From The Talmud And Hebraica
By John Lightfoot
Matthew
Matthew Chapter 1
1:1 The book of the generation of
Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
[The book of the generation of Jesus
Christ.] Ten stocks came out of Babylon: 1. Priests.
2. Levites. 3. Israelites. 4. Common persons, as to
the priesthood: such whose fathers, indeed, were sprung from priests,
but their mothers unfit to be admitted to the priests' marriage-bed. 5.
Proselytes. 6. Liberti, or servants set free. 7.
Nothi: such as were born in wedlock; but that which was unlawful. 8.
Nethinims. 9. Bastards: such as came of a certain mother,
but of an uncertain father. 10. Such as were gathered up out of
the streets, whose fathers and mothers were uncertain.
A defiled generation indeed! and,
therefore, brought up out of Babylon in this common sink, according to
the opinion of the Hebrews, that the whole Jewish seed still remaining
there might not be polluted by it. For Ezra went not up out of
Babylon, until he had rendered it pure as flour. They are the words
of the Babylonian Gemara, which the Gloss explains thus; "He left not
any there that were illegitimate in any respect, but the priests and
Levites only, and Israelites of a pure and undefiled stock. Therefore,
he brought up with him these ten kinds of pedigrees, that these might
not be mingled with those, when there remained now no more a Sanhedrim
there, which might take care of that matter. Therefore he brought them
to Jerusalem, where care might be taken by the Sanhedrim fixed there,
that the legitimate might not marry with the illegitimate."
Let us think of these things a little
while we are upon our entrance into the Gospel-history:
I. How great a cloud of obscurity could
not but arise to the people concerning the original of Christ, even from
the very return out of Babylon, when they either certainly saw, or
certainly believed that they saw, a purer spring of Jewish blood there
than in the land of Israel itself!
II. How great a care ought there to be
in the families of pure blood, to preserve themselves untouched and
clean from this impure sink; and to lay up among themselves genealogical
scrolls from generation to generation as faithful witnesses and lasting
monuments of their legitimate stock and free blood!
Hear a complaint and a story in this
case: "R. Jochanan said, By the Temple, it is in our hand to discover
who are not of pure blood in the land of Israel: but what shall I do,
when the chief men of this generation lie hid?" (that is, when they are
not of pure blood, and yet we must not declare so much openly concerning
them). "He was of the same opinion with R. Isaac, who said, A family
(of the polluted blood) that lies hid, let it lie hid. Abai also
saith, We have learned this also by tradition, That there was a certain
family called the family of Beth-zeripha, beyond Jordan, and a son of
Zion removed it away." (The Gloss is, Some eminent man, by a public
proclamation, declared it impure.) "But he caused another which was
such" [that is, impure] "to come near. and there was another which the
wise men would not manifest."
III. When it especially lay upon the
Sanhedrim, settled at Jerusalem to preserve pure families, as much as in
them lay, pure still; and when they prescribed canons of preserving the
legitimation of the people (which you may see in those things that
follow at the place alleged), there was some necessity to lay up public
records of pedigrees with them: whence it might be known what family was
pure, and what defiled. Hence that of Simon Ben Azzai deserves our
notice: "I saw (saith he) a genealogical scroll in Jerusalem, in which
it was thus written; 'N., a bastard of a strange wife.'" Observe, that
even a bastard was written in their public books of genealogy, that he
might be known to be a bastard, and that the purer families might take
heed of the defilement of his seed. Let that also be noted: "They found
a book of genealogy at Jerusalem, in which it was thus written; 'Hillel
was sprung from David. Ben Jatsaph from Asaph. Ben Tsitsith Hacceseth
from Abner. Ben Cobisin from Achab,'" &c. And the records of the
genealogies smell of those things which are mentioned in the text of the
Misna concerning 'wood-carrying': "The priests' and people's times of
wood-carrying were nine: on the first day of the month Nisan, for the
sons of Erach, the sons of Judah: the twentieth day of Tammuz, for the
sons of David, the son of Judah: the fifth day of Ab, for the sons of
Parosh, the son of Judah: the seventh of the same month for the sons of
Jonadab the son of Rechab: the tenth of the same for the sons of Senaah,
the son of Benjamin," &c.
