[OCT. tion CEBACHTHN2N. L. OP, of the Sebastians the year evi, and on another CEBACTHNON CTP. CIE. of the Sebastians of Syria, the year CCXV. For these see also Patin.* Of Sichem, a Samaritan city called afterwards Neapolis, Greek coins are also found with the inscription ΦΛΑΟΥΙ. ΝΕΑΠΟΛΙ ΣΑ· MAPEIAE. L. AI. Of these several may be seen in Spanheimt and other writers. Not to be tedious, however, the same practice prevailed in Cæsarea, Paneas, Raphia, Gaza, Gadara, Livia, Ramatha, Azotus, Ascalon, and other cities that bordered upon Judea. But further, these coins not only bore Greek inscriptions, but Greek names also were commonly given them by the Jews, for instance those of Drachma, Dedrachma, Stater and Denarius. (Δραχμή, Δίδραχμον, Στατὴρ, Δηναρίον.) These occur in the New Testament. That they gave these Greek names to their current coins, is clear at once from the impropriety of calling Greek moneys by Hebrew names, and from these names, and from these names only, occurring in the New Testament, and not in the Old. But the word Stater occurs in the Old Testament it may be said, and Drachma at least three times in Nehemiah; to which our reply is that it is so in our Latin Vulgate, but not in the Hebrew and Chaldee. Where we exhibit Stateres the Hebrew reads bp Seckalim; and the original of our Drachma is in the Chal .דרכמון dee As, then, it is quite certain that, long before the time of Christ, the Jews used not only money with Greek inscriptions, but called by Greek names, we are bound to own that they must have spoken Greek. §3. The Jews made use of the Greek language in their Inscriptions. We here call in the aid of Inscriptions, a testimony of equal value with the last in the estimation of critics. The first of these which we shall quote will be that in the Lorica or outer court of the temple. By this persons were warned, on pain of death, whether Jews, the subjects of ceremonial pollution, (such as the emission of seed, the menstrual flux and those that came into contact with it,) or strangers, not to enter the inner * Patinus, ibid. p. 265. + Spanhem. de V. et P. Numis. Vaillant. loc. cit. p. Nehem. cap. 7, v. 70 ad 72. 279. court. For this see Maimonides.* After the temple was rebuilt Josephus reports that two inscriptions were carved in the outer court-one in Greek and the other in Latin. 'Ev avığ d' ɛior'κεισαν ἐξ ἴσου διαστήματος στῆλαι, τὸν τῆς ἁγνείας προσημαίνουσαι νόμον, αἱ μὲν Ἑλληνικοῖς, αἱ δὲ Ρωμαϊκοῖς γράμμασι, μὴ δεῖν ἀλλόφυλον ἐντὸς τοῦ ἁγίου παριέναι. “ In it stood pillars equal distances from each other, which exhibited the law of purity inscribed both in Greek and Roman characters, to the effect that " no foreigner should pass within the Sanctuary."+ The Antiquities present another passage of the same purport. Εἰς τοῦτο τοῦ λαοῦ πάντες, οἱ διαφέροντες ἁγνείᾳ καὶ παρατήρησει τῶν νομίμων, εἰσῄεσαν ; “ Into this temple any of the people had licence to enter, provided he was free from pollution and observant of the precepts of the law." On the subject of this prohibition too, Titus, the Roman General, thus addresses the Jews: Αρ ̓ οὐκ ὑμεῖς, ὦ μιαρώτατοι, τὸν δρύφακτον τοῦτον προσβάλεσθε τῶν ἁγίων ; οὐχ ὑμεῖς δὲ τὰς ἐν αὐτῷ στήλας διεστήσατε, γράμμασιν Ελληνικοῖς καὶ ἡμετέροις κεχαραγμένας ; [οὐχ ἡμεῖς δὲ τοὺς ὑπερβάντας ὑμῖν ἀναιρεῖν ἐπετρέψαμεν, καν Ῥωμαιός τις ή; "Have not ye, accursed, put up this fence before the Sanctuary? Have ye not erected its pillars at proper intervals, engraven with Greek characters and ours? Have we not permitted you to kill those that go beyond it, although they be Romans ?"§ Now if a law of such grave moment was set forth in the Greek language to be read by the Jews, who does not perceive that this language must have been their vernacular, else the purpose would not have been answered? No one assuredly who does not close his eyes against the light. As Bernard Lamy was ignorant of the true reason for the inscription being in Greek, he with some others has expended much labor to little purpose in the attempt to account for Josephus's not mentioning a Hebrew Inscription, as they were Hebrews for whom the premonition was chiefly intended. The reason is simply that stated above, that the Hebrews universally spoke Greek, and consequently the Hebrew Inscription was not required. * Maimonides, de Domo Electa, cap. 7, §13. The next Greek Inscription to be noticed is that upon the cross of the Lord Christ, which Luke records in these words: "And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek and Latin and Hebrew."* Now in this triad of languages some one must needs have been vernacular to the Jews, in order that by them, of all others, who were most pressing for the execution, the accusation and title might be read. John confirms this verse: "This title read many of the Jews, be cause the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city."+ Now the Hebrew was no longer in common use, inasmuch as from the period of the Babylonish captivity it had been displaced: nor in fact did the Jews any longer understand that language, as our very opponents confess, and as will be made clear as we proceed. Much less could the Latin language be their common one, inasmuch as it has never been contended that they adopted it as a people; it remains, therefore, that the Greek alone was the prevailing language at Jerusalem at that time. Nothing could more beautifully or perfectly harmonize with this conclusion than what Jochanan, the first of the Rabbins, has writ ten of these three languages: "There are three tongues-the Latin best adapted for war, the Greek for social life, the Hebrew for prayer." The Hebrew, therefore, was employed, on this occasion, because in a measure their sacred tongue; the Latin because that of their masters, the Romans; and the Greek, finally, because the familiar tongue of the inhabitants of Jerusalem. This accounts for Luke's putting the Greek first, because the most common and important-and this sacred writer, on Casaubon's showings, has exhibited the true order of the inscriptions. Nor was this employment of the Greek language in inscriptions confined to Judea; we find it prevailing in the neighboring territories, also Josephus supplies us with certain Roman Edicts, that prove this beyond dispute. There is that, for instance, of Caius Cæsar, conferring upon Hyrcanus and his sons, the perpetual government of the Jews *Lucas, Evang. cap. 23, v. 38. + Joan. Evang. cap. 19, v. 19. R. Jochanan, in Midr. Tillim, fol. 25, c. 4. Casaubon. exer. 16 ad Baron. An. 34, 119, p. 563. Diodati makes no mention of John's putting the Hebrew first.