The hypo- tlie-:is of trans- lation. S12 llebrew and from the LXX., and even from the same quotations as elsewhere occurring in t.lie New Testament. And this is just what we might expect. A Ilellenist, translating a Hebrew document into Greek (in times when reference to books was far more cuinbrous, and trust to memory far more common, than with us) would be likely to be guided principally by his memory of the LXX., but partly by the Hebrew before him. Hence would result translations slightly varying both from the Hebrew and from the LXX., and from other translations made by contemporaneous writers. This argument is, of course, unati'ected whether the translation was originally made in a document or, as is more probable, in an oral tradition. Some confirmation of this hypothesis is derived from the fact that, although the first book of Maccabees was with- out doubt originally written in Hebrew, yet the quotations in it from Scripture are not translations from the Hebrew version. On the contrary, if the. quotation in 1 Mac. vii. 17 from I’s. lxxviii. (lxxix.) 2?, 3, be compared with the latter passage in the LXX., it will be seen at once that the former, though not identical with the latter (nor with the Hebrew), could not have been written but by a writer familiar with the LX X. version ; compare also 1 Mac. ix. 23 with the LXX. version of Ps. xci. (xcii.) 8. A similar inference would seem to be justified by the statement (De Wette, quoted by Roberts, 1)i'scizssio2z.s on the (1'o81)€[.', p. 50) that Josephus uses the LXX. more than the Hebrew text. Mistranslatiou of an Aramaic original may possibly explain in part some of the confusions in the common tradition noted above (1). 791). It cannot of course be denied that some of these eoii- fusions imply a confusion of Greek, not llebrew, tradition (c.g., i'a'aZ-y-yeaoi, Lu. xx. 36; dis 6:-ryéltoa, Mat. xxii. 30; Mk. xii. 2.3); but some of the changes of construction (r._(/., -zriiaa 1'; -zrepixwpos e'£e-rrooeiis-ro, Mat. iii. 5 and Lu. iii. 3, fihflev sis 1rfia'av 1'-hv -rrepfxwpov, Mk. i. 5) are more easily explicable on the hypothesis of translation. Some of the changes of words are also explicable thus, as may be illustrated by the Latin version. Cominentiiig on the text, “Domino. iie in {wt tiia arguas me, nee iii furore tiio corripias iue," Augustine (Ziegler, p. 10) says that in some codiees of the Latin translations “ira" stands first, and “furor” second, in others “furor” tirst and “ira" second. Compare with this hlat. V. 40, -rqi‘ 9e')ov'ri }aBe?v XlT(:)V(1 bi¢>es at’/T43 1'6 i,u.ai-riov, and Lu. vi. 29, 1-017 a’i'pov1'és a'0v 1-6 i‘p.ci-rior /.u‘7 xw7u§¢r_m -rbv Xmzya, where the phenomena are precisely the same; and note that Mat. (xxvii. 65) has Z,u.d-ria, where M k. (xiv. 63) has xi-rfivvas. Hf somewhat the same type (perhaps) are the passages Mat. vii. 16, (into izuavfléiv ¢r1'acl>v)'/7v, and Lu. Vi. 44, in Bairov a"ra¢>u)')v. In the translations from Greek into the early Latin versions of the New Testament, one very common difl'erence is (besides diver- gent rendering of single words) that one version uses participles where the other uses finite verbs, or relative pronouns where the other uses co-ordinate conjunctions.‘ These snine slight differ- ences are found in several sayings of our Lord where they happen to be twice recorded by the same evangelist. Compare ((1) Lu. viii. 18, ts yap tzv éxy, and Lu. xix. ‘.26, -miv-ri 1'93 ixov-ri (see also Mat. xiii. 12; xxv. 29) ; (6) Lu. viii. 17, oi‘; -ydp e'a"rw npv-Ir'rbv 6 oi} ¢avep6u 'yey1')a'e'rai, and Lu. xii. 2, oi'/Btu be a'v'yueua}u,up.évov e'a"riv 22 of»: &1roxa)u¢>01’;ae-rat (see also Mat. x. 26); (c) Mat. x. 39, 6 ei';p¢‘uu 'r'})v ilauxiw airtoii &1ro)e'a'ea ai/1"i)v, Kai 6 d1ro7e'a'as 'ri;v 1].«vxi)v, ai/‘rot? éaeuev ¢?,u.0ii El‘}DfiO'El at‘/'r1')y_. and Milt. xvi. 25, its yizp efw Oekp 1'-iyv ilavx-by airroi; a'¢3a'ai &1ro7té<7ei ax‘/r-l)v, $5‘ 5’ (iv &1r0}e'n'y 'ri7y_ llwxhv ai:-roii 3'veuev {poi nip-i7a'ei air:--f)v (and (f. Lu. ix. 24; xvii. 25); (d) Mat. V. 32. was 6 oi-rro)iiwv 1'1‘7v -yvvaiua airroii, &c., and Mat. xix. 9, ts &v &-rromfizry, &e. (e) ln the same two passages there appears to be a confusion between “causetli to commit aclnltery" and “committeth adulter_v,”—Mat. v. 32, 1rap£K'r6s Miynvl wopveias, -rroiei ai'rri;v p.osXev9i)i/at, and Mat. xix. 9, psi‘) 6'-rri -Iropueiq . . . poixfirai ; Mat. V. 32, 65 频1u &1ro)e}v,u.e'v-nv 7au.-/1a"_r7, and Mat. xix. 9, 6 &1ro}e7v/.Le'vnv 'ya,u-/1a'as. 'l'liese pas- sages, so'far as they go, would indicate that the compilers of the 1 Compare the Codex (‘orbeiensis and Brixianus (Migne, I’ah-ologice Curs. ('ompl., vol. xii. p. 147) ; of which (1) the former has (Mat. ii. 7) “ Tunc Ilerodes, clam vocatis .lagi's diligenter dirlicit ah eis tempus stellae qua: apparnit eis; et mittens illos in Bethleein, a'1':2:i't ‘ lie at z'nterrogatc."’ &c.; while the latter has (2) 'l‘unc llerodes occultc wcans Magus diligenter exquisivit ab eis tempus qmmzln apparuit eis stella, et 7m'si'( illos in Bethleem, dicens, ‘ Ezlntes 7'eqm'n'te,"’ &e. GOSPELS [svxor'ric.u.. First and Third Gospels did not tliemselves translate from Aramaie originals ; for if they had theniselves been the translators, it would seem that they ould have adopted a uniform rendering in trans- latiiig the s:iiiie or very similar words. Limited though the evi- dence is, it goes to prove that the compilers incorporated in their treatises Greek traiislation::, not all made by themselves, from Arainaic originals. The phenoniena of the ante-.li-roine versions of the New Testa- ment descrve careful C0llSltlt'I'fl.ill)ll in discussing the possible origin of our Greek synoptic. tradition from an .-ramair original. ln a well-known passage, Jerome (Ziegler, Die Lritcz'u2'sclicn Bilirliilm-— schzmgcn T07‘ Ilicronymus, p. 12) complains that there were as many texts as copies of the Latin versions (“tot sunt enim exeinplaria prrne quot codices”), and the occasionally great varii-t_v may be illustrated by comparing an extract from the Codex l’ml.Ini«-iisis (Jnlirbiichcr d. Litrralur, Vienna, 1847, ttdfiil.) with the 'ulgate version of Acts xxvii. 20, 21 :— BOBBII-:.'SlS. Neque sole ntque stellis appnrenzibus permultos dies ct hieine et (t’IIIpt'5tl1Ie ininimia [sir] peiseverante. Jam ampu- tabatur apes omms liberandi nos. El cum jam diu sine eitio cssent. (um slrms I’¢m(us in media ipsoruui nit: 0portu- crat quitlem vos obediri crcdentes mihi I non navigare dc (‘rem ct Iucrari Iianc i7IJul‘l(1l)| et detriinentuin. VL'Lc..'ri=:. .'eque autein sole neque sidcribus appareiilflms per piures dies ct I(’mp(‘.¢- (ate non exiguu iniininente.jam utlata erat spcs omuis salutis nostrae E! rum multa jejunatio fuisset, [mic stuns l'au!us in media corum dixit : ()porIe- bat quidem, 0 viri, audito me, non tollerc a Crew, Iucrique facere 1'w'iu-irun I ham: ct jucturuni. It will be seen at once that there is some siinilarity between the thread common to tliese two Latin versions and the thread common to many passages in Mattliew, Mark, and Luke; though the re- semblance between any two of the three synoptists would generally exceed the resemblance of the two passages quoted above. In most cases, however, the ante-Jerome versions (as represented by the Codex Corbeiensis, Brixianus, 'ercelleiis-is, and Veronensis) agree much more closely together, even more closely than any two of’ the synoptists agree together, and a portion more closely than the three synoptists agree. On the whole, taking into consideration the greater influence of ditlerciitiating causes in the earliest times of the churt.-h than in the. times when the ante-Jerome versions were composed, we may fairly conclude. that if in these later times so great a variety could occur in the process of translation from Creek, the greater variety found in the common tradition, as given by the three synoptists, might well be partly explained in the same way, as originating in p:irt from varieties of translation from llebrew. But then the questions arise—(a) Were the aiite—Jeroine versions independent translations from the Greek text? (12) Or were they divergent corruptioiis of one original Latin translation from the Gi'eek text? (c) Or were they partly indepeiident, but partly modified by some oral tradition or “ecclesiastical use,” which diminished the divergence? On these questions there is not at present a. complete agreement. 'iseniaii maintained that the second (1)) answer was the right one ; but in a recent work (quoted above) Ziegler (p. 123) maintains, with great probability, that the third (c) is correet—viz., that the oral catecliiziiig and preaching in the Latin churches modified and assimilated translations otherwise independent. It is extremely probable that the same liypothesis of combined canses—(1) translations from Aramaic documents, (:2) influence of oral Greek tradition—niay explain much of the agreement and variation in the passages common to the three synoptists. The ditierence between the Triple Tradition of Matthew, Mark and Luke and the Double Tradition of .Iatthew and 9 7 Luke will, at this stage, occur to us as an important feature in our evidence. The widely diti'erent phenomena of the Double and the Triple Traditions suggest different origins for the two traditions. Many of the passages common to Matthew and Luke agree together far more closely than even the Latin versions of the Greek Gospels. It. would seem to follow that in such cases Matthew and Luke used one and the same Greek docuinent—a translation of some Aramaic original—which document had not undergone much modification by oral tradition before passing into the several treatises of Matthew and Luke. On the other hand, the more varying language of the Triple Tradition, together with the additions and omis- sions of the three writers, suggests independent trans- lations of an Aramaic original ; (b) occasional resemblances suggested by the general “usus ecclcsiasticus ”; diver- gences created by the local “usus ecclesiasticus,” or by the individual style of the editor or editors.
Date Q/' the ;S'_g/noptic Wrz'ters.—Tlie composite nature of