The statement of Papias as to the language in which Matthew wrote the Logia, generally accepted as it was in the second and third centuries, is as strong evidence of the prevalence of Aramaic, as the fact that the Gospels and Epistles were written in Greek is of the prevalence of that language also.

Josephus, who held a command in Galilee for several years during the troublous times preceding the siege of Jerusalem, states that after he was taken prisoner, and during the siege, he was the only man in the Roman camp who was able to understand the deserters from the city. (C. Apion, I. 9.) Elsewhere he confesses that he had so long accustomed himself to speak the tongue of his own people, that he was unable to pronounce Greek with accuracy or elegance (Ant. xx. 11. 2). In the preface to his History of the Jewish War he explains that the work is a Greek translation of a book which he had originally written in the language of his country, and which had had an extensive circulation. All which goes to show that, largely as Greek had come into use amongst the urban and official classes, Aramaic still held its place as the vernacular.

Even to those Jews who did not usually speak Aramaic it was not an unknown tongue. They regarded it with affection as the language proper to their country for many generations, and as a close connection of the language spoken by Moses, David and Isaiah. Its alphabet was the same, it was written in the same characters, and its grammatical inflexions were similar to Hebrew. They tried even to cheat themselves into the belief that it was Hebrew, and called it by that name, although it was certainly different. Even Jews in foreign lands were taught it, just as most Jews in the present day earn Hebrew.

The attitude of Greek-speaking Jews in this respect may be judged by the conduct of the crowd whom Paul addressed from the stairs of the Tower of Antonia (Acts xxii. 2). They expected him to speak to them in Greek, and were agreeably

surprised to hear him in their beloved mother tongue. But it was perhaps not for that reason alone that "they were the more quiet," but because, being less familiar with it, they needed to follow him with closer attention to catch his meaning. That the multitude on that occasion were Greek-speaking is evident from what is told us in the previous chapter (xxi. 31-36). Tidings having reached the chief captain of the Roman cohort that all Jerusalem was in an uproar, he took soldiers and centurions and ran down into the city. Having rescued Paul from the mob and ordered his officers to bind him with two chains, on the suspicion that he was a desperate Egyptian outlaw, he inquired of the crowd who he was and what he had done. In reply "some shouted one thing, some another, among the crowd." Both question and answers were spoken in Greek; for it was not because he did not understand the language in which they spoke; but, as we are expressly informed, because of the noise and confusion, that he could not obtain any definite idea on the subject about which he inquired. If the crowd in their excitement had tried to explain matters to the Roman commander in Aramaic there would have been no need for the explanation, "he could not know the certainty for the uproar": his ignorance of their language would have been sufficient reason. That he did not understand Aramaic is evident (xxii. 21-24), for after Paul had spoken to the people in that language he was unable to guess the reason why they so shouted against him, though he would have known well enough if he had understood the last sentence of Paul's address. However he understood on the following day what was said in the Council (xxiii. 28, 29), showing that the language used on such occasions was Greek.

A Bi-Lingual Population

The conclusion then to which we are led is that both Greek and Aramaic flourished side by side in Palestine in the time of Christ. Amongst the rulers, the priests and the educated and trading classes, in Jerusalem and the larger towns, Greek

was generally spoken. Amongst the rural population and in the villages and smaller towns, Aramaic was the tongue in ordinary use. The various religious orders would of course in this respect conform to the customs of those amongst whom they lived and performed their duties. The priests and scribes who officiated at synagogues in towns and villages where Aramaic was the prevailing tongue would at home speak Aramaic like the rest of the people; but when they visited Jerusalem they would be well able to converse with their brethren there in Greek.

In fact a large proportion of the population were able to speak in both languages, in which respect they did not differ greatly from the inhabitants of many modern Oriental towns. I have been told by a missionary to the Punjaub that at Peshawur four languages are in common use and children in the streets may be heard speaking them all. Miss Bellamy, a missionary who has worked for 21 years in Syria, tells me that in that country-in addition to the vernacular ArabicTurkish, French, Greek, English and German are also in use, and that the children will often speak two, three or four of them. Similar information with reference to the Bulgarians has been furnished me by a literary friend who lived for a time in Turkey. It should not be forgotten that there was a period even in England when two languages were in general Professor Maitland points out that, for several centuries after the Norman Conquest, French was the language of law, and tells us that in the thirteenth century, "Some power of speaking a decent French seems to have been common among all classes of men, save the very poorest; men spoke it who had few, if any, drops of foreign blood in their veins." (Social England, vol. i., p. 279.)

use.

Chapter III

THE LANGUAGES SPOKEN BY CHRIST

I that two were in general use

being established that two languages were in general use

matter of course that He spake in both. He came to present His claims as Messiah to the chief men of the nation, to demand from the husbandmen in His Father's name the fruits of the vineyard; to them He must speak in Greek. He also came to preach glad tidings to the poor, to reveal to the common people the things of the Kingdom of God; to them He must speak in Aramaic.

His Use of Aramaic in Galilee

That our Lord sometimes spoke in Aramaic is indicated by the retention in two instances of the original words in that language. "Talitha cumi" (Mark v. 41) is one example. The cry of agony on the cross is the other (Matt. xxvii. 46; Mark xv. 34). It was doubtless also in Aramaic that the ascended Jesus of Nazareth called to Saul of Tarsus while proceeding on his journey to Damascus (Acts xxvi. 14).

The reception which He gained when preaching in Galilee is another proof that He spoke in the language of the people. It is very improbable that such vast crowds would have left their homes and their work and followed Him for miles to the mountains, to the sea-side and to desert places if He had spoken in Greek on those occasions. Those who have read of the powerful influence produced by great Welsh preachers -Christmas Evans for instance two or three generations

ago, when the ancient British tongue was more universally spoken in the Principality than now, may be better able perhaps than others to see the force of this. Like all primitive languages Aramaic was most effective in impressing the minds of great masses of men. Accordingly, when used by our Lord the results that followed His teaching were very great. For it must not be supposed that the impression He made was a transient one. Of the thousands who thronged into the Church after Pentecost it cannot be doubted that a large proportion were those who had listened to the teaching of Christ in Galilee.

His Use of Greek in Jerusalem

But when Jesus visited the Temple at Jerusalem (except on the last occasion) He spoke in Hellenistic Greek: Because it was the language in daily use by the elders and rulers to whom He designed to declare His mission: Because it was the language most prevalent among the citizens generally: And because it was the language usually spoken and best understood by the great number of Jews from foreign countries, who were always present at the great Temple Feasts.

Aramaic Dialects

There is another reason why He would use Greek in Jerusalem in preference to Aramaic. There was considerable difference between the Judean and the Galilean pronunciation of the latter tongue. In the Holy Land, small as was its area, there were at least three dialects of Aramaic—the Judean, the Samaritan, and the Galilean-differing so much from one another as to make communication by its means between persons of different provinces both difficult and unpleasant. The Judean adhered most nearly to the ancient Semitic type with its deep gutturals, so unlike the musical accent of Greece and Italy. The dialect of Galilee on the other hand had been softened by the influence of Western intercourse, a result of its closer proximity to the maritime ports of Phoenicia.