The Arkansaw traveler., 1888-07-14
DID CHRIST SPEAK IN CREEK

Roberts has been trying to convince the world that Greek was the lan- guage of Christ and hls apostles, says F. B Drummond in the Academy. That in that language, at least, they delivered their public discourses, though they might in familiar inter- course make occasional use of Ara maic. But though he is able to men, tion one "great scholar" who so far back as 1862, wrote in the Saturday Reeiesc that the evidence adduced was such as could "hardly leave doubt in the minds of unprejudiced readers, !" he does not seem to have made many con- verts since among those qualified to judge.
 Is it possible, however, that the learned world is clinging to a mere prejudice, reluctant to look facts in the face? It cannot be denied that scholars are sometimes as obstinately tenacious of their opinions as less en- frightened people, and it may be so in the present instance. No doubt it would be a great and very difficult confession to make that on such a point the world has been wrong for eighteen centuries, and that it has been reserved for Dr. Roberts to set it right; but the world has been in error before, and, whatever the truth may be, it must be allowed free course. am not, indeed, going to say just yet "almost thou persuadest me to be- lieve" that Christ spoke Greek; but, after attentively reading Dr. Roberts volume, cannot say less than this that he has, in my judgment, made out very strong case, and has shown why the whole question should be carefully reconsidered.
 That Greek was generally under stood in Palestine in the time of Christ and was the common medium of intercourse between the Jews and men of other nationalities, or between the Palestinian Jews and their breth- ren of the dispersion, cannot, perhaps, be disputed and, on the other hand, Dr. Roberts does not deny that Ara maic was in daily use among the na- tives in conversing with one another. What he maintains is that the Galile- ans and, indeed, all the Palestinian Jews were at this time, and had been for century or two past, bilingual, and that while clinging to their na- tive patois among themselves, they were perfectly able to understand and converse in language that passed for Greek. This being so, it really does not seem so improbable-and the question after all is much more one of probabilities than might at first sight be imagined-that in addressing large multitudes, in which there could scarcely fail to be numbers of foreigners, Jesus should have em- ployed the language which would be most generally understood.
 If Dr. Roberts had not gone beyond this there would be less difficulty in following him; but, apparently, he would not be satisfied unless it were admitted that all the recorded sayings of Jesus, with only, perhaps, some very trifling exceptions, have come to us in the very words in which they were uttered.
 That the gospel question would be somewhat simplified by dispensing with the necessity of assuming an Aramaic source or sources for our Greek gospels will probably not be denied. Dr. Roberts is sanguine enough to believe that if his hypothesis were accepted no doubt would re- main that we have the tpsisssma verba of the Lord in the reports of His dis courses, parsbles and conversations as we find them in our four gospels. May I be permitted to say that this seems to imply very innocent view of the present state of New Testament criticism.
 That something-indeed, much would be gained in this respect may, perhaps, be conceded. But if there are solid grounds for believing that the discourses in Johns gospel, for instance, are the free composition of the writer, or, at least, deeply colored by his cast of thought, they could not be shaken by any change in our judg- ment as to the language which Christ habitually spoke. And in all the gospels there are passages-more or fewer-which a rational criticism will refer to later period than the lifetime of Christ. Still, the question is, in itself, one of great interest; and Dr. Roberts need not be dissatisfied if he is admitted to have shown that Greek was more commonly under stood in Palestine than, perhaps, has been hitherto believed.