-TRANSlator. Joseph. lib. 14 Antiq. cap. 10. p. 703 et ed. which was engraven on brazen tables in the Greek and Latin tongues, in Ascalon, Sidon, Tyre, in the temples, in that of Jerusalem and elsewhere, by the order of the same Caius: "And that a brazen tablet with an inscription to this effect, be set up in public in the Capitol, in Sidon, Tyre and Ascalon, and in the temples, engraven in Roman and Grecian letters." To these might be added other rescripts for the Jews, given by Josephus in the same place, all, in like manner, published in Judea and the neighboring regions, in Greek and Latin. The Romans, of course, used the Latin because it was their own tongue, and the Greek as evidently, because the vernacular of the country, that it might be read and understood by the inhabitants. Nor must we pass over in silence, the interesting fact that those Jews who settled and died in Rome, had Greek inscriptions cut upon their Tombs. After Pompey had subdued Judea, he took away with him to Rome immense numbers of the Jews as captives, to whom, however, liberty was afterwards given, together with the privilege of observing the usages of their ancestors without hinderance, by Augustus and Tiberius Cæsar. In the city, therefore, they had a synagogue, and outside the city a cemetery, on the way to the port, keeping up their national observances in every particular. Bos, in the year 1602, was the first who discovered this place of interment, while tracing some subterranean passages beyond the Tiber. There he found, first of all, sepulchres in the sides of the walls, as is usual, but some also under foot, without the slightest vestige of Christianity, the only symbol being a representation of the Mosaic Candelabrum with its seven branches.There were also earthen lamps found, made in the same shape. There were, besides, fragments of bricks of a red color, with which and mortar, sepulchres were formerly closed, and these presented, one and all, merely Greek inscriptions, which generally began thus: ΕΝΘΑΔΕ ΚΕΙΤΑΙ ΕΝ ΕΙΡΗΝΗ. This means, Here lies in peace; and, though a phrase prevailing among the followers of Christ, has been evidently borrowed by them from the Hebrews, among whom the same use prevailed, as the Scriptures amply show. But in addition to this, two other forms of expression occur in the more recent * V. Bosium Roma Sotterran, lib. 2. cap. 22, p. 142; Aringum, in Ro. Subterr. Noviss, tom. 1, lib. 2, cap. 23. sepulchral inscriptions given by Nicolai* and others, that prove these to have been Jewish. On one tomb in the same cemetery, is the name ACAПIPIKII., and on another the word CYNAгг... which every one knows is peculiar to the Hebrews. Having described these facts, Bos proceeds in a labored disquisition to inquire how the Jews whom he conceived to have spoken Hebrew, came to use Greek rather than their own language upon their coffins. The knot he thought might be untied in either of these two ways. Either that the Jews did so out of conformity to the general usage of Rome, where the Greek was then much cultivated; or that these tombs belonged to Grecian Jews, namely such as had come to Rome from Corinth, Thessalonica, and other towns of Greece. But neither of these will remove the difficulty. The former supposition will not, because the Jews should have used the Latin if their object had been compliance with the usage prevailing around them; while the fact of the Jews notoriously shunning inter-communion of every kind with the heathen, is quite enough to show that they would not employ a language on their sepulchres, simply on the ground that it was generally known. Nor does the latter conjecture answer the purpose of Bos much better. For we have no satisfying proof that there were Grecian born Jews at Rome, while we are quite sure that Palestinian Jews were conveyed thither in thousands by Pompey, and at a subsequent period after the capture of the sacred city. And even if we were certain that there were Greek Jews there, they must have been greatly outnumbered by these latter who were born in Judea. Besides, Bos does not deny that the Jews had only one cemetery at Rome, and that this would be common to both races. If, then, it were true that the Palestine Jews spoke Hebrew, then some of the tombs at least should exhibit Hebrew inscriptions-so that each people should have the record in its own tongue. And the Hebrew inscriptions should exceed the Greek as greatly as the Palestinian outnumbered the Grecian Jews. But there are no Hebrew inscriptions at all, for Bos found them, one and all, in the self-same Greek idiom. Therefore, although we concede to Bos much more than we need in allowing that there may have been Greek Jews in Rome, still the inexplicable fact remains that all alike used Greek epitaphs. To him our concession is of little advantage indeed, but his discovery is all important to us. * Nicolai de Sepulch. Hebræor, lib. 4, cap. 4, p. 237. |