BIBLE STUDIES

CONTRIBUTIONS

CHIEFLY FROM PAPYRI AND INSCRIPTIONS

TO THE HISTORY OF

THE LANGUAGE, THE LITERATURE, AND THE RELIGION

OF HELLENISTIC JUDAISM AND PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY

BY

DR. G. ADOLF DEISSMANN

Digitally prepared by Dr. Ted Hildebrandt

(Gordon College, 2006)

TRANSLATED BY

ALEXANDER GRIEVE, M.A., D. PHIL.

T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1901

CONTENTS.

PAGE

PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION vii

EXTRACT FROM THE PREFACE TO Bibelstudien ix

TRANSLATOR'S NOTE xiii

ABBREVIATIONS xv

I. PROLEGOMENA TO THE BIBLICAL LETTERS AND EPISTLES 1

II. CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HISTORY OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE 61

III. FURTHER CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HISTORY OF THE LANGUAGE

OF THE GREEK BIBLE 171

Introductory Remarks 173

(i.) Notes on the Orthography 181

1. Variation of Vowels 181

2. Variation of Consonants 183

(ii.) Notes on the Morphology 186

1. Declension 186

2. Proper Names 187

3. Verb 189

(iii.) Notes on the Vocabulary and the Syntax 194

1. So-called Hebraisms 194

2. So-called Jewish-Greek "Biblical" or "New Testament"

Words and Constructions 198

3. Supposed Special "Biblical" or "New Testament" Mean-

ings and Constructions 223

4. Technical Terms 228

5. Phrases and Formulae 248

6. Rarer Words, Meanings and Constructions 256

IV. AN EPIGRAPHIC MEMORIAL OF THE SEPTUAGINT 269

V. NOTES ON SOME BIBLICAL PERSONS AND NAMES 301

1. Heliodorus 303

2. Barnabas 307

3. Manaen 310

4. Saulus Paulus 313

(v)

vi CONTENTS.

PAGE

VI. GREEK TRANSCRIPTIONS OF THE TETRAGRAMMATON 319

VII. SPICILEGIUM 337

1. The Chronological Statement in the Prologue to Jesus

Sirach 339

2. The Supposed Edict of Ptolemy IV. Philopator against the

Egyptian Jews 341

3. The "Large Letters" and the "Marks of Jesus" in

Galatians 6 346

4. A Note to the Literary History of Second Peter 360

5. White Robes and Palms 368

INDEXES 371

AUTHOR'S PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH

EDITION.

Having been honoured by a request to sanction

an English translation of my Bibelstudien and Neue

Bibelstudien, I have felt it my duty to accede to the

proposal. It seems to me that investigations based

upon Papyri and Inscriptions are specially calculated

to be received with interest by English readers.

For one thing, the richest treasures from the

domain of Papyri and Inscriptions are deposited in

English museums and libraries; for another, English

investigators take premier rank among the discoverers

and editors of Inscriptions, but particularly of Papyri;

while, again, it was English scholarship which took

the lead in utilising the Inscriptions in the sphere

of biblical research. Further, in regard to the Greek

Old Testament in particular, for the investigation

of which the Inscriptions and Papyri yield valuable

material (of which only the most inconsiderable part

has been utilised in the following pages), English

theologians have of late done exceedingly valuable

and memorable work. In confirmation of all this I

need only recall the names of F. Field, B. P. Grenfell,

E. Hatch, E. L. Hicks, A. S. Hunt, F. G. Kenyon,

J. P. Mahaffy, W. R. Paton, W. M. Ramsay, H. A.

Redpath, H. B. Swete, and others hardly less notable.

Since the years 1895 and 1897, in which respec-

(vii)

viii AUTHOR'S PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION.

tively the German Bibelstudien and Neue Bibelstudien

were published, there has been a vast increase of

available material, which, again, has been much more

accessible to me as a Professor in the University

of Heidelberg than it was during my residence at

Herborn. I have so far availed myself of portions

of the more recent discoveries in this English edition;

but what remains for scholars interested in such

investigations is hardly less than enormous, and is

being augmented year by year. I shall be greatly

pleased if yet more students set themselves seriously

to labour in this field of biblical research.

In the English edition not a few additional

changes have been made; I must, however, reserve

further items for future Studies. With regard to the

entries kuriako<j (p. 217 ff.), and especially i[lath<rion

(p. 124 ff.), I should like to make express reference

to the articles Lord's Day and Mercy Seat to be

contributed by me to the Encyclopcedia Biblica.

Finally, I must record my heartiest thanks to

my translator, Rev. Alexander Grieve, M.A., D. Phil.,

Forfar, for his work. With his name I gratefully

associate the words which once on a time the trans-

lator of the Wisdom of Jesus Sirach applied with

ingenuous complacency to himself: pollh>n a]grupni<an

kai> e]pisth<mhn prosenegka<menoj.

ADOLF DEISSMANN.

HEIDELBERG,

27th December, 1900.

FROM THE PREFACE TO THE GERMAN

EDITION.

Bible Studies is the name I have chosen for the

following investigations, since all of them are more

or less concerned with the historical questions which

the Bible, and specially the Greek version, raises for

scientific treatment. I am not, of course, of the

opinion that there is a special biblical science.

Science is method: the special sciences are distin-

guished from each other as methods. What is

designated "Biblical Science" were more fitly

named "Biblical Research". The science in ques-

tion here is the same whether it is engaged with

Plato, or with the Seventy Interpreters and the

Gospels. Thus much should be self-evident.

A well-disposed friend who understands some-

thing of literary matters tells me that it is hardly

fitting that a younger man should publish a volume

of "Studies": that is rather the part of the ex-

perienced scholar in the sunny autumn of life. To

this advice I have given serious consideration, but I

am still of the opinion that the hewing of stones is

very properly the work of the journeyman. And in

the department where I have laboured, many a block

must yet be trimmed before the erection of the edifice

can be thought of. But how much still remains to

do, before the language of the Septuagint, the relation

(ix)

x FROM THE PREFACE TO THE GERMAN EDITION.

to it of the so-called New Testament Greek, the

history of the religious and ethical conceptions of

Hellenic Judaism, have become clear even in outline

only; or before it has been made manifest that the

religious movement by which we date our era origin-

ated and was developed in history—that is, in con-

nection with, or, it may be, in opposition to, an already-

existent high state of culture! If the following pages

speak much about the Septuagint, let it be remem-

bered that in general that book is elsewhere much

too little spoken of, certainly much less than was the

case a hundred years ago. We inveigh against the

Rationalists—often in a manner that raises the sus-

picion that we have a mistrust of Reason. Yet these

men, inveighed against as they are, in many respects

set wider bounds to their work than do their critics.

During my three years' work in the Seminarium

Philippinum at Marburg, I have often enough been

forced to think of the plan of study in accordance

with which the bursars used to work about the

middle of last century. Listen to a report of the

matter such as the following :— ¹

"With regard to Greek the legislator has laid

particular stress upon the relation in which this

language stands to a true understanding of the .N.T.

How reasonable, therefore, will those who can judge

find the recommendation that the Septuagint (which,

¹ Cf. the programme (of the superintendent) Dr. Carl Wilhelm Robert:

. . . announces that the Literary Association . . . shall be duly opened . . .

on the 27th inst. . . . [Marburg] Miller's Erben and Weldige, 1772, p. 13.

That the superintendent had still an eye for the requirements of practical

life is shown by his remarks elsewhere. For example, on page 7f., he good-

naturedly asserts that he has carried out "in the most conscientious manner"

the order that "the bursars shall be supplied with sufficient well-prepared

food and wholesome and unadulterated beer". The programme affords a fine

glimpse into the academic life of the Marburg of a past time.

FROM THE PREFACE TO THE GERMAN EDITION. xi

on the authority of an Ernesti and a Michaelis, is of

the first importance as a means towards the proper

understanding of the N.T.), has been fixed upon as

a manual upon which these lectures must be given!

And how much is it to be wished that the bursars,

during the year of their study of this book, should go

through such a considerable part of the same as may

be necessary to realise the purposes of the legislator!"

I am not bold enough to specify the time when

academical lectures and exercises upon the Septua-

will again be given in Germany.¹ But the coming

century is long, and the mechanical conception of

science is but the humour of a day! . . .

I wrote the book, not as a clergyman, but as a

Privatdocent at Marburg, but I rejoice that I am

able, as a clergyman, to publish it.

G. ADOLF DEISSMANN.

HERBORN: DEPARTMENT OF WIESBADEN,

7th March, 1895.

¹ 1. Additional note, 1899: Professor Dr. Johannes Weiss of Marburg

has announced a course upon the Greek Psalter for the Summer Session, 1899;

the author lectured on the Language of the Greek Bible in Heidelberg in the

Winter Session of 1897-98.

TRANSLATOR'S NOTE.

In addition to the supplementary matter specially

contributed to the present edition by the Author,

the translation shows considerable alterations in other

respects. Not only has the smaller and later volume,

Neue Bibelstudien, 1897, found a place in the body

of the book, but the order of the Articles has been all

but completely changed. It has not been thought

necessary to furnish the translation with an index

of Papyri, etc., more especially as the larger Bibel-

studien had none; but there has been added an index

of Scripture texts, which seemed on the whole more

likely to be of service to English readers in general.

The translator has inserted a very few notes, mainly

concerned with matters of translation.

For the convenience of those who may wish to

consult the original on any point, the paging of the

German edition has been given in square brackets,

the page-numbers of the Neue Bibelstudien being

distinguished by an N. In explanation of the fact

that some of the works cited are more fully described

towards the end of the book, and more briefly in the

earlier pages, it should perhaps be said that a large

portion of the translation was in type, and had been

revised, before the alteration in the order of the

Articles had been decided upon.

The translator would take this opportunity of

(xiii)

xiv TRANSLATOR'S NOTE.

expressing his most cordial thanks to Professor

Deissmann, who has taken the most active interest

in the preparation of the translation, and whose

painstaking revision of the proofs has been of the

highest service. A word of thanks is also due to the

printers, The Aberdeen University Press Limited,

for the remarkable accuracy and skill which they

have uniformly shown in the manipulation of what

was often complicated and intricate material.

ALEXANDER GRIEVE.

FORFAR,

21st January, 1901.

THE PRINCIPAL ABBREVIATIONS.

AAB. = Abhandlungen der Konig- Parthey, see p. 322, note 5.

lichen Akademie der Wissen- Paton and Hicks, see p. 131, note 1.

schaften zu Berlin. PER., see p. 179, note 2.

Benndorf u. Niemann, see p. 157, Perg., see p. 178, note 4.

note 1. Peyron (A.), see p. 88, note 1.

BU. = Aegyptische Urkunden aus den R-E ² = Real-Encyclopadie fur protest.

Koeniglichen Museen zu Berlin, Theologie and Kirche von Herzog,

Berlin, 1892 ff. 2. Aufl., Leipzig, 1877 ff.

CIA. = Corpus Inscriptionum Atti- Schleusner = J. F., Novus Thesaurus

barum. philologico-criticus sive lexicon in

CIG. = Corpus Inscriptionum Grae- LXX et reliquos interpretes grae-

carum. cos ac scriptores apocryphos V. T.,

CIL. = Corpus Inscriptionum Latin- 5 voll., Lipsiae, 1820-21.

arum. Schmid (W.), see p. 64, note 2.

Clavis³, see p. 88, note 5. Schmidt (Guil.), see p. 291, note 1.

Cremer, see p. 290, note 2. Scharer, see p. 335, note 2.

DAW. = Denkschriften der K. K. Swete = The Old Testament in Greek

Akademie der Wissenschaften zu according to the Septuagint, edited

Wien. by H. B. Swete, 3 voll., Cambridge,

Dieterich (A.), see p. 322, note 8. 1887-94.

Dittenberger, see p. 93, note 2. Thesaurus =H. Stephanus, Thesaurus

DLZ. = Deutsche Literaturzeitung. Graecae Linguae, edd. Hase, etc.,

Fick-Bechtel, see p. 310, note 4. Paris, 1831-65.

Field, see p. 284, note 2. Thayer, see p. 176, note 3.

Fleck. Jbb. = Fleckeisen's Jahrbacher. ThLZ. = Theologische Literaturzei-

Frankel, see p. 84, note 2. tung.

GGA. = Gottingische gelehrte An- Tromm. = Abrahami Trommii concor-

zeigen. dantiae graecae versionis vulgo

HApAT. = Kurzgefasstes exegetisches dictae LXX interpretum . . ., 2

Handbuch zu den Apocryphen des tomi, Amstelodami et Trajecti ad

A.T., 6 Bde., Leipzig, 1851-60. Rhenum, 1718.

Hamburger, see p. 271, note. TU. = Texte mad Untersuchungen zur

HC. = Hand-Commentar zum N.T. Geschichte der altchristlichen

Hercher, see p. 4, note 1. Literatur.

Humann u. Puchstein, see p. 309, Waddington, see p. 93, note 1.

note 1. Wessely, see p. 322, note 7.

IGrSI., see p. 200, note 1. Wetstein, see p. 350, note 1.

IMAe., see p. 178, note 5. Winer⁷, or Winer-Lunemann = G. B.

Kennedy, see p. 213, note 1. Winer, Grammatik des neutesta-

Kenyon, see p. 323, note 1. mentlichen Sprachidioms, 7 Aufl.

Lebas, see Waddington. von G. Lunemann, Leipzig, 1867.

Leemans, see p. 322, note 6. [9th English edition, by W. F.

Letronne, Recherches, see p. 98, note 3. Moulton, Edinburgh, 1882 = 6th

Recueil, see p. 101, note 6. German edition.]

Lumbroso, Recherches, see p. 98, note 2. Winer-Schmiedel = the same work,

Mahaffy, see p. 336, note 1. 8th Aufl. neu bearbeitet von P. W.

Meisterhans, see p. 124, note 1. Schmiedel, Gottingen, 1894 ff.

Meyer = H. A. W. Meyer, Kritisch ZAW. = Zeitschrift fur die alttesta-

exegetischer Kommentar caber das mentliche Wissenschaft.

N.T. Z KG. = Zeitschrift fur Kirchenge-

Notices, xviii. 2, see p. 283, note 3. sohialite.

(xv)

I.

PROLEGOMENA TO THE BIBLICAL LETTERS

AND EPISTLES.

ginesqe dokimoi trapezitai

PROLEGOMENA TO THE BIBLICAL LETTERS AND

EPISTLES.

I.

I. Men have written letters ever since they could write

at all. Who the first letter-writer was we know not.¹ But

this is quite as it should be: the writer of a letter accom-

modates himself to the need of the moment; his aim is a

personal one and concerns none but himself,—least of all

the curiosity of posterity. We fortunately know quite as

little who was the first to experience repentance or to offer

prayer. The writer of a letter does not sit in the market-

place. A letter is a secret and the writer wishes his secret

to be preserved; under cover and seal he entrusts it to the

reticence of the messenger. The letter, in its essential idea,

does not differ in any way from a private conversation; like

the latter, it is a personal and intimate communication, and

the more faithfully it catches the tone of the private con-

versation, the more of a letter, that is, the better a letter, it

is. The only difference is the means of communication.

We avail ourselves of far-travelling handwriting, because

¹ It appears sufficiently naïve that Tatian (Or. ad Graec., p. 1 15 f

Schwartz) and Clement of Alexandria (Strom. i. 16, p. 364, Potter) should

say, following the historian Hellanikos, that the Persian queen Atossa

(6th-5th cent. B.C.) was the discoverer of letter-writing. For it is in this

sense that we should understand the expression that occurs in both, viz.,

e]pistola>j sunta<ssein, and not as collecting letters together and publishing them,

which R. Bentley (Dr. Rich. Bentley's Dissertation on the Epistles of

Phalaris, London, 1699, p. 535 f., German edition by W. Ribbeck, Leipzig,

1857, p. 532) considers to be also possible; cf. M. Kremmer, De catalogis

heurematum, Leipzig, 1890, p. 15.

4 BIBLE STUDIES. [190, 191

our voice cannot carry to our friend: the pen is employed

because the separation by distance does not permit a tete-a-

tete.¹ A letter is destined for the receiver only, not for the

public eye, and even when it is intended for more than one,

yet with the public it will have nothing to do: letters to

parents and brothers and sisters, to comrades in joy or

sorrow or sentiment—these, too, are private letters, true

letters. As little as the words of the dying father to his

children are a speech—should they be a speech it would be

better for the dying to keep silent—just as little is the letter

of a sage to his confidential pupils an essay, a literary produc-

tion; and, if the pupils have learned wisdom, they will not

place it among their books, but lay it devoutly beside the

picture and the other treasured relics of their master. The

form and external appearance of the letter are matters of

indifference in the determination of its essential character.

Whether it be written on stone or clay, on papyrus or parch-

ment, on wax or palm-leaf, on rose paper or a foreign post-

card, is quite as immaterial² as whether it clothes itself in

the set phrases of the age; whether it be written skilfully

or unskilfully, by a prophet or by a beggar, does not alter

its special characteristics in the least. Nor do the particular

contents belong to the essence of it. What is alone

essential is the purpose which it serves: confidential per-

sonal conversation between persons separated by dis-

tance. The one wishes to ask something of the other,

wishes to praise or warn or wound the other, to thank

him or assure him of sympathy in joy—it is ever something

personal that forces the pen into the hand of the letter-

writer.³ He who writes a letter under the impression that

¹ [Pseudo-] Diogenes, ep. 3 (Epistolographi Graeci, rec. R. Hercher,

Parisiis, 1873, p. 235).—Demetr., de elocut., 223 f. (Hercher, p. 13).—[Pseudo-]

Proclus, de forma epistolari (Hercher, p. 6).

² Cf. Th. Birt, Das antike Buchwesen in seinem Verhaltniss zur Lit-

teratur, Berlin, 1882, top of p. 2.—It is most singular that Pliny (Hist. Nat.,

xiii. 13), and, after him, Bentley (p. 538 f.; German edition by Ribbeck, p.

532 f.), deny that the letters on wax-tablets mentioned by Homer are letters.

³ Demetr., de elocut., 231 (Hercher, p. 14).

191, 192] LETTERS AND EPISTLES. 5

his lines may be read by strangers, will either coquet with

this possibility, or be frightened by it; in the former case

he will be vain, in the latter, reserved;¹ in both cases un-

natural—no true letter-writer. With the personal aim of

the letter there must necessarily be joined the naturalness

of the writer's mood; one owes it not only to himself

and to the other, but still more to the letter as such,

that he yield himself freely to it. So must the letter,

even the shortest and the poorest, present a fragment

¹ Cic., Fam. 15,214, aliter enim scribimus quod eos solos quibus mittimus,

aliter quod multos lecturos putamus. Cic., Phil. 2,7, quam multa iota solent

esse in epistulis quae prolata si sint inepta videantur! quam multa seria neque

tamen ullo modo divolganda!—Johann Kepler wrote a letter to Reimarus

Ursus, of which the latter then made a great parade in a manner painful

to Kepler and Tycho Brahe. Having got a warning by this, Kepler de-

termined that for the future: "scribam caute, retinebo exemplaria".

(Joannis Kepleri astronomi opera omnia, ed. Ch. Frisch, i. [Frankfurt and

Erlangen, 1858], p. 234; of. C. Anschutz, Ungedruckte wissenschaftliche Cor-

respondent zwischen Johann Kepler and Herwart von Hohenburg, 1599,

Prague, 1886, p. 91 f.—The Palatinate physician-in-ordinary Helisaus Ros-

linus († 1616) says about one of his letters which had been printed without

his knowledge: "I wrote it the day immediately following that on which I

first beheld with astonishment the new star—on the evening of Tuesday, the

2/12 October; I communicated the same at once in haste to a good friend in

Strassburg. . . . . This letter (6 paginarum) was subsequently printed without

my knowledge or desire, which in itself did not concern me—only had I

known beforehand, I should have arranged it somewhat better and ex-

pressed myself more distinctly than I did while engaged in the writing of

it" (Joannis Kepleri opp. omn. i., p. 666). Moltke to his wife, 3rd July,

1864: "I have in the above given you a portrayal of the seizure of Alsen,

which embodies no official report, but simply the observations of an eye-

witness, which always add freshness to description. If you think it would

be of interest to others as well, I have no objection to copies being taken

of it in which certain personal matters will be left out, and myself not

mentioned: Auer will put the matter right for you " (Gesammelte Schriften,

tend Denkwurdigkeiten des General-Feldmarschalls Grafen Helmuth von

Moltke, vi. [Berlin, 1892], p. 408 f.). One notices, however, in this "letter,"

that it was written under the impression that copies of it might be

made. Compare also the similar sentiment (in the matter of diary-notes,

which are essentially akin to letters) of K. von Hase, of the year 1877:

"It may be that my knowledge that these soliloquies will soon fall into

other hands detracts from their naturalness. Still they will be the

hands of kind and cherished persons, and so may the thought of it

be but a quickly passing shadow!" (Annalen meines Lebens, Leipzig, 1891,

p. 271).

6 BIBLE STUDIES. [192, 193

of human naivete—beautiful or trivial, but, in any case,

true.¹

2. The letter is older than literature. As conversation

between two persons is older than the dialogue, the song

older than the poem, so also does the history of the letter

reach back to that Golden Age when there was neither

author nor publisher, nor any reviewer. Literature is that

species of writing which is designed for publicity: the

maker of literature desires that others will take heed to

his work. He desires to be read. He does not appeal to

his friend, nor does he write to his mother; he entrusts

his sheets to the winds, and knows not whither they will

be borne; he only knows that they will be picked up and ex-

amined by some one or other unknown to him and unabashed

before him. Literature, in the truest essence of it, differs in

no way from a public speech; equally with the latter it

falls short in the matter of intimacy, and the more it attains

to the character of universality, the more literary, that is

to say, the more interesting it is. All the difference between

them is in the mode of delivery. Should one desire to address,

not the assembled clan or congregation, but the great foolish

public, then he takes care that what he has to say may be

carried home in writing by any one who wishes to have it

so: the book is substituted for oral communication. And

even if the book be dedicated to a friend or friends, still its

dedication does not divest it of its literary character,—it

does not thereby become a private piece of writing. The

form and external appearance of the book are immaterial

for the true understanding of its special character as a

book: even its contents, whatever they be, do not matter.

Whether the author sends forth poems, tragedies or his-

tories, sermons or wearisome scientific lucubrations, politi-

cal matter or anything else in the world; whether his book

is multiplied by the slaves of an Alexandrian bookseller, by

patient monk or impatient compositor; whether it is pre-

served in libraries as sheet, or roll, or folio: all these are as

¹ Demetr., de elocut., 227 (Hereher, p. 13). Greg. Naz., ad Nicobulum

(Hercher, p. 16).

193, 194] LETTERS AND EPISTLES. 7

much matter of indifference as whether it is good or bad, or

whether it finds purchasers or not. Book, literature, in the

widest sense, is every written work designed by its author

for the public.¹

3. The book is younger than the letter. Even were the

oldest letters that have come down to us younger than the

earliest extant works of literature, that statement would still

be true. For it is one which does not need the confirmation

of historical facts—nay, it would be foolish to attempt to give

such. The letter is perishable—in its very nature necessarily

so; it is perishable, like the hand that wrote it, like the eyes

that were to read it. The letter-writer works as little for

posterity as for the public of his own time;² just as the

true letter cannot be written over again, it exists in but a

single copy. It is only the book that is multiplied and

thus rendered accessible to the public, accessible, possibly,

to posterity. Fortunately we possess letters that are old,

extremely old, but we shall never gain a sight of the oldest

of them all; it was a letter, and was able to guard itself and

its secret. Among all nations, before the age of literature,

there were the days when people wrote, indeed, but did not

yet write books.³ In the same way people prayed, of course,

and probably prayed better, long before there were any

service-books; and they had come near to God before they

wrote down the proofs of His existence. The letter, should

we ask about the essential character of it, carries us into

the sacred solitude of simple, unaffected humanity; when we

ask about its history, it directs us to the childhood's years of

the pre-literary man, when there was no book to trouble him.

¹ Birt, Buchwesen, p. 2: " Similarly the point of separation between a

private writing and a literary work was the moment when [in antiquity] an

author delivered his manuscript to his own slaves or to those of a contractor

in order that copies of it might be produced".

² A. Stahr, Aristotelia, i., Halle, 1830, p. 192 f.

³ Wellhausen, Israelitische and Judische Geschichte, p. 58: "Already

in early times writing was practised, but in documents and contracts only ;

also letters when the contents of the message were not for the light of day

or when, for other reasons, they required to be kept secret". Hebrew litera-

ture blossomed forth only later.

8 BIBLE STUDIES. [194, 159

4. When the friend has for ever parted from his comrades,

the master from his disciples, then the bereaved bethink

themselves, with sorrowful reverence, of all that the de-

parted one was to them. The old pages, which the beloved

one delivered to them in some blessed hour, speak to them

with a more than persuasive force; they are read and re-

read, they are exchanged one for another, copies are taken

of letters in the possession of friends, the precious fragments

are collected: perhaps it is decided that the collection be

multiplied—among the great unknown public there may

be some unknown one who is longing for the same

stimulus which the bereaved themselves have received.

And thus it happens now and then that, from motives of

reverent love, the letters of the great are divested of their

confidential character: they are formed into literature, the

letters subsequently become a book. When, by the

Euphrates or the Nile, preserved in the ruins of some

fallen civilisation, we find letters the age of which can

only be computed by centuries and millenniums, the science

of our fortunate day rejoices; she hands over the vener-

able relics to a grateful public in a new garb, and so, in our

own books and in our own languages, we read the reports

which the Palestinian vassals had to make to Pharaoh upon

their tablets of clay, long before there was any Old Testa-

ment or any People of Israel; we learn the sufferings and

the longings of Egyptian monks from shreds of papyrus

which are as old as the book of the Seventy Interpreters.

Thus it is the science of to-day that has stripped these

private communications of a hoary past of their most

peculiar characteristic, and which has at length transformed

letters, true letters, into literature. As little, however, as

some unknown man, living in the times of Imperial Rome,

put the toy into the grave of his child in order that it should

sometime be discovered and placed in a museum, just as

little are the private letters which have at length been trans-

formed into literature by publication, to be, on that account,

thought of as literature. Letters remain letters whether

oblivion hides them with its protecting veil, or whether now

195, 196] LETTERS AND EPISTLES. 9

reverence, now science, or, again, reverence and science in

friendly conspiracy, think it well to withhold the secret no

longer from the reverent or the eager seeker after truth.

What the editor, in publishing such letters, takes from

them, the readers, if they can do anything more than spell,

must restore by recognising, in true historical perspective,

their simple and unaffected beauty.

5. When for the first time a book was compiled from

letters,—it would be reverential love, rather than science,

that made the beginning here—the age of literature had, of

course, dawned long ago, and had long ago constructed

the various literary forms with which it worked. That

book, the first to be compiled from real letters, added

another to the already existent forms. One would, of

course, hardly venture to say that it forthwith added the

literary letter, the epistle,¹ to the forms of published litera-

ture; the said book only gave, against its will, so to speak,

the impetus to the development of this new literary eidos.²

The present writer cannot imagine that the composition

and publication of literary treatises in the form of letters

was anterior to the compilation of a book from actual

letters. So soon, however, as such a book existed, the

charming novelty of it invited to imitation. Had the in-

vitation been rightly understood, the only inducement that

should have been felt was to publish the letters of other

venerable men, and, in point of fact, the invitation was not

seldom understood in this its true sense. From almost

every age we have received such collections of "genuine,"

"real" letters—priceless jewels for the historian of the

human spirit. But the literary man is frequently more

of a literary machine than a true man, and thus, when the

¹ In the following pages the literary letter [Litteraturbrief] will

continue to be so named: the author considers that the borrowed word

appropriately expresses the technical sense.

² F. Susemihl, Geschichte der griechischen Litteratur in der Alexan-

drinerzeit, ii., Leipzig, 1892, p. 579: "It may well be that the first impulse

to this branch of authorship was given by the early collecting together, in

the individual schools of philosophy, such as the Epicurean, of the genuine

correspondence of their founders and oldest members".

10 BIBLE STUDIES. [196, 197

first collection of letters appeared, it was the literary, rather

than the human, interest of it which impressed him; the

accidental and external, rather than the inscrutably strange

inmost essence of it. Instead of rejoicing that his pur-

blind eye might here catch a glimpse of a great human

soul, he resolved to write a volume of letters on his own

part. He knew not what he did, and had no feeling that

he was attempting anything unusual;¹ he did not see that,

by his literary purpose, he was himself destroying the very

possibility of its realisation; for letters are experiences,

and experiences cannot be manufactured. The father of

the epistle was no great pioneer spirit, but a mere para-

graphist, a mere mechanic. But perhaps he had once

heard a pastoral song among the hills, and afterwards at

home set himself down to make another of the same: the

wondering applause of his crowd of admirers confirmed him

in the idea that he had succeeded. If then he had achieved

his aim in the matter of a song, why should he not do the

same with letters? And so he set himself down and made

them. But the prototype, thus degraded to a mere pattern,

mistrustfully refused to show its true face, not to speak of

its heart, to this pale and suspicious-looking companion,

and the result was that the epistle could learn no more

from the letter than a little of its external form. If the

true letter might be compared to a prayer, the epistle which

mimicked it was only a babbling; if there beamed forth

in the letter the wondrous face of a child, the epistle grinned

stiffly and stupidly, like a puppet.

But the puppet pleased; its makers knew how to bring

it to perfection, and to give it more of a human appearance.

Indeed, it happened now and then that a real artist occupied

an idle hour in the fashioning of such an object. This, of

course, turned out better than most others of a similar kind,

¹ Cf. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Aristoteles and Athen, ii., Berlin,

1893, p. 392: "He [Isocrates] did not understand that the letter, as a con-

fidential and spontaneous utterance, is well written only when it is written

for reading, not hearing, when it is distinguished from the set oration kat

ei#doj". This judgment applies also to real, genuine letters by Isocrates.

197, 198] LETTERS AND EPISTLES. 11

and was more pleasant to look at than an ugly child for

instance; in any case it could not disturb one by its noise.

A good epistle, in fact, gives one more pleasure than a

worthless letter, and in no literature is there any lack of

good epistles. They often resemble letters so much that a

reader permits himself for the moment to be willingly deceived

as to their actual character. But letters they are not, and

the more strenuously they try to be letters, the more vividly

do they reveal that they are not.¹ Even the grapes of

Zeuxis could deceive only the sparrows; one even suspects

that they were no true sparrows, but cage-birds rather, which

had lost their real nature along with their freedom and

pertness; our Rhine-land sparrows would not have left their

vineyards for anything of the kind. Those of the epistle-

writers who were artists were themselves most fully aware

that in their epistles they worked at best artificially,

and, in fact, had to do so. "The editor requests that the

readers of this book will not forget the title of it: it is only

a book of letters, letters merely relating to the study of

theology. In letters one does not look for treatises, still less

for treatises in rigid uniformity and proportion of parts.

As material offers itself and varies, as conversation comes

and goes, often as personal inclinations or incidental occur-

rences determine and direct, so do the letters wind about

and flow on; and I am greatly in error if it be not this

a thread of living continuity, this capriciousness of origin and

circumstances, that realises the result which we desiderate

on the written page, but which, of course, subsequently dis-

appears in the printing. Nor can I conceal the fact that

these letters, as now printed, are wanting just in what

is perhaps most instructive, viz., the more exact criticism of

particular works. There was, however, no other way of

doing it, and I am still uncertain whether the following

letters, in which the materials grow always the more special,

¹ Von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Antigonos von Karystos (Philologischz

Untersuchungen, iv.), Berlin, 1881, p. 151, says, "Such letters as are actually

written with a view to publication are essentially different in character from

private correspondence".

12 BIBLE STUDIES. [198, 199

the more important, the more personal, are fit for printing at

all. The public voice of the market-place and the confidential

one of private correspondence are, and always continue to

be, very different." Herder,¹ in these words, which are a

classical description of the true idea of a letter, claims that

his book has, in fact, the character of actual letters, but is

nevertheless quite well aware that a printed (that is, accord-

ing to the context, a literary) letter is essentially different

from a letter that is actually such.

It is easy to understand how the epistle became a

favourite form of published literature in almost all literary

nations. There could hardly be a more convenient form.

The extraordinary convenience of it lay in the fact that

it was, properly speaking, so altogether "unliterary," that,

in fact, it did not deserve to be called a "form" at all.

One needed but to label an address on any piece of tittle-

tattle, and lo! one had achieved what else could have been

accomplished only by a conscientious adherence to the strict

rules of artistic form. Neither as to expression nor contents

does the epistle make any higher pretensions. The writer

could, in the matter of style, write as he pleased, and the

address on the letter became a protective mark for thoughts

that would have been too silly for a poem, and too paltry

for an essay. The epistle, if we disregard the affixed

address, need be no more than, say a feuilleton or a causerie.

The zenith of epistolography may always be looked upon as

assuredly indicating the decline of literature; literature be-

comes decadent—Alexandrian, so to speak—and although

epistles may have been composed and published by great

creative spirits, still the derivative character of the move-

ment cannot be questioned: even the great will want to

gossip, to lounge, to take it easy for once. Their epistles

may be good, but the epistle in general, as a literary pheno-

menon, is light ware indeed.

6. Of collections of letters, bearing the name of well-

known poets and philosophers, we have, indeed, a great

¹ Briefe, dots Studium der Theologie betreffend, Third Part, Frankfurt

and Leipzig, 1790, Preface to the first edition, pp. i.-iii.

199, 200] LETTERS AND EPISTLES. 13

profusion. Many of them are not "genuine"; they were

composed and given to the world by others under the pro-

tection of a great name.¹ A timid ignorance, having no

true notion of literary usages, inconsiderately stigmatises

one and all of these with the ethical term forgery; it fondly

imagines that everything in the world can be brought be-

tween the two poles moral and immoral, and overlooks the

fact that the endless being and becoming of things is

generally realised according to non-ethical laws, and needs

to be judged as an ethical adiaphoron. He who tremulously

supposes that questions of genuineness in the history of

literature are, as such, problems of the struggle between

truth and falsehood, ought also to have the brutal courage

to describe all literature as forgery. The literary man, as

compared with the non-literary, is always a person under

constraint; he does not draw from the sphere of prosaic

circumstance about him, but places himself under the

dominion of the ideal, about which no one knows better than

himself that it never was, and never will be, real. The

literary man, with every stroke of his pen, removes himself

farther from trivial actuality, just because he wishes to alter

it, to ennoble or annihilate it, just because he can never

acknowledge it as it is. As a man he feels indeed that he

is sold under the domain of the wretched "object". He

knows that when he writes upon the laws of the cosmos,

he is naught but a foolish boy gathering shells by the

shore of the ocean; he enriches the literature of his nation

¹ The origin of spurious collections of letters among the Greeks is

traced back to "the exercises in style of the Athenian schools of rhetoric in

the earlier and earliest Hellenistic period," Susemihl, ii., pp. 448, 579. If

some callow rhetorician succeeded in performing an exercise of this kind

specially well, he might feel tempted to publish it. But it is not impossible

that actual forgeries were committed for purposes of gain by trading with the

great libraries, cf. Susemihl, ii., pp. 449 f. ; Bentley, p. 9 f., in Ribbeck's

German edition, p. 81 ff. ; A. M. Zumetikos, De Alexandri Olympiadisque

epistularum fontibus et reliquiis, Berlin, 1894, p. 1.—As late as 1551, Joachim

Camerarius ventured on the harmless jest of fabricating, "ad institutionem

puerilem," a correspondence in Greek between Paul and the Presbytery of

Ephesus (Th. Zahn, Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons, ii., 2,

Erlangen and Leipzig, 1892, p. 365).

14 BIBLE STUDIES. [200, 201

by a Faust, meanwhile sighing for a revelation; or he is

driven about by the thought that something must be done

for his unbelief—yet he writes Discourses upon Religion.

And thus he realises that he is entangled in the contradic-

tion between the Infinite and the Finite,¹ while the small

prosperous folks, whose sleepy souls reek not of his pain,

are lulled by him into the delightful dream that we only

need to build altars to truth, beauty, and eternity in order

to possess these things; when they have awaked, they can

but reproach him for having deceived them. They discover

that he is one of themselves; they whisper to each other

that the sage, the poet, the prophet, is but a man after all

—wiser, it may be, but not more clever, or better, than

others. He who might have been their guide—not in-

deed to his own poor hovel but to the city upon the hill,

not built by human hands—is compensated with some

polite-sounding phrase. The foolish ingrates! Literature

presents us with the unreal, just because it subserves the

truth; the literary man abandons himself, just because he

strives for the ends of humanity; he is unnatural, just be-

cause he would give to others something better than him-

self. What holds good of literature in general must also

be taken into account in regard to each of its characteristic

phenomena. Just as little as Plato's Socrates and Schiller's

Wallenstein are "forgeries," so little dare we so name the

whole "pseudonymous"² literature. We may grant at

once, indeed, that some, at least, of the writings which go

under false names were intentionally forged by the writers

¹ Cf. the confession made by U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Aristoteles

und Athen, i., Berlin, 1893, Preface, p. vi.: "The task of authorship demands

an end attained—in irreconcilable antithesis to the investigations of science.

The Phaedrus has taught us that the book in general is a pitiful thing as

compared with living investigation, and it is to be hoped that we are wiser in

our class-rooms than in our books. But Plato, too, wrote books; he spoke

forth freely each time what he knew as well as he knew it, assured that he

would contradict himself, and hopeful that he would correct himself, next

time he wrote."

² The term pseudonymous of itself certainly implies blame, but it has

become so much worn in the using, that it is also applied in quite an in-

nocent sense.

201, 202] LETTERS AND EPISTLES. 15

of them; pseudonymity in political or ecclesiastical works

is in every case suspicious, for no one knows better how to

use sacred and sanctifying ends than does the undisciplined

instinct of monarchs and hierarchs, and the followers of

them. But there is also a pseudonymity which is innocent,

sincere, and honest,¹ and if a literary product permits of any

inferences being drawn from it respecting the character of

the writer, then, in such a case of pseudonymity, one may

not think of malice or cowardice, but rather of modesty and

natural timidity. Between the genuine² and the pseudony-

mous epistle there does not exist the same profound and

essential difference as between the epistle and the letter.

The epistle is never genuine in the sense in which the letter

is; it never can be so, because it can adopt the form of the

letter only by surrendering the essence. An epistle of

Herder, however like a letter it may look, is yet not a letter

of Herder: it was not Herder the man, but Herder the

theological thinker and author, that wrote it: it is genuine

in an ungenuine sense—like an apple-tree which, flourishing

in September, certainly has genuine apple blossoms, but

which must surely be altogether ashamed of such in the

presence of its own ripening fruits. Literary "genuine-

ness" is not to be confounded with genuine naturalness.

Questions of genuineness in literature may cause us to rack

our brains: but what is humanly genuine is never a problem

¹ Cf. on this point specially Julicher, Einleitung in das N. T., p. 32 ff.

² The discussion which occupies the remainder of this paragraph is one

which may, indeed, be translated, but can hardly be transferred, into English.

It turns partly on the ambiguity of the German word echt, and partly on

a distinction corresponding to that which English critics have tried to

establish between the words "genuine" and "authentic"—a long-vexed

question which now practice rather than theory is beginning to settle. Echt

means authentic, as applied, for instance, to a book written by the author

whose name it bears; it also means genuine both as applied to a true record

of experience, whether facts or feelings, and as implying the truth (that is

the naturalness, spontaneity or reality) of the experience itself. The trans-

lator felt that, in justice to the author, he must render echt throughout

the passage in question by a single word, and has therefore chosen genuine,

as representing, more adequately than any other, the somewhat wide con-

notation of the German adjective.—Tr.

16 BIBLE STUDIES. [202, 203

to the genuine man. From the epistle that was genuine in

a mere literary sense there was but a step to the fictitious

epistle; while the genuine letter could at best be mimicked,

the genuine epistle was bound to be imitated, and, indeed,

invited to imitation. The collections of genuine Letters

indirectly occasioned the writing of epistles: the collections

of genuine epistles were immediately followed by the litera-

ture of the fictitious epistle.

II.

7. In the foregoing remarks on questions of prin-

ciple, the author has in general tacitly presupposed the

literary conditions into which we are carried by the Graeco-

Roman civilisation, and by the modern, of which that is

the basis.¹ These inquiries seem to him to demand that we

should not summarily include all that has been handed down

to us bearing the wide, indefinite name of letter, under

the equally indefinite term Literature of letters (Brief-

litteratur), but that each separate fragment of these in-

teresting but neglected compositions be set in its proper

place in the line of development, which is as follows—real

letter, letter that has subsequently become literature, epistle, ficti-

tious epistle. Should it be demanded that the author fill

up the various stages of this development with historical

references, he would be at a loss. It has been already in-

dicated that the first member of the series, viz., the letter,

belongs to pre-literary times: it is not only impossible to

give an example of this, but also unreasonable to demand

one. With more plausibility one might expect that some-

thing certain ought to be procured in connection with the

other stages, which belong in a manner to literary times,

¹ The history of the literature of "letters" among the Italian Humanists

is, from the point of view of method, specially instructive. Stahr, Aristotelia,

ii., p. 187 f., has already drawn attention to it. The best information on

the subject is to be found in G. Voigt's Die Wiederbelebung des classischen

Alterthums oder das erste Jahrhundert des Humanismus, ii.³, Berlin, 1893,

pp. 417-436.

203, 204] LETTERS AND EPISTLES. 17

and, as such, can be historically checked. But even if the

broad field of ancient "letters" were more extensively

cultivated than has hitherto been the case, still we could

establish at best no more than the first known instance of

a subsequent collection of real letters, of an epistle or of a

fictitious epistle, but would not reach the beginnings of the

literary movement itself. The line in question can only be

drawn on the ground of general considerations, nor does the

author see how else it could be drawn. No one will ques-

tion that the real letter was the first, the fictitious epistle

the last, link in the development; as little will any one

doubt that the epistle must have been one of the intervening

links between the two.¹ The only uncertainty is as to the

origin of the epistle itself; it, of course, presupposes the

real letter, being an imitation of it; but that it presupposes

as well the collection of real letters, as we think pro-

bable in regard to Greek literature, cannot be established

with certainty for the history of literature in general. As a

matter of fact, the epistle, as a form of literature, is found

among the Egyptians at a very early period, and the author

does not know how it originated there. The Archduke

Rainer's collection of Papyri at Vienna contains a poetical

description of the town of Pi-Ramses, dating from the 12th

century B.C., which is written in the form of a letter, and

is in part identical with Papyrus Anastasi III. in the British

Museum. This MS. "shows that in such letters we have,

not private correspondence, but literary compositions,

which must have enjoyed a wide circulation in ancient

Egypt; it thus affords us valuable materials towards the

characterisation of the literature of ancient Egypt".² If,

¹ Von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Antigonos von Karystos, p. 151: "I

cannot imagine that fictitious correspondence, as a species of literature, was

anterior in time to genuine".

² J. Karabacek, Mittheilungen, aus der Sammlung der Papyrus Erzherzog

Rainer, i., Vienna, 1887, p. 51; cf. J. Krall, Guide-book of the Exhibition

[of the Pap. Erzh. Rainer], Vienna, 1894, p. 32.—The author doubts whether

the term literature should really be applied to the letters in cuneiform

character which were published by Fried. Delitzsch (Beitrage zur Assyriologie,

1893 and 1894) under the title of "Babylonisch-Assyrische Brief littertaur".

18 BIBLE STUDIES. [204, 205

therefore, we can hardly say that the epistle first originated

among the Greeks, yet, notwithstanding the above facts, we

may assume that it might arise quite independently under

the special conditions of Greek Literature, and that, in fact,

it did so arise.

8. Now whatever theory one may have about the origin

of the epistle among the Greeks, that question is of no

great importance for the problem of the historian of literary

phenomena in general, viz., the analysis into their con-

stituent parts of the writings which have been transmitted

to us as a whole under the ambiguous name of "letters".

What is important in this respect are the various categories

to which those constituent parts must be assigned in order

that they may be clearly distinguished from each other.

We may, therefore, ignore the question as to the origin of

these categories—like all questions about the origin of such

products of the mind, it is to a large extent incapable of any

final solution; let it suffice that all these categories are

represented among the "letters" that have been transmitted

from the past. The usage of scientific language is, indeed,

not so uniform as to render a definition of terms super-

fluous. The following preliminary remarks may therefore

be made; they may serve at the same time to justify the

terms hitherto used in this book.

Above all, it is misleading merely to talk of letters,

without having defined the term more particularly. The

perception of this fact has influenced many to speak of the

private letter in contradistinction to the literary letter, and

this distinction may express the actual observed fact that

the true letter is something private, a personal and con-

fidential matter. But the expression is none the less in-

adequate, for it may mislead. Thus B. Weiss,¹ for instance,

uses it as the antithesis of the pastoral letter (Gemeindebrief);

a terminology which does not issue from the essence of

the letter, but from the fact of a possible distinction among

those to whom it may be addressed. We might in the same

way distinguish between the private letter and the family

¹ Meyer, xiv.⁵ (1888), p. 187.

205, 206] LETTERS AND EPISTLES. 19

letter, i.e., the letter which a son, for instance, might send

from abroad to those at home. But it is plain that, in the

circumstances, such a distinction would be meaningless, for

that letter also is a private one. Or, take the case of a

clergyman, acting as army chaplain in the enemy's country,

who writes a letter¹ to his distant congregation at home;

such would be a congregational letter—perhaps it is even read

in church by the locum tenens; but it would manifestly not

differ in the slightest from a private letter, provided, that is,

that the writer's heart was in the right place. The more pri-

vate, the more personal, the more special it is, all the better

a congregational letter will it be; a right sort of congrega-

tion would not welcome paragraphs of pastoral theology—

they get such things from the locum tenens, for he is not

long from college. The mere fact that the receivers of a

letter are a plurality, does not constitute a public in the

literary sense, and, again, an epistle directed to a single

private individual is not on that account a private letter

—it is literature. It is absurd, then, to define the specific

character of a piece of writing which looks like a letter

merely according to whether the writer addresses the re-

ceivers in the second person singular or plural;² the dis-

tinguishing feature cannot be anything merely formal (formal,

moreover, in a superficial sense of that word), but can only be

the inner special purpose of the writer. It is thus advisable,

if we are to speak scientifically, to avoid the use of such

merely external categories as congregational letter, and also to

substitute for private letter a more accurate expression. As

such we are at once confronted by the simple designation

letter, but this homely term, in consideration of the in-

definiteness which it has acquired in the course of centuries,

will hardly suffice by itself; we must find an adjunct for it.

¹ Cf. for instance the letter of K. Ninck to his congregation at Frucht,

of the 1st September, 1870—from Corny ; partly printed in F. Cuntz's Karl

Wilh. Theodor Ninck,. Ein Lebensbild. 2nd edn., Herborn, 1891, p. 94 ff.

² This difference does not, of course, hold in modern English; we can

hardly imagine a letter-writer employing the singular forms thou, thee, But

the distinction does not necessarily hold in German either.—Tr.

20 BIBLE STUDIES. [206, 207

The term true letter is therefore used here, after the example

of writers¹ who are well able to teach us what a letter is.

When a true letter becomes literature by means of its

publication, we manifestly obtain no new species thereby.

To the historian of literature, it still remains what it was

to the original receiver of it—a true letter: even when given

to the public, it makes a continual protest against its being

deemed a thing of publicity. We must so far favour it as

to respect its protest; were we to separate it in any way

from other true letters which were fortunate enough never

to have their obscurity disturbed, we should but add to the

injustice already done to it by its being published.

A new species is reached only when we come to the

letter published professedly as literature, which as such is

altogether different from the first class. Here also we meet

with various designations in scientific language. But the

adoption of a uniform terminology is not nearly so im-

portant in regard to this class as in regard to the true

letter. One may call it literary letter,² or, as has been done

above for the sake of simplicity, epistle—no importance need

be attached to the designation, provided the thing itself be

clear. The subdivisions, again, which may be inferred from

the conditions of origin of the epistle, are of course unessen-

tial; they are not the logical divisions of the concept epistle, but

simply classifications of extant epistles according to their

historical character, i.e., we distinguish between authentic

and unauthentic epistles, and again, in regard to the latter,

¹ E. Reuss, Die Geschichte der h. Schriften N. T.⁶ § 74, p. 70, uses the

expression true letters, addressed to definite and particular readers. Von

Wilamowitz-Moellendorft, Aristoteles und Athen, p. 393; p. 394: real

letters ; ibid., p. 392, letters, e]pistolai< in the full sense of the word. The same

author in Ein Weihgeschenk des Eratosthenes, in Nachrichten der Kgl. Gesell-

schaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, 1894, p. 5: true private letter.--Birt

also uses—besides the designations private writing (Buchwesen, pp. 2, 20, 61,

277, 443) and incidental letter (pp. 61, 325)—the expression true correspondence

(wirkliche Correspandenzen, p. 326). Similarly A. Westermann, De epi-

stolarum scriptoribus graecis 8 progrr., i., Leipzig, 1851, p. 13, calls them

"veras epistolas, h. e. tales, quae ab auctoribus ad ipsos, quibus inscribuntur,

homines revera datae sunt".

² Von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Ein Weihgeschenk des Eratosthenes. p. 3,

207, 208] LETTERS AND EPISTLES. 21

between innocent fabrications and forgeries with a "ten-

dency".

Furnished with these definitions, we approach the im-

mense quantity of written material which has been be-

queathed to us by Graeco-Roman antiquity under the

ambiguous term e]pistolai<, epistulae. The sheets which we

have inherited from the bountiful past, and which have been

brought into confusion by legacy-hunters and legal advisers,

so to speak, perhaps even by the palsied but venerable hand

of their aged proprietrix herself, must first of all be duly

arranged before we can congratulate ourselves on their

possession. In point of fact, the work of arrangement is

by no means so far advanced as the value of the inheritance

deserves to have it.¹ But what has already been done

affords, even to the outsider, at least the superficial impres-

sion that we possess characteristic representatives, from

ancient times, of all the categories of e]poistolai<, which have

been established in the foregoing pages.

III.

9. We can be said to possess true letters from ancient

times—in the full sense of the word possess—only when we

have the originals. And, in fact, the Papyrus discoveries

of the last decade have placed us in the favourable position

of being able to think of as our very own an enormous

number of true letters in the original, extending from the

Ptolemaic period till far on in mediaeval times. The author

is forced to confess that, previous to his acquaintance with

ancient Papyrus letters (such as it was—only in facsimiles),

he had never rightly known, or, at least, never rightly

realised within his own mind, what a letter was. Com-

paring a Papyrus letter of the Ptolemaic period with a

fragment from a tragedy, written also on Papyrus, and of

¹ Among philologists one hears often enough the complaint about

the neglect of the study of ancient "letters". The classical preparatory

labour of Bentley has waited long in vain for the successor of which both it

and its subject were worthy. It is only recently that there appears to have

sprung up a more general interest in the matter.

22 BIBLE STUDIES.

about the same age, no one perceives any external dif-

ference; the same written characters, the same writing

material, the same place of discovery. And yet the two

are as different in their essential character as are reality

and art: the one, a leaf with writing on it, which has served

some perfectly definite and never-to-be-repeated purpose in

human intercourse; the other, the derelict leaf of a book, a

fragment of literature.

These letters will of themselves reveal what they are,

better than the author could, and in evidence of this, there

follows a brief selection of letters from the Egyptian town of

Oxyrhynchus, the English translation of which (from Greek)

all but verbally corresponds to that given by Messrs. Gren-

fell and Hunt in their edition of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri.¹

The author has selected such letters as date from the century

in which our Saviour walked about in the Holy Land, in

which Paul wrote his letters, and the beginnings of the New

Testament collection were made.²

I.

Letter from Chaireas to Tyrannos.³ A.D. 25-26.

"Chaireas to his dearest Tyrannos, many greetings.

Write out immediately the list of arrears both of corn

and money for the twelfth year of Tiberius Caesar

Augustus, as Severus has given me instructions for demand-

ing their payment. I have already written to you to be firm

and demand payment until I come in peace. Do not there-

fore neglect this, but prepare the statements of corn and

money from the . . . year to the eleventh for the presenta-

tion of the demands. Good-bye."

Address : " To Tyrannos, dioiketes ".

¹ The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, edited . . . by Bernard P. Grenfell and

Arthur S. Hunt, Part I., London, 1898 ; Part II., London, 1899. For those

who feel themselves more specially interested in the subject, a comparison

with the original Greek texts will, of course, be necessary.

² The German edition of this work contains a Greek transcription, with

annotations, of ten Papyrus letters (distinct from those given here) from

Egypt, of dates varying from 255 B.C. to the 2nd-3rd centuries A.D.

³ The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, No. 291, ii., p. 291. Chaireas was strategus

of the Oxyrhynchite nome. Tyrannos was dioikhth<j.

LETTERS AND EPISTLES. 23

II.

Letter of Recommendation from Theon to Tyrannos.¹

About A.D. 25.

"Theon to his esteemed Tyrannos, many greetings.

Herakleides, the bearer of this letter, is my brother. I

therefore entreat you with all my power to treat him as

your protege. I have also written to your brother Hermias,

asking him to communicate with you about him. You will

confer upon me a very great favour if Herakleides gains your

notice. Before all else you have my good wishes for un-

broken health and prosperity. Good-bye."

Address: "To Tyrannos, dioiketes".

III.

Letter from Dionysios to his Sister Didyme.² A.D. 27.

"Dionysios to his sister Didyme, many greetings, and

good wishes for continued health. You have sent me no

word about the clothes either by letter or by message, and

they are still waiting until you send me word. Provide the

bearer of this letter, Theonas, with any assistance that he

wishes for. . .. Take care of yourself and all your house-

hold. Good-bye. The 14th year of Tiberius Caesar Augus-

tus, Athyr 18."

Address : " Deliver from Dionysios to his sister Didyme ".

IV.

Letter from Thaeisus to her mother Syras.³ About A.D. 35.

"Thaeisus to her mother Syras. I must tell you

that Seleukos came here and has fled. Don't trouble to

explain (?). Let Lucia wait until the year. Let me know

the day. Salute Ammonas my brother and . . . and my

sister . . . and my father Theonas."

V.

Letter from Ammonios to his father Ammonios.⁴ A.D. 54.

"Ammonios to his father Ammonios, greeting. Kindly

write me in a note the record of the sheep, how many more

¹ The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, No. 292, ii., p. 292.

² Ibid., No. 293, ii., p. 293. ³ Ibid., No. 295, ii., p. 296.

⁴ Ibid., No. 297, ii., p. 298.

24 BIBLE STUDIES.

you have by the lambing beyond those included in the first

return. . . . Good-bye. The 14th year of Tiberius Claudius

Caesar Augustus, Epeiph 29."

Address: "To my father Ammonios".

VI.

Letter from Indike to Thaeisus.¹ Late First Century.

"Indike to Thaeisus, greeting. I sent you the bread-

basket by Taurinus the camel-man; please send me an

answer that you have received it. Salute my friend Theon

and Nikobulos and Dioskoros and Theon and Hermokles,

who have my best wishes. Longinus salutes you. Good-

bye. Month Germanikos 2."

Address: "To Theon,² son of Nikobulos, elaiochristes

at the Gymnasion ".

VII.

Letter of Consolation from Eirene to Taonnophris and

Philon.³ Second Century.

"Eirene to Taonnophris and Philon, good cheer. I

was as much grieved and shed as many tears over Eumoiros

as I shed for Didymas, and I did everything that was fitting,

and so did my whole family,⁴ Epaphrodeitos and Thermuthion

and Philion and Apollonios and Plantas. But still there is

nothing one can do in the face of such trouble. So I leave

you to comfort yourselves. Good-bye. Athyr 1."

Address: "To Taonnophris and Philon".

VIII.

Letter from Korbolon to HerakIeides.⁵ Second Century.

"Korbolon to Herakleides, greeting. I send you the

key by Horion, and the piece of the lock by Onnophris, the

camel-driver of Apollonios. I enclosed in the former packet

a pattern of white-violet colour. I beg you to be good

enough to match it, and buy me two drachmas' weight, and

send it to me at once by any messenger you can find, for

¹ The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, No. 300, ii., p. 301.

² Theon is probably the husband of Thaeisus.

³ The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, No. 115, i., p. 181.

⁴ pa<ntej oi[ e]moi<. Grenfell and Hunt: all my friends.

⁵ The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, No. 113, i., p. 178 f.

216, 217] LETTERS AND EPISTLES. 25

the tunic is to be woven immediately. I received everything

you told me to expect by Onnophris safely. I send you by

the same Onnophris six quarts of good apples. I thank all

the gods to think that I came upon Plution in the Oxy-

rhynchite nome. Do not think that I took no trouble about

the key. The reason is that the smith is a long way from

us. I wonder that you did not see your way to let me have

what I asked you to send by Korbolon, especially when I

wanted it for a festival. I beg you to buy me a silver seal,

and to send it me with all speed. Take care that Onnophris

buys me what Eirene's mother told him. I told him that

Syntrophos said that nothing more should be given to

Amarantos on my account. Let me know what you have

given him that I may settle accounts with him. Otherwise

I and my son will come for this purpose. [On the verso] I

had the large cheeses from Korbolon. I did not, however,

want large ones, but small. Let me know of anything that

you want, and I will gladly do it. Farewell. Payni 1st.

(P.S.) Send me an obol's worth of cake for my nephew."

Address: "To Herakleides, son of Ammonios."

10. But we must not think that the heritage of true

letters which we have received from the past is wholly com-

prised in the Papyrus letters which have been thus finely

preserved as autographs. In books and booklets which have

been transmitted to us as consisting of e]pistolai<, and in

others as well, there is contained a goodly number of true

letters, for the preservation of which we are indebted to the

circumstance that some one, at some time subsequent to

their being written, treated them as literature. Just as at

some future time posterity will be grateful to our learned

men of to-day for their having published the Papyrus letters,

i.e., treated them as literature, so we ourselves have every

cause for gratitude to those individuals, for the most part

unknown, who long ago committed the indiscretion of

making books out of letters. The great men whose letters,

fortunately for us, were overtaken by this fate, were not on

that account epistolographers; they were letter-writers—

like, the strange saints of the Serapeum and the obscure

men and women of the Fayyum. No doubt, by reason of

their letters having been preserved as literature, they have

26 BIBLE STUDIES. [217, 218

often been considered as epistolographers, and the misunder-

standing may have been abetted by the vulgar notion that

those celebrated men had the consciousness of their cele-

brity even when they laughed and yawned, and that they

could not speak or write a single word without imagining

that amazed mankind was standing by to hear and read. We

have not as yet, in every case, identified those whom we

have to thank for real letters. But it will be sufficient for

our purpose if we restrict ourselves to a few likely instances.

The letters of Aristotle († 322 B.C.) were published at a

very early period: their publication gave the lie, in a very

effective manner, to a fictitious collection which came out

shortly after his death.¹ These letters were "true letters,

occasioned by the requirements of private correspondence,

not products of art, i.e., treatises in the form of letters".²

This collection is usually considered to be the first instance

of private letters being subsequently published.³ It is there-

fore necessary to mention them here, though, indeed, it is

uncertain whether anything really authentic has been pre-

served among the fragments which have come down to us;⁴

by far the greater number of these were certainly products

of the fictitious literary composition of the Alexandrian

period.⁵—The case stands more favourably with regard to

the nine letters transmitted to us under the name of Isocrates

(† 338 B.C.).⁶ The most recent editor⁷ of them comes to

the following conclusions. The first letter, to Dionysios, is

authentic. The two letters of introduction, Nos. 7 and 8, to

Timotheos of Heracleia and the inhabitants of Mitylene

respectively, bear the same mark of authenticity: "so much

¹ Von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Antigonos von Karystos, p. 151.

² Stahr, Aristotelia, p. 195.

³ Von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Antigonos von Karystos, p. 151; Suse-

mihl, ii., 580.

⁴ Hercher, pp. 172-174. ⁵ Susemihl, ii., 580 f.

⁶ Hercher, pp. 319-336.

⁷ Von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Aristoteles und Athen, ii., pp. 391-399.

It is unfortunate that some of the most recent critics of Paul's Letters had

not those few pages before them. They might then have seen, perhaps,

both what a letter is, and what method is.

218, 219] LETTERS AND EPISTLES. 27

detail, which, wherever we can test it, we recognise to be

historically accurate, and which, to a much greater extent,

we are not at all in a position to judge, is not found in

forgeries, unless they are meant to serve other than their

ostensible purposes. There can be no talk of that in the

case before us. In these letters some forms of expression

occur more than once (7, 11 = 8, 10), but there is nothing

extraordinary in that. If Isocrates wrote these we must

credit him with having issued many such compositions."¹

These genuine letters of Isocrates are of interest also in

regard to their form, as they show "that Isocrates applied

his rhetorical style also to his letters. . . . Considered from

the point of view of style, they are not letters at all."² The

author considers this fact to be very instructive in regard to

method; it confirms the thesis expressed above, viz., that in

answering the question as to what constitutes a true letter,

it is never the form which is decisive, but ultimately only

the intention of the writer; there ought not to be, but as a

matter of fact there are, letters which read like pamphlets;

there are epistles, again, which chatter so insinuatingly that

we forget that their daintiness is nothing but a suspicious

mask. Nor need one doubt, again, the genuineness of the

second letter—to King Philip: "its contents are most un-

doubtedly personal".³ Letter 5, to Alexander, is likewise

genuine, "truly a fine piece of Isocratic finesse: it is genuine

—just because it is more profound than it seems, and because

it covertly refers to circumstances notoriously true".⁴ The

evidence for and against the genuineness of letter 6 is

evenly balanced.⁵ On the other hand, letters 3, 4 and 9 are

not genuine; are partly, in fact, forgeries with a purpose.⁶

This general result of the criticism is likewise of great value

in regard to method: we must abandon the mechanical idea

of a collection of letters, which would lead us to inquire as to

the genuineness of the collection as a whole, instead of

inquiring as to the genuineness of its component parts. Un-

discerning tradition may quite well have joined together one

¹ P. 391 f. ² P. 392. ³ P. 397.

⁴ P. 399. ⁵ P. 395. ⁶ Pp. 393-397.

28 BIBLE STUDIES. [219, 220

or two unauthentic letters with a dozen of genuine ones;

and, again, a whole book of forged "letters" may be, so to

speak, the chaff in which good grains of wheat may hide

themselves from the eyes of the servants: when the son of

the house comes to the threshing-floor, he will discover them,

for he cannot suffer that anything be lost.—The letters of

the much-misunderstood Epicurus († 270 B.C.) were collected

with great care by the Epicureans, and joined together with

those of his most distinguished pupils, Metrodorus, Polyaenus,

and Hermarchus, with additions from among the letters

which these had received from other friends,¹ and have in

part come down to us. The author cannot refrain from

giving here² the fragment of a letter of the philosopher to

his child (made known to us by the rolls of Herculaneum),

not, indeed, as being a monument of his philosophy, but be-

cause it is part of a letter which is as simple and affectionate,

as much a true letter, as that of Luther to his little son

Hans:—

. . . [a]] feu<gmeqa ei]j La<myakon u[giai<nontes e]gw> kai> Puqo-

klh?j ka[i> !Erm]arxoj kai> K[th<]sippoj, kai> e]kei? kateilh<famen

u[g[i]ai<nontaj qemi<stan kai> tou>j loipou>j [fi<]lo[u]j. eu# de>

poie[i]j kai> su> e[i] u[]giai<neij kai> h[ m[a<]mmh [s]ou kai> pa<p%

kai> Ma<trw[n]i pa<nta pe[i<]qh[i, w!sp]er kai> e@[m]prosqen. eu#

ga>r i@sqi, h[ ai]ti<a, o!ti kai> e]gw> kai> o[i<] loipoi> pa<ntej se me<ga

filou?men, o!ti tou<toij pei<q^ pa<nta . . . .

Again in Latin literature we find a considerable num-

ber of real letters. "Letters, official³ as well as private,

make their appearance in the literature⁴ of Rome at an

early period, both by themselves and in historical works,⁵

¹ Susemihl, i., p. 96 f.; H. Usener, Epicurea, Leipzig, 1887, p. liv.

² From Usener's edition, p. 154.

³ Of course, official letters, too, are primarily "true letters," not litera-

ture, even when they are addressed to a number of persons.—(This note and

the two following do not belong to the quotation from Teuffel-Schwabe.)

⁴ Hence in themselves they are manifestly not literature.

⁵ The insertion of letters in historical works was a very common literary

custom among the Greeks and Romans. It is to be classed along with the

insertion of public papers and longer or shorter speeches in a historical report.

If it holds good that such speeches are, speaking generally, to be regarded as

220, 221] LETTERS AND EPISTLES. 29

and, soon thereafter, those of distinguished men in collec-

tions."¹ We may refer to a single example—certainly a very

instructive one. Of Cicero († 43 B.C.) we possess four collec-

tions of letters; in all 864, if we include the 90 addressed

to him. The earliest belongs to the year 68, the latest is

of the date 28th July, 43.² "Their contents are both per-

sonal and political, and they form an inexhaustible source

for a knowledge of the period,³ though partly, indeed, of

such a kind that the publication of them was not to Cicero's

advantage. For the correspondence of such a man as Cicero,

who was accustomed to think so quickly and feel so strongly,

to whom it was a necessity that he should express his thoughts

and feelings as they came, either in words or in letters to

some confidential friend like Atticus, often affords a too

searching, frequently even an illusory,⁴ glance into his inmost

soul. Hence the accusers of Cicero gathered the greatest

part of their material from these letters."⁵ The letters show

a noteworthy variation of language: "in the letters to Atti-

cus or other well known friends Cicero abandons restraint,

while those to less intimate persons show marks of care and

elaboration".⁶ The history of the gathering together of

Cicero's letters is of great importance for a right understand-

the compositions of the historian, yet, in regard to letters and public papers,

the hypothesis of their authenticity should not be always summarily rejected.

In regard to this question, important as it also is for the criticism of the

biblical writings, see especially H. Schnorr von Carolsfeld, Uber die Reden and

Briefe bei Sallust, Leipzig, 1888, p. 1 ff., and the literature given in Scharer, i.,

p. 66, note 14 [Eng. Trans. I., I., p. 90]; also Teuffel-Schwabe, 1., p. 84,

pos. 3, and Westermann, i. (1851), p. 4.

¹ W. S. Teuffel's Geschichte der romischen Literatur, revised by L.

Schwabe i., Leipzig, 1890, p. 83.

² Teuffel-Schwabe, p. 356 ff.

³ This point is also a very valuable one for the critic of the biblical

"letters" in the matter of method. For an estimation of the historical im-

portance of Cicero's letters, the author refers, further, to J. Bernays, Edward

Gibbon's Geschichtswerk in the Gesammelte Abhh. von J. B., edited by H.

Usener, ii., Berlin, 1885, p. 243, and E. Ruete, Die Correspondenz Ciceros in

den Jahren 44 and 43, Marburg, 1883, p. 1.

⁴ The present writer would question this.

⁵ Teuffel-Schwabe, i., p. 356 f. ⁶ Ibid., i., p. 357.

30 BIBLE STUDIES. [221, 222

ing of similar literary transactions. "Cicero did not himself

collect the letters he had written, still less publish them, but

even during his lifetime his intimate friends were already

harbouring such intentions."¹ "After Cicero's death the

collecting and publishing of his letters was zealously pro-

moted; in the first place, undoubtedly, by Tiro, who, while

Cicero was still living, had resolved to collect his letters."²

Cornelius Nepos, according to a note in that part of his

biography of Atticus which was written before 34 B.C., had,

even by that date, a knowledge, from private sources, of the

letters to Atticus;³ "they were not as yet published, indeed,

as he expressly says, but, it would appear, already collected

with a view to publication. The first known mention of a

letter from Cicero's correspondence being published is found

at the earliest" in Seneca.⁴ The following details of the

work of collection may be taken as established.⁴ Atticus

negotiated the issue of the letters addressed to him, while

the others appear to have been published gradually by Tiro;

both editors suppressed their own letters to Cicero. Tiro

arranged the letters according to the individuals who had

received them, and published the special correspondence of

each in one or more volumes, according to the material he

had. Such special materials, again, as did not suffice for a

complete volume, as also isolated letters, were bound up in

miscellanea (embracing letters to two or more individuals),

while previously published collections were supplemented in

later issues by letters which had only been written subse-

quently, or subsequently rendered accessible. The majority

of these letters of Cicero are "truly confidential outpourings

of the feelings of the moment,"⁵ particularly those addressed

to Atticus—"confidential letters, in which the writer ex-

¹ Teuffel-Schwabe, p. 357, quotes in connection with this Cic. ad

Attic., 16, 55 (44 B.C.) mearum epistularum nulla est sunagwgh<, sed habet Tiro

instar LXX, et quidem sent a te quaedam sumendae; eas ego oportet perspiciam,

carrigam; tum denique edentur,—and to Tiro, Fam., 16, 171 (46 B.c.) tuas quo-

que epistulas vis referri in volumina.

² Teuffel-Schwabe, p. 357. ³ Ibid.

⁴ Ibid., p. 358. ⁵ Ibid., p. 83.

222, 223] LETTERS AND EPISTLES. 31

presses himself without a particle of constraint, and which

often contain allusions intelligible to the receiver alone. In

some parts they read like soliloquies."¹ The authenticity

of the letters to Brutus, for instance, has been disputed by

many, but these assailants "have been worsted on all points,

and the authenticity is now more certain than ever. The

objections that have been urged against this collection, and

those, in particular, which relate to the contradictions be-

tween Cicero's confidential judgments upon individuals and

those he made publicly or in utterances of other times, are

of but little weight."²

11. The fact that we know of a relatively large number

of literary letters, i.e., epistles, of ancient times, and that,

further, we possess many such, is a simple consequence of

their being literary productions. Literature is designed not

merely for the public of the time being; it is also for the

future. It has not been ascertained with certainty which

was the first instance of the literary letter in Greek litera-

ture. Susemihl³ is inclined to think that the epidictic

triflings of Lysias († 379 B.C.) occupy this position—that is,

if they be authentic—but he certainly considers it possible

that they originated in the later Attic period. Aristotle em-

ployed the "imaginary letter" (fictiver Brief) for his Protrep-

tikos.⁴ We have "didactic epistles" of Epicurus, as also of

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and we may add to these such

writings of Plutarch as De Conjugalibus Praeceptis, De Tran-

quillitate Animi, De Animae Procreatione⁵—literary productions

to which one may well apply the words of an ancient expert

in such things,⁶ ou] ma> th>n a]lh<qeian e]pistolai> le<gointo a@n,

a]lla> suggra<mmata to> xai<rein e@xonta prosgegramme<non, and

ei] ga<r tij e]n e]pistol^? sofi<smata gra<fei kai> fusiologi<aj,

¹ Teuffel-Schwabe, i., p. 362.

² Ibid., p. 364. This is another point highly important in regard to

method,—for the criticism of the Pauline Letters in particular.

³ ii., p. 600.

⁴ Von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Aristoteles und Athen, ii., p. 393.

⁵ Westermann, i. (1851), p. 13. See Susemihl, ii., p. 601, for many

other examples in Greek literature.

⁶ Demetr. de elocut., 22S (Hercher, p. 13), and 231 (H., p. 14).

32 BIBLE STUDIES. [223, 224

grafei me<n, ou] mh>n e]pistolh>n gra<fei.¹ Among the Romans,

M. Porcius Cato († 149 B.C.) should probably be named as one

of the first writers of epistles;² the best known, doubtless,

are Seneca and Pliny. L. Annaeus Seneca³ († 165 A.D.) began

about the year 57—at a time when Paul was writing his

“great” letters—to write the Epistulae Morales to his friend

Lucilius, intending from the first that they should be pub-

lished; most probably the first three books were issued by

himself. Then in the time of Trajan, C. Plinius Caecilius

Secundus⁴ († ca. 113 A.D.) wrote and published nine books

of "letters"; the issue of the collection was already com-

plete by the time Pliny went to Bithynia. Then came his

correspondence with Trajan, belonging chiefly to the period of

his governorship in Bithynia (ca. September 111 to January

113). The letters of Pliny were likewise intended from the

first for publication, "and hence are far from giving the

same impression of freshness and directness as those of

Cicero";⁵ "with studied variety they enlarge upon a multi-

tude of topics, but are mainly designed to exhibit their author

in the most favourable light";⁶ "they exhibit him as an

affectionate husband, a faithful friend, a generous slaveholder,

a noble-minded citizen, a liberal promoter of all good causes,

an honoured orator and author";⁷ "on the other hand,

the correspondence with Trajan incidentally raises a sharp

contrast between the patience and quiet prudence of the

emperor and the struggling perplexity and self-importance

of his vicegerent".⁸ "All possible care has likewise been

bestowed upon the form of these letters."⁹

There are several other facts illustrative of the extremely

¹ A saying of the Rhetor Aristides (2nd cent. B.c.) shows how well an

ancient epistolographer was able to estimate the literary character of his

compositions. In his works we find an e]pi> ]Aleca<ndr& e]pita<fioj dedicated t^?

boul^? kai> t&? dh<m& Kotuae<wn, of which he himself says (i., p. 148, Dindorf),

o!per ge kai> e]n a]rx^? th?j e]pistolh?j ei#pon h} o! ti bou<lesqe kalei?n to> bibli<on.

Hence Westermann, iii. (1852), p. 4, applies to this and to another " letter "

of Aristides the name declamations epistolarum sub specie latentes.

² Teuffel-Schwabe, i., pp. 84, 197 f. ³ Ibid., ii., p. 700.

⁴ Ibid., ii., pp. 849, 851 ff. ⁵ Ibid., ii., p. 852.

⁶ Ibid., ii., p. 849. ⁷ Ibid., ii., p. 852.

⁸ Ibid. ⁹ Ibid.

224, 225] LETTERS AND EPISTLES. 33

wide dissemination of the practice of epistle-writing among

the Greeks and Romans. The epistle, having once gained a

position as a literary eidos, became differentiated into a

whole series of almost independent forms of composition.

We should, in the first place, recall the poetical epistle¹

(especially of Lucilius, Horace, Ovid); but there were also

juristic epistles—a literary form which probably originated

in the written responsa to questions on legal subjects;²

further, there were epistulae medicinales,³ gastronomic "letters,"⁴

etc. In this connection it were well to direct particular

attention to the great popularity of the epistle as the special

form of magical and religious literature. "All the Magic

Papyri are of this letter-form, and in all the ceremonial and

mystic literature—to say nothing of other kinds—it was the

customary form. At that time the pioneers of new religions

clothed their message in this form, and even when they

furnish their writings with a stereotype title of such a kind,

and with particularly sacred names, it would yet be doing

them an injustice simply to call them forgers."⁵

12. A very brief reference to the pseudonymous epis-

tolography of antiquity is all that is required here. It will

be sufficient for us to realise the great vogue it enjoyed, after

the Alexandrian period, among the Greeks and subsequently

among the Romans. It is decidedly one of the most char-

acteristic features of post-classical literature. We already

find a number of the last-mentioned epistles bearing the

names of pretended authors; it is, indeed, difficult to draw

a line between the "genuine" and the fictitious epistles

when the two are set in contrast to letters really such.⁶ As

may be easily understood, pseudonymous epistolography

specially affected the celebrated names of the past, and not

least the names of those great men the real letters of whom

were extant in collections. The literary practice of using

¹ Teuffel-Schwabe, i., p. 39 f. ² Ibid., i., p. 84.

³ Ibid., i., p. 85. ⁴ Susemihl, ii., p. 601.

⁵ A. Dieterich, Abraxas, p. 161 f. Particular references will be found

there and specially in Fleck. Jbb. Suppl. xvi. (1888), p. 757.

