Let us hear Dr Lightfoot's interpretation of these texts:

St Matthew gives the words Eli, Eli, in the Hebrew, exactly the same as they occur at Ps. xxii, 1. St Mark gives them according to the Syro-Chaldaic dialect; which was in common use at the time of our Saviour.

66

From which it appears that the Syro-Chaldaic dialect, as Dr Lightfoot terms it, was remarkably similar to the Hebrew if it differed from it no more than by the addition of the letter o to the sentence " Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani." But the truth is, we know nothing of the Syro-Chaldaic dialect, or of any other dialect than the Hebrew, as spoken at Jerusalem about the period of time when our Saviour was crucified. It is more reasonable to suppose that Eloi, and Eli are merely the forms by which two different translators have rendered the same word from Hebrew into Greek; and this supposition is strengthened by the usage of the modern Greeks, who pronounce Eli and Eloi in the same manner, Ailee. But the word, as it occurs in the Psalm of David, is Eli: does Dr Lightfoot imply that Christ altered the word into another and a more corrupt dialect? He could not have used both forms: which then did he use? If Eloi, why has St Matthew put Eli into his mouth? if however Eli is the word which he ejaculated, why has he been made to use the other form Eloi in the gospel according to St Mark? No other solution seems so reasonable as to ascribe the discrepancy to the peculiarities of different translators.

But it is necessary to notice another observation which has been made on these texts, resting on no better foundation than the former. Some of those who stood by thought that Christ called for Elias. This, according to the views of some commentators, is supposed to prove that the Hebrew was no longer spoken in Jerusalem at this time; for otherwise, say they, every body who stood

by would have understood the meaning of his words. This however would not necessarily be the case; for a man in the last agonies of death would not be likely to speak with sufficient distinctness to make his words intelligible, particularly to the lower classes, who alone are in the habit of attending executions. Nor is it likely that a quotation from the Psalms would be very intelligible to an ignorant multitude who knew little about the Bible in general, and perhaps nothing at all about the Psalms of David. The immense labour of writing out books with the pen in those days leaves us little grounds for believing that the copies of the Hebrew bible were then either numerous or extensively circulated.

3. Proper names of persons and places are of the same character as those which occur in the Old

Testament.

Thus we have Zechariah the father of John, Joseph the reputed father of Christ, Simeon and Anna, who received Christ, when he was presented in the temple, Jonah, Barabbas, Bar-Jona, Bar-timæus (with a Latin termination), Zebedee, Eli, occurring in one genealogy as the grandfather of Christ, and Jacob who occurs in the other genealogy: whilst the name of Jesus himself, is only a Greek form of Joshua, and is therefore identical with that of the Greek captain who lived fifteen hundred years before.

Again, we have names of places in the purest Hebrew, always remembering that they come to us through the medium of a Greek translation. Such are Golgotha, Bethesda, Bethsaida, Bethlehem, and many others compounded of that remarkable word Beth, describing the idea of house, locality or residence, which is as characteristic of the Hebrew nation, as the dune marks the Celts all over the west of Europe, as the ville denotes a Norman origin, and as

as ham or bourne denotes Anglo-Saxon etymology in England.

The names of places would not, it is true, furnish so strong an argument in every case, because the same name may remain in use for many centuries, provided that the same race of people inhabit the spot which bears it. But it is said that the the whole of the Holy Land underwent a more violent change of masters than countries in general are fated to undergo. If so, the names would have been changed, as has happened in other similar cases. But the names in the Old Testament and in the New belong to the same language, which must therefore have been the same from the period of the Babylonish captivity down to the beginning of the Christian era.

4. Christ himself reads from the book of the Old

Testament.

This appears from the gospel according to St Luke, ch. iv, 16-17.

And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. for to read. And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor &c.

It is said by some of the commentators that it was customary in Judea to read the original text of the Hebrew Bible verse by verse, alternately with the Targum or Chaldee paraphrase. If this was the case, why is no mention made of it in the passage before us? No notice whatever is taken of such a remarkable custom. There was evidently no such custom, or the writers of the four gospels would have related it. It is unlikely that the scribes and Pharisees would have let slip such favorable opportunities to" entangle him in his talk."

But we have not the slightest indication of any discussion having arisen with regard to the interpretation of Hebrew words and sentences. It is more probable, therefore, that both Christ himself, and the people, as well as the Scribes and Pharisees, still spoke Hebrew, and consequently understood the language in which their scriptures were originally written.

CHAPTER 26.

SUCCESSIVE CHANGES IN THE RELIGION OF THE HEBREWS RESULT

ING FROM THEIR CONTACT WITH FOREIGN NATIONS.

Peculiarities of speech have a sensible influence on the manners and customs of nations: religion is, perhaps, of less weight than language in its effects on national character. Still it must not be neglected, in an enquiry into either the social or intellectual state of the Hebrew people, and may contribute something to illustrate the subject now before us.

It is a trite but somewhat indistinct observation, repeated

again and again by all the commentators on the Old Testament, that the Israelites were prone to fall aside from their allegiance to the Lord God. It is certainly remarkable that those wayward people could, in defiance of the Almighty, and almost in his very presence, fall into religious absurdities in no degree surpassing the lowest idolatries of the most heathen nations. But these excesses were not without the connection of cause and effect, which might be discovered, if we could only trace it, in all the actions, however apparently absurd, both of individuals and of nations. We observe, throughout the Old Testament, in the religious observances of the Hebrews, evident marks of the external circumstances to which they were exposed. I use the name Hebrews, as more extensive than Israelites: Abraham, Isaac, Esau, and Jacob were Hebrews, but Israelite is a term applied to the posterity of Jacob alone.

The Old Testament, in various places, plainly indicates that the religion of Abraham, and of the nation which descended from him, was not in every particular the same. Setting aside those points in which they agreed, let us notice those in which they differed, and we shall find these are far from trivial, though not greater than might be anticipated in a nation exposed to many extraordinary vicissitudes running through so long a space of time.

The religious belief of Abraham was extremely simple. He worshipped one Almighty Being, the Lord God, Jehovah Elohim, to whom he looked for the fulfilment of hopes long held out to himself and his posterity. To the worship of God was attached the practise of expiatory sacrifice, common, so it appears, to all the Canaanitish nations; and the offering of Isaac bears a fearful likeness to the devotional enthusiasm which prompted the people of that country to give up their dearest pledges in token of submission to the Divine will. Another feature which may be detected in the religious belief of the patriarchs,