universally agree with the Septuagint, some of which, at the same time, differs from the Hebrew. But, a has been well remarked, it is obvious that [even] in those instances in which quotations precisely agree both with the Hebrew and the Seventy, they must be regarded as [immediately] derived, not from the former, but from the latter source" (Journal of Sacred Literature, January, 1852, p. 270). The truth of this observation will be readily admitted, when the ambiguity with which it is stated is removed; "a precise agreement with the Hebrew," must be understood in a different extent from " a precise agreement with the Septuagint;" a precise agreement with the Hebrew, means that we have an exact equivalent; a precise agreement with the Seventy, means that we have verbal identity, and where there is verbal identity, the copiousness of the Greek language prevents the idea of an independent translation. The next list is of citations by the evangelists of prophecies as fulfilled by circumstances in our Lord's life and ministry. CITATIONS BY THE HARMONIZING EVANGELISTS. Matt. i. 23...... ii. 6 ii. 15 ii. 18 ii. 23 { Nearly agrees with the Hebrew.f Taken from the These words express the answer of the Sanhedrim Not quoted from any particular prophet.g iii. 3; Mark i. 3; Luke (Agrees in sense (though not exactly) with the Hebrew, and also with the Septuagint, probably so rendered by the sacred writers themselves. Differs from the Septuagint, rendered generally from the Hebrew. Differs from the Septuagint, rendered from the Differs from the Septuagint. Differs from the Septuagint. SDiffers from the Septuagint, rendered, with omis sion, from the Hebrew. Differs from the Septuagint, rendered, with some variation, from the Hebrew. e There are four exceptions,-Matt. xi. 10; xxii. 37; xxvii. 46; Luke xxii. 37; which shall be noticed after the theory has been propounded. f "The single difference is, that in the Hebrew it is said, thou shall call,' and in the New Testament it is, they shall call.'"-Journal S. L., No. xiii., p. 121. it taken from the Septuagint. The reviewer does not consider g If the allusion is to 2, Isa. xi. 1; lx. 21, the evangelist must have had the Hebrew, not the Septuagint, in his mind. Mark xv. 28 Luke ii. 23.. " ii. 24 Differs slightly in construction from the Septuagint Not a direct quotation. Agrees generally with the Agrees in sense, not in words, with the Septuagint, Here it will be perceived, that the general rule is very different from what prevailed with regard to the former class of quotations. The passages cited by the evangelists themselves, and not their records of quotations occurring in conversations, do not shew that verbal identity with the Septuagint, which in the former case was so remarkable. Moses Stuart, no mean authority, would lead us to suppose that, with scarcely one exception, they are exact renderings from the Hebrew, that in no instance is the authority of the Septuagint preferred to that of the Hebrew, but, on the contrary, whenever they differ the Hebrew is followed. Possibly this statement is rather too strong, and it is certainly much more decided than my theory requires. It is sufficient for me to say, that the manner of quoting by the evangelists is obviously different from that of our Lord. Had there been the same verbal identity with the Septuagint, in their own quotations, as is discovered in their record of the Lord's quotations, it might have been said that in the latter case they had substituted what they found in the Septuagint, for what our Lord had said in Aramaic; but there being this different law in the one case from the other, it is only to be accounted for by the fact that when our Lord quoted the Scripture, he used the Septuagint, but when the evangelists quoted it, the Septuagint was not exclusively followed. They did not allow the Septuagint to ignore the Hebrew, though we suppose that their familiarity with the Septuagint would influence them even when rendering directly from the Hebrew, and still more so if only quoting from memory. We now have got two distinct sets of appearances, and both plainly pointing to one solution. The peculiar verbal resemblance between the evangelists, preserved in the Greek, is chiefly in the records of conversations, whether those of our Lord or of others, and rarely in the narrative. In like manner, the quotations used by our Lord in conversation verbally agree with the Septuagint; while, with regard to the quotations by the evangelical historians themselves, though they may indicate that their translations of the Hebrew were influenced by a familiarity with h This verse is omitted by the best MSS., and seems to be the insertion of a copyist from Luke xxii. 37. the rendering of the Septuagint, yet there is by no means a servile adoption of that version; on the contrary, a preference for the authority of the Hebrew is evident. And this must lead us to conclude, that when the Septuagint is quoted, it is not from any supposed superior authority, but from some other cause. Before stating the hypothesis which I propose, I will give the result of a very interesting inquiry of Hug's as to the language of Palestine at the time of our Lord's ministry :—“The Syrian, Phoenician, and Jewish coast throughout, to the borders of Egypt, was occupied by cities either entirely or half Greek. The Israelitish coast, from the Arnon upwards, Gilead, Bashan, Hauran, Trachonitis, including Abilene, was entirely Greek towards the north, and towards the south mostly in possession of the Greeks. In Judea and Galilee there were several cities wholly, or at least in great measure, inhabited by Greeks" (Hug's Introduction, part. ii., chap. i., § 10, p. 339, Fosdick's Ed.) That Hug's conclusion is correct seems to be generally admitted. The author of the Introduction to Schleiermacher's Essay on Luke, says: "The result of the inquiry seems to be, that in the time of Christ several towns of Palestine were exclusively inhabited by Greeks; that Greek was the medium of intercourse between the Romans and the Jews; that the knowledge of it was very general in the cities and amongst the more educated classes; and that on the whole the number of those who knew no other language was greater than that of those who understood only the vernacular tongue of Palestine" (Introduction, p. ci.) Moses Stuart says: "Hug has shewn amply, and I should think conclusively, that Greek was very extensively spoken in Palestine during the apostolic ages."