,6kS® 'Y^LE«¥]MH¥EI^SIIir¥' DIVINITY SCHOOL TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY THEOLOGICAL EDUCATOR. Edited by the Rev. W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, M.A., LL.D., Editor of " The Expositor." REV. WILLIAM HENRY SIMCOXS THE WRITERS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. NEW YORK: THOMAS WHITTAKER, 2 and 3, BIBLE HOUSE. 1892. THE WRITERS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. %\m j^le attfc €§m%dtxx%t\z$. BY THE LATE REV. WILLIAM HENRY SIMCOX, M.A., Rector of Harlaxton. THE SECOND PAR T OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMEJJSit NEW YORK: THOMAS WHITTAKER, 2 and 3, BIBLE HOUSE. 1892. PEEFACE. THE " Language of the New Testament " was an attempt to describe what was common to its writers ; what marked them off as a body, both from pagan writers, Attic and Hellenist, and from Jewish Hellenists, like Philo and Josepus. But though all New Testament writers approach more or less to a common type, and diverge more or less from the established style of their contemporaries and pre decessors, each of them has not only a style and a »manner, but almost a language, of his own, — each, at least, has his own compromise or compromises be tween the Hebraistic elements of his thought and the Hellenic or Hellenistic elements of his language. Then, too, each has, to some extent, a vocabulary of his own ; and the vocabularies of the New Testa ment writers suggest groupings which do not always coincide with the groupings suggested by style. In the text of the present work, my brother has given a description in outline of the style and language of each of the writers of the New Testament. The first of the Appendices is intended to bring out vi PREFACE . something of the affinities of vocabulary between different groups of writers. Perhaps the most im portant point which they illustrate is that in voca bulary, though not in style, St. Luke stands closely related to the disputed or disputable works of St. Paul on one side and to the so-called catholic epistles of St. Peter, St. James, and St. Jude on the other. The second of the Appendices is intended to illus trate with something of detail the contrasts between the Greek of the New Testament and other Greek, which have been described in the " language " and in the "writers" of the New Testament. I have only to add that the book is printed from my brother's MSS., which he left ready for press, and that Mr. Thompson renewed his kindness in reading the proofs of the text. G. A. Simcox, CONTENTS. PAGE PREFACE ........ v INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NEW TESTA MENT WRITERS ..... 1 CHAP. I. THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS .... 3 „ II. ST. LUKE 16 „ in. st. Paul's epistles . . . .25 „ IV. THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS (WITH ITS RELATIONS TO SS. PAUL AND LUKE) . 39 „ V. THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES . . .60 „ VI. THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND JOANNINE EPISTLES ...... 70 „ VII. THE APOCALYPSE .... 80 APPENDIX I. TABLES ILLUSTRATING AFFINITIES IN VOCABULARY BETWEEN — (i.) SS. LUKE AND JOHN . . 90 (ii.) SS. PAUL, FETEIt, LUKE, AND HE BREWS . . . .92 (iii.) ST. LUKE, HEBKEWSJ PASTORAL AND CATHOLIC EPISTLES . .116 viii CONTENTS. PAGE APPENDIX II. SPECIMENS OF HELLENIC AND HEL LENISTIC GREEK . . .155 (i.) TRANSLATIONS AND PARAPHRASES PROM THE OLD TESTAMENT . 158 (ii.) ORIGINAL NARRATIVES AND DE SCRIPTIONS . . . .162 NOTES .... 168 (iii.) THEOLOGICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL PASSAGES . . . .178 NOTES .... 182 INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE WRITERS OP THE NEW TESTAMENT. SINCE the language of the N. T. is a kind of compromise between the requirements of Greek idiom and of Hebraic modes of thought, it is natural that, in different parts of it, now one and now the other of these elements should predominate. Thus we are not surprised to find that the description we have given of N. T. grammar applies in different degrees to the different writers — eight at least in number — whose works are included in this portion of " the Divine Library." For our present purpose, some of the N. T. writings may be grouped together, though certainly by different authors, while others must be described separately, though possibly or probably by the same. Even if we think it possible that the Epistle to the Hebrews is the work of St. Paul, its literary form — w,e may almost say its dialect, as well as its style — is quite different from that of the Epistles bearing his name. The difference between the Apocalypse and the other writings of St. John is even greater, and extends further into the region of pure grammar. On the other hand, we have no reason to notice doubts, even if we felt any, as to the authenticity of the two shorter Epistles of St. John, — hardly as to that of the Pastoral Epistles of 1 2 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. St. Paul. Even if not written by the authors to whom they are ascribed, they have a style imitated from or influenced by theirs, to a degree that makes it necessary to examine them together, though it may be necessary also to note that they have pecu liarities of their own. We may thus arrange the twenty-seven books of the N. T. in seven groups — two of them, however, containing only a single member, though one of these has affinities to works outside the N. T. canon. The order in which it will be convenient to examine these is (1) SS. Matthew and Mark ; (2) St. 'Luke; (3) St. Paul ; (4) the Epistle to the Hebrews, in connexion with the two books ; (5) SS. Peter, James, and Jude ; (6) St. John's Gospel and Epistles ; (7) the Revelation. CHAPTER I. THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. IN style and language, as in substance, the fea tures common to the first three Gospels are both more obvious and more important than the individual characteristics of each. No doubt, careful study will show such individual characteristics, both in the form and in the substance of each Gospel, and it is our business so to study them ; only we must not overrate the importance of what we learn by careful study, in comparison with what forced itself on our attention at the outset. There are Hebraisms in St. Matthew, there are Latin words in St. Mark, and there is a tendency to classical idiom in St. Luke ; but these are no more the chief characteris tic of each, than it is the object of St. Matthew's Gospel to forbid, and of St. Luke's to promote, the admission of the Gentiles into the Church. We thus find ourselves obliged to glance at a question which it is impossible for us to discuss, and for which we cannot indicate any answer as certainly or finally satisfactory. It is perhaps the hardest problem in the higher criticism of the N. T., and- the one which has made least progress towards solution — what was the nature of the Protevangelium, the narrative forming the basis of at least three 4 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. of the Canonical Gospels 1 and how are we to corre late the fact, proved by internal evidence, of the existence of this common basis, with the traditional accounts of the origin and authorship of the Gospels as we have them ? But though we cannot point to any answer to the first of these questions as commanding general assent, we may say there is at least a tendency to general agreement in this — that St. Mark's Gospel affords the nearest approach we have to an exact reproduc tion of the common basis of the three. And though we cannot enter on the discussion of the second question, we may have the satisfaction of feeling that what we learn from our present study will, in some modest measure, contribute to the exact state ment, and perhaps at length to the solution, of the problem. Now one characteristic of St. Mark's as compared with the other Gospels is a certain roughness of style, a broken and uneven method in narrative, which is almost sure to have been characteristic of the most primitive form of the Gospel story, as it would be far likelier to be softened than to be intensified in the hands of successive reporters or redactors. Such imperfections (tried by a European standard) in the style are natural enough, on any view that we may take of the nature of the Protevangelium : — whether it were an Aramaic document actually used by our Evangelists ; a document originally Aramaic, but used by them in a Greek translation ; a document originally written in Greek, but by a man whose acquaintance with Greek was lately acquired and imperfect ; or lastly, a tradition * never reduced to * The suggested parallel with the Mishna (See Abbott & Rushbrooke's Common Tradition of the Synoptic Gospels THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 5 writing before the date of our present Gospels, but which had from the first been orally transmitted in a nearly fixed form, which it assumed in the mouths of Aramaic-speaking disciples. But, as it was natural, humanly speaking, so it was in harmony with the purposes of Providence, that this non-Greek character of the Gospel story should disappear, as the Church in which the Gospel was received came to be, in every sense, more Greek than Jewish. At all events, whatever theories may be adopted or suggested as to the origin of the Gospels, there is no doubt that all of them have a common Hebrais tic character, more marked than in any other book of the N. T. except the Apocalypse. Perhaps this shows itself most, not in the body of any of the episodes related either in individual Gospels or in their common source, but in the way that the narra tives are linked on to each other. All the Evangelists use more or less frequently the Hebraistic formula Kal iyipero . . . representing the *TO of the historical portions of the 0. T. ; but each of the three has individual peculiarities in the way of using it.* It is rarest in St. Mark, most frequent in St. Luke ; but once or twice in the former, and oftener in the latter, it is attempted to harmonise the Hebraic phrase with the requirements of Greek idiom. The Introd., p. xi. etc.) is at least worthy of consideration. Our Lord's words may have been preserved in memory by His disciples, as those of contemporary and even earlier Rabbis were by theirs ; whether we accept or not the further sugges tion, that the Evangelical sayings were originally preserved in a form as crude and elliptical as the Talmudic. * The correlative predictive phrase teal iaraj. c. fut. indie. occurs only in quotations from the 0. T. — Acts ii. 17, 21, Rom. ix. 26. In Acts iii. 20 (where the quotation, though founded on the LXX., is very loose) we have tcrrai Si with the same constr. answering to the Lucan iyivero 84. 6 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. commonest constr. in all three Gospels is that of Matt. vii. 28, Kai eyevero ore ereKeaev 6 'IC. tow? \6yovs tovtovs, e^eirXri? in i. 23, 41, ii. 15, xix. 29, and the gen. abs. in xi. 14, and perhaps in ix. 57. Another Hebraistic formula of transition or con nexion is Kai ISov : this is never found in St. Mark at all (not even in v. 22, true text), but twenty-seven times in St. Matthew, perhaps * as often in St. Luke's longer Gospel,f and eight times (not counting x. 17) in the Acts. St. Matthew moreover has IBov 10 times (i. 20, ii. 1, 13, 19, ix. 18, 32, xii. 46, xvii. 5, xxvi. 47, xxviii. 11) without Kai, but preceded by a gen. abs. * In xiii. 30, xxiii. 14 it may be said that Idoi has a distinc tive force, and is more than a formula of transition — like Kai tSe in John vii. 26. St. John never has Kai Idoi in the Gospel — eleven (or twelve) times in the Revelation. f Including cases where it forms the apodosis (so to call it) to xal iyivero. 8 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. And, besides these formulae of transition common to all the Evangelists each has one or more favourite ones of his own. St. Matthew constantly uses the simple rare : he has it sixty-three times, counting only the use with historical tense, though that with futures and imperatives in cc. xxiv.-v. is the same in principle. Constantly, too, he introduces a new narrative or dis course by introducing a new person with rrpoo~r\hdev or irpoo-eh£mv. fit. Mark is fond of Kai evdvs (so, not evOews, the best texts always) even when, as in i. 29, it is hard to see that the adv. has its distinc tive force. This, we must note, is by no means confined to the introduction of fresh narratives ; it serves quite as often (e.g. i. 42, 43) to emphasise the conclusion of one. Then, from what we have seen, we may reckon Kai eyevero ev rm . . . Kai . . . as characteristic of St. Luke ; eyevero Si, at any rate, is peculiar to him. Moreover, while in St. Matthew the formula ko\ iSov is always (except in ix. 10) grammatical if not idiomatic by a Hellenic standard, in St. Luke Kai with or without iSov, often with the pron. avros, used seemingly (see Language of the New Testament, pp. 84, 85) in their nom. in a sense no more emphatic than that of the oblique cases, serves to in troduce the apodosis to a relative sentence, or itself takes the place of a relative clause, or in some form shows its Hebraistic meaning; see ii. 21, v. 35, vii. 37, xix. 43 (simple Kai) ; vii. 12 (koI iBov) ; ii. 28, xix. 2, Kai avro'i ; besides many instances of each where the break in the constr. is less marked. But, when we pass from the consideration of the common characteristics of the three Gospels to that of the individual ones, we are obliged to postpone the case of the third, because we have in the N. T. collection another work of the same author. Com- THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 9 paring then the first Gospel with the second, we feel it to be, if not more elegant or more Hellenic, at least a great deal smoother and easier reading — contrary to what we might have expected in what is described as a translation from the Hebrew. An ellipsis like that in the probable text of Mark ii. 22 is, it may fairly be said, rather vigorous than harsh ; but can we say the same of the absence of a verb in vii. 2 (true text), or of the way that the comment (for so we should doubtless read and interpret it) KaQapitfov rrdvra ra /3pd>fj,ara is introduced in vii. 19? See also viii. 2, 19-21, ix. 12, xi. 31-2, xii. 38- 40, xiii. 14, 33-4, for sentences either incomplete or irregular in constr. ; also the use of ri for o rt, in xiv. 36 is rather an extreme instance of what is, no doubt, a general tendency in Hellenistic Greek. And the general impression of roughness of style is more than proportioned to the number of quotable instances of harsh construction or strained use of words. But most of the individual features of St. Mark's style which can be adequately illustrated by single quotations are referable to the one principle — that he is more careful of clearness and emphasis in ex pressing his meaning than of elegance in language. Thus it is that he so often repeats a subst. where the use of a pron.