The works of the Reverend and learned John Lightfoot D. D., late Master of Katherine Hall in Cambridge such as were, and such as never before were printed : in two volumes : with the authors life and large and useful tables to each volume : also three maps : one of the temple drawn by the author himself, the others of Jervsalem and the Holy Land drawn according to the author's chorography, with a description collected out of his writings.

VERS. I.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

A murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews.

FIRST let us consider who these Hebrews were.

I. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an Hebrew admitted another kind of signification under the second Temple than it had before and under the first: because in the Old Testament it had reference to the original and Language of that Nation; in the New Testament, to their T••avels, and their Language. Abraham is first called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gen. XIV. 13. an Hebrew. So Symmachus, the Vulgar, and others: But the Greek Inter∣preters render it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Passover. k 1.1 But this Version need not concern us much when it is plain the Interpreters have rendered the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 according to the com∣mon use under the second Temple, and not according to the primitive and original use of it. For the same reason the Rabbins incline the same way.

l 1.2 R. Nehemiah saith, Abraham is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an Hebrew, because he was of the posterity of Heber; ••ut the Rabbins say, he is so called, because he came from beyond the river. And they add withall (which deserves some enquiry) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And for that he used the Language beyond the River. I would rather have said, he might fitly be cal∣led 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 An Hebrew, because even in Mesopotamia and Chaldea, he retained the Hebrew Language in the proper sense. For if he brought over the transfluvian or Chaldean Language into Canaan, as his ow•…•… families mother-tongue, it is hardly imaginable by what means the Hebrew Tongue strictly so called, should become the native and proper Language of his posterity. I have elsewhere offered another reason, why he should be termed an Hebrew in that place in Genesis, which I still adhere to.

II. After the Babylonish Captivity there was such an alteration of things, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Hebrew Tongue became the Language beyond the River, or the Chaldee Tongue. This is plain from those several words, Bethesda, Golgotha, Akeldama, &c. which are said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be so called in the Hebrew Tongue, and yet every one knows the words to be meer Chaldee. The old and pure Hebrew Language at that time was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Assyrian Tongue: and the Syriac and Chaldee 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Hebrew Tongue or (as themselves interpret it) the Language beyond the River. m 1.3 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In the Hebrew Language, i. e. in the Language beyond the River. n 1.4 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Assyrian Tongue, i. e. in the holy Language.

We cannot but observe by the way that the Doctors distinguish betwixt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the He∣brew Tongue and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Syriac, in the mean time distinguishing both from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Assyrian, or Holy Language. o 1.5 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Syrian Tongue is sit for lamentation. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Hebrew tongue for speech. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and there are that say, the Assyrian Tongue is good for writing. This distinction between the Hebrew Tongue, or that beyond the River, and the Syrian which really are the same Language; is much such another distinction as between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Syriac, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Aramean. p 1.6 Babbi saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 why the Syrian Tongue in the Land of Israel? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when either the Holy Language, or the Greek should rather be used. R. Jose saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 why the Aramean Tongue in Babylon? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when rather, either the Holy Language, or the Persian should be used. The Gloss is, because the Greek is more elegant than the Syriac, and the Persian than the Aramean.

We see first, how they distinguish here betwixt the Syriac Tongue and the Ara∣mean, and the Gloss upon the place tells us upon what account they do it, in these words. Behold, whereas he takes notice that the Syriac is used in the Land of Israel, and the Aramean in Babylon, therefore he doth it as saith R. Tam, because there is some varia∣tion and difference between them: as it happens in any common Language, which they spake much finer in one Country than in another. For as to those words, Gen. XXX. 52. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 This heap be witness. Onkelos renders them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when Laban saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 But now we must say that Laban spoke 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Syrias Tongue, which is so called from Syria. Now Syria was Aram Naharim, and Aram Zobab which David subdued. And because that is nearer to the Land of Israel, the Aramean Language of it, is not so pure. Gloss in Sotah, q 1.7 The Syriac Tongue is near a kin to the Aramean. And I say that that is the Language of the Jerusalem Talmud.