⁶ Cf. pp. 15 and 20 above.

34 BIBLE STUDIES. [225, 226

assumed or protective names was found highly convenient by

such obscure people as felt that they must make a contribu-

tion to literature of a page or two; they did not place their own

names upon their books, for they had the true enough pre-

sentiment that these would be a matter of indifference to their

contemporaries and to posterity, nor did they substitute for

them some unknown Gaius or Timon: what they did was to

write "letters" of Plato or Demosthenes, of Aristotle or

his royal pupil, of Cicero, Brutus or Horace. It would be

superfluous in the meantime to go into particulars about any

specially characteristic examples, the more so as the present

position of the investigation still makes it difficult for us to

assign to each its special historical place, but at all events

the pseudonymous epistolography of antiquity stands out

quite clearly as a distinct aggregate of literary phenomena.

Suffice it only to refer further to what may be very well

gleaned from a recent work,¹ viz., that the early imperial

period was the classical age of this most unclassical manu-

facturing of books.

IV.

13. The author's purpose was to write Prolegomena to

the biblical letters and epistles: it may seem now to be high

time that he came to the subject. But he feels that he

might now break off, and still confidently believe that he has

not neglected his task. What remains to be said is really

implied in the foregoing pages. It was a problem in the

method of literary history which urged itself upon him; he

has solved it, for himself at least, in laying bare the roots by

which it adheres to the soil on which flourished aforetime

the spacious garden of God—Holy Scripture.

To the investigator the Bible offers a large number of

writings bearing a name which appears to be simple, but

which nevertheless conceals within itself that same problem

—a name which every child seems to understand, but upon

which, nevertheless, the learned man must ponder deeply

¹ J. F. Marcks, Symbola critica ad Epistolorgraphos Graecos, Bonn, 1883.

226, 227] LETTERS AND EPISTLES. 35

if ever he will see into the heart of the things called by it.

"Letters"! How long did the author work with this term

without having ever once reflected on what it meant; how

long did it accompany him through his daily task in science

without his observing the enigma that was inscribed on its

work-a-day face! Others may have been more knowing:

the author's experiences were like those of a man who

plants a vineyard without being able to distinguish the

true vine-shoots from the suckers of the wild grape. That

was, of course, a sorry plight—as bad as if one were to

labour upon Attic tragedies without knowing what an Attic

tragedy is. One may, indeed, write a letter without

necessarily knowing what a letter is. The best letter-

writers have certainly not cherished any doctrinaire opinions

on the subject. The ancient Greek and Latin "guides to

letter-writing"¹ appeared long after Cicero: neither did the

Apostles, for that matter, know anything of Halieutics.

But if one is to understand those literary memorials in the

Bible which have come to us under the name of "letters,"

and to make them intelligible to others, the first condition

is, of course, that one must have an historical comprehen-

sion of his purpose, must have previously divested the

problematic term of its problematic character: ou] ga>r e]peidh>

e]pistolh> prosagoreu<etai e[nik&? o]no<mati, h@dh kai> pasw?n tw?n

kata> to>n bi<on ferome<nwn e]pistolw?n ei$j tij e]sti xarakth>r kai>

mi<a proshgori<a, a]lla> dia<foroi, kaqw>j e@fhn.² If we rightly

infer, from an investigation of ancient literature, that the

familiar term "letter" must be broken up—above all, into the

two chief categories real letter and epistle, then the biblical

"letters" likewise must be investigated from this point of

¹ Cf. on this Westermann, (1851), p. 9 f. For Greek theorists in

letter-writing, see Hercher, pp. 1-16; for the Latin, the Rhetores Latini,

minores, em., C. Halm, fasc. ii., Leipzig, 1863, pp. 447 f. and 589.

² [Pseudo-]Procl. De Forma Epistolari (Hercher, p. 6 f.). This quota-

tion, it is true, refers not to the various logical divisions of the concept

"letter," but to the 41 [!] various sub-classes of true letters. The process of

distinguishing these various classes ([Pseudo-]Demetr. [Hercher, p. 1 ff.]

similarly enumerates 21 categories) is, in its details, sometimes very extra-

ordinary.

36 BIBLE STUDIES. [228

view. Just as the language of the Bible ought to be studied

in its actual historical context of contemporary language;¹

just as its religious and ethical contents must be studied in

their actual historical context of contemporary religion and

civilisation²—so the biblical writings, too, in the literary in-

vestigation of them, ought not to be placed in an isolated posi-

tion. The author speaks of the biblical writings, not of the bibli-

cal literature. To apply the designation literature to certain

portions of the biblical writings would be an illegitimate

procedure. Not all that we find printed in books at the pre-

sent day was literature from the first. A comparison of the

biblical writings, in their own proper character, with the

other writings of antiquity, will show us that in each case

there is a sharp distinction between works which were

literature from the first and writings which only acquired

that character later on, or will show, at least, that we must

so distinguish them from each other. This is nowhere more

evident than in the case under discussion. When we make

the demand that the biblical "letters" are to be set in their

proper relation to ancient letter-writing as a whole, we

do not thereby imply that they are products of ancient

epistolography; but rather that they shall be investigated

simply with regard to the question, how far the categories

implied in the problematic term letter are to be employed

in the criticism of them. We may designate our question

regarding the biblical letters and epistles as a question

regarding the literary character of the writings transmitted

by the Bible under the name letters,³ but the question re-

garding their literary character must be so framed that the

answer will affirm the preliterary character, probably of

some, possibly of all.

¹ Cf. p. 63 ff.

² The author has already briefly expressed these ideas about the history

of biblical religion in the essay Zur Methode der Biblischen, Theologie des

Neuen Testamentes, Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche, iii. (1893), pp. 126-139.

³ E. P. Gould, in an article entitled "The Literary Character of St.

Paul's Letters" in The Old and New Testament Student, vol. xi. (1890), pp.

71 ff. and 134 ff., seems to apply the same question to some at least of the

biblical "letters," but in reality his essay has an altogether different purpose.

229] LETTERS AND EPISTLES. 37

The latter has been maintained by F. Overbeck,¹—at

least in regard to the "letters" in the New Testament. He

thinks that the Apostolic letters belong to a class of writings

which we ought not to place in the province of literature at

all;² the writer of a letter has, as such, no concern with

literature whatever,—"because for every product of litera-

ture it is essential that its contents have an appropriate

literary form".³ The written words of a letter are nothing

but the wholly inartificial and incidental substitute for

spoken words. As the letter has a quite distinct and

transitory motive, so has it also a quite distinct and re-

stricted public—not necessarily merely one individual, but

sometimes, according to circumstances, a smaller or larger

company of persons: in any case, a circle of readers which

can be readily brought before the writer's mind and dis-

tinctly located in the field of inward vision. A work of

literature, on the other hand, has the widest possible pub-

licity in view: the literary man's public is, so to speak, an

imaginary one, which it is the part of the literary work to

find.⁴ Though Overbeck thus indicates with proper precision

the fundamental difference between the letter and literature,

¹ Uber die Anfange der patrristischen Litteratur in the Historische Zeit-

schrift, 48, Neue Folge 12 (1882), p. 429 ff. The present writer cannot but

emphasise how much profitable stimulation in regard to method he has

received from this essay, even though he differs from the essayist on im-

portant points.

² P. 429, and foot of p. 428.

³ P. 429. Overbeck would seem sometimes not to be quite clear with

regard to the term form, which he frequently uses. The author understands

the word in the above quotation in the same way as in the fundamental pro-

position on p. 423: "In the forms of literature is found its history". Here

form can be understood only as Eidos. The forms of literature are, e.g.,

Epos, Tragedy, History, etc. Overbeck, in his contention that the form is

essential for the contents of a literary work, is undoubtedly correct, if he is

referring to the good old ei@dh of literature. No one, for example, will expect

a comedy to incite fo<boj kai> e@leoj. But the contention is not correct when it

refers to such a subordinate literary Eidos as the epistle. The epistle may

treat of all possible subjects—and some others as well. And therefore when

all is said, it is literature, a literary form—even when only a bad form

(Unform).

⁴ P. 429.

38 BIBLE STUDIES. [229, 230

yet he has overlooked the necessary task of investigating

whether the Apostolic letters—either as a whole or in part

—may not be epistles, and this oversight on his part is the

more extraordinary, since he quite clearly recognises the dis-

tinction between the letter and the epistle. He speaks, at

least, of "artificial letters," and contrasts them with "true

letters";¹ in point of fact, he has the right feeling,² that

there are some of the New Testament letters, the form of

which is quite obviously not that of a letter at all, viz., the

so-called Catholic Epistles: in some of these the form of

address, being so indefinite and general, does not correspond

to what we expect in a letter, and, in fact, constitutes a

hitherto unsolved problem. Hence he is inclined to class

them along with those New Testament writings "which, in

their own proper and original form, certainly belong to

literature,³ but which, in consideration of the paucity of

their different forms, must not be thought of as qualifying

the New Testament to be ranked historically as the be-

ginning of that literature". Easy as it would have been

to characterise the "letters," thus so aptly described, as

epistles, Overbeck has yet refrained from doing this, and

though he seems, at least, to have characterised them as

literature, yet he pointedly disputes⁴ the contention that

Christian literature begins with "the New Testament,"—

that is, in possible case, with these letters,—and he ex-

pressly says that the "artificial letter" remains wholly

outside of the sphere of this discussion.⁵

14. The present writer would assert, as against this,

that "in the New Testament," and not only there but also

in the literature of the Jews as well as of the Christians of

post-New-Testament times, the transmitted "letters" permit

of quite as marked a division into real letters and epistles, as

is the case in ancient literature generally.

14. Most investigators of the New Testament letters

seem to overlook the fact that this same profound difference

¹ P. 429 at the top. ² P. 431 f.

³ Overbeck here means the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and Revelation.

⁴ P. 426 IL ⁵ P. 429.

231] LETTERS AND EPISTLES. 39

already manifests itself clearly in the "letters" found

among the writings of pre-Christian Judaism. Looking

at the writings of early Christianity from the standpoint

of literary history, we perceive that Jewish literature¹ was

precisely the literary sphere from which the first Christians

could most readily borrow and adopt something in the way

of forms, ei@dh, of composition.² If, therefore, the existence of

the ei#doj of the epistle can be demonstrated in this possibly

archetypal sphere, our inquiry regarding the early Christian

"letters" manifestly gains a more definite justification.

Should the doubt be raised as to whether it is conceivable

that a line of demarcation, quite unmistakably present in

"profane" literature, should have also touched the outlying

province of the New Testament, that doubt will be stilled

when it is shown that this line had actually long intersected

the sphere of Jewish literature, which may have been the

model for the writers of the New Testament. Between the

ancient epistles and what are (possibly) the epistles of early

Christianity, there subsists a literary, a morphological connec-

tion; if it be thought necessary to establish a transition-link,

this may quite well be found in the Jewish epistles. The

way by which the epistle entered the sphere of Jewish author-

ship is manifest: Alexandria, the classical soil of the epistle

and the pseudo-epistle, exercised its Hellenising influence

¹ Not solely, of course, those writings which we now recognise as

canonical.

² The influence of a Jewish literary form can be clearly seen at its best

in the Apocalypse of John. But also the Acts of the Apostles (which, along

with the Gospels, the present writer would, contra Overbeck, characterise as

belonging already to Christian literature) has its historical prototype, in the

matter of form, in the Hellenistic writing of annals designed for the edifi-

cation of the people. What in the Acts of the Apostles recalls the literary

method of "profane" historical literature (e.g., insertion of speeches, letters,

and official papers), need not be accounted for by a competent knowledge of

classical authors on the part of the writer of it; it may quite well be ex-

plained by the influence of its Jewish prototypes. When the Christians

began to make literature, they adopted their literary forms, even those

which have the appearance of being Graeco-Roman, from Greek Judaism, with

the single exception of the Evangelium—a literary form which originated

within Christianity itself.

40 BIBLE STUDIES. [232

upon Judaism in this matter as in others. We know not

who the first Jewish epistolographer may have been, but it

is, at least, highly probable that he was an Alexandrian.

The taking over of the epistolary form was facilitated for

him by the circumstance that already in the ancient and

revered writings of his nation there was frequent mention

of "letters," and that, as a matter of fact, he found a number

of "letters" actually given verbatim in the sacred text.

Any one who read the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah

with the eyes of an Alexandrian Hellenist, found, in chap.

29 (the prophet's message to the captives in Babylon),¹

something which to his morbid literary taste seemed like an

epistle. As a matter of fact, this message is a real letter.

perhaps indeed the only genuine one we have from Old

Testament times; a real letter, which only became literature

by its subsequent admission into the book of the Prophet.

As it now stands in the book, it is to be put in exactly the

same class as all other real letters which were subsequently

published. In its origin, in its purpose, Jer. 29, being a

real letter, is non-literary, and hence, of course, we must not

ask after a literary prototype for it. The wish to discover

the first Israelitic or first Christian letter-writer would be

as foolish as the inquiry regarding the beginnings of Jewish

and, later, of Christian, epistolography is profitable and

necessary; besides, the doctrinaire inquirer would be cruelly

undeceived when the sublime simplicity of the historical

reality smiled at him from the rediscovered first Christian

letter—its pages perhaps infinitely paltry in their contents:

some forgotten cloak may have been the occasion of it—

who will say? Jer. 29 is not, of course, a letter such as

anybody might dash off in an idle moment; nay, lightnings

quiver between the lines, Jahweh speaks in wrath or in

blessing,—still, although a Jeremiah wrote it, although it

be a documentary fragment of the history of the people and

the religion of Israel, it is still a letter, neither less nor more.

The antithesis of it in that respect is not wanting. There

¹ It is, of course, possible, in these merely general observations, to avoid

touching on the question of the integrity of this message.

233] LETTERS AND EPISTLES. 41

has been transmitted to us, among the Old Testament

Apocryphal writings, a little book bearing the name e]pistolh>

[Ieremi<ou. If Jer. 29 is a letter of the prophet Jeremiah,

this is an Epistle of "Jeremiah". Than the latter, we could

know no more instructive instance for the elucidation of the

distinction between letter and epistle, or for the proper

appreciation of the idea of pseudonymity in ancient litera-

ture. The Greek epistolography of the Alexandrian period

constituted the general literary impulse of the writer of the

Epistle of "Jeremiah," while the actual existence of a real

letter of Jeremiah constituted the particular impulse. He

wrote an epistle,—as did the other great men of the day: he

wrote an epistle of "Jeremiah," just as the others may have

fabricated, say, epistles of "Plato". We can distinctly see,

in yet another passage, how the motive to epistolography

could be found in the then extant sacred writings of

Judaism. The canonical Book of Esther speaks, in two

places, of royal letters, without giving their contents: a

sufficient reason for the Greek reviser to sit down and

manufacture them, just as the two prayers, only mentioned

in the original, are given by him in full!¹

Having once gained a footing, epistolography must

have become very popular in Greek Judaism; we have still

a whole series of Graeco-Jewish "letters," which are un-

questionably epistles. The author is not now thinking of

the multitude of letters, ascribed to historical personages,

which are inserted in historical works²; in so far as these

are unauthentic, they are undoubtedly of an epistolary

¹ The following is also instructive: It is reported at the end of the

Greek Book of Esther that the "Priest and Levite" Dositheus and his son

Ptolemaeus, had "brought hither" (i.e., to Egypt) the e]pistolh> tw?n Frourai<

(concerning the Feast of Purim) from Esther and Mordecai (LXX Esther

9^{29, cf. 20}), which was translated (into Greek) by Lysimachus, the son of

Ptolemaeus in Jerusalem. It would thus seem that a Greek letter concern-

ing Purim, written by Esther and Mordecai, was known in Alexandria. It

is not improbable that the alleged bearers of the "letter" were really the

authors of it.

² The Books of Maccabees, Epistle of Aristeas, specially also Eupolemos

(cf. thereon J. Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien, part i. and ii., Breslau,

1875, p. 106 ff.), Josephus.

42 BIBLE STUDIES. [234

character, but they belong less to the investigation of

epistolography than to the development of historical style.

We should rather call to mind books and booklets like the

Epistle of Aristeas, the two¹ epistles at the beginning of the

2nd Book of Maccabees, the Epistle of "Baruch" to the nine and

a half tribes in captivity, attached to the Apocalypse of

Baruch,² perhaps the twenty-eighth "Letter of Diogenes,"³ and

certain portions of the collection of "letters" which bears the

name of Heraclitus.⁴

15. Coming, then, to the early Christian "letters" with

our question, letter or epistle? it will be our first task to de-

termine the character of the "letters" transmitted to us

under the name of Paul. Was Paul a letter-writer or an

epistolographer? The question is a sufficiently pressing one,

in view of the exceedingly great popularity of epistolography

in the Apostle's time. Nor can we forthwith answer it,

even leaving the Pastoral epistles out of consideration, and

attending in the first place only to those whose genuineness

is more or less established. The difficulty is seen in its

most pronounced form when we compare the letter to

Philemon with that to the Romans; here we seem to have

two such heterogeneous compositions that it would appear

questionable whether we should persist in asking the above

disjunctive question. May not Paul have written both

letters and epistles? It would certainly be preposterous to

assume, a priori, that the "letters" of Paul must be either

all letters or all epistles. The inquiry must rather be

directed upon each particular "letter"—a task the ful-

filment of which lies outside the scope of the present

¹ C. Bruston (Trois lettres des Juifs de Palestine, ZAW. x. [1890], pp.

110-117) has recently tried to show that 2 Macc. 1¹-2¹⁸ contains not two but

three letters (1^1-7a, 1 ^7b-10a, 1 ^10b-2¹⁸).

² Unless this be of Christian times, as appears probable to the present

writer. In any case it is an instructive analogy for the literary criticism of

the Epistle of James and the First Epistle of Peter.

³ Cf. J. Bernays, Lucian and die Kyniker, Berlin, 1879, p. 96 ff.

⁴ J. Bernays, Die heraklitisclien Briefe, Berlin, 1869, particularly p.

61 ff.

235] LETTERS AND EPISTLES. 43

methodological essay.¹ But, as it is, the author may

here at least indicate his opinion.

It appears to him quite certain that the authentic

writings of the Apostle are true letters, and that to think

of them as epistles² is to take away what is best in them.

They were, of course, collected, and treated as literature—in

¹ At some future time the author may perhaps pursue the subject

further. He hopes then to treat also of so-called formal matters (form of

the address, of the beginning and the end, style of letter, etc.), for which he

has already gathered some materials.

² But seldom has this been more distinctly maintained than quite re-

cently by A. Gercke, who designates the letters of Paul, in plain language,

as "treatises in the form of letters" (GGA., 1894, p. 577). But this great

and widely-prevalent misconception of the matter stretches back in its be-

ginnings to the early years of the Christian Church. Strictly speaking, it

began with the first movements towards the canonisation of the letters.

Canonisation was possible only when the non-literary (and altogether un-

canonical) character of the messages had been forgotten; when Paul, from

being an Apostle, had become a literary power and an authority of the past.

Those by whom the letters were treated as elements of the developing New

Testament considered the Apostle to be an epistolographer. Further, the

pseudo-Pauline "letters," including the correspondence between Paul and

Seneca, are evidences of the fact that the writers of them no longer under-

stood the true nature of the genuine letters; the bringing together of the

Apostle and the epistolographer Seneca is in itself a particularly significant

fact. We may also mention here the connecting—whether genuine or not—

of Paul with the Attic orators (in the Rhetorician Longinus: cf. J. L.

Hug, Einleitung in die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, ii.³, Stuttgart and

Tubingen, 1826, p. 334 ff.; Heinrici, Das zweite Sendschreiben des Ap. P. an

die Korinthier, p. 578). The same position is held very decidedly by A.

Scultetus († 1624), according to whom the Apostle imitates the "letters" of

Heraclitus (cf. Bernays, Die heraklitischen, Briefe, p. 151). How well the

misunderstanding still flourishes, how tightly it shackles both the criticism

of the Letters and the representation of Paulinism, the author will not

further discuss at present; he would refer to his conclusions regarding

method at the end of this essay. In his opinion, one of the most pertinent

things that have been of late written on the true character of Paul's letters

is § 70 of Reuss's Introduction (Die Geschichte der heiligen Schrr. N.T.

P. 70). Mention may also be made—reference to living writers being omitted

—of A. Ritschl's Die christl. Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und Versohnung, ii.³,

P. 22. Supporters of the correct view were, of course, not wanting even in

earlier times. Compare the anonymous opinion in the Codex Barberinus,

iii., 36 (saec. xi.): e]pistolai> Pau<lou kalou?ntai, e]peidh> tau<taj o[ Pau?loj i]di<% e]pi-

ste<llei kai> di ] au]tw?n ou{j me>n h@dh e[w<rake kai> e]di<dacen u[pomimnh<skei kai>

e]pidiorqou?tai, ou{j de> mh> e[w<rake spouda<zei kathxei?n kai> dida<skein in E. Klostermann's

Analecta zur Septuaginta, Hexapla und Patristik, Leipzig, 1895, p. 95.

44 BIBLE STUDIES. [236, 237

point of fact, as literature in the highest sense, as canonical

—at an early period. But that was nothing more than an

after-experience of the letters, for which there were many

precedents in the literary development sketched above.

But this after-experience cannot change their original char-

acter, and our first task must be to ascertain what this

character actually is. Paul had no thought of adding a

few fresh compositions to the already extant Jewish epistles,

still less of enriching the sacred literature of his nation;

no, every time he wrote, he had some perfectly definite

impulse in the diversified experiences of the young Christian

churches. He had no presentiment of the place his words

would occupy in universal history; not so much as that

they would still be in existence in the next generation, far

less that one day the people would look upon them as Holy

Scripture. We now know them as coming down from the

centuries with the literary patina and the nimbus of canoni-

city upon them; should we desire to attain a historical

estimate of their proper character, we must disregard both.

Just as we should not allow the dogmatic idea of the mass

to influence our historical consideration of the last Supper

of Jesus with His disciples, nor the liturgical notions of a

prayerbook-commission to influence our historical considera-

tion of the Lord's Prayer, so little dare we approach the

letters of Paul with ideas about literature and notions

about the canon. Paul had better work to do than the

writing of books, and he did not flatter himself that he

could write Scripture; he wrote letters, real letters, as did

Aristotle and Cicero, as did the men and women of the

Fayyum. They differ from the messages of the homely

Papyrus leaves from Egypt not as letters, but only as the

letters of Paul. No one will hesitate to grant that the

Letter to Philemon has the character of a letter. It must

be to a large extent a mere doctrinaire want of taste that

could make any one describe this gem, the preservation of

which we owe to some fortunate accident, as an essay, say,

"on the attitude of Christianity to slavery". It is rather a

letter, full of a charming, unconscious naivete, full of kindly

237, 238] LETTERS AND EPISTLES. 45

human nature. It is thus that Epicurus writes to his

child, and Moltke to his wife: no doubt Paul talks of other

matters than they do—no one letter, deserving the name, has

ever looked like another—but the Apostle does exactly what

is done by the Greek philosopher and the German officer.

It is also quite clear that the note of introduction

contained in Rom. 16 is of the nature of a true letter.

No one, it is to be hoped, will make the objection that

it is directed to a number of persons—most likely the

Church at Ephesus; the author thinks that he has made

it probable that the number of receivers is of no account

in the determination of the nature of a letter.¹ But

the Letter to the Philippians is also as real a letter as

any that was ever written. Here a quite definite situation

of affairs forced the Apostle to take up his pen, and the

letter reflects a quite definite frame of mind, or, at least,

enables us to imagine it. The danger of introducing into

our investigation considerations which, so far as concerns

method,² are irrelevant, is, of course, greater in this case.

Some reader will again be found to contend that, in con-

trast to the private letter to Philemon, we have here a

congregational letter: some one, again, who is convinced of

the valuelessness of this distinction, will bring forward the

peculiarity of the contents the letter is of a "doctrinal"

character, and should thus be designated a doctrinal letter.

This peculiarity must not be denied—though, indeed, the

author has misgivings about applying the term doctrine to

the Apostle's messages; the "doctrinal" sections of the

letters impress him more as being of the nature of con-

fessions and attestations. But what is added towards the

answering of our question letter or epistle? by the expression

¹ Cf. pp. 4 and 18 f.

² The relative lengthiness of the letter must also be deemed an

irrelevant consideration—one not likely, as the author thinks, to be ad-

vanced. The difference between a letter and an epistle cannot be decided

by the tape-line. Most letters are shorter than the Letter to the Philip-

pians, shorter still than the "great" Pauline letters. But there are also

quite diminutive epistles: a large number of examples are to be found in the

collection of Hercher.

46 BIBLE STUDIES. [238, 239

"doctrinal" letter—however pertinent a term? If a letter

is intended to instruct the receiver, or a group of receivers,

does it thereby cease to be a letter? A worthy pastor, let

us say, writes some stirring words to his nephew at the

university, to the effect that he should not let the "faith"

be shaken by professorial wisdom; and he refutes point by

point the inventions of men. Perhaps, when he himself

was a student, he received some such sincere letters from

his father against the new orthodoxy which was then, in its

turn, beginning to be taught. Do such letters forthwith

become tractates simply because they are "doctrinal"?¹

We must carefully guard against an amalgamation of the

two categories doctrinal letter and epistle. If any one be so

inclined, he may break up the letter into a multitude of

subdivisions: the twenty-one or forty-one tu<poi of the old

theorists² may be increased to whatever extent one wishes.

¹ At the present day it would be difficult enough, in many cases, to

determine forthwith the character of such letters. For instance, the so-

called Pastoral Letters of bishops and general superintendents might almost

always be taken as epistles, not, indeed, because they are official, but because

they are designed for a public larger than the address might lead one to

suppose. Further, at the present day they are usually printed from the outset.

An example from the Middle Ages, the "letter" of Gregory VII. to Hermann

of Metz, dated the 15th March, 1081, has been investigated in regard to its

literary character by C. Mirbt, Die Publizistik im Zeitalter Gregors VII.,

Leipzig, 1894, p. 23. Cf., on p. 4 of the same work, the observations on

literary publicity. The defining lines are more easily drawn in regard to

antiquity. A peculiar hybrid phenomenon is found in the still extant cor-

respondence of Abelard and Heloise. It is quite impossible to say exactly

where the letters end and the epistles begin. Heloise writes more in the

style of the letter, Abelard more in that of the epistle. There had, of course,

been a time when both wrote differently: the glow of feeling which, in the

nun's letters, between biblical and classical quotations, still breaks occa-

sionally into a flame of passion, gives us an idea of how Heloise may once

have written, when it was impossible for her to act against his wish, and

when she felt herself altogether guilty and yet totally innocent. Neither,

certainly, did Abelard, before the great sorrow of his life had deprived him

of both his nature and his naturalness, write in the affected style of the

convert weary of life, whose words like deadly swords pierced the soul of the

woman who now lived upon memories. In his later "letters" he kept, though

perhaps only unconsciously, a furtive eye upon the public into whose hands

they might some day fall—and then he was no longer a letter-writer at all.

² See p. 35.

239, 240] LETTERS AND EPISTLES. 47

The author has no objection to any one similarly breaking up

the Pauline letters into several subdivisions, and subsuming

some of them under the species doctrinal letter; only one

should not fondly imagine that by means of the doctrinal

letter he has bridged over the great gulf between letter and

epistle. The pre-literary character even of the doctrinal

letter must be maintained.

This also holds good of the other Letters of Paul, even of

the "great Epistles". They, too, are partly doctrinal; they

contain, in fact, theological discussions: but even in these, the

Apostle had no desire to make literature. The Letter to the

Galatians is not a pamphlet "upon the relation of Christianity

to Judaism," but a message sent in order to bring back the

foolish Galatians to their senses. The letter can only be

understood in the light of its special purpose as such.¹ How

much more distinctly do the Letters to the Corinthians bear the

stamp of the true letter! The second of them, in particular,

reveals its true character in every line; in the author's

opinion, it is the most letter-like of all the letters of Paul,

though that to Philemon may appear on the surface to have

a better claim to that position. The great difficulty in the

understanding of it is due to the very fact that it is so truly

a letter, so full of allusions and familiar references, so per-

vaded with irony and with a depression which struggles

against itself—matters of which only the writer and the

readers of it understood the purport, but which we, for the

most part, can ascertain only approximately. What is

doctrinal in it is not there for its own sake, but is altogether

subservient to the purpose of the letter. The nature of the

letters which were brought to the Corinthians by the fellow-

workers of Paul, was thoroughly well understood by the

receivers themselves, else surely they would hardly have

allowed one or two of them to be lost. They agreed, in fact,

with Paul, in thinking that the letters had served their

purpose when once they had been read. We may most

deeply lament that they took no trouble to preserve the

letters, but it only shows lack of judgment to reproach

¹ Cf. the observations upon this letter in the Spicilegium below.

48 BIBLE STUDIES. [240, 24]

them on this account. A letter is something ephemeral,

and must be so by its very nature;¹ it has as little desire

to be immortal as a tete-et-tete has to be minuted, or an

alms to be entered in a ledger. In particular, the temper

of mind in which Paul and his Churches passed their

days was not such as to awaken in them an interest for

the centuries to come. The Lord was at hand; His advent

was within the horizon of the times, and such an anticipa-

tion has nothing in common with the enjoyment of the

contemplative book-collector. The one-sided religious temper

of mind has never yet had any affection for such things as

interest the learned. Modern Christians have become more

prosaic. We institute collections of archives, and found

libraries, and, when a prominent man dies, we begin to

speculate upon the destination of his literary remains: all

this needs a hope less bold and a faith less simple than

belonged to the times of Paul. From the point of view

of literature, the preservation even of two letters to the

Corinthians is a secondary and accidental circumstance,

perhaps owing, in part, to their comparative lengthiness,

which saved them from immediate destruction.

The Letter to the Romans is also a real letter. No doubt

there are sections in it which might also stand in an epistle;

the whole tone of it, generally speaking, stamps it as different

from the other Pauline letters. But nevertheless it is not

a book, and the favourite saying that it is a compendium of

Paulinism, that the Apostle has, in it, laid down his Dog-

matics and his Ethics, certainly manifests an extreme lack

of taste. No doubt Paul wanted to give instruction, and

he did it, in part, with the help of contemporary theology, but

he does not think of the literary public of his time, or of

Christians in general, as his readers; he appeals to a little

company of men, whose very existence, one may say, was

unknown to the public at large, and who occupied a special

position within Christianity. It is unlikely that the Apostle

¹ This explains why, of the extant "letters" of celebrated men who

have written both letters and epistles, it is the latter that have, in general,

been preserved in larger numbers than the former. Compare, for instance,

the extant "letters" of Origen.

241, 242] LETTERS AND EPISTLES. 49

would send copies of the letter to the brethren in Ephesus,

Antioch or Jerusalem; it was to Rome that he despatched

it: nor did the bearer of it go to the publishers in the

Imperial City,¹ but rather to some otherwise unknown

brother in the Lord—just like many another passenger by the

same ship of Corinth, hastening one to that house, another

to this, there to deliver a message by word of mouth, here

to leave a letter or something else. The fact that the Letter

to the Romans is not so enlivened by personal references as

the other letters of Paul is explained by the conditions under

which it was written: he was addressing a Church which

he did not yet personally know. Considered in the light of

this fact, the infrequence of personal references in the letter

lends no support to its being taken as a literary epistle; it is

but the natural result of its non-literary purpose. Moreover,

Paul wrote even the "doctrinal" portions in his heart's

blood. The words talai<pwroj e]gw> a@nqrwpoj are no cool

rhetorical expression of an objective ethical condition, but

the impressive indication of a personal ethical experience: it

is not theological paragraphs which Paul is writing here,

but his confessions.

Certain as it seems to the author that the authentic

messages of Paul are letters, he is equally sure that we

have also a number of epistles from New Testament times.

They belong, as such, to the beginnings of "Christian litera-

ture". The author considers the Letter to the Hebrews as

most unmistakably of all an epistle. It professes, in chap.

13²², to be a lo<goj th?j paraklh<sewj, and one would have no

occasion whatever to consider it anything but a literary ora-

tion--hence not as an epistle² at all—if the e]pe<steila and

¹ It is a further proof of these "epistles" being letters that we know

the bearers of some of them. The epistle as such needs no bearer, and

should it name one it is only as a matter of form. It is a characteristic cir-

cumstance that the writer of the epistle at the end of the Apocalypse of

Baruch sends his booklet to the receivers by an eagle. Paul uses men as his

messengers: he would not have entrusted a letter to eagles —they fly too high.

² Nor, strictly speaking, can we count the First Epistle of John as an

epistle—on the ground, that is, that the address must have disappeared. It

50 BIBLE STUDIES. [242, 243

the greetings at the close did not permit of the supposition

that it had at one time opened with something of the nature

of an address as well. The address has been lost; it might

all the more easily fall out as it was only a later insertion.

The address is, indeed, of decisive importance for the under-

standing of a letter, but in an epistle it is an unessential

element. In the letter, the address occupies, so to speak,

the all-controlling middle-ground of the picture; in the

epistle it is only ornamental detail. Any given lo<goj can be

made an epistle by any kind of an address. The Epistle

to the Hebrews stands on the same literary plane as the

Fourth Book of Maccabees, which describes itself as a

filosofw<tatoj lo<goj; the fact that the latter seems to

avoid the appearance of being an epistle constitutes a purely

external difference between them, and one which is im-

material for the question regarding their literary character.—

The author is chiefly concerned about the recognition of the

"Catholic" Epistles, or, to begin with, of some of them at

least, as literary epistles. With a true instinct, the ancient

Church placed these Catholic Epistles as a special group over

against the Pauline. It seems to the author that the idea

of their catholicity, thus assumed, is to be understood from

the form of address in the "letters," and not primarily from

the special character of their contents.¹ They are composi-

is a brochure, the literary eidos of which cannot be determined just at once.

But the special characterisation of it does not matter, if we only recognise

the literary character of the booklet. That it could be placed among the

"letters" (i.e., in this case, epistles) of the N.T., is partly explained by the

fact that it is allied to them in character: literature associated with litera-

ture. Hence the present writer cannot think that Weiss (Meyer, xiv.⁵ [1888],

p. 15) is justified in saying: "It is certainly a useless quarrel about words to

refuse to call such a composition a letter in the sense of the New Testament

letter-literature". The question letter or epistle? is in effect the necessary pre-

condition for the understanding of the historical facts of the case. The

“sense” of the New Testament letter-literature, which Weiss seems to assume

as something well known, but which forms our problem, cannot really be

ascertained without first putting that question.—The author does not venture

here to give a decision regarding the Second and Third Epistles of John; the

question "letter or epistle?" is particularly difficult to answer in these cases.

¹ This idea of a catholic writing is implied in the classification of the

Aristotelian writings which is given by the philosopher David the Armenian

243, 244] LETTERS AND EPISTLES. 51

tions addressed to Christians—one might perhaps say the

Church—in general. The catholicity of the address implies,

of course, a catholicity in the contents. What the Church

calls catholic, we require only to call epistle, and the un-

solved enigma with which, according to Overbeck,¹ they

present us, is brought nearer to a solution. The special

position of these "letters," which is indicated by their

having the attribute catholic instinctively applied to them,

is due precisely to their literary character; catholic means

in this connection literary. The impossibility of recognising

the "letters" of Peter, James and Jude as real letters fol-

lows directly from the peculiarity in the form of their

address. Any one who writes to the elect who are sojourners

of the Diaspora in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and

Bithynia, or to the twelve tribes which are of the Diaspora, or

even to them which have obtained a like precious faith with us,

or to them that are called, beloved in God the Father and kept

for Jesus Christ, must surely have reflected on the question

as to what means he must employ in order to convey his

message to those so addressed. Quite similarly does that

other early Christian epistle still bear the address to the

Hebrews; quite similarly does the author of the epistle at

the close of the Apocalypse of Baruch write to the nine-and-a-

half tribes of the Captivity, and Pseudo-Diogenes, ep. 28,² to

the so-called Hellenes. The only way by which the letters

could reach such ideal addresses was to have them reproduced

in numbers from the first. But that means that they were

literature. Had the First Epistle of Peter,³ for instance, been

intended as a real letter, then the writer of it, or a substitute,

would have had to spend many a year of his life ere he could

deliver the letter throughout the enormous circuit of the

(end of the fifth cent. A.D.) in his prolegomena to the categories of Aristotle

(Ed. Ch. A. Brandis, Schol. in Arist., p. 24a, Westermann, iii. [1852], p. 9).

In contrast to meriko<j special, kaqoliko<j is used as meaning general; both

terms refer to the contents of the writings, not to the largeness of the public

for which the author respectively designed them.

¹ P. 431. ² Hercher, p. 241 ff.

³ For the investigation of the Second Epistle of Peter see the observa-

tions which follow below in the Spicilegium.

52 BIBLE STUDIES. [245

countries mentioned. The epistle, in fact, could only reach

its public as a booklet; at the present day it would not be

sent as a circular letter in sealed envelope, but as printed

matter by book-post. It is true, indeed, that these Catholic

Epistles are Christian literature: their authors had no desire

to enrich universal literature; they wrote their books for a

definite circle of people with the same views as themselves,

that is, for Christians; but books they wrote. Very few

books, indeed, are so arrogant as to aspire to become univer-

sal literature; most address themselves to a section only of

the immeasurable public—they are special literature, or

party literature, or national literature. It is quite admissible

to speak of a literary public, even if the public in question be

but a limited one—even if its boundaries be very sharply

drawn. Hence the early Christian epistles were, in the first

instance, special literature; to the public at large in the

imperial period they were altogether unknown, and, doubt-

less, many a Christian of the time thought of them as

esoteric, and handed them on only to those who were

brethren; but, in spite of all, the epistles were designed

for some kind of publicity in a literary sense: they were

destined for the brethren. The ideal indefiniteness of this

destination has the result that the contents have an ecumeni-

cal cast. Compare the Epistle of James, for instance, with

the Letters of Paul, in regard to this point. From the

latter we construct the history of the apostolic age; the

former, so long as it is looked upon as a letter, is the enigma

of the New Testament. Those to whom the "letter" was

addressed have been variously imagined to be Jews, Gentile

Christians, Jewish Christians, or Jewish Christians and

Gentile Christians together; the map has been scrutinised

in every part without any one having yet ascertained where

we are to seek—not to say find—the readers. But if Diaspora

be not a definite geographical term, no more is the Epistle

of "James" a letter. Its pages are inspired by no special

motive; there is nothing whatever to be read between the

lines; its words are of such general interest that they

might, for the most part, stand in the Book of Wisdom, or the

246] LETTERS AND EPISTLES. 53

Imitation of Christ. It is true, indeed, that the epistle reveals

that it is of early Christian times, but nothing more. There

is nothing uniquely distinctive in its motive, and hence no

animating element in its contents. "James" sketches from

models, not from nature. Unfortunately there has always

been occasion, among Christians, to censure contentions and

sins of the tongue, greed and calumny; indignation at the

unmercifulness of the rich and sympathy with the poor are

common moods of the prophetic or apostolic mind; the scenes

from the synagogue and the harvest-field are familiar types

—the epistle, in fact, is pervaded by the expressions and

topics of the aphoristic "wisdom" of the Old Testament

and of Jesus. Even if it could be demonstrated that the

writer was alluding to cases which had actually occurred,

yet we cannot perceive how these cases concern him in any

special way; there is no particular personal relation between

him and those whom he "addresses". The picture of the

readers and the figure of the writer are equally colourless

and indistinct. In the letters of Paul, there speaks to us a

commanding personality—though, indeed, he had no wish

to speak to us at all; every sentence is the pulse-throb of a

human heart, and, whether charmed or surprised, we feel at

least the "touch of nature". But what meets us in the

Epistle of James is a great subject rather than a great man,

Christianity itself rather than a Christian personality. It

has lately become the custom, in some quarters, to designate

the book as a homily. We doubt whether much is gained

by so doing, for the term homily, as applied to any of the

writings of early Christianity, is itself ambiguous and in

need of elucidation; it probably needs to be broken up in the

same way as "letter". But that designation, at least, gives

expression to the conviction that the book in question is

wholly different in character from a letter. In the same

Way, the recognition of the fact that the Catholic Epistles in

general are not real letters, is evinced by the instinctive

judgment passed on them by the Bible-reading community.

The Epistle of James and particularly the First Epistle of

Peter, one may say, are examples of those New Testament

54 BIBLE STUDIES. [246, 247

"letters" which play a most important part in popular

religion, while the Second Letter to the Corinthians, for

instance, must certainly be counted among the least-

known parts of the Bible. And naturally so; the latter,

properly speaking, was adapted only to the needs of the

Corinthians, while later readers know not what to make of

it. They seek out a few detached sayings, but the connection

is not perceived; in it, truly, they find some things hard to be

understood. But those epistles were adapted to Christians in

general; they are ecumenical, and, as such, have a force the

persistence of which is not affected by any vicissitude of

time. Moreover, it also follows from their character as

epistles that the question of authenticity is not nearly so

important for them as for the Pauline letters. It is allowable

that in the epistle the personality of the writer should be

less prominent; whether it is completely veiled, as, for in-

stance, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, or whether it modestly

hides itself behind some great name of the past, as in

other cases, does not matter; considered in the light of

ancient literary practices, this is not only not strange, but in

reality quite natural.—Finally, we may consider the Pastoral

Epistles and the Seven Messages in the Apocalypse in regard to

the question whether they are epistles. Though it seems to

the author not impossible that the former have had worked

into them genuine elements of a letter or letters of Paul,

he would answer the question in the affirmative. The

Seven Epistles of the Book of Revelation, again, differ from

the rest in the fact that they do not form books by them-

selves, nor constitute one book together, but only a portion

of a book. It is still true, however, that they are not letters.

All seven are constructed on a single definite plan,—while,

taken separately, they are not intelligible, or, at least, not

completely so; their chief interest lies in their mutual cor-

respondence, which only becomes clear by a comprehensive

comparison of their separate clauses: the censure of one

church is only seen in its full severity when contrasted

with the praise of another.

16. There is now no need, let us hope, of demon-

247, 248] LETTERS AND EPISTLES. 55

strating that the distinction between letters and epistles does

not end in mere judgments as to their respective values.

We would be the last to ignore the great value of, say,

the Epistle of James or the Epistles of Peter; a com-

parison of these writings with the Epistle of Jeremiah, for

example, and many of the Graeco-Roman epistles, would

be sufficient to guard us against that. In regard to the

latter, one must frequently marvel at the patience of a public

which could put up with the sorry stuff occasionally given

to it as epistles. The more definitely we assign to the New

Testament epistles a place in ancient epistolography, the

more clearly will they themselves convince us of their own

special excellence. But our distinction proves itself, as a

principle of method, to be of some importance in other re-

spects, and we may, in conclusion, gather up our methodo-

logical inferences in brief form as follows (some of these

have already been indicated here and there).

(1) The historical criticism of early Christian writings

must guard against conceiving of the New Testament as a

collection of homogeneous compositions, and must give due

weight to the pre-literary character of certain parts of it.

The literary portions must be investigated in regard to their

formal similarity with Graeco-Latin and Jewish literature;

further, this line of connection must be prolonged well into

the Patristic literature. The much-discussed question,

whether we should view the whole subject as the History of

Early Christian Literature or as the Introduction to the New

Testament, is a misleading one; the alternatives contain a

similar error, the former implying that some, the latter that

all, of the constituent parts of the New Testament should

be considered from a point of view under which they did not

originally stand: the former, in regarding even the real

letters as literature; the latter, in seeking its facts in a

historical connection in which they did not take their rise.

The history of the collection and publication of the non-

literary writings of primitive Christianity, and the history of

the canonisation of the writings which subsequently became

56 BIBLE STUDIES. [248, 249

literature, or were literary from the first, constitute, each of

them, a distinct field of study.

(2) The letters of Paul afford a fixed starting-point for

the history of the origin of the early Christian "letters". We

must ask ourselves whether it is conceivable that the literary

temperament and the epistles which were its outcome can

be older than the letters of Paul.

(3) The collection and publication¹ of the letters of

Paul was indirectly influenced by the analogy of other col-

lections of letters² made in ancient times.³ The only pos-

sible motive of such collecting and publishing was reverential

love. Once the letters of Paul had been collected and

treated as literature, they in turn, thus misconceived, pro-

duced a literary impulse. We must, then, carefully weigh

the possibility that their collection and publication may

form a terminus post quem for the composition of the early

Christian epistles.

(4) The sources by means of which we are enabled to

judge of the knowledge of the New Testament letters which

was possessed by Christians of the post-apostolic period, the

so-called testimonia, and specially the testimonia e silentio, have

an altogether different historiacl value according as they

relate to letters or epistles.⁴ The silentium regarding the

¹ That is to say, of course, publication within Christianity.

² Especially those which were made on behalf of a definite circle of

readers.

³ It is not likely that the collection was made all at one time. It may

be assumed that the Letter to Philemon, for instance, was a relatively late

addition. The collection was probably begun not very long after the death

of Paul.

⁴ Upon this point the author would specially desire to recommend a

perusal of the sketch of the earliest dissemination of the New Testament

letters in B. Weiss's Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Berlin,

1886, §§ 6, 7, p. 38 ff. Many of the apparently striking facts in the history

of the "evidence" which are indicated there might find a simple enough

explanation if they were regarded from our point of view.

249, 250] LETTERS AND EPISTLES. 57

letters (most striking of all, externally considered, in the

Book of Acts), is really explained by the nature of the letter

as such, and cannot be employed as an evidence of spurious-

ness. A. silentium, on the other hand, regarding epistles is,

on account of their public character, to say the least, sus-

picious. The distinction between letters and epistles has

also perhaps a certain importance for the criticism of the

traditional texts.

(5) The criticism of the Letters of Paul must always

leave room for the probability that their alleged contradic-

tions and impossibilities, from which reasons against their

authenticity and integrity have been deduced, are really

evidences to the contrary, being but the natural concomitants

of letter-writing. The history of the criticism of Cicero's

letters,¹ for instance, yields an instructive analogy. The

criticism of the early Christian epistles must not leave out

of account the considerations which are to be deduced from

the history of ancient epistolography.

(6) The exegesis of the letters of Paul must take its

special standpoint from the nature of the letter. Its task is

to reproduce in detail the Apostle's sayings as they have

been investigated in regard to the particular historical occa-

sions of their origin, as phenomena of religious psychology.

It must proceed by insight and intuition, and hence it has

an unavoidable subjective cast. The exegesis of the early

Christian epistles must assume a proper historical attitude

with regard to their literary character. Its task is not to

penetrate into the knowledge of creative personalities in the

religious sphere, but to interpret great texts. As the element

of personality is wanting in its object, so must that of sub-

jectivity disappear from its procedure.

(7) The value of the New Testament "letters," as

sources for the investigation of the Apostolic age, varies

according to their individual character. The classic value of

¹ See p. 81.

58 BIBLE STUDIES. [250, 251

the letters of Paul lies in their being actual letters, that is to

say, in their being artless and unpremeditated; in this re-

spect also, they resemble those of Cicero.¹ The value of the

epistles as sources is not to be rated so highly, and, in par-

ticular, not for the special questions regarding the "constitu-

tion" and the external circumstances of Christianity; many

details are only of typical value, while others, again, are but

literary exercises, or anticipations of conditions not yet fully

realised.

(8) In particular, the New Testament letters and

epistles, considered as sources for the history of the Chris-

tian religion in its early period, are of different respective

values. The letters of Paul are not so much sources for the

theology, or even for the religion, of the period, as simply

for the personal religion of Paul as an individual; it is only

by a literary misconception that they are looked upon as the

documents of "Paulinism". The result of their criticism

from the standpoint of the history of religion can be nothing

more than a sketch of the character of Paul the letter-writer,

and not the system of Paul the epistolographer; what

speaks to us in the letters is his faith, not his dogmatics;

his morality, not his ethics; his hopes, not his eschatology—

here and there, no doubt, in the faltering speech of theology.

The early Christian epistles are the monuments of a religion

which was gradually accommodating itself to external con-

ditions, which had established itself in the world, which

received its stimulus less in the closet than in the church,

and which was on the way to express itself in liturgy and

as doctrine.—

"The Hero who is the centre of all this did not himself

. . . become an author; the only recorded occasion of his

having written at all was when he wrote upon the ground

¹ Cf. p. 29, note 3. One may adduce for comparison other non-literary

sources as well, e.g., the "We" source of the Acts. It, too, became literature

only subsequently—only after it had been wrought into the work of Luke.

251, 252] LETTERS AND EPISTLES. 59

with his finger, and the learning of eighteen centuries has

not yet divined what he then wrote."¹ If Jesus is the gospel,

then it must hold good that the gospel is non-literary. Jesus

had no wish to make a religion; whoever has such a wish

will but make a Koran. It was only lack of understanding

on the part of those who came after (die Epigonen) which

could credit the Son of Man with the writing of epistles—and

to a king to boot! The saints are the epistles of Christ.²

Nor did the Apostle of Jesus Christ advocate the gospel by

literature; in point of fact, the followers of Christ learned

first to pray and then to write—like children. The begin-

nings of Christian literature are really the beginnings of

the secularisation of Christianity: the gospel becomes a

book-religion. The church, as a factor in history—which

the gospel made no claim to be—required literature, and

hence it made literature, and made books out of letters; hence

also at length the New Testament came into existence. The

New Testament is an offspring of the Church. The Church

is not founded upon the New Testament; other foundation

can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

The gain which accrued to the world by the New Testament

carried with it a danger which Christianity—to the detriment

of the spirit of it—has not always been able to avoid, viz.,

the losing of itself as a literary religion in a religion of the

letter.

¹ Herder, Briefe, das Studium der Theologie betreffend, zweyter Then,

zweyte verbesserte Auflage, Frankfurt and Leipzig, 1790, p. 209.

² 2 Cor. 3 ³.

II.

CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HISTORY OF THE

LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE.

a]noi<gw ta> mnh<mata u[mw?n kai> a]na<cw u[ma?j e]k tw?n mnhmatwn u[mw?n

kai> ei]sa<cw u[ma?j ei]j th>n gh?n tou? ]Israh<l.

CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HISTORY OF THE

LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE.

Ever since the language of the Greek Bible became a

subject of consideration, the most astonishing opinions have

been held with regard to the sacred text.

There was a time when the Greek of the New Testament

was looked upon as the genuinely classical; it was supposed

that the Holy Spirit, using the Apostles merely as a pen,

could not but clothe His thoughts in the most worthy garb.

That time is past: the doctrine of verbal Inspiration, petrified

almost into a dogma, crumbles more and more to pieces

from day to day; and among the rubbish of the venerable

ruins it is the human labours of the more pious past that

are waiting, all intact, upon the overjoyed spectator. Who-

ever surrenders himself frankly to the impression which is

made by the language of the early Christians, is fully assured

that the historical connecting-points of New Testament

Greek are not found in the period of the Epos and the Attic

classical literature. Paul did not speak the language of the

Homeric poems or of the tragedians and Demosthenes, any

more than Luther that of the Nibelungen-Lied.

But much still remains to be done before the influence

of the idea of Inspiration upon the investigation of early

Christian Greek is got rid of. Though, indeed, the former

exaggerated estimate of its value no longer holds good, it yet

reveals itself in the unobtrusive though widely-spread opinion

that the phrase "the New Testament" represents, in the

matter of language, a unity and a distinct entity; it is thought

that the canonical writings should form a subject of linguistic

investigation by themselves, and that it is possible within

such a sphere to trace out the laws of a special "genius of

63

64 BIBLE STUDIES. [58

language". Thus, in theological commentaries, even with

regard to expressions which have no special religious signi-

ficance, we may find the observation that so and so are "New

Testament" a!pac lego<mena,¹ and in a philological discussion

of the linguistic relations of the Atticists we are told, with

reference to some peculiar construction, that the like does

not occur "in the New Testament"—a remark liable to mis-

conception.² Or again the meaning of a word in Acts is to

be determined: the word occurs also elsewhere in the New

Testament, but with a meaning that does not suit the

passage in question nearly so well as one that is vouched

for say in Galen. Would not the attempt to enrich the

"New Testament" lexicon from Galen stir up the most

vigorous opposition in those who hold that the "New Testa-

ment" language is materially and formally of a uniform and

self-contained character? They would object—with the

assertion that in the "New Testament" that word was

used in such and such a sense, and, therefore, also in the

Acts of the Apostles.

In hundreds of similar short observations found in the

literature, the methodological presupposition that "the New

¹ The only meaning that can be given to such observations—if they are

to have any meaning at all—is when it is presumed that "the genius of the

language of the New Testament" is not fond of certain words and construc-

tions. It is of course quite a different matter to speak of the a!pac lego<mena

of a single definite writer such as Paul.

² W. Schmid, Der Atticismus in seinen Hauptvertretern von Dionysius

von Halikarnass bis auf den zweiten Philostratus, iii., Stuttgart 1893, p. 338.

The kai< which is inserted between preposition and substantive is there dealt

with. The present writer does not suppose that Schmid, whose book is of

the greatest importance for the understanding of the biblical texts, would

advocate the perverse notion above referred to, should he be called upon to

give judgment upon it on principle: especially as the context of the passage

quoted permits one to suppose that he there desires to contrast "the N. T."

as a monument of popular literature with the studied elegance [?] of AElian.

But the subsuming of the varied writings of the Canon under the philological

concept "New Testament" is a mechanical procedure. Who will tell us

that, say, even Paul did not consciously aspire to elegance of expression now

and then? Why, the very meta> kai< which, it is alleged, does not belong to

the N. T., seems to the author to occur in Phil. 4³ (differently Act. Ap. 25²³

su<n te—kai>): cf. a!ma su<n 1 Thess. 4¹⁷ and 5¹⁰.

59] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 65

Testament" is a philological department by itself, somewhat

like Herodotus or Polybius, reveals itself in the same manner.

The notion of the Canon is transferred to the language, and

so there is fabricated a "sacred Greek" of Primitive Christi-

anity.¹

It is only an extension of this presupposition when the

"New Testament" Greek is placed in the larger connection

of a "Biblical" Greek. "The New Testament" is written

in the language of the Septuagint. In this likewise much-

favoured dictum lies the double theory that the Seventy

used an idiom peculiar to themselves and that the writers

of the New Testament appropriated it. Were the theory

limited to the vocabulary, it would be to some extent justifiable.

But it is extended also to the syntax, and such peculiarities

as the prepositional usage of Paul are unhesitatingly explained

by what is alleged to be similar usage in the LXX.

The theory indicated is a great power in exegesis, and

that it possesses a certain plausibility is not to be denied.

It is edifying and, what is more, it is convenient. But it is

absurd. It mechanises the marvellous variety of the linguistic

elements of the Greek Bible and cannot be established either

by the psychology of language or by history. It increases

the difficulty of understanding the language of biblical texts

in the same degree as the doctrine of verbal Inspiration proved

obstructive to the historic and religious estimate of Holy

Scripture. It takes the literary products which have been

gathered into the Canon, or into the two divisions of the

Canon, and which arose in the most various circumstances,

times and places, as forming one homogeneous magnitude,

¹ It is of course true that the language of the early Christians contained

a series of religious terms peculiar to itself, some of which it formed for the

first time, while others were raised from among expressions already in use

to the status of technical terms. But this phenomenon must not be limited

to Christianity: it manifests itself in all new movements of civilization. The

representatives of any peculiar opinions are constantly enriching the language

with special conceptions. This enrichment, however, does not extend to the

"syntax," the laws of which rather originate and are modified on general

grounds.

66 BIBLE STUDIES. [60

and pays no heed to the footprints which bear their silent

testimony to the solemn march of the centuries. The author

will illustrate the capabilities of this method by an analogy.

If any one were to combine the Canon of Muratori, a frag-

ment or two of the Itala, the chief works of Tertullian, the

Confessions of Augustine, the Latin Inscriptions of the

Roman Christians in the Catacombs and an old Latin trans-

lation of Josephus, into one great volume, and assert that

here one had monuments of "the" Latin of the early

Church, he would make the same error as the wanderers

who follow the phantom of "the" biblical Greek. It cannot

be disputed that there would be a certain linguistic unity

in such a volume, but this unity would depend, not upon

the fact that these writings were, each and all, "ecclesi-

astical," but upon the valueless truism that they were, each

and all, written in late-Latin. Similarly we cannot attribute

all the appearances of linguistic unity in the Greek Bible

to the accidental circumstance that the texts to which they

belong stand side by side between the same two boards of

the Canon. The unity rests solely on the historical circum-

stance that all these texts are late-Greek. The linguistic

unity of the Greek Bible appears only against the background

of classical, not of contemporary "profane," Greek.

It is important, therefore, in the investigation of the

Greek Bible, to free oneself first of all from such a methodo-

logical notion as the sacred exclusiveness of its texts. And

in breaking through the principle, now become a dogma, of

its linguistic seclusion and isolation, we must aspire towards

a knowledge of its separate and heterogeneous elements, and

investigate these upon their own historical bases.

We have to begin with the Greek Old Testament. The

Seventy translated a Semitic text into their own language.

This language was the Egypto-Alexandrian dialect. Our

method of investigation is deduced from these two facts.

If we ignore the fact that the work in question is a

translation, we thereby relinquish an important factor for

the understanding of its linguistic character. The trans-

lation is in method very different from what we nowadays

61, 62] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 67

call such. We see the difference at once when we compare

the Alexandrian theologians' way of working with, say, the

method which Weizsacker applied in his translation of the

Epistles of Paul. Was it mere clumsiness, or was it rever-

ence, which caused them to write as they often did? Who

shall say? One thing is certain; in proportion as the idea

of making the sacred book accessible in another language

was at that time unheard-of, so helpless must the translators

have felt had they been required to give some account of

the correct method of turning Semitic into Greek. They

worked in happy and ingenuous ignorance of the laws of

Hermeneutics,¹ and what they accomplished in spite of all

is amazing. Their chief difficulty lay, not in the lexical,

but in the syntactical, conditions of the subject-matter. They

frequently stumbled at the syntax of the Hebrew text; over

the Hebrew, with its grave and stately step, they have, so to

speak, thrown their light native garb, without being able to

conceal the alien's peculiar gait beneath its folds. So arose

a written Semitic-Greek² which no one ever spoke, far less

used for literary purposes, either before or after.³ The sup-

position, that they had an easy task because the problem of

¹ Some centuries later an important Semitic work was translated into

Greek in a very different manner, viz., the original text of Josephus's Jewish

War. In the preface he states that he had written it first of all in his native

language (i.e., Aramaic). In the work of translation he had recourse to col-

laborateurs for the sake of the Greek style (c. Ap. i. 9), cf. Schurer, i. (1890),

p. 60 f. [Eng. Trans., i., p. 83]. Here then we have the case of a Semitic text

being translated under Greek superintendence with the conscious intention

of attaining Greek elegance. Thus the Jewish War should not, strictly

speaking, be used as an authority for the style of Josephus the Semite. The

case is different with the Antiquities—unless they likewise have been redacted

in form. Moreover, it has been shown by Guil. Schmidt, De Flavii Iosephi

elocution observations criticae, Fleck. Jahrbb. Suppl. xx. (1894), p. 514 ff.—

an essay in the highest degree instructive on the question of the "influences"

of the Semitic feeling for language—that at most only one Hebraism is found

in Josephus, and that a lexical one, viz., the use of prosti<qesqai = Jsy

² Cf. the remarks of Winer, adopted by Schmiedel, Winer-Schmiedel,

§ 4, 1 b (p. 25 f.) [Eng. Trans., p. 28 f.], upon the Greek which was really

spoken by the Jewish common people and was independent of the Greek of

translation. But see the author's remark on p. 74, note 1.

³ See below, p. 295 ff.

68 BIBLE STUDIES. [62

the syntax was largely solved for them through a "Judaeo-

Greek" already long in existence,¹ is hardly tenable. We

have a whole series of other Jewish texts from Alexandria,²

¹ In particular, J. Wellhausen formerly advocated this supposition;

cf. his observations in F. Bleek's Einleitung in das A. T.⁴, Berlin, 1878, p.

578, and, previously, in Der Text der Bucher Samuelis untersucht, Gottingen,

1871, p. 11. But the very example which he adduces in the latter passage

supports our view. In 1 Sam. 4 ^2.3, the verb ptai<w is twice found, the first

time intransitively, the second time transitively, corresponding respectively

to the Niphal and Qal of Jgn. Wellhausen rightly considers it to be incred-

ible that the Seventy "were unwilling or unable" to express "the distinction

of Qal and Hiphil, etc.," by the use of two different Greek words. When,

however, he traces back the double ptai<w, with its distinction of meaning,

to the already existent popular usage of the contemporaries of the LXX (i.e.,

from the context—the Alexandrian Jews), he overlooks the fact that the

transitive sense of ptai<w, is also Greek. The LXX avoided a change of verb

because they desired to represent the same Hebrew root by the same Greek

word, and in this case a Greek could make no objection.—Regarding another

peculiarity of the LXX, viz., the standing use "of the Greek aorist as an

inchoative answering to the Hebrew perfect," it is admitted by Wellhausen

himself that "for this, connecting links were afforded by classical Greek."

—Wellhausen now no longer advocates the hypothesis of a "Judaeo-Greek,"

as he has informed the author by letter.

² To the literary sources here indicated there have lately been added

certain fragments of reports which refer to the Jewish War of Trajan, and

which were probably drawn up by an Alexandrian Jew: Pap. Par. 68

(Notices, xviii. 2, p. 383 ff.), and Pap. Lond. 1 (Kenyon, p. 229 f.); cf. Schurer,

i., p. 53; further particulars and a new reading in U. Wilcken, Ein Aktens-

Nick zum jadischen Kriege Trajans, Hermes, xxvii. (1892), p. 464 ff. (see also

Hermes, xxii. [1887], p. 487), and on this GGA. 1894, p. 749. Pap. Berol.

8111 (BU. xi., p. 333, No. 341), is also connected with it. I cannot, how-

ever willing, discover the slightest difference in respect of language be-

tween the readable part of the fragments, which unfortunately is not very

large, and the non-Jewish Papyri of the same period. Independently of their

historical value, the fragments afford some interesting phenomena, e.g.,

kwstwdi<a (Matt. 27 ^{65 f.}, 28¹¹ koustwdi<a, Matt. 27 ⁶⁶ Cod. A kwstoudi<a; Cod. D

has koustoudi<a), a]xrei?oi dou?loi (Luke 17¹⁰, cf. Matt. 25 ³⁰). The identification

of the o!soi ]Ioudai?oi with the successors of the ]Asidai?oi of the Maccabean

period, which Wilcken advances, hardly commends itself; the expression

does not refer to a party within Alexandrian Judaism, but is rather a self-

applied general title of honour.—Wilcken, further, has in view the publication

of another Papyrus fragment (Hermes, xxvii., p. 474), which contains an

account of the reception of a Jewish embassy by the Emperor Claudius at

Rome. (This publication has now seen the light; for all further particulars

see the beginning of the author's sketch, "Neuentdeckte Papyrus-Fragmente

zur Geschichte des griechischen Judenthums," in ThLZ. xxiii. (1898), p. 602 ff.)

[62, 63, 64] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 69

but do their idioms bear comparison even in the slightest

with the peculiarities of the LXX, which arose quite inci-

dentally?¹ So long as no one can point to the existence of

actual products of an original Judaeo-Greek, we must be per-

mitted to go on advocating the hypothesis, probable enough

in itself, that it was never an actual living language at all.

Thus the fact that the Alexandrian Old Testament is a

translation is of fundamental importance for an all-round

criticism of its syntax. Its "Hebraisms" permit of no con-

clusions being drawn from them in respect to the language

actually spoken by the Hellenistic Jews of the period: they

are no more than evidences of the complete disparity between

Semitic and Greek syntax. It is another question, whether

they may not have exercised an influence upon the speech of

the readers of the next period: it is, of course, possible that

the continually repeated reading of the written Judaeo-Greek

may have operated upon and transformed the "feeling for

language" of the later Jews and of the early Christians. In

respect of certain lexical phenomena, this supposition may of

course be made good without further trouble; the parts of the

O. T. Apocrypha which were in Greek from the beginning,

Philo, Josephus, Paul, the early Christian Epistle-writers,

move all of them more or less in the range of the ethical and

religious terms furnished by the LXX. It is also quite con-

ceivable that some of the familiar formula and formulaic

turns of expression found in the Psalms or the Law were

¹ The relation which the language of the Prologue to Sirach bears to

the translation of the book is of the utmost importance in this question.

(Cf. the similar relation between the Prologue to Luke and the main con-

stituent parts of the Gospel; see below, p. 76, note 2.) The Prologue is

sufficiently long to permit of successful comparison: the impression cannot

be avoided that it is an Alexandrian Greek who speaks here; in the book

itself, a disguised Semite. The translator' himself had a correct appre-

hension of how such a rendering of a Semitic text into Greek differed from

Greek—the language which he spoke, and used in writing the Prologue.

He begs that allowance should be made for him, if his work in spite of all

his diligence should produce the impression tisi> tw?n le<cewn a]dunamei?n: ou] ga>r

i]sodunamei? au]ta> e]n e[autoi?j e[brai*sti> lego<mena kai> o!tan metaxh^? ei]j e[te<ran glw?ssan. Whoever counts the Greek Sirach among the monuments of a "Judaeo-Greek,"

thought of as a living language, must show why the translator uses Alex-

andrian Greek when he is not writing as a translator.

70 BIBLE STUDIES. [64, 65

borrowed from the one or the other, or again, that the occa-

sional literary impressiveness is an intentional imitation of

the austere and unfamiliar solemnity of that mode of speech

which was deemed to be biblical. But any fundamental in-

fluence of the LXX upon the syntactic, that is to say, the

logical, sense of a native of Asia Minor, or of the West, is

improbable, and it is in the highest degree precarious to con-

nect certain grammatical. phenomena in, say, Paul's Epistles

straightway with casual similarities in the translation of the

O. T. A more exact investigation of Alexandrian Greek will,

as has been already signified, yield the result that far more of

the alleged Hebraisms of the LXX than one usually supposes

are really phenomena of Egyptian, or of popular, Greek.¹

This brings us to the second point: the real language,

spoken and written, of the Seventy Interpreters was the

Egyptian Greek of the period of the Ptolemies. If, as

translators, they had often, in the matter of syntax, to

conceal or disguise this fact, the more spontaneously, in

regard to their lexical work, could they do justice to the

profuse variety of the Bible by drawing from the rich store

of terms furnished by their highly-cultured environment.

Their work is thus one of the most important documents

of Egyptian Greek.² Conversely, its specifically Egyptian

character can be rendered intelligible only by means of a

comparison with all that we possess of the literary memorials

of Hellenic Egypt from the time of the Ptolemies till about

the time of Origen.³ Since F. W. Sturz⁴ began his studies

¹ References in regard to the truly Greek character of alleged Hebraisms

in Josephus are given by U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff and Guil. Schmidt

in the already-quoted study of the latter, pp. 515 f. and 421.—See below, p. 290 f.

² Cf. the remarks of Buresch, Rhein. Ins. fur Philologie, N. F., xlvi.

(1891), p. 208 ff.

³ In the rich Patristic literature of Egypt there lies much material

for the investigation of Egyptian Greek. One must not overestimate here

the "influence" of the LXX, particularly of its vocabulary. The Egyptian

Fathers doubtless got much from the colloquial language of their time, and

the theory of borrowing from the LXX need not be constantly resorted to.

The Papyri of the second and third centuries may be used as a standard

of comparison.

⁴ De dialecto Macedonica et Alexandrina liber, Leipzig, 1808.

65, 66] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 71

in this subject there has passed nearly a century, which has

disclosed an infinite number of new sources. Why, if the

Inscriptions in Egyptian Greek, when systematically turned

to account, could put new life into Septuagint research even

then, the Papyrus discoveries have now put us in the position

of being able to check the Egyptian dialect by document—so

to speak—through hundreds of years. A large part of the

Papyri, for us certainly the most valuable, comes from the

Ptolemaic period itself; these venerable sheets are in the

original of exactly the same age as the work of the Jewish

translators¹ which has come down to us in late copies.

When we contemplate these sheets, we are seized with a

peculiar sense of their most delightful nearness to us—one

might almost say, of historical reality raised from the dead.

In this very way wrote the Seventy—the renowned, the un-

approachable—on the same material, in the same characters,

and in the same language! Over their work the history of

twenty crowded centuries has passed: originating in the

self-consciousness of Judaism at a time of such activity as

has never been repeated, it was made to help Christianity to

become a universal religion; it engaged the acuteness and the

solicitude of early Christian Theology, and was to be found

in libraries in which Homer and Cicero might have been

sought for in vain; then, apparently, it was forgotten, but it

continued still to control the many-tongued Christianity by

means of its daughter-versions: mutilated, and no longer

possessed of its original true form, it has come to us out of the

past, and now proffers us so many enigmas and problems as

to deter the approach not only of overweening ignorance but

often of the diffidence of the ablest as well. Meanwhile the

Papyrus documents of the same age remained in their tombs

and beneath the rubbish ever being heaped upon them; but

Our inquiring age has raised them up, and the information

concerning the past which they give in return, is also help-

ful towards the understanding of the Greek Old Testament.

They preserve for us glimpses into the highly-developed civi-

^l We have Papyri of the very time of Ptolemy II. Philadelphus, who

plays such an important part in the traditions of the LXX.

72 BIBLE STUDIES. [66, 67

lization of the Ptolemaic period: we come to know the stilted

speech of the court, the technical terms of its industries, its

agriculture and its jurisprudence; we see into the interior of

the convent of Serapis, and into the family affairs which shrink

from the gaze of history. We hear the talk of the people and

the officials—unaffected because they had no thought of making

literature. Petitions and rescripts, letters, accounts and re-

ceipts--of such things do the old documents actually consist;

the historian of national deeds will disappointedly put them

aside; to the investigator of the literature only do they

present some fragments of authors of greater importance.

But in spite of the apparent triviality of their contents at

first sight, the Papyri are of the highest importance for the

understanding of the language of the LXX,¹ simply because

they are direct sources, because they show the same conditions

of life which are recorded in the Bible and which, so to speak,

have been translated into Egyptian Greek. Naturally, the ob-

scure texts of the Papyri will often, in turn, receive illumina-

tion from the LXX; hence editors of intelligence have already

begun to employ the LXX in this way, and the author is of

opinion that good results may yet be obtained thereby. In

some of the following entries he hopes, conversely, to have

demonstrated the value of the Egyptian Papyri and Inscrip-

tions for Septuagint research. It is really the pre-Christian

sources which have been used;² but those of the early im-

¹ A portion at least of the Papyri might be of importance for the LXX

even with respect to matters of form. The author refers to the official de-

cisions, written by trained public functionaries, and approximately contem-

poraneous with the LXX. While the orthography of the letters and other

private documents is in part, as amongst ourselves, very capricious, there

appears to him to be a certain uniformity in those official papers. One may

assume that the LXX, as "educated" people, took pains to learn the official

orthography of their time. The Papyri have been already referred to in

LXX-investigations by H. W. J. Thiersch, De Pentateuehiversione Alexandrina

libri tres, Erlangen, 1841, p. 87 ff.; recently by B. Jacob, Das Bauch Esther

bei den LXX, ZAW. x. (1890), p. 241 ff. The Papyri are likewise of great

value for the criticism of the Epistle of Aristeas; hints of this are given in

the writings of Giac. Lumbroso.

2 U. Wilcken is preparing a collection of Ptolemaic texts (DLZ. xiv.

[1893], p. 265). Until this appears we are limited to texts which are scattered

throughout the various editions, and of which some can hardly be utilised.

67, 68] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 73

penal period also will yet yield rich results. One fact observa-

tion appears to put beyond question, viz., the preference of

the translators for the technical expressions of their surround-

ings. They, too, understood how to spoil the Egyptians.

They were very ready to represent the technical (frequently

also the general) terms of the Hebrew original by the techni-

cal terms in use in the Ptolemaic period.¹ In this way they

sometimes not only Egyptianised the Bible, but, to speak

from their own standpoint, modernised it. Many peculiarities

from which it might even be inferred that a text different

from our own lay before them, are explained, as the author

thinks, by this striving to make themselves intelligible to the

Egyptians. Such a striving is not of course justifiable from

the modern translator's point of view; the ancient scholars,

who did not know the concept "historic," worked altogether

naïvely, and if, on that account, we cannot but pardon their

obliteration of many historical and geographical particulars

in their Bible, we may, as counterbalancing this, admire the

skill which they brought to bear upon their wrongly-con-

ceived task.² From such considerations arises the demand

that no future lexicon to the LXX³ shall content itself with

the bringing forward of mere equations; in certain cases the

¹ It is specially instructive to notice that terms belonging to the lan-

guage of the court were employed to express religious conceptions, just as

conversely the word Grace, for instance, is prostituted by servility or irony

amongst ourselves. Legal phraseology also came to be of great importance

in religious usage.

² Quite similar modernisings and Germanisings of technical terms are

found also in Luther's translation. Luther, too, while translating apparently

literally, often gives dogmatic shadings to important terms in theology and

ethics; the author has found it specially instructive to note his translation of

Paul's ui[oi> qeou? by Kinder Gottes (children of God), of ui[o>j qeou? by Sohn Gottes

(Son of God). Luther's dogmatic sense strove against an identical rendering

of ui[o<j in both cases: he was unwilling to call Christians sons of God, or

Jesus Christ the child of God, and in consequence made a distinction in the

word ui[o<j. We may also remember the translation of no<hma in 2 Cor. 10 ⁵ by

Vernunft (reason), whereby biblical authority was found for the doctrine fides

praecedit intellectum.

³ The clamant need of a Lexicon to the LXX is not to be dismissed by

pointing to the miserable condition of the Text. The knowledge of the lexical

conditions is itself a preliminary condition of textual criticism.

74 BIBLE STUDIES. [68, 69

Greek word chosen does not represent the Hebrew original

at all, and it would be a serious mistake to suppose that the

LXX everywhere used each particular word in the sense of

its corresponding Hebrew. Very frequently the LXX did

not translate the original at all, but made a substitution

for it, and the actual meaning of the word substituted is,

of course, to be ascertained only from Egyptian Greek. A

lexicon to the LXX will thus be able to assert a claim to

utility only if it informs us of what can be learned, with

regard to each word, from Egyptian sources. In some places

the original was no longer intelligible to the translators; we

need only remember the instances in which they merely trans-

cribed the Hebrew words—even when these were not proper

names. But, in general, they knew Hebrew well, or had

been well instructed in it. If then, by comparison of their

translation with the original, there should be found a differ-

ence in meaning between any Hebrew word and its corre-

sponding Greek, it should not be forthwith concluded that

they did not understand it: it is exactly such cases that not

seldom reveal to us the thoughtful diligence of these learned

men.

What holds good of the investigation of the LXX in

the narrower sense must also be taken into consideration in

dealing with the other translations of Semitic originals into Greek.

Peculiarities of syntax and of style should not in the first

instance be referred to an alleged Judaeo-Greek of the trans-

lators, but rather to the character of the original. We must,

in our linguistic criticism, apply this principle not only to

many of the Old Testament Apocryphal writings, but also to

the Synoptic Gospels, in so far, at least, as these contain ele-

ments which originally were thought and spoken in Aramaic.¹

¹ The author cannot assent to the thesis of Winer (see the passage re-

ferred to above, p. 67, note 2), viz., that if we are to ascertain what was the

"independent" (as distinct, i.e., from the LXX-Greek, which was conditioned

by the original) Greek of the Jews, we must rely "upon the narrative style

of the Apocryphal books, the Gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles ".

