Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

fact in the Apoftolick times; becaufe, of the vaft number of Jews, who were at first converted to Christianity, and who made use of this Verfion, there is not one (except the Apoftles), who has wrote any thing which is come down to our present time. Nevertheless, I hope to make it at least probable, that this Version was made in the time of the Apostles. In order to which, I will shew;

1. That Syriack was the language in ufe among the Jews, in our Saviour's and the Apoftles' time.

2. That it was very neceffary a Verfion fhould be made, and very likely a Verfion was made, of the New Testament into this language in the Apoftles' time.

3.

That it is probable this Verfion, which we now have, is the fame which was then made.

1. The Syriack was the language in common use among the Jews, in the time of our Saviour and his Apoftles, Till the Jews were carried captives to Babylon, they undoubtedly retained their own language, viz. the pure Hebrew, and understood not Syriack, as is plain from 2 Kings xviii. 26. and Jer. v. 15. Being at Babylon for seventy years, they learnt the language of the country, which afterwards they never loft. This was a place (fays the great Bochart), always fatal to the Hebrew language. That which they learnt, was not very much different from the Hebrew, though it went under a different name, and was called fometimes Chaldee, and sometimes Syriack: fo Dan. i. 4. it is called "wo nwh i. e. the tongue of the Chaldeans; and ch. ii. 4. the fame is called Syriack; the Chaldeans fpake to the King s i. e. in the Syriack tongue.. It was this (perhaps a little altered), in which our Saviour and his Apostles conversed, and the Jews generally, in their time: for

• Eadem Babylon, ubi cæteræ linguæ natæ funt, femper Hebraicæ fuit fatalis, femel in confufione Linguarum, et rurfus cum Judæi ibi captivi patrium fermonem didicerunt. Phaleg. 1. 1. c. 15.

See to the fame purpose Dr. Prideaux Connect, of the Hift. of the Old and New Teft. Par. 1. B. 5. and Par. 2. B. 8. VOL. III.

X

bIs vero Syrorum Sermo, Christi et Apoftolorum temporibus, propter diuturnam illam in Babylone captivitatem, et Affyriorum contra in Judæam tranflationem, genti Hebraicæ popularis fuit et vernaculus, adeo ut nulli tunc fcirent Hebraice, nifi qui fingulari ftudio ex libris didiciffent. Quamobrem Chriftum quoque et Apoftolos eodem fermone popu

'for the proof of this, I fhall only alledge a few places out of the New Testament; the great number of Syriack words, that are to be found therein, do fufficiently prove it, viz. such as Talitha Kumi3, Ephphatha", Eloi Eloi lama fabachthani, Bethefda, Golgotha, Gabbatha, Racas, Cephas, Aceldama1, Boanerges, Maran-atha', Bar-Jona", Abba", &c. These are all evidently Syriack words (as they know who are acquainted with this language), which were used by the Jews in and about our Saviour's time. I would only observe concerning one of these Syriack words, viz. the word Aceldama, that it is faid to be ἐν τῇ ἰδίᾳ διαλέκτῳ αὐτῶν, i. e, in their own dialect or language. It is true indeed, that two or three of these words are called Hebrew, fo John v. 2. Éπiλsɣoμérn 'Espais Breda, which is called in Hebrew Bethesda, and John xix. 13. 'Elpaïsi Tablada, i. e. in Hebrew. Gabbatha. But it is a very trite and common obfervation, that Syriack and Chaldee are frequently called Hebrew; whence Nonnus in his Greek Paraphrafe on John, tranflates 'Elgaïsì, Zúpy μúdų, in the laft place cited; and ver. 17. he renders the fame word Zipwv sópa. So Philo and the Fathers commonly call Chaldee and Syriack, Hebrew. Nor is this ftrange, when we confider that Hebrew was the old language, from which these two dialects (very little different from it) are derived.

The old Hebrew was fo far from being the language of the country at this time, that they had now, and for a long time before had, an officer in the fynagogues, called p whose business it was, when the Old Teftament was read, to tranflate the Hebrew, and give the people the sense of it, period by period, in Chaldee, or Syriack P.

[blocks in formation]

Hence alfo it was, that

n John i. 42.
i Acts i. 19.
Mark iii. 17.

1 Cor. xvi. 22.
m Matt xvi. 17.
"Mark xiv. 36.

• Vid. Cafaub. ad Baron. An

nal. c. xvi. §. 11.

P Dr. Lightfoot Harm. of the Gofpels, Year 31. §. 23.

the

the bun i. e. the Chaldee tranflations of the Old Testament were made in, or before, our Saviour's time.