It is, therefore, easy to guess whence
Matthew took the last fourteen generations of this genealogy, and Luke
the first forty names of his; namely, from the genealogical scrolls at
that time well enough known, and laid up in the public repositories, and
in the private also. And it was necessary, indeed, in so noble and
sublime a subject, and a thing that would be so much inquired into by
the Jewish people as the lineage of the Messiah would be, that the
evangelists should deliver a truth, not only that could not be gainsaid,
but also that might be proved and established from certain and undoubted
rolls of ancestors.
[Of Jesus Christ.] That the name
of Jesus is so often added to the name of Christ in the
New Testament, is not only that thereby Christ might be pointed out for
the Saviour, which the name Jesus signifies; but also,
that Jesus might be pointed out for true Christ: against the
unbelief of the Jews, who though they acknowledged a certain Messiah,
or Christ, yet they stiffly denied that Jesus of Nazareth
was he. This observation takes place in numberless places of the New
Testament;
Acts 2:36, 8:35;
1 Corinthians 16:22;
1 John 2:22, 4:15, &c.
[The Son of David.] That is,
"the true Messias." For by no more ordinary and more proper name did the
Jewish nation point out the Messiah than by The Son of David. See
Matthew 12:23, 21:9, 22:42;
Luke 18:38; and everywhere in the Talmudic writings, but especially
in Bab. Sanhedrim: where it is also discussed, What kind of times those
should be when the Son of David should come.
The things which are devised by the
Jews concerning Messiah Ben Joseph (which the Targum upon
Canticles 4:5 calls 'Messiah Ben Ephraim') are therefore devised, to
comply with their giddiness and loss of judgment in their opinion of the
Messiah. For, since they despised the true Messiah, who came in the time
fore-allotted by the prophets, and crucified him; they still expect I
know not what chimerical one, concerning whom they have no certain
opinion: whether he shall be one, or two; whether he shall arise from
among the living, or from the dead; whether he shall come in the clouds
of heaven, or sitting upon an ass, &c.: they expect a Son of David;
but they know not whom, they know not when.
2. Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac
begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;
[Judas.] In Hebrew, Jehudah.
Which word not only the Greeks, for want of the letter "h" in the middle
of a word, but the Jews themselves, do contract into Judah: which
occurs infinite times in the Jerusalem Talmud. The same person who is
called R. Jose Bi R. Jehudah, in the next line is called R.
Jose Bi R. Judah...
5. And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab;
and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;
[Booz of Rachab.] So far the
Jewish writers agree with Matthew, that they confess Rachab was married
to some prince of Israel, but mistaking concerning the person: whether
they do this out of ignorance, or wilfully, let themselves look to that.
Concerning this matter, the Babylonian Gemara hath these words: "Eight
prophets and those priests sprung from Rachab, and they are these,
Neriah, Baruch, Seraiah, Maaseiah, Jeremiah, Hilkiah, Hanameel, and
Shallum. R. Judah saith, Huldah also was of the posterity of Rachab."
And a little after, "There is a tradition, that she, being made a
proselytess, was married to Joshua": which Kimchi also produceth in
Joshua 6. Here the Gloss casts in a scruple: "It sounds somewhat
harshly (saith it), that Joshua married one that was made a proselyte,
when it was not lawful to contract marriage with the Canaanites, though
they became proselytes. Therefore we must say that she was not of the
seven nations of the Canaanites, but of some other nation, and sojourned
there. But others say that that prohibition took not place before the
entrance into the promised land," &c.
8. And Asa begat Josaphat; and
Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;
[And Joram begat Ozias.] The
names of Ahazias, Joash, and Amazias, are struck out. See the history in
the books of the Kings, and
1 Chronicles 3:11, 12.
I. The promise that "the throne of
David should not be empty," passed over, after a manner, for some time
into the family of Jehu, the overthrower of Joram's family. For when he
had razed the house of Ahab, and had slain Ahaziah, sprung, on the
mother's side, of the family of Ahab, the Lord promiseth him that his
sons should reign unto the fourth generation,
2 Kings 10:30. Therefore however the mean time the throne of David
was not empty, and that Joash and Amazias sat during the space between,
yet their names are not unfitly omitted by our evangelist, both because
they were sometimes not very unlike Joram in their manners; and because
their kingdom was very much eclipsed by the kingdom of Israel, when
Ahazias was slain by Jehu, and his cousin Amazias taken and basely
subdued by his cousin Joash,
2 Chronicles 25:23.
II. "The seed of the wicked shall be
cut off,"
Psalm 37:28. Let the studious reader observe that, in the original,
in this very place, the letter Ain, which is the last letter of
wicked, and of seed, is cut off, and is not expressed; when,
by the rule of acrostic verse (according to which this Psalm is
composed), that letter ought to begin the next following verse.
