a very early date.

may have been inconsiderable or fairly extensive. But the primitive corruptions which actually are marked in the text forbid us at any rate to decide off hand (Zahn, Forschungen Gesch. Kan. 1. p. 244 f.) that there are not others which only conjectural acuteness can detect by means of sheer internal evidence.

By the second half of the second century it may be considered that the literature of the NT, although comparatively fixed, was further exposed to heretical remodelling and alteration. Omission and alteration were favourite features in the rising methods of controversy (e.g. the Marcionite), especially as appeal came to be made from both sides to the authority of the Christian scriptures. Origen accused the Valentinians of this practice; Eusebius blamed Tatian; while Celsus retorted upon the Christians the charge of having interpolated in their own interests the Sibylline oracles. Apart from the truth of these statements, it is certain that they presuppose a recognised custom. Iliacos intra muros peccatur et extra. The charge would not have been worth making, unless the fact on which it rested had been at least a popular and highly credible habit, and evidence for this crowds in from every side.1 The motives for interpolation become rather sinister and less naïve than in the earlier period, but the practice seems to have been a fairly continuous and natural feature of the age between 70 and 170 A.D. It is therefore generally open to doubt whether, in the extant form of a NT writing, we possess the work as it actually left its author's hand. Further, a copy became the property of its owner; he might correct or revise as he chose, the question of authors' rights not being recognised very keenly in that age. Not even the earlier copies, therefore, can be affirmed to have been the most exact (Blass, PG, pp. 70-73; and OTJC2, 40 f.,55,84).

Such interpolation and even recension was already and especially common in the apocalyptic literature. The early church naturally found part of its favourite literary nourishment in apocalypses which must have been originally Jewish. These were in turn revised and interpolated according to Christian principles of edification, and in order to suit fresh occasions. Adaptation, in this field, and at that primitive epoch, would obviously be more common than original authorship. These pieces were at hand, already in use (Harnack, HD, i. pp. 100-102). It was comparatively easy to read into them a Christian significance, and where needful to interpolate accordingly. A glance at the apocalyptic literature between 40 and 150 A.D., shows that to modify or partially alter an already existing document was not unusual in Christian circles, the result being that the dating of eschatological pieces is an extremely intricate undertaking.

For

Insertions, of course, may be the work of the author himself. example, in Lk 15-252 it is held that the writer has incorporated in his

1 Jülicher, Einl. pp. 473-478; Nestle, Einf. pp. 161-175. By 170 A.D. Dionysius of Corinth (HE, IV. 23) found his epistles sown with tares by "the apostles of the devil" (ä μèrižαspoūves, ä dè æpoctibixtis). No wonder, he adds, that even the Lord's writings (uplanav ypaçã, i.e. the gospels, or possibly the Pauline epistles and OT) have also been attacked. Cp. p. 592, n.

2 Mr. Conybeare (Jewish Quart. Review, 1892, pp. 375-398) explains the mixture of "equivocal Christianity with unequivocal Judaism" in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, by conjecturing that even this writing represents a Christian recension of an originally Jewish book, a view which has been held on all sides since the researches of Schnapp, its best editor (recently in KAP), who detected a Jewish as well as a Christian interpolator. For a sifting scrutiny of his results, cp. Bousset (ZN W, 1900, pp. 142-175, 187-209).

narrative (drawn from the evangelic Palestinian tradition) a section containing materials of rather a different cast and character; although upon a scale of this size the literary method becomes almost "revision." 1 The Shepherd" of Hermas is a similar instance. In all likelihood it was amended and enlarged at a later date, from the first and earlier draft. If Dr. Blass' theory of Codex Bezae were proved, the third gospel and the book of Acts are extant in two versions, both of which are the work of the same author. He accounts for the difference of the bi-lingual MS D ingeniously enough. Luke wrote his gospel first for Jerusalem before 54 A.D.; then some half-dozen years afterwards revised it for Rome, omitting certain parts of the earlier draft. Acts, on the contrary, was at first written for Rome, and issued afterwards in a more concise recension. Consequently the Roman form of the text (R) or (D) represents in the gospel the second or fair copy, shorter and more concise; in Acts, again, it has passages in addition to the current text, and thus represents the author's first draft. On such a hypothesis the additions and interpolations are due for the most part to the original author of the books. Similarly with the "we-sections" in Acts; either they were originally written and afterwards resumed by the author of the whole book, or else they came from another hand and have been incorporated in the later, larger work.

But again, and more commonly, interpolations are due to a different editor or reviser, inserted for motives which it is the task of criticism to discover. Thus the state of the gospel MSS (Blass, PG, pp. 77 f., 234 f.) suggests that a writing which had practically taken its present shape long before the date of the earliest extant MS, yet failed to acquire a perfectly stereotyped form. The main reason for this tendency towards "addition" was the vitality of the oral tradition which accompanied the early literature, the obvious bias in the direction of harmonising, and also the natural disinclination on the part of copyists who had powers of initiative, amounting sometimes to an editorial function-to allow useful material to drop aside. The synoptic gospels, e.g., left an aftermath of sayings and incidents, partially preserved to us as "agrapha"; consequently expansion was more natural than abbreviation. same time such additions are usually slight; and their bearing, so far as regards the problem of dates, is not serious. Instances of this supplementary variation in MSS are given with sufficient fulness by

At the

1 There is a partial analogy in the method of authors like Aristotle and Juvenal, who deliberately added sections or paragraphs to earlier compositions. Martial, too, seems to have re-issued the tenth book of his epigrams, altered and adapted to the requirements of Trajan's reign at the close of the first century. For the possibility of this practice within the NT, cp. Scrivener, Introd. Crit. NT (ed. Miller), i. p. 18, ii. pp. 298-299, but especially Zahn, GK, i. pp. 639-662.

2 Reviewed more or less unfavourably by Ramsay (Exp.5 i. pp. 129 f., 212f., vi. 460 f.), Chase (CR, 1894, pp. 303-305), and Page (Class. Rev. 1897, p. 217). The relation of Codex Bezae to the third gospel is fully discussed by Gräfe, SK (1898) pp. 116-140; cp. also Lightfoot, Fresh Revision, p. 32. For Dr. Salmon's theory of Luke giving public readings of his work and his explanations being preserved in the West, cp. his INT, p. 603, and Some Thoughts on Text. Crit. pp. 134-141. There seems to be something in the climate of this Codex which excites the imaginative faculty of its critics. One of the most recent (JTS, Oct. 1899, pp. 76-87) considers that the Bezan text of Acts represents "advance-sheets suffered by St. Luke to pass into circulation among the Roman Christians in answer to their impatient curiosity." The literary thirst of primitive Christians, even for a saint's opinions upon history, remains, however, quite a theological x.