couple of other passages, which may tend to induce him to harmonise prophecy somewhat more comprehensively than he did on the evening of the 9th ult. The passages we refer to are the following:-" And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications; and they shall look upon Me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for Him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for Him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn. In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon." "And His feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south. And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the Lord my God shall come, and all the saints with thee."§

Mr. Grantham gave notice that, God willing, the subject for the next meeting would be "The Jews in connection with the Second Advent;" and then proposed the following hymn from the same collection (No. 234) :—

Oh come! oh come! Thou perfect King
Of boundless glory, boundless spring;
Arise, and fullest daylight bring,

Jesus expected long.

Jesus has gone to heaven again,
High on the Father's throne to reign;
My heart no more can here remain,
But after Him has gone.

The heavenly choirs thy name, Lord, greet,
And evermore thy praise repeat;

Thou fillest heaven with joy complete,
Thou art our peace with God.

We follow Thee with praises there,

With hymn, and vow, and gladsome prayer,
In thy celestial home to share.

Take us, O Lord, to Thee.

Fountain of mercy and of love,

Sun of the fatherland above,

The cloud of sadness far remove,
The light of glory give.

From God's right hand, thy rightful throne,

Return, Beloved, to thine own;

Thy victory has long been won,

Oh, claim thy conquest now.

The benediction having been given by the Rev. W. D. Isaac, concluded one of the most interesting meetings at Kirkby Cottage, Croydon.

* Zech, xii, 10, 11; xiv. 4, 5,

OUR

THE LANGUAGE OF CHRIST.

BY THE REV. J. B. GOLDBERG.

No. III.

UR third point is, to reply to the arguments which are brought forward in support of the Greek theory. As it is our earnest desire to do it in the best and fullest manner, we take up the arguments of one of the latest productions, in which we think all that can be said on the Greek side, has been skilfully put together. The writer evinces a large amount of classical learning, and it is the more to be regretted therefore that he did not possess himself of an equal measure of Hebrew and rabbinical learning, of Jewish antiquities, manners, customs, &c. These are naturally of high importance in the solution of such questions; and the want of them unfortunately betrayed him into great mistakes and palpable blunders. With Gentile ideas and feelings, with the highest admiration for the Greek language, and the lowest estimation of the Aramean, or Syro-Chaldaic (which he calls "a sort of Hebrew patois "), he sets himself in judgment on Jewish subjects!! He seems to forget that the nation he is dealing with is represented in Scripture as a "peculiar people,"―peculiar in its origin and continuance, in its sufferings and deliverances, in its divine laws and antiquated customs, in its strong attachments and deep national feelings.

"It must be admitted by all," say the Hellenists, "that the Greek tongue had become very widely and generally known throughout the world before the birth of Christ. Greek, indeed, was then, and for some generations afterwards, the link by which the most distant regions owning Caesar's sway were socially and intellectually held together. In Rome itself, which might have been regarded as the empire in miniature, the Greek tongue was continually employed. In the reign of Tiberius, as Valerius Maximus, a contemporary writer, informs us, the senate resounded even to deafening with Greek debates," &c. &c.†

From such particular cases (of Emperors and senators), the Hellenists jump to generalities, and assume that the people in general spoke Greek; but surely this is a most unwarrantable assumption. For it is not enough to know what languages kings and nobles were able to speak: we have to learn what the people in general spoke, and what was the medium of communication between the higher and lower classes. Such points are very much to our purpose, as we are seeking the parallel to a popular Teacher, going about and instructing the people. Our blessed Saviour, though He was the Son of God with power, and, as to His humanity, a scion of the royal line of David, yet condescended to be born into a

This was published in the "Sunday at Home," for 1869, pp. 421, 500, 564, 628, and 675. Our attention was called to the subject at the time, and we were urged by some Christian friends to write in reply, and show the untenableness of the Greek theory. We did so; and, after reading our paper before the Hebrew Exegetical Society of Bristol, sent it up to the Tract Society's office in London. Some one of their officers, a determined Hellenist, took great liberties with our paper, adding thereto and taking away from it. When, therefore, the proof-sheets came down for our correction, we refused to let them appear in their mutilated form.