III. "Thou shalt not make to thyself
any graven image, &c. For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God; visiting
the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth
generation," (Exodus
20:5.
Joram walked in the idolatrous ways of
the kings of Israel, according to the manner of the family of Ahab,
2 Kings 8:18. Which horrid violation of the second command God
visits upon his posterity, according to the threatening of that command;
and therefore the names of his sons are dashed out unto the fourth
generation.
IV. The Old Testament also stigmatizeth
that idolatry of Joram in a way not unlike this of the New; and shows
that family unworthy to be numbered among David's progeny,
2 Chronicles 22:2: Ahazias, the son of two and forty years:
that is, not of his age (for he was not above two-and-twenty,
2 Kings 8:26), but of the duration of the family of Omri, of which
stock Ahazias was, on the mother's side; as will sufficiently appear to
him that computes the years. A fatal thing surely! that the years of a
king of Judah should be reckoned by the account of the house of Omri.
V. Let a genealogical style not much
different be observed,
1 Chronicles 4:1; where Shobal, born in the fifth or sixth
generation from Judah, is reckoned as if he were an immediate son of
Judah. Compare chapter 2:50.
In the like manner,
Ezra 7, in the genealogy of Ezra, five or six generations are
erased.
[Please see
Genealogies of the Bible: A Neglected Subject (111k) etc. at the
Arthur Custance, Doorway Papers Library site regarding these lists and
the "missing" names.]
11. And Josias begat Jechonias and
his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:
[And Josias begat Jechonias.]
The sons of Josias were these: the first-born, Jochanan; the second,
Joachim; the third, Zedekiah; the fourth, Shallum,
1 Chronicles 3:15. Who this Shallum was, the Jerusalem Talmudists do
dispute: "R. Jochanan saith, Jochanan and Jehoachaz were the same. And
when it is written, Jochanan the first-born, it means this; that
he was the first-born to the kingdom: that is, he first reigned. And R.
Jochanan saith, Shallum and Zedekias are the same. And when it is
written, Zedekias the third Shallum the fourth; he was the third in
birth, but he reigned fourth." The same things are produced in the tract
Sotah. But R. Kimchi much more correctly: "Shallum (saith he) is
Jechonias, who had two names, and was reckoned for the son of Josias,
when he was his grandchild" (or the son of his son); "For the sons of
sons are reputed for sons." Compare
Jeremiah 22:11 with 24; and the thing itself speaks it. And that
which the Gemarists now quoted say, Zedekiah was also called Shallum,
because in his days 'Shalmah,' 'an end was put to' the kingdom of the
family of David: this also agrees very fitly to Jechonias,
Jeremiah 22:28-30.
12. And after they were brought to
Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;
[Jechonias begat Salathiel.]
That is, "a son of the kingdom," or successor in that dignity of the
house of David, whatsoever it was, which was altogether withered in the
rest of the sons of Josiah, but did somewhat flourish again in him,
2 Kings 25:27. And hence it is, that of all the posterity of Josiah,
Jechonias only is named by St. Matthew.
Jechonias, in truth, was without
children,
Jeremiah 22:30; and Salathiel, properly speaking, was the son of
Neri,
Luke 3:27: but yet Jechonias is said to beget him; not that he was
truly his father, but that the other was his successor; not, indeed, in
his kingly dignity, for that was now perished, but in that which now was
the chief dignity among the Jews.
So 1 Chronicles 3:16, Zedekias is called the son, either of
Jehoiakim, whose brother indeed he was, or of Jechonias, whose uncle he
was; because he succeeded him in the kingly dignity.
The Lord had declared, and that not
without an oath, that Jechonias should be without children. The
Talmudists do so interpret "R. Judah saith, All they of whom it is said,
These shall be without children; they shall have no children. And
those of whom it is said, They shall die without children; they
bury their children." [Lev
20:2021.]