-(Note 15, p. 705, Fosdick.) Our Lord was induced at various times to leave Judea and to pursue his ministry in Galilee, not from want of success, but, apparently, from prudential motives. When he learned that John had been cast into prison, and that the Pharisees were aware of his still greater success (Matt. iv. 12, with John iv. 1), expecting that their undivided opposition would thenceforth be directed against him, he departed from Judea and fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, by pursuing his ministry in "Galilee of the Gentiles." When he again attempted Judea, the persecution of the Pharisees caused him a second time to retire to the sea (Mark iii. 6, 7); and thus another prophecy with regard to our Lord was fulfilled in two respects, first, his desire to avoid strife (Matt. xii. 19), which caused him to retire from the Pharisees; VOL. V. NO. IX. F "He shall and next, his successful efforts among the Gentiles. shew judgment unto the Gentiles . . . . and in his name shall the Gentiles trust" (Matt. xii. 18-21). John states the same reason upon two other occasions (John vii. 1; xi. 54), as explaining why our Lord walked in Galilee in preference to Judea. Where the Gentile element was strong, there the persecuting propensity of the Pharisees was not so powerful; and, as our Lord was forced to pursue his ministry where Jewish prejudice had been partly broken down by the Gentile intermixture, it is clear that many of his labours and discourses must have been where the Greek language and not the Aramaic prevailed. The theory, then, which I propose is simply this:-In those parts where Greek was the more prevalent language, or when our Lord was addressing a mixed multitude among whom the Greek was the most generally familiar language, his discourses were in that language; and the Apostles being scrupulously faithful, and intending to write their histories in the language which obtained throughout the world, preferred recording those events, and relating those discourses, in which the very words of our Lord, and not mere translations, could be preserved. Now, were two or more ear-witnesses to record a conversation, the probable, or, I may say, under ordinary circumstances, the inevitable consequence would be, that whilst the very words or expressions which were not of uncommon occurrence might be recorded by one, yet by another they would be conveyed in synonymes, but "rare and singular expressions" would be recorded by all, and such we find to be precisely the case with regard to the verbal resemblances in the discourses of our Lord, and we need no other theory to account for the phenomenon. In like manner, if our Lord was discoursing in Greek, and with those who were familiar with the Septuagint version, he would, most probably, have quoted from it, rather than render his quotations from the Hebrew. This idea accounts for by far the greater portion of verbal identity in the gospels; but, as Norton justly observes (vol. i., p. 102), another cause must have been in operation to produce coincidence of language, where the evangelists spoke in their own persons. This I will attempt to point out hereafter in each individual case. This theory also accounts for the law which regulated the evangelists in their quotations from the Old Testament. When using their Scriptures as an authority, they preferred the original Hebrew; but, as I have already noticed, when recording our Lord's arguments, the Septuagint is followed. This is perfectly intelligible, if the conversations in which these quotations are found were carried on in Greek; but, had our Lord discoursed in Aramaic, and quoted from the Hebrew, it is inconceivable that the evangelists would have followed the Septuagint version in recording his quotations, whilst they themselves preferred using the Hebrew as an authority. The theory also accounts for the peculiar character of the Greek. Luke by his introduction shews himself by no means incapable of writing good Greek, yet his Gospel, and the first part of the Acts, as well as the other two harmonizing gospels, "next to the Apocalypse, are the most thoroughly Hebraic of any part of the Scriptures."—(Newman in Kitto's Bib. Cyc., article "Hellenists.") Now, it is pretty evident, that even in those parts of Galilee where Greek was the more prevalent language, it would not be in a pure form, but would have a strong Aramaic intermixture, which the evangelists, if they were not translating, but recording what actually occurred, would preserve. In the latter part of the Acts, when Luke was not influenced by this cause, he gives us purer Greek. The same reason will explain why the verbal resemblance is not discernible in the record of conversations connected with the crucifixion. The language of our Lord's most prejudiced opponents in Jerusalem was not Greek. The same reason which influenced the evangelists in the choice of their subjects will account for the events of Galilee being almost exclusively recorded.* The resemblance between any two, together with their difference from the third evangelist, either in the incidents or in the historic order of the events, may, I apprehend, be accounted for by our tracing the personal history of the evangelists. Luke and Mark being sometimes together witnesses of apostolic discourses, where Matthew was absent; Mark again, being with Matthew when Luke was absent, and Luke possibly, during his two years' residence in Judea, deriving his information partly from Matthew, or the hearers of Matthew, when Mark was elsewhere. I have now stated the theory, and shewn how as an hypothesis it accounts for all the phenomena, except one minor point (see p. 72, note), which I have reserved for future examination; and I maintain that, as an hypothesis, it is superior to any one hitherto proposed, inasmuch as it solves all the phenomena, and does so in a probable and simple manner, instead of only accounting for one particular feature, by many improbable and gratuitous assumptions. The reason why events in particular localities of Galilee are not recorded will subsequently be noticed. |