Obrazy na stronie

which the Holy Spirit gave them praise, unless the Scriptures had been accessible to them.

6. But it may be urged that the time between Solomon and Abgarus, being more than a thousand years, is too long for the true account of the translation of the earlier portion of the Peshito to have been preserved by tradition. To this we have a double


Now we

First, it is not half the length of time that elapsed from Adam to Moses, and yet men accept matters far more taxing to the memory as having been handed down by tradition, for 2300 years or more until Moses wrote them. This, too, even though the great deluge happened in this period. Now great as the convulsions of empires were between the two kings named in connection with the Peshito, they were far from amounting to the flood in the time of Noah.

Second, from No. 5 of this paper we may somewhat divide this period into two parts. Solomon to Ezekiel, who in the later prophecies uttered after the overthrow of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, in the twelfth year of Zedekiah, about 420 years in round numbers, spoke the doom of the Prince of Tyre. Then if this prophet shows him in possession of the holy word which is an album in which his likeness is repeatedly found, then we need only ask whether the tradition could live another six hundred and fifty years. boldly affirm that this can well be accepted unless a better account can be given which this one must fall before. We may here sum up results thus far, and look at objections afterwards.

We have seen that the Bible gives us such account of Solomon's endowments as shows that he could do what the Syrian Christians say he did in securing the Peshito to them. We have further shown that he was free from narrow Jewish exclusiveness, and desired that all strangers should know and serve the Lord as Israel did. Then we have proved that there were special reasons why he should secure to Hiram, King of Tyre, a copy of the Holy Scriptures in his own tongue, they being friends for more than twenty years, who worked together at the glorious temple whose architectural plan was in Exodus, and also joining in many a naval expedition to far off lands. That the subjects of Hiram were also those of Solomon his suzerain, whom it were wise to enlighten with divine truth, but dangerous to Israel to live in heathen darkness. Then when 420 years after this Word is by the tradition placed in the royal library of Tyre, that Phænician schoolmaster of Greece who taught them the alphabet, Ezekiel pronounces an oracle of judgment, in which Jehovah points out liis privileged condition and his sin in words which send us back to different books of Moses and that of Job.

Then, finally, we have shown that human memory is credited with doing much more than carrying so light a burden as this. King Solomon ordered his scribes to translate into Syriac so much as was then written of the word of God, and gave it to the king of


Tyre, his friend and great co-worker, Hiram. Now, if we listen to the elders of the Sonthals in India, who had lost all literature when our missionaries visited them a few years ago, when they tell us how their forefathers lived near a mountain called Ararata, and then afterwards moved onward with their flocks into the Punjaub, and there worshipped one God, till they were perverted to idolatry; and became degraded and were driven out by the Hindoos, we cannot surely object that those humble Maronites and Nestorians who hold by the Bible are too low to be heard. Our conclusion, then, is that in a matter of testimony they tell the best tale on the origin of the Peshito which we have seen or heard. It redeems much of Solomon's character, and justifies that higher wisdom which made him so wise.

If this splendid king placed the divine word in the hand of men who were the greatest navigators of the old world, it was one of the brightest jewels in his royal diadem. And if God moved him to do so, it became Him who has magnified His word above all His name. For though stars and suns expire in darkness out of which He called them forth, and earth with its wondrous exhibitions of His might and majesty, of His skill and bounty, perish and pass away, His Word shall be established for ever.

In that day when good works are weighed in the balances of the heavenly sanctuary, few will lift so much in the other scale as that of a faithful translator of the word of life. He shall not be unblest who has given material bread to staunch the hunger of the stomach, but how much more blest is he who has fed the souls of those who yearned for spiritual food. “Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness, because they shall be filled," said our Lord; but he said also, “It is more blessed to give than to receive.” If this apply to the communication from our perishable stores, how much more to that of the word of the Lord which endureth for ever! And this honour is given by our tradition to Solomon, whose greatness was admitted by one whom no worldly glitter could mislead, even when he said, “ A greater than Solomon is here."