So Kimchi also upon the place; "The
word (saith he) means this; That his sons shall die in his life, if he
shall now have sons: but if he shall not now have sons, he never shall.
But our Rabbins of blessed memory say, That he repented in prison. And
they say moreover, Oh! how much doth repentance avail, which evacuates a
penal edict! for it is said, 'Write ye this man childless': but, he
repenting, this edict turned to his good," &c. "R. Jochanan saith, His
carrying away expiated. For when it is said, 'Write this man childless,'
after the carrying away it is said, 'The sons of Coniah, Assir his son,
Shealtiel his son.'" These things are in Babyl. Sanhedrim, where these
words are added, "Assir his son, because his mother conceived him in
prison."
But the words in the original (1
Chron 3:17) are these...Now the sons of Jechonias bound [or
imprisoned] were Shealtiel his son. Which version both the accents
and the order of the words confirm...
16. And Jacob begat Joseph the
husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
[And Jacob begat Joseph the husband
of Mary.] The mother's family is not to be called a family.
Hence the reason may very easily be given, why Matthew brings down the
generation to Joseph, Mary's husband; but Luke to Eli, Mary's father.
These two frame the genealogy two ways, according to the double notion
of the promise of Christ. For he is promised, as the 'seed of the
woman,' and as the 'Son of David'; that, as a man, this, as a king. It
was therefore needful, in setting down his genealogy, that satisfaction
should be given concerning both. Therefore Luke declareth him the
promised seed of the woman, deducing his mother's stock, from whence man
was born, from Adam; Matthew exhibits his royal original, deriving his
pedigree along through the royal family of David to Joseph, his
(reputed) father.
17. So all the generations from
Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until
the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from
the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen
generations.
[Fourteen generations.] Although
all things do not square exactly in this threefold number of fourteen
generations, yet there is no reason why this should be charged as a
fault upon Matthew, when in the Jewish schools themselves it obtained
for a custom, yea, almost for an axiom, to reduce things and numbers to
the very same, when they were near alike. The thing will be plain by an
example or two, when a hundred almost might be produced.
Five calamitous things are ascribed to
the same day, that is, to the ninth day of the month Ab. "For that day
(say they) it was decreed, That the people should not go into the
promised land: the same day, the first Temple was laid waste, and the
second also: the city Bitter was destroyed, and the city Jerusalem
ploughed up." Not that they believed all these things fell out precisely
the same day of the month; but, as the Babylonian Gemara notes upon it,
That they might reduce a fortunate thing to a holy day, and an
unfortunate to an unlucky day.
The Jerusalem Gemara, in the same
tract, examines the reason why the daily prayers consist of the number
of eighteen, and among other things hath these words; "The daily prayers
are eighteen, according to the number of the eighteen Psalms, from the
beginning of the Book of Psalms to that Psalm whose beginning is, 'The
Lord hear thee in the day of trouble,'" [which Psalm, indeed, is the
twentieth Psalm]. "But if any object, that nineteen Psalms reach
thither, you may answer, The Psalm which begins, 'Why did the heathen
rage,' is not of them," a distinct Psalm. Behold, with what liberty they
fit numbers to their own case.
Inquiry is made, whence the number of
the thirty-nine more principal servile works, to be avoided on the
sabbath-day, may be proved. Among other, we meet with these words; "R.
Chaninah of Zippor saith, in the name of R. Abhu, Aleph denotes
one,Lamed thirty, He five, Dabar one, Debarim
two. Hence are the forty works, save one, concerning which it is written
in the law. The Rabbins of Caesarea say, Not any thing is wanting out of
his place: Aleph one, Lamed thirty, Cheth eight:
our profound doctors do not distinguish between He and Cheth": that
they may fit number to their case...
"R. Joshua Ben Levi saith, In all my
whole life I have not looked into the [mystical] book of Agada
but once; and then I looked into it, and found it thus written, A
hundred and seventy-five sections of the law; where it is written, He
spake, he said, he commanded, they are for the number of the years
of our father Abraham." And a little after; "A hundred and forty and
seven Psalms, which are written in the Book of the Psalms [note this
number], are for the number of the years of our father Jacob. Whence
this is hinted, that all the praises wherewith the Israelites praise God
are according to the years of Jacob. Those hundred and twenty and three
times, wherein the Israelites answer Hallelujah, are according to the
number of the years of Aaron," &c.
