xviii. 5, and that the Hebrew word used always expresses pains of birth,

the plural of the similar word for "cord" or "snare" being different. Ebrard, therefore, contends that the Psalm (xviii. 5) does not mean bonds or snares of death but literally "birth-pains of death," by which the soul is freed from the natural earthly existence as by a second birth to a glorified spiritual life. We need not enter further into the discussion of the passage, but it is obvious that it is mere assumption to assert, on the one hand, that Peter made use of any specific expression, and, on the other, that there was any error of translation on the part of the author of Acts. But agreeing that the Hebrew is erroneously rendered,(2) the only pertinent question is: by whom was the error in question committed? and the reply beyond any doubt is: by the lxx. who translate the Hebrew expression in this very way. It is therefore inadmissible to assert from this phrase the existence of an Aramaic original of the speech, for the phrase itself is nothing but a quotation from the Sep-tuagint.(3)

The expression [------] occurs no less than three times in that version: Ps. xvii. 5 (A. V. xviii.), cxiv. 3 (A. V. cxvi.) and 2 Sam. xxii. 6; and in Job

{97}

xxxix. 2, we have [------]. When it is remembered that the author of Acts always quotes the Septuagint version, even when it departs from the sense of the Hebrew original, and in all probability was only acquainted with the Old Testament through it, nothing is more natural than the use of this expression taken from that version; but with the error already existing there, to ascribe it afresh and independently to the Author of Acts, upon no other grounds than the assumption that Peter may have spoken in Aramaic, and used an expression which the author misunderstood or wrongly rendered, is not permissible. Indeed, we have already pointed out that, in this very speech, there are quotations of the Old Testament according to the lxx. put into the mouth of Peter, in which that version does not accurately render the original.(1)

The next trace of translation advanced by Bleek(2) is found in ii. 33,(3) where Peter speaks of Christ as exalted: "[------]." There can be no doubt, Bleek argues, that there is here a reference to Psalm ex. 1, and that the apostle intends to speak of Christ's elevation "_to_ the right (hand) of God;" whereas the Greek expression rather conveys the interpretation: "_by_ the right (hand) of God." This expression certainly comes, he asserts, from a not altogether suitable translation of the Hebrew. To this on the other hand, much may be objected. Winer,(4) followed by others, defends the construction, and affirms that the passage may without

{98}

hesitation, be translated "_to_ the right (hand) of God."(1) In which case there is no error at all, and the argument falls to the ground. If it be taken, however, either that the rendering should be or was intended to be "by the right (hand) of God"(2) i.e., by the power of God, that would not involve the necessity of admitting an Aramaic original,(3) because there is no error at all, and the argument simply is, that being exalted by the right hand of God, Jesus had poured forth the Holy Spirit; and in the next verse the passage in Ps. ex. 1 (Sept. cix.) is accurately quoted from the Septuagint version: "Sit thou on my right (hand)" [------]. In fact, after giving an account of the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Jesus, the speaker ascribes his subsequent exaltation to the power of God.(4)

We have seen that at least the form of the speeches in Acts is undoubtedly due to the author of the book, and that he has not been able to make the speeches of the different personages in his drama differ materially from each other. We shall hereafter have occasion to examine further the contents of some of these speeches, and the circumstances under which it is alleged that they were spoken, and to inquire whether these do not confirm

{99}

the conclusion hitherto arrived at, that they are not historical, but merely the free composition of the Author of Acts, and never delivered at all. Before passing on, however, it may be well to glance for a moment at one of these speeches, to which we may not have another opportunity of referring, in order that we may see whether it presents any traces of inauthenticity and of merely ideal composition.

In the first chapter an account is given of a meeting of the brethren in order to elect a successor to the traitor Judas. Peter addresses the assembly, i. 16 if., and it may be well to quote the opening portion of his speech: 16. "Men (and) brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, who became guide to them that took Jesus, 17. because he was numbered with us and obtained the lot of this ministry. 18. Now [------] this man purchased a field with the wages of the iniquity [------], and falling headlong he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out; 19. and [------] it became known(1) unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem, so that that field was called in their own tongue [------] Acheldamach, that is: field of blood. 20. For [------] it is written in the book of Psalms: 'Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein,' and 'his office let another take,'" &c, &c. Now let it be remembered that Peter is supposed to be addressing an audience of Jews in Jerusalem, in the Hebrew or Aramaic language, a few

{100}

weeks after the crucifixion. Is it possible, therefore, that he should give such an account as that in vs. 18, 19, of the end of Judas, which he himself, indeed, says was known to all the dwellers at Jerusalem? Is it possible that, speaking in Aramaic to Jews, probably in most part living at and near Jerusalem, he could have spoken of the field being so called by the people of Jerusalem "in their own tongue?" Is it possible that he should, to such an audience, have translated the word Acheldamach?