There are considerable elements in "the" Apocrypha and in "the" Gospels

which, as translations, are as little "independent" as the work of the LXX.--

With regard also to certain portions of the Apocalypse of John, the question must

be raised as to whether they do not in some way go back to a Semitic original.

70] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 75

So far as regards these Apocryphal books, the non-existence

of the original renders the problem more difficult, but the

investigator who approaches it by way of the LXX will be

able to reconstruct the original of many passages with con-

siderable certainty, and to provide himself, at least in some

degree, with the accessories most required. The case is less

favourable in regard to the Synoptic sayings of Jesus, as also

those of His friends and His opponents, which belong to the

very earliest instalment of the pre-Hellenistic Gospel-tradition.

We know no particulars about the translation into Greek of

those portions which were originally spoken and spread abroad

in the Palestinian vernacular; we only know, as can be per-

ceived from the threefold text itself, that "they interpreted as

best they could".¹ The author is unable to judge how far

retranslation into Aramaic would enable us to understand

the Semitisms which are more or less clearly perceived in the

three texts, and suspects that the solution of the problem,

precisely in the important small details of it, is rendered

difficult by the present state of the text, in the same way as

the confusion of the traditional text of many portions of the

LXX hinders the knowledge of its Greek. But the work

must be done: the veil, which for the Greek scholar rests

over the Gospel sayings, can be, if not fully drawn aside,

yet at least gently lifted, by the consecrated hand of the

specialist.² Till that is done we must guard against the

¹ Cf. Julicher, Einleitung in das N. T., 1st and 2nd ed., Freiburg (Baden)

and Leipzig, 1894, p. 235: important observations by Wellhausen in GGA.

1896, p. 266 ff.—We must at all events conceive of this kind of translation as

being quite different from the translation of Josephus's Jewish War from

Aramaic, which was undertaken in the same half-century, and which might

be called "scientific" (cf. p. 67, note 1 above). Josephus desired to impress

the literary public: the translators of the Logia desired to delineate Christ

before the eyes of the Greek Christians. The very qualities which would

have seemed "barbaric" to the taste of the reading and educated classes,

made upon the Greeks who "would see Jesus" the impression of what was

genuine, venerable—in a word, biblical.

² The author recalls, for instance, what is said in Wellhausen's Israelit-

ische and Judische Geschichte, Berlin, 1894, p. 312, note 1.—Meanwhile this

important problem has been taken in hand afresh by Arnold Meyer (Jesu

Muttersprache, Freiburg (Baden) and Leipzig, 1896) and others; cf. especially

G. Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, vol. i., Leipzig, 1898.

76 BIBLE STUDIES. [71

illusion¹ that an Antiochian or Ephesian Christian (even if,

like Paul, he were a product of Judaism) ever really spoke as

he may have translated the Logia-collection, blessed—and

cramped—as he was by the timid consciousness of being

permitted to convey the sacred words of the Son of God to

the Greeks. Perhaps the same peculiarities which, so far as

the LXX were concerned, arose naturally and unintention-

ally, may, in the translators of the Lord's words, rest upon

a conscious or unconscious liturgical feeling: their reading

of the Bible had made them acquainted with the sound,

solemn as of the days of old, of the language of prophet and

psalmist; they made the Saviour speak as Jahweh spoke

to the fathers, especially when the original invited to such

a procedure. Doubtless they themselves spoke differently²

and Paul also spoke differently,³ but then the Saviour also

was different from those that were His.

Among the biblical writings a clear distinction can be

traced between those that are translations, or those portions

that can be referred to a translation, and the other genus,

viz., those in Greek from the first. The authors of these be-

longed to Alexandria, to Palestine, or to Asia Minor. Who

will assert that those of them who were Jews (leaving out

of account those who belonged to Palestine) each and all

spoke Aramaic—to say nothing of Hebrew—as their native

¹ Also against the unmethodical way in which peculiarities in the

diction of Paul, for example, are explained by reference to mere external

similarities in the Synoptics. What a difference there is—to take one in-

structive example—between the Synoptical e]n t&? a@rxonti tw?n daimoni<wn (Mark

3 ²², etc.') and the Pauline e]n Xrist&? ]Ihsou?! See the author's essay Die

neutestamentliche Formel "in Christo Jesu" untersucht, pp. 15 and 60.

² Compare the prologue to Luke's Gospel. The author is unaware

whether the task of a comparative investigation with regard to the languages

of the translated and the independent parts respectively of the Gospels has

as yet been performed. The task is necessary—and well worth while.

³ Even in those cases in which Paul introduces his quotations from the

LXX without any special formula of quotation, or without other indication,

the reader may often recognise them by the sound. They stand out distinctly

from Paul's own writing, very much as quotations from Luther, for example,

stand out from the other parts of a modern controversial pamphlet.

72] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 77

tongue? We may assume that a Semitic dialect was known

among the Jews of Alexandria and Asia Minor, but this

cannot be exalted into the principle of a full historical

criticism of their language. It seems to the writer that their

national connection with Judaism is made, too hastily, and

with more imagination than judgment, to support the in-

ference of a (so to speak) innate Semitic "feeling for lan-

guage". But the majority of the Hellenistic Jews of the

Dispersion probably spoke Greek as their native tongue:

those who spoke the sacred language of the fathers had

only learned it later.¹ It is more probable that their Hebrew

would be Graecised than that their Greek would be Hebraised.

For why was the Greek Old Testament devised at all? Why,

after the Alexandrian translation was looked upon as sus-

picious, were new Greek translations prepared? Why do

we find Jewish Inscriptions in the Greek language,² even

where the Jews lived quite by themselves, viz., in the Roman

catacombs? The fact is, the Hellenistic Jews spoke Greek,

prayed in Greek, sang psalms in Greek, wrote in Greek, and

produced Greek literature; further, their best minds thought

in Greek.³ While we may then continue, in critically examin-

ing the Greek of a Palestinian writer, to give due weight

to the influence of his Semitic "feeling for language,"—an

influence, unfortunately, very difficult to test—the same pro-

cedure is not justified with regard to the others. How should

the Semitic "spirit of language" have exercised influence

¹ This was probably the case, e.g., with Paul, who according to Acts 21⁴⁰

could speak in the "Hebrew language". That means probably the Aramaic.

² So far as the author is aware no Jewish Inscription in Hebrew is

known outside of Palestine before the sixth century A.D.; cf. Schurer, ii.,

p. 513 (=³ iii. p. 93 f.) [Eng. Trans., ii., p. 284], and, generally, the

references given there.

³ Aristotle rejoiced that he had become acquainted with a man, a Jew

of Coele-Syria, who [Ellhniko>j h#n, ou] t^? diale<t& mo<non, a]lla> kai> t^? yux^?

(Josephus, c. Ap. 22).—The sentence (De confusion ling. § 26) [M. p. 424],

e@sti de> w[j me>n [Ebrai?oi le<gousi “fanouhl,” w[j de> h[mei?j is of

great interest in regard to Philo's opinion as to his own language: he felt

himself to be a Greek. Cf. H. A. A. Kennedy, Sources of New Testament

Greek, Edinburgh, 1895, p. 54, and the present writer's critique of this book

GGA. 1896, p. 761 ff.

78 BIBLE STUDIES. [73

over them? And how, first of all indeed, over those early

Christian authors who may originally have been pagans?

This "spirit" must be kept within its own sphere; the

investigator of the Greek of Paul and of the New Testament

epistle-writers must first of all exorcise it, if he would see

his subject face to face. We must start from the philological

environment in which, as a fact of history, we find these

authors to be, and not from an improbable and, at best, in-

definable, linguistic Traducianism. The materials from which

we can draw the knowledge of that philological environment

have been preserved in sufficient quantity. In regard to the

vocabulary, the Alexandrian Bible stands in the first rank:

it formed part of the environment of the people, irrespective

of whether they wrote in Alexandria, Asia Minor or Europe,

since it was the international book of edification for Hellen-

istic Judaism and for primitive Christianity. We must, of

course, keep always before us the question whether the terms

of the LXX, in so far as they were employed by those who

came after, had not already undergone some change of mean-

ing in their minds. Little as the lexicon of the LXX can be

built up by merely giving the Greek words with their corre-

sponding Hebrew originals, just as little can Jewish or early

Christian expressions be looked upon as the equivalents of

the same expressions as previously used by the LXX. Even

in express quotations one must constantly reckon with the

possibility that a new content has been poured into the old

forms. The history of religious terms—and not of religious

ones only—shows that they have always the tendency to be-

come richer or poorer; in any case, to be constantly altering.¹

Take the term Spirit (Geist). Paul, Augustine, Luther,

Servetus, the modern popular Rationalism: all of these

apprehend it differently, and even the exegete who is well

schooled in history, when he comes to describe the biblical

thoughts about Spirit, finds it difficult to free himself from

the philosophical ideas of his century. How differently

¹ Acute observations on this point will be found in J. Freudenthal's

Die Flavius Josephus beigelegte Schrift Ueber die Herrschaft der Vernunft,

Breslau, 1869, p. 26 f.

77, 34] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 79

must the Colossians, for example, have conceived of Angels,

as compared with the travelling artisan who has grown up

under the powerful influences of ecclesiastical artistic tra-

dition, and who prays to his guardian angel! What changes

has the idea of God undergone in the history of Christianity

—from the grossest anthropomorphism to the most refined

spiritualisation! One might write the history of religion

as the history of religious terms, or, more correctly, one

must apprehend the history of religious terms as being a

chapter in the history of religion. In comparison with the

powerful religious development recorded in the Hebrew Old

Testament, the work of the Seventy presents quite a differ-

ent phase: it does not close the religious history of Israel,

but it stands at the beginning of that of Judaism, and the

saying that the New Testament has its source in the Old

is correct only if by the Old Testament one means the book

as it was read and understood in the time of Jesus. The

Greek Old Testament itself was no longer understood in the

imperial period as it was in the Ptolemaic period, and, again,

a pagan Christian in Rome naturally read it otherwise than

a man like Paul. What the author means may be illustrated

by reference to the Pauline idea of Faith. Whether Paul dis-

covered it or not does not in the meantime concern us. At

all events he imagined that it was contained in his Bible,

and, considered outwardly, he was right. In reality, how-

ever, his idea of faith is altogether new: no one would think

of identifying the pi<stij of the LXX with the pi<stij of Paul.

Now the same alteration can be clearly perceived in other

conceptions also; it must be considered as possible in all, at

least in principle; and this possibility demands precise ex-

amination. Observe, for example, the terms Spirit, Flesh,

Life, Death, Law, Works, Angel, Hell, Judgment, Sacrifice,

Righteousness, Love. The lexicon of the Bible must also

discuss the same problem in respect of expressions which are

more colourless in a religious and ethical sense. The men of

the New Testament resembled the Alexandrian translators in

bringing with them, from their "profane" surroundings, the

most varied extra-biblical elements of thought and speech.

80 BIBLE STUDIES [74, 75

When, then, we undertake to expound the early Christian

writings, it is not sufficient to appeal to the LXX, or to the

terms which the LXX may use in a sense peculiar to them-

selves: we must seek to become acquainted with the actual

surroundings of the New Testament authors. In What other

way would one undertake an exhaustive examination of these

possible peculiar meanings? Should we confine ourselves to

the LXX, or even to artificially petrified ideas of the LXX,--

what were that but a concession to the myth of a "biblical"

Greek? The early Christian writings, in fact, must be taken

out of the narrow and not easily-illuminated cells of the

Canon, and placed in the sunshine and under the blue sky

of their native land and of their own time. There they will

find companions in speech, perhaps also companions in

thought. There they take their place in the vast phenome-

non of the koinh<. But even this fact, in several aspects of it,

must not be conceived of mechanically. One must neither

imagine the koinh< to be a uniform whole, nor look upon the

early Christian authors, all and sundry, as co-ordinate with

a definite particular phenomenon like Polybius. In spite of

all the consanguinity between those early Christian Greeks

and the literary representatives of universal Greek, yet the

former are not without their distinguishing characteristics,

Certain elements in them of the popular dialect reveal the

fact of their derivation from those healthy circles bf society

to which the Gospel appealed: the victorious future of those

obscure brotherhoods impressively announces itself in new

technical terms, and the Apostles of the second and third

generation employ the turns of expression, understood or not

understood, used by Paul, that "great sculptor of language".¹

It is thus likewise insufficient to appeal to the vocabu-

lary and the grammar of the contemporary "profane" litera-

ture. This literature will doubtless afford the most instructive

discoveries, but, when we compare it with the direct sources

which are open to us, it is, so far as regards the language

of the early Christian authors, only of secondary importance.

¹ The author ad opts this easily enough misunderstood expression from

Buresch, Rh. Mus. f. Phil. N. F., xlvi. (1891), p. 207.

75, 76] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 81

These direct sources are the Inscriptions¹ of the imperial

period. Just as we must set our printed Septuagint side by

side with the Ptolemaic Papyri, so must we read the New

Testament in the light of the opened folios of the Inscrip-

tions. The classical authors reach us only in the traditional

texts of an untrustworthy later period; their late codices

cannot give us certain testimony with regard to any so-called

matters of form, any more than the most venerable uncials

of the New Testament can let us know how, say, the Letter

to the Romans may have looked in its original form. If

we are ever in this matter to reach certainty at all, then it

is the Inscriptions and the Papyri which will give us the

nearest approximation to the truth. Of course even they do

not present us with unity in matters of form; but it would be

something gained if the variety which they manifest through-

out were at least to overthrow the orthodox confidence in the

trustworthiness of the printed text of the New Testament,

and place it among the "externals". Here, too, must we do

battle with a certain ingenuous acceptation of the idea of

Inspiration. Just as formerly there were logically-minded

individuals who held that the vowel-points in the Hebrew

text were inspired, so even to-day there are those here and

there who force the New Testament into the alleged rules

of a uniform orthography. But by what authority—unless

by the dictate of the Holy Spirit—will any one support the

notion that Paul, for instance, must have written the Greek

form of the name David in exactly the same way as Mark

or John the Divine?

But the help which the Inscriptions afford in the cor-

rection of our printed texts, is not so important as the service

¹ When the author (in 1894) wrote the above, he was unaware that E. L.

Hicks, in The Classical Review, 1887, had already begun to apply the In-

scriptions to the explanation of the N. T. W. M. Ramsay called attention

to this, and gave new contributions of his own in The Expository Times, vol.

x. p. 9 ff. A short while ago I found a very important little work in the

University Library at Heidelberg, which shows that the Inscriptions had

begun to be drawn from a hundred years ago: the booklet, by Io. E. Imm.

Watch, is called Observationes in Mattizaeum ex graecis inscriptionibus, Jena,

1779; and is not without value even at the present day.

82 BIBLE STUDIES. [76, 77

they render towards the understanding of the language itself,

It may be that their contents are often scanty; it may be that

hundreds of stones, tiresomely repeating the same mono-

tonous formula, have only the value of a single authority,

yet, in their totality, these epigraphic remains furnish us

with plenty of material—only, one should not expect too

much of them, or too little. The author is not now thinking

of the general historical contributions which they afford for

the delineation of the period—such as we must make for

Egypt, Syria, Asia Minor, Europe, if we would understand

the biblical writings (though for that purpose nothing can

be substituted for them); but rather of their value for the

history of the language of the Greek Bible, and particularly

of the New Testament, Those witnesses in stone come

before us with exactly the same variety as to time and place

as we have to take into account when dealing with these

writings: the period of most of them, and the original locality

of nearly all, can be determined with certainty. They afford

us wholly trustworthy glimpses into certain sections of the

sphere of ideas and of the store of words which belonged to

certain definite regions, at a time when Christian (churches

were taking their rise, and Christian books being written.

Further, that the religious conceptions of the time may re-

ceive similar elucidation is a fact that we owe to the numerous

sacred Inscriptions. In these, it may be observed that there

existed, here and there, a terminology which was fixed, and

which to some extent consisted of liturgical formulae. When,

then, particular examples of this terminology are found

not only in the early Christian authors, but in the LXX as

well, the question must be asked: Do the Christian writers

employ such and such an expression because they ark familiar

with the Greek Bible, or because they are unaffectedly speak-

ing the language of their neighbourhood? If we are dealing,

e.g., with the Inscriptions of Asia Minor and the Christians

of Asia Minor, the natural answer will be: Such expressions

were known to any such Christian from his environment,

before ever he read the LXX, and, when he met them again

in that book, he had no feeling of having his store of words

77, 78] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 83

enlarged, but believed himself to be walking, so to speak, on

known ground: since, happily for him, there was no Schleus-

ner at his disposal, when he found those expressions in the

LXX—where, in their connection, they were perhaps more

pregnant in meaning, perhaps less so,—he read them with

the eyes of an inhabitant of Asia Minor, and possibly emas-

culated them. For him they were moulds into which he

poured, according to his own natural endowment, now good,

now less valuable, metal. The mere use of LXX-words on

the part of an inhabitant of Asia Minor is no guarantee that

he is using the corresponding LXX-conceptions. Take as

examples words like a[gno<j, i[ero<j, di<kaioj, gnh<sioj, a]gaqo<j, eu]se<-

beia, qrhskei<a, a]rxiereu<j, profh<thj, ku<rioj, qeo<j, a@ggeloj,

kti<sthj, swthri<a, diaqh<kh, e@rgon, ai]w<n. With regard to all

these words, and many others, common to both the LXX

and the Inscriptions of Asia Minor of the imperial period, it

will be necessary to investigate how far the Christians of Asia

Minor introduced definite local shades of meaning into their

reading of the Septuagint, and, further, how far they uncon-

sciously took these shades of meaning into account either

in their own use of them or when they heard them uttered

by the Apostles. The same holds good of such expressions

as embody the specifically favourite conceptions of primitive

Christianity, e.g., the titles of Christ, ui[o>j qeou?, o[ ku<rioj h[mw?n

and swth<r. The author has, with regard to the first of these,

set forth in the following pages in more detail the reasons

why we should not ignore the extra-biblical technical use

of the expression,—a use which, in particular, is authen-

ticated by the Inscriptions. A similar investigation with

regard to the others could be easily carried out. Even if

it could be established that "the" New Testament always

employs these expressions in their original, pregnant, distinc-

tively Christian sense, yet who will guarantee that hundreds

of those who heard the apostolic preaching, or of the readers

of the Epistles, did not understand the expressions in the

faded formulaic sense, in regard to which they reflected as

little or as much as when they read a votive Inscription

in honour of the ui[o>j qeou? Augustus, or of another emperor

84 BIBLE STUDIES. [78

who was described as o[ ku<rioj h[mw?n, or of Apollo swth<r?

By the time of the New Testament there had set in a

process of mutual assimilation¹ between the religious con-

ceptions already current in Asia Minor on the one hand,

and "biblical" and "Christian" elements on the other.

Biblical expressions became secularised; heathen expressions

gained ecclesiastical colouring, and the Inscriptions, as being

the most impartial witnesses to the linguistic usage previous

to New Testament times, are the sources which most readily

permit us a tentative investigation of the process.

Other elements, too, of the language of certain portions

of the New Testament can not seldom be elucidated by

parallels from the Inscriptions; likewise much of the so-called

syntax. M. Frankel² has indicated what an "extraordinary

agreement in vocabulary and style" obtains between the

Pergamenian Inscriptions of pre-Roman times and Polybius

it is proved, he thinks, that the latter, "almost entirely

wanting in a distinctive style of his own," has "assumed

the richly but pedantically developed speech of the public

offices of his time". The Inscriptions of Asia Minor have,

as the author thinks, a similar significance for the history

of the language of the New Testament. It may be readily

granted to the outsider that many of the observations which

it is possible to take in this connection have, of, course,

"only" a philological value; he who undertakes them knows

that he is obeying not only the voice of science but also the

behests of reverence towards the Book of Humanity.³

The author has, here and there throughout the follow-

ing pages, endeavoured to carry out in practice the ideas of

method thus indicated. He would request that to these

¹ So far as the author can judge, this process shows itself more clearly

in the Catholic and the Pastoral Epistles than in Paul.

² Altertumer von Pergamon, viii. 1, Berlin, 1890, p. xvii.

³ This matter is further dealt with in the author's little work Die

sprachliche Erforschung der griechischen Bibel, ihr gegenweirtiger Stand and

ihre Aufgaben, Giessen, 1898; cf. also GGA. 1896, pp. 761-769; 1898, pp. 120-

124, and 920-923; ThLZ. xxi. (1896), p. 609 ff., and xxiii. (1898), jp. 628 ff.;

Theologische Rundschau, i. (1897-98), pp. 463-472.

79] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 85

should be added the observations that lie scattered through-

out the other parts of this book. If he makes a further

request for indulgence, he would not omit to emphasise that

he is not thereby accommodating himself to the well-worn

literary habit the real purpose of which is only the captatio

benevolentiae. The peculiar nature of the subject-matter,

which first attracted the author, is certainly calculated to

engender the feeling of modesty, unless, indeed, the inves-

tigator has been possessed of that quality from the outset.

a]ggareu<w.

Herodotus and Xenophon speak of the Persian a@ggaroi.

The word is of Persian origin and denotes the royal couriers.

From a@ggaroj is formed the verb a]ggareu<w, which is used,

Mark 15 ²¹ = Matt. 27 ³² and Matt. 5 ⁴¹ (a saying of, the Lord),

in the sense of to compel one to something. E. Hatch¹ finds

the earliest application of the verb in a letter of Demetrius I.

Soter to the high-priest Jonathan and the Jewish people:

keleu<w de> mhde> a]ggareu<esqai ta> ]Ioudai<wn u[pozu<gia, Joseph.

Antt. xiii. 2 3. The letter was ostensibly written shortly

before the death of the king, and, if this were so, we should

have to date the passage shortly before the year 150 B.C.

But against this assumption is to be placed the consideration

that 1 Macc. 10^25-45, which was the source for the statement

of Josephus, and which also quotes the said letter verbally,

knows nothing of the passage in question. Indeed it rather

appears that Josephus altered the passage, in which the

remission of taxes upon the animals is spoken of (ver. ³³ kai>

pa<ntej a]fie<twsan tou>j fo<rouj kai> tw?n kthnw?n au]tw?n), so as to

make it mean that they should not be forced into public work.

Even if, following Grimm,² we consider it possible that the

passage in Maccabees has the same purport as the paraphrase

of Josephus, yet the word—and it is only the word which

comes into consideration here—must be assigned to Josephus,

and, therefore, can be made to establish nothing inJ regard to

the second century B.C., but only in regard to the first A.D.

¹ Essays in Biblical Greek, Oxford, 1889, p. 37.

² HApAT. iii. (1853), p.155 f.

86
82] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 87

But we find the verb in use at a time much earlier than

Hatch admitted. The Comedian Menander († 290 B.C.) uses

it in Sicyon. iv. (Meineke, p. 952). It is twice employed in

Pap. Flind. Petr. xx.¹ (252 B.C.), both times in reference to

a boat used for postal service: tou? u[pa<rxontoj le<mbou a]ggareu-

qe<ntoj u[po< sou and a]ggareu<saj to>n ]Antikle<ouj le<mbon.

This application of the word is established for the

Egyptian dialect² of Greek by the Inscription from the

Temple of the Great Oasis (49 A.D.),³ in which there is other

linguistic material bearing on the Greek Bible, and to which

Hatch has already called attention mhde>n lamba<nein mhde>

a]ggareu<ein ei] mh< tinej e]ma> diplw<mata e@xwsi.

In view of these facts the usage of the verb in the

Synoptists⁴ and Josephus falls into a more distinct historical

connection: the word, originally applied only to a Persian

institution, had gained a more general sense as early as the

third century B.C.⁵ This sense, of course, was itself a tech-

nical one at first, as can be seen from the Papyrus and the

Inscription as well as from Josephus, but the word must

have become so familiar that the Evangelists could use it

quite generally for to compel.

a]delfo<j.

The employment of the name brother to designate the

members of Christian communities is illustrated by the

¹ Mahaffy, ii. [64].

² The Persian loan-word recalls the Persian dominion over Egypt: cf.

para<deisoj below.—It may appear strange that the LXX do not use a@ggearoj,

etc., though tr,G,xi, perhaps also derived from the Persian, is found in

those portions which belong to the Persian period, and might have prompted

them to use a cognate Greek substantive. But they translate both it and

the Aramaic xrAG;xi in every passage by e]pistolh<, just because there was not

any Greek word formed from a@ggaroj for letter.—For the orthography

e]ggareu<w, cf. III. i. 1 below.

³ CIG. iii. No. 4956, A 21.

⁴ What is the Aramaic word which is rendered by a]ggareu<w in Matt. 5 ⁴¹?

⁵ Cf. Buresch, Rhein. Mus. fur Philologie, N. F., xlvi. (1891), p. 219:

"The Persian loan-word a]ggareu<w, which was naturalised at a very early date,

must have come to be much used in the vernacular—it is still found in the

common dialect of Modern Greek".

88 BIBLE STUDIES. [83

similar use, made known to us by the Papyri, of a]delfoj,

in the technical language of the Serapeum at Memphis.

See the detailed treatment of it in A. Peyron,¹ Leemans,²

Brunet de Presle,³ and Kenyon.⁴—a]delfo<j also occurs in the

usage of religious associations of the imperial period as

applied to the members, cf. Schurer, in the Sitzungsberichte

der Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1897, p. 207 ff., and

Cumont, Hypsistos, Brussels, 1897, p. 13.

a]nastre<fomai.

The moral signification se gerere in 2 Cor. 1 ¹², Eph. 2³,

1 Pet. 1¹⁷, 2 Pet. 2¹⁸, Heb. 10³³, 13 ¹⁸, 1 Tim. 3¹⁵, is illustrated

by Grimm,⁵ needlessly, by the analogy of the Hebrew j`lAhA.

It is found in the Inscription of Pergamus No. 224 A.⁶

(middle of the second century B.C.), where it is said of some

high official of the king e]n pa?sin ka[iroi?j a]me<mptwj kai> a]d]ew?j

a]nastrefo<menoj.—Further examples in III. iii. 1.

a]nafa<lantoj.

LXX Lev. 13⁴¹ = HaBeGi forehead-bald, frequent in personal

descriptions in the Papyri of 237, 230 and 225 B.C.;⁷ cf. a]na-

fala<ntwma = tHaBaGa, LXX Lev. 13 ^42.43.

a]nafe<rw.

In 1 Pet. 2 ¹⁴ it is said of Christ: o{j ta>j a[marti<aj h[mw?n

au]to>j a]nh<negken e]n t&? sw<mati au]tou? e]pi> to> cu<on, i!na tai?j

a[marti<aij a]pogeno<menoi t^? dikaiosun^ zh<swmen. Many com-

mentators consider the expression a]nafe<rein ta>j a[marti<aj to

¹ Papyri Graeci regii Taurinensis musei Aegyptii, i. Turin, 1826, p. 60

² I., pp. 53 and 64. ³ Notices, xviii. 2, p. 308. ⁴ P. 31.

⁵ Ch. G. Wilkii Clavis Novi Testamenti philologica³, Leipzig, 1888, p. 28.

⁶ Frankel, p. 129. The word occurs also in Polybius in the same sense.

W. Schulze has also called the attention of the author to the Inscription of

Sestos (c. 120 B.c.), line 27; on this cf. W. Jerusalem, Wiener Studien, i. (1879),

p. 53.

⁷ For particular references see Mahaffy, i. (1891), Index [88], cf. Kenyon,

p. 46; Notices, xviii. 2, p. 131. For the etymology, W. Schulze, Quaestiones

epicae, Gutersloh, 1892, p. 464; the a]nafalanti<asij in Aristot. iii. 11

presupposes a]nafa<lantoj.

83, 84] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 89

be a quotation of LXX Is. 53¹² kai> au]to>j a[marti<aj pollw?n

a]nh<negke and demand that it be understood in the same sense

as in Isaiah:¹ to bear sins, i.e., to suffer punishment for sins.

But even granting that the whole section is pervaded by

reminiscences of Is. 53, yet it is not scientifically justifiable

to assert that the writer must have used a]nafe<rein in the very

sense of the original which he followed. The cases are not

few in which phrases from the LXX, given word for word,

and introduced by the solemn formulae of quotation, have

acquired another sense from the particular new context into

which they are brought. The early Christian authors do not

quote with that precision as to form and substance which

must needs be shown in our own scientific investigations;

these "practical" exegetes, in their simple devoutness, have

an ethical and religious purpose in their quotations, not a

scientific one. Thus their references cannot properly be

called quotations at all: sayings, in our pregnant use of that

term, would be the preferable expression. The "practical"

exegetes of every age have considered the same absolute

freedom with regard to the letter as their natural privilege.

In regard to our passage, the addition of e]pi> to> cu<lon makes

it certain that, even if the allusion is to Isaiah, a]nafe<rein

cannot be explained by its possible² meaning in the Greek

translation of the book. If to bear be made to mean to suffer

punishment, then the verb would require to be followed³ by

e]pi> t&? cu<l&: e]pi> cum acc. at once introduces the meaning to

carry up to.

What then is meant by Christ bearing our sins in His

body up to the tree? Attention is commonly called to the

frequently occurring collocation a]nafe<rein ti e]pi> to> qusia-

sth<rion, and from this is deduced the idea that the death of

Christ is an expiatory sacrifice. But this attempt at explana-

tion breaks down⁴ when it is observed that it is certainly

not said that Christ laid Himself upon the tree (as the altar);

¹ So with Heb. 9 ²⁸.

² If, that is to say, the LXX treated the conceptions a]nafe<rein and xWAnA

as equivalent.

³ E. Kuhl, Meyer, xii.⁵ (1887), p. 165. ⁴ Cf. Kahl, p. 166 f.

90 BIBLE STUDIES. [85

it is rather the a[marti<ai h[mw?n that form the object of a]nafe<rein,

and it cannot be said of these that they were offered up.

That would be at least a strange and unprecedented mode

of expression. The simplest explanation will be this: when

Christ bears up to the cross the sins of men, then men have

their sins no more; the bearing up to is a taking away. The

expression thus signifies quite generally that Christ took away

our sins by His death: there is no suggestion whatever of the

special ideas of substitution or sacrifice.

This explanation, quite satisfactory in itself, appears to

the author to admit of still further confirmation. In the

contract Pap. Flind. Petr. xvi. 21 (230 B.C.), the following

passage occurs: peri> de> w$n a]ntile<gw a]naferomen [ . . . . ]

o]feilhma<twn kriqh<somai e]p ] ]Asklhpia<dou. The editor re-

stores the omission by wn ei]j e]me< and so reads a]naferome<nwn

ei]j e]me<. In this he is, in our opinion, certainly correct

as to the main matter. No other completion of the participle

is possible, and the connection with the following clauses

requires that the a]nafero<mena o]feilh<mata should stand in

relation to the "I" of a]ntile<gw. It can hardly be determined

whether precisely the preposition ei]j² be the proper restora-

tion, but not much depends on that matter. In any case the

sense of the passage is this: as to the o]feilh<mata a]nafero<mena

upon (or against) me, against which I protest, I shall let myself be

judged by Asklepiades.³ It is a priori probable that a]nafe<rein ta>

o]feilh<mata is a forensic technical expression: he who imposes⁴

the debts of another upon a third desires to free the former

¹ Mahaffy, i. [47].

² e]pi< were equally possible; cf. p. 91, note 1.

³ Mahaffy, i. [48], translates: "But concerning the debts chaged against

me, which I dispute, I shall submit to the decision of Asklepiades".

⁴ It is true that a]nafe<rein occurs also in the technical sense of referre

(cf., besides the dictionaries, A. Peyron, p. 110), frequently even in the LXX,

and one might also translate the clause: as to the debts alleged (before the

magistracy) against me; a]nafe<rein would then mean something like sue for.

But the analogies from the Attic Orators support the above explanation. In

LXX 1 Sam. 20¹³ a]noi<sw ta> kaka> e]pi> se<, we have a]nafe<rw in a qnite similar

sense. Cf. Wellhausen, Der Text der Bb. Sam., p. 116 f., for the origin of this

translation.

86] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 91

from the payment of the same. The Attic Orators¹ employ

a]nafe<rein e]pi<, in exactly the same way: AEsch. 3, 215, ta>j a]po>

tou<twn ai]ti<aj a]noi<sein e]p ] e]me<; Isocr. 5, 32, h}n a]nene<gk^j au]tw?n

ta>j pra<ceij e]pi> tou>j sou>j progo<nouj.

That the technical expression was known to the writer

of the Epistle cannot of course be proved, but it is not

improbable.² In that case his a]nafe<rein would take on its

local colour. The sins of men are laid upon the cross, as, in

a court of law, a debt in money³ is removed from one and

laid upon another. Of course the expression must not be

pressed: the writer intends merely to establish the fact that

Christ in His death has removed the sins of men. The nerve

of the striking image which he employs lies in the correlative

idea that the sins of men lie no more upon them. The

forensic metaphor in Col. 2¹⁴ is at least quite as bold, but

is in perfect harmony with the above: Christ has taken the

xeiro<grafon, drawn up against mankind, out of the way,

nailing it to His cross.

a]ntilh<mptwr.⁴

Frequent in the LXX, especially in the Psalms; also in

Sirach 13²², Judith 9¹¹; nearly always used of God as the

Helper of the oppressed. Not hitherto authenticated in

extra-biblical literature.⁵ The word is found in Pap. Lond.

xxiii.⁶ (158-157 B.C.), in a petition to the king and queen, in

which the petitioner says that he finds his katafugh< in them,

and that they are his a]ntilh<mptorej; cf. the similar con-

junction of katafugh< and a]ntilh<mptwr in LXX 2 Sam. 22 ³.

¹ A. Blackert, De praepositionum apud oratores Atticos usu quaestiones

selectae, Marp. Catt., 1894, p. 45.

² Cf. also the other forensic expressions of the section: kri<nein ver. ²³,

and dikaiosu<nh ver. ²⁴.

³ Sin is often viewed as a debt in the early Christian sphere of thought.

—Cf. III. iii. 2 below.

⁴ With regard to the orthography, cf. the Programme of W. Schulze,

Orthographica, Marburg, 1894, p. xiv. ff.; Winer-Schmiedel, § 5, 30 (p. 64),

⁵ "Peculiar to the LXX," Cremer ⁷, p. 554 (= ⁸ 587).

⁶ Kenyon, p. 38.

92 BIBLE STUDIES. [87, 88

a]nti<lhmyij.¹

Frequent, in the LXX and the Apocryphal books, for

Help. This meaning is not² peculiar to "biblical" Greek,

but occurs frequently in petitions to the Ptolemies: Pap. Par.

26 ³ (163-162 B.c.), Pap. Lond. xxiii.⁴ (158-157 B.C.), Pap. Par.

8 ⁵ (131 B.C.), Pap. Lugd. A ⁶ (Ptolemaic period); always

synonymous with boh<qeia. The last two passages yield

the combination tuxei?n a]ntilh<myewj⁷ which also occurs in

2 Macc. 15⁷ and 3 Macc. 2 ³³.—See further III. iii. 3 below.

This meaning of the word (known also to Paul, 1 Cor.

12 ²⁸), like that of a]ntilh<mptwr, was found by the LXX,

as it appears, in the obsequious official language of the

Ptolemaic period. One understands how they could, with-

out the slightest difficulty, transfer such terms of the canting

and covetous court speech to religious matters when one reads

of the royal pair being addressed as u[ma?j tou>j qeou>j megi<stouj

kai> a]ntilh<mptoraj, Pap. Lond. xxiii.⁸ (158-157 B.C.); the

worship of the monarch had emasculated the conception

qeo<j, and thus a]ntilh<mptwr and a]nti<lhmyij had already

acquired a kind of religious nimbus.

a]ci<wma.

The LXX translate the words hwAq.ABa (Esther 5 ^3-8, 7 ^2f.),

hnA.HiT; (Ps. 118 [119] ¹⁷⁰) and the Aramaic UfBA (Dan. 6 ⁷),

which all mean request, desire, by a]ci<wma. The word occurs

in 1 [3] Esd. 8 ⁴ in the same sense. It is "very infrequent

in this signification; the lexica cite it, in prose, only from

Plutarch, Conviv. disput. 1 9 (p. 632 C)"⁹. The Inscriptions

confirm the accuracy of its usage in the LXX: fragment of

a royal decree to the inhabitants of Hierocome (date?) from

¹ For the orthography cf. p. 91, note 4.

² Contra Cremer 7, p. 554 (= 8 587); Clavis ³, p. 84.

³ Notices, xviii. 2, p. 276. ⁴ Kenyon, p. 38.

⁵ Notices, xviii. 2, p. 175. ⁶ Leemans, i., p. 3.

⁷ Upon this cf. Leemans, p. 5. ⁸ Kenyon, p. 88.

⁹ Frankel, Altertumer von Pergamon, viii. 1, p. 13 f.

88, 89] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 93

Tralles;¹ a decree of the Abderites (before 146 B.C.) from

Teos;² Inscription of Pergamus No. 13 (soon after 263 B. C.).³

"In all these examples the word signifies a request preferred

before a higher tribunal, thus acquiring the sense of `petition'

or 'memorial'"⁴.

a]po<.

Of the construction 2 Macc. 14 ³⁰ a]po< tou? belti<stou

in the most honourable way, in which one might suspect an

un-Greek turn of expression, many examples can be found in

the Inscriptions, as also in Dionysius of Halicarnassus and

Plutarch.⁵

a]retalogi<a.⁶

O. F. Fritzsche⁷ still writes Sirach 36¹⁹ (^{14 or 16} in other

editions) as follows: plh?son Siw>n a#rai ta> lo<gia< sou kai> a]po>

th?j do<chj sou to>n lao<n sou. M. W. L. de Wette implies the

same text by his rendering: Fill Zion with the praise of Thy

promises, and Thy people with Thy glory; he takes⁸ a#rai in the

sense of laudibus extollers, celebrare, and thus the verbal trans-

lation would run: Fill Zion, in order to extol Thy declarations,

and Thy people with Thy glory. But against this Fritzsche⁹

makes the objection that a#rai must stand here in the sense of

xWAnA, and this, again, should be taken as receive, obtain, although,

indeed, such a meaning cannot be vouched for by any quite

analogous example. But leaving aside the fact that it is not

good procedure to illustrate an obscure translation by referring

¹ Waddington, iii. (Ph. Le Bas et W. H. Waddington, Inscriptions

grecques et latines recueillies en Grece et en Asie Mineure, vol. iii., part 2,

Paris, 1870), No. 1652 (p. 390).

² Bull. de corr. hell. iv. (1880), p. 50 = Gull. Dittenberger, Sylloge

inscriptionum Graecarum, Leipzig, 1883, No. 228.

³ Frankel, p. 12. ⁴ Ibid., p. 14. ⁵ References in Frankel, p. 16.

⁶ Upon this cf. also the investigations of Meister, Berichte der 1 Kgl.

Sachsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, 1891, p. 13 ff., to which Wendland

has called attention (Deutsche Litteraturzeitung, 1895, p. 902).

⁷ Libri apocryphi Veteris Testamenti Graece, Leipzig, 1871, p. 475.

Similarly the corrected text of 1887 in the edition of L. van Ess.

⁸ Cf. on this 0. F. Fritzsche, HApAT. v. (1859), p. 201. ⁹ Ibid.

94 BIBLE STUDIES. [89, 90

to a meaning of the possible original which cannot be authen-

ticated, the confusion of the parallelismus membrorum which,

with their reading, disfigures the verse, must be urged against

de Wette and Fritzsche.¹ What then is the authority for

this reading? The beginning of the verse has been handed

down in the three principal Codices in the following forms:—

xA plhsonsiwnaretalogiasou,

B plhsonsiwnaretalogiassou,

B^b plhsionsiwnaraitalogiasou.

The last reading, that of the second reviser of B, has

thus become the standard, except that the plh?son of the

others has been retained instead of the plhsi<on which it

gives. H. B. Swete² considers it probable that also the are

of xA. is to be taken as equivalent to arai; in such case the

current text would be supported by xA as well. But in

reality the matter stands quite otherwise; it is B which

gives the original text: plh?son Siw>n a]retalogi<aj sou,³ xA

is deduced from this by the hemigraphy of the ss in areta-

logiassou, and B^b is a correction by the misunderstood xA.

The unwillingness to recognise this true state of the case

(Fritzsche says of B's reading: sed hoc quidem hic nullo

modo locum habere potest) and indeed, to go further back, the

alteration⁴ which was made by the reviser of B, who mis-

understood the text, are due to a misconception of what

a]retalogi<a meant. If we consult, e.g., Pape,5 under a]reta-

¹ De Wette, guided by a true feeling, has obviated this objection by

rendering a#rai by a substantive.

² Textual-critical note to the passage in his edition of the LXX,

Cambridge, 1887 ff.

³ This is placed in the text by Tischendorf and Swete.

⁴ From his standpoint a fairly good conjecture!

Naturally the word is not given in the lexica to the Greek Old Testa-

ment or the Apocrypha; nor is it given by Tromm, either in the Concordance

or in the accompanying Lexicon to the Hexapla, by B. de Montfaucon and

L. Bos. The Concordance of E. Hatch and H. A. Redpath, Oxford, 1892

which takes into account the variants of the most important manuscripts, was

the first to bring the misunderstood word to its rightful position; although

that book seems to err by excess of good when it constructs from the clerical

error of xA a new word a]retalo<gion.

90, 91] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 95

logi<a, we find that its meaning is given as buffoonery (Possen-

reisserei). Now it is clear that God cannot be invited to

fill Zion with "aretalogy" in this sense; then comes the too

precipitate deduction that the text must read differently,

instead of the question whether the lexicon may not perhaps

be in need of a correction. Even Symmachus, Ps. 29 [30] ⁶,

could have answered the question: in that passage he renders

the word hnAri (shouting for joy) of the original by a]retalogi<a,¹

while he always translates it elsewhere by eu]fhmi<a. The

equation of Symmachus, a]retalogi<a = eu]fhmi<a, which can

be inferred from this, and the parallelism of the passage in

Sirach, a]retalogi<a || do<ca mutually explain and support each

other, and force us to the assumption that both translators

used a]retalogi<a sensu bono, i.e., of the glorifying of God. The

assumption is so obvious as to require no further support;

for, to argue from the analogies, it is indisputable that the

word, the etymology of which is certainly clear enough, at

first simply meant, as a matter of course, the speaking of the

a]retai<, and only then received the bad secondary signification.

As to the meaning of a]reth< which is the basis of this usage,

cf. the next article.

a]reth<.²

The observations of Hatch ³ upon this word have added

nothing new to the article a]reth< in Cremer, and have ignored

what is there (as it seems to the author) established beyond

doubt, viz., that the LXX, in rendering dOH, magnificence,

splendour (Hab. 3 ³ and Zech. 6¹³) and hl.AhiT;, glory, praise,

by a]reth<, are availing themselves of an already-existent

linguistic usage.⁴ The meaning of a]retalogi<a is readily

deduced from this usage: the word signifies the same as is

elsewhere expressed by means of the verbal constructions,

LXX Is. 42¹² ta>j a]reta>j au]tou? [qeou?] a]nagge<llein, LXX

¹ Field, ii., p. 130. The Hexaplar Syriac thereupon in its turn took

this word of Symmachus not as= eu]fhmi<a, but as =acceptio eloquii, Field, ibid.

² Cf. p. 93, note 6. ³ Essays, p. 40 f.

⁴ That is, a]reth< as synonymous with do<ca. The word may be used in

this sense in 4 Macc. 1010 also (contra Cremer ⁷, p. 154 = ⁸, p. 164).

96 BIBLE STUDIES. [91, 92

Is. 43 ²¹ ta>j a]reta<j mou [ qeou? ] dihgei?sqai, I Pet. 2 ⁹ ta>j a]reta>j

[qeou?] e]cagge<lein. It seems to the author the most probable

interpretation that the a]retai< of the last passage stands, as in

the LXX, for laudes, seeing that the phrase looks like an

allusion to LXX Is. 42¹², more clearly still to Is. 43 ^20f..

One must nevertheless reckon with the possibility that the

word is used here in a different sense, to which reference has

recently been made by Sal. Reinach,¹ and which no doubt

many a reader of the above-cited passages from the LXX,

not knowing the original, found in these phrases. Reinach,

arguing from an Inscription from Asia Minor belonging to

the imperial period, advocates the thesis² that a]reth<, even in

pre-Christian usage, could mean miracle, effet surnaturel. He

thinks that this is confirmed by a hitherto unobserved signi-

fication of the word a]retalo<goj, which, in several places,

should not be interpreted in the usual bad sense of one who

babbles about virtues, buffoon, etc., but rather as a technical

designation of the interprete de miracles, exegete who occupied

an official position in the personnel of certain sanctuaries.'

The author is unable to speak more particularly about the

latter point, although it does perhaps cast a clearer light

upon our a]retalogi<a. He believes however that he can point

to other passages in which the a]reth< of God signifies, not the

righteousness, nor yet the praise of God, but the manifestation

of His power. Guided by the context, we must Iltranslate

Joseph. Antt. xvii. 5 ⁶, au#qij e]nepar&<nei t^? a]ret^? tou? qei<ou:

he sinned, as if intoxicated, against God's manifestation of His

power.⁴ Still clearer is a passage from a hymn to Hermes,

Pap. Lond. xlvi. 418 ff. ⁵:--

o@fra te mantosu<naj tai?j sai?j a]retai?si la<boimi.

¹ Les Aretalogues dans l'antiquite, Bull. de corr. hell. ix. (1885), p. 257 ff.

The present writer is indebted to W. Schulze for the reference to this essay.

² P. 264. ³ P. 264 f.

⁴ The correct interpretation in Cremer 7, p. 153 (= 8, p. 163 f.), also points

to this. But in the other passage there discussed after Krebs, Joseph. Antt.

xvii. 5⁵, a]reth< most probably denotes virtue.

⁵ Kenyon, p. 78 f.; Wessely, p. 138; Dieterich, Abraxas, p. 64.

The Papyrus was written in the fourth century A.D.; the present writer cannot

decide as to the date of the composition, particularly of line 400 ff., but considers

that it may, without risk, be set still further back.

92, 93] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 97

The original has mantosunaij; the emendation manto-

su<naj (better than the alternative mantosu<nhj also given by

Kenyon) seems to be established.¹ It can only mean: that

I may obtain the art of clairvoyance by the manifestations of Thy

power, and this meaning allows the text to remain otherwise

unaltered (after A. Dieterich). This sense of a]retai< seems

to have been unknown to other two editors; but they, too,

have indicated, by their conjectures, that the word cannot

signify virtues. Wessely² emends thus:—

o@fra te mantosu<nhj th?j sh?j me<roj a]ntila<boimi,

and Herwerden³ writes :—

o@fra te mantosu<nhn tai?j sai?j a]retai?si (? xari<tessi) la<boimi.

We must in any case, in 2 Pet. 1³, reckon with this

meaning of a]reth<, still further examples of which could

doubtless be found. A comparison of this passage with the

Inscription which Reinach calls to his aid should exclude

further doubt. This is the Inscription of Stratonicea in

Caria, belonging to the earliest years of the imperial period,⁴

which will subsequently often engage our attention; the

beginning of it is given in full further on, in the remarks

on the Second Epistle of Peter, and the author has there

expressed the supposition that the beginning of the Epistle

is in part marked by the same solemn phrases of sacred emo-

tion as are used in the epigraphic decree. Be it only remarked

here that the qei<a du<namij is spoken of in both passages, and

that a]reth<, in the context of both, means marvel, or, if one

prefers it, manifestation of power.⁵

¹ A. Dieterich, Abr., p. 65.

² In his attempt to restore the hymn, i., p. 29.

³ Mnemosyne, xvi. (1888), p. 11. The present writer quotes from A.

Dieterich, p. 65; cf. p. 51.

⁴ CIG. iii., No. 2715 a, b Waddington iii. 2, Nos. 519, 520 (p. 142).

⁵ Cremer ⁷, p. 153 (=⁸, p. 163), guided by the context, points to the true

interpretation by giving self-manifestation; similarly Kuhl, Meyer xii.⁵ (1887),

p. 355, performance, activity (Wirksamkeit); the translation virtue (H. von

Soden, LTC. iii. 2² [1892], p. 197) must be rejected altogether. Moreover

Hesychius appears to the present writer to be influenced by 2 Pet. 1³ when

he, rightly, makes a]reth< = qei<a du<namij.

98 BIBLE STUDIES. [93, 94

a]rxiswmatofu<lac.

This occurs in the LXX as the translation of keeper of

the threshold (Esther 2 ²¹) and body-guard (literally, keeper of

the head, 1 Sam. 28²). The translation in the latter, passage

is correct, although swmatofu<lac (Judith 12⁷, 1 [3] Esd. 3 ⁴)

would have been sufficient. The title is Egyptianised in

the rendering given in Esther:¹ the a]rxiswmatofu<lac

was originally an officer of high rank in the court of the

Ptolemies—the head of the royal body-guard. But the title

seems to have lost its primary meaning; it came to be applied

to the occupants of various higher offices.² Hence even the

translation given in Esther is not incorrect. The title is

known not only from Egyptian Inscriptions,³ but also from

Pap. Taur. i.⁴ (third century B.C.), ii.⁵ (of the same period),

xi.⁶ (of the same period), Pap. Loud. xvii.⁷ (162 B.C.), xxiii.⁸

(158-157 B.C.), Ep. Arist. (ed. M. Schmidt), p. 15 ^4f.; cf.

Joseph. Antt. xii. 2 2.

a@fesij.

1. The LXX translate water-brooks, Joel 1 ²⁰, and rivers

of water, Lam. 3 ⁴⁷, by a]fe<seij u[da<twn, and channels of the sea,

2 Sam. 22¹⁶, by a]fe<seij qala<sshj. The last rendering is

explained by the fact that the original presents the same

word as Joel 1²⁰, MyqiypixE, which can mean either brooks or

channels. But how are we to understand the strange ⁹

rendering of the word by a]fe<seij?¹⁰ One might be tempted

¹ Cf. B. Jacob, ZAW. x. (1890), p. 283 f.

² Giac. Lumbroso, Recherches sur reconomie politigue de l’Egypte sous

les Lagides, Turin, 1870, p. 191.

³ Jean-Ant. [not M.] Letronne, Recherches pour servir a l'hilstoire de

l'Ègypte pendant la domination des Grecs et des Ramains, Paris, 1823, p. 56;

Lumbroso, Rech. p. 191. Also in the Inscription of Cyprus, CIG. ii., No.

2617 (Ptolemaic period), an Egyptian official, probably the governor, is so

named.

⁴ A. Peyron, p. 24. ⁵ Ibid., i., p. 175. ⁶ Ibid. ii., p. 65.

⁷ Kenyon, p. 11. ⁸ Ibid., p. 41.

⁹ Elsewhere the LX.X. translate it more naturally by ybripayt 1,nd xEl-

luappos.

¹⁰ In Ps. 125 [126] ⁴, the "fifth" translation of the Old Testament also

has a]fe<seij = streams (Field, ii., p. 283).

94, 95] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 99

to think that the rendering has been influenced by aph,¹ the

initial syllable of the original, but this does not explain

a]fe<seij = MygilAP; Lam. 3 ⁴⁷, and why is it that such influence

is not perceived in any other passage?

The explanation is given by the Egyptian idiom. We

have in Pap. Flind. Petr. xxxvii.² official reports from the

Ptolemaic period concerning the irrigation. In these the

technical expression for the releasing of the waters by opening

the sluices is a]fi<hmi to> u[dwr; the corresponding substantival

phrase a@fesij tou? u!datoj is found in Pap. Flind. Petr. xiii. 2³

(258 B.C.), but—and in this the technical meaning reveals

¹ Similar cases in Wellhausen, Der Text der Bb. Sam., p. 10 f.—This

supposition must be taken into account in Ezek. 47 ³ dih?lqen e]n t&? u!dati u!dwr

a]fe<sewj, which, in its connection (it is previously stated that the water

issued from under the ai@qrion = atrium), signifies: he walked in the water, in

the water (the nominative has been set down mechanically) of release, i.e., in

the (previously mentioned) released water. So must a reader of the LXX

have understood their words; the remark of Jerome (in Field, ii., p. 895) that

the LXX had rendered it aqua remissionis, rests upon a dogmatic misconcep-

tion; a@fesij here can be translated only by dimissio. Now the Hebrew text

has water of the ankles, i.e., water that reaches to the ankles. This is the only

occurrence of Myisap;xa, ankles, in the 0. T. C. H. Cornill, Das Buch des

Propheten Ezechiel, Leipzig, 1886, p. 501, conjectures that what the LXX

translated was MyqypixE. The author thinks it still more probable that

their a@fesij represents the dual of Mp,x,, cessation. But the most natural

supposition is that they did not understand the a!pac lego<menon, and simply

transcribed aph'sajim, the context prompting them not merely to transcribe,

but to make out of their transcription an inflected word. The present

writer will not reject the supposition that this singular passage might also be

explained in the following way: The Greek translator did not understand

the knotty word, and translated—or transcribed—it u!dwr e!wj (cf. e!wj twice in

ver. 4) afej (cf. Ezek. 27¹⁶ LXX, Codd. 23, 62, 147 e]n afek, Codd. 87, 88, Hexapl.

Syr. e]n afeg; Theodotion e]n afek, unless nafek [= jpn] read by

Parsons in a Cod. Jes. originally stood there; these data are borrowed from Field,

ii., p. 842); Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, who understood the strange

word, have a corresponding rendering, e!wj a]straga<lwn (Field, p. 895).

From u!dwr e!wj afej some inventive brain fabricated u!dwr a[fe<sewj, which

could then have the sense explained above. The translator of Ezekiel has, in many

other cases, shown tact in merely transcribing Hebrew words which he did not

understand (Cornill, p. 96).—The reading u!dwr a]faire<sewj of the Com-

plutensian seems to be a correction of u!dwr a]fe<sewj made purely within the

Greek text itself.

² Mahaffy, ii. [119] f. ³ Ibid., [38].

100 BIBLE STUDIES. [95, 96

itself most clearly—the genitive may also be omitted. a@fesij

standing alone is intelligible to all, and we find it so used

in several passages in the first mentioned Papyrus. When

one thinks of the great importance to Egypt of the irrigation,

it will be found readily conceivable that the particular inci-

dents of it and their technical designations must have been

matter of common knowledge. Canals¹ were to the Egyptian

what brooks were to the Palestinian; the bursting forth of

the Nile waters from the opened sluices made upon the

former the same deep impression as did the roar of the first

winter-brook upon the Canaanite peasants and shepherds.

Thus the Egyptian translators of Lam. 3 ⁴⁷ have rendered,

by a]fe<seij u[da<twn, the streams of water breaking forth before

the eyes of the people—not indeed verbally, but, on behalf

of their own readers, by transferring into the Egyptian

dialect, with most effective distinctness, the image that was

so expressive for the Palestinians. Similarly the distress of

the land in Joel 1²⁰ is made more vivid for the Egyptians

by the picture of the carefully-collected water of the canals

becoming dried up shortly after the opening of the sluices

(e]chra<nqhsan a]fe<seij u[da<twn), than it would be by speaking

of dried-up brooks.²

2. The LXX translate lbeOy Lev. 25 ¹⁵, used, elliptically

for Jobel-year,³ by the substantive shmasi<a sign, signal, a

rendering altogether verbal, and one which does, not fail to

mark the peculiarity of the original. But they translate

Jobel-year in vv. ^{10. 11. 12. 13} of the same chapter (apart from

the fact that they do not supply the ellipsis that occurs here

and there in the Hebrew passages) by e]niauto>j or e@toj a]fe<sewj

shmasi<aj, signal-year of emancipation.⁴ The technical expression

signal-year was made intelligible to non-Hebrew readers by

¹ a@fesij seems to bear the meaning of sluice and canal exactly.

² Cf. below, under diw?ruc. ³ [English, "Jubilee".]

⁴ In this way, and in no other, did the LXX construe the genitives,

as we see from ver. ¹⁵; so in ver. ¹³, where the article belongs to shmasi<aj.

A Greek reader indeed, ignoring the context, might understand the expres-

sion thus: year of the a@fesij of the signal, i.e., in which the signal was given;

a]fi<hmi does occur in similar combinations.

96, 97] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 101

the addition of a]fe<sewj, which comes from ver. ¹⁰: diabohs-

ete a@fesin e]pi> th?j gh?j, where a@fesij = rOrD;. From this,

again, it is explained how Jobel-year in the parts of chap. 25

which follow the verse quoted, and in chap. 27, is rendered

by e@toj or e]niauto>j th?j a]fe<sewj, which is not a translation,¹

but an "explicative paraphrase".² Similarly in these pas-

sages the elliptical Jobel (standing in connection with what

goes before) is imitated in a manner not liable to be mis-

taken by an elliptical a@fesij.

Now this usage of the LXX is not to be explained as a

mere mechanical imitation: it found a point of local con-

nection in the legal conditions of the Ptolemaic period.

Pap. Par. 63³ (165 B.C.) mentions, among various kinds of

landed property, ta> tw?n e]n a]fe<sei kai> th>n i[era>n gh?n.⁴

Lumbroso⁵ explains the lands thus said to be e]n a]fe<sei as

those which were exempted from the payment of taxes, and

points to several passages on the Rosetta Stone ⁶ (196 B.C.),

in which the king is extolled as having expressly remitted

certain taxes (ei]j te<loj a]fh?ken).⁷ With this seems to be

connected also Pap. Flind. Petr. ii. 1 (260-259 B.C.):⁸ o!tan

h[ a@fesij doq^?; cf. previously ta> e]kfo<ria.

The LXX might have translated rOrD; Lev. 25 ¹⁰ (the

rendering of which was determinative for the whole of

their subsequent usage) by a different word, but their imi-

tation of the technical Jobel was facilitated just by their

choice of a@fesij, a technical word and one which was

current in their locality.

¹ The expression Ezek. 46¹⁷ is such.

² Cremer⁷, p. 439 ( = 8, p. 466).

³ Notices, xviii. 2, p. 368.

⁴ This i[era> gh? occurs still in the (Berlin) Egyptian documents of the

second and third centuries A.D. (U. Wilcken, Observationes ad historiam

Aegypti provinciae Romanae depromptae e papyris Graecis Berolinensibus

ineditis, Berlin, 1885, p. 29).

⁵ Recherches, p. 90. Brunet de Presle (Notices, xviii. 2, p. 471) gives the

extraordinary explanation—with a mark of interrogation, it is true—conge

militaire.

⁶ Letronne, Recueil des inscriptions grecques et latines de 1’Egypte, vol.

Paris, 1842, p. 244 ff. = CIG., iii. No. 4697.

⁷ Line 12 and elsewhere. ⁸ Mahaffy, ii. [2].

102 BIBLE STUDIES. [97, 98

basta<zw.

In Matt. 8¹⁷ there is quoted, as the word of "the pro

phet Isaiah," aims au]to>j ta>j a]sqenei<aj h[mw?n e@laben kai> ta>j no<souj

e]ba<stasen. "The passage Is. 53⁴ is cited according to the

original, but not in the historical sense thereof, . . . . nor

according to the special typical reference which any one

looking back from the Saviour's healing of diseases to that

prophetic saying, might have perceived to be the intention

of the latter (Meyer); but with a free interpretation of the

language. The Evangelist, that is to say, clearly takes lam-

ba<nein in the sense of take away, as the xWAnA of the original

may also signify—though not in this passage. On the other

hand, it is doubtful whether he also understood basta<zein

(lbasA) in the sense of bear hence (John 20¹⁵), an impossible

meaning for the Hebrew . . ., or whether he is not thinking

rather of the trouble and pains which the Saviour's acts of

healing, continued till far on in the evening, cost Him."¹

H. Holtzmann,² like Weiss, similarly identifies lamba<nein with

xWAnA, and basta<zein with lbasA. But, if the author's judg-

ment is correct, the case is just the opposite: Matthew has

not only discarded the translation given by the LXX, but

has also, in his rendering, transposed the two clauses of the

Hebrew sentence;³ he does not translate He bore our diseases

and took upon Himself our pains, but He took upon Himself our

pains, and bore our diseases.⁴ In that case it will not be lbasA

but xWAnA, which is represented by basta<zein.⁵ The LXX

also translate xWAnA, in 2 Kings 18¹⁴ and Job 21³, Cod. A, by

basta<zein; similarly Aquila in the four extant passages

where he uses basta<zein: Is. 40^11,6 53^11,7 66 ^12,8 and Jer.

¹ B. Weiss, Meyer, i. 18 (1890), p. 169. ² HC. ² (18*, p. 76.

³ Cf. the remark below upon the Gospel quotations, sub ui[o<j.

⁴ Cf., with reference to lamba<nein = lbasA, LXX Is. 46 ⁴, where the same

verb is rendered by a]nalamba<nein.

⁵ Thus A. Resch, Aussercanonische Paralleltexte au den Evangelien,

2 Heft (TU. x. 2), Leipzig, 1894, p. 115.

⁶ Field, ii., p. 510. ⁷ Ibid., p. 535. ⁸ Ibid., p. 505.

98, 99] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 103

10 ^5.1 Of these last passages, Is. 53 deserves special atten-

tion, as it approximates in meaning to the quotation in

Matthew: kai> ta>j a[marti<aj au]tw?n au]to>j basta<sei. If we

should not assume, with E. Bohl,² that the quotation is taken

from an already-existent version, then it must be said that

Matthew, or his authority, in their independent rendering of

the xWAnA of the original by basta<zein, were acting in the

same way as do the LXX and the Jewish translator of the

second century A.D. in other passages. It does not of course

necessarily follow from the fact that the LXX, Matthew,

and Aquila all use basta<zein as the analogue of xWAnA, that

the basta<zein of Matt. 8¹⁷ must have the same meaning as

the xWAnA of the Hebrew original. One must rather, in re-

gard to this passage, as indeed in regard to all translations

whatever, consider the question whether the translator does

not give a new shade of meaning to his text by the expres-

sion he chooses. It will be more correct procedure to ascer-

tain the meaning of basta<zein in this verse of Matthew from

the context in which the quotation occurs, than from the ori-

ginal meaning of xWAnA--however evident the correspondence

basta<zein = xWAnA superficially regarded, may seem. And

all the better, if the meaning bear away, required here by

the context for basta<zein,³ is not absolutely foreign to xWAnA

—in the sense, at least, which it has in other passages.

The same favourable circumstance does not occur in

connection with e@laben, for the signification take away, which

the context demands, does not give the sense of lbasA.

In the religious language of early Christianity the terms

bear and take away, differing from each other more or less

distinctly, and often having sin as their object, play a great

¹ Field, II., Auct., p. 39.

² Die alttestamentlichen Citate im N. T., Vienna, 1878, p. 34. Bohl finds

his Volksbibel (People's Bible) quoted in this passage also. But the Volksbibel,

or, more properly, a version that was different from the LXX, would hardly

have transposed the two clauses of the original.

³ Cf., upon basta<zein in Josephus, Guil. Schmidt, De Flav. Ios. elocution,

Fleck. Jahrbb. Suppl. xx. (1894), p. 521. Upon basta<zw, in Gal. 6¹⁷ see VII,

below, the study on the "Large Letters" and the "Marks of Jesus," Gal. 6.

104 BIBLE STUDIES. [100

part; the Synonymic¹ of this usage must raise for itself the

problem of investigating words like ai@rw, e]cai<rw, basta<zw,

lamba<nw, a]nalamba<nw, fe<rw, a]nafe<rw, u[pofe<rw in their

various shades of meaning.

bebai<wsij.

"The seller was required, in general, i.e., unless the

opposite was stipulated, to deliver to the buyer the thing

sold a]namfisbh<thton, without dispute, and had to accept of

the responsibility if claims should be raised to the thing by

others. . . . If he [the buyer], however, had obtained from

the seller the promise of guarantee " . . . he could, if claims

to the thing were subsequently raised by others, "go back

upon the seller (this was called a]na<gein ei]j pra<thn) and

summon him to confirm—as against the person now raising

the claim—that he himself had bought from him the thing

now claimed, i.e., he could summon him bebaiw?sai. If

the seller refused to do this, then the buyer could bring

against him an action bebaiw<sewj."² In the language of the

Attic Process, bebai<wsij confirmation had thus received the

technical meaning of a definite obligation of the seller, which

among the Romans was termed auctoritas or evictio: ³ the

seller did not only make over the thing to the buyer, but

assumed the guarantee to defend the validity of the sale against

any possible claims of a third party. Among the historians

of the ancient Civil Process there exist differences of opinion⁴

¹ Had we a discreetly prepared Synonymic of the religious expressions

of Early Christianity—of which there is as yet, one may say, a complete want

—we should then have a defence against the widely-currents mechanical

method of the so-called Biblical Theology of the N. T. which looks upon

the men whose writings stand in the Canon less as prophets and sons of the

prophets than as Talmudists and Tosaphists. This dogmatising method

parcels out the inherited territory as if Revelation were a matter of a

thousand trifles. Its paragraphs give one the idea that Salvation is an ordo

salutis. It desecrates the N. T. by making it a mere source for the history of

dogma, and does not perceive that it was, in the main, written under the

influence of Religion.

² M. H. E. Meier and G. F. Schomann, Der Attische Process, neu bear-

beitet von J. H. Lipsius, Berlin, 1883-1887, ii., pp. 717, 719, 720.

³ Ibid., p. 717 f.

⁴ Ibid., p. 721 f. ; K. F. Hermann, Lehrbuch der Griechis hen Rechts-

alterthumer, 3rd edition by Th. Thalheim, Freiburg and Tubingen, 1884, p. 77.

101] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 105

regarding the details of the di<kh bebaiw<sewj that might

possibly be raised by the buyer, but these are immaterial

for the determination of the idea corresponding to the word

bebai<wsij.

This technical expression found admission into Egypt

in the Ptolemaic period. The Papyrus documents speak not

only of the bebaiwth<j,¹ the sale-surety, the auctor secundus

of Roman law, but also of the bebai<wsij itself: Pap. Taur.

i.² (2nd cent. B.C.), Pap. Par. 62 ³ (2nd cent. B.C.)—twice

in the latter passage, once in the combination as ei]j th>n

bebai<wsin u[poqh?kai.⁴ How thoroughly the expression had

become naturalised in Egypt is shown by the fact that we

still find the bebai<wsij in Papyrus documents belonging to

a time which is separated from the Lagides by seven hundred

years. It is, indeed, possible that in these, as well as already

in the Ptolemaic documents, bebai<wsij has no longer exactly

the same specific meaning as it has in the more accurate

terminology of the highly-polished juristic Greek of Attica:⁵

but the word is certainly used there also in the sense of

guarantee, safe-guarding of a bargain: Pap. Par. 21 bis⁶ (592 A.D.),

Pap. Jomard⁷ (592 A.D.), Pap. Par. 21⁸ (616 A.D.). In these

the formula kata> pa?san bebai<wsin occurs several times, and

even the formula ei]j bebai<wsin comes before us again in

Pap. Par. 20 ⁹ (600 A.D.), having thus ¹⁰ maintained itself

through more than seven hundred years.

Reference has already been made by Lumbroso¹¹ to the

¹ Hermann-Thalheim, p. 78.

² A. Peyron, p. 32, cf. p. 120, and E. Revillout, Etudes sur divers points

de droit et d'histoire Ptolemaique, Paris, 1880, p. xl. f.

³ Notices, xviii. 2, p. 355.

⁴ The text is, indeed, mutilated, but is sufficient for our purpose.

⁵ According to Hermann-Thalheim, p. 78, note 1, bebaiwth<j, for instance,

has become nothing but an empty form in the Papyri.

⁶ Notices, xviii. 2, p. 250.

⁷ Ibid., pp. 25S, 259. ⁸ Ibid., p. 244.

⁹ Ibid., p. 241. ¹⁰ Cf. above, Pap. Par. 62 (2nd cent. B.C.).

¹¹ Recherches, p. 78. But the passage belonging to the 2nd cent. B.C.,

indicated above, is more significant than the one of 600 A.D. quoted by him.

106 BIBLE STUDIES. [102

striking similarity of a passage in the LXX with this idiom

of Egyptian Civil law. bebai<wsij is found only once in

the Alexandrian translation, Lev. 25²³, but there in the

characteristic formula ei]j bebai<wsin: kai> h[ gh? ou] praqh<-

setai ei]j bebai<wsin, e]mh> ga<r e]stin h[ gh?. The translation is

not a literal one, but one of great fineness and accuracy.

The Israelites are but strangers and sojourners in the land;

the ground, the soil, belongs to Jahweh—therefore it may

not be sold absolutely: such is the bearing of the original

ttumic;li (properly unto annihilation, i.e., completely, for ever).

Looked at superficially, the ei]j bebai<wsin of the LXX is the

exact opposite of the unto annihilation of the original;¹ con-

sidered properly, it testifies to an excellent understanding

of the text.² A sale ei]j bebai<wsin is a definitive, legally

guaranteed sale: mere sojourners could not, of course, sell

the land which they held only in tenure,—least of all ei]j

bebai<wsin. The reading ei]j bebai<wsin³ of Codices xi., 19, 29,

and others, also of the Aldine, is a clumsy mistake of later

copyists (occasioned in part by LXX Lev. 21 ⁴), who only

spoiled the delicately-chosen expression of the LXX by

school-boy literalness; on the other hand, the in confirm-

tionem of the Vetus Latina³ is quite correct, while the renderings

of Aquila,³ ei]j pagkthsi<an, and Symmachus,³ ei]j a]lu<trwton,

though they miss the point proper, yet render the thought

fairly well.

The LXX have shown the same skill in the only other

passage where this Hebrew word occurs, viz., Lev. 25 ³⁰ :

kurwqh<setai h[ oi]ki<a h[ ou#sa e]n po<lei t^? e]xou<s^ tei?xoj

bebai<wj t&? kthsame<n& au]th<n. That they did not here

make choice of the formula ei]j bebai<wsin, in spite of the

similarity of the original, reveals a true understanding of

the matter, for, as the phrase was primarily used only of the

giving of a guarantee in concluding a bargain, it would not

have answered in this passage.

¹ Which fact explains the variants about to be mentioned.

² In the same chapter we also found a pertinent application of a@fesij

as a legal conception.

³ Field, i., p. 212.

103] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 107

The Alexandrian Christian to whom we owe the lo<goj

th?j paraklh<sewj in the New Testament, writes, in Heb. 6¹⁶,

a@nqrwpoi ga>r kata> tou? mei<zonoj o]mnu<ousin kai> pa<shj au]toi?j

a]ntilogi<aj pe<raj ei]j bebai<wsin o[ o!rkoj. The context of

the passage is permeated by juristic expressions—as is the

Epistle to the Hebrews as a whole. That this Egyptian

legal formula, persistent through hundreds of years, occurs

here also, deserves our notice. We do not need to give

it the same sharply-defined sense which it had in Attic

jurisprudence (guarantee in regard to a sale):¹ it must be

interpreted more generally; at all events it is still a technical

expression for a legal guarantee.²

The use of bebai<wsij elsewhere in biblical literature like-

wise appears to the author to be influenced by the technical

meaning of the word. In Wisd. 6¹⁹, in the magnificent

hymn³ upon wisdom, occurs the gnomic saying prosoxh>

de> no<mwn bebai<wsij a]fqarsi<aj; here no<mwn suggests very

plainly the juristic conception of the word: he who keeps

the laws of wisdom has the legal guarantee of incorruption;

he need have no fear that his a]fqarsi<a will be disputed

by another.

bebai<wsij has been spoken of more definitely still by

the man upon whose juristic terminology the jurist Johannes

Ortwin Westenberg was able to write an important treatise⁴

¹ This interpretation is not impossible. For a legitimate sale an oath

was requisite, e.g., according to the "laws of Ainos" (the name is uncertain)

The buyer must sacrifice to the Apollo of the district; should he purchase a

piece of land in the district in which he himself dwells—he must do the same;

and he must take an oath, in presence of the recording authorities and of

three inhabitants of the place, that he buys honourably: similarly the seller

also must swear that he sells without falsity (Theophrastus peri> sumbolai<wn

in Stobaeus, Flor. xliv. 22); cf. Hermann-Thalheim, p. 130 ff.

² Cf. the terms be<baioj, Heb. 2², 3 ⁶, 9¹⁷, and bebaio<w, Heb. 2 ³, which

in the light of the above should probably also be considered as technical.

³ Upon the form of this (Sorites or Anadiplosis), cf. Paul's words in

Rom. 5^3-5, 10^14f.; also James 1^3f., and LXX Hos. 2 ^21f., Joel 1 ^3f.

⁴ Paulus Tarsensis Jurisconsultus, seu dissertatio de jurisprudentia Pauli

Apostoli habita, Franecker, 1722. The essay has often been reprinted: an

edition Bayreuth, 1738, 36 pp. 4to lies before the present writer. A new treat-

ment of the subject would be no unprofitable task.

108 BIBLE STUDIES.

a hundred and seventy years ago. Paul, in Phil. 1 ⁷, says

kaqw<j e]stin di<kaion e]moi> tou?to fronei?n u[pe>r pa<ntwn u[mw?n dia>

to> e@xein me e]n t^? kardi<% u[ma?j e@n te toi?j desmoi?j mou kai> e]n t^?

a]pologi<% kai> bebaiw<sei tou? eu]aggeli<ou: he is indeed in

bonds, but he is standing on his defence, and this defence

before the court will be at the same time an evictio or convictio

of the Gospel. To the forensic expressions e]n toi?j desmoi?j,

and e]n t^? a]pologi<%, which, of course,¹ are not to be under-

stood as metaphorical, e]n bebaiw<sei tou? eu]aggeli<ou corresponds

very well, and forms at the same time the final step of a very

effective climax.

That the Apostle was not ignorant of the older Attic

signification of bebai<wsij is rendered probable by a striking

correspondence between the mode of expression he uses in

other passages and the terms applied to the legal ideas which

are demonstrably connoted by bebai<wsij. Observe how Paul

brackets together the conceptions a]rrabw<n and bebaiou?n.

Harpocration, the lexicographer of the Attic Orators, who

lived in the Imperial period, writes in his lexicon, sub

bebai<wsij:² e]ni<ote kai> a]rrabw?noj monoj doqe<ntoj ei#ta

a]mfisbhth<santoj tou? peprako<toj e]la<gxani th>n th?j bebaiw<-

sewj di<khn o[ to>n a]rrabw?na dou>j t&? labo<nti. Similarly

in the ancient Le<ceij r[htorikai<, one of the Lexica Segueriana,

edited by Imm. Bekker,³ sub bebaiw<sewj: di<khj o@noma< e]stin,

h{n e]dika<zonto oi[ w]nhsa<menoi kata> tw?n a]podome<nwn, o!te e!teroj

a]mfisbhtoi? tou? praqe<ntoj, a]ciou?ntej bebaiou?n au]toi?j to>

praqe<n: e]ni<ote de> kai> a]rrabw?noj mo<nou doqe<ntoj. e]pi> tou<to

ou#n e]la<gxanon th>n th?j bebaiw<sewj di<khn oi[ do<ntej to>n

a]rrabw?na toi?j labou?sin , i!na bebaiwq^? u[pe>r ou$ o[ a]rra-

bw>n e]do<qh. Now, although doubts do exist ⁴ about the

possibility of basing a di<kh bebaiw<sewj upon the seller's

acceptance of the earnest-money, still thus much is clear,

viz., that, in technical usage, a]rrabw<n and bebaiou?n stand

¹ Paul hopes, 2²³ (as also appears from the tone of the whole letter), for

an early and favourable judgment on his case.

² In Hermann-Thalheim, p. 77.

³ Anecdota Graeca, i. Berlin, 1814, p. 219 f.

⁴ Hermann-Thalheim, p. 77; Meier-Sehomann-Lipsius, ii., p. 721.

105] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 109

in an essential relation to each other.¹ It is exactly in this

way that Paul speaks--his indestructible faith representing

the relation of God to believers under the image of a legally

indisputable relation, 2 Cor. 1^21f.: o[ de> bebaiw?n h[ma?j su>n

u[mi?n ei]j Xristo>n kai> xri<saj h[ma?j qeo<j, o[ kai> sfragisa<menoj

h[ma?j kai> dou>j to>n a]rrabw?na tou? pneu<matoj e]n tai?j kardi<aij

h[mw?n. Apt as is the metaphor itself, intelligible as it would

be in this verse and in 5⁵, particularly to the Christians of

that great commercial centre, it is in form equally apt. The

Apostle, of course, could have chosen another verb² equally

well, without rendering the image unintelligible, but the

technical word makes the image still more effective. A

patristic remark upon the passage in question³ shows us,

further, how a Greek reader could fully appreciate the specific

nature of the metaphor: o[ ga>r a]rrabw>n ei@wqe bebaiou?n

to> pa?n su<ntagma.

Hence we shall not err in construing bebaio<w⁴ and

be<baioj,⁵ even where they occur elsewhere in the writings of

Paul and his circle, from this standpoint, and especially as

these words sometimes occur among other juristic expressions.

By our taking confirm and sure in the sense of legally guaran-

teed security, the statements in which they occur gain in

decisiveness and force.

Symmachus ⁶ uses bebai<wsij once: Ps. 88 [89] ²⁵ for

hnAUmx< (LXX a]lh<qeia).

ge<nhma.⁷

Very common in the LXX for the produce of the land;

so also in the Synoptists: its first occurrence not in Polybius;⁸

¹ Cf. also below, III. iii. 4.

² The kuro<w of Gal. 3¹⁵, for instance, which is likewise forensic, is a

synonym. Cf., besides, Pap. Par. 20 (600 A.D., Notices, xviii. 2, p. 240) :

pra<sewj th?j kai> kuri<aj ou@shj kai> bebai<aj.

³ Catenae Graecorum Patrum in N. T. ed. J. A. Cramer, v., Oxford, 1844,

p. 357.

⁴ 1 Cor. 1 ^6.8 (observe a]negklh<touj and pisto<j), Rom. 15 ⁸; cf. Mark 16²⁰:

⁵ 2 Cor. 1⁶, Rom. 4¹⁶; cf. 2 Pet. 1^10,19. ⁶ Field, ii., p. 243.

⁷ In reference to the orthography cf. Winer-Schmiedel, § 5, 26 a (p. 55 f.)

The Papyri have ge<nhma; cf. below, III. i. 2.

⁸ Clavis³, p. 78.

110 BIBLE STUDIES. 106, 107]

it is already found in connection with Egypt in Pap. Flind.

Petr. i. xvi. 2¹ (230 B.C.): ta> genh<mata tw?n u[parxo<ntwn moi

paradei<swn, and in several other passages of the same age.²

goggu<zw.

Very familiar in the LXX, also in Paul,³ Synopt., John;

authenticated in the subsequent extra-biblical literature only

by Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus;⁴ but already used in the

sense of murmur in Pap. Flind. Petr. ii. ix. 3 ⁵ (241-239 B.C.);

kai> to> plh<rwma (men) goggu<zei fa<menoi a]dikei?sqai.

grammateu<j.

In the 0. T. the person designated scribe (rpeso and rFewo)

is generally the official. The LXX translate verbally—gram-

mateu<j—even in those passages where scribe seems to be used

in the military sense, i.e., of officers. One might conjecture

that in this they were slavishly subjecting themselves to the

original, the employment of grammateu<j in the military sense

being foreign to ordinary Greek usage. But their, rendering

is altogether correct from their own point of view: in Egyptian

Greek grammateu<j is used as the designation of an officer.

In Pap. Par. 63 ⁶ (165 B.c.) we find the grammateu>j tw?n

maxi<mwn, and in Pap. Lond. xxiii.⁷ (158-157 B.c,) the gram-

mateu>j tw?n duna<mewn. This technical meaning ⁸ of the word

was familiar to the Alexandrian translators. So, e.g., 2 Chron.

26¹¹, where the grammateu<j stands with the dia<doxoj;⁹ cf.

also Jer. 44 [37] ^15.20—if Jonathan the scribe, in this passage,

is an officer. Similarly Judg. 5 ^14.10 The following passages,

again, are of great interest as showing indubitably that the

translators employed the technical term as they had learned

its use in their locality. The Hebrew of 2 Kings 25¹⁹ is

almost verbally repeated in Jer. 52 ²⁵, as is 2 Kings 24 ¹⁸

¹ Mahaffy, i. [47]. ² Cf. Index in Mahaffy, ii. [190].

³ He probably knows the word from his Bible-readings: 1 Cor. 10¹⁰ is

an allusion to LXX Num. 14 ²⁷.

⁴ Clavis³, p. 82. ⁶ Mahaffy, ii. [23]. ⁶ Notices, xviii. 2, p. 367.

⁷ Kenyon, p. 41. ⁸ Cf. Lumbroso, Recherches, p. 231.

⁹ On the technical meaning of this word see below, sub dia<doxoj.

¹⁰ Cod. A has quite a different reading.

107] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 111

25³⁰ as a whole in Jer. 52. The Book of Kings speaks

here of the scribe, the captain of the host.¹ But in our text

of Jeremiah we read (the article is wanting before rpeso) the

scribe of the captain of the host. The LXX translate the first

passage by to>n grammate<a² tou? a@rxontoj th?j duna<mewj, as if

they had had our text of Jeremiah before them; Jer. 52 ²⁵, on

the other hand, they render by to>n grammate<a tw?n duna<mewn,

which agrees in sense with the traditional text of 2 Kings

25¹⁹. Now, without having the least desire to decide the

question as to the meaning of rpeso in the Hebrew 0. T., or

as to the original text of the above two passages, the author

yet thinks it plain that the LXX believed that they had

before them, in Jer. 52²⁵,³ the grammateu>j tw?n duna<mewn now

known to us from the London Papyrus, not some sort of

scribe of the commander-in-chief (Generalcommando).⁴ The

¹ So De Wette renders ; similarly E. Reuss: the scribe, who as captain

. . .. ; A. Kamphausen (in Kautzsch) translates the text as altered in accord-

ance with Jer. 52 ²⁵ by and "the" scribe of the commander-in-chief. The

present writer cannot perceive why this alteration should be made "as a

matter of course " (W. Nowack, Lehrbuch der heb. Archaologie, i., Freiburg

and Leipzig, 1894, p. 360). But it is scarcely possible, with K. H. Graf

(who does not change the text, but explains the article as referring to the

following relative clause, and translates the scribe of the captain of the host),

to pronounce categorically that "The captain of the host cannot be called a

rpeso: that title pertains only to the people who use the pen" (Der Prophet

Jeremia erklart, Leipzig, 1862, p. 628).

² The grammataian of Cod. A is the same form (ai = e) with the affixed n

of the popular dialect (Winer-Schmiedel § 9, 8, p. 89).

³ If the article was really taken from 2 Kings 25¹⁹ and inserted in the

Hebrew text here, then the translation of the LXX is an altogether pertinent

rendering of the original, and the supposition of Siegfried-Stade, p. 467, viz.,

that the LXX read the passage in Jeremiah without rWa, would not be

absolutely necessary. The LXX, in rendering the original by a firmly-fixed

terminus technicus, could leave untranslated the rWa, which was irrelevant

for the sense; the taking of it over would have ruptured the established

phrase grammateu>j tw?n duna<mewn.—The author has subsequently noticed that

the most recent editor of Jeremiah actually emends the text here by the Book

of Kings for internal reasons, and explains the chancellor, under whom the

army was placed, as a military minister who took his place beside the chan-

cellor mentioned elsewhere (F. Giesebrecht, Das Buch Jeremia [Handkomm.

zum A. T. iii. 21], Gottingen, 1894, p. 263 f.).

⁴ Thus 0. Thenius, Die Bucher der Konige (Kurzgef. ex. Handb. zum A. T:

ix.), Leipzig, 1849, p. 463.

112 BIBLE STUDIES. [108, 109

choice of the plural duna<mewn, which was not forced upon

them by the singular of the original, is to be explained only

by the fact that they were adopting a long-established and

fixed connection.

Is. 36 ²² is a most instructive case. Our Hebrew text

has simply a rpeso, there, without any addition; the LXX

however, transfer him to the army with the rank of the

grammateu>j th?j duna<mewj: they understood scribe to denote a

military rank.¹

The military meaning of grammateu<j has been preserved

in 1 Macc. 5⁴²; ² probably also in Symmachus Judg. 5¹⁴,³

Jer. 44 [37] ^15.4

gra<fw.

"In the sphere of Divine Revelation the documents

belonging to it assume this⁵ regulative position, and the

ge<graptai always implies an appeal to the incontestable

regulative authority of the dictum quoted."⁶ "The New

Testament usage of h[ grafh< . . . implies the same idea as

is stamped upon the usage of the ge<graptai, viz., a reference

to the regulative character of the particular document as a

whole, which character gives it a unique position, in virtue

of which h[ grafh< is always spoken of as an authority."⁷

In this explanation of terms Cremer has, without doubt,

accurately defined the bases not only of "New Testament"

¹ In this technical grammateu<j the fundamental meaning of scribe seems

to have grown quite indistinct: Is. 22¹⁵, Cod. A, has preserved the translation

grammateu<j for house-steward, a reading which, as compared with tami<aj (which

is better Greek), e.g. of Cod. B, decidedly gives one the impression of its being

the original; with reference to grammateu<j as a designation of a civil official

in Egypt, cf. Lumbroso, Recherches, p. 243 ff. The word is common elsewhere

in the latter sense. When the LXX speak of the Egyptian task-masters, in

Exod. 5 ^{6.10.14. 15. 19}, as grammatei?j, it is not only a verbal, but, from their stand-

point, also an accurate translation. They subsequently designate Israelitic

officials also in this way. In LXX Is. 33 ¹⁸, grammatiko<j is used for grammateu<j

in this sense.

² Cf. Grimm, ad loc., and Wellhausen, Israelitische und Judische

Geschichte, p. 209.

⁴ Ibid., ii., p. 682.

⁵ Field, i., p. 413.

⁵ Viz., the regulative position which falls to the lot of legal documents,

⁶ Cremer⁷, p. 241 (= ⁸, p. 255). ⁷ Ibid.

109, 110] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 113

usage but of the general idea that regulative authority belongs

to scripture. Should the question be asked, whence it comes

that the conception of Holy Scripture has been bound up

with the idea of its absolute authority, the answer can only

be a reference to the juristic idea of scripture, which was

found ready to hand and was applied to the sacred docu-

ments. A religion of documents—considered even histori-

cally—is a religion of law. It is a particularly instructive,

though commonly overlooked, fact in connection with this

juristic conception of the biblical documents that the LXX

translate hrAOT by no<moj in the great majority of passages,

although the two ideas are not by any means identical; and

that they have thus made a law out of a teaching.¹ It is

indeed probable that in this they had been already influenced

by the mechanical conception of Scripture of early Rabbinism,

but, in regard to form, they certainly came under the sway

of the Greek juristic language. Cremer has given a series of

examples from older Greek of this use of gra<fein in legislative

work,² and uses these to explain the frequently-occurring

"biblical" ge<graptai. This formula of quotation is, however,

not "biblical" only, but is found also in juristic Papyrus

documents of the Ptolemaic period and in Inscriptions: Pap.

Rind. Petr. xxx. a;³ further—and this is most instructive

for the frequent kaqw>j ge<graptai of the biblical authors⁴—

in the formula kaqo<ti ge<graptai: Pap. Par. 13⁵ (probably

157 B.C.); Pap. Lugd. 0 ⁶ (89 B.C.); Inscription of Mylasa

in Caria, Waddington, iii. 2, No. 416 = CIG. ii., No. 2693 e

(beginning of the imperial period);⁷ Inscription from the

¹ Cf. the similar alteration of the idea of covenant into that of testament,

and, upon this, Cremer ⁷, p. 897 (= ⁸, p. 946).

² The o{ ge<grafa ge<grafa of Pilate, John 19 ²², is also to be understood in

this pregnant sense.

³ Mahaffy, ii. [102].

⁴ In the 0. T. cf., e.g., LXX Neh. 10 ^34ff. and, in particular, LXX Job

42 ¹⁸ (in the Greek appendix to the Book of Job).

⁵ Notices, xviii. 2, p. 210.

⁶ Leemans, i., p. 77; on this Leemans, p. 133, remarks: "gra<fein:

in contractu scribere".

⁷ As to the date see below, sub o@noma.

114 BIBLE STUDIES. [110, 111

neighbourhood of Mylasa, Waddington, iii. 2, No. 483

(imperial period?): in spite of mutilation the formula is

still legible in four passages here;—and in the formula

kaqa> ge<graptai, Pap. Par. 7 ¹ (2nd or 1st cent. B.C.), cf,

kat(t)ta<per . . . ge<grap[toi] in line ^{50 f}. of the architectural

Inscription of Tegea (ca. 3rd cent. B.C.) ²—in all of which

reference is made to a definite obligatory clause of the docu-

ment quoted.³ Further examples in III. iii. 5 below.

That the juristic conception of sacred writings was

familiar to the Alexandrian translators is directly shown by

Ep. Arist. (ed. M. Schmidt), p. 68^1ff.: when the translation of

the Bible into Greek was finished, then, kaqw>j e@qoj au]toi?j

e]stin ei@ tij diaskeua<sei prostiqei>j h} metafe<rwn ti to> su<nolon

tw?n gegramme<nwn h} poiou<menoj a]fai<resin,⁴ he was threatened

with a curse. According to this the Greek Bible was placed

under the legal point of view which forbade the altering of a

document; this principle is not universal in Greek law,⁵ but

the Apostle Paul gives evidence for it, when, in Gal. 3¹⁵,

arguing e concessis, he says that a diaqh<kh kekurwme<nh can

neither be made void⁶ nor have anything added to it.

Speaking from the same point of view, the advocate

Tertullian—to give another very clear example of the further

development of the juristic conception of biblical authority—

describes, adv. Marc. 4 2 and elsewhere, the individual portions

of the New Testament as instruments, i.e., as legally valid

documents.⁷

¹ Notices, xviii. 2, p. 172.

² P. Cauer, Delectus inscriptionum Graecarum propter dialectum memora-

bilium ², Leipzig, 1883, No. 457.

³ It is not in this pregnant sense that Plutarch uses ge<graptai, but simply

as a formula of quotation; cf. J. F. Marcks, Symbola critica ad epistolographos

Graecos, Bonn, 1883, p. 27. So also LXX Esth. 10 ⁵.

⁴ Cf. Deut. 4², 12 ³², Prov. 30⁶, and later Rev. 22^{18 f}

⁵ It was allowed, e.g., in Attic Law "to add codices to a will, or make

modifications in it"; cf. Meier-Schomann-Lipsius, ii. p. 597.

⁶ Upon the revocation of a will cf. Meier-Schomann-Lipsius, ii., p. 597 f.

⁷ Cf. upon this E. Reuss, Die Geschichte der Heiligen Schriften Neuen

Testaments ⁶, Brunswick, 1887, § 303, p. 340, and Julicher, Einleitung in das

N. T., p. 303.

111, 112] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 115

dia<doxoj and diadexo<menoj.

dia<doxoj occurs in the LXX only in 1 Chron. 18¹⁷, as

the equivalent of dyal;, 2 Chron. 26¹¹ as the translation of

hn,w;mi, and 2 Chron. 28⁷ as the translation of rWa. In none

of these three passages is dia<doxoj, in its ordinary sense of

successor, an accurate rendering of the original. It has there-

fore been asserted by Schleusner¹ that dia<doxoj corresponds

to the Hebrew words, and thus means something like proxi-

mus a rege; he refers to Philo, de Josepho, M. pp. 58 and 64.

Similarly Grimm,² in reference to 2 Macc. 4 ²⁹, has, on account

of the context, rejected the meaning successor for that passage

and 14 ²⁶; cf. also 4 ³¹ diadexo<menoj. This supposition is con-

firmed by Pap. Taur. (1 15 and 6) ³ (2nd cent. B.C.), in which

oi[ peri> au]lh>n dia<doxoi and oi[ dia<doxoi are higher officials at

the court of the Ptolemies;⁴ dia<doxoj is thus an Egyptian

court-title.⁵ The Alexandrian translators of the Book of

Chronicles and the Alexandrian Philo used the word in this

technical sense, and the second Book of Maccabees (compiled

from Jason of Cyrene) also manifests a knowledge of the

usage.

Allied to the technical meaning of dia<doxoj is that of

the participle dia<doxoj,⁶ 2 Chron. 31¹² and Esth. 10³, as

the translation of the hn,w;mi of the original: so 2 Macc. 4³¹.

di<kaioj.

The LXX render qyDica or the genitival qd,c, by di<kaioj

in almost every case, and their translation is accurate even

for those passages in which the conception normal⁷ (which

¹ Novus Thesaurus, ii. (1820), p. 87. ² HApA.T. iv. (1857), p. 90.

³ A. Peyron, i. p. 24.

⁴ Ibid., p. 56 ff. On this see Brunet de Presle, Notices, xviii. 2, p.

228, and Lumbroso, Recherches, p. 195.

⁵ As such frequent also in the London Papyri of the 2nd cent. B.C. ; cf.

on these, Kenyon, p. 9. On the military signification of dia<doxoj cf. Lumbroso,

Recherches, p. 224 f.

⁶ Cf., in regard to later usage, F. Krebs, Agyptische Priester unter

romischer Herrschaft, in Zeitschr. fur agyptische Sprache and Alterthumskunde,

xxxi. (1893), p. 37.

⁷ Cf. E. Kautzsch, [Uber] die Derivate des Stammes qdc alttestament

lichen Sprachgebrauch, Tubingen, 1881, p. 59.

116 BIBLE STUDIES. [112, 113

lies at the basis of the Hebrew words) has been preserved

most purely, i.e., where correct measures are described as

just.¹ That they did not translate mechanically in these

cases appears from Prov. 11 ¹, where they likewise render

the weight there described as MlewA full, by staqmi<on di<kaion.²

There can be established also for Greek a usage similar to

the Semitic,³ but it will be better in this matter to refer to

Egyptian usage than to Xenophon and others,⁴ who apply

the attribute di<kaioj to i!ppoj, bou?j, etc., when these animals

correspond to what is expected of them. Thus in the decree

of the inhabitants of Busiris,⁵ drawn up in honour of the

emperor Nero, the rise of the Nile is called a dikai<a a]na<basij;

but more significant—because the reference is to a measure

—is the observation of Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom. vi. 4

(p. 758, Potter), that, in Egyptian ceremonies, the ph?xuj

th?j dikaiosu<nhj was carried around—i.e., a correct cubit.⁶

That is the same idiom as the LXX apply in the zuga> di<kaia

kai> staqmi<a di<kaia kai> xou?j di<kaioj, Lev. 19 ³⁶, in the me<tron

a]lhqino>n kai> di<kaion, Deut. 25¹⁵, and in the xoi?nic dikai<a,

Ezek. 45¹⁰.

diw?ruc.

The LXX translate flood Is. 27¹², stream Is. 33 ²¹, and

river Jer. 38 [31] ⁹, by diw?ruc canal. They have thus

Egyptianised the original. Such a course was perhaps quite

natural in the first passage, where the reference is to the

"flood of Egypt": noticing that stream and river were meta-

¹ Cf. Kautzsch, p. 56 f., on the inadequacy of the German gerecht for

the rendering of the Hebrew word.

² Deut. 25¹⁵, a]lhqino<n.

³ Kautzsch, p. 57 ff. In Arabic the same word is used, according to

Kautzsch, to describe, e.g., a lance or a date [the fruit] as correct.

⁴ Cremer⁷, p. 270 ( = ⁸, p. 284).

⁵ Letronne, Recueil, p. 467, cf. p. 468 f.; also Letronne, Recherches,

p. 396 f., Lumbroso, Recherches, p. 290. Pliny, Nat. Hist. v. 58, speaks in the

same way of the iustum incrementum, and Plutarch, de Isid. et Osirid., p. 368,

says: h[ de> me<sh a]na<basij peri> Me<mfin, o!tan ^# dikai<a, dekatessa<rwn phxw?n.

⁶ Cf. also the Egyptian measure dikaio<taton mu<stron in F. Hultsch's

Griechische und romische Metroloyie², Berlin, 1882, p. 636.

113, 114] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 117

phorically used in the other two passages, they made the

metaphors more intelligible to the Alexandrians by giving

them a local colouring--just as was shown above in the case

of a@fesij.

ei]j.

"The prepositional construction came easily to the

N. T. writers probably because of the more forcible and

more expressive diction of their native tongue, and we

therefore find ei]j in places where the Dat. commodi or

incommodi would have sufficed for the Greeks, e.g., Acts

24 ¹⁷: e]lehmosu<naj poih<swn ei]j to> e@qnoj mou . . . "¹

In answer to this it must, to begin with, be remarked

that "the" New Testament writers were not the first to

find the usage a natural one, for it is already found in the

Greek Old Testament. The author is not now examining

the use of eic in that book, but he can point to the following

passages, in which ei]j represents the "dative of advantage":

LXX Bel ⁵, o!sa ei]j au]to>n [Bel] dapana?tai, ver. ²², th>n

dapa<nhn th>n ei]j au]to<n [Bel], with which is to be compared

ver. ², a]nhli<sketo au]t&? ² [Bel]; Ep. Jerem.⁹ (a]rgu<rion) ei]j

e[autou>j katanalou?si; Sir. 37⁷, sumbouleu<wn ei]j e[auto<n ( =

ver. ⁸, e[aut&? bouleu<setai). In all these passages the original

is wanting, but it seems certain to the author that what we

find here is not one of the LXX's many ³ Hebraisms in the

use of prepositions, but that this employment of eic is an

Alexandrian idiom.

In Pap. Flind. Petr. xxv. a-i⁴ (ca. 226 B.C.) and else-

where, we have a number of receipts, from the standing

formulm of which it appears that els was used to specify the

various purposes of the items of an account. Thus the receipt

a ⁵ runs: o[mologei? Kefa<lwn h[ni<oxoj e@xein para> Xa<rmou. . . .

¹ Winer-Lunemann, § 31, 5 (p. 200).

² Theodotion (ver. ³) translates the same passage thus: kai> e]dapanw?nto

ei]j au]to>n [Bel] semida<lewj a]rta<bai dw<deka (Libri apocrypha V. T. graece, ed.

0. F. Fritzsche, p. 87).

³ Cf. the author's work Die neutest. Formel "in Christo Jesu," p. 55 f.

⁴ Mahaffy, ii. [72] ff. ⁵ Ibid., iii., [72].

118 BIBLE STUDIES. [114, 115

ei]j au]to>n kai> h[nio<xouj z < . . . a@rtwn kaqarw?n b < xoi<nikaj . . . .

kai> ei]j i[ppoko<mouj ig < a@rtwn au]topu<rwn . . . ks < i.e., Kephalon

the charioteer certifies that he has received from Charmos for himself

and 7 other charioteers, 2 choenices of pure bread, and for 13

grooms, 26 measures of bran bread. Further, ei]j stands before

non-personal words in the same way: kai> ei]j i!ppon e]noxlou<-

menon. ei]j xri?sin e]lai<ou k < g < kai. . . ei]j lu<xnouj ki<kewj k < b <,

i.e., and for a, sick horse 3 cotylas of oil for rubbing in, and for

the lantern 2 cotylas of Kiki-oil.

Still more clear is the passage from the contract Pap.

Par. ^{5 1} (114 B.C.) kai> to>n ei]j Ta<ghn oi#kon &]kodomhme<non.

Further examples in III. iii. 1, below.

The same usage of ei]j, the examples of which may be

increased from the Papyri, is found specially clearly in Paul:

1 Cor. 16 ¹ th?j logei<aj th?j ei]j tou>j a[gi<ouj, similarly 2 Cor.

8 ⁴, 9 ^{1. 13}, Rom. 15 ²⁶; cf. Acts 24¹⁷; Mark 8^{19 f.} should pro-

bably be explained in the same way.

e]kto>j ei] mh>.

The commonly cited examples, from Lucian, etc., of

this jumbled phrase,² long since recognised as late-Greek, in

the Cilician Paul (1 Cor. 14⁵, 15², cf. 1 Tim. 5¹⁹) are not so

instructive for its use as is the passage of an Inscription of

Mopsuestia in Cilicia, Waddington, iii. 2, No. 1499 (the

author cannot fix the date ; certainly the imperial period):

e]kto>j ei] mh> [e]]a>n Ma<gna mo<nh qe[lh<]s^.

e]n.

The ignoring of the difference between translations of

Semitic originals and works which were in Greek from the

first—a difference of fundamental importance for the grammar

(and the lexicon) of the "biblical" writers—has nowhere

such disastrous consequences as in connection with the pre-

¹ Notices, xviii. 2, p. 131.—The same words are found in Pap. Lugd. M.

(Leemans, p. 59); Leemans, p. 63, explains ei]j as a periphrasis for the

genitive similarly W. Schmid, Der Atticismus, iii. (1893), p. 91. One should

notice in this latter work the other observations upon the prepositions—they

are of importance for biblical philology.

² Winer-Lunemann, § 65, 3 (p. 563); Schmiedel, HC., ii. 1 (1891) p. 143.

115, 116] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 119

position. The author considers that he has previously shown,

by a not unimportant example, what a difference there is

between a peculiarity of syntax in the originally-Greek

Epistles of Paul and the apparently similar phenomenon in

Greek translations. A similar fact may be observed with

regard to the question of e]n with the dativus instrumenti.

Winer-Lunemann ¹ still maintains that e]n is used "of the

instrument and means (chiefly in the Apocalypse)—not only

(as in the better Greek prose-writers . . . .) where in (or

on) would be proper enough . . . , but also, irrespective

of this, where in Greek the dative alone, as casus instru-

mentalis, would be used--as an after-effect of the Hebrew B;".

Similarly A. Buttmann.² In their enumeration of the ex-

amples—in so far as these can come into consideration at all

—both writers, in neglecting this difference, commit the error

of uncritically placing passages from the Gospels and the

Apocalypse, in regard to which one may speak of a Semitic

influence, i.e., of a possible Semitic original, alongside of,

say, Pauline passages, without, however, giving any indica-

tion of how they imagine the "after-effect" of the B; to

have influenced Paul. Thus Winer-Lunemann quotes Rom.

15 ⁶ e]n e[ni> sto<mati doca<zhte, and Buttmann,³ 1 Cor. 4²¹ e]n

r[a<bd& e@lqw pro>j u[ma?j, as Pauline examples of e]n with the

instrumental dative. The author believes that both passages

are capable of another explanation, and that, as they are

the only ones that can be cited with even an appearance

of reason, this use of e]n by Paul cannot be made out. For,

to begin with, the passage in Romans is one of those

"where in would be proper enough," i.e., where the refer-

ence to its primary sense of location is fully adequate to

explain it, and it is thus quite superfluous to make for

such instances a new compartment in the dust-covered re-

pository; the Romans are to glorify God in one mouth—

because, of course, words are formed in the mouth, just as,

according to popular psychology, thoughts dwell in the

¹ § 48, d (p. 363).

² Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachgebrauchs, p. 157.

³ P. 284.

120 BIBLE STUDIES. [116, 117

heart. In 1 Cor. 4 ²¹, again, the case seems to be more

favourable for the view of Buttmann, for the LXX frequently

use the very construction e]n t^? r[a<bd&; what more easy

than to maintain that "the" biblical Greek uses this con-

struction instrumentally throughout? But here also we

perceive very clearly the difference between the diction of

the translators as cramped by their original, and, the un-

constrained language of Paul. In all the passages of the

LXX (Gen. 32¹⁰, Exod. 17 ⁵, 21 ²⁰, 1 Sam. 17 ⁴³, 2 Sam. 7¹⁴,

23 ²¹, 1 Chron. 11²³, Ps. 2 ⁹, 88 [89] ³³, Is. 10 ²⁴, Mic. 5¹, 7¹⁴;

cf. Ezek. 39⁹, also Hos. 4¹², where e]n r[a<bdoij is conformed

to the previous e]n [= B;] sumbo<loij) the e]n, of the phrase e]n

t^? r[a<bd& is a mechanical imitation of a B; in the original: it

cannot therefore be maintained in any way that that con-

struction is peculiar to the indigenous Alexandrian Greek.

With Paul, on the contrary, e]n r[a<bd& is anticipatively

conformed to the following locative h} e]n a]ga<p^ pneu<mati< te

prau~thtoj; it is but a loose formation of the moment, and

cannot be deduced from any law of syntax. It is, of course,

not impossible that this anticipative conformation came the

more easily to the Apostle, who knew his Greek Bible, be-

cause one or other of those passages of the LXX may have

hovered ¹ before his mind, but it is certainly preposterous to

speak of the "after-effect" of a B;. Where in Paul's psy-

chology of language may this powerful particle have had

its dwelling-place?

e]ntafiasth<j.

The LXX correctly translate xpero physician by i]atro<j;

only in Gen. 50^{2 f.} by e]ntafiasth<j. The original speaks in

that passage of the Egyptian physicians who embalmed the

body of Jacob. The translation is not affected by the verb

e]ntafia<zein simply, but is explained by the endeavour to

¹ The e]n t^? r[a<bd&, which should possibly be restored as the original

reading in line 12 of the leaden tablet of Adrumetum to be discussed in Art.

IV., might be explained as a reminiscence of these LXX passages, in view of

its association with the many other quotations from the LXX found there.—

In the passage in Lucian, Dial. Mort. 23 3, kaqiko<menon e]n t^? r[a<bd& the e]n is

regarded as doubtful (Winer-Lunemann, p. 364).

117, 118] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 121

introduce a term better suited to Egyptian conditions: it

was, of course, an embalming in Egypt. But the profes-

sional designation of the person¹ entrusted with this work

was e]ntafiasth<j, Pap. Par. 7 ² (99 B.C.). Those sections of

the Old Testament the scene of which was laid in Egypt,

or which had regard to Egyptian conditions, naturally gave

the translators most occasion to use Egyptianised expressions.

e]ntugxa<nw, e@nteucij, e]ntuxi<a.

In the New Testament writings e@nteucij is used only in

1 Tim. 2¹ and 4 ⁵, having in both passages the sense of

petitionary prayer. This usage is commonly explained³ by

the employment of the word in the sense of petition which

is found in extra-biblical literature from the time of Diodorus

and Josephus. The Papyri⁴ show that in Egypt it had

been long familiar in technical language: "e@nteucij est ipsa

petitio seu voce significata, seu in scripto libello expressa, quam

supplex subditus offert ; . . . vocem Alexandrini potissimum usur-

pant ad designandas petitiones vel Regi, vel iis, qui regis nomine

rempublicam moderantur, exhibitas".⁵ This explanation has

been fully confirmed by the newly-discovered Papyri of the

Ptolemaic period.⁶ The technical meaning also occurs in

Ep. Arist. (ed. M. Schmidt), p. 58 ³; A. Peyron, who has

previously drawn attention to this passage, finds it also in

2 Macc. 4 ⁸—probably without justification.

e]ntuxi<a is found in the same sense in Pap. Lond. xliv.^{3 7}

(161 B.C.) and 3 Macc. 6⁴⁰—in both passages in the idiomatic

phrase e]ntuxi<an poiei?sqai.

The verb e]ntugxa<nw⁸ has the corresponding technical

¹ Cf. on this point Lumbroso, Recherches, p. 136 f.

² Notices, xviii. 2, p. 172. ³ Clavis³, p. 151.

⁴ The word does not occur in the LXX. In 2nd Macc. 4 ⁸, e@nteucij

signifies conference.

⁵ A. Peyron, i., p. 101.

⁶ Cf. the indexes of Leemans, of the Notices, xviii. 2, of Mahaffy and

Kenyon.

⁷ Kenyon, p. 34.

⁸ In addition to Wisdom 8²¹, a later testimony, Pap. Berol. 7351 (Bu.

viii., p. 244, No. 246 ¹³) 2-3 cent. A.D. ei]do<tej o!ti nukto>j kai> h[me<raj e]ntugxa<nw

t&? qe&? u[pe>r u[mw?n, is significant in regard to the use of this word in religious

speech. (Rom. 8^{27, 34}, 11², Heb. 7 ²¹, Clem. Rom. 1 Cor. 56 ¹).

122 BIBLE STUDIES. [118, 119

meaning; the correlative term for the king's giving an answer

is xrhmati<zein.¹

Both the verb and the substantive are frequently com-

bined with kata< and u[pe<r, according to whether the memorial

expresses itself against or for some one; cf. the Pauline

u[perentugxa<nw, Rom. 8 ²⁶.

e]rgodiw<kthj.

This word, common in the LXX, but hitherto not

authenticated elsewhere, is vouched for by Pap. Flind. Petr.

ii. iv. i.² (255-254 B.C.) as a technical term for overseer of

work, foreman. Philo, who uses it later, de Vit. Mos. i. 7 (M.,

p. 86), can hardly have found it in the LXX first of all, but

rather in the current vocabulary of his time. It is in use

centuries later in Alexandria: Origen³ jestingly calls his

friend Ambrosius his e]rgodiw<kthj. Even he would not origin-

ally get the expression from the LXX.⁴

eu]i~latoj.

Occurring only in LXX Ps. 98 [99] ⁸ (representing

xWneo) and 1 [3] Esd. 8^{53 5} = very favourable: already exempli-

fied in Pap. Flind. Petr. xiii. 19 ⁶ (ca. 255 B.C.); observe

that it is the same phrase tuxei?n tinoj eu]i*la<tou which is

found here and in the passage in Esd. See la further

example, iii. 6, sub bia<zomai, below.

eu]xariste<w.

In regard to the passive,⁷ 2 Cor. 1¹¹, Pap. Flind. Petr. ii.

ii. 4 ⁸ (260-259 B.C.) is instructive; it is difficult, however, to

¹ A. Peyron, p. 102; Lumbroso, Recherches, p. 254; Mahaffy, ii., p. 28.

² Mahaffy, ii. [6], cf. p. 6.

³ Hieron. de vir. inl. 61; cf. P. D. Huetii, Origenianorum, i. 8 (Lomm.

xxii., p. 38 f.).

⁴ Upon the usage of the word in ecclesiastical Greek and Latin, cf. the

Greek and Latin Glossaries of Du Cange. The a!pac lego<menon e]rgopare<kthj of

Clem. Rom. 1 Cor. 34¹ seems to be allied.

⁵ Cod. A reads i[la<tou (thus the ilastou of the second hand should per-

haps be restored).

⁶ Mahaffy, ii. [45]. The word refers to the king.

⁷ Cf. Clavis³, p. 184, in the concluding note, and G. Heinrici, Meyer vi.;

(1890), p. 25.

⁸ Mahaffy, ii., [41.

119, 120] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 123

settle what the eu]xaristhqei<j in this passage refers to, owing

to mutilation of the leaf.

to> qeme<lion.

In deciding the question whether qeme<lion is to be

construed as masculine or neuter in passages where the

gender of the word is not clearly determined, attention is

usually called to the fact that the neuter form is first found

in Pausanius (2nd cent. A.D.). But it occurs previously in

Pap. Flind. Petr. ii. xiv. 3 ¹ (Ptolemaic period). Cf. also to>

qeme<lion of an unknown translator of Lev. 4^18.2 From this,

the possibility, at least, of taking it as neuter, in the non-

decisive passages ³ Sir. 1 ¹⁵, Rom. 15 ²⁰, Eph. 2 ²⁰, Luke 6 ^48f,

14 ²⁹, 1 Tim. 6¹⁹, Heb. 6¹, may be inferred.

i@dioj.

The LXX not seldom (Gen. 47¹⁸, Deut. 15 ², Job 2¹¹,

7 ^{10. 13}, Prov. 6 ², 13 ⁸, 16²³, 27⁸, Dan. 1¹⁰) translate the

possessive pronoun (as a suffix) by i@dioj, though the con-

nection does not require the giving of such an emphasis

to the particular possessive relation. Such passages as Job

24¹², Prov. 9¹², 22 ⁷, 27 ¹⁵, might be considered stranger still,

where the translator adds i@dioj, though the Hebrew text does

not indicate a possessive relation at all, nor the context re-

quire the emphasising of any. This special prominence is,

however, only apparent, and the translation (or addition) is

correct. We have here probably the earliest examples of the

late-Greek use of i@dioj for the genitives e[autou?, and e[autw?n

employed as possessives, a usage which can be pointed to in

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Philo, Josephus and Plutarch,⁴

¹ Mahafly, ii. [4], p. 30. ² Field, i., p. 174.

³ Winer-Schmiedel notes the " unambiguous " ones, § 8, 13 (p. 85).

⁴ References in Guil. Schmidt, De Flavii Iosephi elocutione, Fleck. (Jbb.

Suppl. xx. (1894), p. 369. Specially important are the many examples given

there from Josephus, in whose writings a similar use of oi]kei?oj is also shown.

—A more out-of-the-way example of this worn-out oi]kei?oj may be mentioned

here. In the second (spurious) Prologue to Jesus Sirach, near the middle, it

is said: (th>n bi<blon) Sira<x ou$toj met] au]to>n pa<lin labw<n t&? oi]kei<& paidi> kate<lipen

]Ihsou? (Libri apocr. V. T. ed. 0. F. Fritzsche, p. 388). 0. F. Fritzsche assigns

this Prologue to the 4th-5th cent. A.D., HApA T. v. (1859), p. 7; in his edition

of 1871, ad loc., he seems to agree with K. A. Credner, who dates it cent. 9-10.

124 BIBLE STUDIES. [121

and in the Attic Inscriptions¹ subsequent to 69 B.C. This

usage is also confirmed by the Apocryphal books of the

0. T., specially by those in Greek from the first, and it in-

fluences the New Testament writers,² and especially Paul,

much more strongly than is implied by Winer-Luemann.³

Exegetes have, in many places, laid a stress upon the i@dioj

which, in the text, does not belong to it at all. In con-

sideration of the very widely-extended use of the exhausted

i@dioj in the post-classical age, it will, in point of fact, be the

most proper course in exegesis always to assume it primarily

as most probable, and to take i@dioj in the old sense only

when the context absolutely requires it. A specially instruc-

tive example is 1 Cor. 7 ², dia> de> ta>j pornei<aj e!kastoj th>n

e[autou? gunai?ka e]xe<tw kai> e[ka<sth to>n i@dion a@ndra e]xe<tw: i@dioj

is here used only for the sake of variety and is exactly

equivalent to the e[autou?.

i[lasth<rioj and i[lasth<rion.

Of all the errors to be found in exegetical and lexical

literature, that of imagining that i[lasth<rion in the LXX is

identical in meaning with tr,PoKa, cover (of the ark of the cove-

nant), and that therefore the word with them means pro-

pitiatory cover (Luther Gnadenstuhl), is one of the most

popular, most pregnant with results, and most baneful. Its

source lies in the fact that the LXX's frequent external

verbal equation, viz., i[lasth<rion = kapporeth, has been in-

considerately taken as an equation of ideas. But the in-

vestigation cannot proceed upon the assumption of this

¹ K. Meisterhans, Grammatik der attischen Inschriften ², Berlin, 1888,

p. 194.

² Genuine examples are readily found in all of these except Revelation,

in which i@dioj does not occur at all. The reason of this is not, of course, that

they all wrote "New Testament" Greek, but that they wrote at a time

when the force of i@dioj had been long exhausted. The Latin translations,

in their frequent use of the simple suus (A. Buttmann, p. 102, note), mani-

fest a true understanding of the case.

3 § 22, 7 (p. 145 f.). Here we read: "no example can be adduced from

the Greeks" ; reference is made only to the Byzantine use of oi]kei?oj and the

late-Latin proprius=suus or ejus. A. Buttmann, p. 102 f., expresses himself

more accurately.

122] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 125

identification of ideas. We must rather, as in all cases where

the Greek expression is not congruent with the Hebrew

original, begin here by establishing the difference, and then

proceed with an attempt to explain it. In the present case

our position is happily such that we can give the explanation

with some certainty, and that the wider philologico-historical

conditions can be ascertained quite as clearly.

To begin with, it is altogether inaccurate to assert that

the LXX translate kapporeth by i[lasth<rion. They first en-

countered the word in Exod. 25 ^16[17]: and thou shalt make a

kapporeth of pure gold. The Greek translator rendered thus:

kai> poih<seij i[lasth<rion e]pi<qema¹ xrusi<ou kaqarou?. His

rendering of kapporeth is therefore not i[lasth<rion, but i[las-

th<rion e]pi<qema; he understood kapporeth quite well, and

translates it properly by cover,² but he has elucidated the

word, used technically in this place, by a theological adjunct

which is not incorrect in substance.³ e]pi<qema is doubtless a

translation of kapporeth the word; i[lasth<rion e]pi<qema is a

rendering of kapporeth the religious concept. How then are

we to understand this theological gloss upon the Hebrew

word? i[lasth<rion is not a substantive,⁴ but, as in 4 Macc.

¹ e]pi<qema is wanting in Cod. 58 only; in Codd. 19, 30, etc., it stands

before i[lasth<rion. A second hand makes a note to i[lasth<rion in the margin

of Cod. vii. (an Ambrosianus of cent. 5,—Field, p. 5), viz., ske<pasma (cover-

ing), (Field, i., p. 124). Cremer⁷, p. 447 ( = ⁸, p. 475), following Tromm,

quotes also LXX Exod. 37 ⁶ for kapporeth, = i[lasth<rion e]pi<qema. But the

Complutensian alone has it there—not the manuscripts.

² The Concordance of Hatch and Redpath is therefore inaccurate in

affirming, sub e]pi<qema, that this word has no corresponding Hebrew in Exod.

25^{16 [17]}, and also in quoting this passage sub i[lasth<rion instead of sub

i[lasth<rioj.

³ This is also the opinion of Philo, cf. p. 128 below.

⁴ Against Cremer⁷, p. 447 ( = ⁸, p. 475), who has no hesitation in

identifying i[lasth<rion with kapporeth. His taking i[lasth<rion as a substantive

in this passage would have better support if the word stood after e]pi<qema; it

could then be construed as in apposition to e]pi<qema. The passage he quotes,

LXX Exod. 30 ²⁵ [not ³⁵] is not to the purpose, for, at the end of the verse,

e@laion xri?sma a!gion e@stai should be translated the (previously mentioned) oil

shall be a xri?sma a!gion e@stai, and, at the beginning of the verse, xri?sma a!gion appears

to be in apposition to e@laion. If Cremer takes i[lasth<rion as a substantive =

propitiatory cover, then he could only translate LXX Exod. 25 ^{16 [17]} by and

thou shalt make a propitiatory cover as a cover of pure gold, which the original

does not say.

126 BIBLE STUDIES. [123

17 ²² (if tou? i[lasthri<ou qana<tou is to be read here with the

Alexandrinus), an adjective, and signifies of use for propitiation.

The same theological gloss upon the ceremonial kap-

poreth is observed when, in the Greek translation of the

Pentateuch¹ —first in the passages immediately following

upon Exod. 25 ^{16 [17]} and also later—it is rendered, brevilo-

quently,² by the simple i[lasth<rion instead of i[lasth<rion

epi<qema. The word is now a substantive and signifies some-

thing like propitiatory article. It does not mean cover, nor

even propitiatory cover, but for the concept cover it substi-

tutes another, which only expresses the ceremonial pur-

pose of the article. The kapporeth was for the translators a

su<mbolon th?j i!lew tou? qeou? duna<mewj, as Philo, de vit. Mos.

iii. 8 (M., p. 150), speaking from the same theological stand-

point, explains it, and therefore they named this' symbol

i[lasth<rion. Any other sacred article having some connection

with propitiation might in the very same way be ,brought

under the general conception i[lasth<rion, and have the latter

substituted for it, i.e., if what was required was not a

translation but a theological paraphrase. And thus it is of

the greatest possible significance that the LXX actually do

make a generalising gloss³ upon another quite different

religious conception by i[lasth<rion, viz., hrAzAfE, the ledge of

the altar, Ezek. 43^14.17.20; it also, according to ver. 20, had

to be sprinkled with the blood of the sin-offering, and was

therefore a kind of propitiatory article—hence the theologising

rendering of the Greek translators. i[lasth<rion here also

¹ The apparent equation i[lasth<rion = kapporeth is found only in Exod.,

Lev., Numb.

² The present writer cannot understand how Cremer,⁷, p. 447 (= ⁸, p. 475),

inverting the facts of the case, can maintain that i[lasth<rion e]pi<qema is an

expansion of the simple i[lasth<rion= kapporeth. This is exactly the same as

if one should explain the expression symbolum apostolicum as an "expansion"

of the simple apostolicum, which we do in fact use for Apostolic Symbol. But,

besides, it would be very strange if the LXX had expanded an expression

before they had used it at all! No one can dispute that i[lasth<rion e]pi<qema is

their earliest rendering of kapporeth. Then it must also be conceded that

the simple i[lasth<rion is an abbreviation. We have in this a case similar to

that of the breviloquence Jobel and of a@fkesij (cf. p. 100 above.)

³ This fact is almost always overlooked in the commentaries.

124] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 127

means neither ledge nor ledge of propitiation, but propitiatory

article.

The proof of the fact that the LXX did not identify the

concept i[lasth<rion with kapporeth and 'azarah can be supple-

mented by the following observed facts. The two words

paraphrased by i[lasth<rion have other renderings as well.

In Exod. 26 ³⁴ the original runs, and thou shalt put the kap-

poreth upon the ark of the testimony in the most holy place;

LXX kai> katakalu<yeij t&? katapeta<smati th>n kibwto>n

tou? marturi<ou e]n t&? a[gi<& tw?n a[gi<wn. According to Cremer,

the LXX have not translated the Hebrew word here at all

—let alone by katape<tasma. But it is without doubt

a more correct conjecture that they read not tr,PoKa but

tk,roPA curtain, and thus did translate the Hebrew word.¹

This conjecture is, however, in no way absolutely necessary;

the author thinks it not at all impossible that the LXX read

kapporeth, and translated it by katape<tasma, just as they

did, at its first occurrence, by e]pi<qema. More significant is

1 Chron. 28 ¹¹, where house of the kapporeth is rendered by

o[ oi#koj tou? e]cilasmou?: this also is a theological gloss, not a

verbal translation of the original.² It may be regarded as

specially significant that the ceremonial word should thus

be glossed in two different ways. Similarly, 'azarah in Ezek.

45¹⁹ is paraphrased³ by to> i[ero<n, and, in 2 Chron. 4⁹ and 6¹³,

translated by au]lh<.

It thus seems clear to the author that it is not correct

to take the LXX's equation of words as being an equation

of ideas. i[lasth<rion, for the translators, signified propitia-

tory article, even where they used it for kapporeth. Philo

still had a clear conception of the state of the matter. It

¹ In the same way they probably read in Amos 9¹ tr,Poka instead of

rTop;Ka, capital of a column, and translated i[lasth<rion, unless the qusiasth<rion

of Cod. A and others (Field, ii., p. 979) should be the original; cf. the same

variant to i[lasth<rion in Exod. 38 ⁵ [37⁶] (in Field, i., p. 152) and Lev. 16 ¹⁴.

² Hardly any one would maintain in regard to this that e]cilasmo<j in the

LXX "means" kapporeth.

³ Had the Greek translators understood the construction here, they

ought certainly to have written kai> e]pi> ta>j te<ssaraj gwni<aj tou? i[erou? tou?

qusiasthri<ou.

128 BIBLE STUDIES. [125

is not correct to assert¹ that, following the example of the

LXX, he describes kapporeth as i[lasth<rion: he describes it

correctly as e]pi<qema th?j kibwtou?, and remarks further that

it is called i[lasth<rion in the Bible: De Vit. Mos. iii. 8

(M. p. 150) h[ de> kibwto>j . . . , h$j e]pi<qema w[sanei> pw?ma to>

lego<meonon e]n i[erai?j bi<blioj i[lasth<rion, and, further on in

the same work, to> de> a]pi<qema to> prosagoreuo<menon i[lasth<rion

De Profug. 19 (M. p. 561) . . . to> a]pi<qema th?j kibwtou?, kalei?

de> au]to> i[lasth<rion. Philo manifestly perceived that the

i[lasth<rion of the Greek Bible was an altogether peculiar

designation, and therefore expressly distinguishes it as such:

he puts the word, so to speak, in quotation-marks. Thus

also, in De Cherub. 8 (M. p. 143), kai> ga>r a]ntipro<swpa< fasin

ei#nai neu<onta pro>j to> i[lasth<rion e[te<roij is clearly an allusion

to LXX Exod. 25 ^{20 [21]}, and, instead of saying that Philo here

describes the kapporeth as i[lasth<rion,¹ we should rather say

that he, following the LXX, asserts that the cherubim over-

shadow the i i[lasth<rion.² How little one is entitled to speak

of a "Sprachgebrauch "³ (usage, or, habit of speech), viz., i[las-

th<rion = kapporeth, is shown by the fact that Symmachus

in Gen. 6^16[15] twice renders the Ark of Noah by i[lasth<rion

and that Josephus, Antt. xvi. 7 ¹, speaks of a monument of

white stone as a i[lasth<rion: peri<foboj d ] au]to>j e]c^<ei kai> tou?

¹ Cremer p. 447 ( = 8, p. 475).

² It is to be doubted whether the Hebrew concept kapporeth was

present to the mind of the writer at all: in any case it is wrong to assume

forthwith that he consciously described kapporeth as i[lasth<rion. It is exactly

the same as if one were to assert that wherever the word Gnadenstuhl

(mercy-seat) occurs in the biblical quotations of German devotional books,

the original being kapporeth, the writers describe the kapporeth as Gnaden-

stuhl. In most cases the writers will be simply dependent upon Luther, and

their usage of the word Gnadenstuhl furnishes nothing towards deciding the

question how they understood kapporeth. Cf. p. 134 1.—Similarly, Heb. 9 ⁵

is an allusion to LXX Exod. 25 ^20[21]; what was said about the passage in

Philo holds good here.

³ Cremer⁷, p. 447 ( = ⁸, p. 475).

⁴ Field, i., p. 23 f. The present writer agrees with Field in this matter,

and believes that Symmachus desired by this rendering to describe the Ark

as a means of propitiation: God was gracious to such as took refuge in the

Ark.

126] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 129

de<ouj i[lasth<rion mnh?ma leukh?j pe<traj e]pi> t&? stomi<& kates-

keua<sato, which must certainly be translated: he set up a

monument of white stone as a i[lasth<rion.¹

What, then, is the meaning of i[lasth<rion in the impor-

tant "Christological" statement Rom. 3²⁵? Paul says there

of Jesus Christ, o{n pore<qeto o[ qeo>j i[lasth<rion dia> pi<stewj e]n

t&? au]tou? ai!mati ei]j e@ndeicin th?j dikaiosu<nhj au]tou?. It has

been said that the Roman readers could hardly have known

the expression from any other source than the Greek Bible.²

But, even if this assumption were correct, it still requires to

be proved that they could have learned from the Greek Bible

that i[lasth<rion means the kapporeth; besides, the primary

question must be: what did the term signify to Paul him-

self? The author believes that even the context requires

us to reject the opinion that the Apostle is describing the

crucified Christ as "a"³ kapporeth. Had the Cross been so

named, then the metaphor might possibly be understood; as

used of a person, it is infelicitous and unintelligible; further,

Christ, the end of the law, Christ, of whom Paul has just said

that He is the revealer of the dikaiosu<nh qeou? xwri>j no<mou,

would hardly be named by the same Paul, in the same breath,

as the cover of the ark of testimony: the metaphor were as

unlike Paul as possible. But the whole assumption of the

explanation in question is without support: no "Sprachge-

brauch," according to which one had to understand i[la-

sth<rion as the kapporeth, ever existed either in the LXX or

later. Hence this explanation of the passage in Romans

has long encountered opposition. Again, it is a popular

interpretation to take i[lasth<rion as equivalent to propitiatory

¹ Cremer ⁸, p. 474, joins i[lasth<rion with mnh?ma and therefore construes

i[lasth<rion adjectivally—as did the present writer in the German edition of

this book, pp. 122 and 127—which is not impossible, but improbable. See

note 2 on p. 127 of the German edition.

² Cremer ⁷, p. 448 ( = ⁸, p. 475).

³ The absence of the article is more important than Cremer supposes;

if "the" kapporeth, "the" i[lasth<rion, was something so well known to the

readers as Cremer asserts, then it would be exactly a case where the article

could stand with the predicate (contra E. Kuhl, Die Heilsbedeutung des

Todes Christi, Berlin, 1890, p. 25 f.).

130 BIBLE STUDIES. [126, 127

sacrifice, after the analogy of swth<rion, xaristh<rion, kaqa<rsion,

etc., in connection with which qu?ma is to be supplied. How-

ever difficult it would be to find examples of the word being

used in this sense,¹ there is no objection to it linguistically.

But it is opposed by the context; it can hardly be said of a

sacrifice that God pore<qeto it. The more general explanation

therefore, which of late has been advocated again, specially

by B. Weiss,² viz., means of propitiation, is to be preferred:

linguistically it is the most obvious; it is also presupposed

in the "usage" of the LXX, and admirably suits the connec-

tion—particularly in the more special sense of propitiatory gift

which is to be referred to just below.

Hitherto the word in this sense had been noted only

in Dion Chrysostom (1-2 cent. A.D.), Or. xi. p. 355 (Reinke),

katalei<yein ga>r au]tou>j a]na<qhma ka<lliston kai> me<giston t^?

]Aqhn%? kai> e]pigra<yein: i[lasth<rion ]Axaioi> t^? ]Ilia<di--and

in later authors. The word here means a votive gift, which

was brought to the deities in order to induce them to be

favourable³—a propitiatory gift. Even one such example

would be sufficient to confirm the view of the passage in

Romans advocated above. Its evidential value is not de-

creased, but rather increased, by the fact that it is taken

from a "late" author. It would surely be a mechanical

notion of statistical facts to demand that only such con-

cepts in "profane" literature as can be authenticated before,

e.g., the time of Paul, should be available for the explana-

tion of the Pauline Epistles. For this would be to uphold

the fantastic idea that the first occurrence of a word in the

slender remains of the ancient literature must be identical

with the earliest use of it in the history of the Greek

language, and to overlook the fact that the annoying caprice

of statistics may, in most cases, rather tend to delude the

pedants who entertain such an idea.

In the case before us, however, a means has been found

¹ Winer-Schmiedel, § 16, 2b, note 16 (p. 134) refers only to the Byzantine

Theophanes Continuatus.

² Meyer, iv. ⁸ (1891), p. 164 f. and elsewhere.

³ This i[lasth<rion should not be described as a sacrifice.

128] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 131

of removing the objection to the "lateness" of the quotation:

i[lasth<rion in the assigned meaning is found also before the

time of Paul—occurring as it does in a place at which the

Apostle certainly touched in his travels (Acts 21¹): the

Inscription of Cos No. 81¹ reads thus:--

o[ da?moj u[pe>r ta?j a]tokra<toroj

Kai<saroj

qeou? ui[ou?² Sebastou? swthri<aj

qeoi?j i[lath<rion.

This Inscription is found on a statue or on the base of

a statue,³—at all events on a votive-gift which the "people"

of Cos erected to the gods as a i[lasth<rion for the welfare of

the "son of God," Augustus. That is exactly the same use

of the word as we find later in Dion Chrysostom, and the

similarity of the respective formulae is evident.

The word is used in the same way in the Inscription of

Cos No. 347,⁴ which the author cannot date exactly, but

which certainly falls within the imperial period: it occurs

upon the fragment of a pillar:--

[o[ da?moj o[ [Alenti<wn]

. . . . . Se]ba-

s[t]&? Dii~ S[t]rati<& i[las-

th<rion damarxeu?n-

toj Gai~ou Nwr-

banou? Mosxi<w-

no[s fi]lokai<sa-

roj

Thus much, then, can be derived from these three pas-

sages, as also from Josephus, viz., that, early in the imperial

period, it was a not uncommon custom to dedicate propitia-

tory gifts to the Gods, which were called i[lasth<ria. The

¹ W. R. Paton and E. L. Hicks, The Inscriptions of Cos, Oxford, 1891,

p. 126.

² For this expression see below, sub ui[o>j qeou?.

³ The editors, p. 109, number it among the Inscriptions on votive

offerings and statues.

⁴ Paton and Hicks, p. 225 f.

132 BIBLE STUDIES. [129

author considers it quite impossible that Paul should not

have known the word in this sense: if he had not already

become familiar with it by living in Cilicia, he had certainly

read it here and there in his wanderings through the

empire, when he stood before the monuments of paganism

and pensively contemplated what the piety of a dying civilisa-

tion had to offer to its known or unknown Gods. Similarly,

the Christians of the capital, whether one sees in them,

as the misleading distinction goes, Jewish Christians or

Heathen Christians, would know what a i[lasth<rion was in

their time. To suppose that, in consequence of their

"magnificent knowledge of the Old Testament,"¹ they

would immediately think of the kapporeth, is to overlook two

facts. First, that the out-of-the-way² passages referring to

the i[lasth<rion may very well have remained unknown even

to a Christian who was conversant with the LXX: how

many Bible readers of to-day, nay, how many theologians

of to-day—who, at least, should be Bible readers,—if their

readings have been unforced, and not desecrated by side-

glances towards "Ritschlianism" or towards possible ex-

amination questions, are acquainted with the kapporeth?

The second fact overlooked is, that such Christians of the

imperial period as were conversant with those passages,

naturally understood the i[lasth<rion in the sense familiar to

them, not in the alleged sense of propitiatory cover—just as

a Bible reader of to-day, unspoiled by theology, finding the

word Gnadenstuhl (mercy-seat) in Luther, would certainly

never think of a cover.

That the verb proe<qeto admirably suits the i[lasth<rion

taken as propitiatory gift, in the sense given to it in the Greek

usage of the imperial period, requires no proof. God has

publicly set forth the crucified Christ in His blood in view of

¹ Cremer⁷, p. 448 (=⁸, p. 476).

² By the time of Paul the ceremony in which the kapporeth played a

part had. long disappeared along with the Ark of the Covenant; we can but

conjecture that some mysterious knowledge of it had found a refuge in

theological erudition. In practical religion, certainly, the matter had no

longer any place at all.

180] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 133

the Cosmos—to the Jews a stumbling block, to the Gentiles

foolishness, to Faith a i[lasth<rion. The crucified Christ is

the votive-gift of the Divine Love for the salvation of men.

Elsewhere it is human hands which dedicate to the Deity a

dead image of stone in order to gain His favour; here the

God of grace Himself erects the consoling image,—for the

skill and power of men are not sufficient. In the thought

that God Himself has erected the i[lasth<rion, lies the same

wonderful mwri<a of apostolic piety which has so inimitably

diffused the unction of artless genius over other religious

ideas of Paul. God's favour must be obtained—He Himself

fulfils the preliminary conditions; Men can do nothing at

all, they cannot so much as believe—God does all in Christ:

that is the religion of Paul, and our passage in Romans is

but another expression of this same mystery of salvation.

A. Ritschl,¹ one of the most energetic upholders of the

theory that the i[lasth<rion of the passage in Romans signifies

the kapporeth, has, in his investigation of this question, laid

down the following canon of method " . . . for i[lasth<rion

the meaning propitiatory sacrifice is authenticated in heathen

usage, as being a gift by which the anger of the gods is

appeased, and they themselves induced to be gracious. . . .

But . . . the heathen meaning of the disputed word should

be tried as a means of explaining the statement in question

only when the biblical meaning has proved to be wholly

inapplicable to the passage." It would hardly be possible

to find the sacred conception of a "biblical" Greek more

plainly upheld by an opponent of the theory of inspiration

than is the case in these sentences. What has been already

said will show the error, as the author thinks it, of the

actual assertions they contain concerning the meaning of

i[lasth<rion in "biblical"² and in "heathen" usage; his

own reflections about method are contained in the introduc-

tion to these investigations. But the case under considera-

¹ Die christliche Lehre von der Rechtfertigung and Versohnung dargestellt,

ii. ³, Bonn, 1889, p. 171.

² Cf. A. Ritschl, p. 168; the opinions advanced there have urgent need

of correction.

134 BIBLE STUDIES. [131, 132

tion, on account of its importance, may be tested, once more

by an analogy which has already been indicated above.

In the hymn O Konig, dessen Majestdt, by Valentin Ernst

Loscher († 1749), there occurs the following couplet¹:--

Mein Abba, schaue Jesum an,

Den Gnadenthron der Sunder.²

Whoever undertakes to explain this couplet has, with-

out doubt, a task similar to that of the exegete of Rom.

3²⁵. Just as in the passage from Paul there is applied to

Christ a word which occurs in the Bible of Paul, so there is

in this hymn a word, similarly used, which stands in the

Bible of its author. The Apostle calls Christ a i[lasth<rion;

i[lasth<rion is occasionally found in the Greek Bible, where

the Hebrew has kapporeth: ergo—Paul describes Christ as

the kapporeth! The Saxon Poet calls Christ the Throne of

Grace (Gnadenthron); the Mercy-seat (Gnadenstuhl—not indeed

Throne of Grace, but an expression equivalent to it) is found

in the German Bible, where the Greek has i[lasth<rion, the

Hebrew kapporeth: ergo—the poet describes Christ as i[la-

sth<rion, as kapporeth, i.e., as the lid of the Ark of the Covenant!

These would be parallel inferences—according to that me-

chanical method of exegesis. The historical way of looking

at the matter, however, gives us the following picture. Kap-

poreth in the Hebrew Bible signifies the cover (of the Ark);

the Greek translators have given a theological paraphrase of

this conception, just as they have occasionally done in other

similar cases, in so far as they named the sacred article

i[lasth<rion e]pi<qema, propitiatory cover, according to the pur-

pose of it, and then, quite generally, i[lasth<rion, propitiatory

article; the readers of the Greek Bible understood this

i[lasth<rion in its own proper sense (a sense presupposed

also in the LXX) as propitiatory article—the more so as it

was otherwise known to them in this sense; the German

translator, by reason of his knowledge of the Hebrew text,

¹ The quotation is from [C. J. Bottcher] Liederlust fur Zionspilger, 2nd

edition, Leipzig, 1869, p. 283.

² I.e., literally: My father, look upon Jesus, the sinner's throne of

grace! Tr.

132, 133] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 135

again specialised the propitiatory article into a vehicle or instru-

ment of propitiation—again imparting to it, however, a theo-

logical shading,—in so far as he wrote, not propitiatory

cover or cover of mercy, but mercy-seat;¹ the readers of the

German Bible, of course, apprehend this word in its own

proper sense, and when we read it in Bible or hymn-book, or

hear it in preaching, we figure to ourselves some Throne in

Heaven, to which we draw near that we may receive mercy and

may find grace to keep us in time of need, and nobody thinks of

anything else.

The LXX and Luther have supplied the place of the

original kapporeth by words which imply a deflection of the

idea. The links—kapporeth, i[lasth<rion, Gnadenstuhl—cannot

be connected by the sign of equality, not even, indeed, by

a straight line, but at best by a curve.

i[sto<j.

The Greek usage of this word is also found in the

LXX's correct renderings of the corresponding Hebrew

words, viz., mast (of a ship), Is. 30¹⁷, 33 ²³, Ezek. 27 ⁵, and

web (through the connecting-link weaver's-beam), Is. 59 ^5.6

(likewise Is. 38¹², but without any corresponding word in

our text); cf. Tobit 2¹² Cod. x. In reference to this, the

author would again call attention to a little-known emenda-

tion in the text of the Epistle of Aristeas proposed by

Lumbroso.² M. Schmidt writes, p. 69 16, (e@pemye de> kai> t&?

]Eleaza<r& . . . . . ) bussi<nwn o]qoni<wn ei]j † tou>j e[kato<n,

which is altogether meaningless. We must of course read,

in accordance with Joseph. Antt. xii. 2 14 (bussi<nhj o]qo<nhj

i[stou>j e[kato<n), bussi<nwn o]qoni<wn i[stou>j e[kato<n.

karpo<w, etc.

In Leviticus 2¹¹ we find the command: ye shall not

burn incense (UryFiq;Ta) of any leaven or honey as an offering

made by fire (hw.,xi) to Jahweh. The LXX translate: pa?san

¹ Luther undoubtedly took this nuance from Heb. 4¹⁶, where the qro<noj

th?j xa<ritoj is spoken of: this also he translates by Gnadenstuhl.

² Recherches, p. 109, note 7.

136 BIBLE STUDIES. [133, 134

ga>r zu<mhn kai> pa?n me<li ou] prosoi<sete a]p ] au]tou? (a mechanical

imitation of Un.m,.mi) karpw?sai kuri<&. This looks like an in-

adequate rendering of the original: in the equation, prosfe<rein

karpw?sai = burn incense as an offering made with fire, there

seems to be retained only the idea of sacrifice; the special

nuance of the commandment seems to be lost, and to be

supplanted by a different one: for karpou?n of course means

"to make or offer as fruit".¹ The idea of the Seventy, that

that which was leavened, or honey, might be named a fruit-

offering, is certainly more striking than the fact that the

offering made by fire is here supplanted by the offering of

fruit. But the vagary cannot have been peculiar to these

venerable ancients, for we meet with the same, strange

notion also in passages which are not reckoned as their

work in the narrower sense. According to 1 [3] Esd. 4⁵²

King Darius permits to the returning Jews, among other

things, kai> e]pi> to> qusiasth<rion o[lokautw<mata karpou?sqai kaq ]

h[me<ran, and, in the Song of the Three Children ¹⁴, Azarias

laments kai> ou]k e@stin e]n t&? kair&? tou<t& a@rxwn kai> profh<thj

kai> h[gou<menoj ou]de> o[lokau<twsij ou]de> qusi<a ou]de> prosfora> ou]de>

qumi<ama ou]de> to<poj tou? karpw?sai e]nanti<on sou kai> eu[rei?n e@leoj.

If then a whole burnt-offering could be spoken of as a fruit-

offering, wherefore should the same not be done as regards

things leavened and honey?

But the LXX can be vindicated in a more honourable

way. Even their own usage of karpo<w elsewhere might

give the hint: it is elsewhere found ² only in Deut. 26¹⁴, ou]k

e]ka<rpwsa a]p ] au]tw?n ei]j a]ka<qarton, which is meant to repre-

sent I have put away nothing thereof (i.e., of the tithes), being

unclean. In this the LXX take xmeFAB;, to mean for an unclean

use, as did also De Wette, while karpo<w for rfeBi is apparently

intended to signify put away, a meaning of the word which

is found nowhere else,³ implying, as it does, almost the

¹ O. F. Fritzsche HApAT. i. (1851), p. 32, in reference to this passage.

Thus also the Greek lexica.

² In Josh. 512 we should most probably read e]karpi<santo.

³ Schleusner explains karpo<w= aufero by karpo<w = decerpo, but it is

only the middle voice which occurs in this sense.

134, 135] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 137

opposite of the primary meaning to bring forth fruit. It is

not the LXX, however, who have taken karpo<w and put

away as equivalent, but rather the unscientific procedure

which looks upon verbal equations between translation and

original without further ceremony as equations of ideas.

The true intention of the Greek translators is shown by

a comparison of Lev. 2¹¹ and Deut. 26¹⁴. In the first

passage, one may doubt as to whether karpo<w is meant to

represent ryFiq;hi or hw,.xi, but whichever of the two be

decided upon does not matter: in either case it represents

some idea like to offer a sacrifice made with fire. In the other

passage, karpo<w certainly stands for rfeBi, and if, indeed, the

Greek word cannot mean put away, yet the Hebrew one can

mean to burn. It is quite plain that the LXX thought that

they found this familiar meaning in this passage also: the

two passages, in fact, support one another, and ward off any

suspicion of "the LXX's" having used karpo<w in the sense

of put away and bring forth fruit at the same time. However

strange the result may appear, the issue of our critical com-

parison is this: the LXX used karpo<w for to burn both in a

ceremonial and in a non-ceremonial sense.

This strange usage, however, has received a brilliant

confirmation. P. Stengel ¹ has shown, from four Inscriptions

and from the old lexicographers,² that karpo<w must have been

quite commonly used for to burn in the ceremonial sense.³

Stengel explains as follows how this meaning arose:

karpou?n, properly signifies to cut into pieces; the holocausts

of the Greeks were cut into pieces, and thus, in ceremonial

language, karpo<w must have come to mean absumere, consu-

mere, o[lokautei?n.

¹ Zu den griechischen Sacralalterthumern, Hermes, xxvii. (1892), pp.

161 ff.

² The passages he brings forward, in which the meaning, at least, of to

sacrifice for karpo<w is implied, may be extended by the translation sacrificium

offero given by the Itala, as also by the note "karpw?sai, qusia<sai" in the MS.

glossary (?) cited by Schleusner. Schleusner also gives references to the

ecclesiastical literature.

³ He counts also Deut. 26¹⁴ among the LXX passages in this connec-

tion, but it is the non-ceremonial sense of to burn which karpo<w has there.

138 BIBLE STUDIES. [135, 136

The ceremonial sense of karpo<w grows more distinct

when we notice the compound form o[lokarpo<w,¹ Sir. 45¹⁴,

4 Macc. 18 ¹¹, Sibyll. Orac. 3 565, as also by the identity

in meaning of the substantives o]laka<rpwma = o[lokau<twma,

and o[loka<rpwsij = o[lokau<twsij, all of which can be fully

established in the LXX and the Apocrypha as meaning, in

most cases, burnt-offering, just like ka<rpwma = ka<rpwsij.

These substantives are all to be derived, not from karpo<j

fruit, but from the ceremonial karpo<w, to burn.²

kata<.

1. In 3 Macc. 5 ³⁴ and Rom. 12⁵ is found o[ kaq ] ei$j for

ei$j e!kastoj, and in Mark 14¹⁹ and John 8^{9 4} the formula ei$j

kaq ] ei$j for unusquisque. In these constructions, unknown in

classical Greek, we must, it is said, either treat eh as an

indeclinable numeral, or treat the preposition as an adverb.⁵

Only in the Byzantine writers have such constructions been

authenticated. But ei$j kaq ] e!kastoj⁶ already stands in LXX

Lev. 25¹⁰ (kai> a]peleu<setai ei$j e!kastoj ei]j th>n kth?sin au]tou?),

according to Cod. A. This represents wyxi, and cannot,

therefore, be explained as a mechanical imitation of the

original. What we have here (assuming that A has pre-

served the original reading) will rather be the first example

of a special usage of kata<, and thus, since it is e!kastoj which

is now in question, the first, at least, of Buttmann's proposed

explanations would fall to the ground.

It is, of course, quite possible that the ei$j kaq ] e!kastoj

should be assigned only to the late writer of Cod. A. But

¹ This of course does not "properly" signify to offer a sacrifice which

consists wholly of fruits (Grimm, HApAT. iv. [1857], p. 366), but to burn com-

pletely.

² Stengel, p. 161.

³ For the orthography cf. Winer-Schmiedel, § 5, 7 g (p. 36).

⁴ In the non-Johannine passage about the adulteress.

⁵ A. Buttmann, p. 26 f., Winer-Lunemann, § 37, 3 (p. 234).

⁶ The Concordance of Hatch and Redpath puts, very strangely, a point

of interrogation to kaq ]. Holmes and Parsons (Oxf. 1798) read "kai> uncis

inclus." for kaq ]. But the fac-simile (ed. H. H. Baber, London, 1816) shows

KAT quite distinctly.

136, 137] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 139

the hypothesis of its being the original derives, as the author

thinks, further support from the following facts. The LXX

translate the absolute wyxi by e!kastoj in innumerable pas-

sages. But in not a single passage except the present (ac-

cording to the ordinary text), is it rendered by ei$j e!kastoj.

This combination, already found in Thucydides,¹ frequent

also in the "fourth" Book of Maccabees,² in Paul and in

Luke, is used nowhere else in the LXX, a fact which, in

consideration of the great frequency of e!kastoj= wyxi is cer-

tainly worthy of note. It is in harmony with this that, so

far as the author has seen, no example occurs in the con-

temporary Papyri.³ The phrase seems to be absent from

the Alexandrian dialect in the Ptolemaic period.⁴ Hence it

is a priori probable that any other reading which is given by

a trustworthy source should have the preference. Although

indeed our ei$j kaq ] e!kastoj seems strange and unique, yet

this fact speaks not against, but in favour of, its being the

original. It can hardly be imagined that the copyist would

have formed the harsh ei$j kaq ] e!kastoj out of the every-day

ei$j e!kastoj. But it is quite plain, on the other hand, that

the latter reading could arise from the former—nay, even

had to be made from it by a fairly "educated" copyist.⁵

Our reading is further confirmed not only by the analogies

cited, but also by Rev. 21²¹, a]na> ei$j e!kastoj tw?n pulw<nwn h#n

e]c e[no>j margari<tou: here also we have evidently an adverbial

use of a preposition,⁶ which should hardly be explained as

one of the Hebraisms of Revelation, since in 4⁸ the distri-

¹ A. Buttmann, p. 105.

2 In 0. F. Fritzsche, Libra apocrypha V. T. graece, 4 ²⁶, 5 ², 8 ^5.8, 13¹³ (in

which the connected verb stands in the plural), 13¹⁷, 14¹², 15 ⁵ (kaq ] e!na e!kaston

—according to AB, which codices should not be confused with the similarly

designated biblical MSS.; cf. Praefatio, p. xxi.), 15¹⁶, 16²⁴.

³ The author cannot of course assume the responsibility of guarantee-

ing this.

⁴ Nor does it occur in the Epistle to the Hebrews. If we could assign

4 Macc. to an Alexandrian writer, we should have the first example of it in

that book.

⁵ Hence also the frequent corrections in Mark 14 ¹⁹ and John 8 ⁹.

⁶ Cf. also 2 [Hebr.] Ezra 6 ²⁰ e!wj ei$j pa<ntej, which indeed is perhaps a

Hebraism, and 1 Chron. 5¹⁰, Cod. A [N.B.] e!wj pa<ntej (Field, i., p. 708).

140 BIBLE STUDIES. [137, 138

butive a]na is made, quite correctly, to govern the accusative,

and since, further, it would be difficult to say what the

original really was which, as it is thought, is thus imitated

in Hebraising fashion.

2. " Even more diffuse and more or less Hebraising peri-

phrases of simple prepositions are effected by means of the

substantives pro<swpon, xei<r, sto<ma, o]fqalmo<j."¹ The author

considers that this general assertion fails to stand the test.

One of the phrases used by Buttmann as an example, viz.,

kata> pro<swpo<n tinoj = kata< is already found in Pap.

Flind. Petr. i. xxi.,² the will of a Libyan, of the year 237

B.C., in which the text of line 8 can hardly be restored other-

wise than ta> me>[n ka]ta> pro<swpon tou? i[erou?.

leitourge<w, leitourgi<a, leitourgiko<j.

"The LXX took over the word [leitourge<w] in order

to designate the duties of the Priests and Levites in the

sanctuary, for which its usage in profane Greek yielded no

direct support, as it is only in late and in very isolated cases

[according to p. 562, in Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Plu-

tarch] that even one word of this family, leitourgo<j, occurs

as applied to priests."³ The Papyri show, however, that

leitourge<w and leitourgi<a were commonly used in Egypt in

the ceremonial sense. In particular, the services in the

Serapeum⁴ were so designated. As examples of the verb

there should be noted here: Pap. Par. 23⁵ (165 B.C.), 27⁶

(same date), Pap. Lugd. B ⁷ (164 B.C.), E ⁸ (same date), Pap.