They do so very much delight in such
kind of concents, that they oftentimes screw up the strings beyond the
due measure, and stretch them till they crack. So that if a Jew carps at
thee, O divine Matthew, for the unevenness of thy fourteens, out of
their own schools and writings thou hast that, not only whereby thou
mayest defend thyself, but retort upon them.
18. Now the birth of
Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to
Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy
Ghost.
[When as his mother was espoused]
No woman of Israel was married, unless she had been first espoused.
"Before the giving of the law (saith Maimonides), if the man and the
woman had agreed about marriage, he brought her into his house, and
privately married her. But after the giving of the law, the Israelites
were commanded, that, if any were minded to take a woman for his wife,
he should receive her, first, before witnesses; and thenceforth let her
be to him a wife, as it is written, If any one take a wife. This
taking is one of the affirmative precepts of the law, and is
called espousing." Of the manner and form of espousing, you may
read till you are weary, in that tractate, and in the Talmudic tract,
Kiddushin.
[Before they came together.] "In
many places the man espouseth the woman; but doth not bring her home to
him, but after some space of time." So the Gloss upon Maimonides.
Distinction is made by the Jewish
canons, and that justly and openly, between private society or
discourse between the espouser and the espoused, and the bringing
of the espoused into the husband's house. Of either of the two may those
words be understood, before they came together, or, rather, of
them both. He had not only not brought her home to him, but he had no
manner of society with her alone, beyond the canonical limits of
discourse, that were allowed to unmarried persons; and yet she was found
with child.
[She was found with child.]
Namely, after the space of three months from her conception, when she
was now returned home from her cousin Elizabeth. See
Luke 1:56, and compare
Genesis 38:24.
The masters of the traditions assign
this space to discover a thing of that nature. "A woman (say they) who
is either put away from her husband, or become a widow, neither marrieth,
nor is espoused, but after ninety days: namely, that it may be known,
whether she be big with child or no; and that distinction may be made
between the offspring of the first husband and of the second. In like
manner, a husband and wife, being made proselytes, are parted from one
another for ninety days, that judgment may be made between children
begotten in holiness," (that is, within the true religion; see
1 Cor 7:14) "And children begotten out of holiness."
19. Then Joseph her husband, being a
just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was
minded to put her away privily.
[But Joseph, being a just man,
&c.] There is no need to rack the word just, to fetch out thence
the sense of gentleness or mercy, which many do; for,
construing the clauses of the verse separately, the sense will appear
clear and soft enough, Joseph, being a just man, could not, would
not, endure an adulteress: but yet not willing to make her a public
example, being a merciful man, and loving his wife, was minded to
put her away privily.
[To make her a public example.]
This doth not imply death, but rather public disgrace, to make her
public. For it may, not without reason, be inquired, whether she
would have been brought to capital punishment, if it had been true that
she had conceived by adultery. For although there was a law promulged of
punishing adultery with death,
Leviticus 10:10,
Deuteronomy 22:22, and, in this case, she that was espoused, would
be dealt withal after the same manner as it was with her who was become
a wife; yet so far was that law modified, that I say not weakened, by
the law of giving a bill of divorce,
Deuteronomy 24:1, &c., that the husband might not only pardon his
adulterous wife, and not compel her to appear before the Sanhedrim, but
scarcely could, if he would, put her to death. For why otherwise was the
bill of divorce indulged?
Joseph, therefore, endeavours to do
nothing here, but what he might, with the full consent both of the law
and nation. The adulteress might be put away; she that was espoused
could not be put away without a bill of divorce; concerning which thus
the Jewish laws: "A woman is espoused three ways; by money, or by a
writing, or by being lain with. And being thus espoused, though she were
not yet married, nor conducted into the man's house, yet she is his
wife. And if any shall lie with her beside him, he is to be punished
with death by the Sanhedrim. And if he himself will put her away, he
must have a bill of divorce."
[Put her away privily.] Let the
Talmudic tract 'Gittin' be looked upon, where they are treating of the
manner of delivering a bill of divorce to a wife to be put away: among
other things, it might be given privately, if the husband so pleased,
either into the woman's hand or bosom, two witnesses only present.