The answer of most unprejudiced critics is that Peter could not have done so.(1) As de Wette remarks: "In the composition of this speech the author has not considered historical decorum."(2) This is felt by most apologists, and many ingenious theories are advanced to explain away the difficulty. Some affirm that verses 18 and 19 are inserted as a parenthesis by the Author of the Acts,(3) whilst a larger number contend that only v. 19 is parenthetic.(4) A very cursory examination of the passage, however, is sufficient to show that the verses cannot be separated. Verse 18 is connected with the preceding by the [------], 19 with 18 by [------], and verse 20 refers to 10, as indeed it also does to 17 and 18, without which the passage from the Psalm, as applied to Judas, would be unintelligible. Most critics, therefore,

{101}

are agreed that none of the verses can be considered parenthetic.(1) Some apologists, however, who feel that neither of the obnoxious verses can be thus explained, endeavour to overcome the difficulty by asserting that the words: "in their own tongue" [------] and: "that is: the field of blood" [------] in verse 19, are merely explanatory and inserted by the Author of Acts.(2) It is unnecessary to say that this explanation is purely arbitrary, and that there is no ground, except the difficulty itself, upon which their exclusion from the speech can be based.

In the cases to which we have hitherto referred, the impossibility of supposing that Peter could have spoken in this way has led writers to lay the responsibility of unacknowledged interpolations in the speech upon the Author of Acts, thus at once relieving the Apostle. There are some apologists, however, who do not adopt this expedient, but attempt to meet the difficulty in other ways, while accepting the whole as a speech of Peter. According to one theory, those who object that Peter could not have thus related the death of Judas to people who must already have been well acquainted with the circumstances have totally overlooked the fact, that a peculiar view of what has occurred is taken in the narrative, and that this peculiar view is the principal point of it According to the statement made, Judas met his miserable end in the very field which he had bought with

{102}

the price of blood. It is this circumstance, it appears, which Peter brings prominently forward and represents as a manifest and tangible dispensation of Divine justice.(1) Unfortunately, however, this is clearly an imaginary moral attached to the narrative by the apologist, and is not the object of the supposed speaker, who rather desires to justify the forced application to Judas of the quotations in verse 20, which are directly connected with the preceding by [------]. Moreover, no explanation is here offered of the extraordinary expressions in verse 19 addressed to citizens of Jerusalem by a Jew in their own tongue. Another explanation, which includes these points, is still more striking. With regard to the improbability of Peter's relating, in such a way, the death of Judas, it is argued that, according to the Evangelists, the disciples went from Jerusalem back to Galilee some eight days after the resurrection, and only returned, earlier than usual, before Pentecost to await the fulfilment of the promise of Jesus. Peter and his companions, it is supposed, only after their return became acquainted with the fate of Judas, which had taken place during their absence, and the matter was, therefore, quite new to them; besides, it is added, a speaker is often obliged on account of some connection with his subject to relate facts already known.(2) It is true that some of the Evangelists represent this return to Galilee(3) as having taken place, but the author of the third Gospel and the Acts not only

3 Mt. xxviii. 10, 10; Mk. xvi. 7; John xxi. 1. I)r. Farrar, somewhat pertinently, asks: "Why did they (the disciples) not go to Galilee immediately on receiving our Lord's message? The circumstance is unexplained... Perhaps the entire message of Jesus to them is not recorded; perhaps they awaited the end of the feast." Life of Christ, ii. p. 441, note 1.

{103}

does not do so but excludes it.(1) In the third Gospel (xxiv. 49), Jesus commands the disciples to remain in Jerusalem until they are endued with power from on high, and then, after blessing them, he is parted from them, and they return from Bethany to Jerusalem.(2) In Acts, the author again takes up the theme, and whilst evidently giving later traditions regarding the appearances after the resurrection, he adheres to his version of the story regarding the command to stay in Jerusalem. In i. 4, he says: "And being assembled together with them he commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father," etc.; and here again, verse 12, the disciples are represented, just before Peter's speech is supposed to have been delivered, as returning from the Mount of Olives to Jerusalem. The Author of Acts and of the third Synoptic, therefore, gives no countenance to this theory. Besides, setting all this aside, the apologetic hypothesis we are discussing is quite excluded upon other grounds. If we suppose that the disciples did go into Galilee for a time, we find them again in Jerusalem at the election of the successor to Judas, and there is no reason to believe that they had only just returned. The Acts not only allow of no interval at all for the journey to Galilee between i. 12-14 and 15 ff., but by the simple statement

2 We shall hereafter have to go more fully into this, and shall not discuss it here. The third Gospel really represents the Ascension as taking place on the day of the Resurrection; and Acts, whilst giving later tradition, and making the Ascension occur forty days after, does not amend, but confirms the previously enunciated view that the disciples had been ordered to stay in Jerusalem.