† "Sunday at Home,” p. 422.

humble family. He lived among, and held habitual intercourse with the poorer and lower orders of the Jewish nation. St. Mark, in recording Christ's teaching in the temple, and His putting to silence Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herodians, adds, "and the common people heard him gladly.' It is evident, therefore, that the language which our blessed Lord used in His teaching, was that which the common people knew ; not that which the noble or learned classes alone understood, but that which was familiar to the great masses of the nation.

To find a case exactly similar to the one in hand, we have to inquire, not what the Roman magnates knew, but-in what language did emperors, consuls, lictors, &c., address the Roman people-the plebeianseither in the metropolis or in the country? Have we any example on record, or the slightest authority for saying, that instead of speaking to the people in Latin, they addressed them in Greek? We think that even the most ardent Hellenist will not fail to admit that Latin was the sole means of communication. "Whilst they acknowledged," writes Gibbon, "the charms of the Greek, they asserted the dignity of the Latin tongue, and the exclusive use of the latter was inflexibly maintained in the administration of civil as well as military government."† "From the testimony of Augustine, it appears," says Horne, "that the Latin Church possessed a very great number of versions of the Scriptures made at the first introduction of Christianity, and whose authors were unknown." And what purpose could those versions serve, unless they were for the instruction and edification of those who did not know Greek? Augustine's testimony, therefore, leads to the same conclusion, that the great body of the Roman people were ignorant of the Greek tongue. That Clement of Rome should write from that city an epistle to the Corinthians in Greek, ought not at all to be matter of surprise. First, it was most natural that, writing to Greeks in Corinth, he should have addressed them in their own tongue. Secondly, Greek was in his day the language of the learned, just what Latin was afterwards during the middle ages. These languages were employed by the learned at different periods, as mediums of communication, whether in books or epistles, notwithstanding that the greatest number of the people were ignorant of them. For the same reason Justin Martyr composed his apologies to the emperor, Ignatius his epistles, Irenæus his books, &c., in Greek. They were either intended for persons conversant with Greek, or treated of subjects interesting to the whole Christian world, and therefore it was rightly expected that in each country individuals would be found who should render them into the vernacular of their nation. But the thought was never entertained by them that the mass of the Roman people, or of any other nation (except the Hellenic), spoke or understood the Greek language.

Turning our attention to Egypt, we meet with similar circumstances. Alexandria became one of the most celebrated schools of Grecian learning, whose memory was immortalised by the Alexandrian dialect. At the same time, it is equally certain that the majority of the Egyptians, or the Egyptians as a nation, cannot be said to have spoken Greek. We have both sacred and profane testimony to the contrary. Origen, in his "Decline and Fall," vol. i. p. 46.

* Mark xii. 37.

Introd., vol. ii, part i., chap. iii., sect. iii., § iv.

4

work against Celsus, says, As a Greek, if I wished to instruct the Egyptians or Syrians, I would in the first place learn their language, and rather speak imperfectly as a foreigner in that language that I might do some good to my hearers, than, by speaking Greek, do them no good." Why do them no good in speaking Greek to them? Evidently because it was an unknown tongue to them. An incident narrated in Scripture brings out the same fact. Paul asks permission of the chief captain to speak to him. The captain expresses his surprise by the question, "Canst thou speak Greek? Art not thou that Egyptian which before these days madest an uproar?" &c.† Here we have an officer high in command, who knew what he was saying, doubting Paul's ability to speak Greek, because he took him for an Egyptian; and then taking his knowledge of Greek as a proof that he is not that Egyptian. It is clear from this, that the generality of the Egyptians were reckoned to be ignorant of the Greek tongue.

We will arrive at the same results in regard to Syria, if we examine a few facts in its history. The most celebrated version of the Scriptures in the language of that country (the Syriac) is the one called the Peschito (or literal), on account of its faithful adherence to the original. The majority of critics fix the date of this version to the first or second century. The call, or demand, at that early date, for a Syriac version, shows that the aboriginal nationalities did not understand Greek, but spoke their old vernacular, the Syriac. The declaration of Origen, which we quoted in the foregoing paragraph, that, as a Greek, if he wished to instruct Egyptians or Syrians, he would in the first place learn their language, equally shows that the Syrians did not understand Greek.