23. Behold, a virgin shall be with
child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name
Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
[Behold, a virgin shall be with
child.] That the word virgin, in the prophet, denotes an
untouched virgin, sufficiently appears from the sense of the place,
Isaiah 7:14. King Ahaz there was afraid, lest the enemies that were
now upon him might destroy Jerusalem, and utterly consume the house of
David. The Lord meets this fear by a signal and most remarkable promise,
namely, 'that sooner should a pure virgin bring forth a child, than the
family of David perish.' And the promise yields a double comfort:
namely, of Christ hereafter to be born of a virgin; and of their
security from the imminent danger of the city and house of David. So
that, although that prophecy, of a virgin's bringing forth a son,
should not be fulfilled till many hundreds of years after, yet, at that
present time, when the prophecy was made, Ahaz had a certain and notable
sign, that the house of David should be safe and secure from the danger
that hung over it. As much as if the prophet had said, "Be no so
troubled, O Ahaz; does it not seem an impossible thing to thee, and that
never will happen, that a pure virgin should become a mother? But
I tell thee, a pure virgin shall bring forth a son, before the
house of David perish."
Hear this, O unbelieving Jew! and shew
us now some remainders of the house of David: or confess this prophecy
fulfilled in the Virgin's bringing forth: or deny that a sign was
given, when a sign is given.
In what language Matthew wrote his
Gospel.
[Which is, being interpreted.]
I. All confess that the Syriac language was the mother-tongue to the
Jewish nation dwelling in Judea; and that the Hebrew was not at all
understood by the common people may especially appear from two things:
1. That, in the synagogues, when the
law and the prophets were read in the original Hebrew, an interpreter
was always present to the reader, who rendered into the mother-tongue
that which was read, that it might be understood by the common people.
Hence those rules of the office of an interpreter, and of some places
which were not to be rendered into the mother-tongue.
2. That Jonathan the son of Uzziel, a
scholar of Hillel, about the time of Christ's birth, rendered all the
prophets (that is, as the Jews number them, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, the
Books of the Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve lesser
prophets) into the Chaldee language; that is, into a language much more
known to the people than the Hebrew, and more acceptable than the
mother-tongue. For if it be asked why he translated them at all, and why
he translated not rather into the mother-tongue, which was known to all?
and if it be objected concerning St. Matthew and St. Paul, that, writing
to the Jews, one his Gospel, the other his Epistle (to the Hebrews),
they must have written in the Syriac tongue (if so be they wrote not in
Hebrew), that they might be understood by all:--we answer,
First, It was not without reason that
the paraphrast Jonathan translated out of the Hebrew original into the
Chaldee tongue, because this tongue was much more known and familiar to
all the people than the Hebrew. The holy text had need of an interpreter
into a more known tongue, because it was now in a tongue not known at
all to the vulgar. For none knew the Hebrew but such as learned it by
study. However, therefore, all the Jews inhabiting the land of Canaan,
did not so readily understand the Chaldee language as the Syriac, which
was their mother-language, yet they much more readily understood that
than the Hebrew, which, to the unlearned, was not known at all. Hence it
was not without necessity that the prophets were turned into the Chaldee
language by Jonathan, and the law, not much after, by Onkelos, that they
might a little be understood by the common people, by whom the Hebrew
original was not understood at all. We read also that the Book of Job
had its Targum in the time of Gamaliel the Elder; that is, Paul's
master.
Secondly, it is no impertinent
question, Why Jonathan and Onkelos did not rather translate into the
Syriac language, which was the mother-language to all the people, when
both they themselves were in Judea, while they were employed about this
work, and laboured in it for the use of the Jews that dwelt there? To
which we give this double answer; 1. That, by turning it into the
Chaldee language, they did a thing that might be of use to both them
that dwelt in Judea, and in Babylon also. 2. The Syriac language was not
so grateful unto the Jews, who used it for their mother-tongue, as the
Chaldee was; as being a language more neat and polite, and the
mother-tongue to the brethren in Babylon, and which they that came up
out of Babylon, carried thence with them into Judea. You may wonder,
reader, when you hear that canon which permits a single man "to say his
prayers in any language, when he asks those things that are needful for
him, except only the Syriac: While he asketh necessaries for himself,
let him use any language but the Syriac." But you will laugh when
you hear the reason: "Therefore, by all means, because the angels do not
understand the Syriac language."