There has been a controversy between the learned Mr. Voffius, and Father Simon, concerning the language the Jews fpake at this time. The former pretends, that Greek was 2 then the language of the Jews; but Father Simon has fufficiently fhewn the weakness of his arguments. It seems to me very evident, the common Jews did not at all understand Greek. It was indeed the language most known in the world (much more perhaps than either Latin or French are now); and for that reason, as has been faid, the books of the New Teftament were wrote in it: but the common Jews were not acquainted with it; and therefore St. Paul, when he was apprehended at Jerufalem, though he spake to the officer (who perhaps was a Roman) in Greek (Acts xxi. 37.); yet, when he made his fpeech to the people, he fpake ἐν Ἑβραίδι διαλέκτῳ, in the Hebrew tongue, or, which is the fame (as has been proved), in the Syriack. He knew the people could not underftand him in any other; and fo we find, that, when he spake no more Greek, but in their own language, they diligently hearkened to him, ch. xxii. 2. Hence Jofephus tells us, that he wrote his History firft in Hebrew, or Syriack, for the use of his countrymen; but afterwards, that it might be of more extenfive use, tranflated it into Greek: though (as he fays a little after) he was very backward to that work, because it was a language very different from that of his country.

2. This being the language of the Jews in our Saviour's time, it was very neceffary a Verfion fhould be made, and confequently, likely a Verfion was made, of the New Testament into this language, before the Apoftles' death. Although the body and greateft part of the Jews rejected Chriftianity, yet there were very confiderable numbers of them that embraced it. We read, Acts xxi. 20. of many (vpiádes) ten thou

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

fands of Jews that believed, and received the doctrines of Chrift. There can be no reasonable doubt, but that great ad-" ditions were made to their number continually, both at Jerufalem, and other parts of Judæa. And now can it be supposed, that so many thousand converts should be left fo long without thofe infpired books, which contained the foundation of their religion? Here, and here only, they could have a particular, exact, and authentick account of the doctrines of that religion, which they had embraced; and is it not likely they would endeavour to get these books tranflated into their own language? Either the Apostles, or themselves, certainly would take care to have a Verfion made.

1. It may reasonably be fuppofed, that the Apostles, who were fo much among the Jews, would take care to have the Gospel History and their own writings published among them, in their own language. Their zeal for the intereft of Chriftianity (which was in all respects so very great) would undoubtedly influence them to take this probable method of advancing it. Add to this, the particular fondness and affection, that appeared in several of them, towards their own countrymen. Nothing lefs than a revelation from heaven, would ferve to convince Peter, that he might leave them, and go to preach to the Gentiles". The concern St. Paul had for them and their intereft, was fo tender and paffionate, that he was even ready to wish himself accursed from Chrift, if fo be they might be happy. And now, would not all this their zeal for Christianity in general, and their particular love to their countrymen, excite them to procure a Verfion of these facred books for their use? Nothing can be fuppofed, which would prevent the Apostles from doing this, unless we suppose they were of the same mind with the Papifts, viz. that the Scriptures ought not to be tranflated into the common languages, for the use of the people. But the Apostles were of a different opinion in this matter from their pretended fucceffors, who for interest have made it religion, to keep the people in ignorance. Their grand employment was, to inftruct men in

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[ocr errors]

the hiftory and doctrines of Chrift; and now was any way more likely to do this, than giving them the Scriptures in their own language? The fame reason, which put each of them upon writing in Greek, for the universal benefit of mankind, would very probably influence those of them, who were at Jerufalem, to tranflate their books into the language we are fpeaking of. Well does Tremellius argue on this head 2; "It " is altogether probable”. (he is speaking of the Syriack Verfion), "that it was made in the very beginning of Chrifti

anity, either by the Apoftles or fome of their difciples; un"lefs we will choose rather to believe, that in writing, they "had regard only to those of other nations, and very little, or "C none at all to those of their own." But,

2. If we suppose the Apostles thus negligent of the interest of the believing Jews, and not to have done this for them, we may with a great deal of reason suppose, that they would take care to have it done themselves. Every body knows, how prodigioufly fond the Jewish nation was of the sacred books of the Old Testament, because they came from God; and would not the converted Jews be likewise fond of the books of the New Teftament, which they believed also came from God? They were careful enough to get the Hebrew of the Old Teftament tranflated into Chaldee, and may be as reafonably supposed (I mean they who were converted) to get the Greek of the New Teftament tranflated into Syriack. Upon the whole, I think it fair to conclude, that a Verfion of the New Teftament was made into this language in the time of the Apostles.

[blocks in formation]
« AnteriorContinuar »