BIBLE

other books), P (the Priestly Code, represented especially by Leviticus, the author of which revised the earlier parts of the Law-books and inserted additions into them). But J and E are closely intertwined — an indication that they have both been revised — and the result of this revision gives us the composite narra-tive known as JE. Thus we have now three main strata, viz. (1) JE, the prophetic element, written in the spirit of the prophets, dated about B.C. 700; (2) D, the moral and legal element, seen especially in Deuter-onomy, dated about B.C. 620; (3) P, the priestly element, dated about b.c. 444. The author of P appears to have revised the whole work and given it out as the complete Law. This may have been done by the Euphrates during the Exile, so that the Law-book brought up to Jerusalem would be the Pentateuch (or the Hexa-teuch), or it may have been after the Return, in which case the Law-book would be only P. But in any case the whole work after its completion underwent some further slight revision before it assumed its present form. See Hexateuch.

If now we ask not what was the first complete book of the OT, but what was the first portion of the OT actually written, it is not easy to give a reply. The literature of most peoples begins with ballads. Possibly the Song of Deborah is a ballad which should have assigned to it the first place in the chronological order of Hebrew writings. Such a ballad would be handed down in tradition before it was put into writing. Then some of the laws in Exodus, those of the 'Book of the Covenant,' may have come down in tradition or even in writing, from a remote antiquity. The code of Hammurabi, king of Babylon, b.c. 2285-2242, was a written law nearly 1000 years earlier than the time of Moses. The striking resemblance between some of the laws of Israel and some of these Babylonian laws points to a certain measure of dependence. This might go back to patriarchal days; but, of course. It would have been possible for the Jews in the Exile to have access to this venerable code at the very time P was being constructed.

There is much less range of question for the dates of the NT books. The earliest date possible for any of them is a.d. 44 for James; although, as Prof. Harnack holds, perhaps this is almost the latest written book of the NT. Laying aside the much disputed question of the date of James, we have 1 Thess. as apart from this the earliest written NT book. Following the usually accepted chronology, the date of this Epistle is A.D. S3 (Harnack, a.d. 49; Turner, a.d. 51). The latest written NT book is 2 Peter, which must be assigned to a late decade of the 2nd century. Apart from this Epistle, which stands quite by itself as a pseudonymous work, and James, which may be either the earliest or one of the latest NT books, the last written works are the Johannine writings, which cannot be earlier than near the end of the 1st century. Thus we have a period of about 50 years for the composition of the bulk of the NT writings, viz. the second half of the 1st cent. A.D.

4. Original Languages. — The bulk of the OT was written in Hebrew, and without vowel points. Hebrew is the Israelite dialect of the Canaanite language, which belongs to the Semitic family, and is closely allied to Aramaic. Some portions of the OT (viz. documents in Ezr 4'-6" and T'"-"", Dn 2<-7" and a few scattered words and phrases elsewhere) are in Aramaic, the language of Syria, which was widely known, being found in Babylonia, Egypt, and Arabia. After the Exile, since Aramaic! then became the everyday language of the Jews, Hebrew was relegated to a position of honour-able neglect as the language of literature and the Law, and Aramaic came into general use. Probably the earliest writings which are embodied in the NT were in this language. When Papias says that Matthew wrote 'the oracles of the Lord in the Hebrew dialect,'

BIBLE

he would seem to mean Aramaic. Since Jesus taught in Aramaic, it is not likely that His discourses were translated into the more archaic language; it is more probable that they were written down in the very language in which they were spoken. Similarly, it is probable that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was in Aramaic. But, however far we may go with Dr. Marshall and Dr. Abbott in allowing that Aramaic writings are to be detected beneath and behind our Gospels, it cannot be held that any of these Gospels, or any other NT books, are translations from that language. Matthew, the most Jewish of the Gospels, contains quotations from the LXX as well as direct translations from the Hebrew OT, which shows that while its author — or at all events the author of one of its sources — knew Hebrew, the Gospel itself was a Greek composition. All the NT was originally written in Greek. It was long held that this Greek was a peculiar dialect, and as such it was named Hellen-istic Greek. But the discovery of contemporary inscriptions and papyri (especially the Oxyrhynchus papyri) shows that the colloquial Greek, used in com-merce and popular intercourse all round the Mediter-ranean during the 1st cent., has the same peculiar forms that we meet with in the NT, many of which had been attributed to Semitic influences. These discoveries necessitate the re-writing of grammars on the Greek of the NT, as Prof. Deissmann and Dr. J. H. Moulton have shown by their recent studies in the new field of research. It must still be admitted that a certain amount of Hebrew influence Is felt in the NT style. This is most apparent in the Gospels, especially Matthew and above all the earlier chapters of Luke (except the Preface), and also in the Apocalypse. The Preface of Luke is the nearest approach to classical Greek that we have in the NT. After this come Hebrews, the middle and latter part of the Gospel of Luke, and Acts. St. Paul's writings and the General Epistles take an intermediate position between the most Hebraistic and the least Hebraistic writings. The Fourth Gospel is written in good Greek; but the structure of the sentences indicates a mind accustomed to think in Hebrew or Aramaic. Nevertheless, in spite of these differences, it remains true that the grammar and style of the NT are in the main the grammar and style of contem-porary Greek throughout the Roman Empire.

6, Translations. — The OT was first translated into Greek, for the benefit of Jews residing in Egypt, in the version known as the Septuagint (LXX), which was begun under Ptolemy ii. (b.c 285-247), and almost, if not quite, completed before the commencement of the Christian era. Another Greek version is ascribed to Aquila, who is said to have been a disciple of the famous Rabbi Akiba, and is by some even identified with Onkelos, the author of the Targum. This version, which is commonly dated about a.d. 150, is remarkable for its pedantic literalness, the Hebrew being rendered word for word into Greek, regardless of the essential differences between the two languages in grammar and construction. On the other hand, about the end of the 2nd cent, a.d., Symmachus, who, according to Epiphanius, was a Samaritan turned Jew, although Eusebius calls him an Ebionlte, produced a version the aim of which was' to render the original text into idiomatic Greek of good style, with the result, however, that in some places it became a paraphrase rather than a translation. Lastly may be mentioned the version of Theodotion, a Marcionite who went over to Judaism. This is really a revision of the LXX; it is assigned to about the year a.d. 185. Other versions of all or parts of the OT are known as the Quinta and the Sexta; there are doubtful references to a Septima.

Oral paraphrases, the Targums, or 'interpretations,' were made in Aramaic for the benefit of Palestinian Jews; but the earliest written paraphrase is that known as the Targum of Onkelos — theofflclalTargum of thePentateuch

97