Whether they distinguish the Syriac
language here from the pure Chaldee, is not of great moment solicitously
to inquire: we shall only produce these things of the Glosser upon
Beracoth, which make to our purpose:--"There are some (saith he) who
say, that that prayer which begins 'sermon,' is therefore to be made in
the Syriac language, because it is a noble prayer, and that deserves the
highest praise; and therefore it is framed in the Targumistical
language, that the angels may not understand it, and envy it to us," &c.
And a little after; "It was the custom to recite that prayer after
sermon: and the common people were there present, who understood not
the Hebrew language at all; and therefore they appointed it to be framed
in the Targumistical language, that it might be understood by all; for
this is their tongue."
Mark, the Hebrew was altogether unknown
to the common people: no wonder, therefore, if the evangelists and
apostles wrote not in Hebrew when there were none who understood things
so written, but learned men only.
That also must not be passed over,
which, at first sight, seems to hint that the Syriac language was not
understood even by learned men. "Samuel the Little, at the point of
death, said, Simeon and Ismael to the sword; and all the other people
to the spoil: and there shall be very great calamities." And because he
spoke these things in the Syriac language, they understood not what he
had said. This story you have repeated in the Babylonian Gemara,
where the words of the dying man are thus related; Let the Glosser upon
the place be the interpreter: "Simeon and Ismael to the sword
[that is, Rabban Simeon the prince, and R. Ismael Ben Elisha the
high-priest, were slain with the sword], and his fellows to slaughter
[that is, R. Akibah and R. Chananiah Ben Teradion were slain by other
deaths; namely R. Akibah by iron teeth, and R. Chananiah by burning
alive before idols]; and the other people for a prey: and very many
calamities shall fall upon the world."
Now where it is said that, "They
understood not what he said, because he spake in the Syrian tongue," we
also do not easily understand. What! for the Jerusalem doctors not to
understand the Chaldee language! For Samuel the Little died before the
destruction of the city; and he spake of the death of Rabban Simeon, who
perished in the siege of the city; and he spake these things when some
of the learnedest Rabbins were by: and yet that they understood not
these words, which even a smatterer in the oriental tongues would very
easily understand!
Therefore, perhaps, you may beat out
the sense of the matter from the words of the author of Juchasin, who
saith, He prophesied in the Syriac language, But now, when
prophecies were spoken only in the Hebrew language, however they
understood the sense of the words, yet they reputed it not for a
prophecy, because it was not uttered in the language that was proper for
prophetical predictions. But we tarry not here. That which we would have
is this, that Matthew wrote not in Hebrew (which is proved sufficiently
by what is spoken before), if so be we suppose him to have written in a
language vulgarly known and understood; which, certainly, we ought to
suppose: not that he, or the other writers of the New Testament, wrote
in the Syriac language, unless we suppose them to have written in the
ungrateful language of an ungrateful nation, which, certainly, we ought
not to suppose. For when the Jewish people were now to be cast off, and
to be doomed to eternal cursing, it was very improper, certainly, to
extol their language, whether it were the Syriac mother-tongue, or the
Chaldee, its cousin language, unto that degree of honour; that it should
be the original language of the New Testament. Improper, certainly, it
was, to write the Gospel in their tongue, who, above all the inhabitants
of the world, most despised and opposed it.
II. Since, therefore, the Gentiles were
to be called to the faith, and to embrace the Gospel by the preaching of
it, the New Testament was written very congruously in the Gentile
language, and in that which, among the Gentile languages, was the most
noble; viz. the Greek. Let us see what the Jews say of this language,
envious enough against all languages besides their own.
"Rabban Simeon Ben Gamaliel saith, Even
concerning the holy books, the wise men permitted not that they should
be written in any other language than Greek. R. Abhu saith that R.
Jochanan said, The tradition is according to Rabban Simeon; that R.
Jochanan said, moreover, Whence is that of Rabban Simeon proved? From
thence, that the Scripture saith, 'The Lord shall persuade Japhet, and
he shall dwell in the tents of Sem': the words of Japhet shall be in the
tents of Sem": and a little after, God shall persuade Japhet;
i.e. The grace of Japhet shall be in the tents of Sem." Where the
Gloss speaks thus; "'The grace of Japhet' is the Greek language; the
fairest of those tongues which belonged to the sons of Japhet."