Lond. xxxiii.⁹ (161 B.c.), xli.¹⁰ (161 B.C.), Pap. Par. 29 ¹¹ (161-

160 B.C.); of the substantive, Pap. Lugd. B ¹² (164 B.C.), Pap.

¹ A. Buttmann, p. 274. ² Mahaffy, i. [59].

³ Cremer ⁷, p. 560 ( = ⁸, p. 592). But before this there had been noted

in the Thesaurus Graecae Linguae, Diod. Sic. i. 21, to> tri<ton me<roj th?j xw<raj

au]toi?j dou?nai pro>j ta>j tw?n qew?n qerapei<aj te kai> leitourgi<aj.

⁴ Cf. upon this H. Weingarten, Der Ursprung des Monchtums, ZKG. i.

(1877), p. 30 ff., and R-E ², x. (1882), p. 780 ff.

⁵ Notices, xviii. 2, p. 268. ⁶ Ibid., p. 277.

⁷ Leemans, i., p. 9. ⁸ Ibid., p. 30.

⁹ Kenyon, p. 19. ¹⁰ Ibid., p. 28.

¹¹ Notices, xviii. 2, p. 279. ¹² Leemans, i., p. 11.

138, 139] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 141

Lond. xxii.¹ (164-163 B.C.), xli.² (161 B.C.), Pap. Dresd. ii.³ (162

B.C.), Pap. Par. 33 ⁴ (ca. 160 B.C.). But also of other cere-

monial services elsewhere there were used leitourge<w, Pap.

Par. 5 ⁵ (113 B.c.) twice; leitourgi<a in the Papp. Lugd. G ⁶,

H ⁷ and J,⁸ written 99 B.C.⁹

leitourgiko<j is found not "only in biblical and

ecclesiastical Greek,"¹⁰ but occurs in a non-religious sense

six times in a taxation-roll of the Ptolemaic Period, Pap.

Flind. Petr. xxxix. e.¹¹ Its use is confined, so far as

"biblical" literature is concerned, to the following Alex-

andrian compositions: LXX Exod. 31¹⁰, 39^1,12 Numb. 4^12.26,

7⁵, 2 Chron. 24¹⁴; Heb. 1¹⁴.

li<y.

In the three passages, 2 Chron. 32 ³⁰, 33 ¹⁴, and Dan. 8⁵,

the LXX render the direction West by li<y. Elsewhere they

use li<y, quite accurately for South. But even in the pas-

sages cited they have not been guilty of any negligence, but

have availed themselves of a special Egyptian usage, which

might have been noticed long ago in one of the earliest-

known Papyrus documents. In a Papyrus of date 104 B.C.,

¹ Kenyon, p. 7. ² Ibid., p. 28.

³ Wessely, Die griechischen Papyri Sachsens, Berichte uber die Verhand-

lungen der Sgl. Sachs. Gesellsch. der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, philo1.-histor.

Classe, xxxvii. (1885), p. 281.

⁴ Notices, xviii. 2, p. 289. ⁵ Notices, xviii. 2, pp. 137 and 143.

⁶ Leemans, p. 43. ⁷ Ibid., p. 49. ⁸ Ibid., p. 52.

⁹ A Berlin Papyrus of date 134 B.C. (Ph. Buttmann, AAB. 1824, hist.-

phil. Klasse, p. 92) uses leitourgi<a for the duties of the funeral society men-

tioned below under logei<a. Similarly in Pap. Land. iii., 146 or 135 B.C.

(Kenyon, pp. 46, 47). But it is doubtful whether such duties were of a cere-

monial character.—Further examples of leitourgei?n in the religious sense,

from the, Inscriptions, in H. Anz, Subsidia ad cognoscendum Graecorum ser-

monem vulgarem e Pentateuchi versione Alexandrina repetita, Dissertationes

Philologicae Halenses, vol. xii., Halle, 1894, p. 346.

¹⁰ Cremer ⁷, p. 562 ( = ⁸, p. 595).

¹¹ Mahaffy, ii. [130].

¹² Tromm and Cremer also give Exod. 39⁴³; probably they intend

39 ^{41 [19]}, where the word is found only in Cod. 72 and the Complutensian

in regard to the confused state of the text, cf. Field, i., p. 160.

142 BIBLE STUDIES. [139, 140

which was elucidated by Boeckh,¹ there occurs the phrase

libo>j oi]ki<a Te<fitoj. As the South (no<toj) has been expressly

mentioned just before, this can mean only in the West the house

of Tephis. To this Boeckh² observes: "li<y means South-

West in Hellas, Africus, because Libya lies South-West from

the Hellenes—whence its name: Libya lies directly West

from the Egyptians; hence li<y is for them the West itself,

as we learn here". The word had been already used in the

will of a Libyan, Pap. Flind. Petr. xxi.³ (237 B.C.), where

similarly the connection yields the meaning West.

logei<a.

In 1 Cor. 16¹ Paul calls the collection for "the saints"

(according to the ordinary text) logi<a, and in ver. 2 says that

the logi<ai must begin at once. The word is supposed to

occur for the first time here,⁴ and to occur elsewhere only in

the Fathers. Grimm⁵ derives it from le<gw. Both views

are wrong.

logei<a can be demonstrated to have been used in Egypt

from the 2nd cent. B.C. at the latest: it is found in Papyrus

documents belonging to the Xoaxu<tai or Xolxu<tai (the

orthography and etymology of the word are uncertain), a

society which had to perform a part of the ceremonies re-

quired in the embalming of bodies: they are named in one

place a]delfoi> oi[ ta>j leitourgi<aj e]n tai?j nekri<aij parexo<menoi.⁶

They had the right, as members of the guild, to institute

collections, and they could sell this right. Such a collection

is called logei<a: Pap. Lond. iii.⁷ (ca. 140 B.C.), Pap. Par. 5⁸

¹ Erkleirung einer Agyptischen Urkunde in Griechischer Cursivschrift

vom Jahre 104 vor der Christlichen Zeitrechnung, AAB. 1820-21 (Berlin, 1822),

hist.-phil. Klasse, p. 4.

² P. 30. ³ Mahaffy, i. [59] ; cf. [60].

⁴ Th. Ch, Edwards, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corin-

thians, London, 1885, p. 462, even maintains that Paul coined the word.

⁵ Clavis ³, p. 263.

⁶ Pap. Taur. i., 2nd cent. B.C. (A. Peyron, p. 24). For the name

brother, cf. p. 87 f. above; nekri<a A. Peyron, i., p. 77, takes to be res mortuaria.

For these guilds in general, cf., most recently, Kenyon, p. 44 f.

⁷ Kenyon, p. 46. ⁸ Notices, xviii. 2, pp. 143, 147.

140, 141] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 143

(114 B.C.) twice; Pap. Lugd. M¹ (114 B.C.). We find the

word, further, in the taxation-roll Pap. Kind. Petr. xxxix. c,²

of the Ptolemaic period,³ in which it is used six times—pro-

bably in the sense of tax.

The derivation of the word from le<gw is impossible;

logei<a belongs to the class ⁴ of substantives in –ei<a formed

from verbs in –eu<w. Now the verb logeu<w to collect, which has

not been noticed in literary compositions, is found in the

following Papyri and Inscriptions: Pap. Lond. xxiv.⁵ (163 B. C.),

iii.⁶ (ca. 140 B.c.), a Papyrus of date 134 B.C.,⁷ Pap. Taur. 8⁸

(end of 2nd cent. B.C.), an Egyptian Inscription, CIG. iii.,

No. 4956 37 (49 A.D.); cf. also the Papyrus-fragment which

proves the presence of Jews in the FayyAna.⁹

The Papyri yield also the pair paralogeu<w, Pap. Flind.

Petr. xxxviii. b ¹⁰ (242 B.C.) and paralogei<a, Pap. Par. 61 ¹¹

(145 B.C.).

In regard to the orthography of the word, it is to be

observed that the spelling logei<a corresponds to the laws of

word-formation. Its consistent employment in the relatively

well-written pre-Christian Papyri urges us to assume that

it would also be used by Paul: the Vaticanus still has it, in

1 Cor. 16^{2 12} at least.

In speaking of the collection for ¹³ the poor in Jerusalem,

¹ Leemans, p. 60. ² Mahaffy, ii. [127].

³ This Papyrus, it is true, is not dated, but is "a fine specimen of Ptole-

maic writing" (Mahaffy, ibid.), and other taxation-rolls which are published

in xxxix. date from the time of Ptolemy II. Philadelphus, i.e., the middle of

the 3rd cent. B.C. For further particulars see below, III. iii. 2.

⁴ Winer-Schmiedel, § 16, 2a (p. 134).

⁵ Kenyon, p. 32. ⁶ Ibid., p. 47.

⁷ Ph. Buttmann, AAB., 1824, hist.-phil. Kl., p. 92, and, on this, p. 99.

⁸ A. Peyron, p. 45. ⁹ Issued by Mahaffy, p. 43, undated.

¹⁰ Mahaffy, ii. [122]. ¹¹ Notices, xviii. 2, p. 351.

¹² The author has subsequently seen that L. Dindorf, in the Thesaurus

Graecae Linguae, v. (1842-1846), col. 348, had already noted XoyEia in the

London Papyrus (as in the older issue by J. Forshall, 1539). He certainly

treats logi<a and logei<a in separate articles, but identifies the two words and

decides for the form logei<a.

¹³ For the ei]j following logei<a cf. p. 117 f. above.

144 BIBLE STUDIES. [141, 142

Paul has other synonyms besides logei<a, among them lei-

tourgi<a, 2 Cor. 9 ¹². This more general term is similarly

associated with logei<a in Pap. Lond. iii. 9.¹

In 1 Cor. 16¹ Donnaeus and H. Grotius proposed to

alter "logi<a" to eu]logi<a,² as the collection is named in

2 Cor. 9 ⁵. This is of course unnecessary: but it does not

seem to the author to be quite impossible that, conversely,

the first eu]logi<an in the latter passage should be altered to

logei<an. If logei<an were the original, the sentence would

be much more forcible; the temptation to substitute the

known word for the strange one could come as easily to a

copyist as to the scholars of a later period.

meizo<teroj.

With this double comparative in 3 John ^{4 3} cf. the

double superlative megisto<tatoj, Pap. Lond. cxxx.⁴ (1st or

2nd cent. A.D.).

o[ mikro<j.

In Mark 15⁴⁰ there is mentioned a ]Ia<kwboj o[ mikro<j.

It is a question whether the attribute refers to his age or

his stature,⁵ and the deciding between these alternatives is

not without importance for the identification of this James

and of Mary his mother. In reference to this the author

would call attention to the following passages. In Pap. Lugd.

N⁶ (103 B.C.) a Nexou<thj mikro<j is named twice. Upon

this Leemans⁷ observes: "quominus vocem mikro<j de corporis

altitudine intelligamus prohibent tum ipse verborum ordo quo ante

patris nomen et hic et infra in Trapezitae subscriptione vs. 4 poni-

tur; tum quae sequitur vox me<soj, qua staturae certe non parvae

plisse Nechyten docemur. Itaque ad aetatem referendum videtur,

et additum fortasse ut distingueretur ab altero Nechyte, fratre

¹ Kenyon, p. 46. Also in line 17 of the same Papyrus, leitourgiwn

should doubtless be read instead of leitourgwn. Cf. also line 42 and Pap. Par.

5 (Notices, xviii. 2, top of p. 143).

² Wetstein, ad loc. ³ Winer-Schmiedel, § 11, 4 (p. 97).

⁴ Kenyon, p. 134. ⁵ B. Weiss, Meyer i. 2⁷ (1885), p. 231,

⁶ Leemans, i., p. 69, ⁷ Ibid., p. 74.

142, 143] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 145

majore;" it is, in point of fact, shown by Pap. Taur. i. that

this Nechytes had a brother of the same name. In a simi-

lar manner a Ma<nrhj me<gaj is named in Pap. Flind. Petr. ii.

xxv. i ¹ (Ptolemaic period). Mahaffy,² it is true, prefers to

interpret the attribute here as applying to the stature.

The LXX also are acquainted with (not to speak of

the idiom a]po> mikrou? e!wj mega<lou) a usage of mikro<j to

signify age, e.g., 2 Chron. 22¹.

nomo<j.

L. van Ess's edition of the LXX (1887)³ still reads Is.

19² thus: kai> e]pegerqh<sontai Ai]gu<ptioi e]p ] Ai]gupti<ouj kai>

polemh<sei a@nqrwpoj to>n a]delfo>n au]tou? kai> a@nqrwpoj to>n

plhsi<on au]tou?, po<lij e]pi> po<lin kai> no<moj e]pi> no<mon. In

the original the concluding words of the verse are kingdom

against kingdom. The Concordance of Tromm therefore

says nomo<j lex stands for hkAlAm;ma regnum, and the editor

of Van Ess's LXX appears to be of the same opinion. The

correct view has long been known;⁴ the phrase should be

accented thus: nomo<j e]pi> nomo<n.⁵ nomo<j is a terminus technicus

for a political department of the country, and was used as

such in Egypt especially, as was already known from Hero-

dotus and Strabo. The Papyri throw fresh light upon this

division into departments, though indeed the great majority

of these Papyri come from the "Archives" of the Nomos of

Arsinoe. This small matter is noted here because the trans-

lation of Is. 19, the "o!rasij Ai]gu<ptou," has, as a whole,

been furnished by the LXX, for reasons easily perceived,

with very many instances of specifically Egyptian—in com-

parison with the original, we might indeed say modern-

Egyptian—local-colouring. This may also be observed in

other passages of the O.T. which refer to Egyptian con-

ditions.

¹ Mahaffy, ii. [79]. ² ii., p. 32.

³ It is true that the edition is stereotyped, but the plates were corrected

at certain places before each reprint.

⁴ Cf. Schleusner, Nov. Thes. s. v.

⁵ Thus also Tischendorf⁶ (1880), and Swete (1894).

146 BIBLE STUDIES. [143, 144.

o@noma.

In connection with the characteristic "biblical" con-

struction ei]j to> o@noma< tinoj,¹ and, indeed, with the general

usage of o@noma, in the LXX, etc., the expression e@nteucij ei]j

to> tou? basile<wj o@noma, which occurs several times in the

Papyri, deserves very great attention: Pap. Flind. Petr, ii.

ii. 1² (260-259 B.C.), Pap. Flind. Petr. ii. xx. ee³ (241 B.C.);

cf., possibly, Pap. Flind. Petr. xlvii.⁴ (191 B.C.)!

Mahaffy⁵ speaks of the phrase as a hitherto unknown

“formula". Its repeated occurrence in indictments cer-

tainly suggests the conjecture that it must have had a tech-

nical meaning. This is, doubtless, true of e@nteucij.⁶ An

e@nteucij ei]j to> tou? basile<wj o@noma would be a direct petition

---a memorial to the King's Majesty;⁷ the name of the King

is the essence of what he is as ruler. We see how nearly

this idea of the o@noma approaches to that of the Old Testa-

ment Mwe, and how convenient it was for the Egyptian trans-

lators to be able to render quite literally the expressive word

of the sacred text.

The special colouring which o@noma often has in early

Christian writings was doubtless strongly influenced by the

LXX, but the latter did not borrow that colouring first from

the Hebrew; it was rather a portion of what they took from

the adulatory official vocabulary of their environment. But

current usage in Asia Minor also provided a connecting link

for the solemn formula of the early Christians, viz. ei]j to>

o@noma with genitive of God, of Christ, etc., after it. In the

Inscription of Mylasa in Caria, Waddington, iii. 2, No. 416

CIG ii. No. 2693 e, belonging to the beginning of the im-

perial period,⁸ we find genome<nhj de> th?j w]nh?j tw?n progegram-

¹ Passages in Cremer ⁷ p. 676 f. ( = 8, p. 710). ² Mahaffy, ii. [2].

³ Ibid. [32]. ⁴ Ibid. [154]. ⁵ Ibid. [32]. ⁶ Cf. above, p. 121 f.

⁷ The synonymous phrase e@nteucin a]podido<nai (or e]pidido<nai) t&? basilei?

occurs frequently in the Papyri of the 2nd cent. B.C. (Kenyon, 9, 41 and

10, 11, 17, 28).

⁸ It is undated, but an approximate point is afforded by its affinity with

long series of similar decrees from Mylasa (Waddington, iii. 2, Nos. 403-

415), of which No. 409 must have been written not long after 76 B.C. The

date given above seems to the author to be too late rather than too early.

144, 145] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 147

me<nwn toi?j kthmatw<naij ei]j to> tou? qeou? o@noma.¹ This means:

"after the sale of the afore-mentioned objects had been concluded

with the kthmatw?nai ei]j to> tou? qeou? [Zeus] o@noma". In refer-

ence to the kthmatw<nhj, which is to be found in Inscriptions

only, Waddington ² observes that the word means the pur-

chaser of an article, but the person in question, in this con-

nection, is only the nominal purchaser, who represents the

real purchaser, i.e., the Deity; the kthmatw<nhj ei]j to> tou?

qeou? o@noma is the fideicommissaire du domaine sacre. The pas-

sage appears to the author to be the more important in that

it presupposes exactly the same conception of the word

o@noma as we find in the solemn forms of expression used in

religion. Just as, in the Inscription, to buy into the name of

God means to buy so that the article bought belongs to God, so

also the idea underlying, e.g., the expressions to baptise into

the name of the Lord, or to believe into the name of the Son of

God, is that baptism or faith constitutes the belonging to God

or to the Son of God.

The author would therefore take exception to the state-

ment that the non-occurrence of the expression poiei?n ti e]n

o]no<mati< tinoj in profane Greek is due to the absence of

this usage of the Name.³ What we have to deal with here

is most likely but a matter of chance; since the use of o@noma

has been established for the impressive language of the court

and of worship, it is quite possible that the phrase e]n t&? o]no<mati

tou? basile<wj or tou? qeou? may also come to light some day

in Egypt or Asia Minor.

The present example throws much light upon the de-

velopment of the meaning of the religious terms of primitive

Christianity. It shows us that, when we find, e.g., a

Christian of Asia Minor employing peculiar expressions,

which occur also in his Bible, we must be very strictly on

¹ The very same formula is found in the Inscription CIG. ii. No. 2694 b,

which also comes from Mylasa, and in which, as also in CIG. ii. No. 2693 e,

Boeckh's reading toi?j kthma<twn di>j ei]j to> tou? qeou? o@noma is to be corrected by

that of Waddington.

² In connection with No. 338, p. 104.

³ Cremer⁷, p. 678 ( = ⁸, p. 712).

148 BIBLE STUDIES. [145, 146

our guard against summarily asserting a "dependence"

upon the Greek Old Testament, or, in fact, the presence of

any Semitic influence whatever.—Further in III. iii. 1 below,

and Theol. Literaturzeitung, xxv. (1900), p. 735.

o]yw<nion.

The first occurrence of ta> o]yw<nia is not in Polybius;¹

it is previously found in Pap. Flind. Petr. xiii. 7 ² and

17 ³ (258-253 B.C.); ta> o]yw<nia is found in Pap. Flind. Petr.

ii. xxxiii. a⁴ (Ptolemaic period). In all three places, not

pay of soldiers, but quite generally wages; similarly Pap.

Lond. xlv.⁵ (160-159 B.C.), xv. ⁶ (131-130 B.Cc.), Pap. Par. 62 ⁷

(Ptolemaic period). The word is to be found in Inscriptions

onwards from 278 B.C.⁸ Further remarks below, III. iii. 6.

para<deisoj.

This word resembles a]ggareu<w in its having been di-

vested of its original technical meaning, and in its having

become current in a more general sense. It stands for

garden in general already in Pap. Flind. Petr. xlvi. b⁹

(200 B.C.), cf. xxii.,¹⁰ xxx. c,¹¹ xxxix. i ¹² (all of the Ptolemaic

period); 13 similarly in the Inscription of Pergamus, Wad-

dington, iii. 2, No. 1720 b (undated). It is frequent in the

LXX, always for garden (in three of the passages, viz., Neh.

2 ⁸, Eccles. 2 ⁵, Cant. 4¹³, as representing sDer;Pa¹⁴ ); So in Sir.,

Sus., Josephus, etc., frequently. Of course, para<deisoj in

LXX Gen. 2 ^8ff. is also garden, not Paradise. ''he first

witness to this new technical meaning¹⁵ is, doubtless, Paul,

2 Cor. 12 ⁴, then Luke 23 ⁴³ and Rev. 2 ⁷; 4 Esd. 7⁵³, 8 ⁵².

¹ Clavis³, p. 328. ² Mahaffy, ii. [38]. ³ Ibid. [42]. ⁴ Ibid., [113].

⁵ Kenyon, p. 36. ⁶ Ibid., pp. 55, 56. ⁷ Notices, xviii. p. 357.

⁸ Examples in Guil. Schmidt, De Flav. Ios. eloc. Fleck. Job. Suppl. xx.

(1894), pp. 511, 531.

⁹ Mahaffy, ii. [150]. ¹⁰ Ibid. [68]. ¹¹ Ibid. [104]. ¹² Ibid. [].34].

¹³ Cf. also Pap. Lond. cxxxi., 78-79 A.D. (Kenyon, p. 172).

¹⁴ The Mishna still uses sDer;Pa only for park in the natural sense

(Schurer, p. 464, = ³, p. 553) [Eng. Trans., ii., p. 183 note 88].

15 Cf. G. Heinrici, Das zweite Sendschreiben des Apostel Paulus an die

Korin thier erklart, Berlin, 1887, p. 494.

147] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 149

parepi<dhmoj.

In LXX Gen. 23 4 and Ps. 38 [39] 13, this is the trans-

lation of bwAOT used, most probably in consequence thereof

in 1 Pet. 1¹, 2¹¹, Heb. 11¹³; authenticated only¹ in Polybius

and Athenaeus. But it had been already used in the will

of a certain Aphrodisios of Heraklea, Pap. Flind. Petr. i.

xix.² (225 B.C.), who calls himself, with other designations,

a parepi<dhmoj. Mahaffy remarks upon this: "in the de-

scription of the testator we find another new class, parepi<-

dhmoj, a sojourner, so that even such persons had a right to

bequeath their property". Of still greater interest is the

passage of a will of date 238-237 B.C.⁴ which gives the name

of a Jewish parepi<dhmoj in the Fayyum:⁵ ]Apollw<nion

parep]idhmon o{j kai> suristi> ]Iwna<qaj ⁶ [kalei?tai].

The verb parepidhme<w, e.g., Pap. Flind. Petr. xiii. 19⁷

(258-253 B. C.).

pastofo<rion.

The LXX use this word in almost all the relatively

numerous passages where it occurs, the Apocrypha and

Josephus⁸ in every case, for the chambers of the Temple.

Sturz ⁹ had assigned it to the Egyptian dialect. His con-

jecture is confirmed by the Papyri. In the numerous docu-

ments relating to the Serapeum¹⁰ at Memphis, pastofo<rion

is used, in a technical sense, of the Serapeum itself, or of

cells in the Serapeum: ¹¹ Pap. Par. 11¹² (157 B.C.), 40 ¹³ (156

B.C.); similarly in the contemporary documents Pap. Par.

¹ Clavis ³, p. 339. ² Mahaffy, i. [54].

³ i. [55]. ⁴ Ibid., ii., p. 23.

⁵ Upon Jews in the Fayytun cf. Mahaffy, p. 43 f., [14].

⁶ ]Apollw<nioj is a sort of translation of the name ]Iwna<qaj.

⁷ Mahaffy, ii. [45]. The word is frequently to be found in Inscriptions;

references, e.g., in Letronne, Recueil, p. 340; Dittenberger, Sylloge Nos.

246 30 and 267 5.

⁸ Particulars in Guil. Schmidt, De Flav. Ios. eloc., Fleck. Jbb. Suppl.

xx. (1894), p. 511 f. Reference there also to CIG. ii., No. 2297.

⁹ De dialecto Macedonica et Alexandrina, p. 110 f.

¹⁰ Cf. p. 140 above. ¹¹ Cf. Lumbroso, Recherches, p. 266 f

¹² Notices, xviii. 2, p. 207. ¹³ Ibid., p. 305.

150 BIBLE STUDIES. [148, 149

41 ¹ and 37 ²—in the last passage used of the ]Astartiei?on

which is described as being contained e]n t&? mega<l& Saar-

piei<&.³ The LXX have thus very happily rendered the

general term hKAw;li, wherever it denotes a chamber of the

Temple, by a technical name with which they were familiar.

pastofo<rion is also retained by several Codices in 1 Chron.

9 ³³, and 2 Esd. [Hebr. Ezra] 8 ^29.4

peride<cion.

In LXX Numb. 31⁵⁰, Exod. 35 ²² and Is. 3 ²⁰ (in the two

latter passages without any corresponding original) for brace-

let. To be found in Pap. Flind. Petr. i. xii.⁵ (238-237 B.C.).

The enumeration given there of articles of finery resembles

Exod. 35²², and particularly Is. 3 ²⁰; in the latter passage

the e]nw<tia ⁶ (mentioned also in the former) come immediately

after the peride<cia—so in the Papyrus. As the original has

no corresponding word in either of the LXX passages, we

may perhaps attribute the addition to the fact that the two

ornaments were usually named together.

peri<stasij.

In 2 Macc. 4 ¹⁶, Symmachus Ps. 33 [34]^{5 7} (here the

LXX has qli?yij, or paroiki<a), in the evil sense, for distress;

it is not found first of all in Polybius, but already in Pap.

Lond. xlii.⁸ (172 B.C.); cf. the Inscription of Pergamus No.

245 A ⁹ (before 133 B.C.) and the Inscription of Sestos (ca.

120 B.C.), line 25.¹⁰

¹ Notices, xviii. 2, p. 306. ² Ibid., p. 297.

³ Cf. Brunet de Presle, ibid., and Lumbroso, Recherches, p. 266.

⁴ Field, i., pp. 712, 767, It is these which De Lagarde uses to deter-

mine the Lucianus: his accentuation of 1 Chron. 9²⁶, pastoforiw?n, is not

correct.

⁵ Better reading than in Mahaffy, i. [37]; see Mahaffy, p. 22.

⁶ The Papyrus reads enwida; that is also the Attic orthography—found

in a large number of Inscriptions from 398 B.C. onwards, Meisterhans²,

pp. 51, 61.

⁷ Field, ii., p. 139. ⁸ Kenyon, p. 30. ⁹ Frankel, p. 140.

¹⁰ W. Jerusalem, Die Inschrift von Sestos and Polybios, Wiener Studien.

i. (1879), p. 34; cf. p. 50 f., where the references from Polybius are also given.

149, 150] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 151

perite<mnw.

The LXX use perite<mnw always in the technical sense

of the ceremonial act of circumcision; this technical meaning

also underlies the passages in which circumcision is meta-

phorically spoken of, e.g., Deut. 10¹⁶ and Jer. 4 ⁴. The word

is never employed by the LXX in any other sense. The

usual Hebrew word lUm occurs frequently, it is true, in a

non-technical signification, but in such cases the translators

always choose another word: Ps. 57 [58] ⁸ a]sqene<w for to be

cut off,¹ Ps. 117 [118]^10.11.12, a]mu<nomai, for the cutting in

pieces (?) of enemies, Ps. 89 [90],⁶ a]popi<ptw (of grass) for to

be cut down.² Even in a passage, Deut. 30 ⁶, where lUm, cir-

cumcise, is used metaphorically, they reject perite<mnw and

translate by perikaqari<zw.³ The textual history of Ezek.

16⁴ affords a specially good illustration of their severely

restrained use of language. To the original (according to

our Hebrew text) thy navel-string was not cut, corresponds, in

the LXX (according to the current text), ou]k e@dhsaj tou>j

mastou<j sou, "quite an absurd translation, which, however,

just because of its absolute meaninglessness, is, without

doubt, ancient tradition".⁴ But the "translation" is not

so absurd after all, if we read e@dhsan⁵ with the Alexan-

drinus and the Marchalianus,⁶ a reading which is supported

by the remark of Origen:⁷ the LXX had translated non alli-

gaverunt ubera tua, "sensum magis eloquii exponentes quam

verbum de verbo exprirnentes". That is to say, among the

services mentioned here as requiring to be rendered to the

helpless new-born girl, the Greek translators set down some-

thing different from the procedure described by the Hebrew

author; what they did set down corresponds in some degree

¹ The author does not clearly understand the relation of this translation

to the (corrupt) original.

² If the original should not be derived from llm; cf. Job 14², where

the LXX translate e]kpi<ptw.

³ Cf. Lev. [not Luc. as in Cremer ⁷, p. 886 (= ⁸, p. 931)] 19²³.

⁴ Cornill, Das Buch des Propheten Ezechiel, p. 258.

⁵ Which would be translated they bound.

⁶ For this Codex cf. Cornill, p. 15. ⁷ Field, ii., p. 803,

152 BIBLE STUDIES. [150, 151

with the e]n sparga<noij sparganwqh?nai, which comes later.¹

But perhaps they had a different text before them. In any

case the translation given by some Codices,² viz., ou]k e]tmh<qh

o[ o]mfalo<j sou, is a late correction of the LXX text by our

present Hebrew text; other Codices read ou]k e@dhsan tou>j

mastou<j sou, and add the emendation ou]k e]tmh<qh o[ o]mfalo<j

sou; others do the same, but substitute perietmh<qh, a form

utterly at variance with LXX usage (and one against which

Jerome's non ligaverunt mamillas teas et umbilicus tuus non est

praecisus³ still guards), for the e]tmh<qh. It is this late emenda-

tion which has occasioned the idea ⁴ that the LXX in one

case also used to>n o]mfalo<n as the object of perite<mnein. This

is not correct. One may truly speak here, for once, about

a "usage" of the LXX: perite<mnw, with them, has always

a ceremonial meaning.⁵

In comparison with the verbs rysihe, traKA and lUm, which

are rendered by perite<mnw, the Greek word undoubtedly in-

troduces an additional nuance to the meaning; not one of

the three words contains what the peri<, implies. The

choice of this particular compound is explained by the fact

that it was familiar to the LXX, being in common use as

a technical term for an Egyptian custom similar to the Old

Testament circumcision. "The Egyptians certainly practised

circumcision in the 16th century B.C., probably much earlier."

¹ The reading ou]k ^@deisan, which is given in two late minuscules, and

from which Cornill makes the emendation ou]k ^@deisaj (as a 2nd person

singular imperfect founded on a false analogy) as being the original reading

of the LXX, appears to the author to be a correction of the unintelligible

e@dhsan which was made in the Greek text itself, without reference to the

original at all.

² Field, ii., p. 803, where a general discussion is given of the materials

which follow here.

³ Should have been circumcisus, if Jerome was presupposing perietmh<qh.

⁴ Cremer⁷, p. 886 (= ⁸, p. 931). The remark is evidently traceable to

the misleading reference of Tromm.

⁵ Similarly peritomh<, occurring only in Gen. 17 ¹² and Ex. 4²⁶. In Jer.

11¹⁶ it has crept in through a misunderstanding of the text; cf. Cremer⁷,

p. 887 (= ⁸, p. 932).

⁶.J. Benzinger, Hebraische Archaologie, Freiburg and Leipzig, 1894,

p. 154.

151, 152] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 153

Now even if it cannot be made out with certainty that

the Israelites copied the practice from the Egyptians, yet it

is in the highest degree probable that the Greek Jews are

indebted to the Egyptians¹ for the word. Herodotus already

verifies its use in ii. 36 and 104: he reports that the Egyp-

tians perita<mnontai ta> ai]doi?a. But the expression is also

authenticated by direct Egyptian testimony: Pap. Lond.

xxiv.² (163 B.C.), w[j e@qoj e]sti> toi? Ai]gupti<oij perite<mnesqai

and Pap. Berol. 7820 ³ (14th January, 171 A.D., Fayyum) still

speaks several times of the peritmhqh?nai of a boy kata> to> ]

e@qoj.

If perite<mnw is thus one of the words which were taken

over by the LXX, yet the supposition⁴ that their frequent

a]peri<tmhtoj uncircumcised = lrefA was first coined by the

Jews of Alexandria may have some degree of probability.

In the last-cited Berlin Papyrus, at least, the as yet uncir-

cumcised boy is twice described as a@shmoj.⁵ The document

appears to be employing fixed expressions. a@shmoj was per-

haps the technical term for uncircumcised among the Greek

Egyptians; ⁶ the more definite and, at the same time,

harsher a]peri<tmhtoj corresponded to the contempt with

which the Greek Jews thought of the uncircumcised.

ph?xuj.

We need have no doubt at all about the contracted

genitive phxw?n,⁷ LXX 1 Kings 7² (Cod. A), 38 (Cod. A),

Esther 5¹⁴, 7⁹, Ezek. 40⁷, 41 ²²; John 21⁸, Rev. 21¹⁷. It

is already found in Pap. Flind. Petr. ii. xli.8 (Ptolemaic

¹ The author does not know how the Greek Egyptians came to use the

compound with peri<. Did the corresponding Egyptian word suggest it to

them? Or did the anatomical process suggest it to them independently?

² Kenyon, p. 32, cf. p. 33. ³ BU. xi., p. 337 f., No. 347.

⁴ Cremer⁷, p. 887 (=⁸, p. 932).

⁵ And circumcision as shmei?on: cf., in reference to this, LXX Gen. 17¹¹

and Rom. 4¹¹.

⁶ F. Krebs, Philologus, liii. (1894), p. 586, interprets a@shmoj differently,

viz., free from bodily marks owing to the presence of which circumcision was

forborne.

⁷ Winer-Schmiedet, § 9, 6 (p. 88). ⁸ Mahaffy, ii. [137].

154 BIBLE STUDIES. (152, 153

period) twice; Josephus agrees with the LXX in using

ph<xewn and phxw?n promiscuously.¹

potismo<j.

In Aquila Prov. 3 ^{8 2} watering, irrigation; to be found in

Pap. Flind. Petr. ii. ix. 4 ³ (240 B . C . ) .

pra<ktwr.

In LXX Is. 3¹² for wgeno despot. In the Papyri fre-

quently as the designation of an official; the pra<ktwr⁴

seems to have been the public accountant:⁵ Pap. Flind. Petr.

ii. xiii. 17 6 (258-253 B.C.), and several other undated Papyri

of the Ptolemaic period given in Mahaffy, ii.7

In Luke 12 ⁵⁸ also the word has most probably a techni-

cal meaning; it does not however denote a finance-official,

but a lower officer of the court.

Symmachus Ps. 108 [109] ^{11 8} uses it for hw,n creditor.

presbu<teroj.

The LXX translate NqezA old man by both presbu<thj and

presbu<teroj. The most natural rendering was presbu<thj,

and the employment of the comparative presbu<teroj must

have had some special reason. We usually find presbu<teroj

in places where the translators appear to have taken the

NqezA of the original as implying an official position. That

they in such cases speak of the elders and not of the old men

is explained by the fact that they found presbu<teroj already

used technically in Egypt for the holder of a communal

office. Thus, in Pap. Lugd. A 35f.⁹ (Ptolemaic period), mention

¹ Guil. Schmidt, De Flav. Ios. eloc., Fleck. Jbb. Suppl. xx. (1894),

p. 498.

² Field, ii., p. 315. ³ Mahaffy, ii. [24].

⁴ On the pra<ktorej in Athens, cf. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Aris-

toteles and Athen, i., Berlin, 1893, p. 196.

⁵ Mahaffy, ii. [42]. ⁶ Ibid.

⁷ Further details in E. Revillout, Le Papyrus grec 13 de Turin in the

Revue egyptologique, ii. (1881-1882), p. 140 f.

⁸ Field, ii., p. 265. ⁹ Leemans, i., p. 3.

153, 154] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 155

is made of o[ presbu<teroj th?j kw<mhj—without doubt an

official designation,--although, indeed, owing to the mutila-

tion of another passage in the same Papyrus (lines 17-23), no

further particulars as to the nature of this office can be

ascertained from it.¹ The author thinks that oi[ presbu<teroi

in Pap. Flind. Petr. ii. iv. 6 ^{13 2} (255-254 B.C.) is also an

official designation; cf. also Pap. Flind. Petr. ii. xxxix. a,

3 and 14.³ Similarly, in the decree of the priests at Diospolis

in honour of Callimachus,⁴ (ca. 40 B.C.), the presbu<teroi are

still mentioned along with the i[erei?j tou? megi<stou qeou?

]Amonraswnqh<r. We have a periphrasis of the title pres-

bu<teroj in Pap. Taur. 8 ^60f.5 (end of the 2nd cent B.C.), in

which the attribute to> presbei?on e@xwn para> tou>j a@llouj

tou>j e]n t^? kw<m^ katoikou?ntaj is applied to a certain Erieus.

We still find oi[ presbu<teroi in the 2nd century A.D. as

Egyptian village-magistrates, of whom a certain council of

three men, oi[ tre?j, appears to have occupied a special

position.⁶

Here also then the Alexandrian translators have ap-

propriated a technical expression which was current in the

land.

Hence we must not summarily attribute the "New Testa-

ment," i.e., the early Christian, passages, in which presbu<-

teroi occurs as an official designation, to the "Septuagint

idiom," since this is in reality an Alexandrian one. In

those cases, indeed, where the expression is used to desig-

nate Jewish municipal authorities⁷ and the Sanhedrin,⁸ it

is allowable to suppose that it had been adopted by the

Greek Jews from the Greek Bible,' and that the Christians

¹ Leemans, i., foot of p. 3. ² Mahaffy, ii. [10]. ³ Ibid. [125].

⁴ CIG. iii., No. 4717: on this, as on the title presbu<teroi in general, cf.

Lumbroso, Recherches, p. 259.

⁵ A. Peyron, ii., p. 46.

⁶ U. Wilcken, Observationes ad historiam Aegypti provinciae Romanae

depromptae e papyris Graecis Berolinensibus ineditis, Berlin, 1885, p. 29 f.

⁷ Schurer, ii., p. 132 ff. (= 3ii., p. 176 ff.). [Eng. Trans., ii., p. 150 f.]

⁸ Ibid., p. 144 ff. (= ³ ii., p. 189 ff.). [Eng. Trans., ii., p. 165 ff.]

⁹ Cf. the use of the word presbu<teroi in the Apocrypha and in Josephus.

156 BIBLE STUDIES. [154, 155

who had to translate the term the old men found it convenient

to render it by the familiar expression oi[ presbu<teroi. But

that is no reason for deeming this technical term a peculi-

arity of the Jewish idiom. Just as the Jewish usage is

traceable to Egypt, so is it possible that also the Christian

communities of Asia Minor, which named their superinten-

dents presbu<teroi, may have borrowed the word from their

surroundings, and may not have received it through the

medium of Judaism at all.¹ The Inscriptions of Asia Minor

prove beyond doubt that presbu<teroi was the technical term,

in the most diverse localities, for the members of a corpora-

tion: ² in Chios, CIG. ii. Nos. 2220 and 2221 (1st cent. B.C.³),

—in both passages the council of the presbu<teroi is also

named to> presbu<teroi; in Cos, CIG. ii. No. 2508 = Paton

and Hicks, No. 119 (imperial period⁴); in Philadelphia in

Lydia, CIG. ii. No. 3417 (imperial period), in which the

sune<drion tw?n presbute<rwn,⁵ mentioned here, is previously

named gerousi<a. "It can be demonstrated that in some

islands and in many towns of Asia Minor there was, besides

the Boule, also a Gerousia, which possessed the privileges of

corporation, and, as it appears, usually consisted of Bou-

eutes who were delegated to it. Its members were called

ge<rontej, gerousiastai>. presbu<teroi, geraioi<. They had a

¹ In any case it is not correct to contrast, as does Cremer⁷, p. 816

⁸, p. 858), the word e]pi<skopoj, as the "Greek-coloured designation," with the

term presbu<teroi (almost certainly of Jewish colouring). The word was a

technical term in Egypt before the Jews began to speak of presbu<teroi, and

it is similarly to be found in the Greek usage of the imperial period in the

most diverse localities of Asia Minor.

² This reference to the presbu<teroi of Asia Minor has of course a purely

Philological purpose. The author does not wish to touch upon the question

regarding the nature of the presbyterial "Office". It may have been de-

veloped quite apart from the name—whatever the origin of that may have

been.

³ Both Inscriptions are contemporary with No. 2214, which is to be

assigned to the 1st cent. B.C.

⁴ Possibly, with Paton and Hicks, p. 148, to be assigned, more exactly,

tb the time of Claudius.

⁵ Cf. the data of Schurer, p. 147 f., note 461. [Eng. Trans. ii., i.,

p. 169, note 461.]

155, 156] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 157

president (a@rxwn, prosta<thj, prohgou<menoj), a secretary, a

special treasury, a special place of assembly (gerontiko>n,

gerousi<a), and a palaestra."¹—See also III. iii. 4, below.

pro<qesij.

The LXX translate the technical expression bread of the

countenance (also called row-bread [Schichtbrot] and continual

bread), which Luther rendered Schaubrot (show-bread), in 1

Sam. 21⁶ and Neh. 10 ³³ by of oi[ a@rtoi tou? prosw<pou, and in

Exod. 25 30 by oi[ a@rtoi oi[ e]nw<pioi, but their usual rendering

is oi[ a@rtoi th?j proqe<sewj. The usual explanation of this

pro<qesij is setting forth, i.e., of the bread before God. The

author leaves it undecided whether this explanation is cor-

rect; but, in any case, it is to be asked how the LXX came

to use this free translation, while they rendered the original

verbally in the other three passages. The author thinks it

not unlikely that they were influenced by the reminiscence

of a ceremonial custom of their time: "Au culte se rat-

tachaient des institutions philantropiques telle que la suivante:

Le medecin Diodes cite par Athenle (3, 110), nous apprend qu'il

y avait une pro<qhsij^sic de pains periodique a Alexandrie, dans

le temple de Saturne ( ]Alecandrei?j t&? Kro<n& a]fierou?ntej

protiqe<asin e]sti<ein t&? boulome<n& e]n t&? tou? Kro<nou i[er&?)

Cette pro<qesij tw?n a@rtwn se retrouve dans un papyrus du

Louvre (60 bis)." ² The expression pro<qesij a@rtwn is also

found in LXX 2 Chron. 13 ¹¹; cf. 2 Macc. 10 ³.

purra<khj.

Hitherto known only from LXX Gen. 25 ²⁵, 1 Sam. 16¹²,

17 ⁴², for ruddy. To be found in Pap. Flind. Petr. i. xvi. 1 ³

(237 B.C.), xxi.⁴ (237 B.C.), possibly also in xiv.⁵ (237 B.C.).

¹ 0. Benndorf and G. Niemann, Reisen in Lykien and Karien, Vienna,

1884, p. 72.

² Lumbroso, Recherches, p. 280 ; the Papyrus passage—certainly not

fully legible—in Notices, xviii. 2, p. 347. Lumbroso defends his reading in

Recherches, p. 23, note 1.

⁴ Mahaffy, i. [47]. ⁴ Ibid. [59].

⁵ Ibid. [43]. The passage is mutilated.

158 BIBLE STUDIES. [156, 157

sitome<trion.

In Luke 12 ⁴² for portio frumenti; referred to in this

passage only: to be verified by Pap. Flind. Petr. xxxiii. a ¹

(Ptolemaic period). Cf. sitometre<w in Gen. 47¹² (said of

Joseph in Egypt).

skeuofu<lac.

Earliest occurrence in the Recension of Lucianus,² 1

Sam. 17 ²², as the literal translation of MyliKeh rmeOw keeper of

the baggage.³ The supposition that the word was not first

applied as a mere momentary creation of the recensionist,

but came to him on good authority, is supported by its

occurrence in Pap. Flind. Petr. xiii. 104 (258-253 B.C.):

skeofulaka there is to be read skeuofu<laka, in accordance

with skeuofula<kion in Pap. Flind. Petr. ii v. a ⁵ (before 250

B.C.).

spuri<j, sfuri<j.

With the sfuri<j (vernacular aspiration ⁶) handed down

on good authority in Mark 8 ^{8. 20}, Matt. 15 ³⁷, 16¹⁰, Acts 9 ²⁵,

cf. sfufi<da in Pap. Flind. Petr. xviii. 2 a⁷ (246 B.C.), though

we should observe the reading spuridi<ou in Pap. Flind. Petr.

Z d ⁸ (Ptolemaic period). Further remarks in III. i. 2, below.

sta<sij.

Among other words, the translation of which by sta<sij

is more or less intelligible, zOfmA stronghold Nah. 3¹¹, and

MdohE footstool 1 Chron. 28 ², are rendered in the same way

¹ Mahaffy, ii. [113]. In this an oi]kono<moj submits an account of his house-

keeping. The present writer thinks that the sitometria which occurs in this

account should be taken as the plural of sitome<trion, and not as a singular,

sitometri<a. The passage is mutilated.

² Edited by De Lagarde, Librorum V. T. canonicorurn pars prior graece,

Gottingen, 1883.

³ The simple fu<lakoj of our LXX text is marked with an astertscus by

Origen, Field, i., p. 516.

⁴ Mahaffy, ii. [39]. ⁵ Ibid. [16]. On skeuofula<kion cf. Suidas.

⁶ Winer-Schmiedel, § 5, 27 e (p. 60).

⁷ Mahaffy, ii. [59]. ⁸ Ibid., p. 33.

157, 158] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 159

by the LXX, and Symmachus ¹ uses sta<sij in Is. 6¹³ for

tb,>c,ma root-stock (truncus) or young tree, cutting;² certainly

a very remarkable use of the word, and one hardly explained

by the extraordinary note which Schleusner³ makes to the

passage in Nahum: "sta<sij est firmitas, consistentia, modus

et via subsistendi ac resistendi". What is common to the

above three words translated by sta<sij is the idea of secure

elevation above the ground, of upright position, and this fact

seems to warrant the conjecture that the translators were

acquainted with a quite general usage of sta<sij for any

upright object.⁴

This conjecture is confirmed by Pap. Flind. Petr. ii. xiv.

3⁵ (Ptolemaic period ?), i.e., if the sta<seij which is found

in this certainly very difficult passage be rightly interpreted

as erections, buildings.⁶ This use of the word seems to the

author to be more certain in an Inscription from Mylasa in

Caria, CIG. ii. No. 2694 a (imperial period), in which Boeckh

interprets the word sta<seij (so restored by him) as stabula.

suggenh<j.

In the Old Testament Apocryphal books there is found

not infrequently the expression kinsman of a king. Like

friend,⁷ etc., it is a court-title, which was transferred from

the Persian usage to the language of Alexander the Great's

court, and thence became very common among the Diadochi.

Compare, in regard to Egypt, the exhaustive references in

Lumbroso;⁸ in regard to Pergamus, the Inscription No.

248, line 28f. (135-134 B.C.).⁹

¹ Field, ii., p. 442.

² In the LXX this passage is wanting ; Aquila translates sth<lwsij;

Theodotion, sth<lwma (Field, ibid.).

³ Novus Thesaurus, v. (1821), p. 91.

⁴ Cf. the German Stand for market-stall. [Also the English stand =

support, grand-stand; etc.—Tr.]

⁵ Mahaffy, ii. [51]. ⁶ Ibid., p. 30. ⁷ Cf. sub fi<loj below.

⁸ Recherches, p. 189 f. Also the Inscription of Delos (3rd cent. n.c.),

Bull. de corr. hell. iii. (1879), p. 470, comes into consideration for Egypt: the

Xru<sermoj there named is suggenh>j basile<wj Ptolemai<ou.

⁹ Frankel, pp. 166 and 505.

160 BIBLE STUDIES. [158, 159

sune<xw.

Used in Luke 22 ⁶³ of the officers who held Jesus in

charge; in the same sense Pap. Flind. Petr. ii. xx.¹ (252 B.C.).

sw?ma.

In Rev. 18¹³ sw<mata stands for slaves. sw?ma was used

for person in very early times, and already in classical

Greek the slaves were called sw<mata oi]ketika< or dou?la.²

sw?ma alone—without any such addition—is not found used

for slave earlier than in LXX Gen. 34 ²⁹ (36 ⁶),³ Tob. 10¹⁰,

Bel and the Dragon ³², 2 Macc. 8¹¹, Ep. Arist. (ed. M.

Schmidt), p. 16 29, in Polybius and later writers. The

Greek translators of the 0. T. found the usage in Egypt:

the Papyri of the Ptolemaic period yield a large number of

examples, cf. especially Pap. Flind. Petr. xxxix.⁴

u[pozu<gion.

The LXX translate rOmHE ass in very many places by

u[pozu<gion v (cf. also Theodotion Judg. 5^{10, 5} 19 ^{10 6} also the

Alexandrinus and the recension of Lucianus read u[pozugi<wn

in both passages], Symmachus Gen. 36 ^{24 7}). Similarly,

u[pozu<gion stands for ass in Matt. 21⁵ (cf. Zech. 9⁹) and 2 Pet.

2^{16. 8} This specialising of the original general term draught

animal, beast of burden, is described by Grimm ⁹ as a usage

peculiar to Holy Scripture, which is explained by the im-

portance of the ass as the beast of burden kat ] e]coxh<n in the

East. A statistical examination of the word, however, might

teach us that what we have to deal with here is no "biblical"

¹ Mahaffy, [61].

² Ch. A. Lobeck ad Phryn. (Leipzig, 1820), p. 378.

³ Cf. the old scholium to the passage, sw<mata tou>j dou<louj i@swj le<gei

(Field, i., p. 52).

⁴ Mahaffy, ii. [125] ff. ⁵ Field, i., p. 412.

⁶ Ibid., p. 464. ⁷ Ibid., p. 52 f.

⁸ In this passage the interpretation ass is not in any way necessary;

the she-ass of Balaam, which is called h[ o@noj in the LXX, might quite well

be designated there by the general term beast of burden.

⁹ Clavis³, p. 447.

159, 161] LANGUAGE OT GREEE BIBLE. 161

peculiarity, but, at most, a special usage of the LXX which

may possibly have influenced other writings. But even the

LXX do not occupy an isolated position in regard to it;

the truth is rather that they avail themselves of an already-

current Egyptian idiom. It seems to the author, at least,

that the "biblical" usage of u[pozu<gion is already shown in

the following passages: Pap. Flind. Petr. xxii.¹ (Ptolemaic

period), where bou?j ² h} u[pozu<gion h} pro<baton are mentioned

after one another; Pap. Flind. Petr. xxv. d ³ (2nd half of

3rd cent. B.C.), where the donkey-driver Horos gives a receipt

for money due to him by a certain Charmos in respect of

u[pozu<gia: o[mologei? $Wroj o]nhla<thj e@xein para> Xa<rmou de<onta

u[pozugi<wn kata> su<mbolon; similarly in the same Papyrus i.⁴

Grimm's remark may, of course, be turned to account

in the explanation of this idiom.

ui[o<j (te<knon).

Those circumlocutions by which certain adjectival con-

ceptions are represented by ui[o<j or te<knon followed by a

genitive, and which are very frequent in the early Christian

writings, are traced back by A. Buttmann⁵ to an "influence

of the oriental spirit of language"; they are explained

by Winer-Lunemann ⁶ as "Hebrew-like circumlocution,"

which however is no mere idle circumlocution, but is due

to the more vivid imagination of the oriental, who looked

upon any very intimate relationship—whether of connection,

origin or dependence—as a relation of sonship, even in the

spiritual sphere. According to Grimm,⁷ these periphrases

spring "ex ingenio linguae hebraeae," and Cremer⁸ describes

them as "Hebrew-like turns of expression in which ui[o<j . . .

is used analogously to the Hebr. NBe".

In order to understand this "New Testament" idiom,

it is also necessary to distinguish here between the cases in

¹ Mahaffy, [68]. ² It should be stated that Mahaffy sets a? to bouj.

³ Mahaffy, ii. [75]. ⁴ Ibid. [79].

⁵ Gramm. des mutest. Sprachgebrauchs, p. 141.

⁶ § 34, 3b, note 2 (p. 223 f.). ⁷ Clavis³, p. 441.

⁸ 7th edition, p. 907 = ⁸, p. 956.

162 BIBLE STUDIES. [161, 162

which this "periphrastic" ui[o<j or te<knon ¹ occurs in trans-

lations of Semitic originals, and the instances found in texts

which were in Greek from the first. This distinction gives

us at once the statistical result that the circumlocution is

more frequent in the former class than in the latter. One

should not, therefore, uniformly trace the "New Testament"

passages back to the influence of an un-Greek "spirit of

language," but, in the majority of cases, should rather speak

merely of a translation from the Semitic. What occasioned

the frequent ui[o<j or te<knon was no "spirit of language"

which the translators may have brought to their task, but

rather the hermeneutic method into which they were un-

consciously drawn by the original.

First as regards ui[o<j: such translations occur in the fol-

lowing passages,—Mark 2¹⁹ = Matt. 9 ¹⁵ = Luke 5 ³⁴, oi[ ui[oi>

tou? numfw?noj, a saying of Jesus.—Mark 3 ¹⁷, ui[oi> bronth?j,

where the original, boanergej or boanhrgej, is also given,

and the equation boane or boanh = yneB; is certainly evident.

—Matt. 8 ¹² = 13 ³⁸, of oi[ ui[oi> th?j basilei<aj, sayings of Jesus.

—Matt. 13 ³⁸, oi[ ui[oi> th?j basilei<aj, a saying of Jesus.—Matt.

23¹⁵, ui[o>n gee<nnhj, a saying of Jesus.—Matt. 21⁵, ui[o>n

u[pozugi<ou, translation ² of the Hebrew tOntoxE-NB,, Zech. 9⁹.

¹ The solemn expression ui[o<j or te<kna qeou? has, of course, no connection

with this, as it forms the correlative to qeo>j path<r.

² One dare hardly say, with respect to this passage, that "Matthew"

"quotes" from the original Hebrew text; the present writer conjectures that

"Matthew," or whoever wrote this Greek verse, translated its Hebrew

original, which, already a quotation, had come to him from Semitic tradition.

The Old Testament quotations of "Matthew" agree, in most passages, with

the LXX: wherever the Semitic tradition contained words from the Hebrew

Bible, the Greek translator just used the Greek Bible in his work, i.e., of

course, only when he succeeded in finding the passages there. The tradition

gave him, in Matt. 21⁵, a free combination of Zech. 9⁹ and Is. 62¹¹ as a word

of "the Prophet": he could not identify it and so translated it for himself,

A similar case is Matt. 13³⁵; here the tradition gave him, as a word of "the

Prophet Isaiah," a saying which occurs in Ps. 78 ², not in Isaiah at all; but

as he could not find the passage, h[rmh<neuse d ] au]ta> w[j h#n dunato<j. Similarly.

in Mark 1^2f., a combination of Mal. 3 ¹ and Is. 40³ is handed down as a

word of "the Prophet Isaiah": only the second half was found in Isaiah

and therefore it is quoted from the LXX; the first half, however, which the

Greek Christian translator could not find, was translated independently, and,

163] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 163

—Luke 10⁶, ui[o>j ei]rh<nhj, a saying of Jesus.—Luke 16³ and

20³⁴, oi[ ui[oi> tou? ai]w?noj tou<tou, sayings of Jesus.—Luke 16⁸,

tou>j ui[ou>j tou? fwto<j, a saying of Jesus.—Luke 20³⁶, th?j

a]nasta<sewj ui[oi<, a saying of Jesus.—Acts 4³⁶, ui[o>j para-

klh<sewj, where the ostensible original, Barnabaj,¹ is also

given.—The ui[e> diabo<lou, Acts 13¹⁰, should also be men-

tioned here, as the expression clearly forms a sarcastic

antithesis to Barihsou?, son of Jesus (verse 6).

As regards te<knon, we have the same phenomenon in

(Matt. 11¹⁹ =) Luke 7³⁵, tw?n te<nwn au]t^?j [sofi<aj], a saying

of Jesus.

Similarly quotations and manifest analogical formations

should not be taken into consideration in a critical exami-

nation of the original idiom; e.g., ui[oi> fwto<j in 1 Thess. 5⁵

(here also the analogical formation ui[oi< h[me<raj and John

12³⁶ (cf. te<kna fwto<j, Ephes. 5⁸) should probably be taken

as a quotation from Luke 16⁸, or of the saying of Jesus pre-

served there, but in any case as an already familiar phrase;

oi[ ui[oi> tw?n profhtw?n, Acts 3²⁵, is a quotation of a combina-

tion which had become familiar from LXX 1 Kings 20³⁵, 2

Kings 2^{3. 5. 7}—the following kai> [ui[oi>] th?j diaqh<khj is an

analogical formation; o[ ui[o>j th?j a]pwlei<aj, 2 Thess. 2 ³ and

John 17¹² is an echo of LXX Is. 57⁴ te<kna a]pwleiaj; ta>

te<na tou? diabo<lou 1 John 3¹⁰ is perhaps an analogical for-

mation from oi[ ui[oi> tou? ponhrou?, Matt. 13³⁸.

There remain, then, the combination ui[oi> th?j a]peiqei<aj

(Col. 3 ⁶), Eph. 2², 5⁶, and its antithesis te<kna u[pakoh?j, 1 Pet.

1¹⁴; ta> te<kna th?j e]paggeli<aj, Gal. 4²⁸, Rom. 9⁸, and its

in the form in which it occurs in Matt. 11¹⁰ and Luke 7²⁷, it is taken over

as an anonymous biblical saying.—In all these passages we have to do with

biblical sayings which do not form part of the discourses of Jesus or of His

friends or opponents, and which therefore do not belong to the earliest

material of the pre-Synoptic Gospel tradition. But the peculiar character

of the quotations just discussed, which the author cannot interpret in any

other way, requires us to postulate that a sort of "synthetic text" (verbin-

dender Text), and, in particular, the application of certain definite 0. T.

words to Christ, had been added, at a very early period, to this primitive

Semitic tradition; here and there in the Gospels we can still see, as above,

the method by which they were rendered into Greek.

¹ See further p. 307 f. below.

164 BIBLE STUDIES. [164

antitheses kata<raj, 2 Pet. 2¹⁴, te<kna o]rgh?j, Eph. 2³

But it is not at all necessary, even for the explanation of

these expressions, to go back to the Hebrew spirit or to the

oriental genius of language. The system followed by the

Alexandrian translators of the Old Testament may furnish

us here with an instructive hint. In innumerable cases

their task was to render into Greek an exceedingly large

number of those characteristic Semitic turns of expression

formed with NBe. True, they rendered not a few of those

cases by the corresponding constructions with ui[o<j; but

very frequently, too, translating freely (as we might say),

they found substitutes for them in Greek expressions of a

different character. But such a procedure, in view of the

comparative scrupulosity with which in general they follow

the original, must surely surprise us, if we are to pre-suppose

in them, as in the early Christian writers, a certain Semitic

"genius of language" lying in reserve, as it were, and

behind their "feeling" for the Greek tongue. Had they

always imitated that characteristic NBe by using ui[oi<, then it

might have been maintained with some plausibility that

they had seized the welcome opportunity of translating

literally and, at the same time, of giving scope to the non-

Hellenic tendencies of their nature in the matter of language;

as they, however, did not do this, we may be permitted

to say that they had no such tendency at all. We give

the following cases,¹ from which this fact may be deduced

with certainty: "Son" of Man, Is. 56 ², Prov. 15¹¹ = a@nqrw-

poj; son of the uncle, Numb. 36¹¹=a]neyi<oj; son of the she-

asses, Zech. 9 ⁹ = pw?loj ne<oj;² "son" of the month, often, =

mhniai?oj; "son" of the dawn, Is. 14¹² = prwi~ a]nate<llwn;

"son" of strangers, often, = a]llogenh<j or a]llo<fuloj; "son"

of the people, Gen. 23 ¹¹ = poli<thj; "son" of the quiver, Lam.

3 13 = i]oi>³ fare<traj; "son" of strength, 2 Chron. 28⁶ = duna-

¹ These might be added to.

² The translator of the same combination in Matt. 21 ⁵ has scrupulously

imitated the original by his ui[o>j u[pozugi<ou.

³ Thus the unanimous tradition of all the Codices except 239 and, the

Syro-Hexaplar (Field, ii., p. 754) which read ui[oi> fare<traj, an emendation

prompted by the Hebrew text.

165, 166] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 165

to>j i]sxu<i*; "son" of misery, Prov. 31⁵ = a]sqenh<j; "son" of

strokes, Deut. 25 ² = a@cioj plhgw?n. And if, on the other

hand, cases can be pointed out in which the LXX imitate¹

the characteristic NBe, then the ui[o<j of the Greek text is not

to be forthwith explained as caused by the translators' ori-

ental way of thinking, but rather as due to the original. At

the very most we might speak of a "Hebraism of transla-

tion," but not of a Hebraism simply.² But we are of

opinion that it is not at all necessary, in this matter, to

have recourse to a Hebraism in every case; we cannot, at

least, perceive why such constructions³ as LXX Judg. 19 ²²

ui[oi> parano<mwn, 1 Sam. 20 ³¹ ui[o>j qana<tou,⁴ 2 Sam. 13 ²⁸ ui[oi>

duna<mewj, 2 Esd. [Hebr. Ezra] 4¹, 10 ^{7, 16} [not 6¹⁹] ui[oi>

a]poiki<aj, Hos. [not Ezek.] 2 ⁴ te<kna pornei<aj, Is. 57 ⁴ te<kna

a]pwlei<aj, should be looked upon as un-Greek.⁵ It is true, of

course, that a Corinthian baggage-carrier or an Alexandrian

donkey-driver would not so speak—the expressions are

meant to be in elevated style and to have an impressive

sound; but for that very reason they might have been used

by a Greek poet. Plato uses the word e@kgonoj⁶ in exactly

the same way: Phaedr., p. 275 D, e@kgona th?j zwgrafi<aj and

Rep., pp. 506 E and 507 A, e@kgonoj tou? a]gaqou? (genitive of

to> a]gaqo<n). In the impressive style of speech on inscriptions

and coins we find ui[o<j in a number of formal titles of honour ⁷

such as ui[o>j th?j gerousi<aj, ui[o>j th?j po<lewj, ui[o>j tou? dh<mou,⁸

¹ The author does not know in what proportion these cases are dis-

tributed among the several books of the LXX, or to what degree the special

method of the particular translator influenced the matter.

² The genus "Hebraisms" must be divided into two species, thus:

"Hebraisms of translation," and "ordinary Hebraisms".

³ These are the passages given by Cremer ⁷, pp. 907 and 901 ( = ⁸, pp.

956 and 950) with the references corrected.

⁴ In the passage 2 Sam. 2 ⁷, cited by Cremer for ui[o>j qana<tou, stands ui[ou>j

dunatou<j. Probably 2 Sam. 12 ⁵ is meant.

⁵ LXX Ps. 88 [89] ²³ ui[o>j a]nomi<aj, and 1 Macc. 2⁴⁷ ui[o>j th?j u[perhfani<aj

may be added to these.

⁶ The references to this in the Clavis ³, p. 429, at the end of the article

te<knon, are not accurate.

⁷ Particulars in Waddington, iii. 2, p. 26.

⁸ On this cf. also Paton and Hicks, The Inscriptions of Cos, p. 125 f.

ui[o>j gerousi<aj is also found in these, Nos. 95-97.

166 BIBLE STUDIES. [166, 167

ui[o>j ]Afrodisie<wn, etc. And thus, though the ui[o<j of the

biblical passages above may have been occasioned, in the

first instance, by the original, yet no one can call it un-

Greek.—W. Schulze has also directed the author's attention

to the ui[o>j tu<xhj in the Tragedians, and filius fortunae in

Horace.

Our judgment, then, in regard to the philological history

of the above-cited expressions (Greek from the first) in Paul

and the Epistles of Peter, may be formulated somewhat in

this way. In no case whatever are they un-Greek; they

might quite well have been coined by a Greek who wished to

use impressive language. Since, however, similar turns of

expression are found in the Greek Bible, and are in part

cited by Paul and others, the theory of analogical formations

will be found a sufficient explanation.

o[ ui[o>j tou? qeou?.

It is very highly probable that the "New Testament"

designation of Christ as the Son of God goes back to an "Old

Testament" form of expression. But when the question is

raised as to the manner in which the "Heathen-Christians"

of Asia Minor, of Rome, or of Alexandria, understood this

designation, it seems equally probable that such "Old Testa-

ment presuppositions" were not extant among them. We

are therefore brought face to face with the problem whether

they could in any way understand the Saviour's title of

dignity in the light of the ideas of their locality. If this

solemn form of expression was already current among them

in any sense whatever, that would be the very sense in which

they understood it when they heard it in the discourses of

the missionary strangers: how much more so, then, seeing

that among the "heathen" the expression Son of God was

a technical term, and one which therefore stamped itself all

the more firmly upon the mind. When the author came

upon the expression for the first time in a non-Christian

document (Pap. Berol. 7006¹ (Fayyum, 22nd August, 7 A.D.):

e@touj e@[k]tou kai> triakostou? [th?j] Kai<saroj krath<sewj qeou?

¹ BU. vi., p. 180, No. 174.

167, 159, 160] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 167

ui[ou?, where without doubt the Emperor Augustus is de-

scribed as qeou? ui[o<j), he had no idea how very frequently

the title is used for Augustus in the Inscriptions. Since

that time he has become convinced that the matter stands

thus: ui[o>j qeou? is a translation of the divi filius which is

equally frequent in Latin Inscriptions.

Since, then, it is established that the expression ui[o<j

qeou? was a familiar one in the Graeco-Roman world from

the beginning of the first century,¹ we can no longer ignore

the fact; it is indirectly of great importance for the history

of the early-Christian title of Christ. The fact does not of

course explain its origin or its primary signification, but it

yields a contribution to the question as to how it might be

understood in the empire.² It must be placed in due con-

nection with what is said by Harnack³ about the term qeo<j

as used in the imperial period.

fi<loj.

Friend was the title of honour given at the court of the

Ptolemies to the highest royal officials. "Greek writers, it

is true, already used this name for the officials of the Persian

king; from the Persian kings the practice was adopted by

Alexander, and from him again by all the Diadochi; but we

meet it particularly often as an Egyptian title."⁴ The LXX

¹ Particular references are unnecessary. The author would name only

the Inscription of Tarsus, interesting to us by reason of its place of origin,

Waddington, iii. 2, No. 1476 (p. 348), also in honour of Augustus :—

Au]tokra<tora Kai<]sara qeou? ui[o>n Sebasto>n

o[ dh?m]oj o[ Tarse<wn.

Perhaps the young Paul may have seen here the expression Son of God for

the first time—long before it came to him with another meaning.

² It may be just indicated here that the history of the terms used by

Christians of the earlier time teaches us that other solemn expressions of

the language of the imperial period were transferred to Christ.

³ Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, i.², Freiburg, 1888, pp. 103,159. [Eng.

Trans., i., pp. 116 f., 179 f.]

⁴ Jacob, ZAW. x., p. 283. The examples in the Papyri and the Inscrip-

tions are exceedingly numerous. Cf., in addition to the literature instanced

by Jacob, Letronne, Rech., p. 58, A. Peyron, p. 56, Grimm, HApAT. iii.

(1853), p. 38, Letronne, Notices, xviii. 2, p. 165, Bernays, Die heraklitischen

Briefe, p. 20, Lumbroso, Rech., pp. 191 ff., 228.

168 BIBLE STUDIES. p.60, 161

were, therefore, quite correct (from their standpoint) in trans-

lating rWa prince by fi<loj, Esth. 1³, 2¹⁸, 6 ⁹,—a fact not

taken into consideration in the Concordance of Hatch and

Redpath—and the same usage is exceedingly frequent in

the Books of Maccabees.¹ We think it probable that the

Alexandrian writer of the Book of Wisdom was following

this idiom when he spoke of the pious as fi<louj qeou? (Wisd.

7²⁷, cf. v.¹⁴); similarly the Alexandrian Philo, Fragm. (M.)

ii., p. 652, pa?j sofo>j qeou? fi<loj, and De Sobr. (M.) i., p. 401,

where he quotes the saying in LXX Gen. 18¹⁷ (in our text

ou] mh> kru<yw e]gw> a]po> ]Abraa>m tou? paido<j mou) thus: mh>

e]pikalu<yw e]gw> a]po> ]Abraa>m tou? fi<lou² mou. In explaining

this, reference is usually made to Plato Legg. iv., p. 716, 8

me>n sw<frwn qe&? fi<loj, o!moioj ga<r; but, although it is not to

be denied that this passage may perhaps have exercised an

influence in regard to the choice of the expression, yet the

Alexandrians would, in the first instance, understand it³ in

the sense to which they had been pre-disposed by the above-

mentioned familiar technical usage of fi<loj: fi<loj qeou?

denotes high honour in the sight of God ⁴—nothing more

nor less. The question whether friend of God is to be inter-

preted as one who loved God or as one whom God loved, is not

only insoluble ⁵ but superfluous. Philo and the others would

hardly be thinking of a "relation of the will . . . . , such, how-

ever, that the benevolence and love of God towards men are

to be emphasised as its main element".⁶

In John 15 ¹⁵ ou]ke<ti le<gw u[ma?j dou<louj . . . u[ma?j de>

¹ The expression fi<loj tou? Kaisaroj, John 19 ¹², is doubtless to be under-

stood in the light of Roman usage; but, again, amicus Caesaris is most likely

dependent upon the court speech of the Diadochi.

² Cf. James 2²³, Clem. Rom. 1 Cor. 10¹, 17 ².

³ The expression Gottesfreund (friend of God), again, used by the Ger-

man mystics, is certainly dependent on the biblical passages, but they use

it in a sense different from that mentioned in the text.

⁴ The designation of Abraham in particular (the standard personality

of Judaism and of earlier Christianity) as the fi<loj qeou? accords with the

position of honour which he had in Heaven.

⁵ W. Beyschlag, Meyer, xv. ⁵ (1888), p. 144.

⁶ Grimm, HApAT. vi. (1860), p. 145.

167, 168] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 169

ei@rhka fi<louj, as can be seen by the contrast, fi<loj has, of

course, its simple sense of friend.

In Corinth the Gospel was understood otherwise than

in Jerusalem, in Egypt otherwise than in Ephesus. The

history of our Religion, in its further course, manifestly

shows distinct phases of Christianity: we see, in succession

or side by side, a Jewish Christianity and an International—

a Roman, a Greek, a German and a Modern. The historical

conditions of this vigorous development are to be found to a

large extent in the profusion of the individual forms which

were available for the ideas of the Evangelists and the

Apostles. The variation in the meaning of religious terms

has not always been to the disadvantage of religion itself:

the Kingdom of God is not in words.

III.

FURTHER CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HISTORY

OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE,

BEING NEUE BIBELSTUDIEN, MARBURG, 1897.

o[ de> a]gro<j e]stin o[ ko<smoj

FURTHER CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HISTORY OF

THE LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE.

In the third article¹ of Bibelstudien we endeavoured

to correct the widespread notion that the New Testa-

ment presents us with a uniform and isolated linguistic

phenomenon. Most of the lexical articles in that section

were intended to make good the thesis that a philological

understanding of the history of New Testament (and also of

Septuagint) texts could be attained to only when these were

set in their proper historical connection, that is to say, when

they were considered as products of later Greek.

Friedrich Blass in his critique ² of Bibelstudien has ex-

pressed himself with regard to this inquiry in the following

manner:—

The third treatise again³ begins with general reflections, the purport

of which is that it is erroneous to regard New Testament, or even biblical,

Greek as something distinct and isolated, seeing that the Papyrus documents

and the Inscriptions are essentially of the same character, and belong simi-

larly to that "Book of Humanity" to which "reverence " (Pietat) is due.⁴

¹ I.e. the foregoing article. The present article was published later by

itself.

² ThLZ. xx. (1895), p. 487.

³ This again refers to a previous remark in which Blass had "willingly

conceded" to the author his "general, and not always short, reflections".

⁴ Blass has here fallen into a misunderstanding. The present writer

remarked (above, p. 84) that he who undertakes to glean materials from

the Inscriptions for the history of the New Testament language, is not

merely obeying the voice of science, "but also the behests of reverence to-

wards the Book of Humanity". The " Book of Humanity " is the New

Testament. We are of opinion that every real contribution, even the

slightest, to the historical understanding of the N. T. has not only scientific

value, but should also be made welcome out of reverence for the sacred

Book. We cannot honour the Bible more highly than by an endeavour to

attain to the truest possible apprehension of its literal sense.

174 BIBLE STUDIES. [N. 2

This appears to us to be the language of naturalism rather than of theology

but, this apart, it remains an incontestable fact that, in the sphere of Greek

literature, the New Testament books form a special group—one to be pri-

marily explained by itself; first, because they manifest a peculiar genius,

and, secondly, because they alone, or almost alone, represent the popular—

in contrast to the literary—speech of their time in a form not indeed wholly,

but yet comparatively, unadulterated, and in fragments of large extent. All

the Papyri in the world cannot alter this—even were there never so many

more of them: they lack the peculiar genius, and with it the intrinsic value;

further, they are to a considerable extent composed in the language of the

office or in that of books. True, no one would maintain that the N. T. occu.

pies an absolutely isolated position, or would be other than grateful¹ if some

peculiar expression therein were to derive illumination and clearness from

cognate instances in a Papyrus. But it would be well not to expect too

much.

The author must confess that he did not expect this

opposition from the philological side.² The objections of

such a renowned Graecist—renowned also in theological

circles—certainly did not fail to make an impression upon

him. They prompted him to investigate his thesis again,

and more thoroughly, and to test its soundness by minute

and detailed research. But the more opportunity he had of

examining non-literary Greek texts of the imperial Roman

period, the more clearly did he see himself compelled to

stand out against the objections of the Halle Scholar.

Blass has meanwhile published his Grammar of New

Testament Greek.³ In the Introduction, as was to be ex-

pected, he expresses his view of the whole question. The

astonishment with which the present writer read the fol-

lowing, p. 2, may be conceived:—

. . . The spoken tongue in its various gradations (which, according to

the rank and education of those who spoke it, were, of course, not absent

from it) comes to us quite pure—in fact even purer than in the New Testa-

ment itself—in the private records, the number and importance of which are

¹ Blass writes denkbar, conceivable, but the sentence in that case seems

to defy analysis. After consultation with the author, the translator has sub-

stituted dankbar, and rendered as above.—Tr.

² He noticed only later that Blass had previously, ThLZ. xix. (1894),

p. 338, incidentally made the statement that the New Testament Greek

should "be recognised as something distinct and subject to its own laws".

³ Gottingen, 1896. [Eng. Trans., London, 1698.]

N. 3] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 175

constantly being increased by the ever-growing discoveries in Egypt. Thus

the New Testament language may be quite justly placed in this connection,

and whoever would write a grammar of the popular language of that period

on the basis of all these various witnesses and remains, would be, from the

grammarian's point of view, taking perhaps a more correct course than one

who should limit himself to the language of the N. T.¹

If the present writer judges rightly, Blass has, in these

sentences, abandoned his opposition to the thesis above

mentioned. For his own part, at least, he does not perceive

what objection he could take to these words, or in what

respect they differ from the statements the accuracy of

which had previously been impugned by Blass. When in

the Grammar we read further:--

Nevertheless those practical considerations from which we started will

more and more impose such a limitation, for that which some Egyptian or

other may write in a letter or in a deed of sale is not of equal value with that

which the New Testament authors have written:--

it can hardly need any asseveration on the author's part that

with such words in themselves he again finds no fault. For

practical reasons, on account of the necessities of biblical

study, the linguistic relations of the New Testament, and of

the Greek Bible as a whole, may continue to be treated by

themselves, but certainly not as the phenomena of a special

idiom requiring to be judged according to its own laws.