The double names (Greek and Syrian) which several cities in Syria bore at the beginning of the Christian era, is another evidence that Syriac was the language of the major part of its inhabitants. We can understand that the Greek colonists, looking with contempt upon everything that did not bear the impress of their tongue, should give Greek names to Syrian cities; but if what is asserted by the Hellenists be a real fact, that already, "for several generations before Christ, Greek had been generally used throughout Syria and the neighbouring regions," we naturally ask, How did it happen that the Greek names of the cities were not as generally adopted throughout Syria, as (they say) the Greek language was? Why did not the greater change carry with it the lesser one? The "general use" of another nation's language, would, no doubt, have also brought into vogue the names which that nation gave to cities and localities. But we think that the state of things in Syria was just the contrary-that the people in general spoke Syriac, and hence the preservation of the Syriac names of the cities. The Greeks, on the other hand, kept up the Greek names which their predecessors had given. Thus the double names originated, and thus they continued to exist. We have the testimony of Josephus that this was actually the case. "When he (Solomon) had therefore built this city, and encompassed it with very strong walls, he gave it the name of Tadmor, and that is the name it is still called by at this day amongst the Syrians, but the Greeks call it Palmyra."§

* Lib. vii., § 60.

"Sunday at Home," p. 421.

† Acts xxi. 37.
§ Ant., book viii., chap. vi., p. 1.

N

Again, whenever any part of Syria or Mesopotamia made itself independent of Rome, as the kingdom of Edessa, and subsequently that of Palmyra, the public records and other writings were composed in the Aramaic language. Gibbon tells us that of the three dialects of the Syriac, the purest and most elegant was spoken at Edessa. * Even the famous letter of Zenobia to the emperor M. Aurelius was written in Syriac. These facts show that the Syriac continued to be the language of the country and people. The Greek tongue was the language of the courts, aided and abetted by Roman policy; whenever, therefore, the rulers shook off the yoke of Rome, and were anxious to enlist the patriotism of the natives, they strove to gain their affection and support by making use of their language.

Thus we see that it cannot truly be said that Greek was generally known either in Italy, Egypt, or Syria. What may be affirmed is, that Greek was understood by some people; that many of the upper classes were conversant with it; and that it formed a medium by which intercourse with other nations was carried on. Now, placing Palestine in the same category as Italy, Egypt, and Syria, admitting-for argument's sake, without taking into consideration Jewish prejudices or peculiarities --that Greek was as much understood by learned Jews as it was by learned Romans, Syrians, or Egyptians; that princes, nobles, and officers, &c., were fully conversant with the foreign tongue, still it will not follow that our Saviour preached and taught in Greek. On the contrary, even the Hellenists themselves must admit-if they will keep to the analogy of their own making-that as in Rome emperors or magistrates addressed the Roman people, not in Greek, but in their native Latin, so in Palestine the Great Teacher taught and instructed the common people, not in the foreign tongue, but in their vernacular Aramaic.

Much stress is laid upon, and a great deal said about, the notion that, "like many other nations of the present day, the Jews of our Saviour's time were bilingual, using both the Hebrew and the Greek." We have shown above most clearly that the Greek language had no existence amongst the Jews in Palestine; they, consequently, were not bilingual: nevertheless, we are ready to examine this proposition upon its own merits, and see how far it would justly lead when admitted. Whenever a nation is bilingual, one of the languages is natural to that nation; it is her heirloom, descended to her by inheritance from her ancestors: the other is not natural, but circumstances, commerce, &c., in some way or other, imposed it upon the nation. The consequence is that both languages are not looked upon in the same light, nor regarded with the same feelings; preference is generally given to one above the other. An example or two will help to make our meaning clearer. As we are treating of Jews,-an oriental nation,-we turn to the East for illustrations. Constantinople is inhabited by large numbers of Greeks; they speak the Greek language, though somewhat corrupted. They speak also the Turkish language, forced upon them by their conquerors, the Turks. They are thus bilingual, using both Greek and Turkish. Yet never did patriarch, bishop, or priest attempt to teach or preach to them in Turkish. They know that any attempt of the kind would be considered the gravest outrage upon the feelings of their people.

"Decline and Fall," vol. i. p. 244, note.