"Rabban Simeon Ben Gamaliel saith, Even
concerning the sacred books, they permitted not that they should be
written in any other language than Greek. They searched seriously, and
found, that the law could not be translated according to what was
needful for it, but in Greek." You have this latter clause cut off
in Massecheth Sopherim, where this story also is added: "The five elders
wrote the law in Greek for Ptolemy the king: and that day was bitter to
Israel, as the day wherein the golden calf was made, because the law
could not be translated according to what was needful for it." This
story of the 'five interpreters' of the law is worthy of consideration,
which you find seldom mentioned, or scarce anywhere else. The tradition
next following after this, in the place cited, recites the story of the
Seventy. Look at it.
When, therefore, the common use of the
Hebrew language had perished, and when the mother Syriac or Chaldee
tongue of a cursed nation could not be blessed, our very enemies being
judges, no other language could be found, which might be fit to write
the (new) divine law, besides the Greek tongue. That this language was
scattered, and in use among all the eastern nations almost, and was in a
manner the mother tongue, and that it was planted every where by the
conquests of Alexander, and the empire of the Greeks, we need not many
words to prove; since it is every where to be seen in the historians.
The Jews do well near acknowledge it for their mother-tongue even in
Judea.
"R. Jochanan of Beth Gubrin said, There
are four noble languages which the world useth; the mother-tongue, for
singing; the Roman, for war; the Syriac, for mourning; and the Hebrew,
for elocution: and there are some who say, the Assyrian for writing."
What is that which he calls the mother-tongue? It is very easily
answered, the Greek, from those encomiums added to it, mentioned before:
and that may more confidently be affirmed from the words of Midras
Tillin, respecting this saying of R. Jochanan, and mentioning the Greek
language by name. "R. Jochanan said, There are three languages; the
Roman, for war; the Greek, for speech; the Assyrian, for prayer." To
this also belongs that, that occurs once and again in Bab. Megillah,
In the Greek mother tongue. You have an instance of the thing; "R.
Levi, coming to Caesarea, heard some reciting the phylacteries in the
Hellenistical language." This is worthy to be marked. At Caesarea
flourished the famous schools of the Rabbins. The Rabbins of Caesarea
are mentioned in both Talmuds most frequently, and with great praise,
but especially in that of Jerusalem. But yet among these, the Greek is
used as the mother-tongue, and that in reciting the phylacteries, which,
you may well think, above all other things, in Judea were to be said in
Hebrew.
In that very Caesarea, Jerome mentions
the Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew, to be laid up in the library of
Pamphilus, in these words: "Matthew, who was also called Levi, from a
publican made an apostle, first of all in Judea composed the Gospel of
Christ in Hebrew letters and words, for their sakes, who were of the
circumcision and believed. Which Gospel, who he was that afterward
translated it into Greek, it is not sufficiently know. Moreover, that
very Hebrew Gospel is reserved to this day in the library at Caesarea,
which Pamphilus the martyr, with much care, collected. I also had leave
given me by the Nazarenes, who use this book in Berea, a city of Syria,
to write it out."
It is not at all to be doubted, that
this Gospel was found in Hebrew; but that which deceived the good man
was not the very handwriting of Matthew, nor, indeed, did Matthew write
the Gospel in that language: but it was turned by somebody out of the
original Greek into Hebrew, that so, if possible, the learned Jews might
read it. For since they had little kindness for foreign books, that is,
heathen books, or such as were written in a language different from
their own, which might be illustrated from various canons, concerning
this matter; some person converted to the gospel, excited with a good
zeal, seems to have translated this Gospel of St. Matthew out of the
Greek original into the Hebrew language, that learned men among the
Jews, who as yet believed not, might perhaps read it, being now
published in their language: which was rejected by them while it
remained in a foreign speech. Thus, I suppose, this gospel was written
in Greek by St. Matthew, for the sake of those that believed in Judea,
and turned into Hebrew by somebody else, for the sake of those that did
not believe.
The same is to be resolved concerning
the original language of the Epistle to the Hebrews. That Epistle was
written to the Jews inhabiting Judea, to whom the Syriac was the
mother-tongue; but yet it was writ in Greek, for the reasons above
named. For the same reasons, also, the same apostle writ in Greek to the
Romans, although in that church there were Romans, to whom it might seem
more agreeable to have written in Latin; and there were Jews, to whom it
might seem more proepr to have written in Syriac.
Table
of Contents
