shows both in a considerable degree, but the latter more markedly than the former." With this verdict careful readers will most probably agree. The simple direct style of the Syriac translator refuses to reproduce with faithfulness in detail the involved sentences of Eusebius.

The freedom which the translator has allowed himself is illustrated by the fact that quotations from the Old Testament which are made in the Greek from the LXX are made in the Syriac from the Peshitta. Two instances may be given

Some other inaccuracies are:-(a) Bk. iii. 25. Tv åɣíav Twv εὐαγγελίων τετρακτύν = “The Holy Gospels”; (6) Ibid. τὰ νόθα and Tà avτiλeyóueva are both rendered, "Those concerning which there is a difference of opinion"; (c) Bk. iii. 39. Mar0aios. τὰ λόγια συνεγράψατο = “ Mattai wrote a Gospel." Some interesting translations, which must not be hastily condemned, occur in the chapter just cited :—(a) “I did not think that I could profit so much from their books" (i.e. from the writings of apostles) as from a living and abiding voice"; (b) “A certain woman whose many sins were spoken of during the time in which our Lord was in the world (ETì TOû Kupiov)." (Clearly our Syrian did not know the Pericope Adulterae.) (c) The opening of chap. 30 of Bk. iv. in the Syriac is also noteworthy : But in the same reign of Antoninus Verus heresies were many, and in Mesopotamia in Urhai (i.e. in Edessa) Bardaisan, a man of rank, who was well skilled in the Syrian tongue," &c.

Two

(4) In spite, however, of many small blemishes, the Syriac translation must be pronounced as trustworthy on the whole. As a witness for our present Greek text, its witness is clear. instances seem to be particularly telling. (a) Bk. iii. 25 contains Eusebius' list of the acknowledged and disputed books of the New Testament. The twenty-seven Canonical and eleven Uncanonical Books mentioned by name in the Greek text re-appear

with the same titles and in the same classification in the Syriac, with one exception; Θωμᾶ καὶ Ματθία . . . εὐαγγέλια = " Gospels... of Thomas or of Tolmai (Bartholomew ?)." (b) Bk. iii. 39 (the account of Papias). Here also the Syriac text in the main confirms the Greek. The order of the names of the apostles (§ 4, Heinichen) on which Lightfoot founded an argument (Essays on Supernatural Religion, pp. 192, 193) is the same in the Syriac as in the Greek. The general conclusion seems to be that our Greek text is good, and that the Syriac (with its daughter the Armenian) does little towards giving us a better text.

The heartiest thanks of scholars are due to Mr McLean for editing, revising, and giving to the world Prof. Wright's work on one of the most important of Christian authors, and also to the Cambridge University Press for their generosity in providing for the publication of this most interesting book in a form entirely worthy of it. W. E. BARNES.

Einleitung in das Neue Testament.

Von Theodor Zahn. Erster Band. Leipzig: Deichert, 1897. 8vo, pp. viii. 489. Price, M.9.50.

THEODORE ZAHN, formerly Extraordinary Professor in the University of Göttingen, and now Professor in the University of Erlangen, has gained for himself an illustrious name among living German theologians. He is a voluminous writer, and his writings are much esteemed in Germany for their erudition and exhaustiveness. His great work is The History of the New Testament Canon, which has engaged his attention for many years, and which may now be considered as the standard work on that important branch of Biblical criticism. Besides this may be mentioned his Ignatius of Antioch, a work of much learning, in which he takes a conservative view of the Epistles of Ignatius, somewhat similar to that taken by Bishop Lightfoot in his great work on the Apostolic Fathers. In his Acta Johannis, Zahn gathers together all the legends. concerning the 'Beloved disciple.' Zahn's standpoint is that of positive theology; indeed he may be considered as the foremost supporter of that school. He is the opponent of the views of Harnack; those two distinguished theologians carry on a constant contest by means of pamphlets, articles or magazines, and other writings; they are the champions of opposite schools of theological thought, and are well matched, being nearly equal in point of erudition, theological research and natural abilities.

The work on which we propose to make a few remarks, The

Introduction to the New Testament, is Zahn's most recent writing, being published only last year. It is only the first volume of his Introduction; the second is promised this year. The contents of this volume are a dissertation on the language of Palestine in the lifetime of our Lord, an examination of the Epistle of St James, and a discussion of the thirteen Epistles of St Paul. Zahn adopts the traditional view, regarding all the Epistles of Paul, even the most disputed, as genuine. He treats of the books of the New Testament, not as arranged in our Bible, but in a chronological order, beginning with those which he considers were the first written, and in this arrangement he differs considerably from the usual views of exegetes. His mode of discussion is similar to that generally adopted by German professors. A paragraph is first given and discussed, and then learned notes and illustrations are annexed to it. These notes are most valuable and require careful perusal. It must be confessed that the German of Zahn is often very difficult. The sentences are long and involved, and the patience of the translator is often severely taxed.

This Introduction is one of great excellence, and will take its place among the best German Introductions of the New Testament, as those of Hilgenfeld, Mangold, Holtzmann and Weiss. It has the advantage in giving a positive view of the subject which is too frequently awanting in recent German introductions. Its chief value is its exhaustiveness. There is a minuteness and fulness in it which have seldom been equalled. All points bearing upon the subjects discussed, both the well known and the less known, are brought forward. But although the work is decidedly positive in its statements, yet there is nothing of the narrowness and one-sidedness with which works maintaining traditional views are sometimes accused of showing; it certainly cannot be regarded as belonging to the higher criticism; but difficulties are not evaded, and objections do not remain unanswered; there is a liberality of thought and an impartiality in the discussion of opposing opinions which is highly to be commended.