* might seem more natural — e.g. the repetition of the name, 21/u.covos after %i/j,a>va in i. 16, of ra Saifiovia in ver. 34 : of r&v a/Aaprai\£)v * The pronoun ixeivos has, we may almost say, this for its idiomatic object — to give, without actual repetition of a noun, the emphasis that repetition would give : often (as in John v. 35, or xiii. 6, si vera l.~) the best translation is to repeat the noun, especially in the case of proper names ; as the A. V. does in the latter place. Now St. Mark never has tKeivos otherwise than in agreement never in apposition with a subst. or substantival phrase — except in the last twelve verses, where it occurs three times. 10 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Kai reXwvmv in ii. 16 after iroXXol reXwvai Kai dfiaprtoKol in ver. 15, and the like. So we have repetitions, in similar or in varied terms, of what has already been said in another form; as in the passage last cited, rjaav ydp iroWoi after the iroXXot reX&vat ; or compare i. 42 aTrrjXOev anr avrov rj \eirpa — Kai eKadapio-dr) with the parallels, Matt. viii. 3 which fuses the two expressions, and Luke v. 13, which omits the second. So we get adverbs — the frequent eiidvs or others — coupled with almost equivalent phrases; e.g. ii. 20, ToVe — ev eKeivrj rfj flftepa ; so v. 5, vi. 25, vii. 21, x. 30, xiii. 29, xiv. 30, 43. Double negatives, again, are perhaps more frequent than ordinary Greek idiom would make them. There is not very much that is significant in St. Mark's vocabulary. Critics duly note that, instead of St. Matthew's o-v/j,/3ov\iov \a/u,/3dveiv, he uses some other phrase — it is uncertain whether ctd/h/8. Trotelv or something else — both in iii. 6 and xv. 1 ; but nothing is suggested or can be inferred from this. Nor must we give too much weight to his use of Latin words ; he has only two or three that are not common to him with other N. T. writers. Ar/vapiov evidently was a word current, like the coin itself, all over the empire ; the same was the case, no doubt, with Ko8pdvrr)<;, though it happens to be found only in Matt, and Mark, and with the still more thoroughly disguised £ea are axi-toiiAvovi rois oipavois, which (compared with St. Matthew's ipeifx^'ooav oi oipavoi) is only an instance of St. Mark's pieturesqueness, and irurreieTe Iv t$ eiayy. 14 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. teristics of Hellenistic Greek, and might serve as the best sample of what Hellenistic narrative style is. We may add that, while from a purely literary point of view its style is inferior to that of the other Gospels, this very monotony is one of the features that enable it to be adequately represented by quotations of " texts," or by the reading of short pericopes : it is no mere accident that it has been, in the Western Churches at least, the favourite Gospel for ecclesiastical use. The style being thus neutral or colourless, its individualisms of language lie mostly in the frequent repetition of certain phrases or formulse. Every one must have noticed some of these — rj fiaaiXela rotv ovpavmv as a variant of the phrase common to all primitive Christians r) /3. rov Qeov and 'iva irXrjpaOy rb prjdev inrb Kvpiov Sia rov irpofyrjrov (i. 22, cf . ii. 5), with variants according to context, or formed by mere omission (e.g. ii. 17, iv. 14). We notice the oVftis instead of 'iva in viii. 17, xiii. 35 ; which, with the rovro he oXov yeyovev of i. 22, xxvi. 56, seems to show that the final sense of 'iva may safely be pressed. Hardly less characteristic of this Evange list is 6 TLarr)p /mov (fifiSiv, vfi&v) 6 ev [to??] ovpavolf or 6 ovpdvtos ; St. Mark has it only once (xi. 25, critics omit the next ver.), and St. Luke only once (xi. 13, not 2), and that with the variation o e|? ovpavov. It is less a characteristic of language, and more of thought,* that here alone in the N. T. (iv. 5, xxvii. 53) Jerusalem is called r) dyia 7ro\t? ; * We find it noted as parallel to this, that St. Matthew has the designation of Christ as " the Son of David " oftener than the other Gospels. This is so, and the occurrence of the phrase in xxi. 9, 15, and not in the parallels, is important ; but the mere difference in degree of frequency is too slight to be of much significance, THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 15 but see rr/v ir. rrjv dyiav in Rev. xi. 2, and cf. ibid. xx. 9 : xxi. 2 etc., of the new Jerusalem, is of course a different case. Similarly we have r6rro<; wyiot in xxiv. 15, apparently of the Temple ; we have the same phrase, though with the art., in Acts vi. 13, xxi. 28, but only in the mouth of antichristian Jews. More purely verbal, but less exclusively peculiar is the use of iroielv without an obj., but with an adv., esp. a pronominal adv., ovtms, ok, (offirep, etc., supplying the place of one. Not counting eS or KaXw rroielv (either in the sense " do good " or " do well ") we have it eleven times in St. Matthew (i. 24, v. 47, vi. 2, vii. 12, xviii. 35, xx. 5, xxi. 6, 36, xxiv. 46, xxvi. 19, xxviii. 15) ; besides one or two adverbial phrases like that in xxiii. 3, and the use without any obj. at all, like xxv. 40, 45. In St. Luke's longer Gospel we have the same constr. only nine times, counting (f>povip,a><; iiroirjo-ev in xvi. 8, and once in Acts (xii. 8) ; in St. Mark only once (xv. 8), and in St. John not at all ; in St. Paul only two or three times (1 Cor. xvi. 1, 1 Thess. v. 11 ; perhaps we should count also Eph. iii. 20) ; once in St. James (ii. 12), who has so much in common with St. Matthew. One hardly knows whether it is a difference of substance or of language, that St. Matthew alone has the phrase /mt,t' ovap (i. 20, ii. 12, 13, 19, 22, xxvii. 19), whereas in Acts (ix. 10, 12, x. 3) we have iv opdjiari or (xviii. 9) cV opdfiaro? ; certainly St. Matthew himself uses opa/ia (xvii. 9, of the Transfiguration). CHAPTER II. ST. LUKE. WE have already noted some of the character istic features of St. Luke's Gospel, and have seen that it shares, in at least equal measure, the Hebraistic tone of the other Synoptics. But it is no less true — it is perhaps more generally recognised — that St. Luke's Gospel has much in common with the Acts of the Apostles, so that internal evidence, as well as the statement of the prologue, supports the general belief that they are by the same author ; and that the Acts is, of all the books included in the N. T., the nearest to contemporary if not to classical literary usage — the only one, except per haps the Epistle to the Hebrews, where conformity to a standard of classical correctness is consciously aimed at. The fact is, that St. Luke is the most versatile of the N. T. writers ; his mind, if not the greatest among them, was the most many-sided. He, the companion of St. Paul, shows the strongest sympathy for Ebionism in its etymological sense — the poverty, partly but not wholly voluntary, of the primitive Church of Jerusalem ; and in like manner, he writes in a Hebraistic or in a Hellenic style, according as he is describing events that took place in a Hebrew or in a Hellenic society. ST. LUKE. 17 One literary quality, indeed, is still more pro minent in St. Luke than his versatility — his pic- turesqueness. St. Mark, it is true, gives us oftener the little touches that mark a description as coming, at first hand or almost unaltered, from an eye witness ; but he does less than St. Luke to make us feel as if we were eyewitnesses ourselves. Late and historically worthless as is the story that makes St. Luke himself a painter, it has a certain ideal truth, for it is from him that Christian painters have mainly derived their inspiration ; he is the father of Christian art, from the Good Shepherd wrought on chalices or in catacombs of the second and third centuries, through the Madonnas and Holy Families of the middle ages, down to Michel Angelo's Con version of St. Paul, and Raphael's Deliverance of St. Peter. It lies beyond our province, however, to illustrate this quality, which does not depend upon details of language. For illustrations of the author's versatility of style, we have not far to look. " Almost the only passage in the N. T. which reads like a Greek period of the time, is the first paragraph of the Gospel according to St. Luke, and the corresponding words of the Acts." * But in the Gospel we have a sudden transition from the literary style and periodic structure of the dedication to Theophilus, to the Hebraistic opening of the narrative itself, 'Eyevero iv rate rjpiepais 'Hp rropevecdai iyevero avrbv iyyi^eiv, till we come to x. 25, a>? Se iyevero rov eiaeXdeiv rov Ilerpov. Here, or in xxi. 1, 5, it would be simply impossible to substitute the Hebraic constr. so common in the Gospel. 20 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. So it is with most of the other Hebraisms in St. Luke — the iv ra c. inf., the Kai in apodosi (often coupled with avros or iSov) that commonly accom panies it, or such phrases as Kai ev Tat? rfpApavs iKeivaif. They are more frequent in St. Luke than in St. Mark — some of them more than in St. Matthew ; but they do not prevent our feeling the style to be more Hellenic than theirs, because it is harder to draw the line between cases where they are felt to be Hebraisms, and those where they have a distinctive sense that would justify their use in any Greek. E.g. the line is not easy to draw between the use of Kai avros in xix. 9 and that in ib. 2.* Similarly in iv. 2 iv rai<; f]iAepaifjt,e0a is not the original text, but if not, it proves almost more decidedly what was the idiom familiar to those who edited St. Luke or carried on his tradition. But as we go on after c. xiii. in the Acts, the Hellenic element in the language becomes more and more predominant. We see this, not only in passages like the letter of Lysias and the speech of Tertullus, but even in the Epistle of the Church of Jerusalem in c. xv., and the defence of St. Paul before Agrippa, compared with the earlier speeches just referred to. Nor is it only in such respects as these that he is more Hellenic than the other N. T. writers ; he has a nearer approach to a sound instinctive know ledge, if not a complete mastery, of the shades of construction that make a writer's language idiomatic and elegant. He alone in the N. T. has the use of the opt. in indirect questions — Ev. i. 29, iii. 15, viii. 9 (xv. 26, xviii. 36, in these two places there is more or less authority for the insertion of av), xxii. 23, Acts xvii. 11, xxi. 33, xxv. 20. Peculiar to him, * 'Avadi/iari dvadefutTlo-afiev in xxiii. 14 is put into the mouth of Jews, apparently of Jerusalem, and so is a parallel case, though so much further on in the book. 22 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. also, is the constr. of more doubtful correctness, where the opt. is accompanied by dv, and the indirect question often introduced by the art. — i. 62, vi. 11, ix. 46 (xv. 26, xviii. 36 ?), Acts v. 24, x. 17 (ii. 12, xvii. 20, xxi. 33 ? — cf. xvii. 18). For another similar idiomatic use of the opt. see Language of the New Testament, p. 110. Still the language never ceases to be Hellenistic ; however marked or however successful the effort at classical style may be, we usually see that it is an effort. Perhaps it may even be said, that he some times gets out of his depth when the effort is long continued, and in trying to be elegant ceases to be correct. Certainly, in Acts we have a good many anacolutha, esp. in the latter cc. : viii. 7 is at best a mixture of two constructions, unless it can be explained (cf. Mark v. 10, 11) as showing the inter fusion of the personalities of the demons and the possessed. The redundant ort in xxvii. 10 is occa sionally found in classical Greek ; in xxiii. 23-4 the transition from or. rect. to obi., though rare and rather awkward, is not more essentially irregular than the reverse transition so common in St. Luke. The broken sentence in xxiv. 19 is quite natural in a speech ; still we feel that the irregularities come rather thick. And in xvii. 2 the leaving the subject to be inferred from an oblique case is pronounced to be hardly Greek. At any rate, even when he is most Hellenic, we always feel the influence of biblical if not of Hebraic language ; we feel it more perhaps, than in the less deliberately classicalised style of St. Paul or St. James. For there is one thing, at least, that prevents St. Luke from break ing with Hebraic traditions — he never so far Hellenises " as to set Hellenic religion on a, level ST. LUKE. 23 with his own, or to disguise scriptural doctrines because scriptural language might sound uncouth. We have dwelt on this point at special length, because the effort at literary elegance is the point which, in the Acts at least, differentiates St. Luke's style most from that of other N. T. writers, and because the student, especially if he be a classical scholar, is likely to overrate the importance of the Hellenic element in his language compared with the Hellenistic. Of his vocabulary we cannot at present speak, but must refer to C. IV. and the Tables in Appendix I. Of his characteristics of style not directly connected with the effort at classical ele gance, or the faithful retention of semi-Hebraic formulae, the most marked are in his modes of intro ducing speeches in the course of a narrative. Once at least (Ev. vii. 41) he leaves a change of speaker in a dialogue to be understood, without any word to mark it ; oftener he introduces parenthetic breaks in the course . of a speech, continuing it after them without fresh mention of the speaker : so Ev. vii. 29-31 (true text), xix. 25-6,* and in all pro bability Acts i. 18-20. Often (how often is a point in which texts vary) he omits the verb elrrev or (pr/o-iv where the speaker, and in general the person spoken to, are indicated (e.g. Acts v. 9, true text) ; often he slides from oratio obliqua into recta (as Acts i. 4, xiv. 22, xvii. 3 ; this again is a point as to which readings are often uncertain : see Westcott and Hort's Introduction, § 404) : once (Acts xxiii. 