Moreover, that view of the inherent value of the ideas

of the New Testament which Blass again emphasises in the

words quoted from his Grammar, does not enter into the

present connection. It must remain a matter of indifference

to the grammarian whether he finds e]a<n used for a@n in the

New Testament or in a bill of sale from the Fayyum, and

the lexicographer must register the kuriako<j found in the

pagan Papyri and Inscriptions with the same care as when

it occurs in the writings of the Apostle Paul.

The following investigations have been, in part, arranged

on a plan which is polemical. For although the author is

now exempted, on account of Blass's present attitude, from

any need of controversy with him as regards principles, still

¹ In the note to this Blass refers to the author's Bibelstudien, p. 57 f.

above, p. 63 f.).

176 BIBLE STUDIES. [N.4

the historical method of biblical philology has very many

opponents even yet.

In this matter, one thinks first of all of the unconscious

opponents, viz., those who in the particular questions of

exegesis and also of textual criticism stand under the charm

of the "New Testament" Greek without ever feeling any

necessity to probe the whole matter to the bottom. Among

these the author reckons Willibald Grimm (not without the

highest esteem for his lasting services towards the reinvigora-

tion of exegetical studies), the late reviser of Wilke's

Clavis Novi Testamenti Philologica. A comparison of the

second,¹ and the little-changed third,² edition of his work

with the English revision of Joseph Henry Thayer³—the

best, because the most reliable of all dictionaries to the

N. T. known to us—reveals many errors, not only in its

materials, but also in its method. His book reflects the

condition of philological research in, say, the fifties and

sixties. At least, the notion of the specifically peculiar

character of New Testament Greek could be upheld with more

plausibility then than now; the New Testament texts were

decidedly the most characteristic of all the products of non-

literary and of later Greek which were then known. But

materials have now been discovered in face of which the

linguistic isolation of the New Testament—even that more

modest variety of it which diffuses an atmosphere of vener-

able romanticism around so many of our commentaries—

must lose its last shadow of justification.

Among the conscious opponents, i.e., those who oppose

in matters of principle, we reckon Hermann Cremer.

His Biblisch-theologisches Worterbuch der neutestamentlichen

Graciteit ⁴ has for its fundamental principle the idea of the

formative power of Christianity in the sphere of language.

This idea, as a canon of historical philology, becomes a

fetter upon investigation. Further, it breaks down at once

in the department of morphology. But the most conspicu-

¹ Leipzig, 1879. ² Ibid., 1888 [quoted in this article as Clavis ³].

³ The author quotes the Corrected Edition, New York, 1896.

⁴ 8th Edition, Gotha, 1895.

N. 5] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 177

ous peculiarity of "New Testament" Greek—let us allow

the phrase for once—is just the morphology. The canon

breaks down very often in the syntax also. There are

many very striking phenomena in this department which

we cannot isolate, however much we may wish. The few

Hebraising expressions in those parts of the New Testament

which were in Greek from the first¹ are but an accidens

which does not essentially alter the fundamental character

of its language. The case in regard to these is similar to

that of the Hebraisms in the German Bible, which, in spite

of the many Semitic constructions underlying it, is yet a

German book. There remains, then, only the lexical ele-

ment in the narrower sense, with which Cremer's book is,

indeed, almost exclusively occupied. In many (not in all,

nor in all the more important) of its articles, there appears,

more or less clearly, the tendency to establish new "biblical"

or "New Testament" words, or new "biblical" or "New

Testament" meanings of old Greek words. That there are

"biblical" and "New Testament" words—or, more cor-

rectly, words formed for the first time by Greek Jews and

Christians—and alterations of meaning, cannot be denied.

Every movement of civilisation which makes its mark in

history enriches language with new terms and fills the old

speech with new meanings. Cremer's fundamental idea

is, therefore, quite admissible if it be intended as nothing

more than a means for investigating the history of religion.

But it not infrequently becomes a philologico-historical

principle: it is not the ideas of the early Christians

which are presented to us, but their "Greek". The correct

attitude of a lexicon, so far as concerns the history of

language, is only attained when its primary and persistent

endeavour is to answer the question: To what extent do the

single words and conceptions have links of connection with

contemporary usage? Cremer, on the other hand, prefers

to ask: To what extent does Christian usage differ from

heathen? In cases of doubt, as we think, the natural course

¹ Those parts of the N. T. which go back to translations must be con-

sidered by themselves.

178 BIBLE STUDIES. EN. 6

is to betake oneself placidly to the hypothesis of ordinary

usage; Cremer prefers in such cases to demonstrate some.

thing which is distinctively Christian or, at least, dis-

tinctively biblical.

In spite of the partially polemical plan of the following

investigations, polemics are not their chief aim. Their

purpose is to offer,¹ towards the understanding of the New

Testament, positive materials² from the approximately con-

temporary products of later Greek, and to assist, in what

degree they can, in the liberation of biblical study from the

bonds of tradition, in the secularising of it—in the good

sense of that term. They take up again, one might say, the

work of the industrious collectors of "observations" in last

century. The reasons why the new spheres of observation

disclosed since that time are of special importance for the

linguistic investigation of the Greek Bible in particular, have

been already set forth and corroborated by examples.³ In these

pages the following works have been laid under contribution:--

1. Collections of Inscriptions: the Inscriptions of Per-

gamus ⁴ and those of the Islands of the AEgean Sea, fast. 1.⁵

¹ On the other hand, the Greek Bible contains much, of course, which

may promote the understanding of the Inscriptions and Papyri.

² No intelligent reader will blame the author for having, in his investi-

gations regarding the orthography and morphology, confined himself simply

to the giving of materials without adding any judgment. Nothing is more

dangerous, in Textual Criticism as elsewhere, than making general judgments

on the basis of isolated phenomena. But such details may occasionally be

of service to the investigator who is at home in the problems and has a

general view of their connections.

³ Above, pp. 61-169; cf. also GGA. 1896, pp. 761-769: and ThLZ.

xxi. (1896), pp. 609-615, and the other papers cited above, p. 84.

⁴ Altertumer von Pergamon herausgegeben im Auftrage des Koniglich

Preussischen Ministers der geistlichen, Unterrichts- und Medicinal-Angelegen-

heiten, Band viii.; Die Inschrif ten von Pergamon unter Mitwirkung von Ernst

Fabricius und Carl Schuchhardt herausgegeben von Max Frankel, (1) Bis zum

Ende der SOnigszeit, Berlin, 1890, (2) Romische Zeit.—Inschriften auf Thon,

Berlin, 1895 [subsequently cited as Perg. or Frankel].

⁵ Inscriptiones Graecae insularum Maris Aegaei consilio et auctoritate

Academiae Litterarum Regiae Borussicae editae. Fasciculus primus Inscrip-

tiones Graecae insularum Rhodi Chalces Carpathi cum Saro Casi . . . edidit

Fridericus Hiller de Gaertringen, Berolini, 1895 [subsequently cited as IMAe.].

N. 7] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 179

2. Issues of Papyri: the Berlin Egyptian Documents,

vol. i. and vol. ii., parts 1-9; ¹ also the Papyri of the Arch-

duke Rainer, vol. i.²

In reading these the author had in view chiefly the

lexical element, but he would expressly state that a re-

perusal having regard to the orthographical and morpho-

logical features would assuredly repay itself. He desiderates,

in general, a very strict scrutiny of his own selections. It is

only the most important lexical features that are given here.

The author, not having in Herborn the necessary materials

for the investigation of the LXX at his disposal, had, very

reluctantly, to leave it almost entirely out of consideration.

But he has reason for believing that the Berlin and Vienna

Papyri in particular, in spite of their comparative lateness,

will yet yield considerable contributions towards the lexicon

of the LXX, and that the same holds good especially of

the Inscriptions of Pergamus in connection with the Books

of Maccabees.

It may be said that the two groups of authorities have

been arbitrarily associated together here. But that is not

altogether the case. They represent linguistic remains from

Asia Minor ³ and Egypt, that is to say, from the regions

which, above all others, come into consideration in connec-

tion with Greek Christianity. And, doubtless, the greater

part of the materials they yield will not be merely local, or

confined only to the districts in question.

The gains from the Papyri are of much wider extent

than those from the Inscriptions. The reason is obvious.

We might almost say that this difference is determined by

the disparity of the respective materials on which the writing

¹ Aegyptisch,e Urkunden aus den Etiniglichen Museen zu Berlin heraus-

gegeben von der Generalverwaltung: Griechische Urkunden. Erster Band,

Berlin, [completed] 1895; Zweiter Band, Heft 1-9, Berlin, 1894 ff. [subse-

quently cited as B U.].

² Corpus Papyrorum Raineri Archiducis Austriae, vol. i. Griechische

Texte herausgegeben von Carl Wessely, i. Band : Rechtsurkunden unter Mit-

wirkung von Ludwig Mitteis, Vienna, 1895 [subsequently cited as PER.].

³ We need only think of the importance of Pergamus for the earlier

period of Christianity.

180 BIBLE STUDIES. [N. 8

was made. Papyrus is accommodating and is available for

private purposes; stone is unyielding, and stands open to

every eye in the market-place, in the temple, or beside the

tomb. The Inscriptions, particularly the more lengthy and

the official ones, often approximate in style to the literary

language, and are thus readily liable to affectation and

mannerism; what the papyrus leaves contain is much less

affected, proceeding, as it does, from the thousand require-

ments and circumstances of the daily life of unimportant

people. If the legal documents among the Papyri show

a certain fixed mode of speech, marked by the formal-

ism of the office, yet the many letter-writers, male and

female, express themselves all the more unconstrainedly.

This holds good, in particular, in regard to all that is, re-

latively speaking, matter of form. But also in regard to the

vocabulary, the Inscriptions afford materials which well repay

the labour spent on them. What will yet be yielded by the

comprehensive collections of Inscriptions, which have not

yet been read by the author in their continuity, may be

surmised from the incidental discoveries to which he has

been guided by the citations given by Frankel. What

might we not learn, e.g., from the one inscription of

Xanthus the Lycian!¹

Would that the numerous memorials of antiquity which

our age has restored to us, and which have been already

so successfully turned to account in other branches of

science, were also explored, in ever-increasing degree, in

the interest of the philologico-historical investigation of the

Greek Bible! Here is a great opportunity for the ascertain-

ment of facts!

¹ See below, sub kaqari<zw, bia<zomai, i[la<skomai.

I.

NOTES ON THE ORTHOGRAPHY.

The orthographical problems of the New Testament

writings are complicated in the extreme. But, at all events,

one thing is certain, viz., that it is a delusion to search for

a "New Testament" orthography—if that is understood

to signify the spelling originally employed by the writers.

In that respect one can, at most, attain to conjectures

regarding some particular author: "the" New Testament

cannot really be a subject of investigation.¹ The present

writer would here emphasise the fact that — notwith-

standing all other differences—he finds himself, in this

matter, in happy agreement with Cremer, who has overtly

opposed the notion that an identical orthography may,

without further consideration, be forced upon, e.g., Luke,

Paul and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews.² The

first aim of the investigation should perhaps be this:—to

establish what forms of spelling were possible in the imperial

period in Asia Minor, Egypt, etc. We need not, of course,

pay any attention to manifest errors in writing. The fol-

lowing observed facts are intended to yield materials for this

purpose.

1. VARIATION OF VOWELS.

(a) The feminine termination –i<a for –ei<a.³ That in

2 Cor. 10⁴ strati<aj (= stratei<aj), and not stratia?j, is

¹ See above, p. 81. W. Schmid makes some pertinent remarks in

GGA. 1895, p. 36 f.

² Cremer ⁸, p. xiii. (Preface to the 4th edition).

³ Winer-Schmiedel, § 5, 13 c (p. 44) ; Blass, Grammatik, p. 9 [Eng.

Trans., p. 8].

182 BIBLE STUDIES. [N. 10

intended, should no longer be contested. It is really super-

fluous to collect proofs of the fact that stratei<a could also

be written strati<a. Nevertheless, the mode of spelling the

word in the Fayyum Papyri should be noted. In these

there is frequent mention of campaigns, the documents

having not seldom to do with the concerns of soldiers either

in service or retired. stratei<a is given by PER. i. 3 (83-84

A.D.), BU. 140 11. 23 (ca. 100 A.D.) 581 4. 15 (133 A.D.), 256 15

(reign of Antoninus Pius), 180 15 (172 A.D.), 592, i.6 (2nd

cent. A.D.), 625 14 (2nd-3rd cent. A.D.); strati<a by 195 39

(161 A.D.), 448 [= 161] 14 (2nd half of 2nd cent. A.D.), 614 20

(217 A.D.). Also in 613 23 (reign of Antoninus Pius), where

Viereck has stratiai?j, the author would prefer the accentu-

ation strati<aij.

(b) Interchange of a and e. Of e]ggareu<w (Matt. 5 ⁴¹

x, Mark 15 ²¹ x* B*) for a]ggareu<w,¹ Tischendorf says in con-

nection with the latter passage, "quam formarn in usu fuisse

haud incredibile est, hint nec aliena a textu". A papyrus of

cent. 4 shows also the spelling with e, in the substantive:

BU. 21, iii.16 (locality uncertain, 340 A.D.) e]ngari<aj.

Delmati<a, 2 Tim. 4¹⁰ C and others (A., Dermati<a) for

Dalmati<a,² according to Winer-Schmiedel, § 5, 20 c (p. 50),

is "probably Alexandrian, but perhaps also the original

form". BU. 93 7 (Fayyum, 2-3 cent. A.D.) gives e in

delmatikh<; on the other hand, PER. xxi.¹⁶ (Fayyum,

230 A.D.) has dalmatikh<. We should hardly postulate an

"Alexandrian " spelling.

(c) The contraction of iei= ii to i long3 in the (New

Testament) cases tamei?on and pei?n, occurs also in the

¹ Winer-Schmiedel, § 5, 20 c (p. 50) ; Blass, Grammatik, p. 21 [Eng.

Trans., p. 20 f.].

² "Delm. as well as Dalm. occurs also in Latin " (Blass, Gramm.,

p. 21. [Eng. Trans., p. 21.] P. Jiirges has called the author's attention

also to the excursus CIL. iii. 1, p. 280.

³ Winer-Schmiedel, § 5, 23 b (p. 53 f.) ; Blass, Gramm., p. 23 [Eng,

Trans., p. 23].

N.10, 11] LANGUAGE OP THE GREEK BIBLE. 183

Papyri. The author met with tamiei?on only once, BU. 106 5

(Fayytim, 199 A.D.); everywhere else ¹ tamei?on: PER. 1 13. 30

(83-84 A.D.), BU. 75 ii.12 (2nd cent. A.D.), 15 ii. 16 (197 A.D.?),

156 6 (201 A.D.) 7 i. 8 (247 A.D.), 8 ii. 30 (248 A.D.), 96 8 (2nd

half of 3rd cent. A.D.). Pei?n occurs in BU. 34 ii. 7. 17. 22. 23,

iii. ², iv. 3. 10 (place and date ?), pi?n ibid. iv. 25 2 and once more

BU. 551 6 (Fayyam, Arabian period).

2. VARIATION OF CONSONANTS.

(a) Duplication. The materials with regard to a]rrabw<n

given in Winer-Schmiedel, § 5, 26 c (p. 56 f.) may be supple-

mented : the author found a]rrabw<n only in BU. 240 ⁶ (Fay-

yum, 167-168 A.D.);³ a]rabw<n, on the other hand, in BU. 446

[= 80] 5. 17. 18 (reign of Marcus Aurelius, a fairly well written

contract), (in line ²⁶ of the same document, in the imperfect

signature of one of the contracting parties, we find a]labw<n),

601 11 (Fayyum, 2nd cent. A.D., a badly written private letter),

PER. XiX. 9. 16. 21. 24 (Fayyum, 330 A.D. a well written record

of a legal action). The assertion of Westcott and Hort (in

view of their usual precision a suspicious one), that a]rabw<n

is a purely "Western" reading, is hardly tenable. The

author, moreover, would question the scientific procedure of

Winer-Schmiedel's assertion that the spelling a]rrabw<n is

"established" by the Hebrew origin of the word.⁴ It

would be established only if we were forced to pre-

suppose a correct etymological judgment in all who used

the word.⁵ But we cannot say by what considerations they

¹ All the Papyri cited here are from the Fayyum.

² F. Krebs, the editor of this document, erroneously remarks on p. 46:

"pei?n = pi<nein". In connection with this and with other details W. Schmid,

GGA. 1895, pp. 26-47, has already called attention to the Papyri.

³ This passage is also referred to by Blass, Gramm., p. 11. [Eng. Trans.,

p. 10, note 4.]

⁴ Blass similarly asserts, Gramm., p. 11 [Eng. Trans., p. 10], that the

duplication is "established" in the Semitic form.

5 The matter is still more evident in proper names. For example,

]Are<qaj, as the name of Nabataean kings, is undoubtedly "established"

by etymological considerations; on the other hand, the Inscriptions and

other ancient evidence, so far as the author knows, all give ]Are<taj, and thus

]Are<ta in 2 Cor. 11³² may be considered "established" without the slightest

184 BIBLE STUDIES. [X.

were influenced in orthographical matters. It can no longer

be questioned that the spelling a]rabw<n was very common.

Who knows whether some one or other did not associate

the non-Greek word with the Arabs?¹ A popular tradition of

this kind might, in the particular case, invalidate the ety-

mological considerations advanced by us from the standpoint

of our present knowledge, and so induce us to uphold an

etymologically false spelling as "established".

ge<nnhma and ge<nhma. The spelling with a single n

and, consequently, the derivation from gi<nesqai, have been

already established by the Ptolemaic Papyri.² It is con-

firmed by the following passages from Fayyum Papyri of the

first four Christian centuries, all of which have to do with

fruits of the field:³ BU. 197¹³ (17 A.D.), 171 3 (156 A.D.), 49 5

179 A.D.), 188 9 (186 A.D.), 81 7 (189 A.D.), 67 8 (199 A.D.), 61

1. 8 (200 A.D.), 529 6 and 336 7 (216 A.D.), 64 5 (217 A.D.), 8 i. 28

(middle of 3rd cent. A.D.), 411 6 (314 A.D.); cf. also genhmato-

grafei?n in BU. 282 19 (after 175 A.D.).

A fluctuation in the orthography of those forms of

genna<w and gi<nomai which are identical except for the n (n)

has often been remarked;⁴ thus, genhqe<nta, undoubtedly

from genna<w, occurs also in the Papyri: B U. 110¹⁴ (Fayyum,

138-139 A.D.) and 28 16 (Fayyum, 183 A.D.). Both documents

are official birth-notices. On the other hand, the "correct"

gennhqei<j is thrice found in vol. i. of the Berlin Papyri.

The uncertainty of the orthography ⁵ is well indicated in

misgiving. It is exceedingly probable (according to the excellent conjecture

of Scharer, Gesch. d. jud. Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, i., Leipzig, 1890,

p. 619 [Eng. Trans., i., p. 359]) that this spelling was influenced by the

desire to Hellenise the barbaric name by assimilation to a]reth<.—Moreover,

also Blass, Gramm., p. 11 [Eng. Trans., p. 11], takes this view in regard to

]Iwa<nhj.

¹ Cf. the case of a]labw<n for a]rabw<n, as above, with the well-known

a]laba<rxhj for a]raba<rxhj.

² Above, p. 109 f. ; cf. Blass, Gramm., p. 11 [Eng. Trans., p. 11].

³ The author has not found the spelling with vv anywhere in the Papyri.

⁴ Winer-Schmiedel, § 5, 26 a (p. 56).

⁵ The problem of orthography became later a point of controversy in

the History of Dogma; cf. A. Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dogrnengeschichte, 3,

Freiburg and Leipzig, 1894, p. 191 f. [Eng. Trans., iv., p. 12 ff.]

N.13] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 185

BU. 111 (Fayyum, 138-139 A.D.), where line 21 has e]pi-

gennh<sewj; line 24, e]pigenh<sewj.

(b) Interchange of consonants. Smu<rna, Zmu<rna.¹ Perg.

203 3. 11. 17 (pre-Christian) Smu<rna, IMAe. 148 1 (Rhodes, date?)

Smurnai?oj, 468 (Rhodes, date?) Smurnai?oj. On the other

hand, Perg. 1274 (2nd cent. B.C., cf. Frankel, p. 432) Zmur-

nai?oj, BU. 1 11 (Fayyum, 3rd cent. A.D.) mu<rou kai> zmu<rnhj.²

spuri<j, sfuri<j. The Ptolemaic Papyri have both

spellings;³ the author found the diminutive twice in the

later Papyri from the Fayyum, and, indeed, with the vulgar

aspiration: sfuri<dion PER. xlvii. ⁵ (2nd-3rd cent. A.D.) and (a

vulgar abbreviation) ⁴ sfuri<tin ^sic, B U. 247 3. 4. 6. (2nd-3rd

cent. A.D.).

¹ Cf. Winer-Schmiedel, § 5, 27 d (p. 59); Blass, Gramm., p. 10. [Eng.

Trans., p. 10.]

² Cf. also BU. 69 s (Fayydm, 120 A.D.) nomi<zmatoj. ³ Above, p. 158.

⁴ Examples of this abbreviation from the Inscriptions are given by

Frankel, p. 341.

II.

NOTES ON THE MORPHOLOGY.

The New Testament references are again very seldom

given in the following; they can easily be found in the cited

passages of the Grammars.

1. DECLENSION.

(a) spei<raj as was not found by the author in the Papyri;

they seem always to have spei<rhj:¹ BU. 73 2 (Fayyum,

135 A.D.), 136 22 (Fayyum, 135 A.D.), 142 10 (159 A.D.), 447

[= 26] 12 (Fayyum, 175 A.D.), 241 3 (Fayyum, 177 A.D.). The

materials from the Inscriptions of Italy and Asia Minor

which Frankel adduces in connection with spei<ra = Thiasos,

also exhibit h in the genitive and dative.

(b) The Genitive h[mi<souj² is found in PER. xii.6

(93 A.D.), BU. 328 ii. 22 (138-139 A.D.), PER. cxcviii. ¹⁷ etc.

(139 A.D.), BU. 78 11 (148-149 A.D.), 223 6f. (210-211 A.D.),

PER. clxxvi.13 (225 A.D.); all these Papyri are from the

Fayyum. A form noteworthy on account of the genitive

tou? h[mi<sou in the LXX,³ occurs in BU. 183 41 (Fayyum, 85

A.D.), viz., h!mison me<roj. This may be a clerical error (line

21 has the correct h!misoi [oi = u] me<roj), but it is more

probable that here also we have a vulgar form h!misoj which

was common in Egypt.

¹ Winer-Schmiedel, § 8, 1 (p. 80 f.); Blass, Gramm., p. 25 [Eng. Trans.,

p. 25], gives other examples from the Papyri.

² Winer-Schmiedel, § 9, 6 (p. 87); Blass, Gramm., p. 27 [Eng. Trans.,

p. 27].

³ Winer-Schmiedel, § 9, 6 (p. 87), note 4; here we already find the

Papyrus, Notices, xviii. 2, 230 (154 A.D.), cited in reference to the form.

N. 15] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 187

(c) du<o.¹ The following forms in the Fayyum Papyri

are worthy of notice:² du<w BU. 208 4 (158-159 A.D.), duw?n

BU. 282 25 (after 175 A.D.), duei?n BU. 256 5 (reign of Anto-

ninus Pius), dusi< BU. 197 8 (17 A.D.) PER. ccxlii. 10 (40 A.D.),

i.⁷ (83-84 A.D.), BU. 538 6 (100 A.D.), 86 6 (155 A.D.), 166 7

(157 A.D.), 282 10 (after 175 A.D.), 326 ii.7 (189 A.D.), 303 19

(586 A.D.).

2. PROPER NAMES.

Abraham is Graecised @Abramoj (as in Josephus) in BU.

585 ii. ³ (Fayyum, after 212 A.D.) Parabw?j ]Abra<mou; on the

other hand, in Fayyum documents of the Christian period,

]Abraa<mioj 395 7 (599-600 A.D.), 401 ¹³ (618 A.D.), 367 5 etc.

(Arabian period); not Graecised, ]Abraa<m 103, verso 1

(6th-7th cent. A.D.).

]Aku<laj Clavis³, p. 16, simply gives ]Aku<lou as the

genitive for the N. T., although a genitive does not occur

in it. The Fayyum Papyri yield both ]Aku<lou BU. 484 6

(201-202 A.D.) and ]Aku<la 71 21 (189 A.D.).—The name of

the veteran C. Longinus Aquila, which occurs in the last-

mentioned document, is written ]Aku<laj in 326 ii.19 (end

of the 2nd cent. A.D.) and ]Aku<llaj in the fragment of a

duplicate of the same document which is there cited ; this

doubling of the l, is not unknown also in New Testament

manuscripts.³

]Anti<pa[tro]j. It is not wholly without interest

that the name of an inhabitant of Pergamus, which occurs

in Rev. 2¹³, is still found in Pergamus in the beginning of

the 3rd cent. A.D.: Perg. 524 2 (not older than the time of

Caracalla?) [ ]A] ntipa<trou.

Barnaba?j. On p. 310 below the author expresses

the conjecture that the name Barnabas⁴ arose from the

¹ Winer-Schmiedel, § 9, 11 (p. 90).

² Exhaustiveness is not guaranteed: it was only lately that the author

directed his attention to the point. In particular, he has no general idea as

to the usage of the common forms in the Papyri.

³ Cf. Tischendorf on Rom. 16 ³ and Acts 18².

⁴ Cf. A. Meyer, Jesu Muttersprache, Freiburg and Leipzig, 1896, p. 47 f.,

and E. Nestle, Philologica sacra, Berlin, 1896, p. 19 1.

188 BIBLE STUDIES. [N. 16

Graecising of the Semitic barnebou?j¹ or barnabou?j, which

could readily happen by the alteration of the Semitic

termination –ou?j into –a?j.² The termination -a?j was in

general a very popular one in the Graecising of Semitic

proper names: of this there occur numerous biblical ex-

amples. An example somewhat out of the way, but in itself

worthy of notice, may be noted here. Probably the oldest

of the Inscriptions found at Pergamus is the dedicatory

Inscription Perg. 1, Partaraj ]Aqnhai<hi, which, from the

character of the writing, is to be assigned to the 4th cent.

A.D. "The Greek dedicatory Inscription is preceded by two

lines, the script of which I am unable to determine; but

there is no doubt that they contain the dedication in the

language of the dedicator, whose name marks him as a

foreigner. The foreign script runs from right to left, since,

assuming this direction, we can recognise without difficulty

the name of the dedicator with its initial B, as the beginning

of the second line" (Frankel, p. 1, ad loc.). There is no

mention here of a fact which could certainly not remain

unnoticed, viz., that the "foreign" script, at least at the

beginning (i.e., at the right) of the second line, is plainly

Greek with the letters reversed: Greek letters undoubtedly

occur also in other parts of the mutilated text. One may

assume that the Semitic (?) text is given in Greek "reverse-

¹ The reference from the Inscriptions for this name which is given

below belongs to the 3rd or 4th century A.D. P. Jensen has called the

author's attention to a much older passage. In the Aramaic Inscription of

Palmyra No. 73, of the year 114 B.c. (in M. de Vogue's Syrie Centrale, In-

scriptions Semitiques . . ., Paris, 1868, p. 53) mention is made of a Barnebo

(ybnrb).

² Blass, ThLZ. xx. (1895), p. 488, holds this supposition to be absolutely

impossible. According to A. Hilgenfeld, Berl. Philol. Wochenschr., 1896, p.

650, it deserves consideration, but also requires to be tested. The author

stands by his hypothesis quite confidently—the more so as Blass has not

mentioned his counter-reasons. He has been informed by several well-

known Semitists that they accept it; cf. most recently, G. Delman, Die

Worte Jesu, vol. i., Leipzig, 1898, p. 32.—From the genitive barna, CIG.

4477 (Larissa in Syria, ca. 200 A.D.) we may most likely infer a nominative

Bapvas. The author does not venture to decide whether this might be a pet

form of barnaba?j (cf. Heinrici, Meyer, v ⁸. [1896], p. 525).

N.17] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 189

script" (Spiegelschrift) in the first two lines. The stone-

cutter who, as Frankel also thinks, was perhaps the dedi-

cator himself, had, on this view, the Semitic (?) text before

him, transcribed it letter by letter into Greek, and, more-

over, lighted upon the original idea of one by one revers-

ing the Greek letters (now standing in Semitic order). It

is, of course, possible that this hypothesis is fundamentally

wrong. It is certain, however, that the Greek name

Partaraj occurs in the "foreign" text in the doubly-

divergent form bartara. The letter which follows Bartara

cannot be a sigma; the non-Greek form is Bartara,—by

all analogies a personal name formed with rBa son. The

author does not venture to make any assertion with regard

to the second constituent -tara;¹ he has not met with the

name elsewhere. By the addition of a j the name has been

Graecised, Bartara?j or according to the carver, Partara?j.²

Dorka<j. The examples ³ in connection with Acts

9 ^{36, 39}, may be supplemented by IMAe. 569 (Rhodes, date ?).

]Isak. The spelling ]Isak (for ]Isaak), in Cod. x, in both

of D, often implied in the old Latin versions, and probably

also underlying the Graecised @Isakoj of Josephus, is found

in PER. xliv. 9 (Fayyum, 3rd-4th cent., A.D.), in which an

Au]rh<lioj ]Isak is mentioned; often also in the Fayyum

documents of the Christian period: B U. 305 5 (556 A.D.), 303 7

(586 A.D.), 47 6 and 173 5 (6th-7th cent. A.D.).

3. VERB.

(a) Augment. h]noi<ghn⁴ (Mark 7 ³⁵, Acts 12¹⁰, Rev. 11¹⁹,

155) B U. 326 ii. 10 (Fayyum, 194 A.D.) h]nu<gh [u=oi], said

of a will.⁵

¹ Aram. fraT;? i.e., son of the palace, Or son of Therach, Terah

(LXX qarra and qara, but, as a place-name, with t for t Numb. 33 ^{27 f,} taraq)
² The author does not know of any other examples of p for b. The

accentuation –a?j should probably be preferred to the Parta<raj given by

Frankel.

³ Cf. Wendt, Meyer, iii. ^6/7 (1888), p. 235.

⁴ Winer-Schmiedel, § 12, 7 (p. 103).

⁵ For the reading see ibid., Supplement, p. 359.

190 BIBLE STUDIES.

(b) Conjugation. te<teuxa¹ is fairly well authenticated in

Heb. 8 ⁶ ; cf. . BU. 332 6 (Fayyum, 2nd-3rd cent. A.D.) e]pi-

teteuxo<taj, unnecessarily altered by the editor to e]pitetu-

xo<taj.

h#ca² (Luke 13 ³⁴, 2 Pet. 2⁵, Acts 14 ²⁷ D) BU. 607 15

(Fayyum, 163 A.D.) kath<can.

e@leiya³ (Acts 6 ², Luke 5¹¹ D, Mark 12 ¹⁹ always

in the compound kate<leiya) also occurs in the following

Fayytim Papyri: B U. 183 19 (85 A.D.) katalei<y^, 176¹⁰ (reign

of Hadrian) katalei?yai, 86 7. 13 (155 A.D.) katalei<y^ ⁶

(no note of place, ca. 177 A.D.) katalei<yaj, 164¹³ (2nd-3rd

cent. A.D.) katalei?yai. The same compound is found also

in the passages Clem. 2 Cor. 5¹, 10¹, and Herm. Similit. 8,

3 ⁵ cited by Blass, also in LXX 1 Chron. 28 ⁹, and CIG.

4137 3 f. (Montalub in Galatia, date?); 4063 6 f. (Ancyra,

date?) has e]nkata<liye. It is possible that the use of the

form is confined to this compound.

h[rpa<ghn⁵ (2 Cor. 12 ^{2, 4}) occurs also in the fragment

of a document 6 which relates to the Jewish war of Trajan,

BU. 341 ¹² (Fayyum, 2nd cent. A.D.). On p. 359 of vol. i.

of that collection, h[rpa<ghsan is given as the corrected

reading of this.

The attaching of 1st aorist terminations to the 2nd

aorist ⁷ is of course very frequent in the Papyri. The author

has noted the following:—

¹ Winer-Schmiedel, § 13, 2, Note 2 (p. 104) ; Blass, Gramm., p. 57. [Eng.

Trans., p. 57.]

² Winer-Schmiedel, § 13, 10 (p. 109) ; Blass, Gramm., p. 42. [Eng.

Trans., p. 43.]

³ Winer-Schmiedel, § 13, 10 (p. 109) ; Blass, Gramm., p. 43. [Eng.

Trans., p. 43.]

⁴ The Editor, P. Viereck, makes the unnecessary observation, "1. [read]

katali<p^.

⁵ Winer-Schmiedel, § 13, 10 (p. 110); Blass, Gramm., p. 43. [Eng.

Trans., p. 43.]

⁶ Cf. above, p. 68.

⁷ Winer-Schmiedel, § 13, 13 (p. 111 f.) ; Blass, Gramm., p. 44 f. [Eng

Trans., p. 45 f.]

N.18,19] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 191

e]gena<mhn, 7: PER. i. 26 (Fayyum, 83-84 A.D.) gena<menoj

along with the frequent geno<menoj, BU. 46 47 (132-133 A.D.)

yucip,eva together with genome<nh[n] in line 10, 300 11 (Fayyum,

148 A.D.) paragena<menoj, 301 4 (Fayyum, 157 A.D.) gename<nou,

115 ii. 25 (Fayyum, 189 A.D.) gename<noij, 490 5 (Fayyum, 2nd

cent. A.D.) gename<nh, 531 ii.17 (Fayyum, 2nd cent. A.D.)

pa[r]agene<menoj, 21 ii. 2 (340 A.D.) gename<nou, 3 24 (Fayyum.

605 A.D.) gename<nwn.

h#lqa: BU. 530 11 (1st cent. A.D.) h#lqaj, 72 6 (191 A.D.)

e]ph?lqan, 515 13 (193 A.D.) e]pe[i]sh?lqan, 146 5 (2nd-3rd cent.

A.D.) e]ph?lqan, 103 1 (6th-7th cent. A.D.) h#lqan; all these

Papyri come from the Fayyum.

e@sxa (Acts 7 ⁵⁷ D, sune<sxan): BU. 451 8 (1st-2nd cent.

A.D.) e@sxamen.

e@laba: BU. 562 21 (Fayyum, beginning of 2nd cent.

A.D.) e]ce<laba, 423 9 (2nd cent. A.D.) e@laba, 261 18 and 449 8

(both from the Fayyum, 2nd-3rd cent. A.D.) e@laba.

The use of the terminations -a, -aj in the imperfect ¹ is

shown in BU. 595 9 (Fayyum, 70-80 A.D.) e@legaj, 515 5

(Fayyum, 193 A.D.) w]fei<lamen, 157 8 (Fayyum, 2nd-3rd cent.

A.D.) e]ba<stazan. We might add 44 8 (Fayyum, 102 A.D.)

o]fi<late: the augment is wanting, as in BU. 281 12

(Fayyum, reign of Trajan) o@f[i]len, and 340 11 (Fayyum,

148-149 A.D.) o@filen.

The termination -san for -n in the 3rd plural³ is attested

by BU. 36 9 (Fayyum, 2nd-3rd cent. A.D.) e]ph<lqosan, and (in

a contracted verb) 251 4 (Fayyum, 81 A.D.) proeg[am] ou?san;

also in the document by the same hand 183 6 (Fayyum, 85

A.D.) proegamou?san;⁴ the last two examples occur in the

phrase kaqw>j kai> proegamou?san, most likely a formula in

marriage-contracts.

¹ Winer-Schmiedel, § 13, 13 (p. 112); Blass, Gramm., p. 45. [Eng.

Trans., p. 46.]

² Most likely an assimilation to o@felon.

³ Winer-Schmiedel, § 13, 14 (p. 112 f.); Blass, Gramm., p. 45 f. [Eng.

Trans., p. 46.]

⁴ The editors accentuateproega<mousan.

192 BIBLE STUDIES. [N. 19,20

The termination -an for -asi in the 3rd plural perfect¹

occurs in BU. 597 19 (Fayyhm, 75 A.D.) ge<gonan (Rom. 16 ⁷

AB, Rev. 21. ⁶ x^c A) and 328 i. 6 (Fayyum, 138-139 A.D.)

metepige<grafan.²

The termination -ej for -aj in the 2nd singular perfect and

aorist³ is found with remarkable frequency in the badly-

written private letter BU. 261 (Fayyum, 2nd-3rd cent.

A.D. ?): line 14 de<dwkej, 17 h@rhxej, (=ei#rhkej ) 23 su> oi#dej 24f.

e@grayej: the last form occurs also in the private letter 38 14

(Fayyum 1st cent. A.D.).

di<dwmi:⁴ The Papyri yield a number of examples of

di<dw (didw??) for di<dwmi—all from the Fayyum. In BU.

261 21 (2nd-3rd cent. A.D.?, badly written) is found ou]de>n e]gw>,

di<dw (didw??),⁵ 97 21 (201-202 A.D.) e]pidi<dw,⁶ 38 19 (1st cent.

A.D.) di<di as 3rd sing. pres. ( = di<dei). e]pidi<dw (=dido<w) is indi-

cated by 86 22 (155 A.D.) didou?ntoj, and already by 44 15 (102

A.D.) a]ndidou?nta ⁷ (but in line 14 dido<nta).

ti<qhmi. According to Winer-Schmiedel, § 14, note 11

(p. 121) there appear to be no indubitable derivations from

a verb ti<qw. But the well-written Papyrus BU. 326 i. 16

¹ Winer-Schmiedel, § 13, 15 (p. 113); Blass, Gramm., p. 45. [Eng.

Trans., p. 46.]

² Conversely, -asi for -an in BU. 275 5 (Fayyum, 215 A.D.) e]ph<lqasi.

³ Winer-Schmiedel, § 13, 16 (p. 113 f.) ; Blass, Gramm., p. 46. [Eng,

Trans., p. 46.]

⁴ Winer-Schmiedel, § 14, 11 ff. (p. 121 f.); Blass, Gramm., p. 48 f. [Eng

Trans., p. 49 f.] Neither writer takes notice of 1 Cor. 7³ a]podide<tw.

⁵ It is true that line 23 has mh> didi au]t^? (cf. Supplement, p. 358). The

editor, F. Krebs, accentuates 3/51, and explains thus : "1. [read] di<dei = di<dwsi.

The present writer considers this impossible: di<di (=di<dei) is rather an im-

perative of di<dwmi, formed in accordance with ti<qei. Similarly BU. 602 6

Fayyum, 2nd cent. A.D.) e]dei<di ( =e]di<dei) on the analogy of e]ti<qei. Other

assimilations to the formation of ti<qhmi in the Fayyum Papyri are: 360 8

(108-109 A.D.) the imperative para<dete, and 159 3 (216 A.D.) e]ce<deto; the latter

form already in PER. ccxxii.18 (2nd cent. A.D.).

⁶ e]pidi<dw could also be an abbreviation of e]pidi<dwmi, specially as it occurs

in a common formula. Hence the editor, U. Wilcken, writes e]pidi<dw(mi).

⁷ Apocope of the preposition, like BU. 86 7 (Fayyum, 155 A.D.) kalei<y^;

in contrast with line 12 of the same Papyrus katalei<y^ (not, however, padw<sw,

B U. 39 20 which has been corrected, in accordance with a more exact reading

p. 354, to a]podw<sw). Cf. Winer-Schmiedel, § 5, 22 c, note 47 (p. 53).

N. 20, 21] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 193

(Fayyum, 189 A.D.) yields parakatati<qomai.—tiqw? (=tiqe<w)

is indicated by BU. 350 13 (Fayyum, reign of Trajan) u[po-

tiqou?sa, which, however, perhaps depends in this place

merely on euphony; it stands in the following connection:

e]noikodomou?sa kai> e]piskeua<zousa kai> polou?sa^sic kai> u[poti-

qou?sa kai> e[te<roij metadidou?sa.

du<nomai¹ is often attested in the Fayyum Papyri:

BU. 246 10 (2nd-3rd cent. A.D.), 388 ii. 8 (2nd-3rd cent. A.D.),

159 5 (216 A.D.) duno<menoj,—also 614 20 (217 A.D.). In 348 8

(156 A.D.) there occurs w[j a}n du<noi which must certainly be

3rd singular; this would involve a du<nw.²

¹ Winer-Schmiedel, § 14, 17 (p. 123); Blass, Gramm., p. 48. [Eng.

Trans., p. 49.]

² The particular sentence (from a private letter) is not quite clear to the

author, but he considers it impossible that the form could be derived from

the well-known du<nw. F. Krebs also places du<noi in connection with du<namai

in his index.

III.

NOTES ON THE VOCABULARY AND THE SYNTAX.

1. SO-CALLED HEBRAISMS.

a]nastre<fomai and a]nastrofh<.

Quite a multitude of examples, all of the Roman period

(after 133 B.C.), of the moral signification of the verb,¹ which

is not to be explained as a Hebraism, and to which attention

was called above, p. 88, are yielded by the since-published

second volume of the Inscriptions of Pergamus. Putting

aside Perg. 252 39, where the word is got only by a violent

restoration, the author would refer to 459 5 kalw?j kai> e]ndo<cwj

a]nastrafh?nai, (cf. Heb. 13 ¹⁸ kalw?j a]nastre<fesqai, James 3 ¹³,

1 Pet. 2¹² kalh> a]nastrofh<), 470 4 [e]n pa?s]in a]nes[tram]me<non

a]ci<wj [th?j po<lewj] and 496 5ff. [a]]nastrefome<nhn kalw?j kai>

eu]sebw?j kai> e]ci<wj th?j po<lewj (cf. the Pauline peripatei?n

a]ci<wj c. gen.); also 545 a]nastrafe<n[ta]. IMAe. 1033 7f.

(Carpathus, 2nd cent. B.C. ?) filodo<cwj a]ne<[s]trap[tai] may

be still older than any of these. Frankel, p. 16, cites further

CIG. 1770 (letter of Flaminin) of oi[ ou]k a]po> tou? belti<stou

ei]wqo<tej a]nastre<fesqai.²

For a]nastrofh<, in the ethical sense, IMAe. 1032 6 (Car-

pathos, 2nd cent. B.c.) should be noted.

ei]j.

The use of ei]j for expressing the purpose of donations,

collections or other expenditure (discussed above, p. 117 L),

¹ It is significant that Thayer should note this usage in Xenophon (An.

2, 5, 14) and Polybius (1, 9, 7; 74, 13 ; 86, 5, etc.), while Clavis³ does not.

² P. Wendland, Deutsche Litteraturzeitung, 1895, col. 902, refers further

to Schenkl's Index to Epictetus, and to Viereck, Sermo graecus, p. 75.

194
N. 23] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 195

which is not to be interpreted as a Hebraism, is confirmed

also by the later Papyri. For example, in the very compre-

hensive account BU. 34 (date and place uncertain), the

separate items of expenditure are very often introduced by

ei]j. ta>j ei]j to>n Ma<rwna . . . oi]konomi<aj, PER. i. 11 (Fayyum,

83-84 A.D.) is correctly translated by the editor as the en-

dorsement of Maron's account; cf. PER. xviii. 12 f. (Fayyum,

124 A.D.) ei]j a@llon tina> gra<fein diaqh<khn, to draw up a will in

favour of any other person. Leaving aside the New Testa-

ment passages, we find this ei]j; elsewhere as well the usage is

therefore no mere Egyptian idiom. Thus, in a list of donors

to a religious collection, Perg. 554 (after 105 A.D.), the purpose

of the various items of expenditure is expressed by ei]j,¹ e.g.,

line 10, ei]j taurobo<lion. The abrupt ei]j in the expenses-list

Perg. 553 K (reign of Trajan) may also be mentioned as an

example. The author has found this ei]j in other Inscriptions

as well.

e]rwta<w.

Cremer⁸, p 415, says: "in New Testament Greek also

request . . . . — an application of the word which

manifestly arose through the influence of the Hebr. lxw".

But, as against this, Winer-Lunemann, p. 30, had already made

reference to some profane passages,² which Clavis,³ p. 175,

appropriates and extends—though with the accompanying

remark, " ex imitations hebr. lxawA, significatu ap. profanos

rarissimo". The author has already expressed his disagree-

ment with the limitation of this really vulgar-Greek usage

to the Bible.³ The Fayyum Papyri yield new material:

e]rwta?n request occurs in BU. 50 9 (115 A.D.), 423 11 (2nd cent.

A..D.), 417 2 f. (2nd-3rd cent. A.D.), 624 15 (reign of Diocletian).

¹ Frankel, p. 353.

² Winer-Schmiedel, § 4, 2 a (p. 27), counts this usage among the "im-

perfect" Hebraisms. It would be better to abolish this term from Winer's

Grammar.

³ Below, p. 290 f., with a reference to the examples of Wilamowitz-Moel-

lendorff in Guil. Schmidt, De Flavii Iosephi elocutione observations criticae,

Fleck. Jbb. Suppl. xx. (1894), p. 516.

196 BIBLE STUDIES. [N. 24

To these should be added the adjuration-tablet of Adru-

metum (probably belonging to the 2nd cent. A.D.), lineal.

(See p. 276.)

kaqaro>j a]po< tinoj.

The erroneous idea that this construction (Acts 20 ²⁶ and

in Old Testament passages) is a Hebraism, has been long

refuted not only by passages from late-Greek writers, but

even by Demosthenes, 59 78.¹ That the error, in spite of all,

is still prevalent is shown by Clavis³, p. 217, "ex hebr. add. a]po<

tinoj. . . . ap. nativos Graecos c. nudo gen.". It will there-

fore do no harm to supplement the extra-biblical examples

by the following passages from the Fayyum Papyri: BU.

197 14 (17 A.D.), 177 12 (46-47 A.D.), 112 11 (ca. 60 A.D.), 184 25

(72 A.D.), PER. i. 16 (83-84 A.D.), BU. 536 6 (reign of Domitian),

193 19 (136 A.D.), 240 24 (167-168 A.D.), PER. ccxx. 10 (1st or

2nd cent. A.D.), BU. 94 13 (289 A.D.). In all these passages,

which are distributed over a period of nearly three hundred

years, we find the formula free of a money-debt. To these

there may be added a still older example in the Inscription

of Pergamus 255 7 ff. (early Roman period), a]po> de> ta<fou kai>

e]kfor[a?j] . . . kaqaroi> e@stwsan.

o@noma.

1. This word occurs in Acts 1¹⁵, Rev. 3 ⁴, 11 ¹³, with

the meaning of person. Clavis³, p. 312, explains this usage

ex imitatione hebr. tOmwe. But the hypothesis of a Hebraism

is unnecessary; the Papyri demonstrate the same usage,

which, of course, sufficiently explains itself: BU. 113 11 (143

A.D.) e[ka<st& o]no<mati para(genome<n&), 265 18 (Fayyum, 148

A.D.) [e[ka<st& o]no<m]ati par<k[ei]tai,² 531 ii. 9 f. (Fayyum, 2nd

¹ The passage in Demosthenes had been cited by G. D. Kypke, Observa-

tiones sacrae, Wratisl. 1755, ii., p. 109; after him by Winer for example (e.g.,

⁴[1836], p. 183, ⁷[1867], p. 185, and Blass, Gramm., p. 104 [Eng. Trans., p.

106]. The author's attention was called to Kypke by Wendt on Acts 20²⁶

(Meyer, iii.^6/7 [1888], p. 444. The right view is advocated also by Cremer⁸,

p. 489.

² In regard to both of these passages, Professor Wilcken of Breslau

observes, in a letter to the author, that o@noma is there used "for the possessor

N. 25] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 197

cent. A.D.) ta> perigeino<mena ^sic e]noi<kia pro>j e!kaston o@noma

tw?n trugw<ntwn grafh<twi ^sic, 388 i. 16 (Fayyum, 2nd-3rd cent.

A.D.) tabe<llai du<[o] e]leuqerw<sewn tou? au]tou? o]no<matoj dia-

fo<roij xro<noij (cf. 11. 35 pw?j [o]u#n tou? Eu]kai<rou du<[o] tabe<llai

e]leuqeri<aj eu[[ri<]s[kon]tai;).

2. To the authorities for the formula ei]j to> o@noma<

tinoj, given on p. 146 ff. above, may be added BU. 256 5

(Fayyum, reign of Antoninus Pius) ta> u[pa<rxont[a] ei]j o@noma

duei?n ^sic that which belongs to the name (i.e., property or means)

of the two; here the form is used in the same way as in the

expression (belonging to Asia Minor) kthmatw<nhj ei]j to> tou?

qeou? o@noma, p. 147 above. For other examples see ThLZ.

xxv. (1900), p. 73 f. The formula e]p ] o]no<matoj is similarly

used in the Papyri—B U. 22615 f. (Fayyum, 99 A.D.) pa<ntwn

tw?n e]p ] o]no<matoj th?j mhtro<j mou . . . ei]j au]tou>j u[parxo<ntwn; ¹

further, BU. 231 9 (Fayyum, reign of Hadrian) should pos-

sibly be restored thus: [e]p ] o]no<]matoj th?j qugatro<j su.²

3. On p. 147 above, the conjecture was made that the non-

discovery hitherto of the phrase poiei?n ti e]n t&? o]no<mati< tinoj in

any extra-biblical source is to be attributed solely to chance.

But the author has meanwhile met with it—not, indeed, in

the construction with e]n, but in the very similar one with

the dative alone. The oath of fealty to the Emperor Cali-

gula taken by the inhabitants of Assos in Troas (Ephemeris

epigraphica, v. [1884], p. 156, 37 A.D.) is signed by 5 pres-

beutai<, after which group of names occur the concluding

of the name, the person," but that the translation name answers quite well.

—The present writer would, with Luther, render the word by name in the

New Testament passages also, so that the special character of the usage

might not be obliterated.

¹ In Corpus Papyrorum Raineri, i. 1, 270, note, L. Mitteis translates

this passage: alles Vermogen meiner Mutter ist in seinem Besitz [all the pro-

perty of my mother is in his possession].

² A different case is 153 27 (Fayyum, 152 A.D.) a]pogra<yasqai e]n t^? tw?n

kamh<lwn a]pograf^? . . . e]p ] o]no<matoj au]tw?n. What we have here is the entering

on the list of a camel under the name of its new owner. Still, that which is

specified as e]p ] o]no<matoj of any one is, in point of fact, his property. One

sees that here, as also in the above formulm, there can be no thought of a

new meaning of the word, but only of a realising of its pregnant fundamental

meaning.

198 BIBLE STUDIES. [N 26.

words: oi!tinej kai> u[pe>r th?j Gai<ou Kai<saroj Sebastou? Ger-

manikou? swthri<aj eu]ca<menoi Dii> Kapitwli<&^sic e@qusan t&? th?j

po<lewj o]no<mati. Here we have most likely the same usage

as in James 5¹⁰ A e]la<lhsan t&? o]no<mati kuri<ou;¹ and the

hypothesis of Cremer ⁸, p. 712, viz., that "it was Christianity

which first introduced the use of the phrase 'in the name of,

etc.,' into occidental languages" should thus be rejected.

2. SO-CALLED "JEWISH-GREEK" "BIBLICAL" OR "NEW

TESTAMENT" WORDS AND CONSTRUCTIONS.

The articles which follow should make it clear that the

non-occurrence in extra-biblical literature of many biblical

words is a matter solely of statistical contingency. (In some

cases the question, moreover, is not one of non-occurrence at

all, but merely of non-notification.) Many of this particular

class of words have been already noticed in the second treatise

of this work. The author observes, further, that reference

is made by Blass, Grammatik des Neutest. Griechisch, p. xii.

[see Eng. Trans., p. 127, note], to e@nanti, in Inscriptions; p.

69 [Eng. Trans., p. 68], to filwprwteu<w in an Inscription,

and p. 68 [Eng. Trans., p. 68] to frenapa<thj in a Papyrus.

The number of "biblical" or "New Testament" words

will certainly still further melt away—and without prejudice

to the distinctive inner character of biblical ideas.

a]ga<ph.

In the German edition of Bibelstudien (Marburg, 1895),

p. 80, there was cited, in reference to a]ga<ph, the Paris

Papyrus 49 (between 164 and 158 B.C.), in which citation

the author adopted the reading of the French editor (1865).

Subsequently, Blass, in his critique,² questioned the accuracy

of this reading, and, in virtue of the facsimile, proposed

taraxh<n instead of a]ga<phn. The facsimile is not a photo-

graphic one; the author considered that a]ga<phn was, at

least, not impossible. Blass, however, is most probably

right. A re-examination of the passage in the original, as

¹ But not in Mark 9³⁸ A and Matt. 7²², where the dative is instrumental,

² ThLZ. xx. (1895), p. 488,

N. 27] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 199

has been kindly communicated to us by M. Pierret, the

Conservator of Egyptian Antiquities in the Louvre, has had

the result "qu'on ne trouve, dans le papyrus No 49, aucune

trace du mot a]ga<phn, mais seulement a la ligne 6 la vraisemblance

d'une lecture taraxh<n". The author, therefore, has no hesi-

tation in here withdrawing his reference to this Papyrus.¹

[The note in question has, of course, been omitted in this

translation.]

Nevertheless, this does not imply the removal of the

doubt as to whether the word is a specifically "biblical"

one, and the conjecture that it was used in Egypt can now

be confirmed. Only, one does not need to go to Paris in

order to find the word. The statements of v. Zerschwitz,²

Clavis³ and Cremer⁴ notwithstanding, it is found in Philo, to

which fact, so far as the present writer is aware, Thayer

alone has called attention in his lexicon.⁵ In Quod Deus

immut. § 14 (M., p. 283), it is said: par ] o! moi dokei? toi?j

proeirhme<noij dusi> kefalai<oij, t&? te "w[j a@nqrwpoj" kai> t&?

"ou]x w[j a@nqrwpoj o[ qeo<j,"⁶ e!tera du<o sunufh?nai a]ko<louqa kai>

suggenh? fo<bon te kai> a]ga<phn. Here then we have a]ga<ph,

and in such manner as to repel the supposition that Philo

adopted the word from the LXX. Further, a]ga<ph is here

used already in its religious-ethical sense, for the connection

shows that the reference is to love to God, the antithesis of

which is fear of God (cf., in the next sentence, h} pro>j to>

a]gapa?n h} pro>j to> fobei?sqai to>n o@nta. The analogy to 1 John

4 ¹⁸ is quite apparent.

¹ Cf. W. M. Ramsay, The Expository Times, vol. ix., p. 567 f.

² Profangraecitaet und biblischer Sprachgeist, Leipzig, 1859, p. 62:

" ]Aga<ph does not occur as a genuine term, so far as the references in the Lexica

avail, in the koinh< either".

³ Clavis⁵, p. 3: "In Philone et Josepho legi non memini" (after Bret-

schneider).

⁴ Cremer⁸, p. 14, "this word, apparently formed by the LXX, or, at any

rate, in their circle (Philo and Josephus do not have it) . . . . “

⁵ The present writer had not the book by him when he wrote the article

evycirn in the German Bibelstudien.

⁶ The passage relates to the apparent contradiction between LXX Deut.

1 ³¹ and Numb. 23¹⁹.

200 BIBLE STUDIES. [N. 28

For the sake of completeness it may be permitted to

notify still another passage, which, however, does not afford

an altogether certain contribution to the answering of our

question either way. In a scholion to Thuc. ii. 51, 5, we

find filanqrwpi<aj kai> a]ga<phj as a gloss to a]reth?j (ed. Poppo,

ii. 2, p. 92, or A. Schoene [1874], p. 209 25). Our opinion of

the gloss will depend upon our answer to the question

whether the glossator was a Christian or not. But no

certain answer to this question can be given. In the

present state of scholiastic research it is impossible to

speak definitely about the age of any particular scholium

or of any philological term in the scholia. Still, the sort of

gloss which savours of interlinear explanation, and which

explains only by remodelling the expression, has always

against it (in the opinion of Professor G. Wissowa of Halle,

who has most willingly furnished us with this information)

the disadvantage of late age.

a]kata<gnwstoj.

Hitherto authenticated only in 2 Macc. 4 ⁴⁷, Tit. 2 ⁸ and

in ecclesiastical writers. Clavis³, p. 14, is content to confirm

this state of the matter; Cremer⁸, p. 245, isolates the word

thus: "only in biblical and ecclesiastical Greek". The

formation and meaning of the word, however, support the

hypothesis that we have to reckon here with a matter of

statistical chance. In point of fact, the word occurs in the

epitaph CIG. 1971 b 5 (Thessalonica, 165 A.D.), applied to

the deceased; also in the poetical epitaph in the Capitoline

Museum at Rome IGrSI 2139 3 (date ?), applied to the

deceased (a@memptoj, a]kata<gnwstoj)²; finally, also in a deed

of tenure, which certainly belongs to the Christian period,

but which can hardly be deemed a memorial of "ecclesi-

¹ Inscriptions Graecae Siciliae et Italiae additis Graecis Galliae His-

paniae Britanniae Germaniae inscriptionibus consilio et auctoritate Academiae

Litterarum Regiae Borussicae edidit Georgivs Kaibel, . . . Berolini 1890.

² Kaibel, Epigrammata Graeca ex lapidibus conlecta, Berlin, 1878, p.

296 f., treats the Inscription under No. 728 as a Christian one, but without

giving his reasons.

N. 29] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 201

astical" Greek in Cremer's sense: BU. 308 8 (Fayyum,

Byzant. period) e]]pa<nagkej e]pitele<swmen ta> pro>j th>n kallier-

gi<an tw?n a]rourw?n e@rga pa<nta a]katagnw<st[wj].¹

e]a<n.

1. A. Buttmann² observes in reference to e]a<n with the

indicative: "It cannot be denied, indeed, that the examples

of this construction are almost as nothing compared with the

mass of those which are grammatically regular, whatever

doubts may be raised by the fact that hardly a single quite

trustworthy passage with the indicative has come down to

us". But he is right, with regard to those passages in which

both the indicative and the subjunctive appear in the text,

in attributing the latter to the copyists. Only a very few

absolutely certain examples, belonging to a relatively early

period, can be pointed out. The following have been noticed

by the author in Papyri: BU. 300 5 (Fayyum, 148 A.D.) ka}n

de<on h#n,⁴ 48 13 (Fayyum, 2nd-3rd cent. A.D.) e]a>n de> mh> e]nh?n ⁵;

in each case the form is properly a perfect.⁶ Further, with

the present or future indicative following, we have the Paris

Papyrus 18 (imperial period ?),⁷ in the middle, LA, e]a>n maxousin

met ] e]sou? oi[ a]delfoi< sou, according as we accentuate ma<xousin

or maxou?sin ⁸; BU. 597 6 (Fayyum, 75 A.D.) kai> e]a>n ei]po<sei,⁹

¹ So the editor, Wilcken, restores; the author considers that a]kata<-

gnwst[oi] is also possible.

² Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachgebrauchs, Berlin, 1859, p.

192.

³ Strictly speaking, this point is out of place in the above paragraph, but

it is discussed here in order to avoid breaking up the article e]a<n.

⁴ The editor's proposal to change h#n into ^# seems to the present writer

wrong. Cf. also the passage B 543 5, quoted below.

⁵ e]a<n with the subjunctive is found three times (lines 4. 12. 17) in the same

Papyrus.

⁶ Winer-Lunemann, p. 277, b at the foot.

⁷ Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la bibliotheque imperiale, vol. xviii.,

part 2, Paris, 1865, p. 232 f.

⁸ For ma<xw cf. the analogous cases in Winer-Lunemann, top of p. 244.

⁹ This peculiar form (developed from ei#pon?) must in any case be inter-

preted as indicative.

202 BIBLE STUDIES. [N. 30

cf. 607 23 (Fayyum, 163 A.D.) o[po<tan¹ a]nair[o]u?ntai and the

passages cited below, 86 19,22.

2. Winer-Lunemann, p. 291, writes as follows, in refer-

ence to the frequent e]a<n instead of a@n in relative clauses:

"In the text of the N. T. (as in the LXX and the Apocrypha

. . ., now and then in the Byzantine writers, . . .), a@n, after

relatives is frequently displaced, according to most authorities

and the best, by e]a<n [here the passages are given], as not

seldom in the Codices of Greek, even of Attic, writers.

Modern philologists . . . substitute a]n, throughout. . . .

The editors of the N. T. have not as yet ventured to do

this, and in point of fact e]a<n for a]n may well have been a

peculiarity of the popular language in later (if not, indeed, in

earlier) times." A. Buttmann, p. 63 f., is of a like opinion:

"We may at least infer with certainty, from the frequent

occurrence of this substitution, that this form, certainly in-

correct (but still not quite groundless), was extant among

later writers". Schmiedel² also recognises this e]a<n as late-

Greek. But even in 1888 Grimm, Clavis,³ p. 112, had ex-

plained it "ex usu ap. profanos maxime dubio". The case is

extremely instructive in regard to the fundamental question

as to the character of the language of the Greek Bible.

That this small formal peculiarity, occurring abundantly³ in

the Greek Bible, should be, as is said, very doubtful among

"profane" writers, is conceivable only on the view that

"biblical Greek" constitutes a philological-historical mag-

nitude by itself. If, however, we take the philological

phenomena of the Bible out of the charmed circle of the

¹ o[po<tan and o!tan with the future indicative in the Sibyllists are treated

of by A. Rzach, Zur Kritik der Sibyllinischen, Orakel, Philologus, liii. (1894),

p. 283.

² HC. ii. 1 (1891), p. 98, ad loc. 1 Cor. 6¹⁸.

³ In the LXX in innumerable passages (H. W. J. Thiersch, De Penta-

teuchi versione Alexandrina libri tres, Erlangen, 1841, p. 108); in the Apocry-

pha, Ch. A. Wahl, Clavis librorum V. T. Apocryphorum philologica, Leip-

zig, 1853, p. 137 f., enumerates 28 cases; in the N.T. Clavis³ gives 17. Many

other cases, without doubt, have been suppressed by copyists or editors.—

U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff considers o{ e]a<n, 3 John ⁵, to be an "ortho-

graphic blunder" (Hermes, xxxiii. [1898], p. 531), but this is a mistake.

N. 31] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 203

dogma of "biblical Greek," we may then characterise the

possible non-occurrence of "profane" examples of the present

phenomenon as, at most, a matter of accident. But the

Papyri prove that the biblical e]a<n—so far at least as regards

New Testament times¹--was in very frequent use in Egypt;

they confirm in the most marvellous way the conjecture of

Winer and A. Buttmann. The New Testament is, in this

matter, virtually surrounded by a cloud of witnesses: the

author has no doubt that the Ptolemaic Papyri² and the

Inscriptions yield further material, which would similarly

substantiate the e]a<n of the LXX and the Apocrypha. On

account of the representative importance of the matter, a

number of passages from the Papyri may be noted here,

which furnish, so to speak, the linguistic-historical frame-

work for the New Testament passages: BU. 543 5 (Hawarah,

27 B.C.) h} o!swn e]a>n h#n, PER. ccxxiv. 10 (Fayyum, 5th-6th

cent. A.D.) h} o!swn e]na>n^sic ^# BU. 197 10 (F., 17 A.D.) h} o!swn

e]a>n ai[r[h?tai], ibid.19 oi$j e]a>n ai[rh?tai (F., 46-47 A.D.) h}

o!swn e]a>n w#sin, PER. iv. (F., 52-53 A.D.) h} o!swn e]a>n w#si,

ibid. 23 w[j e]a>n bou<lhtai, BU. 251 6 (F., 81 A.D.) [a]f h$[j e]]a>n

[a]p]aith<sei^sic, PER. i. 19 (F., 83-84 A.D.) w[j e]a>n [bou<lw]ntai,

ibid. 26 h} o!sai e]a>n w#si, BU. 183 8 (F., 85 A.D.) a]f ] h$j e]a>n

a]paithq^?, ibid. 19 o!sa pote> e]a>n katalei<y^^sic, ibid. 25 oi$j e]a>n

boulhtai, 260 6 (F., 90 A.D.) o[po<de^sic e]a>n ai[r^?, 252 9 (F., 98

A.D.) a]f ] h$j [e]a>]n a]pa[i]t[h] q^?, 538 8 (F., 100 A.D.) h} o!swn e]a>n

w#si, PER. clxxxiii. 20 (F., 105-106 A.D.) w[j e]a>n ai[rw?ntai

ibid. 31 7) h} [o!sa]i e]a>n w#si, xi. 26 (F., 108 A.D.) a{[j] e]a>n ai[[rh?tai,

¹ It is only the Papyri of the (early and late) imperial period which

have been collated by the author in regard to this question.

² This conjecture is confirmed by a Papyrus in the British Museum,

from the Thebaid, belonging to the year 132 A.D.; given in Grenfell's An

Alexandrian Erotic Fragment and other Greek Papyri chiefly Ptolemaic, Ox-

ford, 1896, No. xviii. 27, p. 40: kai> e]c ou$ e]a>n ai[rh?tai.

³ In almost every case the editors of the Berlin and the Vienna Papyri

prefer to read a@n instead of e]a<n, but what we have to do with here is not really

a clerical error. e]a<n should be read in every case, just as it is written. In

Vol. II. of the Berlin documents, e]a<n has for the most part been allowed to

remain, and rightly so.

⁴ Pap.: h. Wessely, p. 255, accentuates h#^sic.

204 BIBLE STUDIES. [N. 32

xxviii. 4 (F., 110 A.D.) oi$a e]a>n e]gb^?^sic, ibid. 14 h} o!swn e]a>n w#si,

BU. 101 9 (F., 114 A.D.) e]c ou$ e]a>n ai[r^? me<rouj, ibid 18 e]f ] o{n

e]a>n . . . xro<non, 444 7 (reign of Trajan) h} o!shi^sic e]a>n ^#, 113 4

(143 A.D.) pro>j a{j e]a>n metacu> a]ga<gwsi, 300 11 (F., 148 A.D.)

oi$j e]a>n pro>j tau?ta e]pitele<s^, 86 7.13 (F., 155 A.D.) w#n e]a>n

katlei<y^^sic ibid. 19 me<xri e]a>n . . . ge<no[ntai]^sic, ibid. 22 o[p[o<]te

e]a>n . . . ge<nontai^sic, 80 [ = 446] 14 (F., 158-159 A.D.) o[po<te

e]a>[n ai[rh?tai], ibid. 24 o[po<te ai]a>n^sic ai[[^?], 542 13 (F., 165 A.D.)

o{ e]a>n ai[rh?tai, 282 28 (F., after 175 A.D.) h} o!soi e]a>n w#si, ibid. 36

w[j e]a>n ai[rh?tai, 241 25 (F., 177 A.D.) [h} o!sai] e]a>n w#si, ibid. 28

h} o!sai [e]a>]n w#si, ibid. 38 w[[j e]]a>n ai[rh?tai, 326 i. 10 (F., 189 A.D.)

ei@ ti e]a>n a]n[q]rw<pin[on] pa<[q^], ibid. ii. ² ei] ti e]a>n e]gw> . . .

katali<pw,¹ 432 ii. 2 9 (190 A.D.) o{, ti e]a>n pra<c^j, 46 17 (F.,

193 A.D.) e]n oi$j e]a>n bou<lwmai to<poij, 233 15 (F., 2nd cent. A.D.)

o!, ti e]a>n ai[r[w?ntai], 236 4 (F., 2nd cent. A.D.) h} o!swn e]a>n w#si,

248 19 (F., 2nd cent. A.D.) w[j e]a>n dokima<z^j, 33 16 (F., 2nd-3rd

cent. A.D.) o!pou e]a>n qe<l^j, ibid. 21 h} dia> oi!ou e]a>n eu!r^j, 13 10

(F., 289 A.D.) w[j e]a>n ai[r^?, 380 18 (F., 3rd cent. A.D.) meta> ou$

e]a>n eu!rw, PER. xix. 23 (F., 330 A.D.) w$n e]a>n . . . prosfwnh<s^,

BU. 364 10 (F., 553 A.D.) o!swn e]a>n w#sin, 303 12 (F., 586 A.D.)

o!saj e]a>n w#sin, ibid. verso 1 o!swn [e]]a>n w#si.

Surveying this long list, one is struck by the fact that

e]a<n is used in many constantly recurring formulae, but,

nevertheless, in spontaneously-formed clauses as well. We

should also notice that the documents in which it occurs

¹ Proceeding from this twice-occurring ei] with (e]a<n= ) a@n following, we

can understand the peculiar negative ei] mh< ti a@n, in 1 Cor. 7 ⁵. Schmiedel,

HC. ii. 1 (1891), p. 100, explains thus: "ei] mh< ti a@n=e]a>n mh< ti, as Origen

reads". This equation ought not to be made; it only explains the meaning

of the combination, but not its special syntactic character. ei] mh< ti a@n has

philologically nothing to do with the e]a<n in e]a>n mh<ti; a@n, occurring here after

ei], is rather exactly the same as if it occurred after a hypothetical relative,

thus: unless in a given case, unless perhaps. The fact that the verb (say,

a]posterh?te or ge<nhtai has to be supplied is absolutely without importance for

the grammatical determination of the case. —Blass, Gramm., p. 211 [Eng.

Trans., p. 216], counts ei] mh< ti a@n among the combinations in which ei] and

e]a<n are blended together. We consider this hypothesis untenable, on account

of the a@n. A. Buttmann, p. 190, note, agrees with it, though indeed he also

refers to the explanation which we consider to be the correct one, pp. 189,

bottom line, and 190, first two lines. It is confirmed by the ei] a@n of the

Papyrus.

N. 33] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 205

are of very various kinds, and are not merely official papers,

with regard to which we might always be justified in sup-

posing that what we had there was only a peculiarity of the

official language. The first and second centuries A.D. consti-

tute its definite classical period; it seems to become less

frequent later. The author has met with the "correct" a@n

only in the following passages: BU. 372, ii. 17 (Fayyum, 154

A.D.) e]c ou$ a}n . . . proteq^?, 619 7 (F., 155 A.D.) a@xri a}n

e]cetasq^?, 348 5 (F., 156 A.D.) w[j a}n dokeima<s^j^sic, ibid. 7, w[j

a}n du<noi^sic, 419 11 (F., 276-277 A.D.) a@xrij a}n parage<nwmai,

316 21 (Askalon in Phoenicia, 359 A.D.) o{n a}n ai[rh?te^sic tro<pon,

ibid. 26. 32 kai> o!son a}n . . . diafe<r^, 36 w$n a}n . . . e]pikth<-

sh[t]e^sic; he does not of course guarantee that this is an

exhaustive list. The hypothesis that e]a<n for a@n is an Alex-

andrianism, in support of which the repeated a@n of the last-

mentioned document from Askalon might be put forward,

seems to the present writer to be groundless. We must

deal very circumspectly with all such tendencies to isolate

We actually find o!soi e]a>n sunzeuxqw?sin twice on a leaden

tablet from Carthage (imperial period), CIL. viii. suppl.

12511.

Blass also refers to the use of e]a<n, for a@n in the Papyri,

Gramm., p. 61 [Eng. Trans., p. 61], where he cites BU. 12,

13, 33, 46, "etc."; and also p. 212 [Eng. Trans., p. 217],

where he cites the London Aristotelian Papyrus (end of 1st

cent. A.D.).

ei# (ei]?) mh<n.

ei]# mh<n occurs on good authority in Heb. 6 ¹⁴ (as already

in LXX, e.g., Ezek. 33 ²⁷, 34⁸, 35 ⁶, 36 ⁵, 38¹⁹, Numb. 14²⁸,

Job. 27 ³, Judith 1¹², Baruch 2 ²⁹) as used to express an

oath. F. Bleek, ad loc.,¹ has gone into the matter most

thoroughly; he concludes his investigation as follows:

"These examples [i.e., from the LXX] prove that ei] mh<n in

the present passage also was, for the Alexandrian Jews,

no meaningless form, as Tholuck describes it; and this case

may serve to convince us how much we must be on our guard

¹ Der Brief an die Hebraer erlautert, part 2, Berlin, 1840, pp. 248-250.

206 BIBLE STUDIES. [N. 34

against the temptation to reject forthwith a reading which

is vouched for by the agreement of the oldest authorities of

various classes and from various localities, on the alleged

ground of its meaninglessness, and without more strict in-

quiry as to whether it may not be established or defended

by biblical usage". This "biblical" usage, according to

him, arises from "a blending together of the Greek form of

oath h# mh>n with the wholly un-Greek ei] mh>, which originates

in a literal imitation of the Hebrew form" (top of p. 250).

C1avis³, p. 118, and Winer-Schmiedel, § 5, 15 (p. 46), still

consider this blending as possible, unless, perhaps, it be

a case of itacistic confusion of h with ei, and h# mh<n be

intended. But 0. F. Fritzsche,¹ again, asserts this latter

supposition to be the only admissible one, and finds in the

opinion of Bleek an example of "how easily the obstinate

adherence to the letter of the traditional text leads to con-

fusion and phantasy".

The whole matter is exceedingly instructive. How

plausible does an assertion like Bleek's, accepted from him

by so many others, seem to an adherent of the notion of

"biblical" Greek! On the one hand the Greek h# mh<n, on

the other the Hebrew xlo Mxi = ei] mh<—by blending the two

the genius of the biblical diction constructs an ei] mh<n! True,

it might have made an h# mh< from them, but it did not—it

preferred ei] mh<n. Pity, that this fine idea should be put out

of existence by the Papyri.² BU. 543 2 ff. (Hawarah, 28-27

B.C.) runs: o@mnumi Kai<sara Au]tokra<tora qeou? ui[o>n ei# mh>n

paraxwrh<sein . . . to>n . . . klh?ro[n], and we read, in PER.

ccxxiv. 1 ff. (Soknopaiu Nesos in the Fayyum, 5-6 A.D.):

o]mnu<o^sic [. . . Kaisara] Au]tokra<tora qeou? u[i[o>n] . . . .

ei# mh>n e]nme<nein e]n pa?si toi?j gege[nhme<noij kata> th>]n grafh<n

. . . . Here, in two mutually independent cases, we have ei#,

¹ HApAt. ii (1853), p. 138; cf. i. (1851), p. 186.

² Further, the hypothesis of blending, considered purely by itself,

is inconceivable. If ei] mh<n is a Hebraising form, as regards one half of

it, then ei] must have the sense of Mxi. But then also the formula takes on

a negative sense, so that, e.g., Hebr. 6¹⁴ would read: Truly if I bless thee and

multiply thee—[scil. : then will I not be God, or something similar].

N. 35] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 207

(ei]?) mh<n as a form of oath—on Papyrus leaves which are

some hundred years older than the original text of Hebrews,

and which come from the same country in which the LXX

and, most probably, the Epistle to the Hebrews, were written.

Whatever, then, may be its relation to this ei# (ei]?) mh<n, thus

much, at all events, is clear: it is no specific phenomenon

of biblical or of Jewish¹ Greek It is either a case of mere

itacistic confusion of h with ei,² as Fritzsche assumes in

regard to the biblical, Krebs³ and Wessely⁴ in regard to the

Papyrus passages; or else the expression is a peculiar form of

oath, only authenticated as regards Egypt, about the origin

of which the author does not venture to express an opinion.

The abundant and excellent evidence in biblical MSS. for

the ei in this particular combination,⁵ and its occurrence, in

the same combination, in two mutually independent Papyrus

passages, deserve in any case our fullest consideration.

Blass, too, has not failed to notice the ei] mh<n, at least

of the first passage, BU. 543: he writes thus, Gramm., p.

9 [Eng. Trans., p. 9] "Ei# mh<n for h# mh<n Heb. 6 ¹⁴ (xABD¹),

is also attested by the LXX and Papyri [Note 4, to this

word, is a reference to BU. 543, and to Blass, Ausspr. d. Gr.³,

pp. 33, 77]; all this, moreover, properly belongs to orthoepy,

and not to orthography". Then on p. 60 [Eng. Trans., p.