{104}

with which our episode commences, v. 15: "And in these days" [------], Peter conveys anything but the impression of any very recent return to Jerusalem. If the Apostles had been even a few days there, the incongruity of the speech would remain undiminished; for the 120 brethren who are said to have been present must chiefly have been residents in Jerusalem, and cannot be. supposed also to have been absent, and, in any case, events which are represented as so well known to all the dwellers in Jerusalem, must certainly have been familiar to the small Christian community, whose interest in the matter was so specially great. Moreover, according to the first Synoptic, as soon as Judas sees that Jesus is condemned, he brings the money back to the chief priests, casts it down and goes and hangs himself, xxvii. 3 ff. This is related even before the final condemnation of Jesus and before his crucifixion, and the reader is led to believe that Judas at once put an end to himself, so that the disciples, who are represented as being still in Jerusalem for at least eight days after the resurrection, must have been there at the time. With regard to the singular expressions in verse 19, this theory goes on to suppose that, out of consideration for Greek fellow-believers, Peter had probably already begun to speak in the Greek tongue; and when he designates the language of the dwellers in Jerusalem as "their own dialect," he does not thereby mean Hebrew in itself, but their own expression, the peculiar confession of the opposite party, which admitted the cruel treachery towards Jesus, in that they named the piece of ground Hakel Damah.(1) Here, again, what assumptions! It is generally recognized that Peter must have spoken in

{105}

Aramaic, and even if he did not, [------](1) cannot mean anything but the language of "all the-dwellers at Jerusalem." In a speech delivered at Jerusalem, in any language, to an audience consisting at least in considerable part of inhabitants of the place, and certainly almost entirely of persons whose native tongue was Aramaic, to tell them that the inhabitants called a certain field "in their own tongue" Acheldamach, giving them at the same time a translation of the word, is inconceivable to most critics, even including apologists.

There is another point which indicates not only that this theory is inadequate to solve the difficulty, but that the speech could not have been delivered by Peter a few weeks after the occurrences related. It is stated that the circumstances narrated were so well known to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, that the field was called in their own tongue Acheldamach. The origin of this name is not ascribed to the priests or rulers, but to the people, and it is not to be supposed that a popular name could have become attached to this field, and so generally adopted as the text represents, within the very short time which could have elapsed between the death of Judas and the delivery of this speech. Be it remembered that from the time of the crucifixion to Pentecost the interval was in all only about seven weeks, and that this speech was made some time before Pentecost, how long we cannot tell, but in any case, the interval was much too brief to permit of the popular adoption of the name.(2) The whole passage has much more the character of a narrative of

{106}

events which had occurred at a time long past, than of circumstances which had taken place a few days before.

The obvious conclusion is that this speech was never spoken by Peter, but is a much later composition put into his mouth,1 and written for Greek readers, who required to be told about Judas, and for whose benefit the Hebrew name of the field, inserted for local colouring, had to be translated. This is confirmed by several circumstances, to which we may refer. We shall not dwell much upon the fact that Peter is represented as applying to Judas two passages quoted from the Septuagint version of Ps. lxix. 25 (Sept lxviii.) and Ps. cix. (Sept cviii.) which, historically, cannot for a moment be sustained as referring to him.(2) The first of these Psalms is quoted freely, and moreover the denunciations in the original being against a plurality of enemies, it can only be made applicable to Judas by altering the plural "their" [------] to "his habitation" [------], a considerable liberty to take with prophecy. The Holy Spirit is said to have

{107}

spoken this prophecy "concerning Judas" "by the mouth of David," but modern research has led critics to hold it as most probable that neither Ps. lxix.(1) nor Ps. cix.(2) was composed by David at all. As we know nothing of Peter's usual system of exegesis, however, very little weight as evidence can be attached to this. On the other hand, it is clear that a considerable time must have elapsed before these two passages from the Psalms could have become applied to the death of Judas.(3)

The account which is given of the fate of Judas is contradictory to that given in the first Synoptic and cannot be reconciled with it, but follows a different tradition.(4) According to the first Synoptic (xxvii. 3 ff.), Judas brings back the thirty pieces of silver, casts them down in the Temple, and then goes and hangs himself. The chief priests take the money and buy with it the Potter's field, which is not said to have had any other connection with Judas, as a place for the burial of strangers. In the Acts, Judas himself buys a field as a private possession, and instead

{108}

of committing suicide by hanging, he is represented as dying from a fall in this field, which is evidently regarded as a special judgment upon him for his crime. The apologetic attempts to reconcile these two narratives,(1) are truly lamentable. Beyond calling attention to this amongst other phenomena presented in this speech, however, we have not further to do with the point at present We have already devoted too much space to Peter's first address, and we now pass on to more important topics.