23-4) he conversely slides from recta into obliqua. * These are from passages peculiar to St. Luke, at least in their exact form. Referring however to v. 24 and its parallels (Matt. ix. 6, Mark ii. 11), and to Mark viii. 19-21, we ask if this was characteristic of the form in which our Evan gelists received all their materials. 24 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. And while he thus makes it difficult for a modern editor to mark speeches in his books by the usual modern device of inverted commas, he extends that use of the art. which is almost equivalent to inverted commas, so as to make it the introduction to an indirect question : see Ev. i. 62, ix. 46, xix. 48, xxii. 23, 24, Acts iv. 21, xxii. 30. (The only parallel cases in the N. T. are Rom. viii. 26, 1 Thess. iv. 1 — even Mark ix. 23 is different.) Other mannerisms, more or less referable to the effort at classical elegance, are the frequent use of the conj. Te, of the phrase ovk (or ovy/) oXiyo? (eight times in Acts), of cases of 7ra? (mostly after a prep.) followed by an attracted rel. (Ev. ii. 20, ix. 43, xxiv. 25, Acts i. 1, iii. 21, x. 39; xiii. 39, xxii. 10, xxvi. 2), and sometimes by another subst. or adj. in agreement (Ev. iii. 19, xix. 37). Perhaps we may class with these the greater frequency of -n-pof c. ace. after verbs of speaking, where the other Gospels usually have the dat. Tov c. inf. in a final sense is relatively common in him — perhaps commoner in the received text than in a critical. CHAPTER III. st. paul's epistles. AS it was the personal action of the Apostle Paul that was the chief means of making the Gospel known to the Western world, so his writings give the most typical form of the language in which it reached them. If we want to see what shall be pure Hellenistic Greek — Greek that is composed in Greek, and not a version of something written, spoken, or at least thought out, in Hebrew or Aramaic ; but which on the other hand is the un- mistakeable composition of a Jew, to whom "EXXrjv means " Gentile " — it is to St. Paul's writings that we shall turn, In general, his language is grammatically correct ; what irregularities he does admit are such as show freedom rather than inexperience in the use of a language, or else such slips as are almost inevitable in letters dictated, not written by the author him self. To this last cause we may ascribe the repetition of en which is strongly attested in Rom. v. 6,* the redundant ore in 1 Cor. xii. 2 — whether we suppose this to be a mere Sirroypaia of the amanuensis, or a hesitation on the Apostle's own part as to the * Westcott and Hort follow B (rather diffidently) in reading el followed by some particle, and connecting the clause with what precedes. 26 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. form the sentence should take : and also the more considerable anacolutha analysed below. The same cause may account for the unique solecism, ei rm o-TrXdyxya in Phil. ii. 1 ; it is as natural that a man should have said e'i ri<} before he decided on the next word, and not cared to correct himself when he decided that it should be a neuter, as it is incredible that a decently educated man should deliberately have written the words as they stand in the MSS. Two points may be noted, one negative and one positive, as illustrative of St. Paul's command of pure Greek idiom. In the few passages (Gal. i. 13- ii. 14 is the longest) where he gives a consecutive narrative, we feel a contrast with the Hebraistic style of the Synoptic Gospels, and even of parts of the Acts. Instead of the constant Kai, and frequent Kai iyevero, we have clauses and paragraphs intro duced by varied and appropriate particles or asyndeta (Gal. i. 13 yap ; 15 Se ; 18 erreira ; 20 Se ; 21, ii. 1, errreira; 3 dXXd ; 6, 11 Se'; 14 dXXd). Again, a subtle test of Greek idiom is furnished by the use of the untranslatable particle fiev, in the ex ceptional cases wher.e it is not balanced by a Se, dXXd, 'iireira, or some equivalent word. Now St. Paul has nine or ten instances of this use (not counting the combination puev ovv) : * nowhere is the particle meaningless, or felt to be unnatural ; and nowhere is it felt, as the rarer instances of its use in the Acts are, to be a conscious effort at classicalism. And yet, though St. Paul writes Greek with freedom, and at the same time with grammatical * Rom. i. 8, iii. 2, vi. 21 (v. 1.), x. 1, xi. 13 (T. R.), 1 Cor xi. 18, 2 Cor. xi. 4, xii. 12, Col. ii. 23, 1 Thess. ii. 18. ST. PAUL'S EPISTLES. 27 and even idiomatic correctness, there is hardly a line in his writings which a non-Jewish author of his day would have written. The difference is greater in vocabulary than in grammar. Not only is there a new group of words, relating to specially Jewish or Christian religious conceptions ; other conceptions, for which the classical language would have furnished some sort of expression, are rather expressed in terms of the new ecclesiastical dialect. And, while the language is enriched on the one side of its special purpose, it is impoverished on other sides. The vocabulary is less varied, not only than that of professed literary men, but than that of the few Christian writers whom we have to compare with the Apostle- — men who deal with the same conceptions as he, with less native power, but with verbal instruments more flexible. Besides the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, St. Clement of Rome is more Greek than St. Paul : and this though his style is very largely influenced by St. Paul's own, as well as by the LXX. and other non-Hellenic influences that are common to both. We may name, as characteristic instances of St. Paul's " new departure " in the formation of an ecclesiastical language, his uses of the words olKoSop,eiv and its cognates, and of -jrXripofpopeio-Oat, ¦jrXrjpofopia, and TrXrjpaofjia. And yet we are forced to confess our ignorance, how far the coinage or appropriation of these words originated with St. Paul himself. The Wisdom of Solomon is a proof sufficient, though now almost solitary,* that Philo was not * See Drummond's Philo Jvdaeus, Book II., c. v. for a dis cussion of this book ; and Appendix 2 to the same Book on the fragments of Aristobulus, which might be coupled With it, if genuine, which is questioned. 28 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. the only Jewish writer who, living at Alexandria or trained under Alexandrian influences, had acquired a knowledge of Greek literary style and assimilated the thoughts of Greek philosophy, while holding fast, more or less consistently, the monotheistic faith of a Jew. But the scanty remains which we have of that Alexandrian school should forbid us to be certain that there were not other schools, in which thoughts more purely Jewish found utterance in forms less purely Greek, but which were co-ordinate with the Alexandrian school in providing language for the Church of Jews and Gentiles. It is quite possible that among the disciples of Gamaliel and the opponents of St. Stephen, Saul of Tarsus found ready formed to his hand the language in which he preached his Gospel and wrote our memorials of it. " This possibility however is balanced by another. We must remember, that St. Paul had had a long Christian career before any of his extant Epp. were composed ; so that the formed character of his vocabulary in these does not prove that it may not have been of his own formation. Without pretend ing to encourage speculation or to overvalue its results, we perhaps may incline to think that it was St. Paul himself who originated the metaphor of " edification." The ethical use may have been sug gested to him, and to his precursors if he had any, by the metaphorical use, which however is really distinct, found in Ps. xxvii. (xxviii.) 5, and often in Jeremiah (i. 10, etc.) ; but St. Paul not only gives a new application to the metaphor, but uses it so often that the consciousness that it is a metaphor is lost, unless expressly revived as it is in 1 Cor. iii. 9 sqq., Eph. ii. 20 sqq. On the other hand, the word TrXrjpocpopeiv seems ST. PAUL'S EPISTLES. 29 to be of coinage internal to the Greek language, yet peculiarly Alexandrine if not Hellenistic Greek : and it received a special application in Christian usage. The alleged example of the use of TrXr]- potfropelv by Ctesias in the sense of " satisfying, assuring '' a person, vanishes on examination : there is no evidence, express or internal, that Photius, in his summary of the history given in Ctesias' Persica (Bibl. Tom. 72, p. xli. v. 29), reproduces his author's language even in an abridged form. Thus the sole example of the word before St. Paul is in the LXX. of Eccles. viii. 11 ; for however late the composition of that book may be, there is no reason to doubt that both it and the Greek translation of it are pre- Christian. But it is not an accident, that Christians had occasion oftener than Pagans, or even Jews, to speak of " full assurance " or " confident con viction ; " nor that the word, which in its solitary 0. T. instance is used in a bad sense, in St. Paul and writers influenced by him (no others use it) has an exclusively good one. On the growth of the theological sense of the word irXrjpmpja, there is nothing to be added to Bp. Lightfoot's investigation, in an Excursus at the end of his edition of the Ep. to the Colossians. There is no difficulty in supposing that here we have materials for tracing the whole history of the word. In Rom. xv. 29 it is hardly differentiated from its secular meaning, yet from this the transition to the use in John i. 16 is not very hard. It is of course impossible to give individual instances of a writer's style, in the sense that we can give instances of his vocabulary ; but perhaps the difference between St. Paul and an ordinary Greek writer of his day may be best described by 30 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. saying that he is more modern, and that he is less rhetorical. A lecturer on the Ep. to the Hebrews is reported to have said, that the three first words ¦n-oXvp.ep&'i Kai <7roXvrp6iro)<; were enough to Con vince him that St. Paul did not write it. This is an exaggeration : assonances like cfidovov, ovov ; davverov;, davvderovi (Rom. i. 29, 30), assonances with an etymological basis (daropyoi, doirovSoi ; irpoSorai,' rrpoirereh, 2 Tim. iii. 3, 4), and words or clauses parallel in sense (1 Cor. xiii. passim) are quite in St. Paul's manner. Again, we have some thing like a rhetorical artifice in the use of different prepositions with the same noun in parallel or co ordinate clauses — see Rom. iii. 22, 1 Cor. xii. 8, 9, 2 Cor. iii. 11, Gal. i. 1 ; and the passages which, when we recognise their rhetorical character, are seen to have less of the nature of the Aristotelian scholasticism (cf . Language of the New Testament, p. 141), of which perhaps they do contain the germs — Rom. xi. 36, Eph. iv. 6, Col. i. 16.* We may add as a kindred feature the accumulation of rhetorical ques tions — Rom. ii. 3, 4, 21-3, x. 14, 15, 1 Cor. ix. 1, etc. : and the many cases where a question is asked, only to be answered by fir] yevoiro. But if there are some words chosen for effect in St. Paul, some cases where their sound or order, not merely their sense, has been an object with him, it is far oftener remarkable how simple, often how modern, he is in these respects. It is in the sublimest passages, such as Rom. viii., 1 Cor. xiii., Phil, iii., that we perhaps feel this most — the words are glorious in themselves, but are not arranged * It is worth while to refer to the striking parallel in M. Aurelius, Medit. IV. xxiii., iK rrj<; to" Xoyw (2 Cor. xi. 6), and made him rather glory in than repudiate the criticism (1 Cor. i. 17, ii. 1, 4, where the repudiation of A.070? is more unqualified than that of crocbia : cf . 1 Thess. i. 5). If St. Paul intentionally avoided the artifices of rhetoric, he did not, like the seer of the Apoca lypse, intentionally strain the rules of grammar. But it is probable that he knew as little of formal rules in grammar as in rhetoric ; that his general correctness is a matter of instinct rather than of care, and that accordingly instincts which led him to cast his thoughts in other than a strictly gram matical form were not rigorously repressed. St. Paul has been compared to Thucydides, as an author whose thoughts are so much more highly developed than his language, that the course of the latter is interrupted and its rules broken through by their expression. But the difference is at least as impor tant and characteristic as the likeness. Thucydides is a rhetorical writer — his rhetoric is more developed than his grammar, and his grammar is as often sacrificed to his rhetoric as overpowered by his fulness of thought. St. Paul, on the contrary, uses a language of which the grammar is mature or declining ; and while he may be carried away by his subject, he never sacrifices simplicity or lucidity to ambition of style. 