We see secondly, that the Syriac was the Mother-Tongue of the Land of Israel, and the Aramean (which is almost the same) was that of Babylon, rather than the Greek or Persic which were more elegant, nay rather than the Holy Language which was the noblest of all. And that (as to the Holy Language) for a reason very obvious, viz. that it was every where lost as to common use, and was generally unknown. As to the two other Languages, why they were not in use, the Gloss gives the reason, which we have also given us elsewhere. r 1.8 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lest the Syriac Tongue should be vile in thine eyes [Bereshith Rabba by a mistake of the Printer hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Persic, instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Syriac.] For behold, God doth give it honour in the Law, in the Prophets, and in the Hagiographa. In the Law, for it is said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The heap of witness, Gen. XXXI. 47. In the Prophets, for it is said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Thus shall ye say unto them, Jerem. X. 11. and in the Hagiogropha, for it is said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And the Chaldeans spake to the King in Syriac. Dan. II. 4.

The Syriac therefore or the Aramean Tongue under the second Temple was that which went under the name of the Hebrew Tongue, that is, the Language beyond the Ri∣ver. Whence they were at that time called Hebrews upon the account of the common use of that Tongue. But whether all to whom that was their Mother-Tongue were called Hebrews, may be a little questioned; and for what reasons it may be so, I shall shew, after I have said something concerning the Hellenists.

I. It is not denied by any but that the Hebrews were Jews in their original: whether the Hellenists were Jews too, is called in question by some. Beza upon the place de∣nies it. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Lucas hoc loco vocat genere quidem profanos, &c. The Hellenist. St. Luke means in this place, are those who were of a prophane stock, but adopted into the Na∣tion of the Jews by Circumcision, called therefore Proselytes. For they are mi••••aken who think those Jews that were dispersed amongst other Nations were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Hellenists. He thinks this opinion of his is countenanced by that of Act. XI. 19, 20. Preaching the word to none, but to the Jews only. And some of them were men of Cyprus, and Cy∣rene, who when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Hellenists. From whence Beza infers, Cum hoc loco opponi videantur 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Judeis, &c. Whereas the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Hellenists seem to be opposed to the Jews in this place—it is plain, that by the name of Hellenists not only the provincial or proselite Jews are to be understood 〈…〉〈…〉

were here and there dispersed, but even those also of the Gentiles who are elsewhere by St. Luke termed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or devout men, &c.

Let it be granted, that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or devout men should be promiscuously under∣stood with the Proselites, though there is some difference betwixt them, and that very conspicuous: yet I see not by what Law or Authority he should confound the Helle∣nists with the Proselites. And if those are mistaken who suppose the Jews that were dispersed amongst other Nations, to be called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Hellenists, I confess my self willingly to be in that error too. Nor yet would I put all these Jews that were di∣spersed among the Gentiles, under the name of Hellenists; not those that were scat∣tered amongst the Medes, Parthians, Persians, Arabians, and those Eastern Countries. Nor do I suppose that he would call the Proselites of those Nations Hellenists, because the very Etymology of the word implies Grecisme.

• 1. Chap. II. 10. we meet with Jews and Proselites; and in this Chapter we meet with Hebrews and Hellenists. We may most truly say that the Proselites there are di∣stinguisht from the Jews; we cannot at the same time say that the word Hellenists in this place distinguisheth them from the Jews, when we see it only distinguisheth from the Hebrews.
• 2. St. Luke calls Nicolas a Proselyte of Antioch, ver. 5. would we therefore call him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an Hellenist of Antioch? we would rather term him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Greek, because his very name shews him to have been originally a Greek.
• 3. As to that distinction in Chap. XI. 19, 20. (for I would rather term it a di∣stinction than an Antithesis) it doth not conclude the Hellenists not to have been Jews, but intimates the difference only between Jews of a more pure and worthy rank, and Jews not so pure and worthy.

II. There are those that think, and that truly, that the Hellenists were Jews dispersed amongst the Gentiles: but that they were called Hellenists for this reason especially, viz. because they used in their Synagogues the Greek Bible; which whether it be true or no, I question, but will not dispute it at this present; only thus far I will ob∣serve.