The work commences with a preliminary chapter on the language of Judæa in the time of our Lord. To this Zahn gives the somewhat ambiguous title "The Original Language of the Gospel : Die Ursprache des Evangelium." The Gospel, he observes, is older than the New Testament. More than twenty years elapsed from the time when Jesus published the message of the kingdom of God before we have the first Christian writing, and perhaps seventy years before the last book of the New Testament appeared. Although few Palestinian writings of the first generation have survived, yet there are various indications which enable us to ascertain the language of Palestine when the gospel was promulgated.

Vol. VIII.-No. 3.

T

This language, as Zahn asserts, was Syriac-the language in which Christ and His disciples taught the multitude. He uses the term Syriac instead of Aramaic, because he regards them as the same, the only difference being a variety of dialect. When Paul addressed the Jews he spoke in the Hebrew tongue, that is in Syriac. The old Hebrew was only retained by the Jewish Scribes and interpreters of the law, but was a dead language to the multitude. According to Zahn by the unlettered (idi@rai) was meant those who were ignorant of the language of the Rabbins. The few words of our Lord which have been preserved are Syriac or Aramaic, thus intimating that this was the language in which He generally spoke, as Cephas, Boanerges, Ephphatha, and the exclamation on the cross, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani. So, also, Josephus, whilst he calls the Hebrew, that is the Syriac, his native tongue, speaks of Greek as a foreign language.

But whilst Zahn maintains that Syriac was the language spoken in the districts of Judæa and to a considerable extent in the cities, he dwells upon the wide diffusion of Greek, but does not think that it was so diffused as to constitute the nation bilingual. Greek was the result of the conquests of Alexander; Antiochus Epiphanes attempted to compel the Jews to speak Greek, just as the Russians attempted to force the Russian language upon Poland; Herod the Great was the great patron of Greek culture. There were numer

ous Greek cities throughout Palestine, especially in the south and south-east of the Sea of Galilee, called on that account "Galilee of the Gentiles." "Macedonian cities," says Zahn, "as Pella and Dion on the east of Jordan, remind us of the time of Alexander. Ptolemais on the sea and Philadelphia in the east testify by their names to the sovereignty of the Ptolemies"; and the cities founded by the Herodian family, as Sebaste in Samaria, Tiberias on the Sea of Galilee, Cæsarea Philippi in Perea, and Cæsarea on the Mediterranean, are proofs of the rule of the Romans. But although Greek cities were scattered throughout Palestine and were partially colonised by Greeks and Romans, yet, as we learn from Josephus, in all of them there was a powerful body of Jews who retained their native language. Greek was to a certain extent adopted by the Jews as being the language of law courts, and must have been used in commercial transactions with foreigners. Still it must have made slow progress in Palestine, as is the case with the introduction of all foreign languages into a country.

Zahn has some instructive remarks on the education of the Apostle Paul. He supposes that Paul, being a Hebrew of the Hebrews, educated in a strict Pharisaic family, would in early life have had a purely Hebrew education. But after his conversion he spent about five years in his native city Tarsus. Here Zahn

supposes he embraced the opportunity of cultivating Greek literature. Tarsus was one of the most celebrated schools in the world, inferior only to Athens and Alexandria; and thus Paul, by his home and scholastic education at Tarsus, was qualified to preach the gospel both to the Jews and to the Gentiles. Zahn adopts the opinion that Paul was well acquainted with Greek literature. He quotes three if not four times from the Greek poets. In his address to the Athenians he gives an exact quotation from the Cilician poet Aratus and a probable allusion to the hymn of Cleanthes. He also quotes from Menander in 1 Cor. xv. 33, and from Epimenides in Titus i. 12. According to Zahn the Epistles of Paul are those of a highly-educated man: "In comparison with the Epistles of Paul as literary productions the fourth Gospel is monotonous and the Epistle of James is poor."

Zahn, following the chronological order in which the writings of the New Testament were written, discusses first of all the Epistle of James. This he considers the earliest writing of the New Testament, an opinion which is now generally admitted. But Zahn places it at a much earlier period than is generally allowed. There is not in the Epistle any mention or indication of Gentile Christians, nor the slightest allusion to the great controversy concerning circumcision, or to the question whether the Gentiles were obliged to observe the Mosaic law. "The complete silence," observes Zahn, "concerning the binding of the Mosaic law on all Christians, the laxity with which on the one hand the law is spoken of as a law of liberty and the mention of justification by works, is historically incomprehensible if the Epistle was composed after the time when Jewish Christianity sought to impose upon recently existing Gentile churches the observance of the Mosaic law as the means and condition of justification." He seems to suppose that James wrote his Epistle not only before the council of Jerusalem but before the first missionary journey of Paul and Barnabas. The Christian Church would then be almost entirely composed of converted Jews and Jewish proselytes. The churches which existed before the year 50 in the different districts of Palestine and Syria were colonies of the mother church at Jerusalem. Until the death of Stephen Christianity had almost its only abode in Jerusalem; the persecution of the year 35 drove them thence and scattered them beyond the boundaries of Palestine. Zahn supposes that the main object of James in his Epistle was to unite these Christian Jews who were scattered abroad into one church. Erdmann goes further, and supposes that the Epistle was written before the formation of the Gentile church in Antioch, when consequently all Christians would be either Jews or Jewish proselytes. Certainly in the Epistle there is no mention of or allusion to Gentile Christians.