Chapter IV

RESPECTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF ARAMAIC

THE

to fill.

AND GREEK

HE truth is that each of the languages used by our Lord was admirably suited to the office it was called upon

Aramaic

In spite of the contemptuous terms in which Rénan speaks of it, Aramaic was a noble language, calculated by its simplicity and strength to strike men's imaginations and reach their hearts. In its essential qualities it did not differ from the language in which the literature of the Old Testament was composed—a literature which, viewed from a purely secular standpoint, is equalled in the New Testament alone. Concerning that language a scholarly writer (William Carpenter) has said: "The Hebrew language is allowed to possess great simplicity and effectiveness. Of all known languages it is the best adapted to indicate the nature and qualities of objects." For the purpose of relating parables, or of announcing moral precepts, for warning men of their sins, calling them to repentance, and exhorting them to righteousness, a more fitting tongue than Aramaic could not have been chosen.

But for the purpose of conveying instruction in the profounder doctrines of Christianity, Aramaic was not so suitable. It was wanting in precision and liable to some ambiguity— matters of but little importance in historic or figurative narra

tion, but of the utmost consequence in the direct statement of theologic truth.

Greek

For the purpose of precise dogmatic teaching no language ever existed so suitable as the later Greek, developed as it was to a high degree of excellence by the influence of philosophic thought, and, in its Hellenistic form, enriched by contact with the East and the addition of Hebrew ideas and modes of expression.

Of this language Döllinger speaks as follows: "Everything had conspired to make the Greek language, that masterpiece of human speech-and at its highest point of development, as the creation of a literature unrivalled for richness in mental power in the ancient world-to make that queen of languages the first instrument for receiving Christian ideas, and giving them form and colour. The idiom the Apostles wrote in was not, indeed, the language of Plato and Xenophon, with its Attic grace and refinement; it was the so-called 'common speech,' which arose after Alexander out of the dissolution and fusion of the old dialects, and in its Hellenistic form, that is, as the Jews then scattered over the heathen world had learnt it from the mouth of the people, and adopted it for oral use, with a mixture of old Hebraisms and new Aramaic forms. It was therefore more like a provincial dialect than the language of books. But the widely spread Alexandrian version of the Old Testament, with its strongly marked Hebraist character, had made this dialect into a vehicle for literature. Its vocabulary supplied the foundation for the language of the Apostles and early Christian writers." (First Age of Christianity and the Church.)

The language thus described, so capable of expressing the most delicate shades of meaning, and thus conveying to a nicety whatever the teacher on any subject might wish his hearers or readers to understand, seems to have been specially prepared by Providence to enable our Lord to reveal in their fulness the deep things of God.

K

Assuming the facts to be as here stated, a careful study of our Lord's sayings will reveal a beautiful harmony and consistency. When talking to the people He used the people's tongue, and spoke about things, and in a way, that the people might understand. When conversing with the cultured men who sat in Moses' seat, He used the language of the learned, and discoursed upon subjects and in a manner adapted to their supposed intelligence. A like distinction will be seen in His intercourse with His disciples; as He talked with them by the way, and in His daily counsel and instruction; when foretelling the judgments that should overtake the nation, and the coming of the Son of man in His glory-in fact, whenever it was possible to do so, He spake in the language of their childhood and their homes. But when He proceeded to reveal the mystery of the three Persons of the Godhead, and to discourse on such doctrines as election, sanctification, and final perseverance, as recorded in the fourteenth and three following chapters of John's Gospel, He used the one language above all others capable of setting forth in clear, distinct terms, the truths He intended to teach.

Chapter V

RESPECTIVE USE OF ARAMAIC AND GREEK IN THE SYNOPTICS AND JOHN

NOW,

OW, as has been already remarked, our Lord's addresses to the "common people" in Galilee form a large portion of the Synoptic narratives; whilst His discourses to the Jewish rulers in the Temple occupy a large part of the Gospel of John. There are it is true instances in which at first sight the reverse of this appears to be the case. But it is not so in reality. When we come to consider the narratives in detail we shall find that the discourse reported in John vi., though delivered in Galilee, was not addressed chiefly to the common people of Galilee. And it will even be more evident that the addresses delivered in the Temple on His last visit were not addressed to the audience that on former occasions surrounded Him in the sacred precincts, but to the crowds who had come from the Northern province to the Feast.

We are accordingly drawing near to the conclusion that the utterances of our Lord recorded in the Synoptic Gospels are those which He spake in Aramaic; and the discourses in John are those which He spake in Greek. That such was really the case will appear from other considerations, to which attention must now be called.

Marks of Translation in the Synoptics

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke abound with Aramaic idioms, and have every appearance of having been translated from that language. Of all the New Testament writers, Luke is considered to have had the greatest command

of classical Greek, and some of his passages are admired for the elegance of their composition. The introduction to his Gospel is an instance, concerning which Alford says, peculiar style of this preface, which is purer Greek than the contents of the Gospel, and more laboured and formal, may be accounted for, partly because it is the composition of the Evangelist himself, and not translated from Hebrew sources like the rest." Thomson, in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, observes that the style of the Gospel is less pure than the latter part of the Acts of the Apostles, where Luke describes entirely in his own words scenes of which he was himself an eyewitness. In the former there are Hebrew idioms which in the latter disappear. That Luke's Gospel does not exhibit that pure and correct diction which is characteristic of his own proper style is due to its being composed of a translation made by him of documents in another language. He was more careful to reproduce faithfully the meaning of the original than to preserve his own reputation as a classical writer; hence he allowed the Semitic features in the documents before him to reappear when rendered in Hellenistic Greek.

The signs of translation from Aramaic documents are at least as strong in Matthew and Mark as they are in Luke. According to Michaelis, "The Gospels of Matthew and Mark exhibit strong vestiges of the Hebraic style; the former presents harsher Hebraisms than the latter; and the Gospel of Mark abounds with still more striking Hebraisms."

Many of the variations in parallel passages are manifestly the result of independent translations from similar, though not identical originals. The synonyms used by the three Evangelists are altogether inconsistent with the idea that the Synoptic Gospels are composed of materials in the language in which they are themselves written. A single illustration will suffice. Luke alone of all the Evangelists sometimes uses the word 'Epistates' ('ETσTárηs) to express the term by which the disciples were accustomed to address their Lord and Master. The word is found in Luke viii. 24, whilst in the parallel