32 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Perhaps the parallel is least misleading, if we confine it to that work of St. Paul where the sentences are longest, and, for that and other reasons, anacolutha most frequent — the Epistle to the Ephe- sians, or rather its earlier, purely theological portion. If we may regard this Epistle as our best example of that crocpia which, according to 1 Cor. ii. 6, was to be found in St. Paul's teaching, we may see in its style something like a v^repoxv Xoyov (ib. ver. 1), corresponding to the vTrepo^rj o-ov, its real object, is (according to rule) attracted into the gen.: cf. Phil. iii. 18. But in 2 Cor. ix. 13, 14 the constr. is too doubtful, and in any case too com plicated, to be discussed in less than a commentary. We can only call attention to the comparative fre quency of such irregularities in these few chapters of that Epistle ; in these, as in Gal. ii. 6 sqq., the Apostle feels that he is dealing with delicate sub jects, and is embarrassed by the consciousness. Two other points, less strictly grammatical, may be noticed as characteristic of St. Paul's style. He very often gives long enumeration of cognate moral qualities or actions, e.g. Rom. i. 29-31; xii. 9-19; . 1 Cor. i. 20, 26; xii. 28, 29-30; xiii. 4-7; 2 Cor iv. 8, 9 ; vi. 4-10 ; vii. 2 ; xi. 22-3, 24-5,' 26-7 ; xii 10, 20 ; Gal. v. 19-21, 22-3 ; Phil. ii. 1 ; iii. 5, 6 iv. 8; Col. iii. 8; 11 ; 12 ; 16 (true text) ; 1 Thess v. 14 sqq. ; 1 Tim. i. 9, 10 ; iii. 2-4 ; 8 ; 16 ; iv. 2 . v. 10; vi. 4, 5; 11; 2 Tim. ii. 22; iii. 2-5; 16 Tit. i. 7-9 ; ii. 2, 3 ; 4, 5 ; iii. 1, 2 (asyndeta) Rom. viii. 35; 38-9; 1 Cor. vi. 9, 10; Eph. iv. 11 (polysyndeta : 1 Cor. iv. 11-13 may be reckoned to 36 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. either class, and in xii. 8-11 the authorities vary as to the retention or omission of some of the conjunc tions. And he has some habitual phrases which he repeatedly uses, in the composition of one or more of his works, for the introduction or expansion of important topics. Everyone has noticed the rriarot; 6 Xoyos of the Pastoral Epp. ; but quite as marked a case, and equally peculiar to one work, is the ri (or t* ovv) epovfiev of Rom. iii. 5, vi. 1, vii. 7, ix. 14, 30 — iv. 1 and perhaps viii. 31 are slightly different, other words being added ; but both in form and sense they are nearer to the other instances than 1 Cor. x. 19, xi. 22. Hardly less striking is the oi diXa (or OeXopuev) vp.d<; dyvoeiv of Rom. i. 13, xi. 25, 1 Cor. x. 1, xii. 1, 2 Cor. i. 8, 1 Thess. iv. 13.* We may add, though the form is more variable, the epexegetical tovto Se Xeya, Xeya Se rovro, rovro Se t)p,i of 1 Cor. i. 12, vii. 6, 29, xv. 50, Gal. iii. 17 : in 1 Cor. vii. 35, Col. ii. 4, the sense is hardly epexegetical, but the Xiyto of Rom. x. 18, 19, xi. 1, xv. 8, 1 Cor. x. 29, Eph. v. 32, Phil. iv. 11 is worth comparing, though in itself it does not amount to a mannerism. We have dealt, in the above remarks, with the characteristics common to all the works (except of * It is remarkable that the 1st person pi., used in this phrase in 2 Cor. and Thess. is specially characteristic of these Epp. In Thess. there is doubtless a reason for this : at the early date when these Epp. were written, " Paul and Silvanus," if not Timotheus also, were more nearly on an equal footing than Paul and any of his companions later on. Notice esp. 1 Thess. ii. 18 ; even in iii. 1 the pi. is hardly merely rhetori cal : the three " send " Timothy, as in Acts viii. 14 the Twelve send (though the word is different) Peter and John to Samaria. In 2 Cor. we note, though in a less degree, the prevalence of the pi., but are less able to account for it ; it does not reappear in Phil, and Col., where also Timothy is associated in the superscription. ST. PAUL'S EPISTLES. 37 course confessed forgeries, like the Epp. to the Laodiceans and to Seneca) that bear St. Paul's name, hardly noticing the features that separate the Pastoral Epp., and in a less degree Eph. and Col., from the rest. The reason is, that while it is impossible within our limits to discuss the genuine ness of these works, we honestly believe that they are by the same author as the rest ; and so we have used them with the rest as illustrations of the same verbal, and indirectly mental, habits of that author. For a full statement of the peculiarities of these two groups we must refer to commentaries on the Epp. themselves. Many of them are not peculiari ties of language at all ; of those that are so, most are in vocabulary rather than in grammar, and can be traced, either in Prof. Thayer's Appendix to Grimm's Lexicon (List IV.), or in our own Table on pp. 92 sqq.* But perhaps, as we cannot avoid mentioning the question of the genuineness of these works, it may be worth while to say that so far as regards the * It is hard, however, to frame such lists on a plan that shall give the whole evidence. E.g. our own does not state that fiaprvpia, though a very common word in the N. T. generally, is among the Pauline Epp. peculiar to the Pastorals. One curious and minute point may be mentioned. Several times in the undoubted Epp. St. Paul has occasion to say "in everything ; " and he almost always expresses it by iv iravrl (1 Thess. v. 18, 1 Cor. i. 5, 2 Cor. iv. 8, vi. 4, vii. 5, 11, 16, viii. 7, ix. 8, 11, xi. 6, 9, Phil. iv. 6). Now in Eph. v. 24 we have iv iravrl again, but in Col. iii. 20, 22, Kara irdvra twice, and in the Pastoral Epp. iv iraiXdpyvpo<;, and the ptcp. apKOv/ievoi, constructed as predicates, and meant to be understood as im peratives. Quite in St. Paul's manner, too, is the interpretation of a theological postscript (vv. 8-16), connected with the subject of the body of the Ep., after ethical exhortation, and in conjunction with personal appeals (17-19). And the last few verses are, in thought and tone, so like St. Paul, that any one who thinks the Epistle was written in his name and under his direction would have no difficulty in supposing that these few words, at least, came from his own mouth or hand. And yet if it were so, it would be strange that even these few verses contain three words or phrases never elsewhere used by St. Paul, while all are by St. Luke, two being peculiar to him (rov Xoyov rfjs irapaKXrjaeai'i, iireareiXa, airoXeXvpievov). Here we become conscious of a caution necessary in comparing the language of two writings — that we must not be satisfied with an instinctive sense of their likeness or unlikeness in the general, intangi ble qualities of " style," nor again with a merely mechanical enumeration of words and phrases peculiar to each, common to bpth, or common to either with other works. Such mechanical study is required, but it is only as supplying material for a further process : literary instinct — sometimes an understanding of qualities that are more than literary — is needed if we are to judge whether common or individual expressions do or do not THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 45 indicate common or individual peculiarities of thought. For instance, the subst. dyiorr)<; is found in Heb. xii. 10, and in the true text of 2 Cor. i. 12. But the language of our Ep. is not appreciably more like that of St. Paul than if we there read drrXorrjri with the T. R. : nor is it the less like, that in three other places he uses the equivalent form dyimo-vvt]. All that the facts prove is this : the N. T. writers (all except St. James*) have, naturally, frequent occasion to speak of being " holy : " but the use of the abstract subst. " holiness " was comparatively rare, and no uniform usage was arrived at, as to which of the possible terminations should be em ployed. On the other hand, it is surely more than a coincidence, that veveKpeafievo*; is used in Rom. iv. 19, Heb. xi. 12, both times of Abraham; the argu ment is scarcely weakened by the fact that St. Paul elsewhere uses veKpovv (Col. iii. 5) and veKpwo-i<; (2 Cor. iv. 10) in a different sense, or at least a different context. Again, it would not be quite unimportant, that the word Karapyelv in Heb. ii. 14 is elsewhere (except for Luke xiii. 7, where it has a quite different sense) exclusively Pauline ; but this would not prove much. But something is proved by the coin cidence both of language and thought, between this passage in Heb. on the one hand, and on the other 1 Cor. xv. 26, 2 Tim. i. 10 : especially when we have the similar application of Ps. viii. 6 just preceding the passages both in 1 Cor. and in Heb. A comparison which neither neglects the labour * And of course this exception is purely accidental. St. James of all men must have been familiar with the sense of ftyios as describing the purity required of the people of God, both in a ritual and a moral sense. Read his speech in Acts 46 LANGUAGE OF THE -NEW TESTAMENT. of minute verbal analysis, nor refuses to subordinate its results to common sense and feeling for style, will lead us to the conclusion that the language of this Ep. has some features in common with that of St. Paul, but that the resemblance not only is much less in language than in thought, but is almost entirely confined to that side of language where the line between it and thought is hardest to draw. In the instances just quoted, of veveKpco/jtevos, Karapyelv, perhaps vrrordo-aeiv, language as well as thought is akin ; of resemblances purely verbal, perhaps the chief is the use of the comp. adv. rrepio~o~OTepwi in Heb. ii. 1, xiii. 19, ten times in St. Paul, and nowhere else in the N. T. (in Mark xv. 14 read irepio-oSi'i). Next to this we may rank the use of vvvL or vvv in the sense " as things actually are." We have vvvi in Heb. viii. 6, ix. 26 (best text : but in xi. 16 vvv has overwhelming evidence) : nowhere else in the N. T. except in St. Paul's Epp., and once or twice in his speeches in the Acts, vvv seems to have the meaning named in Luke xix. 42 ; John viii. 40, ix. 41, xv. 22, 24 ; Acts x. 5, xxii. 1 (v. 1. vvvi) ; James iv. 16 ; but constantly in St. Paul (e.g. Rom. iii. 21, 1 Cor. vii. 14, 2 Cor. vii. 9, Col. i. 24) and three times in this Ep. (ii. 8, xi. 16, xii. 26). Counting the two forms together (as there is often a doubt which should stand), we have this sense of "now " five times in Hebrews, some twenty times in St. Paul's Epistles, twice in his speeches, five times in St. John, and only three times in the rest of the N. T. KaOdirep, instead of Ka8m% is only found in the N. T. in St. Paul (eleven times) and in Heb. xv., and compare with it Lev. xi. 44-5. We notice that he and St. Peter use the similar word dyvilu in a moral sense, Acts only in a ritual, St. John in both. THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 47 iv. 2 (in v. 4 we should probably read the unusual KaOdaarrep). Again, in Heb. ii. 11 )pla<; avT&v) almost closer than if it had a gen. as elsewhere. THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 51 Avrpmo-K is found only in Heb. ix. 12 ; Luke i. 68, ii. 38. Both writers have diroXvTpwcrvi (Heb. ix. 15, xi. 35, Luke xxi. 28) in common with St. Paul ; but it seems that in St. Luke, not in our Ep., the distinction of sense between the words holds good which is recognised by St. Chrysostom (In Rom. Horn. XIV. [XV] ad viii. 23). A well-known feature of the doctrine of both writers makes it natural that iepareia, the common biblical word for " priesthood," is peculiar to them (Luke i. 9, Heb. vii. 5) in the N. T. ; though St. Peter has the cognate (exclusively biblical) iepdrevp,a. But Heb. prefers the more classical iepaavvr) (vii. 11, 12, 14, 24); which is also used, though less often than iepareia, in the LXX. On one view, there is a similar significance in the use of dvdpJvr\o'Vi, which in the N. T. is confined to Luke xxii. 19, the parallel 1 Cor. xi. 24-5, Heb. x. 3. But many would say that the two uses are quite distinct. The words fiereyeiv and fiAroj(p? (or Ka0a>$) yeypavrai. Of passive participles only, the propor tion is twenty-seven in Heb. to sixteen in Cor. As a rule, the perfects have the distinctive force of the tense : sometimes, as in x. 14 reTeXeiooKev . . . rovvi£eo-0ai (Karaycov. is late), pbererreiTa, qbavrd£eo-0ai, vire'iKeiv. The same may be said of the phrase : cf. dcpiSco in Phil. ii. 23. Kd/ivas (xii. 3) is unique in the N. T. (its presence in Rev. ii. 3 is a mere blunder) in the sense "to be weary"; though it has the (equally classical) sense " to be sick " in James v. 15. Ilpoo-^>epeo-0ai., " to deal with, behave towards " (xii. 7), is perhaps more exclusively classical. We can hardly say that rpbiro6po<;, iroXvo-irXayxyos, a-rjro^pcoTOKcroSaKTvXfos are just in the manner of that work, though no words of the class are common to both Epp. The same may be said of idiomatic words like dye (iv. 13, v. 1), eoiKa (i. 6, 23), Xeirreo-0at (i. 4, 5, ii. 15) : we may add opfirj (iii. 4), which has quite a different sense THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 61 from that of Acts xiv. 5, and is not, like that, directly correlative to the not uncommon verb opfidv. So again we have the philosophical terms 0,77-0- o-Kiao-fia, rrapaXXayri, rpOTrij (i. 17), vXtj and perhaps rpoYo'? (iii- 5, 6), covert? in a half concrete sense (iii. 7), and picturesque or even poetical expressions like dvep,i%eo-0ai, diroKveiv, ivdXio<;, eiirpeireia, pjipaiveaOai, piiri^eadai, (ppio-creiv. All these are, within the N. T., peculiar to St. James ;* there is a smaller but not unimportant group of words which he has in common with St. Luke only — dvaTtreiv, drp,i<;, fipaSv'i, hXKeiv, iiriarpecpeiv (transitive), KaraSwaarevew, kXvScov, ofioioiraOrjt;, rrepnriirreiv, iropeia, VTroSej(eo-0ai. Fewer and less significant are the words common to St. James with St. Paul onlyf — KaKoira0eiv, karaKav)(ao-0ai, oc/>e\o? (or in deed the more distinctive phrase ri rb 6'c/>e\o9 ;), •trapaXoyi^eo-0ai, viraraXdv. There is less to be said about the grammar than the vocabulary ; it has no striking features either of elegance or of irregularity. The only serious difficulty which the Epistle presents is to trace the connexion of the thoughts and subjects ; but each sentence is clear in itself, and the relations of successive sentences are regular, if they are connected * So, besides some words of less distinctive character, is ifupvros (i. 21). It seems rash to take the word in a different sense from what it has everywhere else, even in Wisdom xii. 10. " Receive what is innate in you " is no doubt an oxymoron ; but does it not express the true relation between creation in the divine image, and regeneration after that image (Col. iii. 10)? f At least, they throw less light on the character of St. James' language. As regards St. Paul's, they have some interest, as forbidding us to regard the words as individualisms either of the undoubted Paul or of the conceivably different authors of Colossians and the Pastoral Epistles. 