60]: "h#, more correctly ei#, in ei# mh<n," and p. 254 [Eng.

Trans., p. 260]: "Asseverative sentences, direct and indirect

(the latter infinitive sentences) are, in Classical Greek, intro-

¹ That the author of either Papyrus was a Jew is impossible.

² Thus, e.g., in the Berlin MS., immediately before, we have, conversely,

xrhwn for xreiwn. (The document is otherwise well-written, like that of
Vienna). Cf. also BU. 316 12 (Askalon, 359 A. D. ei} [=h}] kai> ei@ tini e[te<r&
o]no<mati kali<te", and, conversely, 261 33 (Fayyum, 2nd-3rd cent. A.D.) h] mh<, with-

out doubt for ei] mh<.

³ Krebs writes ei^sic in the Berlin MS., and adds the note : " l. [i.e., read]

⁴ Wessely writes ei^sic mhn, and adds " 1. [ = read] h# mh<n".

⁵ The note on p. 416 of the Etymologicum magnum, viz., h#: e]pi<rr[hma

o[rkiko<n: o!per kai> dia> difqo<ggou gra<fetai, has in itself no weight; it but re-

peats the documentary information found in the passage quoted in connection

with it, Hebr. 6¹⁴=Gen. 22¹⁷.

208 BIBLE STUDIES. [N. 36

duced by h# mh<n, for which, in Hellenistic-Roman times, we

find ei#, (accent ?) mh<n written; so LXX and consequently

Heb. 6 ¹⁴". The author cannot rightly judge from this as to

the opinion of Blass concerning the spelling and the origin of

the formula: in any case it is evident from the last-quoted

observation that he does not consider the accentuation ei#,

which he seems to uphold, to be wholly free from doubt.

The above-quoted work of Blass, Uber die Aussprache des

Griechischen³, Berlin, 1888, p. 33, shows that this formula, of

swearing is used also in the Doric Mystery-Inscription of

Andania in the Peloponnesus (93 or 91 B.C.); the o!rkoj

gunaikono<mou begins, in line 27, ei# ma>n e!cein e]pime<leian peri< te

tou? ei[matismou? (Dittenberger, Sylloge, No. 388, p. 570).

Blass observes regarding this: “Ei# ma<n seems, nevertheless,

rather to be a jussum speciale of the language than to rest

upon general rules".

e]laiw<n.

This word is undoubtedly found in Acts 1 ¹², a]po> o@rouj

tou? kaloume<nou e]laiw?noj; according to Clavis³, elsewhere

only in the LXX and Josephus: "apud Graecos non exstat".

A matter of statistical chance: in the Berlin Papyri, vol.

i., alone, e]laiw<n, olive-grove or olive-garden, occurs in nine

different documents, of which BU. 37 5 (51 A.D.), 50 6 (115

A.D.) are of "New Testament" times; there may be added

from vol. ii., BU. 379 12.14 (67 A.D.), 595 10 (perhaps 70-80

A.D.). The Papyri named are all from the Fayyum. The

formation of the word is correctly given in Clavis,^{3 1} but it is

a misleading half-truth to say: terminatio w<n est nominum

derivatorurn indicantium locum iis arboribus consitum, quae

nomine primitivo designantur. The termination –w<n is used,

quite generally, and not only in regard to the names of trees,

to form words which designate the place where the particu-

lar objects are found. Equally strange is the identification

with which Grimm supplements the above: olivetum, locus

oleis consitus, i.e. [!] mons olearum. As if an e]laiw<n could not

¹ A. Buttmann, p. 20, refers to the similarly-formed Greek names of

mountains (Kiqairw<n, [Elikw<n, etc.).

N. 37] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 209

just as well be in a valley or anywhere else. e]laiw<n does

not, of course, mean "Olive-Mount" in Acts 1¹² either, but

"place of olives" or, if one prefers, "olive-wood".¹ The

word is, doubtless, used here as a place-name; but when a

particular mountain has the name e]laiw<n, it cannot be in-

ferred therefrom that the lexicographer has a right to render

e]laiw<n by "mons" olearum. To do so would be quite as pre-

posterous as to translate legiw<n, in Mark 5⁹, etc., by legion

of demons.

The circumstance that the word has been but scantily

authenticated hitherto must have had a share in sometimes

keeping it from its rights in another respect. Luke 19²⁹

reads, according to universal testimony, pro>j to> o@roj to>

kalou<menon e]laiwn similarly 21³⁷, ei]j to> o@roj to> kalou<menon

e]laiwn, and,² in Mark 11¹,the Vaticanus reads pro>j to>

o@roj to> e]laiwn, the Bobbiensis, ad montem eleon; in Luke

22 ³⁹, D Sangallensis has ei]j to> o@roj e]laiwn. In the two

first-named passages, e]laiwn was formerly taken as the

genitive plural of e]lai<a—probably universally, and accentu-

ated e]laiw?n. Schmiedel³ still considers this view possible,

and, in point of fact, the abbreviated form of speech which

we must in such case admit would not be without analogy:

in BU. 227 10 (Fayyum, 151 A.D.) the author finds e]n to<p(&)

Kainh?j Diw<rugoj lego[me<n&]; similarly in 282 ²¹ (Fayyum,

after 175 A.D.), e]n to<p& Oi]ki<aj Kann[. l]egome<nou^sic, and in

¹ The author is not quite able to determine whether the mistake in pro-

cedure which underlies the above-named identification should be attributed

to W. Grimm, or whether it is a result of the erroneous view of Chr. G.

Wilke. In any case we may characterise the mistake in the pertinent words

of the latter (Die Hermeneutik des Neuen Testaments systematisch dargestellt,

zweiter Theil: die hermeneutische Methodenlehre, Leipzig, 1844, p. 181):

"Exegetes are frequently in the habit of giving to this or the other word a

meaning which belongs only to some word which is combined with it, and

which does not apply to the word in question, either in this combination or

elsewhere ".

² The passages which follow, so far as the author knows, have in no case

been previously noticed.

³ Winer-Schmiedel, § 10, 4 (p. 93); the author perceives here that also

Niese and Bekker always write e]laiw?n in Josephus. The relevant passages

are cited in Clavis³, p. 140.

210 BIBLE STUDIES. [N. 38

line 24 f., e]n to<p& Oi]ki<aj¹ Sa[. . . .]lox [lego]me<nou^sic

PER. xxxviii. 9 (F., 263 A.D.) e]n to<p& Yibista<newj legom(e<n&),

Nevertheless the case is a somewhat different one in the

Papyrus passages; the author would only bring the above

forward in case of extreme necessity. But such a case would

only exist if e]laiwn were necessarily a genitive. Now, since

we may without misgiving accentuate e]laiw<n², the question

alone remains whether this form, which is urged upon us

by Acts 1¹², and which is a priori more probable than e]laiw?n

without the article (which never occurs in Luke), is gram-

matically tenable. And the answer must unquestionably

be in the affirmative. Not, indeed, as A. Buttmann, p. 20,

thinks, because the word is to be " treated altogether as

an indeclinabile, and therefore as a neuter,"³ but by reference

to the more lax usage of later Greek,⁴ our knowledge of

which is enlarged by the Papyri. In these the formulae, o[

kalou<menoj, e]pikalou<menoj, e]pikeklhme<noj, lego<menoj, for intro-

ducing the names of persons and places, are extremely

frequent. As a rule these words are construed with the

proper case; thus, in Vol. I. alone of the Berlin Documents,

we find some thirty examples of the years 121-586 A.D. But

in several passages from the Fayyum Papyri, we may note

the more lax usage as well: in BU. 526 15 f. (86 A.D.) e]n t^?

Tessbw?bij le[gom]e<nhj^sic, and 235 6 (137 A.D.) P[a]s[i]wn[oj]

Afrodisi<ou e]pik(aloume<nou) Ke<nnij, Tessbw?bij and Ke<nnij will

be nominatives; in 277 i. 27 (2nd. cent. A.D.) we find e]n

e]poiki<& ]Amu<ntaj, even without a participle, and in 349 7f.

(313 A.D.) there occurs e]n klh<r& kaloume<nou^sic ]Afrikiano<j.

Thus hardly any further objections can be made to the

accentuation e]laiw<n in Luke 19 ²⁹ and 21 ³⁷; it should also be

applied in Mark 11 ¹ B and Luke 22 ³⁹ D. Another question

¹ The editor, Krebs, writes oi]ki<aj, but the word most likely belongs to the

name of the field, and should thus, according to our custom, be written with

a capital. The two names, in the author's opinion, should be set in the

Index sub Oi]ki<aj Kann[.] and Oi]ki<aj Sa[. . . . ]lox.

² The later editors accentuate thus.

³ This could be asserted only of the reading in Mark 11¹ according to B

Winer-Schmiedel, § 10, 4 (p. 93), and Winer ⁷, § 29, 1 (p. 171).

N. 39] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 211

which appears to the author to deserve a more exact investi-

gation, can only be slightly touched upon here, viz., Which

Greek reading for the name of the Mount of Olives is implied

by the Vulgate? In Matthew, according to our texts, the

Mount of Olives is always (21 ¹, 24 ³, 26 ³⁰) called to> o@roj tw?n

e]laiw?n, in the corresponding passages in the Vulgate mons

oliveti; similarly (except in Luke 19 ²⁹, 21 ³⁷ and Acts 1 ¹²,

passages which on account of e]laiw<n require no explanation)

in Luke 19³⁷ and John 8¹, where also mons oliveti corresponds

to the o@roj tw?n e]laiw?n. The matter would have no further

importance if the Mount of Olives were always designated

thus in the Vulgate. But in Mark always (11 ¹, 13 ³, 14 ²⁶)

and Luke 22 ³⁹, as in Zech. 14 ⁴, to> o@roj tw?n e]laiw?n is rendered

by mons olivarum.¹ Does this state of the case not prompt the

conjecture that the Vulgate somehow implies e]lai<wn in the

first-mentioned passages? How is the Mount of Olives

named in the other ancient versions?²

Blass, in his Grammar of New Testament Greek, several

times expresses himself with regard to the question in a

manner that evokes the present writer's strongest opposition.

On p. 32 [Eng. Trans., p. 32] he says: " ]Elaiw<n, olive-mountain,

as a Greek translation, cannot be indeclinable; hence, like

the to> o@roj tw?n e]laiw?n elsewhere, so o@roj (acc.) to> kalou<-

menon e]laiw?n (not ]Elaiw<n) in Luke 19 ²⁹, 21 ³⁷; in Acts 1 ¹²

all MSS., o@rouj tou? kaloume<nou Elaiw?noj, it is wrongly

inflected for e]laiw?n; cf. § 33, 1". In § 33, 1 (p. 84) [Eng.

Trans., p. 84 f.], again, we read: "When names are intro-

duced without regard to the construction they seem some-

times to be put in the nominative case, instead of the case

which the construction would require. . . . But otherwise

they are always made to agree in case . . . . Accordingly,

it is incredible that the Mt. of Olives should be translated

]Elaiw<n, and that this word should be used as an indeclinable

in Luke 19 29, 21 37 o@roj (acc.) to> kalou<menon e]laiw<n, but we

¹ Tischendorf's Apparatus ignores the whole matter.

² Specially the Peschito must be taken into consideration; cf. Winer,

p. 171. So far as the author can decide, it implies e]laiw<n in all the passages

in Luke. But he cannot guarantee this.

212 BIBLE STUDIES. [N. 39,40

must read e]laiw?n (to> o@roj tw?n e]l. in Luke 19 ³⁷ and else.

where), and, in the single passage Acts 1 ¹² (o@rouj tou? kalou-

me<nou) e]laiw?noj, we must correct to e]laiw?n (as also in

Josephus, A. 7, 9 2)." But, in the first place, the nominative

does not merely "seem" to be used sometimes in a more lax

way: it actually is sometimes so used: to the already well-

known biblical and extra-biblical passages there are to be

added the above-quoted examples from the Papyri. "But

otherwise they are always made to agree in case,"—without

doubt! For that more lax usage of the nominative is of

course an exception. But it cannot be doubted that the

exception is possible. Hence it does not seem particularly

convincing that Blass should base upon his "otherwise

always" the opinion: "Accordingly it is incredible that the

Mt. of Olives should be translated o[ ]Elaiw<n, and that this

word should be used as an indeclinable". This sentence,

moreover, contains at the same time a slight but important

displacement of the problem. We have no concern what-

ever with the question whether e]laiw<n is used, in the passages

quoted, as an indeclinable word (cf. Blass, p. 32 "indecl."),

but only with the question whether, according to more lax

usage, the nominative is used there instead of the proper

case.¹ Why should the more lax usage not be possible here?

Had it been, indeed, the acceptance of the more lax usage of

the nominative in Luke 19 ²⁹ and 21 ³⁷ only, which compelled

us to admit e]laiw<n into the New Testament lexicon, then

we might have had our doubts. But the word comes to us

in Acts 1 ¹² on the unanimous testimony of all authorities,

and, moreover, in a form which is not liable to doubt, viz.,

the genitive. We may well admire the boldness with which

Blass here corrects e]laiw?noj into e]laiw?n, but we are unable

to follow his example.

¹ To mention a similar case: When we read the title of a book, e.g.,

"Jesu Predigt in ihrem Gegensatz zum Judenthum. Ein religionsgeschicht-

licher Vergleich von Lic. W. Bousset, Privatdocent in Gottingen," we would

not say that Privatdocent is used as an indeclinable, but would decide that it

is one of the many cases of a more lax usage of the nominative in titles of

books. [In German we ought, properly speaking, to write "Privatdocenten,"

i.e., the dative.—TR.]

N. 40,41] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 213

e]nw<pion.

H. A. A. Kennedy¹ assigns the "adverb" e]nw<pion, which

is used in the Bible as a preposition, to the class of "bibli-

cal" words, i.e., those belonging to the LXX and the N. T.

only. According to A. Buttmann, p. 273, the "preposition"

is "probably of Eastern" origin, and according to Winer-

Lunemann, p. 201, "the preposition e]nw<pion (ynep;li) itself,"

may be said to belong almost entirely to "the Hebrew

colouring of the language." These statements are not par-

ticularly informative; but, at all events, their purport is

easily gathered, viz., e]nw<pion is a new formation of "biblical"

Greek.² But BU. 578 (Fayyum, 189 A.D.) attests the adver-

bial use of the word as regards Egypt. That the Papyrus is

comparatively late does not signify. Line I. runs: meta<d(oj)

e]nw<pi(on) w[j kaqh<k(ei) toi?j prostetagm(e<noij) a]kolou<[qwj];³

similarly line 7 f. might be restored thus: tou? dedome<nou u[pomnh<-

matoj a]nti<gr(afon) metadoqh<tw w[j u[po<k[eitai e]nw<pion]. It is

evident that metadido<nai e]nw<pion is an official formula. Pro-

fessor Wilcken of Breslau was good enough to give the

author the following information on this point. He thinks

that the formula, which is otherwise unknown to him,

signifies to deliver personally: "the demand for payment shall

be made to the debtor, face to face, for the greater security of

the creditor".

It is not an impossible, but an improbable, supposition

that this adverbial e]nw<pion was used first of all with the

genitive in the LXX: e][n]w<pio[n] tinwn is already found in

a Papyrus of the British Museum—from the Thebaid, and of

the 2nd or 1st cent. B.C.—in Grenfell,⁴ No. xxxviii. 11, p. 70.

¹ Sources of New Testament Greek, Edinburgh, 1895, p. 90.

² Cf. also Blass, Gramm., p. 125 [Eng. Trans., p. 127 f.] "e]nw<pion. . . . ,

katenw<pion . . . , e@nanti . . . , kate<nanti . . are derived from the LXX, and are

unknown in profane authors even of later times ".—Yet on p. xii. Blass refers

to e@nanti as being profane Greek!!

³ Also in line 6 the editor, Krebs, restores e]n[w<pi] on; in that case the

combination metadido<nai e]nw<pion would be repeated here also. Wilcken, how-

ever, questions the correctness of this restoration, and proposes e@n[teil]on, as

he has informed the author by letter.

⁴ See above, p. 203, note 2.

214 BIBLE STUDIES. [N. 41, 42

epiou<sioj.¹

In the discussion of this word, so far as we have

seen, no attention has been paid to an interesting observa-

tion of Grimm—not even by himself in the Clavis. He

makes a note to 2 Macc. 1⁸ (proshne<gkamen qusi<an kai> semi<-

dalin kai> e]ch<yamen tou>j lu<xnouj kai> proeqh<kamen tou>j a@rtouj)

as follows: "An arbitrary but, on account of Matt. 6¹¹ and

Luke 11³, a remarkable amplification in three Codd.

Sergii, viz., tou>j e]piousi<ouj".² This signifies the show-bread

offerings. What connection has it with this reading? What

can be learned of these MSS. (unknown to the author)?

We are now (1900) in a position to answer these

questions through a friendly communication of Professor

Nestle of Maulbronn (cf. also B[lass], Lit. Centralblatt, 1898,

p. 1810).

The "Codices Sergii" are not, as one might expect,

Greek MSS., but are probably identical with the Armenian

codices mentioned in the Praefatio ad Genesin of Holmes [and

Parsons'] edition of the LXX, i., Oxford, 1798, p. v., which

were collated in 1773, in the Library of St. James at

Jerusalem, by the Armenian priest Sergius Malea (Novum

Testamentum Graece, ed. Tischendorf, 8th edition, vol. iii.,

by Gregory, p. 914). So far as we are aware, it has not

been shown that Malea collated Greek MSS. also. In 2

Macc. 1⁸, Malea has probably re-translated an amplification

found in his Armenian MSS. into Greek. Thus there still

remain the following questions to be answered:--

1. How does this addition run in these Armenian MSS.?

2. Is this Armenian word identical with the Armenian

word for e]piou<sioj in the Lord's Prayer?

eu]a<restoj (and eu]are<stwj).

Cremer⁸, p. 160 f. says of eu]a<restoj: "except in Xen.

Mem. 3, 5, 5: dokei? moi a@rxonti eu]areste<rwj^sic [read eu]aresto-

te<rwj] diakei?sqai h[ po<lij—unless (contra Lobeck, Phryn., p.

¹ The testimony of Origen renders it probable that this word is actually

a "biblical" one; thus, strictly speaking, it should not be treated here.

2 HApAT. iv. (1857), p. 35.

N. 42, 43] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 215

621) eu]areskote<rwj should be read here as better suiting the

meaning—only in bibl. and eccles. Greek. In any case, like

its derivatives, belonging otherwise only to later Greek." As

this passage from Xenophon possibly authenticates the

adverb, it should not be mentioned in connection with the

adjective; the adverb is specially discussed by Cremer, and,

indeed, with the correct piece of information, p. 161: "now

and then in Epictetus". The adverbial cases being put

aside, Cremer's statement that eu]a<restoj is "only" biblical

and ecclesiastical, seems to become more probable: though,

indeed, the "otherwise" in the next sentence leaves open

the possibility that the word also occurs elsewhere. All

doubt as to the point, however, must disappear in the light

of the passage from an Inscription of Nisyros (undated, pre-

Christian? Mittheilungen des athen. Instituts 15, p. 134) line

11 f.: geno<menon eu]a<reston pa?si.¹ Moreover, the occurrence

of the adverb in [Xenophon (?) and] Epictetus ought to have

warned against the isolating of the adjective. eu]are<stwj is

also found in CIG. 2885 = Lebas, Asie, 33 (Branchidae, B.C.):

tele<sasa th>n u[drofori<an eu]are<stwj toi?j polei<taij.

i[erateu<w.

Cremer,⁸ p. 462: "not used in profane Greek; only occa-

sionally in later writers, e.g., Herodian, Heliodorus, Pausanias".

Now, first of all, Josephus, the earliest of the "later writers,"

is omitted here. Next, it is a contradiction to say, first, that

the word is not used, and then to bring forward a number of

authors who do use it. It would have been more accurate

to say: "used in later Greek". This would imply of course

that it is no longer justifiable to isolate the word as a biblical

one. Kennedy² draws the conclusions of the theory of

Cremer by making the conjecture that since i[erateu<w does

not occur before the LXX, it was possibly formed by them

and was transmitted from "Jewish-Greek" into the common

¹ The author is indebted for this and the following passage to a refer-

ence of Frankel, p. 315, relating to Perg. 461.

² Sources of N. T. Greek, p. 119.

216 BIBLE STUDIES. [N. 43, 44

tongue.¹ In these circumstances it is very fortunate that the

Inscriptions yield quite a multitude of examples of this very

word, which go back to the age of the LXX, and infallibly

prove that one may safely say: "very common in later

Greek". Of the examples which occur in the two collections

of Inscriptions investigated by the author, viz., those of the

AEgean Sea (fasc. i.) and of Pergamos, let it suffice here to

mention only the pre-Christian ones: IMAe. 808 2 (Rhodes,

3rd cent. B.C.), 811 (Rhodes, 3rd cent. B.c.), 63 1.2 (Rhodes,

2nd cent. B.C.), 3 5 (Rhodes, 1st cent. B.C.); Perg. 167 3.5.15

(ca. 166 B.C.), 129 and 130 (before 133 B.C.).

kaqari<zw.

Cremer,⁸ p. 490, asserts it to be a fact "that kaqari<zw

is found only in Biblical² and (seldom indeed) in ecclesiastical

Greek". But already Clavis ^2.3 quotes Joseph. Antt. 11, 5, 4,

e]kaqa<rize th>n peri> tau?ta sunh<qeian. More important still is

the occurrence of the word in the Inscriptions in a ceremonial

sense. The Mystery-Inscription of Andania in the Pelo-

ponnesus (93 or 91 B.C.) prescribes, in line 37: a]nagraya<ntw

de> kai> a]f ] w$n dei? kaqari<zein kai> a{ mh> dei? e@xontaj ei]sporeu<esqai

(Dittenberger, Sylloge No. 388, p. 571). Further, there come

into consideration the directions (preserved in a double form³

in the Inscriptions) of Xanthos the Lycian for the sanctuary

of Men Tyrannos, a deity of Asia Minor, which he had founded:

CIA. iii. 74,⁴ cf. 73 (found near Sunium, not older than the

imperial period). No unclean person shall enter the temple:

kaqari<ze<stw^sic de> a]po> s[k]o<rdwn ka[i> xoire<wn] ka[i> gunaiko<j],

lousame<nouj de> katake<fala au]qhmero>n ei][sporeu<]esqai. In the

rough draught CIA. iii. 73 we find, further, kai> a]po> nekrou?

kaqari<szestai^sic deka[tai<]an. The construction with a]po< in

these instances is the same as in, e.g., 2 Cor. 7 ¹ Hebr. 9 ¹⁴,

¹ He certainly discusses the other possibility, viz., that the word was

used previously to the LXX.

² Italics from Cremer.

³ The one copy CIA. iii. 73 is the rough draught, so to speak: the

other has had the language corrected, and gives a longer text.

⁴ = Dittenberger, Sylloge No. 379.

N. 44, 45] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 217

which latter passage is to be interpreted in the light of

the well-known idea, exemplified in the above-mentioned

Inscription and frequently elsewhere, viz., that the touching

of a corpse renders one ceremonially unclean.'

kuriako<j.

1. Clavis³, p. 254, still describes the word as vox solum

biblica et eccles., and A. Julicher² maintains, indeed, that the

Apostle Paul invented this "new" word. On the other hand,

Cremer,⁸ p. 583, notes the extra-biblical usage: "belonging to

the lord, the ruler, e.g., to> kuriako<n, public or fiscal property;

synon. to> basiliko>n (rare)". This statement is probably to

be traced back to Stephanus, who cites "Inscript. Richteri,

p. 416". But since the publication of the Richter Inscrip-

tions by Johann Valentin Francke (Berlin, 1830), kuriako<j

has been comparatively frequently noticed in Inscriptions

and Papyri. We note the following cases. In the decree of

Ti. Julius Alexander, Prefect of Egypt, CIG. 4957 18 (El-

Khargeh or Ghirge in the Great Oasis, 68 A.D), to which

Professor Wilcken of Breslau has called the author's atten-

tion, there occurs tw?n o]feilo<ntwn ei]j kuriako>n lo<gon. The

kuriako>j lo<goj is the Imperial Treasury: the ku<rioj to which

the word relates is the Emperor³ himself. Similarly, in BU.

1 15 f. (Fayyum, 3rd cent. A.D.) we read: a[i{] kai> d[ia] grafo<-

menai ei]j to>n kuriako>n lo<gon u[pe?r e]pikefali<o[u] tw?n u[perai-

ro<ntwn i[ere<wn, and these [the afore-mentioned sums] have also

been paid into the imperial treasury for the poll-tax of the super-

numerary priests⁴; and, in BU. 266 17 f. (Fayyum, 216-217

A.D.), we find the imperial service: ei]j ta>j e]n Suri<% kuri[a]ka>j

u[phresi<aj tw?n gennaiota<tw[n] strateuma<twn tou? kuri<ou h[mw?n

]Autokra<toroj Se[ou]h<rou ]Antwni<nou. But there are also

¹ Examples from classical antiquity in Frankel, p. 188 f.

² Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 1st and 2nd edn. Freiburg and

Leipzig, 1894, p. 31.

³ Cf., in line is of the same edict, tai?j kuriakai?j yh<foij.

⁴ This [i.e., the German] translation is from a letter of Wilcken. The

author has since found in BU. 620 15 (Fayyilm, 3rd cent. A.D.) prosete<qh e]n

toi?j kuriakoi?j lo<go[ij].

218 BIBLE STUDIES. [N .45, 46

examples from Asia Minor—all of the imperial period. The

kuriako>j fi<skoj is mentioned in CIG. 3919 (Hierapolis in

Phrygia),¹ and is to be obtained by restoration in the Inscrip-

tions CIG. 3953 h and i, also from Phrygia; it occurs also in

CIG. 2842 (Aphrodisias in Caria), cf. 2827. Finally, the

kuriakai> u[phresi<ai are again found in CIG. 3490 (Thyatira

in Lydia).²

2. With reference to the early Christian designation of

Sunday as h[ kuriakh> h[me<ra or, shortly, h[ kuriakh<,³ Cremer,⁸

p. 583, observes that it appears to be analogous to the ex-

pression kuriako>n dei?pnon; H. Holtznaann⁴ says still more

definitely: "The expression, moreover, is formed after the

analogy of dei?pnon kuriako<n". If we are to seek for an

analogy at all, there is another, found in the idiom of the

imperial period, which seems to the author to be much more

obvious. He gives it here—though, of course, he would not

maintain that the Christians consciously took it as the pattern

for the formation of their own technical expression. In the

Inscription of Pergamus 374 B 4. 8 and D 10 (consecration of

the Pergamenian association of the u[mn&doi> qeou? Sebastou?

kai> qea?j [Rw<mhj, reign of Hadrian), the abbreviation "Seb."

occurs three times. Mommsen (in Frankel, p. 265) gives the

following explanation, of this: "Seb. in B 4. 8 and D 10 is

Sebast^?, and affords a brilliant confirmation of the conjec-

ture of Usener, viz., that the first of every month was called

Sebasth< in Asia Minor, just as the same is now established

in regard to Egypt; cf. e.g., Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers,

part ii., vol. i., p. 695";⁵ and Frankel, p. 512, cites a new

¹ This is the Richter Inscription named above.

² qei?oj is also used in a corresponding manner: the qei?ai diata<ceij, in

Pap. Par. 69 iii. 20 (Elephantine, 232 A.D.), edited by Wilcken, Phiologus,

liii. (1894), p. 83, cf. p. 95, are imperial arrangements.

³ The earliest passages are given in A. Harnack's Bruchstuke des

Evangeliums and der Apokalypse des Petrus ² (TU. ix. 2), Leipzig, 1893, p. 67.

⁴ HC. iv ² (1893), p. 318.

⁵ The author is indebted to a communication of his friend B. Bess of

Gottingen for the information that Lightfoot, p. 694 f., gives the following

references for Sebasth<: CIG. 4715 and Add. 5866 c (both of the time of Augus-

N. 46, 47] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 219

authority for Sebasth< as first day of the month in the Inscrip-

tion of Iasos,—given by Th. Reinach in the Revue des Etudes

Grecques, vi. (1893), p. 159,—line 25, kai> to>n kat ] e]niauto>n

geno<menon to<kon dw<sei ai]ei> tou? parelqo<ntoj e]niautou? mhni>

trw<t& Sebast^?. Just as the first day of the month was thus

called Emperor's day, so the first day of the week—with all

its significant connection with the Gospel history---would

be named, by the Christians, the Lord's day. The analogy

obtains its full importance when considered in relation to the

entire usage of ku<rioj.¹

logei<a.

We have succeeded in tracing this word in other

quarters;² first, in Pap. Grenfell and Hunt (Oxford, 1897),

No. xxxviii. is (81 B.C.) and BU. 515 7 f. (Fayyum, 193 A.D.)—

adopting the corrected reading of Wilcken given in vol. ii. of

the Berlin MSS., p. 357 ; also in a compound: BU. 538 16 f.

(Fayyum, 100 A.D.) botanismou>j kai> sifonologie<aj³ kai>

th>n a@llhn gewrgikh>n [u[ph]r[esi<]an. We would next call

attention to 2 Macc. 12 ⁴³. 0. F. Fritzsche there reads:

poihsa<meno<j te kat ] a]ndrologi<an kataskeua<smata ei]j a]rguri<ou

draxma>j disxili<aj a]pe<steilen ei]j [Ieroso<luma prosagagei?n

peri> a[marti<aj qusi<an. Grimm⁴ translates the first words

when by means of a collection he had provided himself with money-

supplies, and explains thus: "a]ndrologi<a, on the analogy of

cenologi<a, levying, collecting of soldiers for military service, can

here mean nothing else than collectio viritim facta: cf. logi<a,

which similarly does not occur in profane Greek, for sullogh<.

tus), 4957 (Galba) from Egypt; from Ephesus, an Inscription of the year 104

A.D.; from Traianopolis, Lebas and Waddington, 1676 (130 A.D.). The

investigations of Usener are given in the Bullettino dell' Instit. di Corr.

Archeol., 1874, p. 73 ff.

¹ The author hopes at some future time to be able to make an investiga-

tion of the use of o[ ku<rioj and o[ ku<rioj h[mw?n to designate deities and emperors

in the imperial period.

² Cf. p. 142 ff. above.

³ So reads the Papyrus: which si<fwnej are meant the author does

not clearly understand.

⁴ HApAT. iv. (1857), p. 183 f.

220 BIBLE STUDIES. [N. 47,48

Since Codd. 44 and 71 give kat ] a@ndra logi<an (74: kat ] a]ndra-

logi<an), and again Codd. 52, 55, 74, 106, and 243 omit

kartaskeua<smata, one might feel tempted to regard the former

as the original reading and the latter as a gloss to logi<an

—unless perhaps kataskeua<sm. was too uncommon a word,

and the more familiar sullogh< was a more obvious gloss".

We cannot comprehend how Grimm can thus speak of

a]ndrologi<a¹ as analogous to cenologi<a: for this analogy

would precisely imply that a]ndrologi<a means a levying of men.

Quite as certainly must it be questioned that the word can

signify a collection from each single man. But since this signi-

fication is required by the connection, the reading kat ] a@ndra

logi<an (read logei<an²) certainly deserves serious considera-

tion; on this view, kataskeua<smata may quite well be

retained: after he had taken a collection from each individual he

sent money to the amount of about 2000 drachmas of silver³ to

Jerusalem.⁴

neo<futoj.

Used in LXX Ps. 127 [Hebr. 128]³, 143 [144] ¹², Is. 5 ⁷,

Job 14 ⁹, in its proper sense; in 1 Tim. 3⁶, novice. Cremer⁸,

p. 987, says: "a new growth; elsewhere only in bibl. and

eccles. Greek (according to Poll. also used by Aristoph.)";

Clavis³, p. 295, quotes the Biblical passages, adding only

"script. eccles.". But the reference of Pollux to Aristophanes

ought to have warned against isolating the word in this way,

a procedure not supported in the slightest by its form or mean-

ing. neo<futoj is found in BU. 563 i. 9. 14. 16, ii. 6. 12 (Fayyum,

2nd cent. A.D.),⁵ applied to newly-planted palm-trees (cf. LXX

¹ The edition of Van Ess, like Wahl in the Clavis librorum V.T. Apocry.

phorum, p. 44, reads a]ndralogi<a. This is a printer's error in Wahl, as is

a]ndrafone<w) a little farther on (cf. the alphabetical order). The author cannot

say whether a]ndralogi<a is a possible form.

² Above, p. 143.

³ A construction like e.g., ei]j e[ch<konta tala<ntwn lo<goj, a sum of about

sixty talents.

⁴ Swete writes poihsa<meno<j te kat ] a]ndrologei?on ei]j a]gruri<ou draxma>j

disxili<aj . . . What kat ] a]ndrologei?on is meant to signify we do not under.

stand.

⁵ "Of the time of Hadrian at the earliest" (Wilcken re this Papyrus).

N. 48, 19] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 221

Ps. 127 [128]³, neo<futa e]laiw?n; similarly in BU. 565 11 and

566 3 (fragments of the same document as 563).

o]feilh<.

Clavis³, p. 326, "Neque in graeco V. Ti. cod., neque ap.

profanos offenditur". This negative statement is at all events

more cautious than the positive one of Cremer ⁸, p. 737:

"only in New Testament Greek". But both are invalidated

by the Papyri.¹ The word, meaning debt (in the literal sense,

as in Matt. 18 ³²), is found in formulae in BU. 112 11 (ca. 60

A.D.) kaqara> a]po< te o]filh?j^sic kai> u[[p]oqh<khj kai> panto>j diegguh<-

matoj, 184 25 (72 A.D.) [kaq] aro>n a]po> [o]]feil(h?j) [kai>] u[poqh<k[hj

kai> panto>j] d[i]engu[h<m(atoj]^sic, 536 6f. (reign of Domitian)

kaq[ar]a> a]po< te o]feil(h?j) [kai> u[po] qh<khj kai> panto>j dieg-

g(uh<matoj), PER. ccxx. 10 (1st cent. A.D.²) kaqaro>n a]p ] o]feilh?j

[pa<]sh(j) kai> panto>j dienguh<matoj^sic, further in BU. 624 19

(time of Diocletian) i[era?j mh> a]me<lei o]filh?[j]^sic.3 All these

Papyri are from the Fayyum.

a]po> pe<rusi.

"Many of these compounds [i.e. combinations of pre-

positions with adverbs of place and time] are found only

in writers later than Alexander, some only in the Scholiasts

. . . . ; others, such as a]po> pe<rusi (for which prope<rusi

or e]kpe<rusi was used) are not to be met with even there."⁴

But we find a]po> pe<rusi (2 Cor. 8¹⁰, 9 ²) in the Papyrus letter

BU. 531 ii. 1 (Fayyum, 2nd cent. A.D.), also in the Oxyrhyn-

chos Papyrus (ed. by Grenfell and Hunt, London, 1898), No.

cxiv.12 (2nd-3rd cent. A.D.): a]po> Tu?bi pe<rusi.

¹ The author has subsequently noticed in Pape that even the Etymo-

logicum Magnum quotes the word from Xenophon!! The New Testament

lexicographers really ought to have noted this. The note of the Et. M. in

regard to o]feilh< is as follows: ... spani<wj de> eu!rhtai e]n xrh<sei: eu[ri<sketai de>

para> Cenofw?nti e]n toi?j Peri> Po<rwn.

² But on p. 296 this Papyrus is assigned to the 2nd cent.

³ We do not quite understand this; the sacred debt is perhaps a debt

owing to the temple treasury.

⁴ Winer-Lunemann, p. 391.

222 BIBLE STUDIES. [N. 19, 50

proseuxh<.

1. According to Cremer⁸, p. 420, the word appears "not

to occur at all in profane Greek . . . and therefore to be a

word of Hellenistic formation, which follows the change

which had taken place in the use of proseu<xesqai, and which

is at the same time a characteristic mark of the difference

between Israel and the Gentile world". But the fact that

proseuxh<, place of prayer,¹ is found also in connection with

pagan worship² tells against this isolating of the word.

2. The authorities for proseuxh< in the sense of a Jewish

place of prayer³ which up till now have been known and

applied are most likely all surpassed in age by an Inscription

from Lower Egypt, which probably belongs to the 3rd cent.

B.C., viz., CIL. iii. Suppl. 6583 (original in the Berlin Egyptian

Museum): "Basili<sshj kai> basile<wj prostaca<ntwn a]nti>

th?j proanakeime<nhj peri> th?j a]naqe<sewj th?j proseuxh?j plako>j

h[ u[pogegramme<nh e]pigrafh<tw. Basileu>j Ptolemai?oj

Eu]erge<thj th>n proseuxh>n a@sulon. Regina et rex

iusserunt." "As Mommsen has recognised, the queen and

the king who caused the synagogue Inscription to be re-

newed are Zenobia and Vaballath [ca. 270 A.D.]. Whether

the founder is Euergetes I. or II. he leaves an open ques-

tion."⁴ Wilcken decides for Euergetes I. († 222 B.C.) in

opposition to Willrich, who contends for Euergetes II. († 117

B.C.). The reasons given by the former have satisfied the

present writer: to go into the matter more particularly

would meanwhile carry us too far from the point. But it

may be permitted to reproduce Wilcken's interesting con-

¹ The author has not as yet met with the word, in the sense of prayer,

in heathen usage. But the question as to its "formation" is sufficiently

answered by showing that it occurs outside of the Bible. It is improbable

that the heathen usage is in any way to be traced back to Jewish influence.

² References in Scharer, Geschichte des jadischen Volkes im Zeitalter

Jesu Christi, ii. (1886), p. 370 = ³ ii., p. 444 (Eng. Trans. ii., p. 69).

³ References ibid., and in Thayer s. v. The latter cites also Cleomedes

71, 16.

⁴ Wilcken, Berl. Philol. Wochenschr., xvi. (1396), col. 1493 (Review of

Willrich, Juden and Griech,en var der makkab. Erhebung, Gottingen, 1895.

N. 50, 51] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 223

eluding remark about the Inscription (col. 1419): "Most

probably it has hitherto remained unnoticed that the omis-

sion of qeo<j before Euerge<thj is a unique phenomenon, as

the ascription of Divinity ought, according to rule, to stand

in official papers. We gather, then, that the king has here

renounced the use of qeo<j in consideration of the sensitive-

ness of the Jews."

souda<rion.

Neither Clavis³ nor Thayer gives any example of this¹

outside of the N.T. But in the marriage-contracts, PER.

xxvii. 7f. (190 A.D.) and xxi. 19 (230 A.D.), the souda<rion is

mentioned among the toilet articles of the dowry.

u[popo<dion.

Winer-Schmiedel, § 3, 2 e (p. 23), continues to count

u[popo<dion (found first in the LXX) among the words which

the Jews themselves may possibly have formed by analogy,

but which may have been already current in the popular

tongue, though not as yet so found by us. Clavis³ gives

extra-biblical examples from Lucian and Athenaeus. These

would, in the author's opinion, be sufficient to do away with

the idea of the Jewish origin of the word. But still more

decisive is its occurrence in the Papyri. In the two

marriage-contracts from the Fayyum, PER. xxii. 8 (reign of

Antoninus Pius) and xxvii. ii (190 A.D.), among the articles of

furniture belonging to the bride there is mentioned a settle,

with its accompanying footstool, kaqe<dra su>n u[popodi<&.

3. SUPPOSED SPECIAL "BIBLICAL" OR "NEW TESTAMENT"

MEANINGS AND CONSTRUCTIONS.

a]nti<lhmyij.

To the older passages from the Ptolemaic Papyri, in

which the word is secularised (meaning help ²), there is to be

¹ In the case of a Graecism like souda<rion (authenticated hitherto only

for the N.T.), if anywhere at all, we have to deal with a simple case of

chance.

² Above, p. 92.

224 BIBLE STUDIES [N. 51,52

added B U. 613 13 (Fayyum, probably of the reign of Antoninus

Pius).

a]reskei<a.

“Even those terms which, among the Greeks, are debased

to common uses on account of their exclusive human appli-

cation, such as a]re<skeia^sic, the obsequiousness which suits

itself to everybody, obtain in the scriptures a higher con-

notation by reason of the predominance of their relation to

the Divine standard. The word occurs in Col. 1¹⁰ in an

undoubtedly good sense, and this transformation is to be

attributed chiefly to the prevailing usage of a]resto<j and

eu]a<restoj in the LXX and the New Testament." This asser-

tion of G. von Zerschwitz¹ ought not to have been made,

since Losner had long before pointed out quite a number

of passages in Philo in which the word has unquestionably

a good sense—indeed, that of a relation towards God.²

a]reskei<a is also used in a good sense in the Inscription in

Latyschev's Inseriptiones regni Bosporani, ii. 5 (date?) xa<rin

th?j ei]j th>n po<lin a]reskei<aj.³

e]piqumhth<j.

Used by the Greeks, according to Cremer⁸, p. 456, in a

good sense; "on the other hand" in 1 Cor. 10 ⁶, e]piqumhth>j

kakw?n, "corresponding to the development of the idea which

has been noted under e]piqumi<a". But it is found in a bad

sense also in BU. 531 ii. 22 (Fayyum, 2nd cent. A.D.): ou@te

ei]mi> a@dikoj ou@te a][l]lotri<wn e]piqumhth<j.⁴

i[la<skomai.

According to Cremer ⁸, p. 471, the construction of this

word in "biblical" Greek deviates from the usage of profane

authors "in a striking manner". In proof of this, the cau-

¹ Profangraecitaet and biblischer Sprachgeist, Leipzig, 1859, p.

² These references have rightly been adopted by Cremer ⁸, p. 159.

³ This quotation is from Frankel, p. 315.

⁴ We have in this combination a synonym for a]llotrioe]pi<skopoj hitherto

authenticated only for Christian usage ; this compound becomes intelligible

by comparison with a@dikoj.

N. 52] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 225

pound e]cila<skomai pat is specially adduced, the usage of which

in "biblical" Greek, as contrasted with the constructions

of profane Greek, is said to be "all the more noteworthy

and all the more deserving of serious consideration". Cremer

deems the biblical phrase e]cila<skesqai ta>j a[marti<aj to be

one of the "most striking in comparison with profane Greek".¹

It is, however, to be met with outside the Bible. In

the directions (preserved in a duplicated Inscription) of the

Lycian Xanthus for the sanctuary, founded by him, of Men

Tyrannos, a deity of Asia Minor, CIA. iii. 74,² cf. 73 (found

near Sunium, not older than the imperial period), there

occurs the peculiar passage: o!j a}n de> polupragmonh<s^ ta> tou?

qeou ? h} perierga<shtai,³ a[marti<an o]f(e)ile<tw Mhni> Tura<nn& h{n

ou] mh> du<nhtai e]ceila<sasqai^sic.

Further, the a[marti<an o]fei<lw in this passage is also very

interesting; it is manifestly used like xre<oj o]fei<lw, a[marti<a

being thought of as debt.

likma<w.

In Luke 20¹⁸ (cf. possibly Matt. 21 ⁴⁴) pa?j o[ pesw>n e]p ]

e]kei?non to>n li<qon sunqlasqh<setai: e]f ] o{n d ] a}n pe<s^ likmh<sei

au]to<n, B. Weiss⁴ and H. Holtzmann⁵ take likma?n as winnow,

the only meaning hitherto authenticated. But, for one

thing, this does away altogether with the parallelism of the

two clauses, and, for another, gives us a figure which is

hardly conceivable, viz., every one upon whom the stone falls, it

will winnow. Should we decide, then, on internal grounds, we

arrive at a meaning for likma?n which is synonymous with

sunqla?n. In point of fact, the Vulgate understood the word

in this sense: Matt. 21 ⁴⁴ conteret, Luke 20 ¹⁸ comminuet; so

also Luther and most others: it will grind to powder (zer-

¹ Cf. also Blass, Gramm., p. 88, note 1 [Eng. Trans., p. 88, note 3]:

" [Ila<skesqai a[marti<aj, Heb. 2¹⁷, strikes as being strange by reason of the

object : the classical (e]c)ila<sk. qeo<n means 'to dispose Him in mercy towards

one'. Similarly, however (=expiare), also LXX and Philo."

² Dittenberger, Sylloge, No. 379. Cf. p. 216 above in reference to

kaqari<zw.

³ Cf. 2 Thess. 3¹¹. ⁴ Meyer, i. 1 ⁸ (1890), p. 363,

⁵ HC. i.² (1892), p. 239 f.

226 BIBLE STUDIES. [N. 53

malmen). Clavis³, p. 263, adopts this view, with the note

"usu a profanis alieno". This is most probably one of the

cases where no reason whatever can be given for the par-

ticular alteration of meaning having taken place in "biblical"

Greek. If likma<w = grind to powder be possible at all, then

it is only a matter of contingency that the word has not; yet

been found with that meaning outside the Bible. There

is, however, a Papyrus which appears to the author to supply

the want. In the fragment of a speech for the prosecution,

BU. 146 5 ff. (Fayyum, 2nd-3rd cent. A.D.), the prosecutor

reports: e]ph?lqan ]Agaqoklh?j kai> dou?loj Sarapi<nwnoj ]Onnw<-

frewj k[ai> a@]lloj ce<no[j] e]rga<[thj au]] tou ? t^ ? a[lwni<% mou kai>

e]li<kmhsa<n mou to> la<xanon¹ kai> ou]x [o]] l[i<]ghn zh[m]ei<an^sic

moi e]zhmiwsa<mhn. What the crime of the three rogues

was is not altogether evident, but it is clear, neverthe-

less, that they had not winnowed the la<xanon: they had

trodden upon it, stamped upon it, or ruined ² it in some way.

We might, perhaps, have recourse to the more general

meaning of destroy, which, moreover, will be found to

suit the New Testament passages exceedingly well. It is

conceivable that winnow might come to have this mean-

ing: the connecting link would be something like scatter,

which Clavis³ has established for LXX Jer. 38 [31] ¹⁰ and

other passages: the heap of corn mingled with ‘chaff’ is,

by winnowing, separated into its constituent substances, is

scattered. This conjecture has at all events better support

than that made by Carr,³ viz., that the meanings winnow and

crush were associated together in Egypt because in that

country there was drawn over the corn, before winnowing,

a threshing-board which crushed the straw (!).

lou<w.

Cremer⁸, p. 623: "While ni<zein or ni<ptein was the usual

word for ceremonial washing in profane Greek—

the LXX use lou<ein as the rendering of the Heb. CHr, for

¹ There is a second a placed above the first a in the original.

² Cf. Judith 2²⁷ ta> pedi<a e]celi<kmhse.

³ Quoted in Kennedy, Sources of N.T. Greek, p. 126 f.

N. 54] LANGUAGE OF THE GREER BIBLE. 227

the washings required under the theocracy for purposes of

purification". This sets up an unjustifiable antithesis be-

tween "profane" Greek and biblical, which Cremer himself

is unable to maintain, for immediately afterwards he finds it

necessary to grant that the word "does not, indeed, seem to

have been altogether unused in profane Greek for ceremonial

washing; Plut. Probl. Rom. 264, D: lou<sasqai pro> th?j

qusi<aj; Soph. Ant. 1186: to>n me>n lou<santej a[gno>n loutro<n".

Instead, then, of "not altogether unused" one may, since

the above antithesis does not need to be defended, quite well

say "used". Up to the present other three "profane"

passages have become known to the author ; the first two

are interesting also from a grammatical point of view on

account of the construction with a]po< (Acts 16 ³³). Perg. 255,

an Inscription of the early Roman period relating to the

regulations of the temple of Athena at Pergamus, ordains in

line 4 ff. that only oi[ . . . a]po> me>n th?j i]di<aj g[unai]ko>j kai> tou?

i]di<ou a]ndro>j au]qhmero<n, a]po> de> a]llotri<aj k[ai>] a]llotri<ou

deuterai?oi lousa<menoi, w[sau<twj de> kai> a]po> kh<douj k[ai>] a]llotri<ou

gunaiko>j deuterai?o(i) shall enter the sanctuary. Frankel, p.

188, makes the following remark upon this: "It is well-

known that sexual intercourse, the touching of the dead or

of women with child, rendered necessary a religious purifica-

tion previous to communion with the gods". The other

two passages are adopted from the references of Frankel, p.

189. In the regulations of the Lycian Xanthus for the

sanctuary of Men Tyrannos which he founded in Athens,

CIA. iii. 73 (found near Sunium, not older than the imperial

period), occurs quite similarly a]po> de> gunaiko>j lousa<meno[n?].

Finally, the stone from Julis, given in Rohl, Inscr. antiqu., p.

395 (= Dittenberger, Sylloge, p. 468), contains the regulation

that those who have become unclean by touching a corpse

are purified if lousame<nouj peri> pa<nta to>n xrw?ta u!datoj xu<si.

pa<roikoj.

According to Cremer⁸ p. 695, it appears as if "profane"

and "biblical" Greek diverged from each other in the use of

this word, and, in particular, as if pa<roikoj in the sense of

228 BIBLE STUDIES. [N. 55

alien were unknown in the former, which is said to use

me<toikoj instead. But even in Clavis³, p. 341, we find a

reference to Philo, De Cherub. § 34 (P. 160 f. M.), where

pa<roikoj is used several times in contradistinction to poli<thj.

And if Philo is not to be counted a profane author in the

strict sense of the term, we have the Inscriptions to fall

back upon. In IMAe. 1033 ⁹ (Carpathos, 2nd cent. B.C.?) the

population is divided into poli<tai and pa<roikoi; still clearer

is Perg. 249 12. 20. 34 (133 B .C.), in regard to which Frankel, p,

173, remarks: "We are informed of the following classes of

the population: 1. Citizens (poli<tai), 2. Aliens (oa<roikoi),

3. Various classes of soldiers (stratiw?tai. . .), 4. Emancipated

persons (e]celeu<qeroi), 5. Slaves, . . . . Since the offspring

of manumitted slaves come to be counted as aliens in terms

of line 20 f. of the edict under notice, it is evident that the

e]celeu<qeroi, were not, as such, transferred to the rank of the

paroikoi, but in the first instance formed an intermediate

class. It was the same in Ceos, according to the Inscription

in Dittenberger's Sylloge, 34810, and in Ephesus at the time

of the Mithridatic war—according to Lebas, Asie, 136 a

(Dittenberger, Sylloge, 253), line 43 ff., where also, as in our

document, the dhmo<sioi [= the public slaves] are immediately

raised to the class of pa<roikoi, not having first to pass

through that of the e]celeu<qeroi."¹

4. TECHNICAL TERMS.

a]qe<thsij (and ei]j a]qe<thsin).

Clavis³, p. 9, "raro aped profanos inferioris aetatis, ut Cic.

ad Att. 6, 9. Diog. Laert. 3. 39, 66, ap. grammat. improbatio;

saepius ap. ecclesiasticos scriptores". The usage of the word

in Papyri from the Fayyum is particularly instructive in

regard to its employment in the Epistle to the Hebrews (7 ¹⁸,

9 ²⁶): BU. 44 16 (102 A.D.), conjoined with a]ku<rwsij in reference

¹ The author gives this quotation because it yields further epigraphic

materials. Kennedy, Sources of N. T. Greek, p. 102, also refers to the

Inscriptions (CIG. 3595, " etc.").—Cf. now also A. Schulten, Mittheilungen

des Kaiserlich-Deutschen Archaol. Instituts, Romische Abtheilung, xiii. (1898).

p. 237

N. 56] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 229

to a document; quite similarly in 196 21 f. (109 A.D.), 281 18 f.

(reign of Trajan), and 394 14 f. (137 A.D.). In all these

passages a]qe<thsij is used in a technical juristic sense, being

found in the formula ei]j a]qe<thsin kai> a]ku<rwsin. Compare

these with ei]j a]qe<thsin in Heb. 9 ²⁶, and with the usage of the

contrary formula ei]j bebai<wsin in LXX Lev. 25 ²³, Heb. 6 ¹⁶

and the Papyri.¹ The formula was maintained for long

afterwards: we still find ei]j a]qe<thsin kai> a]ku<rwsin in PER.

xiv. 17f. (Fayyum, 166 A.D.) and ix. 10 (Hermopolis, 271 A.D.).

a]nape<mpw.

The references given by Clavis³, p. 27, and Thayer, p.

41, for the meaning ad personam dignitate, auctoritate, potestate

superiorem sursum mitto (Luke 23 ⁷, Acts 25 ²¹) from Philo,

Josephus and Plutarch can be largely increased from the

Fayyum Papyri: BU. 19 i. 20 (135 A.D.), 5 ii. 19 f. (138 A.D.),

613 4 (reign of Antoninus Pius ?), 15 i. 17 (194 A.D.), 168 25

(2nd-3rd cent. A.D.).

a]pe<xw.

In regard to the use of this word in Matt. 6 ^{2. 5. 16}, Luke

6 ²⁴, Phil. 4 ¹⁸, as meaning I have received, its constant occur-

rence in receipts in the Papyri is worthy of consideration.

Two cases may be given which are significant on account

of their contiguity in time to the above passages, viz., BU.

584 5f. (Fayyum, 29th December, 44 A.D.) kai> a]pe<xw th>n

sunkexwrhme<nhn timh>n pa?san e]k plh<rouj, and 612 2f. (Fay-

yum, 6th September, 57 A.D.) a]pe<xw par ] u[mw?n to>n fo<ron tou?

e]la[i]ourgi<ou, w$n e@xete< [mo]u e]n misqw<sei. The words they

have their reward in the Sermon on the Mount, when con-

sidered in the light of the above, acquire the more pungent

ironical meaning they can sign the receipt of their reward: their

right to receive their reward is realised, precisely as if they

had already given a receipt for it. a]poxh< means receipt

exactly, and in Byzantine times we also find misqapoxh<.²

¹ See p. 105 ff. above.

² Wessely, Corpus Papyrorum Raineri, i. 1, 151; but no example is given

there. The word might signify receipt for rent or hire, not deed of conveyance

as Wessely supposes.

230 BIBLE STUDIES. [N. 56, 57

bebai<wsij.

The conjunction of the terms bebaiou?n or bebai<wsij and

a]rrabw<n,¹ is also found in BU. 446 [ = 80] ¹⁸ (reign of Marcus

Aurelius); the sentence is unfortunately mutilated.

diakou<w.

In the technical sense of to try, to hear judicially (Acts

23 ³⁵; cf. LXX Deut. 1 ¹⁶, Dion Cass. 36, 53 [36]), also BU.

168 ²⁸ (Fayyum, 2nd-3rd cent. A.D.).

to> e]piba<llon me<roj.

Frequent references given in connection with Luke

15 ¹²; a technical formula, also used in the Papyri: BU.

234 13. 8 (Fayyum, 121 A.D.) to> kai> au]t&? e]piba<llon me<roj,

419 5f. (276-277 A.D.) to> e]piba<llon moi me<roj of the paternal

inheritance; similarly 614 17f. (Fayyum, 216 A.D.) th?n e]pi-

ba<llousan au]t^? tw?n patr&<w[n] meri<da.

e]pi<skopoj.

Of this word as an official title Cremer⁸ p. 889, follow-

ing Pape, gives only one example outside the N. T.: "In

Athens the name was applied in particular to the able men

in the subject states who conducted the affairs of the same".

But we find e]pi<skopoi as communal officials in Rhodes; thus

in IMAe. 49 43 ff. (2nd-1st cent. B.C.) there is named a council

of five e]pi<skopoi; in 50 34 ff. (1st cent. B.C.) three e]pi<skopoi are

enumerated. Neither Inscription gives any information as

to their functions; in the first, the e]pi<skopoi are found

among the following officials: [prutanei?j (?)],grammateu>j

boula?j, u[pogrammateu>j [b]ou[la?]i kai> p[r]utaneu?s[i], stra-

tagoi, [e]pi>] ta>n xw<ran, [e[pi>] to> pe<ran, grammateu<j, [tami<ai],

grammateu<j, e]pi<skopoi, grammateu<j, e]pimelhtai> tw?n

ce<[nwn], grammateu<j, a[gemw>n e]pi> Kau<no[u], a[gemw>n e]pi> Kari<aj,

a[gemw?n e]pi> Luki<aj. In the second the order is as follows:

[prutanei?j (?)], [stra]tagoi, tami<ai, e]pi<skopoi, u[pogram-

mateu>j boula?i kai> [prutaneu?si (?)]. But it is perhaps a still

more important fact that likewise in Rhodes e]pi<skopoj was

¹ Above, p. 108 f.

N. 57, 58] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 231

a technical term for the holder of a religious office. The

pre-Christian Inscription IMAe. 731 enumerates the following

officials of the temple of Apollo: three e]pista<tai, one

grammateu>j i[erofula<kwn, one e]pi<skopoj¹ in line 8, six

i[ero[p]oioi<, one [tami<]aj, one u[po[grammate]u>j i[er[of]ula<kwn.

We must abstain from theorising as to the duties of this

e]pi<skopoj. The fact that the word had already been admitted

into the technical religious diction of pre-Christian times is

sufficiently important in itself.

qeolo<goj.

This word has been admitted into the Clavis on account

of its occurrence in several MSS.² as the designation of John

the writer of the Apocalypse. Frankel, p. 264 f., in connec-

tion with Perg. 374 A 30 (dedication of the Pergamenian

Association of the u[mn&doi> qeou? Sebastou? kai> qea?j [Rw<mhj,

reign of Hadrian) has collected valuable materials for the

usage of Asia Minor: his notes are given as follows—the

author was unable to test the quotations: "The office of a

qeolo<goj, (line 30) is elsewhere shown to have existed in

Pergamus, and, in fact, seems to have been conferred as a

permanent one, since one and the same person, Ti. Claudius

Alexandros, held it under Caracalla and under Elagabalus

(see below, in reference to No. 525, line 8). Another theo-

logian, Glykon, as an eponymous magistrate, is met with, in

Pergamon, upon a coin bearing the image of Herennius

Etruscus (Mionnet, Suppl. v., p. 472, No. 1160). It is strange

that P. Aelius Pompeianus, melopoio>j kai> r[ay&do>j qeou?

[Adrianou?, who, according to an Inscription of Nysa (Bullet.

de corr. hellen. 9, 125 f., lines 4 and 63) was a qeolo<goj naw?n tw?n

e]n Perga<m&, is described as a citizen of Side, Tarsus and

Rhodes, but not of Pergamus. It can be no matter of chance

¹ episkopo can be read quite plainly, thereafter either an i or the frag-

ment of another letter. The editor writes e]pi<skopoi in his transcription. But

as only one name follows it would be more correct to read e]pi<skopo[j]. It

appears thus in the index, p. 235, which contains many a tacit correction.

² Wessely reads PER. xxx. 5 f. (Fayyum, 6th cent. A.D.) tou agiou i*wannou

tou eulogou kai euaggelistou, and translates of Saint John, the apostle and

evangelist. Should not qeolo<gou be read?

232 BIBLE STUDIES. [N. 58, 59

that we find the title qeolo<goj in the two cities of Asia

Minor (invested like Pergamus with the Neokoria) in con-

nection with which we were able to demonstrate the exis-

tence of the imperial Hymnodia as well: for Smyrna the

existence of theologians is attested by the passage from CIG.

3148, copied out above (p. 205, end) in connection with No.

269 [lines 34 ff.: o!sa e]netu<xomen para> tou? kuri<ou Kai<saroj

[Adrianou ? dia> ]Antwni<ou Polemwnoj : deu<teron do<gma sugklh<tou,

kaq ] o{ di> newko<roi gego<namen, a]gw ?na i[ero<n, a]te<leian, qeolo<gouj,

u[mn&dou<j], and by CIG. 3348, where, as in our, Inscription,

the same individual is u[mn&do>j kai> qeolo<goj; for Ephesus by

the Greek Inscr. in the Brit. Mus. iii. 2, No. 481, line 191 f.: o[moi<wj

kai> toi?j qeolo<goij kai> u[mn&doi?j, in which one must, in conse-

quence of the article being used but once, likewise interpret

as ‘theologians who were also hymnodists’. In Heraklea

in the Pontus there is a theologian for the mysteries: CIG.

3803, u[patiko>n kai> qeolo<gon tw?n t^?de musthri<wn,—and also

in Smyrna the female theologians, ai[ qeolo<goi, whom we

find there along with the male, are engaged in the mysteries

of Demeter Thesmophoros CIG. 3199, 3200."

plh?qoj.

This word, followed by a national name in the genitive,

often signifies not multitude simply, but people in the official

political sense. Thus we have to> plh?qoj tw?n ]Ioudai<wn

in 1 Macc. 8²⁰, 2 Macc. 11 ¹⁶ (like o[ dh?moj tw?n ]Ioudai<wn, ver.

³⁴), Ep. Arist., p. 67 18 (Schm.), and most likely also in Acts

25 ²⁴. The Inscriptions yield further material in regard to

this usage: IMAe. 85 4 (Rhodes, 3rd cent. B.C.) to> plh?qoj to>

[Rodi<wn, similarly 90 7 (Rhodes, 1st cent. B.C.); further, 846 10

to> plh?qoj to> Lindi<wn (Rhodes, date?), similarly 847 14 (Rhodes,

1st cent. A.D.) and many other Inscriptions from Rhodes.

The word has a technical sense also in the usage of the

religious associations: it designates the associates in their

totality, the community or congregation, IMAe. 155 6 (Rhodes,

2nd cent. B.C.) t[o>] plh?qoj to> [Aliada ?n kai> [ [Alia]sta?n;

similarly 156 5.¹ Compare with these Luke 1¹⁰, 19 ³⁷, Acts

¹ The editor, in the index, p. 238, remarks upon this " plh?qoj, i.q., koino<n".

N. 60] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 233

2⁶, but especially 15 ³⁰, where the Christian Church at

Antioch is called to> plh?qoj. Thus also to> plh?qoj in 4 ³²

should hardly be interpreted as multitude, mass, but as

community; similarly in 6 ^2.5, 15 ¹², 19 ⁹, 21²².

pra?gma e@xw pro>j tina.

pra?gma is very frequently used in the Papyri in the

forensic sense of law-suit; we cite only BU 22 8 f. (Fayyum,

114 A.D.) a[plw?j mhde>n e@xousa pra?gma pro>j e]me< in connection

with 1 Cor. 6¹ ti>j u[mw?n pra?gma e@xwn pro>j to>n e!teron.

presbu<teroj.

At p. 154 f. the attempt was made to demonstrate,

first, that presbu<teroj was, till late in the imperial period,

the technical term in Egypt for the occupant of an office in

civil communities,—a usage by which the LXX did not fail

to be influenced; secondly, that a similar usage could be

established for Asia Minor. The application of the word in

its religious sense among Catholic Christians, which can be

made clear by the series presbu<teroj—presbyter--priest,

is illustrated by the fact that prebu<teroi can also be

shown to have been an official title of pagan priests in

Egypt. In confirmation of this, a few sentences from F.

Krebs ¹ may be given here." The organisation of the priest-

hood in the different temples in the Roman period was still

the same as it had been, according to the testimony of

the decree of Kanopus, in the Ptolemaic period. To begin

with, the priesthood is divided according to descent into 5

fulai<, as at that time" (p. 34). . . . " In Ptolemaic times the

affairs of the whole Egyptian priesthood were conducted by

an annually changing council of 25 members (presbu<teroi ²

¹ Agyptische Priester unter romischer Herrschaft in the Zeitschrift fur

agypt. Sprache and Alterthuntskunde, xxxi. (1893), p. 31 ff.—Reference is

made on p. 34 to Wilcken, Kaiserl. Tempelverwaltung in Agypten, Hermes,

xxiii., p. 592, and Arsinoitische Tentpelrechnungen, Hermes, xx., p. 430.

² There is one passage belonging to the Ptolemaic period attesting

presbu<teroi in this sense which is not cited here by Krebs. In CIG. 4717 2 f.

(Thebes in Lower Egypt, between 45 and 37 B.C.) it is said: [e@do]ce toi?j a]po>

Diospo<lewj th?[j mega<lhj i[]ereu?si to[u? megi<stou qeou? ]Amo]nraswnqh>r kai> toi?j pre-

sbute<roij kai> toi?j a@lloij pa?si. Here the presbu<teroi plainly belong to the priest.

hood.

234 BIBLE STUDIES. [N. 61, 62

or bouleutai<). In our little provincial temple¹ we find

. . corresponding to it, a council—also changed yearly

of 'five of the oldest of the five phylae of the god Sokno-

paios for the present 23rd year' (i.e., of Antoninus Pius

159-160 A.D.). This council gives in a report which the

Roman authorities had demanded from it concerning disci-

plinary proceedings against a priest of the temple" (p. 35).

The author has met with these Egyptian presbu<teroi, in the

following Papyri from the Fayyum: BU. 16 5 ff. (159-160 A.D.

—the passage quoted by Krebs), tw?n e< presbute<rwn i[ere<wn

pentafuli<aj qeou? Sokno[p]ai<ou; 387 i. 5f. (171 A.D.), Sata-

bou?toj p[res]butero[u i[er<w]j²; in 387 i. 7 f. (between 177 and

181 A.D., much mutilated) the 5 presbu<teroi i[erei?j of Sokno-

paios are undoubtedly again spoken of; 433 5f. (ca. 190 A.D.)

tw?n g < [presb]ute<rwn i[e[r]e<wn [p]rw<thj fulh?j; ibid., line 9 f.,

tw?n e < presbute<rw[n i[ere<wn pentaful]i<aj Soknop[ai<ou qe]ou?;

392 6 f. (207-208 A.D.), kai> dia> tw?n i[ere<wn presbute<rwn (here

follow the names, partly mutilated) presbu<teroi i[erei?j. What the col-

legiate³ relations of these presbu<teroi i[erei?j actually were

we do not definitely understand; but thus much is certain,

viz., that presbu<teroi occurs here in the technical religious

sense of pagan usage in imperial times, which, according to

Krebs, goes back to the Ptolemaic period.⁴

The Papyrus passages are the more important, as no

other examples of this usage, so far as we know, have

been found in pagan writers. That is to say, indubitable

examples. It is true that the presbu<teroi of towns and

islands in Asia Minor, mentioned on p. 156, are considered

by many investigators, as we have meanwhile learned, to

have been a corporation which exercised authority in sacred

matters, but this hypothesis is opposed by others⁵; were it

¹ The Soknopaios-temple in the Fayyum, belonging to imperial times,

is meant.

² See the corrected reading in the Supplement, p. 397.

³ They seem always to have formed a college (of 3, 4 or 5 persons).

⁴ According to Krebs, p. 35, presbu<teroi was thus used—without the

addition of i[erei?j—even in the Ptolemaic period [as above, CIG. 4717 2f.].

⁵ Frankel, p. 821, in ref. to Perg. 477 (time of Claudius or Nero): "This

and the following Inscription (478, imperial period) prove the existence in

N. 62, 63] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 235

proved, we should thus have two valuable analogies of the

early Christian presbu<teroi. But, nevertheless, the word in

the passages from Asia Minor would be used rather in its

original signification, and not in the more special sense

which finally developed into the idea of priest. In the

Papyri it has this sense—or rather shows a tendency

towards this sense. We do not assert that it means

"priest": that is impossible in view of the following i[ereuj.

What is of importance for the history of the word is the

circumstance that it was used as a distinctive appellation of

priests in particular. The transformation of the early

Christian elders into the Catholic priests, so extremely

important in its consequences,¹ was of course facilitated by

the fact that there already existed elder priests or priestly

elders, of whom both the designation and the institution were

but waiting for admission into a church which was gradually

becoming secularised.²

profh<thj.

"The higher classes of the priesthood [in Egypt], ac-

cording to the decree of Kanopus (1. 3ff.) and Rosetta (1. 6f.),

were, in ascending scale, the i[erogrammatei?j, the pterofo<roi,

the i[erostolistai< (pro>j to>n stolismo>n tw?n qew?n), the pro-

fh?tai, and the a]rxierei?j."³ In Roman times we meet with

a profh<thj Sou<xou q[eou? mega<l]ou mega<lou, BU. 149 3 f. (Fay-

yum, 2nd-3rd cent. A.D.). "This 'prophet' receives for his

work 344 drachmas and half an obol annually—a salary from

Pergamus of a Gerousia, for which institution, particularly frequent in

Roman Asia Minor, reference may be made to the careful discussion of

Menadier (Ephesii, p. 48 ff.) and its continuation by Hicks (Greek Inscriptions

in the Brit. Mus., iii. 2, p. 74 ff.). According to these, the Gerousia is to be

thought of as an official body whose authority lay in sacred affairs. Otherwise

Mommsen, Rom. Gesch. 5, 326."

¹ A. Harnack, Lehrbuch, der Dogmengeschichte, i.² (Freiburg, 1888), p.

385 [Eng. Trans., ii., p. 131]: " One might perhaps say that the internal form

of the churches was altered by no other development so thoroughly as by

that which made priests of the bishops and elders ".

² Cf. the similar circumstances in regard to profh<thj, p. 236.

³ F. Krebs, Agyptische Priester unter romischer Herrschaft in the

Zeitschrift fur agypt. Sprache und Alterthumskunde, xxxi. (1893), p. 36.

236 BIBLE STUDIES. [N. 63, 64

the smallness of which we may perhaps infer that the duties

of this office were not his chief occupation."¹ In BU 488 3f.

(Fayyum, 2nd cent. A.D.), if the restoration be correct, we

find a profh<thj of a god Sukatoi?mij. The author knows

nothing as to the duties of these Egyptian profh?tai. But

the fact that in Egypt² the prophets were priests is sufficiently

important for us. It helps us to understand the view held

by the Christians in the second century, viz., that "the

prophets and teachers, as the commissioned preachers of the

word, are the priests";³ we can better understand such a

strange saying as Didache 13³, dw<seij th>n a]parxh>n toi?j profh<-

taij: au]toi> ga<r ei]sin oi[ a]rxierei?j u[mw?n—particularly as it was

written in the country in which the profh?tai were priests.

Supplementary: An interesting piece of epigraphic

evidence for the priestly profh?tai is found on a statue in the

collection of Consul-General Loytved at Beirut, which has

been published by A. Erman.⁴ The statue comes from

Tyre, and represents a worshipper of Osiris, who holds before

him the image of his god. The workmanship is altogether

Egyptian; the pillar at the back bears an Inscription in

small hieroglyphics, which the editor cannot fully make out,

but from which he translates inter alia, "the Prophet . . .

of Osiris," which is meant to signify the person represented.

Then, on the right side of the pillar at the back, the following

Inscription is roughly scratched:—

SACERDOS • OSIRIM

FERENS • PROFH/////

OSEIRINKWM///////

ZW/////

¹ F. Krebs, Agyptische Priester unter romischer Herrschaft in the Zeit-

schrift fur agypt. Sprache und Alterthumskunde, xxxi. (1893), p. 36.

² There were priestly prophets in other places. We doubt indeed,

whether, in IMAe. 833 6 ff. (Rhodes, 1st cent. u.c.) profateu<saj e]n t&? a@stei kai>

e]pilaxw>n i[ereu>j [Ali<ou, the profateu<saj actually refers to priestly duties. Com-

pare, however, the passages in Kaibel, IGrSI. Index, p. 740 sub profh<thj.

³ A. Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, i ², p. 183 [Eng. Trans.,

i., p. 214].

⁴ Eine agyptische Statue aus Tyrus in the Zeitschr. fur agypt. Sprache

und Alterthumskunde, xxxi. (1893), p. 102.

N. 64, 65] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 237

This is to be read: Sacerdos Osirim ferens. Profh<[thj]

@Oseirin kwm[a<]zw[n].1

On this Erman remarks as follows: "That the super-

scription, ‘Priest who carries Osiris,’ did not come from the

dedicator himself is evident, and is also confirmed by the

way in which it is applied. It is more likely that, in Roman

times, the votive gifts of the Tyrian temple were furnished

with altogether fresh inscriptions, and that, further, for pur-

poses of classification, the category under which they were

catalogued was marked upon them. In this way the statue,

the strange inscription on which was undecipherable, has been

made, not quite accurately, to represent a 'priest' in general,

taking care of the image of his god." The present writer

does not quite see wherein the want of accuracy lies, since

the Greek part of the Inscription speaks of a profh<thj.

But be that as it may, it is of interest to us that in this

Inscription of Roman times sacerdos is translated by profh<-

thj, and is itself most probably a translation of the Egyptian

word for prophet. We cannot permit ourselves an opinion

on the latter point, but it appears to us perfectly possible

that the writer of the bilingual Inscription understood

the hieroglyphic text: how otherwise should he have

rendered sacerdos by profh<thj? The reason, then, for his

not translating the Egyptian word for prophet by propheta is

either that this word had not yet become naturalised in

Latin, or that it did not seem capable of expressing the

specific sense of the Egyptian word. The case was very

different with profh<thj, the use of which, for a definite

class of priests, can be demonstrated in Egypt from Ptole-

maic times. If this hypothesis be correct, then our In-

scription, in spite of its Phoenician origin, would have to

be added to the Egyptian proofs for the existence of the

priest-prophets; if not, it would be evidence for the fact that

profh<thj as the designation of a priest is also found in use

outside Egypt—or, at least, outside the Egyptian range of

ideas.

¹ kwma<zwn, carrying in the procession. This Inscription is a little remin-

scent of the passage from the Leiden Papyri on p. 354.

238 BIBLE STUDIES. [N. 65, se

sumbou<lion.

This (as it appears) rare word is mentioned by New

Testament lexica as occurring outside the N. T. in Plu-

tarch only. In reference to the unfortunately mutilated

passage, Perg. 254 3 (Roman period), in which it occurs,

Frankel quotes the following note from Mommsen,¹ which

gives what is most likely the oldest example of the word:--

It appears that the word sumbou<lion is, properly speak-

ing, not Greek, but is formed in the Graeco-Latin official

style, in order to represent the untranslateable consilium. It

is so found in a document of the year 610 A.U.C. [CIG.

1543 = Dittenberger, Sylloge, 242]. Cf. Plutarch, Rom. 14

w]no<mazon de> to>n qeo>n Kw?nson, ei@te boulai?on o@nta: kwnsi<lion

ga>r e@ti nu?n to> sumbou<lion kalou?si."

The author found the word also in BU. 288 14 (reign of

Antoninus Pius) k[a]qhme<nwn e]n sumbouli<& e]n t&? prai[twri<&],

and 511 15 (ca. 200 A.D.²) [e]]n sumboulei<&. . . . e]ka<qisen.

sfragi<zw.

In Rom. 15 ²⁸ Paul describes the collection on behalf of

Jerusalem which he had gathered among the Gentile Christ-

ians as karpo<j: when I have sealed to them this fruit I shall

travel to Spain. karpo>n sfragi<zesqai is certainly a very

remarkable expression. B. Weiss³ sees in it an indication

"that Paul is assuring them by personal testimony how

love for the mother-church had brought this gift of love to

it". Others, again, follow Theodore of Mopsuestia in

thinking that the apostle merely alludes to the regular methocr

of delivering the money to the church at Jerusalem so

most recently Lipsius: deliver properly into their possession.⁴

We are of opinion that the latter view is confirmed by

the Papyri. In BU. 249 21 (Fayyum, 2nd cent. A.D.) Chaire-

mon writes to Apollonios, sfra<geison^sic to> seita<rion^sic kai> th>n

kreiqh<n^sic, seal the wheat and the barley. Here we have quite

¹ Hermes, xx., p. 287, note 7.

² The Papyrus was written about this time; the text itself may be older

³ Meyer, iv. ⁸ (1891), p. 595. ⁴ HC. ii. 2 (1891), p. 184.