II. The second part of the tradition which the Syrian Christians hold to this day, joins the Apostle Thaddæus with the King of Edessa in securing them that portion of the Old Testament which was written after the time of Solomon. Now about this apostle. He was brother of James and Matthew, and his full name is threefold, Judas, Lebbæus, Thaddæus. No family in Israel was more or even so much honoured as that of Alphæus in the number of its sons who were called to be apostles of Christ. There were two of the sons of Jonas, Andrew and Simon Peter. Also James and John, sons of Zebedee. But of the house of Alphæus three, who were near kinsmen of the Lord, in whose veins flowed some of David's royal blood. What were they in the church? James was leading elder and apostle in the church at Jerusalem all his days; and if there ever was anything having a semblance of what is claimed for the Pope, in those early days, the embodying in writing his judgment on the treatment of Gentile believers and sending two approved messengers to carry it throughout the empire, where mixed churches were found, is the nearest, and yet we never hear of Pope James the Less. But we ought to do if it were not wrong to have such a luxury. Then a second brother, Matthew, who was a practised writer before his discipleship, had the high honour of writing the very first memoir of the words and works of Christ. Whether his brethren, remembering the words of the Lord that he would send prophets, wise men, and writers, fixed on Matthew as their readiest scribe, and urged him to put on record the wondrous life as one way of making disciples, or he chose it as the work needed, and proper and consistent with the maintenance of his profession, or the Holy Spirit said to him, “ Matthew, write," he is too humble to tell us. So he might not appear at the great council at Jerusalem when Paul and Barnabas were there, because he was following his occupation as custom-house officer on the shore of the sea of Galilee, and getting out copies of his gospel for the churches. This would be a great service, and arduous, when every copy needed to be done by hand and carefully revised. But what of the third brother, Jude? Had the Lord anything of special importance for him to do? He had, according to our tradition, for it makes him the soul of the movement for a complete Bible and a large portion of the New Testament. One of his names in Syriac, is Thaddy. In the kindred Hebrew sh would be used. But shad is an udder, which we know gathers milk from the whole body of the cow, or other suckgiving animal, to feed the young. If our Lord gave Jude his surname, as it is very probable he did, and called him“ My udder," that wonderful receptacle into which shall be gathered the sincere milk of the word to feed my lambs, then as a translator and editor of the Scriptures he most strikingly fulfils his surname. This he did not fulfil as a writer, for his own original matter is but a not very long chapter, nor was he to compare as a preacher with many of his colleagues and contemporaries. Let but this tradition stand, and then it is wonderfully true.

Fruitfulness is a secondary idea, and even in Hebrew the word for field, that ground wherein the miracle of one grain becoming thirty, sixty, and even a hundred fold is repeated from year to year, is closely allied to the same root. If our tradition hold, how truly could Christ call him “My faithful one.” But how great and arduous the work here assigned to him. Yes, but one of his other names, Labbi, will render " My hearty one.” That is, one who has courage

” for work. And was the author of the epistle without courage when he became aware that the evil men, that Paul foreshowed would come in, had actually invaded the churches ? His three cases to showing what they are, are very energetic. They are the following :

[ocr errors]

1st. Cain the murderer.
2nd. Balaam the bribe taker.
3rd. Korah the rebel against the divine arrangements.

Weigh the whole and judge of the man. If you think this tradition a fiction, tell me why it takes up the name of Jude and no other ? Why not Andrew, one of the first two disciples—the brother of Peter, the man whom Jesus consulted about providing for the hungry multitude ? He would have been a better character in a fiction : or why not Philip, who so soon began preaching Christ after he was directly called by him, or the excellent Nathaniel ? Any one of these might have better been chosen than Jude for a fiction. Then when we consider the fact that there were two Judases among the twelve, and this one in the tradition was onethat the other covered the name Judas with infamy, and that as long as the book should be read anywhere, about which the supposed fiction was framed, it would carry the blot down through the ages to the end, we must either conclude that it was true that Jude did take active steps to furnish Syrian-speaking people with the Word of God, or that the framer of the fiction was very unlucky in choosing Judas Lebbæus Thaddæus for one of its chief characters.