62 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. at all ; we have (in the true text) several marked asyndeta. There are really no anacolutha : io~re in i. 19 (true text) can hardly be called one, though we should expect it to have a more clearly expressed object ; still less can the Kai in apodosi in iii. 3 (reading el Se at the beginning of the verse). Correct however as the Greek is, vigorous, and even elegant, it is decidedly Hellenistic Greek ; it never comes as near as Hebrews or Acts to throwing off that character. Downright Hebraisms are few, but they exist — the adjectival gen. in i. 25, and perhaps in ii. 1, 4, the instrumental iv in iii. 9. The use of the aorists in i. 11, 24 is not to be ascribed either to the classical idiom of the " fre quentative aorist," or (at any rate exclusively) to the way that the LXX. in Isa. xl.' 7 has used the tense to reproduce the so-called Hebrew preterite ; in both passages the simile passes into a parable,* " the history of a blade of grass," and of the man that looked in the mirror. We have an exactly similar use of the aor. in John xv. 6, in the irapoipila of the Vine. But the unclassical feature of the language is negative — the uniformity of the structure and sequence of words and clauses, the use of possessive suffixes, and the like. St. James has the common Jewish and Christian vocative dSeXos except for the parallels to this Ep. in 2 Peter. We note the Hebraistic hrrio'm in ver. 7 ; in ver. 18 the gen. r&v acrefieiwv might be thought to be merely adjec tival, but for the trajection of order, which shows the feeling of the sentence to be semi-classical. The two Epistles bearing the name of St. Peter are most conveniently examined in connexion with these. It is true, neither of them has much resem blance to them in style ; but it is certain that St. Jude is used in„ the composition of the Second Epistle, and hardly less so that St. James is similarly used in the First. This supplies a sort of link between the two, besides their common ascription, and the real though limited common element which has been traced in their language. Another common 64 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. feature is, that both give evidence (though in different ways) of the use of St. Paul's Epistles : and we have already intimated a fourth — the approximation of their vocabulary to the later Pauline or sub-Pauline works — the Pastorals, St. Luke, and Hebrews. We do not here offer any opinion as to the genuineness of the Second Ep. Every one knows that its external attestation is the weakest of any book' that was finally received into the N. T. Canon ; and that there are obvious internal difficulties in ascribing it to the same author as the First Ep. But this common affinity to three groups of writings — the Hierosolymitan, the Pauline, and the sub-Pauline — seems easier to account for if we ascribe both to a date so early, that there can have been no motive, and hardly an opportunity, for forging St. Peter's name : at any rate, we have to state the facts, however their significance may be estimated. It may at least be said, on the one hand that no one can pretend (except on a priori theological grounds) to be certain that the Second Ep. is genuine ; on the other, that a superficial student is likelier than a thorough student to be certain that it is spurious. For the full evidence supplied by the vocabulary of these Epp. we must refer to the Appendix, but it may help the student to use and appreciate the materials there given, if we examine in detail the first two or three sentences of the First Ep. It does not prove much, that the word ere\eKTO?, though common to all N. T. writers, except SS. James and Jude, is used in epistolary salutations only here and in Titus, besides the peculiar case of 2 John. The thought, and the cognate verb or noun, come in the first paragraph of Eph. and THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. '65 1 Thess. But TTapeTrlSr/ptx! is peculiar to this Ep. (here and ii. 11) and Heb. (xi. 13) ; irp6yvwo-t<; * to this passage and Luke (Acts ii. 23 — a speech, by the way, ascribed to St. Peter) ; pavrio-p.6iv Kai eipr^vn irXr\0vv0e'vr), being peculiar to the two Epp. of St. Peter, is, if the Second be not genuine, directly imitated in it from the First. We notice, however, not only that •7rXrj0vv0eirj is similarly used by St. Jude, but that it is predominantly a Lucan word ; coming, besides these three Epp., five times in Acts, once in Heb. (but in a quotation, so this proves nothing) ; otherwise only once in St. Paul (2 Cor. ix. 10), and once in St. Matthew. The phrase dvdo-raarvi e'« veKpmv is (one may be surprised to learn) peculiar to this place and St. Luke (Luke xx. 35, Acts iv. 2). The force of this is weakened, but hardly destroyed, by our finding the cognate verbal phrase dvacrrjvai e'« v. in Mark ix. 9, 10 (not in the true text of vi. 14, nor of Matt. xvii. 9), xii. 25 (the parallel to Luke I. a), John xx. 9, Eph. v. 14 ; as well as three times (including ix. 22, best text) in Luke and twice in Acts. 'Afiiavros is common to this Ep. with Heb. (vii. 26, xiii. 4) and James (i. 27) ; dp,dpavro<; (and dp,apdvrivo<; further on), though peculiar to this, are comparable * UpoyiviboKoi also comes once in Acts (xxvi. 5), twice in St. Paul (Rom. viii. 29, xi. 2), once in this Ep. (i. 20), and once in 2 Pet. (iii. 17). 5 66 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. with the long poetical epithets which we have noticed as characteristic of both those. Tert]pr)p1evo9 do-0eveo-rep

a, " rr)v adpica Kai rb alpia rov Kvpiov, Kpiais, dtjieo'R twi' dpbapriav (but this phrase never occurs in St. John, and the cognate verb only once— xx. 23 — in the . Gospel, and twice in the Ep. — i. 9, ii. 12), dydirrj of God's love to us and our love to one another, tyvXdao-eiv rd<; evroXdi (in fact the verb is always rrjpeiv) : o Koo-puos, 6 SidftoXos, 6 dvrixpiaros as powers of evil, " the promise of the Holy Spirit, the adoption as sons of God, the demand for faith on our part, the Father and the Son everywhere." Here however it is hard to draw the line between phrases which it is habitual with St. John to repeat, and theological conceptions which it is habitual with him to dwell on. The absence of verbal accuracy in many of them (besides those noted above, r) irray- yeXia rov IT JVC. is a Lucan phrase, vio0eo~ia a Pauline) shows that it was the conceptions rather than the expressions that Dionysius had in his mind ; though if thus understood, the contrast which he seeks to establish with the Apoc. would be greatly weakened, since e.g. 6 SidfBoXos and 6 dvrixpio~TO$ are prominent figures there, but under other names. If we confine our attention to cases where the phrase is distinctive, we get the following results. Za>r) aiwvios comes twenty-one times in the Gospel and Epistle — oftener than in the whole N. T. besides ; it is however relatively almost as frequent in the Pastoral Ep. $w9 is used, directly and unquestionably, in an ethical or spiritual sense in eight or nine passages of St. John (Ev. i. 4-9 ; iii. ST. JOHN: GOSPEL AND EPISTLES. 77 19-21 ; viii. 12 ; ix. 5 ; xi. 9; 10 ; xii. 35-6 ; 46 ;' Ep. I. i. 5-7, ii. 8-10 ; perhaps we should add Ev. v. 35), and hardly oftener in the whole N. T. besides : if recurrences of the word were counted, instead of passages containing it, St. John's style would make its frequency with him still more preponderating. SKoria is similarly used in Ev. i. 5, viii. 12, xii. 35, 46, Ep. I. i. 5, ii. 8-11 — six times — and nowhere else ; but o-Koros in Ev. iii. 19, and Ep. i. 6 only, compared with Luke i. 79, xxii. 53, Acts xxvi. 18, Rom. ii. 19, xiii. 12, 2 Cor. (iv. 6 1) vi. 14, Eph. v. 8-11, vi. 12, Col. i. 13, 1 Thess. v. 4, 1 Pet. ii. 9 : so that the antithesis may be traced seven times in St. John, at least as often in St. Paul, and four times elsewhere. Xapd, though frequent in St. John, is not peculiar to him, being used by every N. T. writer except St. Jude and in the Apoc. (we may question if in SS. Mark and James it is exactly of lioly joy). But the phrase yapdv rrXrjpovo-0ai (Ev. iii. 29, xv. 11, xvi. 24, xvii. 13, Ep. I. i. 4, II. 12) is exclusively Joannine. 2dpi; Kai alpia are certainly named in a very different way in John vi. 51-56 from Matt. xvi. 17, 1 Cor. xv. 50, Gal. i. 16, Eph. vi. 12. But if we couple the use of the words in the Joannine passage with the use of o~crav ovk aKpi^Sss eXXrjvi- £ovo-av fiXeira, not only reverence, but the caution and accuracy that comes of thorough study, will make us hesitate to say more. For we shall find that the Apocalypse has a grammar of its own, though different in its rules, and laxer in the application of some of them, than the grammar of ordinary Greek, even of Hellenistic Greek. It is probable that there are some uses of cases, and some false concords in gender, that are 6 82 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. real blunders, to be ascribed to the writer's im perfect mastery of his language, not to his chosen method of using it ; but the great majority of the irregularities of the book are irregularities oi !?0 in Ex. xix. 6 was " a kingdom of priests ; " but St. John has hardly realised the equivalence of the Hebrew constr. with the former noun inflected, and the Greek constr. with the latter ; and sets down " a kingdom, priests " side by side, leaving the mere juxtaposition of the two nouns to express the relation between them, as though both were indecl. Similar, probably, is the origin of the opioiov viov of i. 13, xiv. 14 ; though that cannot be explained as a literal translation of Dan. vii. 13, which is &>9 vib<; dv0parrov epxppievo<; ?p>. (So the common may not be irrelevant to illustrate the change of the point of view in these passages, on the one hand by that in M. Morris's "Land East of the Sun and West of the Moon" {Earthly Paradise, vol. iii.), where the dreamer seems first to hear the story, then to tell it, and then to act it, and on the other to the similar experiences which most people, probably, have had in their own dreams. THE APOCALYPSE. 85 version, ascribed to Theodotion ; and the so-called LXX. only differs, in these words, by reading rjpxero.) IV. When two nouns are in what we understand by apposition, the second is usually put in the nom., whatever be the case of the first. So i. 5, ii. 13,* 20, iii. 12, vii. 4, viii. 9, ix. 14, xiv. 12, 14, xvii. 3,t xx. 2. In xiv. 6 Xeywv after rrerbpevov and e^ovra is similar in principle ; so perhaps in xxi. 1 2 ffypvtra after e^ovaav at the beginning of the previous verse, but perhaps we should rather take this as a new independent predicate. Connected with this idiom is the use of a nom. to indicate the subject of a sentence in the popular sense, when the subj. in the grammatical sense is different, so that the other comes in in an oblique case ; here also we have the nom. and the oblique case in a sort of apposition. So ii. 26, iii. 12, 21, vi. 8. This however is by no means peculiar to this book — see e.g. Acts vii. 40. Similar to this use of the nom. before an oblique case is that of the ace. after a different oblique case in xi. 18 ; which seems to explain the reading Trepij3e@Xr]p,ivov<; above in ver. 3. UepifiefSXripievoi would never have been altered ; -ptevois, though irregular, would have been possible to this writer after Saaa ; and the principle we are stating explains -pievovi being substituted for the latter. This brings us far on the way to such strange attractions as iii. 9, x. 8, xvii. 3, xxi. 9 ; and these in turn throw light on such variations as i. 20, iv. 4, vii. 9, xviii. 12-13, * Reading iv rj/iipais 'Avriiras, we must take 'Apt. as virtually a gen., though indecl. But the passage is suspected to be corrupt ; and if so, the T. R. is a plausible correction. f The reading exuv indeed is not certain. But the pre sumption always is, in this book, that scribes have eliminated rather than introduced the anomalous constr. 86 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. xxii. 5. In comparison with these, the second Xi0a in xxi. 11 seems almost regular, and ovopMra dv0parrav %tA,iaSe9 eirrd in xi. 13 quite so. V. In Greek as in most if not all languages, while there are some rules naturally evolved from the essential structure of the language, there are others that are fixed by usage, if not without a determining reason, yet as it were arbitrarily, and that might have been otherwise had usage taken a different turn. In an inflected language like- Greek, it was hardly likely that relative clauses or appositions should originally be expressed as they are in this book ; still in the former case the fashion has come in, and it conceivably might have in the latter. Still more decidedly, it is usage not the nature of things that determines that Scoda/cco shall take a double ace, not, like most other verbs capable of analogous use, a dat. of the person and an ace. of the thing. The constr. of ii. 14 of this book, there fore, might have been correct Greek, though it is not; and so with iii. 17, which is like nil opus est. Again, there is an intelligible reason for the use in Greek of a sing, verb with a subject in the neut. pi. But the reason need not have prevailed to determine usage — in so closely similar and kindred a language as Latin it did not ; and even in Greek the limits within which the rule is obligatory are not strictly fixed. The pi. verbs in iii. 4, iv. 5, xi. 13, 18, xviii. 