1. That the Greek Tongue was in mean esteem amongst the Jews, indeed they hated it rather than took any pleasure in it, or had any value for it. s 1.9 When Aristobulus the Asmonean beseiged his brother Hyrcanus, and some things had fallen out amiss with them, through the Counsel of a certain old man skilled in the Greek learning, they said at that time, cursed be the man that cherisheth swine, and cursed the man that teacheth his son the wisdom of the Greeks. t 1.10 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In the war of Titus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they decreed that no man should teach his Son Greek. The Gloss up∣on this place, confounds the stories and would have the war of Titus the same with that of Aristobulus and Hyrcanus; but the Gloss upon the former place rightly distin∣guisheth, and grants there was such a decree made in the days of the Asmoneans▪ but having been neglected in process of time, was revived and renewed in the war with Titus. Let it be one or the other, we may abundantly see what kind of respect the Greek Learning or Language had amongst them. For this passage follows in both. Samuel saith in the name of Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel. There were a thousand boys 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in my Fathers School, of whom five hundred learnt the Law, and five hundred the wisdom of the Greeks, and there is not one (of all that last number) now alive, excepting my self here, and my Unkles Son in Hasia.

I rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in my Fathers School, or Family, because of what follows in both places; They allowed the family of Rabban Gamaliel the Greek Learning, because they ware allied to the Royal blood. i. e. they sprung of the stock and lineage of Da∣vid. They permitted that that family should be brought up in that learning, because it became them for their honour and nobility to want no kind of Learning. But this they did not freely allow others; and if they did not permit the wisdom of the Greeks, we can hardly suppose they excepted the Greek Tongue, especially when we find it in the very terms of the decree, let no one teach his Son 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Greek. Upon what I have already said, I cannot but make these following remarques.

• I. What an effectual bar they laid in their own way against the reading of the New Testament when they so renounced the Greek Tongue; which God had now honoured beyond their Syriac, though they will have that so much graced both in the Law, Prophets, and holy writings.
• II. That even those who understood little else but Greek, would very hardly ad∣mit the reading of the Law and the Prophets in their Synagogues in the Greek Tongue; in that it was so very grateful to their Countrymen, and the Decrees and Ca∣nons of the Elders did either require, or at least permit an Interpreter in the reading of the Bible in their Synagogues.
• ...

• III. How probable a thing is it that those Jews, who having lived amongst the Gen∣tiles, understood no other Language but the Greek? for that very thing grew the less valuable with their own Nation that had retained the common use of the Hebrew Tongue; and were had in some lower esteem than others.

2. If therefore they stood so affected toward the Greek Learning, what value must they have for the Greek Tongue? Grant that it were in some esteem amongst them, because indeed most of the Learned Rabbins did understand it: yet what account must they make of those Jews that knew no other Language but the Greek? Surely they must be lookt upon as in the lower, yea the lowest degree of Jews, who were such strangers to the Language so peculiar to that nation, that is, the Hebrew. Such are those whom we find mentioned in Hieros. Sotah. u 1.11

R. Levi ben Chaiathah going down to Cesarea heard them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 reciting their Phylacteries in Greek, and would have forbidden them, which when R. Jose heard, he was very angry, and said, if a man doth not know how to recite 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Holy Tongue, must he not recite them at all? let him perform his duty in what Language he can.

Cesarea Philippi is the seene of this story, a City that the Rabbins make very frequent and honourable mention of in both the Talmuds. This being one of the Cities in De∣capolis, which were all under the Gentile or Greek jurisdiction, it seems there might be some Jews there that understood Greek but not Hebrew. Otherwise they would doubtless have said over their Phylacteries in the Hebrew, though they could not do it in the Holy Tongue.

3. There were many Jews in several Countries, and those very probably to whom both the Languages of Hebrew, and Greek, were their Mother-Tongues. The Hebrew in their own Country and the Greek among the Grecians. The Hebrew in the Families and Synagogues of the Jews; the Greek amongst their fellow-Citizens the Gentiles. Such was Paul of Tarsus a Greek City, and yet was he an Hebrew of the Hebrews, Phil. III. 5. And such those of Cyprus and Cyrene seem to be who are mentioned Chap. XI. 19, 20. who in Cyprus, Phenice, and Antioch it self preached the word of God amongst the Hebraizing Jews (though perhaps they might also speak the Greek Tongue) and at length to the Hellenists in Antioch, i. e. the Jews who understood nothing but Greek, to whom the Hebrew Tongue was perfectly unknown. For so I would distinguish the Hel∣lenists from the Jews in that place, and not oppose them to the Jews, as if they were not Jews themselves. And let me crave the Readers leave to give my judgment of these Hebrews and Hellenists in these following particulars.