Then as to Abgarus, King of Edessa, at the Upper Aram-na-aram, or Mesopotamia above Babylon, why choose this city for the scene of the story, and this king for its chief hero? The people who give us the tradition never were driven into the embraces of Romish or Greek church, nor could ever be coaxed to join either, but have kept separate, and been branded heretics. Then why not fix on King Agrippa, who heard Paul and believed the prophets, rather than Abgarus? And why not, if a place of importance must be named, choose Cæsarea, where the king met Paul, and let Agrippa and Paul have the credit of the work of providing all the Syrianspeaking people with the Bible? It would find Paul genial employment; only truth stood in the way. Now, of Edessa we learn that Christianity flourished most vigorously in the latter half of the first century and the former part of the second. Also that Christians had a house of prayer modelled after the temple at Jerusalem, now ruined. But to rear this there must have been wealth among them, and kingly protection, and perhaps royal bounty. This favours the tradition of King Abgarus being deeply interested in Christianity. Then why the ruined temple be taken for an architectural model unless the Jewish element was strong among the Christians there? And how could they work out the plan without Moses, or the writers of 1st and 2nd Kings or Chronicles, or the prophet Ezekiel's book? These have the plans and specifications for such a building. But then how dared they do such a thing as use a place of worship, if they were Israelites, after the pattern of the temple, outside Jerusalem, with Joshua xxii. before them ? What terrible misgivings did those beyond Jordan fill all their brethren's minds with by building an altar like that before the tabernacle, outside the promised land ! Neither was peace restored till a pledge was given that it was for witness, but not worship. These builders and users of a temple at Edessa like that which Titus and the Romans ruined must surely have some further light on this great matter. It had been long in dispute among their neighbours which of two sites was the place where the true God could be served aright. But neither place was Edessa. How dare these people erect a third centre, and rival the divinely-selected one at Jerusalem ?

Give them the gospel of John, chapter iv., and you solve the problem. They are Hebrew Christians, and hence they naturally desire a place like their holy and beautiful house now burnt down; but they are Christians more than Hebrews, and thus they can worship in their temple without scruple, though it be on Gentile ground. But such a state of things requires substantially all that this part of the tradition sets forth—a completed Old Testament and a fair portion of the New Testament-just what the Peshito is. Then in Edessa, before such a house could be built, the question, “ Is Jesus of Nazareth that Messiah whom Moses and the prophets said should come ?” must have been settled in full conviction that “ Yes" must be its answer. It is settled faith, even if superstitious, that builds well ; loose scepticism cannot do such work. But how do you get such settled conviction on matter of high debate ? Not in the ringing atmosphere of noisy debate, but in quite another set of circumstances. Retire with the books that contain statement and proof, and calmly weigh them over, and so form your opinion, and then review and correct till it becomes deep conviction. Good advice-but where are the books ?

So here at Edessa we must have them.

Why then not accept part first of volume one from Solomon up to his time, and then part two of said volume from King Abgarus and Jude, and volume two from the same hands ? If you cannot, say “Why?"

1. Will your answer be that great Greek and Latin scholars do not admit such a view, and that men like Horne call it a most extravagant notion ? Bear in mind that for eighteen centuries nearly the Church of Christ, has been suffering under a Greek and Latin nightmare, which is not yet passed off. That this incubus rests upon these said great scholars to this day. Under it their predecessors allowed much light on the formation of the volumes of Scripture to perish, because it pointed to other agency than that which gave honour to the Greek or Latin Churches as worthy of commendation, and to another tongue than the favoured Hebrew and Greek as containing the true oracles of God. Beware of this mischief !

Next notice that Horne, Angus, and even Prideaux, and men of that school, are all suffering from this same oppression. It is easy for these men to pooh-pooh and cry, “ Most extravagant !" But this sort of assumption, “Of course, we all know better," proves

« PoprzedniaDalej »