3, xix. 21, xxi. 24 are all, on one ground or another, quite admissible as correct Greek ; there is no reason why, if the pi. is used in these, the sing. should be in xix. 14, but in such cases classical usage would tolerate either. But while iv. 1, xxi. 12, etc. show that the rule is recognised, i. 19 violates it, esp. as the pi. is coupled with a sing, in the same sentence ; THE APOCALYPSE. 87 so xxi. 4. ix. 12 is irregular, because oiai is made fen. in the first clause (as in xi. 14) ; else treating it as a neut. would be natural enough. VI. Intermediate between these cases, and those where irregularity can come1 from nothing but ignor ance or inadvertence, are constructions Kara o-vveaiv ; such as a man with a mastery of a language may indulge in safely but sparingly, while a man who has not mastered it will oftener feel unable to ex press himself without them, and will produce more of a sense of awkwardness by them. Many but not all of the false concords in gender, which appear to be frequent in this book, can be thus explained. Thus in vi. 10 there is hardly an irregularity ; the subj. tq eKpagav may as easily be conceived to be oi iotyaypievoi as ai i^u^at. In iv. 7, 8, ix. 5, 6, ix. 5*, 7*, xi. 4, xiii. 14, 15*, xvii. 3, perhaps even xxiir 2*, and again vii. 9, xix. 14, we may say that though there no such formal defence of their accuracy is available, their sense justifies them on the same principle ; fern, or neuter nouns indicating persons are constructed as if masc. (cf. John xiv. 26, xvi. 13, Language of the New Testament, p. 66), or nouns of multitude as if pi. There is however some in consistency ; there is no reason why in xiv. 1 the concord should be formally regular, and in vii. 4, 8 be constructed to the sense. In iv. 1, v. 13, xi. 15 we have the same sort of principle carried a little further ; the ptcp. agrees with the speaker whose existence is implied in the voice. And in xi. 1 the force is really the same, only here the subst. to be supplied is " the giver " from iS60rj, not, as e.g. in ver. 15, " the speakers " * Assuming the readings which give irregularities- to be the true ones. 88 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. from mvai, it is hardly worth while to make believe in the former that \eou t0 APPENDIX I. TABLE I. 91 Word or Phrase. St. Luke. St. John. Trpodpap-elv Ev. xix. 4. Ev. xx. 4. irpooairelv Ev. xviii. 35 (?.).-+ Ev. ix. 8. irdiirore . Ev. xix. 30. Ev. i. 18, v. 37, vi. 35, viii. 33, Ep. I. iv. 12. orba A. iii. 11, v. 12. Ev. v. 2, x. 23. ffvvrldea6ai Ev. xxii. 5, A. xxiii. 20, Ev. ix. 22. xxiv. 9 (?). aipeiv A. viii. 3, xiv. 19, xvii. 6. Ev. xxi. 8, Apoc. xii. 4. axoviov . A. xxvii. 32. Ev. ii. 15. VTro\a(3afidvet.v Ev. vii. 43, x. 30, A.i. 9, ii 15. Ep. III. 8 (?). ippiap Ev. xiv. 5. Ev. iv. 11, 12, Apoc. ix. 1, 2 tor. t Prob. we should road eiraijutu here, and irpoaaCrrfs (cf. St. John, I.e., true;text) in Mark x. 4u". Thus the verb will be peculiar to St. John. APPENDIX I. ILLUSTRATING AFFINITIES IN VOCABULAIIY Word or Phrase. dyvdioia . dyCiv S.dri\os (-us, 6ti;s) . dd6Kifios . ulpeiaffai altpvlSlos . alxiiaKari^ew . &KaKOS &p.tp.irros dvayKaXos dvdyvdiffisdvakiffKeai dvakveiv avairi/iireiv dvaorarovvdvari6e . Gal. iii. 10 (from LXX.). A. xiv. 22. i/iirtfiirXdvat . Rom. xv. 24. Ev. i. 53, vi. 25, A. xiv. 17. ivSdKi>v xxviii. 17. Ev. ii. 27, xiv. 21, xxii. Job. xviii. 16. 54; A. vii. 45, ix. 8, xxi 28, 29, 37, xxii. 24. A. iii. 3, xxi. 18, 26. Ev. v. 18, 19,xi.4(|| to 1 Tim. vi. 7. Matt. vi. 13 Matt.), xii. 11 (best text) ; A. xvii. 20. § Other compounds of dpi (iir- and if i/nu) are peculiar to Acts (xvii. 10 ; xiii. 42, xvii. 15, xx. 7, xxvii. 48). 126 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Word or Phrase. SS. James and Jude. St. Peter. Hebrews. ix^r/relv . I. i. 10. xi. 6, xii. 17. ikXelirto . ... i. 12 (fr. LXX.). iKOVcrttos . . ' . iKTEVJjS, -lOS, -iortpOV I. v. 2. I. i. 22, iv. 8. x. 26. iKrpiireoBai xii. 13. iKipipeiv, i£otcreiv, tt-eveyKeiv . vi. 8. iTXeyxos . xi. 1. ipirtirreiv / x. 31. ipirXiKeoBai . evvoiaivoxXeiv . ^vrpopos . igdyeiv . II. ii. 20 (ip- irXoKij I. iii, 3.) I. iv. 1. iv. 12. xii. 15 (f. 1. fr. LXX?). xii. 21. igaprlfeiv igbdos . iirdyeiv . iiraKoXovBeiv . ivipXetrBai, -eXBe'iv . Jac. v. 1. II. i. 15. H. ii 1, 5. I. ii. 21. xi. 22. " iirixeiv, " to attend to" . iirlyvtaoais \_rrjs~\ dXijBelas (iirtyvatris II. i. 2, 3,8, ii. 20.) x. 26. iirieiKiis Jac. iii. 17. I. ii. 18. •• , Here the sense is literal (or consciously parabolic). APPENDIX I. TABLE III. 127 St. Luke. Pastoral Epp. EPC0LXD .Other N.T. Books. Ev. xi. 50-1 ; A. xv. 17 Rom. iii. 11 (fr. (fr. LXX.). LXX.). Ev. xvi. 9, xxii. 32 (xxiii. 45 v. 1.). Ev. xxii. 44 ; A. xii. 5 ; ;; iKriveia A. xxvi. 7. lTim.i.6,v. 15, vi. 20; 2 Tim. iv. 4. Ev. xv. 22 ; A. v. 6, 9, 1 Tim. vi. 7. 10, 15. 2 Tim. iii. 16 (T. R.). Ev. vi. 39 * (best text : 1 Tim. iii. 6, 7, Matt. xii. 11.J || to Matt.), x. 36, vi. 9. xiv. 5t(T. R.). 2 Tim. ii. 4. Ev. vi. 18 (v.l.). A. vii. 32, xvi. 29. Ev. xxiv. 50 ; A. octies. Mar. viii. 23 (T. R.), Joh. x. 3. A. xxi. 5.t 2 Tim. iii. 17.t Ev. ix. 31. A. v. 28. . , 1 Tim. v. 10, 24. Mark xvi. 20. Ev. i. 35, xi. 22, xxi. E. ii.7. 26,35(T.R.);A.i.8, viii. 24, xiii. 40, xiv. 19. Ev. xiv. 7 ; A. iii. 5. 1 Tim. iv. 16. 1 Tim. ii. 4; 2 iirlyvuiris E. Also Rom. i. 28, Tim.ii. 25, iii. i. 17, iv. iii. 20, x. 2; 7 ; Tit. i. 1. 13;C.i.9, Phil. i. 9; Phi- 10, ii. 2, lem. 6. iii. 10. 1 Tim. iii. 3; PhiL iv. 5. Tit. iii. 2. These passages are only cited as an example of what is not counted. Hera the sense is literal (or consciously parabolic). 128 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Word or Phrase. iiriBecrts (xeipiov") irriXapfldveffdai iiripeXeioBai, -Xeia, -Xios . iirlo~KOiros, -irij, -ireiv iiricrrafiat iirioriXXeiviirurrpicpeiv, " to convert " . iiritpaiveiv, -tpdveia . iwoirrijs, -irreveiv . iir riov ioxdr. ijpiepiov, xpdviov, rov XPOVOV . ipyatrla . 'EpvBpd edXaooa * io-BJ)s . ioihreposiroipios exeiv . SS. James and Jude. St. Peter. Hebrews. Jac. iv. 14 ; Jud. 10. Jac. v. 19, 20. Jud. 18 (iv ioxarip XP- rjpipais, Jac. v. 3). Jac. ii. 2 bis, 3. -osl.ii. 25; -fjii. 12 ; -eiv V. 2 II. i. 16 ; I. ii. 12, iii. 2. I. i. 20, II. jii. 3. vi. 2. ii. 16 bis, viii. 9 (fr. LXX.). ¦eiv xii. 15. xi. 8. xiii. 22. I. iv. 5. i. 2. xi. 29. vi. 19. * As a general rule pr. n. are not included in this list. But see p. 2 ; and what is APPENDIX I. TABLE III. 129 St. Luke. Pastoral Epp. Eph. and Col. Other N.T. Books. A. viii. 18. 1 Tim. iv. 14; 2 Tim. t-6. Ev. ix. 47, xiv. 4, xx. 1 Tim. vi. 12, Matt. xiv. 31, 20, 26, xxiii. 26; A. ix. 19. Mark viii. 23. 27, xvi. 19, xvii. 19, xviii. 17, xxi. 30, 33, xxiii. 19. Ev. x. 34, 35 ; -Xeia A. 1 Tim. iii. 5. xxvii. 3 ; -us E v. xv. 8. -os A: xx. 28 ; -^ i. 20 -os 1 Tim. iii. 2 ; -os Phil. i. 1. (fr. LXX.) ; Ev. xix. Tit. i. 7 ; -^ 1 44. Tim. iii. 1. A. x. 28, xv. 7, xviii. 25, 1 Tim. vi. 4. Mark xiv; 68. xix. 15, 25, xx. 18, 19, xxiv. 10, xxvi. 26 (cf. 3). A.xv.20,xxi.25(T.R.; may be right). Ev. i. 16, 17 (not from LXX.); A. xxvi. 18 (prob.). Ev. i. 79 ; A. xxvii. 20. Tit.ii. 11, iii. 4; (iwttpaioKeiv -veia 2 Thess. ii. ii. 13 ; 1 Tim. E. v. 14.) 8 ; -C7js A. ii. vi. 14; 2 Tim. 20 (fr. LXX.). i. 10, iv. 1, 8. iv iax&rais rjp^i- iox^ri) Sipa Joh. pais 2 Tim. Ep. Lit 18 bis. iii. 1. Ev. xii. 58 ; A. xvi. 16, .. E. iv. 19. 19, xix. 24, 25. A. vii. 36. Ev. xxiii. 11, xxiv. 4; A. i. 10, x. 30, xii. 21. A. xvi. 24. A. xxi. 13. • • 2 Cor. xii. 14; iv erolpip ^xHV ib. x. 6. said there would apply to the mention of -Aapw in Luke i. 5 ; Acts vii. 40 ; Heb. v. 4, vii. 9 130 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Word or Phrase. eiayyeXior^s . eiepyirijs, -reiv, -ala eideros . eSOvpos, -pios, -peiv . eiXaffls, -eia, -eioBai eioefiijs, -us, -eta, -eiv etoirXayxvos . itpiaraoBai, iiriarr)- vai . exeic, inf. = SivaaBai SS. James and Jude. Jac. v. 13. flJTTJO-lS fo^os£> vid. p. 49) . iratdela . -eiio, -evrrjs iraXaiovv, -ovo&ai iravoirXia (els rb) iravreXis . irdvroBev . , irapb, (in compari sons) . irapaylveoBai . irapadixopai . wapaneioBai . irapaKoXovBeiv Jac. iii. 4. St. Peter. Hebrews. I. i. 11, iv. 13, v. 1, 9. xi. 16. iv. 7. vii. 26. it 9, 10, x. 32. xii. 5, 7, 8, 11. xii. 6 (fr. LXX.), 7, 10; -euTfjs 9. i. 11 (fr. LXX.), viii. 13 bis. vii. 25. ix. 4. i. 4, 9 (fr. LXX.), ii. 7 (do.), 9, iii. 3, ix. 23, xii. 24. ix. 11. xii. 6 (fr. LXX.). xii. 19, 25 bis. APPENDIX I. TABLE III. 141 St. Luke. Pastoral Epp. Eph. and Col. Other N.T. Books. lTim.iitl,vi.lO. onefis Rom. i. 27. Ev. xxii. 22 ; A. ii. 23, Rom. i. 4. x. 42, xi. 29, xvii. 26, 31. A. xiv. 5. A. ii. 27, xiii. 34, 35 (all ITim. ii. 8; Tit. btnbrijs E. iv. Apoc. xv. 4, xvi. fr. LXX.) : boioTijs i. 8. 24. 5; -wsl Thess. Ev. i. 75. ii. 10. Ev. xxi. 35. 1 Tim. iii. 7, vi. Rom. xi. 9 (fr. 9; 2Tim.it 26. LXX.). 2 Tim. iii. 11. C. i. 24. 2 Cor. t 5, 6, 7 ; Phil. iii. 10; contr. Rom. vii. 5, viii. 18; Gal. v. 24. 2 Tim. iii. 16. E. vi. 4. Ev. xxiii, 16, 22; A. vii. 1 Tim. t 20; 2 1 Cor. xi. 32 ; 2 22, xxii. 3. Tim. ii. 25; Cor. vi. 9 ; Tit. ii. 12. Apoc. iii. 19; -evrijs Rom. ii. 20. Ev. xii. 33. Ev. xi. 22. E. vi. 11, 13. Ev. xiii. 11. , . Ev. xix. 43. Mar.t 45 (prob.); Joh. xviii. 20 (Elz.). Ev. iii. 13, xiii. 2, 4. Rom. xii. 3. Ev, octies, A. vicies 2 Tim. iv. 16 1 Cor. xvi. 3, praeter x. 32. (prob. vid. sub ovpirapay). Matt, ter, Mar. semel, Joh. semel, praeter viii. 2. A. xv. 4 (v.l.), xvi. 21, 1 Tim. v. 19. Mar. iv. 20. . xxii. 18. Ev. xiv. 18 bis, 19 ; A. 1 Tim. iv. 7, v. xxv. 11. 11 ; 2 Tim. ii. 23; Tit. iii. 10. Ev. i. 3. 1 Tim. iv. 6 ; 2 Tim. iii. 10. Mar. xvi. 17. 142 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Word or Phrase, SS. James and Jude. St. Peter. Hebrews. irapaXoyi$eo&ai irapaXeXvpivos Jac. i. 22. xitl2 irpooipopdirToeirBai, -rjois irvKvbs, -brepov pavrlfciv, -opiss pijpa OKijviopa . OKia oiraraXav ffirebdeiv oiriXos, -Xovv SS. James and Jude. Jud. 17. St. Peter. Jac. v. 5. Jac iii, 6; Jud. 23. H. i. 19. -rjiris I. iii. 6. -irpbs I. i. 2. I.i.25bis(semel ex LXX.), II. iii, 2. II. i. 13, 14. II. iii. 12 (trans.) II. ii. 13 (cf. Jud. 12.) Hebrews. ii. 1, vii. 13. -ov x. 20. Saepissime. s:.5,8(fr. LXX.), 10, 14, 18. ix. 13, 19, 21, x. 22 ; xii. 24. i. 3, vi. 5, xi. 3, xii. '19. viii. 5, x. 1. APPENDIX I. TABLE III. 14? St. Luke. Pastoral Epp. Eph. and- Col: OtherN.T.Books. Ev. xii. 1, xvii. 3, xx. 1 Tim. i. 4, iii. Matt, quinquies 46, xxi. 34 ; A. v. 35, 8, iv. 1, 13; irpoosxere dirb viii. 6, 10, 11, xvi. 14, Tit. i. 14. (ut Luc. xii. 1, xx. 28. xx. 46) and irpotrixeTe pi] (ut Luc. xxi. 34). A. xi. 23, xiii. 43 (v.l.), 1 Tim. i. 3, v. 5. Matt. xv. 32 = xviii. 18. Mar. viii. 2. -us A. xviii. 2. Ev.v. 14,xii.ll(T.R.), Saepe apud xviii. 15, xxiii. 14, Matt., bis terve 36 ; A. vii. 42, viii. 18, apud Marc, bis xxi. 26. apud Joh., nusquam apud Paulum ; scd A. xxi. 26, xxiv. 17. E. v. 2. Rom. xv. 16. -eioBai Ev. xxi. 9, xxiv. 37. Ev. v. 33 ; A. xxiv. 26. 1 Tim. v. 23. Ev. undevicies, A. E. v. 26, vi. Paulus praeter quater et decies. 17. haecsexies(sedbis ex LXX.), Matt, quater praeter iv. 4 (LXX.), v. 11 (?), Marcus bis, Joh. duo- decies. A. vii. 46. o-mjj'os 2 Cor. v. 1,4. Ev. i. 79 ; A. v. 15. 1 Tim. v. 6. C. ii. 17. Matt. iv. 16 (ex LXX.), Mar. iv. 32. Ev. ii. 16, xix. 5, 6 ; A. xx. 16, xxii. 18. E. v. 27. •• 148 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Word or Phrase. (Trspeos . <7T€(j}aV0VVcrvp.Trad^s, -deiv avfj.Trapayij'ea&cu povetjt (in ethi cal sense) * awtppoavPTj Ta7rewd^>/>aw, -ogvpt) ret , Te\«or7?sreXeiwo-is rexvir-qsrvpeiv .els SS. James and Jude. Jud. 25. Jud. 6, (13?). St. Peter. I. v. 9. I. iii. 8. I. iii. 16, 21. II. iii. 5. I. iv. 7. I. iii. 8 ; v. 5. I- i. 4 (?), II. ii. 4, 9, (17 ?), iii. 7. Hebrews. v. 12, 14. ii.7(fr.LXX.),- "flto A°te ^utthreeSyrof^aa^ APPENDIX I. TABLE III. 149 St. Luke. -eovv, -eovoBai A. iii. 7, 16, xvi. 5. Ev. xxiii. 48. Ev. ix. 37, xxii. 10 ; A. x. 25, xx. 22. A. viii. 23. A. xxiii. 1 (cf. xxiv. 16.) (Ev.ix. 32— hardly the same sense). A. xiii. 44, xix. 26. Ev. iii. 22. Ev. i. 47. Ev. ii. 30, iii. 6; A. xxviii. 28. A. xxvi. 25. A. xx. 19. Ev. t 45. A. xix. 24, 38. A. xxv. (4?), 21. Pastoral Epp. 2 Tim. ii. 19. 2 Tim. ii. 5.; 2 Tim. iv. 16 T. R. ; vid. sub irapaylv. 1 Tim. i. 5, 19 (os, -la •piXavBpiiirtos, -la . tpiXdpyvpos, -la 7js dpiatv Si^o/mu avrbv, Kai dirb (3ovvQv irpoavorjaoj avrbv. 'Idov \abs p*6vos Karot oj tret, Kai iv e'dvecriv ov (TuXKoyLffdrfaerai. 'Sis e%7}Kpi(3ddjp. ovx ws &vdp 8£ riva rpbirov dpdcrofiai tois fir} Karapdrois vTrb GeoD ; Qed(rop.at ph> avrovs 8vvav al tyvxaC 8ib koI yeyovaoiv dyxio-iropoi Qeov. 'AiroOdvot. p.ov 7} r^vXV T0V atapLoriKbv (3iov, iV iv tyvxah dtKalwv KaTapidptfOri, °&« etvcu avp,- (3Ef2l}K£ TOiS TQ1JTWV, Ibid. 51. 'Avatrras &kqvg, /ScwiXeO, ret (bra iiratcoprjo-as. Ovx cbs dvOpwiros diaipevo-dijvai dvvarat, ot/5' 9iy- ^erat rb irapdirav ov8iv, 8 p.7) Te\ei, Kai oi p,}) drroarpi^ia. TlapeX-i)valv &Koit»v Xbyia Qeov (v. 1. loxvpov), ions Spaatv Qeov etdev, iv Sirvia dirOKeKaXvfjipiivoi oi 67-^s oe evXbyijvrai, Kai ol Karapiip^vol ire KeKarr)pav- 'Ej-eXeioeral irore dvBpioiros il- vpiov, Kai iiriKparr)oei iroXXiov iBviov, Kai iirifeaivovoa 7) roude fiuoiXita KaB' iKdorrpi r\pApav irpbs ii^os dpBr)oerai. '0 Xabs oirros rryepovt rijs dir Alyiirrov irdoijs bbov KexPVTal ®££ RaB' iv Kipas dyovri rijv irX'qBhv. Toiyapovv iderai tBvq TroXXa ixBp&v, ml Sow iv airois iriov &Xpi pveXov X^ij/erai, Kai rals iKi](3oXlais diroXei rois dvtj. peveis. 'Avairaioerai Kara KXiBels lis Xiiov, 7) UKVpVOS Xiovros, pdXa KaratppovijriKuis Sedi&s oidiva, tpbfiov rois dXXois iveipyaopivos. "ABXios bi 8s av airbv irapaKiv^oas iyeiprj. Oi piv eiXoyovvris oe eitpijplas &l-ioi, Kardpas di oi Karapiipevoi. 1 Reg. (sive Sam.) xxviii. 