I. That the Hellenists were Jews dwelling among the Gentiles, and not at all skilled in the Hebrew Tongue. The Apostle in that division of his which he so oftentimes useth, of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jews and Greeks, meaning by Greeks all other Nations excepting the Jewish only, speaks chiefly to the capacity of the Vulgar, to whom by reason of the late circumjacent Empires of the Greeks, that way of expressing the Gentiles was most known and familiar: nor perhaps was it so very safe at that time to have brought in the Romans in that Antithesis.

But may the word Hellenist be taken with that latitude on the other side, that the phrase may be applyed not to the Jews only who understood nothing but Greek, but to all the Jews also that did not understand Hebrew? Perhaps the strict Etymology of the word may make something against it; but should it be granted, it would not be of so absurd a consequence, if we do but except the Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and the rest of those Eastern Countries, who were not of the Greek or Macedonian, but the Persian and Babylonish Captivity or transmigration. For the very word Hellenist, especially as it is opposed to Hebrew seems to intend some such thing; viz. that those who are called Hebrews should be those who were of the Captivity and dispersion beyond the River; and those that go under the denomination of Hellenists, are those who after their re∣turn from this Captivity, have suffered some other removal or scattering among the Greek or Western Countries, and understood no other Language but of those Countries only, having lost the use of what was originally their native Tongue, viz. the Hebrew or Chaldee.

II. As to the Hebrews, I suppose there are hardly any will deny but that all in gene∣ral might be so called, that used the Hebrew as their own Mother-Tongue, nor can I imagine for what other reason Paul of Tarsus should go under the denomination of an Hebrew, but because the Hebrew Tongue in his Fathers family was his Mother-Tongue, and the Greek was the Mother-Tongue of the place where he was born. But that we may enquire a little more strictly into the peculiar propriety of this title and denomi∣nation, let us propound this question, viz. to whom that Epistle of Saint Paul to the Hebrews was particularly written?

I would say to those of Palestine, for to them it is that the name of Hebrew doth of greatest right belong, which these two particulars (if I mistake not) will make very

plain. 1. That it seems most proper that they should be termed Hebrews who use the Hebrew Tongue and none else as their natural Language, rather than they who use the Greek and Hebrew Tongue indifferently. 2. Indeed the Mesopotamians used the He∣brew only as their Mother-Tongue, and ought in reason to be accounted amongst the Hebrews in general, but they went commonly under the denomination of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Captivity, because they dwelt still in the place whether they had been led captive, and had not returned into their own Land. But those of Palestine who had returned the∣ther were the most properly called Hebrews, because they had past over from beyond the River, and had brought the transfluvian Tongue along with them.

And as to what concerns this present matter, viz. the murmuring of the Hellenists against the Hebrews about an equal distribution of the common Charity: it may be made a question whether any other besides those of Palestine had as yet sold their Lands and Patrimonies. For, omitting that by reason of the distance of place, they could hardly yet be capable of doing it; that concerning Barnabas selling his Land in Cyprus, seems to hint some such thing, and that it was a thing very extraordinary, and that had not deen done elsewhere. But our enquiry is chiefly about the Hellenists not the Hebrews; and what we have said concerning both, is ingenuously submitted to the candor of the judicious Reader.

Notes

• k 1.1

  Vid. Nobil. in loc.
• l 1.2

  Beresh. Rabba, fol. 47. 1.
• m 1.3

  A••••••h. in. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• n 1.4

  Gloss in Me∣gil. fol. 8. 2.
• o 1.5

  Hieros. Sotah, fol. 21. 3.
• p 1.6

  Bava Kama, fol. 83. 1. & Sotah, fol. 49 2.
• q 1.7

  Fol. 49. 2.
• r 1.8

  Hieros. Sotah, fol. 21. 3. & Be••esh. Rabba, fol. 83. 4.
• s 1.9

  Bava Kama, fol. 82. 2.
• t 1.10

  Sotah, fol. 40. 1.
• u 1.11

  Fol. 21. 2.