155
Tribes.
c Angel stood by me.
Fear not.
B3 FINDING OF AGRIPPA. - Nothing worthy of
death or bonds.
A4 28:16-22. Manner of life. Customs. Sect.
To Jews
HOPE
at Rome
of
B4 FINDING OF PAUL'S CONSCIENCE. -
Israel.
No cause of death.
We now return to the apostle's testimony before the Jews, as recorded in Acts 22 and 23.
We read in Acts 21:40 and in 22:2 that Paul spoke `in the Hebrew tongue'. This word Hebrais occurs but three
times in the New Testament (Acts 21:40; 22:2; and 26:14). Twice it is used of Paul, and once it describes the
language used by the Lord at the conversion of Paul.
The history of the Hebrew language may roughly be divided into two parts, the first covering the whole period of
its use up to the Babylonian exile, and the second, the period commencing from the exile and continuing through to
the present time. Since the Babylonian captivity, the `Hebrew' of the Old Testament had given place to a modified
form. This `Hebrew' was:
`The language spoken by the Jews in Palestine in the time of Christ. It might more accurately have been called
Syro Chaldee, being a mixture of the Aramæan of Daniel and Ezra with the Ancient Hebrew' (Dr. A. Young).
When the Jews heard Paul address them in the Hebrew tongue, they kept the more silence. It was not only a
concession to their extreme national and religious pride, but an intimation that the speaker was not a stranger to the
sacred tongue. The Lord, when He spoke from heaven to the stricken persecutor, made the same concession.
The question has been raised as to whether Luke understood Hebrew. It cannot be settled from the record of this
speech, for Paul could have given Luke a translation afterwards, or Luke could have been inspired by God to give it
without intermediate assistance. On the other hand, the presence of a number of Hebraisms make it possible that
Paul did not translate the speech for Luke, but that Luke gave his own translation, revealing himself by the presence
of Hebrew forms of speech instead of ordinary Greek. Dean Alford's conclusion is:
`Now we do find, (1) that the speech is full of Hebraisms, (2) that while it contains several expressions occurring
nowhere but in the writings of Luke, not one is found in it peculiar to Paul, or even strikingly in his manner. Our
inference then is that Luke himself has rendered this speech from having heard it delivered; and, consequently,
that he was acquainted with Hebrew'.
The matter is not of sufficient importance to pursue further. There is this to be said, however; all other writers of
the Scriptures were Hebrews. Luke has been considered the exception, partly by reason of his Gentile name, and
partly from tradition, but while there is insufficient evidence to settle the point there is every probability that `Luke
the beloved physician' will not prove to be an exception to the rule.
The apostle's purpose in this speech is expressed by himself in his opening words: `Men, brethren, and fathers,
hear ye my defence' (Acts 22:1). The Greek word translated `defence' has passed into our own language in the
word `apology'.
In the course of time the word has departed from its original meaning, and today an `apology' may be `A frank
acknowledgment, by way of reparation, of offence given', or `A defensive argument, often, specifically, the
argumentative defence of Christianity'. The apostle however conciliatory his manner in the choice of argument, or
even of the language in which he addressed the enraged gathering near the Temple, was certainly not apologetic in
the modern sense. Sturdy defence need not be rude, and firm conviction of the rightness of one's position is not
made more evident by stubbornness or lack of courtesy. In his short speech, spontaneously uttered in circumstances