3-8. Josepi Archaeol. VI. xiv. 2. Kai SaovX irepieiXtv rois ivyao- rpipvBovs Kai rois yviooras dirb rijs 777s. Kai ovvaBpoi- iovrai ol ' AXXbipvXoi, Kai epxovrai Kai irapep/3dXXovoiv els Zwed/j. Kai ovva&polfei ZaovX 7rdiTa avdpa 'lopaijX, Kai irapepfidXXovoiv els TeXfiovi. Kai elde 2aoi)\ ttjv irapepfioX-ijv rCiv 'AXXotpiXwv, Kai i$o{Srf8ii, Kai i£eori] 77 Ktxpdia airov otpbbpa. Kai iirr^par-nae SaovX did Kvpiov, Kai ov/c direKplBn avrijj Kvptos iv rois ivvirvlois Kai iv rois StJXois xal iv rois irpotpijrais. "Erv^e ii SdovXos 6 riov 'E/3/jaiW (3aoiXeis rois piv pdvreis Kai rois iyyaorpipiBovs Kai irdoav ttjv roiavrvv rixvvv iK rfjs Xfipas iK^e^XijKws, i£to riov irpoiprir&v, aKoioas di rois TtaXaiorlvovs ijdij irapbvras Kai iyyiora 2oivi)S, irbXeios iv rip iredlip Keipivris, iorpar- oirebevKbras, i^iippvoev iir' airois perb rijs dvvapetos' Kai irapayevbpevos irpbs tpei rivl TeXflovi KaXovpivtp j3aXXerai orparbiredov dvriKpi riov iroXe- pitov. Taparrei d' airbv oix lis ervxev Idbvra i) rov ixBptov iivapis, iroXXij re oioa Kai 7-77$ olxetas Kpetrriov irrovoov- pXvrf Kai rbv Oebv did, r&v irpotpiyriov ¦fiptira irepi rf)S pdxqs Kai tov irepl ravTipi ioopivov riXovs npoeiireiv. APPENDIX IL 611 Kai dire 2aoi>X rots iratclv avrov' Tt-qrijaari p,0L yvvatKa ivyaa- rpip,vdov} Kai iropevo'op.at irpbs auTT)Vi Kai {?)]T7}0~W iv avrrj. Kai elirav oi iraWes avrov irpbs avrbv 'ISobyvvT} ivyacrrptp.v6os iv 'Aevd&p ['AeXcScij. Kai avv- eKaXvif/aro (v. 1. 7re/ue/caX.) Saoi)X Kai irepte{3dXero ip.dria grepa, Kai iropsvtrat avrbs Kai 8vo dv8pes pier avrov, Kai fp%ovrai (v. 1. fjXOov) irpbs rr)v yvvatKa vvkt6s. Kai elirev avrj}' jWdvrevcrai dtf p.oi iv r§ iyyaffrptp.vd(pr Kai dvdyayk /j,ot 8v iav etirto cot. ovk diroKpivap.e'vov 8£ rov Qeov, 'iri. p.dXXov 6 XdovXos Kar48etae Kai ri\v y^vx^v Kariirtce, rb kcikov, olov eUbs, ov irapbvros avr$ /caret xeXpa rov Qeov irpoop&p.6vos. Ztjtt)- Oyjvat 5' avrQ KeXevei yvvatbv n tCjv iyyaarptp.vOiov Kai ras tG>v re$V7}K6rojv ij/vxds iKKaX- ovp.ivojvt &s ovtoj yv(do-Qp,evos el Kard vovv x^pelv avrQ p.kXXei rd irpdyp.ara' rb ydp t&v iyyavi virb ttjv iraptbpeiav ttjv irapd rbv 'Opbvrrjv, dreix^Tos odea, &Kpav 8' iv avrr} 5 xeiP°'!ro'L'1QT0V e"xeh &avp,aipeo-6ai /cat p£T av^rretas e*via II. * GEN. xiv. 5-11. *Ep 8i t& r ecr crape cr/cat5e/cdry 'fret 9jX8ev Xo86XXoybp.op Kai ol /3afft- Xets ol l pter' avrov, Kai KariKoipav robs * Yiyavras robs 1 iv 'Acrrapcbt9 Kapvatv, Kai idvij laxvpd l cc/ia avroh,3 Kai robs Eoptalovs 4 roils l iv Say?; rrj irbXei, Kai robs Xoppatous roils1 iv rots 6peaw Xqetp, ?ais rijs5 repepLivdov rijs Qapdv, ty iffrtv iv rrj ipTJp,(j), Kai dvaorpitpavres ijXdoffav*1 iirl rty h irijyfyv rijs Kpiffews, aiin) ' &rriy KaSifo koI KariKotyav irdvres robs dpxovras 'A/iaXV Kai robs 'Aptoppatovs robs KarotKovvras iv tAo~ao'dv Qapidp. 'f&^rjXOev 5e /3ao"iXei)s9 2o86p,uiv Kai j3av- irXijv Iq-ti ye rd jUaaiXeta rip ptev p&yidet peara 4 do-a£d8 iv rc£ ire8itp rep pteydXq}, rovro iartv iv rots bpiots *Pa7aO. Kai crvvi)vr7jGav irpbs avrov irdvres oi KarotKovvres tt)v bpetvfyv, Kai irdvres ol KarotKovvres rbv j&v iXiriSa rrjs vIkt)S iif> iavrbv koI rds peB' airov irapayeyevijpiivas Svvdptis' ,ois Si THapxndovlois iKiXevoe rovs iryovfLivovs rb. ovpPytrbpeva irepl rixviov Kai ywaiKuv igapi- MACCAB. I. vi. 30-40. Kai ?/v 6 dpiBpbs rijs dwdpeios airov ixarbv x'A^es riov irefiov Kai etKOOi x'^'^es iiririov, Kai iXiipavres Ho Kai rpidKOvra eidbres irbXepov. Kai ijXBooav1 Sib. rijs 'Idovpaias Kai irapevefidXooav1 iirl TiaiBooipav, ¦ Kai iiroXipvoav iirl ijpipas iroXXbs Kai iirolijoav p-qxavds. Kai iffiXBov Kai iveiripioav airds iv- irvpl, Kai iiroXipiitrav dyS/HoSus. Kai dirrjpev 'IoiiSas dirb 7-77S &Kpas Kai irapevipaXev 3 els BaiBfaxapla dirivavri rrjs irapepfioXijs 3 rov fiaoiXiios. xal SipBpioev 4 6 (3acriXevs rb irpiot * xal dirrjpe rty irapepfioXty iv bpp-f)pari airrjs Kara rijv bdbv BaiBfaxapta, Kai SieOKevdoBijoav al Svvdpeis els rbv irdXepov Kai iadXiriaav rois odX- iriygi. xal rois iXitpaciv fSeifaj/ alpa o-ra^vXTJs5 Kai pbpiov rov1'' irapaarr)aai airois els rbv irbXepov. Kai SieiXok rd Bypia els rds (pdXay- yas, Kai irapiorijoav ixdorta iXiipavri XiXlovs avdpas reBiopaxiopMvovs iv VI. MACCAB. II. xi. 1-12. Mer' dXiyov Si iravreX&s XP-V0V Avtrlas iirirpoiros rov fiairiXitos Kai ovyyevijs xal iirl riov irpaypdriov, Xlav fiapius tpipiov iirl2 rois yeyovboi, ovvaBpoltras irepl ras OKTii pvpidSas Kai tt> lirirov iraoav irapeyivero iirl rois 'lovdalovs, Xoyi&pevos r'hv piv irdXiv "KXXijOiv olKi\ri]piov rroii\oeiv, rb di lepbv dpyvpoXdynrov, KaBiis rk Xoiira rdv iBviov' repAvn, ir party Si ri]V dpxiepoioivqv Kar 'iros TOifaeiv,^ oidapios iiriXoyifbpevos rb rov Qeov xpdros, ireippeviopivos ' Si rais pvpidoi" riov iretH-v xal rais XiXidoi s tQv liTTiav Kai rois iXicpaoi to is7 bySorfKOvra. eloeXBiiv Si els rty.'Iovdalav Kai avveyytoas 8 BaiBooipa, 8vn piv ipvpvip xaP^ dirb Si 'lepoaoXipiov dirixovn iioel'1 oraSlovs irivre tovto (BXifiev.1 lis Si pieriXaftov ol irepl rbv MaKKa- paiov iroXiopKoOvra airbv rd bxvpiipara, per' bdvppiov Kai daxpiiov iKtrevov oiv rois 8%Xois BpeioBai Kai riBivai irpb bipBaXpJov, idv fiXXws Trios'1 ixfiri rd rijs pdxvs. odroi piv oiv oirios iirolovv rb irapayyeXBiv. 'Awlflas Si rois peB' airov irapayeyovbras iiriiro- pevipj;vos ij^lov Kai irapeKdXei Sia irXeibviov pvrioBijvai piv rijs irpbs dXXfjXovs iirraKaiSeKairovs owy- Betas, pvrjoBrjvai di rov irX-fjBovs tQv irpoyeyovbriov airois irpbs Viopalovsb dyiiviov, iv ofs dr\rr-fj- rovs yevovbras oiS' iXirlSa tov vixdv oi&iiror' i eKaorov Br/plov i^ioophai iir' airov prfxavais, Kai i' iKdorov dvdpes Svvdpeios ' Sio Kai TpiaKovra'1 ol iroXepovvres iir' airois Kai 6 Ivdbs airov. xal ttjv iiriXoiirov lirirov ivBev xal ivBev3 iorijaav iirl ra Sio pipy rrjs TrapepploXTJs Karaoelovres Kai Karatppaoobpievoi iv rais cpaXayiiiv. lis Si (oriX§ev 6 ijXios iirl ras xpvcas *:ai xa^K&s doirldas, 'itrriXfle rd 6p-q air' airiov Kai Karijiya^ev lis Xapirdbes irvpbs.4 rbv Kipiov, dyaBbv dyyeXov airoo- reiXai irpbs cioryplav rip 'lapayX. airbs Si irpGiros b MaKKafiaios dvaXafi&v rd dVXa irpoerphjiaro rois SXXovs, &pa airip SiaKivSoveiov- ras iiri^or/Beiv rois dSeX0ois2 airiov bpov Si xal irpoGipios i£iop- p.i)trav. airoBi Si xal irpbs rois 'lepotroXipois Svriov, itpdvq Trpor;- yoipevos airiov itpiTiros iv XevKfl iaBrrri, iravoirXlav xpoorjv Kpad- atviov.3 bpov de irdvres eiXbyooav rbv iXeypbva Oebv, Kai iirejtpii- aBi\oav rais ipvxais' oi pJivov dvBpibirovs, dXXd Kai Bijpas rois dypiiordrovs Kai oiSypa relxi tit piioKeiv 4 6vres 'iroipoi, irpoo- ijyov iv diaoxevij 3 rbv ot' 01'pavov oippaxov ixovres, iXefoavros airois tov "Kvpiov. XeovrijSbv Si iiriTivdiZavres " els rois iroXeplovs, xariorpiouav airiov xtA^ovs Trjoos rois pvptois, lirireis Si e^axootovs irpbs rois x'Aiois" rois Si irdvras yvdyxaoav ipvyeiv. oi irXeioves Si airQv rpavparlai yvpvol SieatoBi)oav , Kai avrbs Si b Avolas aloxp&s ipeiytov SieoibBij. VII. MATT, xxvii. G2-66. T77 Si iiraipiov,1 t/tis iorlv perd ryv irapaoxev)jV,2 avv-r)xBi]oav 3 oi dpxiepeis Kai oi $apiaaioi irpbs JHeiXarov Xiyovres, Kipie,' ipvy- oBijpev Sri ixeivds b irXdvos elirev in {tov. Mera rpeis ypipas iyel- popar5 xiXevoov oiv dotpaXioBijvai6 rbv Tdipov iios rijs rpirqs ypipas, pvflirare iXBbvres oi paBijral [avrov] xXhf/tooiv airbv xal eiiriomv rip Xatpj'HyipBri'' dirb riov veKpuv,s Kai itrrais 77 itrxdrri rrXdvt] xeipoiv tt?s . Tpiirr/s. itpy [Si} airois b KeiXaros, "Exere novorioSlav iirdyere doipaXloaoBe " lis o'iSare. ol Si iropevBivres yiripaXioavro ' rbv rdcpov orppayloavres rbv XLBav perd rijs xovorwSlas. VIII. ACT. APOST. xxiii. 31-35. 01 piv oiv orpariSrai Kara rb Siareraypivov1 airois dvaXajUbvres ' rbv UaDXov, ijyayov Sid vvxrbs eis rty ' Avnirar plSa • T77 Si iiraipiov idoavres rovs lirireis diripxeoBai ' ovv airip iiriarpetf/av els ryv irapep- /SoXijj/- oinves elaeXBbvres els rr/v Kaiaapiav xal dvaSSvres 1 tt> iiriaToXyv rip rryepbvi irapiorrjaav Kai rbv IlavXov airy, dvayvovs Si xal iirepior-Qcras ix2 irolas iwapxetas iirrlv xal irvBSpevos Sri dirb 2 KiXixias Aiaxoioopal ' oov, iipy, Srav Kai pi Karyyopoi oov irapa- yivtovrai' xeXeioas iv Tip irpairiopiip \roy~\ 'RpipSov ipvXdooeaBai airbv. IX. DIONYS. HALIC. ANT. ROM., V., iii., iv. TaOVa peB&v b Ilooroipios i£e- fioifiei Sid raxiiov, irplv 77 trweXBeiv rovs iroXepiovs dwavras' dyayiov S' iv vvxrl ri)v ovv airip arparidv iropeia avvTovi/',1 irXr\alov ytverai riov Aarlviov iorparoireSevKlriov irapd Xlpv-g 'VtiylXXy 2 KaXovpivy iv ixvptp XaPlv M.rjSa>v would be " of the Medians that we have been speaking of " — who might, accord ing to circumstances, be the whole nation, or only certain individuals of it. piv ovv] MeV really belongs, not so much to the main clause in which it is inserted, as to the secondary arelx- ovo-a ; still perhaps there is the sense " The city is neither placed on (but under) the mountains, nor fortified, but it has a strong citadel." Ovv can hardly be thought to coalesce in meaning with pev ; it is probably the resumptive use of the word, as the historian returns to the description of the site, after the mention of its former political greatness. avrff] For the question of the breathing see Language of the New Testament, pp. 64-5. NOTES ON HISTORICAL EXTRACTS. 169 7Ta/>ao-K07r«i/] " To pass by in silence " — the prep, cannot here be considered meaningless. Yet Polybius him self (who is the first known author who uses the compound) has it in the constr. irapao-icoirav irepi (XX. xi. 1) ; where, though the choice of the word is intelligible, it adds hardly anything to what would be expressed by the simple o-ianrav. 1 ras fWX. riov 8.] " Such stories as are astonishing," much as we might say " the most astonishing of the stories told." The constr. is quite good Greek, but perhaps a more spontaneous writer would have been less disposed to use it here than a self-conscious man of letters. 8 per avt; . . . xat 8iad.~\ "With exaggeration and arrange ment " — i.e. artificial arrangement for effect. Both the sense of this word,. and the fact that the same group of words occur in another passage of the same writer (II. lxi. 1), are suggestively modern. 9 eixaipiav]. "Prosperity" — a sense of the word first found in Polybius. II. Septuagint Version op the Pentateuch (cir. 280 B.C. ?). 1 oi . . . rois . . . roiis\. These articles are used idio matically by the translator, according to what he thinks to be the sense, the analogous Hebrew use of the art. having no place here. Oi represents the Hebrew relative, and the double rovs is inserted without any corresponding words. 2 eQvrf Itrxypa]. It is idle to speculate why the name of " the Zuzim " (or whatever was read in place of it) was translated, when those following were not. It has the art. in the Heb., while "the Rephaim " have not; "the Emim" and "the Horim" below have. And in ver. 7 the double art. , rovs 'Ap- rovs kotoix. is literal. 170 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 3 apa avrois]. The Hebrew letters with a different pro nunciation might be read "among them" instead of " in Ham." 4 2opalovs~\ Probably the 2 is a Sirroyparjiia, though found in the oldest MSS. T77 iroXei stands, of course, for Kiriathaim, " [of] the Two Cities." s rijs . . . rr)v\. Here again the art. is not expressed in the Heb. ; but though the significant words are treated as pr. nn., they are not written as compounds. 0 rfk6oo-av\. On this form see Language of the New Testa ment, p. 36. . x 7 avrrj ecrriv] The pron. introduced abruptly and paren thetically is a literal reproduction of the Heb. ; but the insertion of the copula is a concession to Greek idiom. s llpxovras]. This must represent a different reading from the Hebrew text. 0 fiatrikevs]. Anarthrous as in Heb., though hardly natural Greek. 1 av-rois] This use of the dat. is found in classical Greek. The most literal translation of the Heb. would be irapera£av per avra>v rroXepov. 2 rjj aXvxfj.] Either a different reading or a mistranslation of the Heb. ; see ver. 3, where the LXX. has the same translation of "the Vale of Siddim," "the Salt Sea " being r) 6akao-v aXav. The double art. is again according to Greek idiom, the Heb. being different. 3 oi reiro-. ovroi]. The Heb. use and non-use of the art. would be represented by tco-o-. j3a8.]. The gen. is not ordinarily used in Greek in o-iving a date in this form, but the use of erovs exao-rov "every year," and the Thucydidean rov airov depovs and the like, may be held to justify it. ¦2 ev rais rjpepais]. The common Hebraic mode of marking a date, from Gen. xiv. 1 (Heb., not LXX.) to Luke i. 5. 3 els] The prep, would hardly have been repeated in pure Greek : see Language of the New Testament, p. 158. 4 irvXas]. The repetition of the subst. is obviously un- Hellenic. It is no doubt a predicate, "he made the gates of it gates rising," etc. 5 8iey. els fyos]. One can see no possible meaning for these words but "rising" or " raised to the height. ..." But they certainly are not good Greek in that sense ; bieyeipa is a rather late word anyhow, and its only meaning is " to awake," not " to erect." But the simple °eyeipa> is in late Greek used of "erecting" a building— according to a grammarian, as early as Thucyd. also. The tendency to give it the latter meaning has some interest, as illustrating the equiva lence in the N. T. of eyelpeiv and avio-rdvai {e.g. Acts iii. 15, 26). . . 6 airov]. The repetition of the pron. again is Hellenistic ; see Language of the New Testament, p. 57. 7 Kat]. Here virtually begins the apodosis to the date in ver 1, and the long relative clauses about Arphaxad. Perhaps it is as likely that the writer or translator 172 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. lost his way among these as that he introduced what he felt as an apodosis by a Hebraistic Kai. No doubt, the general plan of the passage is imitated from Gen. xiv., but there are no detailed resemblances in lan guage — least of all to distinctive idioms of the LXX. 8 Kara irpoo-amov]. Used more or less as a Hebraic equiva lent to a prep. ; it is not found in the N. T. in that use, but is pure Greek in itself, see Language of the New Testament, pp. 149, 155. IV. Polybius. 1 Tow]. Apparently an incorrect extension of a use of the art. found in good Greek, where, if a larger number is divided into two smaller ones, the art. is used with either or both of these. We in English should only use it with the second. See Thuc. I. cxvi. 1. 2 Xaiov]. Exclusively poetical in earlier Greek — i.e. not Attic nor Herodotean Ionic, but taken into the " common dialect" from some other. 3 o-rparicoras]. Apparently in the sense of " mercenaries " as in Demosthenes, since these seem to be distin guished both from the Carthaginian citizens and from Hannibal's veterans. Yet the last were at least equally professional " soldiers." 1 ilXXios TTffls-]. The combination of these two adverbs is classical ; but though aXXios in good Attic often means "at random," "vainly," or the like, it seems hardly to have got so far as here towards a mere euphemism for " wrongly." 5 'Piopalois]. The second use of the anarthrous pr. n., at least, is to be explained as in I. note 3. It may be a question whether the first has the same force, or means, " You have fought with Romans, and know how to deal with them." NOTES ON HISTORICAL EXTRACTS. 173 V I Maccabees (translated from a Hebrew work- written cir. 105 b.c. ?). 1 See Language of the New Testament, p. 36. 2 The Hebraistic instrumental use of iv. 3 The absolute use of this cognate verb and subst., as technical military terms, is not found before Poly bius. The use of els, "came to B. and encamped there," does not go beyond pure Greek use. i 'Opdplfa is an exclusively biblical word, recognised however by -i grammarian as non- Attic "Hellenic." But the redundant use with to irpaii, and still more the constr. SipBpiarev xal airfjpe for "removed early," are manifest Hebraisms. 5 A Hebraism still more manifest. In Gen. xlix. 11, Deut. xxxii. 14, Ecclus. xxxix. 26, 1. 15, the phrase is more or less poetical ; but here it seems to be used with no consciousness of such a tone, only because mulberry juice would hardly be called wine. 6 A constr. more frequent in Hellenistic than in pure Greek. 1 Notice the way that a nom., with the verb subst. under stood, so forming a sort of parenthetic sentence, is put co-ordinately with the main sentence, where we should in pure Greek have had an ace, co-ordinate with that forming the obj. of the main sentence. 8 For the use of the past indie, in a rel. clause with &v see Language of the New Testament, p. 11. 3 The asyndeton, and the whole phrase, are Hebraistic in tone, though there is nothing in it that we can say is bad Greek. 1 " Men of might " for "mighty men " is a very decided Hebraism. 2 As this number is incredible, it is guessed to be a mis reading of the Hebrew original, which may have been " two or three." 174 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 3 ev6ev xal evdev . . . iin ra bio p-eprf]. The combination of the two clauses, perhaps the form of the second even if it stood alone, is Hellenistic. * irvpos]. Hebraistic in constr., besides being almost poetically redundant. VI. II Maccabees (First century b.c. 1). 'Eirl rav irpa.ypa.rav]. So Dem. de Cor. § 307 (247). But phrases of this type approached nearer in later Greek than in good Attic to the character of technical titles, as this seems to be here ; see e.g. the spurious decrees in that speech, §§ 47, 147-8 (38, 115-6). ' [iapetos cjiepoiv iirl to'is]. A classical constr., though rarer than that with the simple ace. 1 ras]. Cf. IV. note 1. edvcov]. Used of course in its religious sense of non- Israelites ; and here apparently distinguished from 'EWfjvaiv. "The nations" had each their own reli gion, which could be identified or combined with that of the ruling race, as that of Israel refused to be. irecjipevaipevos]. Quite a late sense of the word, the classical meaning of which is "instructed." pvpiam . . . x^o-v1]- It is a Hebraism of thought if not exactly of idiom to use the words thus absolutely. rois oy8.] A pure Greek writer could hardly have used a numeral thus like an epithet, though he meant some thing distinctive by the unusual place he gives to it, " his elephants, of which there were eighty," or rather "his elephants in all their number of eighty." o-vveyylo-as]. A late word, first in Polybius. Even the simple iyyl^eiv is not much older. obo-ei]. Occasionally found in this sense in good writers, but much oftener in Hellenistic Greek. %8X ifiev] . A late sense of the word altogether ; and a NOTES ON HISTORICAL EXTRACTS. 175 pure Greek writer of any age would hardly have used it here. dSeXi/Ws] . The extended sense of this word is not found in pure Greek. xpabalvav]. Made its way comparatively late from the language of poetry into that of prose. Here its use is incorrect; one can "brandish" a weapon, but hardly a suit of armour. rirpiio-xeiv]. Again a scarcely admissible sense of the word; it is used of "piercing" a ship, or even an egg-shell, but not in the general sense of " assailing," which seems to be meant here. Siaa-xevfj]. A late word, and in pure Greek meaning "equipment" rather than "order," which seems to be the sense here. Xeovrrj86v . . ¦ iiririvat-avres]. Both aira!- Xeyopeva, of poetical tone, and the latter incorrectly formed ; for the simple rivao-o-ai is never intr. VII. St. Matthew (cir. 60 a.d. ?). iiraipiov]. The compound, not differing in sense from the simple avpiov, is exclusively biblical. irapao-xevfjv]. Used in all the Gospels in the technical sense, which St. Mark only thinks it necessary to explain. o-vvfix8rjpev xal xivoipeBa xal PAULI EP. AD EOM. I. 18-25. 'A7roKaXi57rrerai 7ap bpyi) Oeov dir' oipavov iirl irdaav doifieiav Kai dSixlav dvBpwirwv riov r*t\v dXijBeiav iv dSixla xarexbvrtov, Sibn rb yvioorbv rov Qeov ipavepbv ioriv iv airois, b Qebs ydp airois iipavi- pwaev. rd ydp dbpara airov dirb xrtoews xbopov rois ,iroii\pjaoiv vaoi- peva xaBoparai2 ij re dtSios airov Sivapis xal Beibrrjs, els rb3 etvai airois dvairdXoyr)rovs, Sibn yiovres rbv Qebv oix "! ©e",/ iSbgaoav 1) riixaplorriaav* dXXd iparaiii- Bvoav5 iv rois SiaXoytapois airiov, Kai iaKorlffBij 77 doiveros airiov KapSla-s ipdoKovres etvai ootpol ipwpdvB-qoav, Kai fjXXaj-av rr)v Sb\av rov dtpBdprov Geov iv ' bpmiipari elKbvos tpBaprov dvBpiiirod'Kal irereivwv Kai rerpairbSwv xal ipirerdv. Aio irapidwxev airois b Qebs iv rais iiriBvplais riov KapSiiov airiov els dKaBapolav, rSv" dripd^eoBai rd oiipjara • airiov iv airois, oirives VI. EPICT. DISS. I. xiv. 5-10. 'AXXa rd r)pjas dirb pvpiwv irpaypdrwv Siao-i6feis- 6 Si Qebs oix °^s T' iarl irdvira iipopav, Kai iraoi ovp- irapeivai,' Kai dirb rrdvrwv rivd toxeiv SidSootv ; 'AXXd ipwrlteiv piv • oibs re ioriv 6 t^Xios rrjXixovrov pipos rov iravrbs, dXlyov di rb atpiinorov diroXiireiv, 8oov bibv r iirixeoBai vrb oxids fy i) 777 7roier' 6 Se6 Kai rbv ijXiov airbv -ireiroirjKws xal irepidywv, pipos Svr airov pwpbv lis irpbs rb 8X01/, oStos 8' e ov SivaraL irdvrwv aloBdveoBai. NOTES ON THE PHILOSOPHICAL EXTRACTS. I. Poltbius (cir. b.c. 140). 1 'Pcopalcov]. " Of the Romans" as a community; almost as we might say " of Rome." The omission of the article with a national name in this sense is quite classical. 2 ixrerpay . . . rpaymSia]. The earliest instance extant of the substantive rpaycoSla in this sense of "solemn story." But the verb rpayadelv is found as early as Plato, and the Attic orators, and the compound exrpay. in Theophrastus ; always however with more irony than there seems to be, at least in the former of these two places. 3 For perfect symmetry, the els re rois should have been followed by xal e I s to. . . . It can, however, hardly be said that this slight irregularity is characteristic of late date. In less classical Greek, re becomes increasingly rare. 4 For the omission of av, if it be rightly omitted, cf. Eur. Hec. 1113, Plat. Symp. 198 c. The omission becomes more frequent in later Greek (see a rathes extreme case in Philo de Joseph, § 5, el eVi yTJs irdrfnfs, rr)s o-ijs, iraprjyopoipi]v. idepairevire, x.r.X. an impf . and of aorists standing all without &v in apodosis) ; and is found several times in the N. T. [e.g. Gal. iv. 15, true text). In modern Greek it is the rule with past indie, tenses. NOTES ON PHILOSOPHICAL EXTRACTS. 183 5 The asyndeton would scarcely have occurred in a non- rhetorical passage in an Attic writer ; but by Poly bius' time a writer was always self-conscious, and never free from rhetorical influences. We are reminded of the longer asyndeta (mostly, like this, catalogues of vices) in St. Paul, Rom. i. 29, sqq., etc. ; but the difference in style is as marked as the like ness ; St. Paul has never the balanced epithet with his substantives. eiKfj xal i>s ervxev . . . elxrj koi aXdyios]. Possibly Poly bius was influenced in the use of these double, nearly synonymous terms by the Latin phrases forte temere, temere ne casu and the like. But perhaps such phrases are characteristic of late rhetoric gener ally ; it is in Cicero, rather than in any extant Greek writer, that analogies to them are ccmmonest. II. Wisdom of Solomon (first century b.c. ?). 1 Qeov]. Used absolutely by Jewish and Christian writers in a monotheistic sense, the art. being prefixed or omitted under much the same conditions as with a pr. n. In pagan writers, instances occur of the same use ; but as a rule " God " as the author or provi dential ruler of the world is 6 Qebs, debs by itself being used of " a god." 2 ofiVe]. Very often, as here, MS. evidence fluctuates between ofiVe and olde ; here the latter has as high authority. But it seems plain that the rule, nearly universal in classical Greek, that ovre is now used singly is now and then disregarded in the later lan guage — less often, it seems, however, in the true text of the N. T. than at a still later date. 3 rrpvrdveis]. In this sense of "rulers," the word is almost exclusively poetical. In prose it is a technical term 184 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. for the "president," whether of an assembly or of a state. [Is the writer quoting something current under the name of Heraclitus?] 4 xaXXovff]. Rare and mostly poetical, and therefore pro bably preferred by the writer to the common xdXXei. 5 yeveuidpx'qs]. aira£ Xeyopevov ; yeveiyiovpyos is also late, but not so uncommon. 6 uvyyvauroi]. Part-alexandrine in this construction. In classical Greek it is used of the fault to be excused, . not of the person needing excuse. 1 al&va]. Perhaps an extreme instance of the approxima tion of alasv in sense to xoo-pos ; in the same book xiv. 6, xviii. 4 are not quite such strong cases, though we should have to translate "world'' in both. Cf. Hebr. i. 2 ; and contrast Philo de Plant. Noe. 12 (p. 336-7), where with fSatrCXeiaiv rav alavmv (from Ex. xv. 17) before him, he refuses himself to use the word except in the sense of duration. III. Philo (cir. A.D. 39). 1 C . II., Note 1. 2 Xpeios] ¦ Rare and only poetical in older Greek ; rather a favourite word with Philo. 1 evxapicmeSis]. -.aira!- Xeyopevov. Tile adj. e&xdpioros began in rather late Attic to bear the sense "thankful" among others, and the subst. elxapitrria and verb evxapiureiv were afterwards formed from it. But these and kindred forms are much commoner in Jewish and Christian than in secular writings. 4 npririKws exetv]. Here again the adv. seems to be &ira£ XeydjaeKOK, and the adj. ripvnxos, though found in this sense, has more commonly a different one. A really classical writer, even of Philo's age, would hardly have written these four words ; the idiom of an adv. with exeiv is of course quite classical, but it NOTES ON PHILOSOPHICAL EXTRACTS. 185 is something of a classicalising affectation to use it here. 5 e'ldeoi]. Apparently "looks" — we are to avoid seeing, as well as saying or doing anything that may defile. This sense of the word is not classical. 6 Here it seems as though the later scholar failed to feel the instinct which guided Greek writers of the best age in the use of the art. Plato would probably have written xex. xa\ ireip. rrj Siavola " with the under standing stained and polluted." And still more surely, the art. would not have been placed where it is, in di/>v^ov rrjs vXr/s. Probably the sense which Philo wants, " stones and timber, matter that is without life," would have seemed sufficiently ex pressed to an Athenian by vXrjs dyfrvxov and pro bably in the next clause he would have written to a\lrvxpv pa, or rb iro'pa ityvtfiov ov. But he would have understood Philo's desire to accentuate the con currence a'r'vxov diffixcov, and it would be rash to deny that a good Attic writer could, for a special purpose, have arranged words in this order. Cf. Aesch. Ag. 1225-6, Soph. Aj. 573, in the former of which the reason for the order is stronger (ipa being an afterthought), in the latter perhaps weaker. But it is more certain that the Athenian had a distinctive reason for deviating from the regular order than that the Alexandrian had. 7 ireiroirjvrai] . An Attic writer would almost certainly have used the sing. 8 pifj . . . xPW^P-iv0Vj- Here M nas ita Pr0Per force, "unless he used.1' Still we see the transition to the habit of later Greek, using pr) almost always with participles. 9 xadapa-lois dyy.J. xaddpiriov is used subs tantivally in quite classical Greek in the sense of " a purifying offering. ' But it may be doubted if it was in the best age ever 186 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. felt to be enough of a subst. to carry another adj. as its epithet. IV. St. Luke (ad. 63, or later). 1 beia-ibaipoveurepcros]. The use of the comp. may be considered classical (so xaivorepov in v. 21 ; but see on p. 94, Part I.) whatsoever we understand to be the precise shade of meaning in the adj. Probably the R. V. " somewhat superstitious " is more in accord ance with the usage of contemporary Greek than either the severer "too superstitious'' of the A. V., or the complimentary " [very] religious " of the R.V. margin ; though the last may commend itself on rhetorical grounds. 2 as S. v/xiif 8eiopb>]. deapelv is quite classical, though not very early, in the sense of " observing " critically or philosophically; and like "observe" in English, it passes, from denoting the process, to denote the result arrived at, the fact "observed." In v. 16 just above, there is nothing in the least surprising in the use of the word ; and here the mere fact of its use is not very peculiar. But the constr. with as seems to be unique ; the nearest approach is Lycurg. c. Leocr. p. 151 § 28, xal ravra 8e, a avSpes, ipov 8eapr)