N. 66, 67] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 239

an analogous expression,¹ which Professor Wilcken, in a

letter to the author, explains as follows: seal (the sacks con-

taining) the wheat and the barley. The same thing is meant

in 15 ii. 21 [Fayyum, 197 (?) A.D., u[ma?j de> sfragi?dan^sic e]pi-

ba<[l] lin^sic e[ka<st& o!n&: Ye shall set your seal upon every

ass, i.e., upon the sacks of every ass". Our conjecture is

that the sealing of the sacks of fruit was to guarantee the

correctness of the contents. If the fruit is sealed, then

everything is in order: the sealing is the last thing that

must be done prior to delivery. In the light of this the

metaphorical expression used by the Apostle assumes a more

definite shape. He will act like a conscientious merchant.

We know well that in his labour of love he did not escape

base calumnies; a sufficient reason for him that he should

perform everything with the greater precision.

ui[oqesia.

This word is one of the few in regard to which the

"profane" usage of the Inscriptions is taken into considera-

tion in the New Testament lexica. Cremer⁸, p. 972,

observes: "rare in the literature, but more frequent in the

Inscriptions". His examples may be supplemented by in-

numerable passages from the pre-Christian Inscriptions of

the Islands of the AEgean Sea. Particular references are

superfluous.² The word is always found in the formula kaq ]

ui[oqesi<an de<: A., son of B., kaq ] ui[oqesi<an de< son of C.

The corresponding formula for the adoption of females is

kata> qugatropoi~an³ de< which occurs seven times. The

frequency with which these formulae occur permits of an

inference as to the frequency of adoptions, and lets us

understand that Paul was availing himself of a generally

intelligible figure when he utilised the term ui[oqe<sia in the

language of religion.

¹ B U. 248 40 (letter from the same person and to the same as in 249)

ta> a]mu<gdala sfrag(izo<mena) might also be added.

² Cf. the Index of personal names in the IMAe. These Inscriptions

have u[oqesi<an. The formula kata> ge<nesin, 19 10, 884 14 (?) 964 add., expresses

the antithesis to it.

³ The IMAe. mostly read so; also qugatropoii~an in 646 2.

240 BIBLE STUDIES. [N. 68

xa<ragma

The other beast of Revelation 13 ^{11 ff.}, causes ¹⁶ all, the

small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free and

the bond, i!na dw?sin au]tooi?j xa<ragma e]pi> th?j xeiro>j au]tw?n th?j

h} pwlh?sai ei] mh> o[ e@xwn to> xa<ragma to> o@noma tou? qhri<ou h} to>n

a]riqmo>n tou? o]no<matoj au]tou?. A recent commentator, W.

Bousset,¹ thinks that the fruitless guessing of exegetes about

the xa<ragma proves "that here again there has been adopted

from some lost older tradition a feature which no longer

accords with the figure before us or its application". But

one is not entitled to speak of a proof in this connection, even

if it were an established fact that the exegetes had sought

"fruitlessly". One might with equal justification suppose

that we have here an allusion to some familiar detail, not as

yet known to us, of the circumstances of the imperial period,

and the only question is, Which interpretation is the more

plausible: the reference to an ancient apocalyptic tradition,

or the hypothesis of an allusion to a definite fact in the

history of the times? "A cautious mode of investigation will

accept the results obtained by reference to contemporary

history wherever such reference is unforced— . . . . it will

recognise genuine proofs and results arrived at by the tradi-

tional-historical method; but, where neither is sufficient, it

will be content to leave matters undecided—as also the possi-

bility of allusions to contemporary events which we do not

know. Finally, it will in many cases apply both methods

at once." The following attempt to explain the matter is to

be understood in the light of these statements of Bousset,²

with which the present writer is in absolute agreement.

In his commentary, Bousset rightly repudiates the refer-

ence to the stigmatising of slaves and soldiers. One might

preferably, he thinks, take the xa<ragma as being a religious

protective-mark (Schutzzeichen). Other expositors have thought

of the Roman coinage with image and superscription of the

Emperor. But these explanations also, he thinks, must be

¹ Meyer, xvi. 5 (1896), p. 427. ² Der Antichrist, Gottingen, 1895, p. 7.

N. 69] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 241

rejected. The enigma can be solved only by the traditional-

historical method which sets the passage in the light of the

time-hallowed apocalyptic ideas. "It is, in fact, the ancient

figure of Antichrist that . . . . has been turned to account in

the second half of chap. 13."¹ The legend of Antichrist, how-

ever, has it "that the Antichrist compels the inhabitants of

the earth to assume his mark, and that only those who have

the mark on forehead and hand may buy bread in times of

want. Here we have the explanation of the enigmatic verses

16 and 17."²

Bousset is certainly well aware that to trace backwards

is not to explain.³ And yet, should it be successfully de-

monstrated that the xa<ragma belonged in some way to the

substance of the apocalyptic tradition of ancestral times, our

investigation would be substantially furthered thereby. With

no little suspense, therefore, the author examined the references

which Bousset adduces elsewhere.⁴ But the citations there

are relatively very late passages at best, in regard to which

it seems quite possible, and to the author also probable, that

Rev. 13 has rather influenced them. And even if the mark

had been borrowed by John, the special characteristics of the

passage would still remain unexplained, viz., the face that the

mark embodies the name or the number of the beast,⁵ that it

has some general connection with buying and selling,⁶ and,

most important of all, that it has some special reference to

the Roman emperor who is signified by the beast. The tradi-

tional-historical method is hardly adequate to the elucidation

of these three points, and, this being so, the possibility of an

¹ Meyer, xvi. 5, p. 431. ² Ibid., p. 432.

³ Cf. Der Antichrist, p. 8: "At the same time I am quite conscious that

in the last resort I do not attain to an understanding of the eschatological-

mythological ideas”.

⁴ Der Antichrist, p. 132 ff.

⁵ According to Bousset, the mark seems to have been originally a

serpent-mark: the reference to the name of the beast was added by the writer

of the Apocalypse (Der Antichrist, p. 133). But nothing is added: and

therefore in Meyer, xvi. 5, p. 432, it is more accurately put that the mark

is "changed in meaning".

⁶ In the passages cited by Bousset the buying (and selling) is inti-

mately connected with the famine.

242 BIBLE STUDIES. [N. 70, 71

allusion to something in the history of the time, hitherto

unknown, presses for consideration.

Now the Papyri put us in a position where we can

do justice to this possibility. They inform us of a mark

which was commonly used in imperial times,¹ which

(1) Is connected with the Roman Emperor,

(2) Contains his name (possibly also his effigy) and the

year of his reign,

(3) Was necessary upon documents relating to buying,

selling, etc., and

(4) Was technically known as xa<ragma.

1. On Papyri of the 1st and 2nd centuries A.D. are often

found "traces, now more distinct, now very faint, of a red

seal, which, at first sight, resembles a red maculation; but

the regular, for the most part concentric, arrangement of the

spots shows that they are really traces of written charac-

ters".² But in addition to those seal-impressions on papyrus,

which will be discussed presently in greater detail, there

has also been preserved a circular stamp-plate of soft lime-

stone having a diameter of 5.5 centimetres and a thick-

ness of 2.8 centimetres. On the face of the stamp are

vestiges of the red pigment. The plate is now in the Museum

at Berlin, and a fac-simile was issued by F. Krebs in con-

nection with BU. 183. We are enabled, by the kind

permission of the authorities of the Imperial Museum, to

give here a reproduction of the fac-simile.

The legend, in uncial characters, reversed of course, is

arranged in a circle, and runs as follows:--

L le< Kai<saroj,

i.e., in the 35th year ³ of Caesar ( = 5-6 A.D.).

¹ Whether the use of this imperial xa<ragma is found elsewhere is

unknown to the author. But he is of opinion that it is not; otherwise it

would be inconceivable that Mommsen, who finds in John 1316f. an allusion

to the imperial money (Romische Geschichte, v. ⁴, Berlin, 1894, p. 522),

should not have lighted upon the author's conjecture. Wessely also, in his

issue of PER., treats the matter as something new.

² Wessely in ref. to PER. xi., p. 11.

³ L is the common abbreviation for e@touj.

N. 71, 72] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 243

In the middle, surrounded by the circle of these

letters, there are also the letters gr, which we do not

understand. Krebs resolves them thus: gr(afei?on); in that

case the seal must also have contained the names of the

authorities.

IMPERIAL SEAL OF AUGUSTUS. BERLIN MUSEUM.

It was with such plates that the imperial seals¹ which

have been more or less distinctly preserved on some Papyrus

documents, were impressed. The following instances have

become known to us:--

(a) PER. i. (Fayyum, 83-84 A.D.), a bill of sale, has

endorsed on it the remains of two red seals of which the

words [Au]t] okr[a<taroj] and Dom[itiano?n besides other traces

of writing, can still be recognised.

(b) BU. 183 (Fayyum, 26th April, 85 A.D.), a document

about the arrangement of the property and inheritance of

a married couple, has an endorsement of three almost wholly

obliterated lines by the same hand that wrote the text of

the document, and two impressions of a seal in red ink;

diameter 7.8 centimetres, length of the letters 0.7 centimetre.

The characters (uncial) in a circular line, are as follows :-

L d ] Au]tokra<toroj Kai<saroj Domitianou? Sebastou ? Germanikou ?.

¹ We have found only imperial seals in the Papyri.

244 BIBLE STUDIES. [N. 72, 73

(c) PER. xi. (Fayyum, 108 A.D.), an agreement regarding

the sharing of two parts of a house, is a specially finely

preserved copy which Wessely has issued in fac-simile.¹ "On

the back is the red stamp, circular, and having a diameter of

9.7 centimetres; close to the outer edge there is a circular

line, then, inside this, a circle formed by the letters (each 1

centimetre in length):--

L ib ] Au]tokra<toroj Kaisaroj Ne<roua Traianou?.

"Within this, again, is a smaller circle, which consists

of the letters (beginning under the L)

Sebastou? Germanikou? Dakikou?,

and, lastly, in the middle, the bust of the emperor, looking to

the right.

"Under the seal there is written in black ink:—

mar^w ses^h (Ma<rwn seshmei<wmai)."

(d) PER. clxx. (Fayyum, reign of Trajan), a bill of sale,

bears on the back the red seal, of which about a third is pre-

served, and of which there can still be read, in the outer

circle:—

[Au]t]okra<toroj Kaisaroj N[e<roua Traianou?],

in the inner:—

[Sebas] tou? Germanikou?

2. All these imperial seals, including that of Augustus,

have this in common, viz., that they contain the name of the

emperor; one may assume with certainty, from the analogy

of those that are preserved in their completeness, that those

which are mutilated also originally contained the year of

his reign. One seal has also the effigy of the emperor: how

far this may be the case, or may be conjectured, in regard to

the others cannot be made out from the reproductions which

¹ The author applied, March 15, 1897, to the directors of the Imperial

and Royal Printing Establishment at Vienna with the request to lend him the

cast of this fac-simile for his book. The directors, to their great regret, could

not grant this request, "as the editors of the work Corpus Papyrorum

Raineri are unable, on principle, to give their consent to it ". [Reply of 22nd

March.]

N. 73] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 245

have been issued. At all events, the seal of Augustus

bears no effigy.

3. As to the purpose of the seal there can hardly be any

doubt. Wessely¹ thinks indeed that one might "take it

to be a credential that the material written upon was pro-

duced in the imperial manufactory; or to be the credential

of an autograph document". But, in our opinion, the

former alternative cannot be entertained. The seal in

PER. xi., for instance, is much too large for the factory-mark

of the Papyrus; so considerable a space of the valuable

material would surely not have been from the first rendered

unfit for use by stamping. And there is yet another reason.

So far as the date of the preserved seals can still be made

out, it corresponds to the year of the particular document.

Now, if the seal be a factory-mark, this would be a remark-

able coincidence. It is rather intended to be the guarantee of

an autograph document. It is affixed to a contract by the

competent authorities, making the document legally valid.

This hypothesis is confirmed by the under-mentioned copy

of a similar document: on it there is no seal, but the legend

is faithfully copied on the margin. The seal, then, belongs

to the document as such, not to the papyrus.

Looking now at the stamped documents with respect to

their contents, we find that in five instances (including the

under-mentioned copy) there are three bills of sale or pur-

chase. The other two documents are in contents closely

allied to these. Wessely² has already called special atten-

tion to this in regard to the deed of partition; but BU. 183

also relates to a similar matter.³

4. We are indebted to a fortunate coincidence for the

knowledge of the official name of this imperial seal. PER.

¹ In connection with PER. xi., p. 37.

² In connection with PER. xi., p. 34.

³ We are of opinion that, by a more exact examination of the frag-

ments of bills of sale and similar documents of the 1st and 2nd centuries,

so far as their originals are extant, we might discover traces of a seal in

other instances.

246 BIBLE STUDIES. [N. 74, 75

iv. is the copy of a bill of sale from the Fayyum, belonging

to the 12th year of the Emperor Claudius (52-53 A.D.). It

consists of three parts, viz., the actual substance of the agree-

ment, the procuratorial signature, and the attestation by the

grafei?on, an authority whom Wessely describes as the

"graphische Registeramt". Each of these three parts is

prefaced by a note stating it to be a copy, thus: a]nti<grafon

oi]konomi<aj¹ line ¹, a]nti<grafon u[pografh?j line 30; finally, on

the left margin, running vertically, a]nti<grafon xara<gmatoj.

Wessely translates "copy of the signature," but the "signa-

ture," or rather the necessary stamping, of the original has

been effected precisely by means of the imperial seal. This

is supported by the wording as copied:--

L [i] b' Tiberi<ou Klaudi<ou Kai<saroj Sebastou? Germanikou ?.

Au]tokra<toroj.

This is exactly the legend whose form is made known to

us by such of the original seals as have been preserved. The

term xa<ragma suits it excellently. In the lines which follow

we must needs recognise the manuscript note of the grafei?on,

placed below the seal, such as we find in PER. xi., and most

likely in BU. 183 also. He adds the day of the month,²

mhno>j Kairsarei<(ou) id', and the designation of the attesting

authority, a]nag(e<graptai) dia> tou? e]n [Hraklei<% grafei<ou.

To sum up: xa<ragma is the name of the imperial seal,

giving the year and the name of the reigning emperor

(possibly also his effigy), and found on bills of sale and

similar documents of the 1st and 2nd centuries.

It is not asserting too much to say that in this ascer-

tained fact we have something to proceed upon. If the beast

be correctly interpreted as referring to a Roman emperor,

which the author does not doubt in the least, then, from

¹ oi]konomi<a = document is often found in the Papyri.

² The supposition that the day of the month also belonged to the

seal is in itself improbable, as, in that case, the plate must have been altered

daily; it is further opposed by the fact that the preserved seals only give the

year.

N. 75, 67] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 247

what we now know of the emperor's xa<ragma, we can very

well understand the xa<ragma, of the beast. The xa<ragma of

the Apocalypse is not, of course, wholly identical with its

contemporary prototype. The seer acted with a free hand;

he has it that the mark is impressed on forehead or hand,¹

and he gives the number a new meaning. It is in this point

that ancient (apocalyptic?) tradition may possibly have

made its influence felt. But it has only modified; the

characteristic, not to say charagmatic, features of the proto-

type can be recognised without difficulty.

xeiro<grafon.

The technical signification bond, certificate of debt, authen-

ticated in reference to Col. 2¹⁴ by Clavis³ and Thayer in

Plutarch and Artemidorus only, is very common in the

Papyri. Many of the original xeiro<grafa, indeed, have been

preserved; some of these are scored through and thus

cancelled (e.g. BU. 179, 272, PER. ccxxix). The following

passages from Fayyum Papyri may be cited for the word:

PER. 1. 29 (83-84 A.D.), xiii. 3 (110-111 A.D.), BU. 50 5. 16. 18 (115

A.D.), 69 12 (120 A.D.), 272 4.16 (138-139 A.D.), 300 3.12 (148

A.D.), 301 17 (157 A.D.), 179 (reign of Antoninus Pius), PER.

ix. 6.9 (Hermopolis, 271 A.D.).

xwri<zomai.

As in 1 Cor. 7 ^10.11.15, a technical expression for divorce

also in the Fayyum Papyri.² In the marriage-contracts there

are usually stated conditions for the possibility of separation;

these are introduced by the formula at e]a>n de> [oi[ gamou?ntej]

xwri<zwntai a]p ] a]llh<lwn; thus BU. 251 6 (81 A.D., restoration

certain), 252 7 (98 A.D.), PER. xxiv. 27 (136 A.D.), xxvii. 16 (190

A. D.).

¹ Even if all the imperial seals were as large as that of Trajan in PER.

xi., which, with its diameter of 9.7 centimetres, could find sufficient room

only on the brows of thinkers and the hands of the proletariat, yet our hypo-

thesis would lose nothing in probability; surely we do not wish to control

the seer with the centimetre rod. But there was manifestly no prescribed

standard diameter for the seal; cf. that on BU. 183, or even the original

stamp of Augustus; a seal of its size could quite well have found room on

forehead or hand.

² Examples are also to be found in other places.

248 BIBLE STUDIES. [N. 75, 76

5. PHRASES AND FORMULAE.

e]k tw?n tessa<rwn a]ne<mwn.

One might imagine the formula (LXX Zech. 11 ⁶, Mark

13 ²⁷, Matt. 24 ³¹) to be a mere imitation of the corresponding

Hebrew one. But it occurs also in PER. cxv. 6 (Fayyum,

2nd cent. A.D.) [gei<to]nej e]k tessa<rwn a]ne<mwn; notwithstand-

ing the mutilation of the document, there can be no doubt

that the four cardinal points are meant.

a]ci<wj tou? qeou?.

In 1 Thess. 2 12 we have peripatei?n a]ci<wj tou? qeou?, in

Col. 1 ¹⁰ peripath?sai a]ci<wj tou? kuri<ou ei]j pa?san a]reskei<an,

in 3 John ⁶ prope<myaj a]ci<wj tou ? qeou?, (cf. possibly Wisdom

3 ⁵ kai> eu$ren au]tou>j a]ci<ouj e]autou? [=qeou?] and Matt. 10 ^37f.).

The formula was a very popular one in Pergamus (and doubt-

less also in other localities). In Perg. 248 7ff. (142-141 B.C.),

Athenaios, a priest of Dionysus and Sabazius, is extolled as

su[n]teteleko<toj ta> i[era> . . . eu]sebwj [m] e>g kai> a]ci<wj tou?

qeou?, in Perg. 521 (after 136 A.D.), i[erasame<nhn a]ci<wj th?j

qeou? kai> th?j patri<doj, of a priestess of Athena, and in Perg.

485 3 ff. (beginning of 1st cent. A.D.), an a]rxibou<koloj is

honoured dia> to> eu]sebw?j kai> a]ci<wj tou? Kaqhgemo<noj Dionu<sou

proi~stasqai tw?n qei<wn musthri<wn. In Perg. 522 7 ff. (3rd cent.

A.D.) two priestesses of Athena are similarly commemorated

as i[erasame<nwn . . . e]ndo<cwj kai> e]pifanw?j kata> to> a]ci<wma

kai> to> me<geqoj th?j qeou?. The Inscription of Sestos (Wiener

Studien, i., p. 33 ff., ca. 120 B.C.) has, in line 87, lampra>n poihsa<-

menoj th>n u[podoxh>n kai> a]ci<an tw?n qew?n kai> tou? dh<mou.

e]mme<nw (e]n) pa?si toi?j gegramme<noij.

LXX Deut. 27²⁶ e]pikata<ratoj pa?j a@nqrwpoj o{j ou]k

e]mme<nei e]n pa?si toi?j lo<goij tou ? no<mou tou<tou is quoted "freely"

by Paul in Gal. 3 ¹⁰ thus: e]pikata<ratoj pa?j o!j ou]k e]mme<nei e]n

pa?sin toi?j gegramme<noij e]n t&? bibli<& tou ? no<mou. Certainly

an immaterial alteration, such as any one may unconsciously

make in a quotation from memory. We should not need to

¹ Cf., if the restoration be correct, Perg. 223 (ca. 156 B.C.) a]nast[refo.

me<nh]n kal[w?j] kai> eu]sebw?j kai> a][ci<wj th?j qea?j], said of Bito, a priestess of Athena.

N. 76, 77] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 249

trouble any further about it, were it not that the Papyri

indicate how Paul may have come to make this particu-

lar insignificant change. In the deed of partition PER.

xi. 23 f. (Fayyum, 108 A.D.) we read e]nmene<twsan [oi[] o[molo-

gou?ntej . . . . e]n toi?j e[kousi<wj w[mologh[me<noij] kai> dieirh-

me<noij. Here we have a legal formula familiar in the official

style of such documents, which occurs earlier in a similar

form in the Turin Papyrus 8 (2nd cent. A.D.): e]mme<nein de>

a]mfote<rouj e]n toi?j pro>j e[autou>j diwmologhme<noij.¹ The

formula varies as to its verb, but preserves the constancy of

its form—intelligible in the case of a legal expression—by

the fact that e]mme<nein, with or without e]n, is followed by the

dative of a participle, mostly in the plural. It so runs in

PER. ccxxiv. 5 f. (Fayyum, 5-6 A. D .) e]nme<nein e]n pa?si toi?j

gege[nhme<noij kata> th>]n grafh>n th?j o[mol(ogi<aj²) h{n sunge<-

grammai< soi. Note here the addition of a new word, pa?si.

And, finally, let us read BU. 600 6 (Fayyum, 2nd-3rd cent.

A.D.) e]nme<nw pa?si ta?ij progegrame<n[a]ij^sic [e]n]tolai?j, a form

of which the biblical quotation of Paul, with its distinctive

variation, is undoubtedly reminiscent. In these circum-

stances, the Apostle may be supposed to have continued the

biblical e]mme<nei e]n pa?si toi?j . . . by a participle, unconsciously

adopting the cadence of the legal formula. We are un-

aware whether this form of expression is to be found

elsewhere, or outside Egypt; its unquestionably formulaic

character speaks for its having belonged—albeit in mani-

fold variation—to the more widely known material of the

language. Moreover, the use of a legal form of expression

is particularly easy to understand in the case of Paul.³

kaqw>j ge<graptai, etc.

The authorities given on p. 113 f. for the legal character

of the formula of quotation kaqw>j (kaqa<per) ge<graptai, can

still be largely added to.⁴ In IMAe. 761 41 (Rhodes, 3rd cent.

¹ As the author has not the Turin Papyri by him, he quotes according

to Corp. Papp. Raineri, i. 1, p. 12.

² o[mologi<a = contract. ³ See p. 107 f.

⁴ It was remarked on p. 114, note 3, that the formula is also found with-

out this technical meaning. As examples of this we have the a]nage<graptai

250 BIBLE STUDIES. [N. 78

B.C.) we have kaqa> kai> e]n toi?j no<moij ge<graptai. In the

decree Perg. 251 35 (2nd cent. B.C.), with reference to a pas-

sage immediately preceding, there occur the words kaqa<per

ge<graptai; similarly, in the documents BU. 252 9 (Fayyum

98 A.D.) kaqa> ge<graptai, and PER. cliv. 11 (Fayyum, 180 A.D.)

kaqw>j g[e<gr]aptai. There may also be added kaqo<ti proge<-

graptai BU. 189 (Fayyum, 7 A.D.), and PER. iv. 17 f.

(Fayyum, 52-53 A.D.); kaqw>j u[poge<graptai, relating to an

oracle quoted later, in the Inscription of Sidyma No. 53

Db 11f.¹ (post-Hadrianic); kaqa> diage<graptai in an Inscrip-

tion from Cos ² (date?)

Other formulae of quotation used by the New Testament

writers are vouched for by the legal language: kata> ta>

progegramme<na PER. iv. 24 (Fayyum, 52-53 A.D.) cf. kata>

to> gegramme<non 2 Cor. 4 ¹³; [kata> th>]n grafh<n, with re-

ference to a contract, PER. ccxxiv. 6 (Fayyum, 5-6 A.D.),

and kata> grafa<j, with reference to the laws, BU. 136 10 (135

A.D.), cf. kata> ta>j grafa<j 1 Cor. 15 ^3f., and kata> th>n grafh<n

James 2 ⁸.

to> gnh<sion.

2 Cor. 8 ⁸ to> th?j u[mete<raj a]ga<phj gnh<sion: cf. Inscription

of Sestos (Wiener Studien, i., p. 33 ff., ca. 120 B.C.), line 7, pro>

plei<stou qe<menoj to> pro>j th>n patri<da gnh<sion kai> e]ktene<j.

de<hsin, deh<sein poiou?mai.

de<hsin poiou?mai (Phil. 1⁴ of supplication) is used quite

generally for request in BU. 180 17 (Fayyum, 172 A.D.) dikai<an

de<[hs]in poiou<menoj; on the other hand, deh<seij poiou?mai, as

in Luke 5 ³³, 1 Tim. 2¹, of supplication, also in Pap. Par. 69

of Josephus (references in Hans Droner, Untersuchungen Uber Josephus,

Thesis, Marburg, 1896, pp. 54 note 1, and 85), Arrian (cf. Wilcken, Philologus,

liii. [1894], p. 117 f.), and most likely of other authors as well. I am indebted to

a kind communication of Dr. Hans Droner for the information that Josephus

frequently employs a]nage<graptai for O.T. references also, while he certainly

uses ge<graptai very seldom for these; ge<graptai in c. Ap. ii. 18 refers to a

non-biblical quotation.

¹ Benndorf and Niemann, Reisen in Lykien and Karien, i., Vienna,

1894, p. 77; for the date see p. 75.

² Hermes xvi. (1881), p. 172, note; cited by Frankel, p. 16.

N. 79] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 251

ii. ii (Elephantine, 232 A.D.) e@nqa sponda<[j te kai> de]h<seij

poihsa<menoj.1

decia>n di<dwmi.

In Perg. 268 C (98 B.C.) the Pergamenians offer them-

selves as peace-makers in the quarrel between the cities of

Sardis and Ephesus: they send a mediator (line 10 f.): [to>n

paraka]le<sonta dou?na t[a>]j xei?raj h[mi?n ei][j su<llusin].² On

this Frankel observes, p. 201: "'to give the hands towards

an agreement (to be brought about by us)'. I have not

found any other example of this use (corresponding to the

German) of the phrase dou?nai ta>j xei?raj." We have here a

case where the elucidation of the Inscriptions can be to some

extent assisted by the sacred text; the expression give the

hand or hands³ is very common in the Greek Bible—though

in the form decia>n (or decia>j) dido<nai: 1 Macc. 6 ⁵⁸, 11 ^{50. 62}

13 ⁵⁰, 2 Macc. 11 ²⁶, 12 ¹¹, 13 ²², Gal. 2 ⁹ (decia>j e@dwkan . . .

koinwni<aj; cf. decia>n (or decia>j) lamba<nein 1 Macc. 11 ⁵⁸, 13 ⁵⁰,

2 Macc. 12 ¹², 14 ¹⁹.⁴ Then exegetes have also adduced clas-

sical analogies; most exhaustively Joannes Dougtaeus,

Analecta sacra, 2nd ed., Amsterdam, 1694, Part ii., p. 123.

Clavis³, p. 88, cites only Xen. Anab. 1, 6, 6 ; 2, 5, 3; Joseph.

Antt. 18, 19 [should be 9], 3.

ei]j to> dihneke<j.

Apart from the Epistle to the Hebrews, authenticated in

Appian, B. civ. 1, 4; found in IMAe. 78616 (Rhodes, imperial

period): teteimhme<noj^sic e]j to> dieneke<j^sic, also in Apollodorus

of Damascus, 42.

e@qoj, kata> to> e@qoj.

The word is used in the Fayyum Papyri almost entirely

for law, ritus, in the narrower sense, as often in Luke and

¹ The citation is made from the issue of this Papyrus (from Notices et

extraits, xviii. 2, pp. 890-399) by Wilcken in Philologus, liii, (1894), p. 82.

² The restorations are certain.

³ With this we must not confound e]kdido<nai th>n xei?ra, BU. 405.

(Fayyum, 348 A.D.) where xei<r means manuscript, document.

⁴ See also Grimm on 2 Macc. 4³⁴, HApAT. iv. (1857), p. 93.

252 BIBLE STUDIES. [N. 79, 80

Acts. Note especially the formula kata> to> e@qoj (Luke 1⁹,

2⁴²): BU. 250 17 (reign of Hadrian) kaqaro>j kata> to> e@qoj,

131 5 (2nd-3rd cent. A.D.) and 96 15 (2nd half of 3rd cent. A.D.)

kata> ta> [Rwmai<wn e@qh,¹ 347 i. 17, ii. 15 (171 A.D.) and 82 12 (185

A.D.) peritmhqh?nai kata> to> e@qoj (cf. Acts 15 ¹ perimhqh?te t&?

e@qei Mwu*se<wj).

e[toi<mwj e@xw.

Manifold authorities for the phrase in connection with

2 Cor. 12 ¹⁴, 1 Pet. 4 ⁵, Acts 21 ¹³; it is found also in the Fayyum

documents of the reign of Marcus Aurelius, BU. 240 27 and

80 [ = 446] 17. The construction can be made out in the

latter passage only; as in all the New Testament passages it

is followed by the infinitive.

tou? qeou? qe<lontoj, etc.

Similar pagan formulae have long since been referred

to in connection with the New Testament passages. The

Fayyum Papyri reveal how widespread its use must have

been, even in the lower strata of society With tou? qeou?

qe<lontoj in Acts 18 ²¹ is connected tw?n qe[w?]n qelo<ntwn BU.

423 ¹⁸ (2nd cent. A.D., a soldier's letter to his father);

615 4f. (2nd cent. A.D., private letter) e]pignou?sa o!ti qew?n

qelo<ntwn diesw<qhj, used in reference to the past; similarly in

line 21 f.; further, qew?n de> boulome<nwn 248 11 f. (2nd cent. A.D.,

private letter), 249 13 (2nd cent. A.D., private letter). With

e]a>n o[ ku<rioj e]pitre<y^ 1 Cor. 16 ⁷, e]a<nper e]pitre<p^ o[ qeo<j

Heb. 6 ³, compare qew?n e]pitrepo<n[t]wn 451 10 f. (1st-2nd cent.

A.D., private letter), also th?jh tu<xhj e]pitrepou<shj 248 15f. (2nd

cent. A.D., private letter). Allied to kaqw>j [o[ qeo>j] h]qe<lhsen

1 Cor. 12 ¹⁸, 15 ³⁸ is w[j o[ qeo>j h@qelen, in BU. 27 11 (2nd-3rd

cent. A.D., private letter). It is a specially significant fact

that it is precisely in private letters that we find the

specified examples of the use of these formulae.

e]k tou? me<sou ai@rw.

Thayer, p. 402, cites Plut. De Curios. 9, Is. 57, 2 in con-

nection with Col. 2¹⁴. The phrase is used in BU. 388 ii. 28

¹ This formula often occurs in the PER. also.

N. 81] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 253

(Fayyum, 2nd-3rd cent. A.D.) like e medio tollo in the proper

sense.

a]po> tou? nu?n.

This formula, employed in 2 Cor. 5¹⁶, as also often by

Luke (Gospel, and Acts 18 ⁶), is very common in the Fayyum

legal documents. We find it in the following combinations:

a]po> tou? nu?n e]pi> to>n a!panta xro<non PER. iv. 9. 17 (52-53 A.D.),

xi. 6 (108 A.D.), BU. 350 19 (reign of Trajan), 193 ii. 11 (136

A.D.); a]po> tou? nu?n ei]j to>n a]ei> xro<non 282 5 (after 175 A.D.);

[a]p]o> tou? nu?n e]pi> to>n a]ei> kai> a!panta [xro<non] 456 9 (348 A.D.);

also standing by itself, a]po> tou? nu?n 153 14 (152 A.D.) and 13 9

(289 A.D.).

A corresponding form, me<xr[i] t[ou?] nu?n (cf. a@xri tou? nu?n

Rom. 8²², Phil. 1⁵), is found in BU. 256 9 (Fayyum, reign of

Antoninus Pius).

kat ] o@nar.

The references for this phrase, as found in Matt. 1²⁰,

2 ^{12 f. 19. 22,} 27 ¹⁹, cannot be supplemented by Perg. 357 ⁸ (Roman

times) [k]at ] o@nar or IMAe. 979 4f. (Carpathus, 3rd cent.

A.D.) kata> o@nar; in these cases the phrase does not mean in,

a dream, but in consequence of a dream, like kat ] o@neiron in Perg.

327 (late Roman¹).

parai<tioj a]gaqw?n.

In the letter of Lysias to the Jews, 2 Macc. 11 ¹⁹, it is

said kai> ei]j to> loipo>n peira<somai parai<tioj u[mi?n a]gaqw?n

gene<sqai. Similarly in Ep. Arist. p. 67 21 (Schm.) we have

w[j a}n mega<lwn a]gaqw?n parai<tioi gegono<tej. The formula is

often found in the Inscriptions. In reference to Perg.

246 54 f. (decree of the city of Elaia in honour of Attalus iii.,

ca. 150 B.C.) [a]]ei< tinoj [a]]ga[q]ou?, parai<t[i]on gi<nesqai au]to<n,

Frankel, p. 159, observes: "The phrase was received as a

formula into the official Greek of the Romans: so a quaes-

tor's letter to the Letaeans, 118 B.C., in Dittenberger,

Sylloge 247, 44 f.; two letters, from Caesar and Octavian,

¹ Cf. Frankel, p. 55.

254 BIBLE STUDIES. [N. 81, 82

to the Mitylenians, Sitzungsber. d. Berl. Akad. 1889, pp. 960,

965. Elsewhere also, e.g. in Dittenberger, 252, 2; 280,

23". IMAe. 1032 11 (Carpathus, 2nd cent. B.C.) parai<tioj

gego<nei ta?j swthr[i<]aj should also be compared.

pare<xomai e]mauto<n.

Clavis³, p. 340, finds examples of this reflexive phrase

(Tit. 2 ⁷) only in Xen. Cyr. 8, 1, 39 ; Thayer, p. 488, adds

Joseph. c. Ap. 2, 15, 4. It occurs also in IMAe. 1032 6 (Car-

pathus, 2nd cent. B.C.) a]ne<gklhton au[to>n pare<sxhtai, and

Lebas, Asie 409 6 (Mylasa, 1st cent. B.C.), xrh<simon e[auto>n

paresxhtai.¹

pari<sthmi qusi<an.

In reference to Rom. 12 ¹ B. Weiss² rejects the sacri-

ficial meaning of to present, lay down (the sacrifice upon the

altar), for parista<nai, as the word "most probably occurs in

Greek in this sense"—here follow the references—"but it is

certainly not . . . in any way a standing technical term in

the 0. T."; it is to be taken as to place at one's disposal.

The present writer has two objections to this view. For one

thing he cannot see wherein the two interpretations differ;

even if the latter be preferred, it yet embraces, in this very

combination parista<nai qusi<an, the meaning of the former.

And, again, he cannot understand how a form of expression

used by the Apostle Paul can be set up as something to be

contrasted with Greek.

The references given by Weiss for the usage of the word

in Greek can be supplemented by Perg. 246 17.43 (decree of the

city of Elaia in honour of Attalus III., ca. 150 B.C.) parasta-

qei<shj qusi<aj, 256 14. 21 (imperial period) parastaqh?nai [q]usi<an

au]t&? or [a]f ] o]u$ [a}]n . . .parist^? th>n qusi<[a]n.

meta> pa<shj proqumi<aj.

With Acts 17 ¹¹ oi!tinej e]de<canto to>n lo<gon meta> pa<shj

proqumi<aj cf. Perg. 13 30 f. (oath of allegiance of the mercen-

¹ This passage is quoted from Frankel, p. 186, who also refers to the

active parasxo<nta xrh<simon e[auto>n t^? patri<di, CIG. 2771 i. 10 (Aphrodisias), and

would restore Perg. 25315 in a similar way.

² Meyer, iv. 8 (1891), p. 512.

N. 82. 83] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 255

cries of King Eumenes I., soon after 263 A.D.) [par]e<comai de>

kai> th>n [a@]llhn xrei<an eu]no<wj kai> a]profa[s]i<[s]twj [me]ta>

pa<shj proqum[i<]aj ei]j du<namin ei#nai th>n e]mh<n. The idiom will,

without doubt, be found elsewhere.

e]k sumfw<nou.

As in 1 Cor. 7 ⁵, the formula occurs in the following

FayyAm documents: BU. 446 [=80] 13 (reign of Marcus

Aurelius) k[a]qw>j e]k sunfw<nou u[phgo<reusan, PER. cxci. 9 (2nd

cent. A.D.) [k]aqw>j e]cumfw<nou^sic u[phgo<reusan, and cxcvii. 8

(2nd cent. A.D.) kadw>j^sic e]cumfw<nou^sic p[. . . . . .] u[phg[o<-

reusan].

ou]x o[ tuxw<n.

For extraordinary, as in 3 Macc. 3⁷, Acts 19 ¹¹, 28², the

phrase occurs also in BU. 36 [cf. 436] 9 (Fayyum, 2nd-3rd

cent. A.D.) u!brin ou] th>n tuxou?san sunetele<santo and in an

earlier Inscription from Ptolemais in Egypt, of the time of

Euergetes, Bulletin de correspondance hellenique, xxi. (1897), p.

190.

oi[ e]n u[perox^? o@ntej.

Hitherto noted in 1 Tim. 2 ² only cf. 2 Macc. 3¹¹ a]ndro>j

e]n u[perox^? keime<nou. Already in Perg. 252 ²⁰ (early Roman

period, after 133 B.C.), we find tw?n e]n u[perox^? o@ntwn, pro-

bably used generally of persons of consequence.

fi<landroj kai> filo<teknoj.

In regard to Tit. 2 ⁴ ta>j ne<aj fila<ndrouj ei#nai, filote<knouj,

v. Soden¹ observes, "both expressions here only," and also

in the last edition of Meyer (xi. ⁶ [1894], p. 382) they are

described as "a!p. leg.," although both are already given in

the Clavis as occurring elsewhere. More important than the

correction of this error, however, is the ascertained fact that

the two words must have been current in this very combina-

tion. Already in Clavis³ we find cited for it Plut. Mor., p.

769 C. To this may be added an epitaph from Pergamus,

Perg. 604 (about the time of Hadrian), which, on account

of its simple beauty, is given here in full:—

¹ HC. iii. 1 (1891), p. 209.

256 BIBLE STUDIES. [N. 83, 84

]Iou<lioj Ba<ssoj

]Otakili<% Pw<ll^

t^? glukuta<t^

[g]unaiki<, fila<ndr[&]

kai> filote<kn&,

sunbiwsa<s^

a]me<mptwj

e@th l <.

An Inscription of the imperial period, from Paros, CIG.

2384¹, similarly extols a wife as fi<landron kai> filo<paida.

We need no evidence to prove that precisely a combination

of this kind could readily become popular.

to> au]to> fronei?n.

This formula and others of similar formation which are

current in the writings of the Apostle Paul have been found

in Herodotus and other writers.² The epitaph IMAe. 149

(Rhodes, 2nd cent. B.C.), in which it is said of a married

couple, tau]ta> le<gontej tau]ta> fronou?nej h@lqomen ta>n a]me<trh-

ton o[do>n ei]j ]Ai~dan, permits of the supposition that it was

familiarly used in popular speech.

6. RARER WORDS, MEANINGS AND CONSTRUCTIONS.

a@doloj.

In reference to 1 Pet. 2 ² w[j a]rtige<nnhta bre<fh to>

logiko>n a@dolon ga<la e]pipoqh<sate, E. Kahl³ observes that the

second attribute a@doloj is not meant to apply to the meta-

phorical ga<la, but only to the word of God as symbolised by

it. But BU. 290 13 (Fayyum, 150 A.D.) makes it probable

that this adjective -could quite well be applied to milk; the

word is there used, alongside of kaqaro<j, of unadulterated

wheat. Thus the word need not have been chosen as merely

relating to the meaning of the metaphor, nor, again, as

merely referring to pa<nta do<lon in verse¹.

¹ Citation from Frankel, p. 134.

² Cf. A. H. Franke on Phil. 2² (Meyer, ix.⁵ [1886], p. 84).

³ Meyer, xii. ⁶ (1897), p. 136.

N. 34, 85] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 257

a]metano<htoj.

According to Clavis³, p. 21, found only in Lucian, Abdic.

11; Thayer, p. 32, adds Philo, De Proem. et Poen. § 3 (M. p.

410). In PER. ccxvi. 5 (Fayyum, lst-2nd cent. A.D.), the

word is used, passively, of a sale (kuri<an kai> bebai<an kai>

a]metano<hton).

a]po<krima.

For this manifestly very rare word in 2 Cor. 1⁹, Clavis³,

p. 43, gives only the reference Joseph. Antt. 14, 10, 6;

Thayer, p. 63, supplements this by Polyb. Excpt. Vat. 12,

26^b 1; in both passages an official decision is meant. The

word occurs in the same sense in the Inscription (particularly

worthy of consideration by reason of its proximity in time

to the Pauline passage) IMAe. 2 4 (Rhodes, 51 A.D.), in which

ta> eu]ktaio<tata a]pokri<mata certainly relates to favourable

decisions of the Emperor Claudius.

a]rketo<j.

Outside the N. T. only authenticated hitherto in Chry-

sippus (in Athen. 3, 79, p. 113 b); is also found in the

Fayyum Papyri BU. 531 ii. 24 (2nd cent. A.D.) and 33 5

(2nd-3rd cent. A.D.).

a]spa<zomai.

With the meaning pay one's respects (Acts 25 ¹³, Joseph.

Antt. 1, 19, 5 ; 6, 11, 1), also in the Fayyum Papyri BU. 347

i. 3, ii. 2 (171 A.D.) and 248 12 (2nd cent. A.D.).

basta<zw.

Of the special meaning¹ furtim sepono in John 12 ⁶ the

Fayyum Papyri yield a number of fresh examples: BU. 361

iii. 10 (end of 2nd cent. A.D.), 46 10 (193 A.D.), 157 8 (2nd-3rd

cent. A.D.). The last two documents contain speeches of

the public prosecutor in regard to cases of theft.

¹ The more general meaning also is found in BU. 388 ii. 24 (Fayyum,

2nd-3rd cent. A.D.).

258 BIBLE STUDIES. [N. 86,86

bia<zomai.

Without entering into the controversy over Matt. 11¹²

and Luke 16¹⁸, the author wishes only to establish the

following facts. Cremer⁸, p. 215, thinks that it may be

considered as "demonstrable" that the word in Matthew

must be taken as a passive: "As a deponent it would give

no sense whatever, since bia<zesqai cannot stand without an

object or a substitute therefor, like pro<sw, ei@sw, and does not

so stand¹. . . . ; it represents no independent idea such as do

violence, come forward violently. At least this passage would

afford, so far as can be seen, the sole example of such a

meaning." But in opposition to this we may refer to the

epigraphic regulations of Xanthus the Lycian for the

sanctuary of Men Tyrannos founded by him, CIA. iii. 74,²

cf. 73 (found near Sunium, not earlier than the imperial

period), where bia<zomai is without doubt reflexive and abso-

lute. After the ceremonial purifications are stated, the per-

formance of which is the condition of entrance into the

temple, it is further said that no one may sacrifice in the

temple a@ne[u] tou? kaqeidrusame<nou^sic to> i[ero<n (meaning most

likely, without permission from the founder of the temple); e]a>n de<

tij bia<shtai, the regulation continues, a]pro<sdektoj³ h[ qusi<a

para> tou? qeou?, but if any one comes forward violently, or enters

by force, his offering is not pleasing to the god. But for such

as, on the contrary, have rightly performed all that is pre-

scribed, the founder wishes, further on, kai> eu]ei<latoj^sic4

ge<noi[t]o o[ qeo>j toi?j qerapeu<ousin a[pl^? t^? yux^?. This anti-

thesis is decisive for the sense of bia<shtai.

dieti<a.

Authenticated only in Philo; Thayer (p. 148) adds to

this the Graecus Venetus of Gen. 41 ¹, 45 ⁵. The word (Acts

24 ²⁷, 28 ³⁰) occurs also in BU. 180 7 (Fayyum, 172 A.D.) and

Perg. 525 13 (after 217 A.D.).

¹ Italics from Cremer.

² Dittenberger, Sylloge, No. 379. See, in reference to kaqari<zw, p. 216.

³ Cf. its antithesis, eu]pro<sdektoj, also said of a sacrifice, Rom. 15¹⁶ and

I Pet. 25, like qusi<a dekth< Phil. 4¹⁸ and LXX.

⁴ An additional reference for this word; cf. p. 122.

N. 86, 87) LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 259

doki<mioj.

A word belonging to the Greek Bible which the Papyri

are bringing again to life, after the exegetes had well-nigh

strangled it. With reference to the passages James 1 ³ =to>

doki<mion u[mw?n th?j pi<stewj katerga<zetai u[pomonh<n, and 1 Pet.

1⁷ i!na to> doki<mion u[mw?n th?j pi<stewj polutimo<teron xrusi<ou

tou? a]pollume<nou dia> puro>j de> dokimazome<nou eu[req^? ei]j e@painon

kai> do<can kai> timh>n e]n a]pokalu<yei ]Ihsou? Xristou?, it is com-

monly stated that to> doki<mion is equal to to> dokimei?on, means

of testing. This hypothesis is linguistically possible; the

author certainly knows no reason why, in such case, the

word is always accented doki<mion and not dokimi?on. But on

material grounds there are grave objections to the hypothesis.

Even the thorough-going defence of it in connection with

the Petrine passage by E. Kuhl¹ still leaves the present

writer with the feeling that, so taken, the Apostle's thought

is unnatural and indistinct, not to say unintelligible. And

this also gives us the reason why most exegetes search for

another meaning of the word, one which will in some degree

suit the context; thus, e.g., Clavis³, p. 106, decides for

exploratio in James 1³, and for verification in 1 Pet. 1⁷, two

meanings which the word never has anywhere else, and all

but certainly cannot have. But the whole difficulty of the

case was primarily brought about by the exegetes themselves,

nearly all of whom misunderstood the word. Only Schott

and Hofmann have fallen on the right view in their surmise

(see Kuhl, p. 88) that doki<mion is the neuter of an adjective.²

On this Kuhl observes, with a reference to Winer⁷, p. 220,

that this interpretation is rendered void by the fact that

doki<mion is not an adjective, but a genuine substantive, while

Winer says "there is no adjective doki<mioj". True, there

is no doki<mioj. — that is, in the lexica; nor would Schott

and Hofmann be able to find it. This want, however, is

supplied by the Fayyum Papyrus documents of the Archduke

¹ Meyer, xii.⁶ (1897), p. 87 ff.

² Tholuck also, in Beitrage zur Spracherklarung des Neuen Testaments,

Halle, 1832, p. 45, makes this conjecture, with a reference to Wahl; but he

has no example at his disposal.

260 BIBLE STUDIES. [N. 87,88

Rainer's collection. In the pawn-ticket PER. xii. 6 f. (93 A.D.)

there are mentioned gold buckles of the weight of 7 1/2 minae of

good gold (xrusou? dokimi<ou); the marriage contract xxiv. 5 (136

A.D.) enumerates ornaments in the bride's dowry to the

value of 13 quarters of good gold (xrusou? dokimei<ou^sic); a frag-

ment of the same contract, xxvi., reads in lines 6 [xrus]i<ou

[dok]imi<ou, and in line 9 [xr]u[s]ou? [d]oki[m]ei<ou^sic; similarly

the fragments of marriage contracts xxiii. 4 (reign of

Antoninus Pius) [xrusi<ou] dokeimei<ou^sic, xxii. 5 (reign of

Antoninus Pius) [xru]siou do[kimi<ou], and xxi. 12 (230 A.D.)

[xrusou?] dokimi<ou. There can be no doubt about the meaning

of this doki<mioj, and, in addition, we have the advantage of

possessing a Papyrus which gives information on the matter.

The marriage contract, PER. xxiv., is also preserved in a

copy, and this copy, PER. xxv., line 4, reads xrusi<ou doki<mou

instead of the xrusou? dokimei<ou of the original. Now this

doki<mou can hardly be a clerical error, but rather an easy

variant, as immaterial for the sense as xrusi<ou for xrusou?:

doki<mioj has the meaning of do<kimoj proved, acknowledged,

which was used, precisely of metals, in the sense of valid,

standard, genuine (e.g., LXX Gen. 23 ¹⁶ a]rguri<ou doki<mou,

similarly 1 Chron. 29 ⁴, 2 Chron. 9¹⁷ xrusi<& doki<m&; par-

ticulars in Cremer⁸, p. 335 f.).

Hence, then, the adjective doki<mioj, proved, genuine, must

be recognised, and may be adopted without misgiving in both

the New Testament passages.¹ to> doki<mion u[mw?n th?j pi<stewj

is the exceedingly common classical construction of the sub-

stantival neuter of an adjective with genitive (often of an

abstract noun) following, which we find in the New Testa-

ment, especially in Paul.² An almost identical example is

¹ It is very highly probable that the Greek writer Oecumenius still

understood it as an adjective in these passages; he interprets doki<mion to>

kekrime<non le<gei, to> dedokimasme<non, to> kaqaro<n, (Tischendorf in reference to James

1³). The substitution, in some minuscules, of do<kimoj for doki<mioj, in both the

New Testament passages (as in the Papyrus document PER. xxv. 4), likewise

supports the view that late Greek copyists understood the word. The forma-

tion of the word is plain: doki<mioj comes from do<kimoj, as e]leuqe<rioj from

e]leu<qeroj, and kaqa<rioj from kaqaro<j.

² Cf. most recently Blass, Gramm., p. 151 f. [Eng. Trans., p, 155.]

N. 88, 89] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 261

2 Cor. 8 ⁸ to> th?j u[mete<raj a]ga<phj gnh<sion.¹ We would

render whatever is genuine in your faith in both passages.

Luther's translation of the passage in James, viz., euer Glaube,

so er rechtschaffen ist (your faith, so it be upright), must be pro-

nounced altogether correct. And thus, too, all ambiguity

disappears from the passage in Peter: so that what is genuine

in your faith may be found more precious than gold—which, in spite

of its perishableness, is yet proved genuine by fire—unto praise

and glory and honour at the revelation of Jesus Christ. We

would here avoid entering more particularly into the

exegetical controversy: the proposed explanation must be

its own justification.

But the tale of the ill-treatment of this word is not even

yet fully told. The exegetes have disowned it also in the

LXX; it was suppressed by dint of taking two instances of

the traditional dokimion as identical. According to Clovis³,

p. 106, doki<mion = dokimei?on LXX Prov. 27 ²¹ and Ps. 11

[Hebr. 12]⁷ with the meaning of crucible; according to Kuhl,

it signifies here as always means of testing. Now it is certain

that, in Prov. 27 ²¹ dokimion a]rgui<& kai> xrus&? pu<rwsij, we

must take dokimi?on (or doki<mion?) as a substantive; it does

not, indeed, mean crucible, though that is the meaning of the

original—just as little as pu<rwsij means furnace, the original

notwithstanding. The fact is rather that in the translation

the sense of the original has been changed. As it stands the

sentence can only be understood thus: fire is the test for silver

and gold; only so does one catch the point of the apodosis.

The case is quite different with Ps. 11 [12]⁷ ta> lo<gia kuri<ou

lo<gia a[gna> a]rgu<rion pepurwme<nou dokimion t^? g^? kekaqari-

sme<non e[ptaplasi<wj. The sense of the original of dokimion t^?

g^? is a matter of much controversy. To dokimion corresponds

lylifE, (crucible? workshop?) of which the etymology is ob-

scure, and t^? g^? is a rendering of xr,xAlA, the grammatical

relations of which are likewise uncertain. The solution of

these difficulties is of no further consequence to our ques-

tion; in any case the sense has been again altered by the

¹ See p. 250, sub to> gnh<sion.

262 BIBLE STUDIES. [N.89,90

translators, for the Greek word can mean neither crucible nor

workshop. We must therefore deal with the Greek sentence

as we best can. If, with Kuhl, we take dokimion as a sub-

stantive equivalent to means of testing (which dokimi?on [or

dokimion?] can quite well mean), then the sentence runs

The words of the Lord are pure words, silver purified by fire, a

seven times refined means-of-testing for the earth (or for the

land?). Such would, indeed, be the most obvious render-

ing,¹ but what is gained thereby? We get a tolerable

meaning only by taking doki<mion adjectivally: the words of

the Lord are pure words, genuine silver, purified by fire, seven

times refined, for the land. Godly men cease, untruth and

deceit are found on every side, a generation speaking great

things has arisen: but Jahweh promises succour to the

wretched, and, amidst the prevailing unfaithfulness, His

words are the pure, tried defence of the land. Taken some-

what in this way, the sentence fits into the course of thought

in the Greek psalm.

Finally, the texts of the LXX yield still further testi-

mony to the existence of this adjective. In 1 Chron. 29⁴,

B ^{a b} gives the reading a]rguri<ou dokimi<ou instead of a]rguri<ou

doki<mou. The same confusion of do<kimoj and doki<mioj, which

we have already seen in the Papyri and the New Testament

MSS., is shown in Zech. 11 ¹³: instead of do<kimon, x.^{c. a vid} Q*

(Marchalianus, 6th cent. A.D., Egypt) have doki<mion, Q^a

doki<meion.

e]kte<neai, e]ktenw?j.

The ethical sense endurance (2 Macc. 14 ³⁸, 3 Macc. 6 ⁴¹,

Judith 4 ⁹, Cic. ad Attic. 10, 17, 1, Acts 26 ⁷) is also found in

IMAe. 1032 10 (Carpathus, 2nd cent. B.C.) ta> pa?san e]kte<neian

kai> kakopaqi<an parexo<menoj. In line 2 of the same Inscrip-

tion e]ktenw?j is used in a corresponding sense.

¹ t^? g^? could also be connected with the verb as an instrumental dative:

but that would make the sentence more enigmatic than ever. We do not

understand the suggestion of Cremer⁸, p. 340, at the end of the article

doki<mion.

N. 90, 91] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 263

e@sqhsij.

But few references for this word are given in connection

with Acts 1 ¹⁰, Luke 24 ⁴ A, etc.; cf. BU. 16 R 12 (Fayyum,

159-160 A.D.) xrw[m]e<nou e]reai?j e]sqh<sesi.¹

kakopa<qeia or kakopaqi<a.

For this word in James 5¹⁰, usually written kakopa<qeai,

Clavis³, p. 222, gives only the meaning vexatio, calamitas,

aerumna, and Beyschlag ² expressly rejects the meaning vexa-

tionum patientia. Cremer⁸, p. 749, likewise enters the

passage under affliction, pains, misfortune, but this must be

an error, as he again records it three lines below under

the other meaning, bearing of affliction. The context sup-

ports this interpretation (though we cannot think it

impossible that James might have said: Take an example

from the prophets in affliction and patience). From the re-

ferences given in Clavis we might judge that this sense of

the word could not be authenticated. But the passages

quoted by Cremer, 4 Macc. 9 ⁸ and Plut. Num. 3, 5, may be

supplemented by references from the Inscriptions. In IMAe.

1032 10 (Carpathus, 2nd cent. B.C.) ta>n pa?san e]kte<neian kai>

kakopaqi<an parexo<menoj, this meaning may be inferred from

the co-ordination of the word with e]kte<neia; similarly Perg.

252 16f. (early Roman period, therefore after 133 B.C.) tw?n te

e]kkomi[dw?n] e]pimelei<% kai> kakopaqi<% diei[pw>n ta> de<onta

pa?]san e]pistrofh>n e]poh<sat[o]^sic. Frankel, indeed (p. 184),

translates the word here by pains, but the context permits

us to infer that not pains, in the passive sense of suffering, is

intended here, but the active taking pains. In support of

this "weakening of the concept," Frankel further quotes

the Inscription in honour of the gymnasiarch Menas of

Sestos (Dittenberger, Sylloge 247), lines 4 and 23. W. Jerusa-

lem³ observes, in connection with this passage from the

¹ Corrected reading in the Supplement, p. 395.

² Meyer, xv. ⁵ (1888), p. 222.

³ Wiener Studien, i. (1879), p. 47.—Cf. also A. Wilhelm, GGA., 1898, p. 227:

"The kakopaqi<a, with which the travelling of embassies, particularly over sea,

is usually associated, is prominently mentioned in numberless psephismata".

264 BIBLE STUDIES. [N.91,92

Inscription of Sestos (ca. 120 B.C.), that "of course" the

word at first meant suffering of misfortune, but that, in the

Inscription, it has the more general meaning of exertion,

endurance, which meaning, he says, is also met with in con-

temporary Inscriptions, and is much more frequent in

Polybius than the common one.

The objection may be made that these are in reality

two different words with different meanings. But even

granting that kakopaqi<a is of different formation from

kakopa<qeia,¹ there still remains the question whether the

traditional kakopaqei<aj may not be an itacistic variation of

kakopaqi<aj. The present writer would, with Westcott and

Hort, decide for this alternative, and read kakopaqi<aj (so

B* and P).

kata<krima.

This rare word is authenticated (apart from Rona. 5^16.18,

8¹) only in Dion. Hal. 6, 61. All the less should the follow-

ing passages be disregarded. In the deed of sale, PER. i.

(Fayyum, 83-84 A.D.), line 15f., it is said of a piece of land

that it is transferred to the purchaser kaqara> a]po> panto>j

o]feilh<matoj a]po> me>n dhmosi<wn telesma<twn (16) pa<ntwn kai>

[e[te<rwn ei]]dw?n kai> a]rtabi<wn² kai> naubi<wn kai> a]riqmhtikw?n kai>

e]pibolh?j kw<mhj kai> katakrima<twn pa<ntwn kai> panto>j ei@douj,

similarly line 31 f. kaqara> a][po>] dhmosi<wn telesma<twn kai>

e]pi[gr]afw?n pasw?n kai> a]rtabi<wn kai> naubi<wn kai> a]riqmhtikou?

(32) [kai> e]pib]olh?j k[w<mhj kai> katakrima<t]wn pa<ntwn kai>

p[anto>j] ei@douj. Corresponding to this we have, in the deed of

sale PER. clxxxviii. 14 f. (Fayyum, 105-106 A.D.), kaqara> a]po>

me>n dhmosi<wn telesma<twn pa<ntwn kai> e]pigrafw?n pasw?n (15)

. . . . e]pibolh?j kw<[m]hj kai> [kata]k[ri] ma<twn pa<ntwn kai>

p[ant]o>j ei@doj. It is obvious that in these passages katakri<-

mata is used technically: some kind of burdens upon a piece

of land must be meant. Wessely translates the first passage

thus: free of all debts, free of all arrears of public assessments of

all kinds, of artabae-taxes, naubia-taxes, and taxes for the taking

¹ Further particulars in Winer-Schmiedel, § 5, 13 c (p. 44 f.).

² Also in BU. 233 ¹¹ to be thus read, not a]rtabiwt [. . .].

N. 92, 93] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 265

of evidence (? Evidenzhaltungssteuern), of the additional pay-

ments of the village-communities---in short, of all payments of

every kind; in line 32 of the same Papyrus he again renders

[katakrima<t]wn by taxes. We doubt the accuracy of these

renderings, though ourselves unable to interpret the word

with certainty. We, nevertheless, conjecture that it

signifies a burden ensuing from a judicial pronouncement

—a servitude. One may perhaps render legal burden. We

are of opinion that the meaning poena condemnationem

sequens, which was accepted by earlier lexicographers, but

which is now no longer taken into consideration by Clavis³

and Cremer⁸—a meaning in accordance with the above-

mentioned usage—is particularly suitable in Rom. 8¹; cf.

Hesychius: kata<krima: kata<krisij, katadi<kh.

martuou?mai.

This word, especially the participle, is common in the

Acts of the Apostles and other early Christian writings, as a

designation of honour, viz., to be well reported of; similarly in

IMAe. 832 15 (Rhodes, pre-Christian?) marturhqe<nta kai> ste-

fanwqe<nta, said of a priest of Athena; 2 14 (Rhodes, 51 A.D.)

kai> marturhqe<ntwn tw?n a]ndrw?n, without doubt in the same

sense. We find this attribute of honour also in Palmyra: in

Waddington, 2606 a (second half of 3rd cent. A.D.), it is said

of a caravan-conductor marturhqe<nta u[po> tw?n a]rxempo<rwn.¹

Here we have the construction with u[po< as in Acts 10 ²²,

16 ², 22 ¹². So in an Inscription from Naples, IGrSI. 758

10 f. (second half of 1st cent. A.D.), memarturhme<non u[f ] h[pmw?n

dia< te th>n tw?n tro<pwn kosmi<othta.

meta> kai>.

With the late pleonastic kai< after meta< in Phil 4 ^{3 2}

Blass³ rightly compares su>n kai< in Clem. 1 Cor. 65 ¹. In

the Papyri we have found meta> kai< only in BU. 412 6 f. (4th

¹ Quotation from Mommsen, Romische Geschichte, v. ⁴, Berlin, 1894,

p. 429.

² See p. 64, note 2.

³ Gr. des Neutest. Griechisch, p. 257. [Eng. Trans., p. 263.]

266 BIBLE STUDIES. [N- 93, 94

cent. A.D.); su>n kai< is more frequent, e.g., in the Fayyum

Papyri BU. 179 19 (reign of Antoninus Pius),¹ 515 17 (193

A.D.), 362 vi. 10 (215 A.D.).

o]yw<nion.²

Neither Clavis³ nor Thayer gives any authority earlier

than Polybius († 122 B.C.) for the meaning pay; it is only

when, guided by their reference, we consult Sturz, De Dial.

Mac., p. 187, that we find that, according to Phrynichus,

the comedian Menander († 290 B.C.) had already used the

word in this sense. Soon afterwards, in the agreement (pre-

served in an Inscription) of King Eumenes I. with his

mercenaries, we find it used several times, Perg. 13 7.13.14

(soon after 263 B.C.)—always in the singular. Note in line 7

the combination o]yw<nion lamba<nein as in 2 Cor. 11⁸. The

singular is used in the Papyri for army pay, BU. 69

(Fayyum, 120 A.D.); for wages of the u[drofu<lakej in 621 12

(Fayyum, 2nd cent. A.D.); for wages of the watchmen of the

vineyards in 14 v. 20 (Fayyum, 255 A.D.); the plural of the

wages of another workman 14 v. 7; the word is similarly

used in the passage iii. 27, but it is abbreviated, so that one

does not know whether it is singular or plural.

pa<resij.

Cremer⁸, p. 467, in reference to the meaning remission

(important in respect of Rom. 3 ²⁵), observes that the word is

so used only in Dion. Hal., Antt. Rom. 7, 37, where it means

remission of punishment. It probably occurs in B U. 624 21

(Fayyum, reign of Diocletian) in the sense of remission of a

debt (cf. line 19 i[era?j mh> a]me<lei o]filh?[j]^sic); but it can only be

a temporary remission that is here spoken of. The diction

being concise and full of technical terms, the meaning is not

quite clear to us.

patropara<dotoj.

The few hitherto-known authorities for the word (in

1 Pet 1 ¹⁸) are to be expanded by Perg. 248 49 (135-134 B.C.);

¹ Improved reading in Supplement, p. 357. ² Above, p. 148.

N. 94, 95] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 267

Attalus writes in a letter to the council and people of Per-

gamus that his mother Stratonike has brought to>n Di<a to>n

Saba<zion patropara<doton¹ to Pergamus.

smara<gdinoj.

Apart from Rev. 4 ³, Clavis³ gives no references at all.

Thayer adds Lucian. In PER. xxvii. 8 (Fayyum, 190 A.D.)

the word is used to describe a woman's garment: emerald-green.

th<rhsij.

As in Acts 4³, 5¹⁸, imprisonment, ward, also in BU. 388

iii. 7 (Fayyum, 2nd-3rd cent. A.D.) e]ke<leusen Sma<ragdon kai>

Eu@kairon ei]j th>n th<rhsin paradoqh?nai.

to<poj.

With Acts 1 ²⁵ labei?n to>n to<pon th?j diakoni<aj tau<thj kai>

a]postolh?j Wendt² compares Sirach 12¹². In the latter

passage it is one's place in life, generally, that is spoken of,

A more significant example—referring as it does to a place

within a definitely closed circle—is the technical use of the

word in a dedication of the Pergamenian association, con-

sisting of thirty-five or thirty-three members, of the u[mn&doi>

qeou? Sebastou? kai> qea?j [Rw<mhj: Perg. 374 B 21 ff. (reign of

Hadrian) toi?j de> a]n[a]pauome<noij ei]j li<banon proxrh<sei o[

a@rxwn (dhna<ria) ie<, a} a]polh<yetai para> tou? ei]j to>n to<pon

au]tou? ei]sio<ntoj.³ Frankel, p. 266, translates: "The officer

(the Eukosmos) shall advance, for incense for those deceased,

15 denarii, which he shall withhold from the one who enters

the association in place of the departed".

With to<poj as sitting-place Luke 14 ¹⁰, cf. Perg. 618

(date?), where to<poj probably means seat in a theatre;

Frankel, p. 383, names the following as indubitable instances

of this usage: CIG. 2421 = Lebas, ii. 2154 (Naxos); Lebas,

1724 e (Myrina), with a reference to Bohn-Schuchhardt,

Altertumer von Aegae, p, 54, No. 7.

¹ Stratonike came originally from Cappadocia.

² Meyer, iii. ^6/7 (1888), p. 52.

³ Frankel, p. 267, remarks on this that ei]sie<nai ei]j to>nto<pon is used like

ei]sie<nai ei]j a]rxh<n, (e.g. Speech against Neaira, 72, Plutarch's Praec. Ger. Reip.

813 D). ]Arxh< is similarly used in Jude 6; cf. LXX Gen. 40 ²¹.

IV.

AN EPIGRAPHIC MEMORIAL OF THE

SEPTUAGINT.

. . . ei] a@rage yhlafh<seian au]to>n kai> euroien.

AN EPIGRAPHIC MEMORIAL OF THE SEPTUAGINT.

The Alexandrian translation of the Old Testament passed

from the sphere of Jewish learning after Hellenistic Judaism

had ceased to exist. Later on, the very existence of a Greek

translation was completely forgotten.¹ It is therefore all

the more interesting to follow the traces which reveal any

direct or indirect effects which the Septuagint had upon the

common people—their thoughts and their illusions.

The materials for a knowledge of the popular religious

and ethical ideas of the Jews and Christians in the imperial

period are more meagre than those which yield us the

thoughts of the cultured and learned. But those materials,

scanty though they be, have not as yet been fully worked.

Scholars are usually more interested in the theologians of

Tiberias, Alexandria, Antioch and Rome, than in such

people as found their edification in the "Apocryphal"

Legends, Gospels and Acts. But surely it is erroneous to

suppose that we have a satisfactory knowledge of the history

of religion when we have gained but a notion of the origin

and development of dogma. The history of religion is

the history of the religious feeling (Religiositat) not that of

theology, and as truly as religion is older than theology,—

as truly as religion has existed in every age outside of

theology and in opposition to dogma, so imperious must

grow the demand that we shall assign a place in the gallery

of history to the monuments of popular piety. These are

¹ Cf. L. Dukes, Literaturhistorische Mittheilungen uber die altesten

hebraischen Exegeten, Grammatiker u. Lexikographen (Ewald & Dukes,

Beitrttge, ii.), Stuttgart, 1844, p. 53; Schurer, p. 700 ff. [Eng. Trans., ii.,

iii., p. 168 f.]; J. Hamburger, Real-Encyclopadie fur Bibel und Talmud, ii.,

Leipzig, 1883, p. 1234.

271
272 BIBLE STUDIES. [24

necessarily few. For while theology, and the religion of

theologians, have always been capable of asserting them-

selves, the religion of the people at large has not been

concerned to raise memorials of itself. Thus it is not to be

wondered at that the copious literature of theology should,

so far as appearance goes, stifle the insignificant remains of

the people's spontaneous expression of their religion,¹—not

to speak of the fact that much that was of value in the latter

was intentionally destroyed. That which was extra-theo-

logical and extra-ecclesiastical was looked upon by the official

theology as a priori questionable. Why, even at the present

day, most of those productions of ancient popular religion

come to us bearing the same stigma: we are accustomed

to think of them as Apocryphal, Heretical, Gnostic, and as

such to ignore them.

But those ideas, further, which we commonly designate

as Superstition² seem to the author to deserve a place in the

history of popular religion. The ordinary members of the

community, townsman and peasant, soldier and slave, went

on living a religious life of their own,³ unaffected by the

theological tendencies around them. We may very well

doubt, indeed, whether that which moved their hearts was

religion in the same sense as Prophecy or the Gospel, but

their faith had received from the illustrious past the religious

temper, at least, of ingenuous and unquestioning childhood.

Their faith was not the faith of Isaiah or of the Son of Man;

still, their "superstition" was not wholly forsaken of God.

A devout soul will not be provoked by their follies, for

throughout all their "heathenish" myth-forming and the

natural hedonism of their religion there throbbed a yearning

anticipation of the Divine.

The superstitions of the imperial period do not permit

¹ A similar relation subsists in kind between the materials of literary

speech and of popular speech.

² J. Grimm, Deutsche Mythologie, ii.³, Gottingen, 1854, p. 1060, says

" Superstition formed in some ways a religion for the homes of the lower

classes throughout ".

³ Cf. F. Piper, Mythologie der christlichen Kunst, Erste Abth., Weimar,

1847, p. ix. f.

25] A SEPTUAGINT MEMORIAL. 273

of being divided into the three classes: Heathen, Jewish,

Christian. There is frequently no such clear distinction

between the faith of the Heathen and the Jew and that of

the Christian. Superstition is syncretic in character: this

fact has been anew confirmed by the extensive recently-

discovered remains of the Literature of Magic. And yet it

is possible, with more or less precision, to assign certain

fragments of these to one of the three departments named.

The literary memorial which is to be discussed below

has been influenced in the most marked degree by the ideas

of Greek Judaism, or, what is practically the same, of the

Alexandrian Old Testament. After a few remarks about

the circumstances of its discovery,¹ the text itself is given.

The tablet of lead upon which the Inscription is scratched

comes from the large Necropolis of ancient Adrumetum, the

capital of the region of Byzacium in the Roman province

of Africa. The town lies on the coast to the south-east of

Carthage. In connection with the French excavations which

have been successfully carried on there for some time, the

rolled-up tablet was incidentally found by a workman in the

¹ The author here follows the information which G. Maspero, the first

editor of the Inscription, gave in the Collections du Musee Alaoui, premiere

serie, 8^e livraison, Paris, 1890, p. 100 ff. A phototypic fac-simile of the tablet

forms the frontispiece of BIBELSTUDIEN. Only after the original issue of the

present work did the author learn of the sketch by Josef Zingerle in Philologus,

liii. (1894), p. 344, which reproduces the text from Revue archeologigue, iii t. xxi.

(1893), p. 397 ff. (Reprint from Collections du Musee Alaoui, p. 100 ff.) The

text has been discussed also by A. Hilgenfeld, Berl. Philol. Wochenschrift, xvi.

(1896), p. 647 ff.; R. Wunsch, CIA. Appendix (1897), xvii. f. ; and L. Blau, Das

altjudische Zauberwesen (1898), p. 96 ff. The tablet has been noticed (with obser-

vations by A. Dieterich) by F. Hiller von Gaertringen in the Sitzungsberichte

der Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1898, p. 586. Cf. also Schurer, 3 iii.,

p. 29S f. Individual textual conjectures and exegetic proposals are found in

the various critiques of the BIBELSTUDIEN. The author hopes subsequently

to take special advantage of the new exegetic material afforded by Hilgenfeld

and Blau in particular. In the following he has corrected his former reading

Domitiana>n (line ⁶) to Domitianh>n, and (line₁₅) i!na au]th>n to i!n ] au]th>n. Hilgen-

feld's assertion (p. 648) that Domitianh>n, should be read throughout is erroneous.

274 BIBLE STUDIES. [26, 28

June of 1890;¹ he noticed it only when a prong of his mattock

had pierced the roll. This damaged the tablet in three places.²

There were also other three holes in the lead—probably

caused by a nail with which the roll had been perforated.

The tablet is thus damaged in six places, but the few letters

which are in each case destroyed permit, with one exception,

of being easily supplied.

We read the text thus³ :—

[Orki<zw se, daimo<nion pneu?ma to> e]nqa<de kei<menon, t&? o]no<-

mati t&? a[gi<& Awq

Ab[aw]q to>n qeo>n tou? Abraan kai> to>n Iaw to>n tou?

Iakou, Iaw

Line 2, Iakou: M. corr. ]I(s)a<kou.

¹ In 1889 a tabula devotionis had been discovered in the Necropolis of

Adrumetum, and it was discussed by M. Bread and G. Maspero in the fifth

instalment of the Collections (1890) just cited; it, too, contains a love-spell,

but is, apart from a few Divine names, free from biblical ideas and phrases.

A third tablet of Adrumetum, the publication of which was prospectively

announced on the cover of the eighth instalment, has not yet been issued.

Professor Maspero of Paris, Member of the Institute of France, had the great

kindness to inform the author (16th April, 1894) that the contents of this

tablet and similar unpublished pieces were likewise non-Jewish. In CIL.

viii., Suppl. i. (1891), sub Nos. 12504-12511, there have recently been brought

together some tabulae execrationum discovered in Carthage, of which the

last affords some parallels to our tablet: see below.—Cf. now the copious

material collected by R. Wunsch in the CIA. Appendix continens de-

fixionum tabellas in Attica regime repertas, Berlin, 1897; also M. Siebourg,

Ein gnostisches Goldamulet aus Gellep, in Bonner Jahrbacher, Heft 103 (1898),

p. 123 ff.

² We imagine that these are the three holes upon the right margin

of the tablet.

³ We have indicated the divergent readings of Maspero by M. The

numerous errors in accentuation which his text contains are not noted here.

Restorations are bracketed [ ], additions (). We have left unaccented the

Divine names and the other transcriptions, not knowing how these were

accented by the writer of the tablet and the author of his original text. To

furnish them with the "traditional" accents given in the editions of the

Greek Bible, so far as the names in question occur there, serves no purpose,

to say nothing of the fact that these "traditional" accents themselves cannot

be scientifically authenticated. Cf. Winer-Schmiedel, § 6, 8 b (p. 75 f.). [Eng.

Trans., p. 59.]

28, 291 A SEPTUAGINT MEMORIAL. 275

Aw[q Ab]awq qeo>n tou? Israma: a@kouson tou? o]no<matoj

e]nti<mou

4 & 5 kai> [fob]erou? kai> mega<lou kai> a@pelqe pro>j to>n O(u]) r-

bano<n, o{n e@tek(e)n Ou[rbana>, kai> a@con au]to>n pro>j th>n

6 Domitianh>n, h{n e@teken K[an]di<da, e]rw?nta maino<menon

a]grupno[u?n]-

ta e]pi> t^? fili<% au]th?j kai> e]piqumi<% kai> deo<menon au]th?j

e]panelqei?n

ei]j th>n oi]ki<an au]tou? su<mbio[n] gene<sqai. [Orki<zw se to>n

me<gan qeo>n

to>n ai]w<nion kai> e]paiw<nion kia> pantokra<tora to>n u[per-

a<nw tw?n

10 u[pera<nw qew?n. [Orki<zw se to>n kti<santa to>n ou]rano>n

kai> th>n qa<-

lassan. [Orkizw se to>n diaxwri<santa tou>j eu]sebei?j.

[Orki<zw se

to>n diasth<santa th>n r[a<bdon e]n t^? qala<ss^ a]gagei?n kai>

zeu?cai

[to>]n Ou]rbano>n, o!n e@teken Ou]rbana>, pro>j th>n

Domitaiana>n, h{n e@teken

[Kan]di<da, e]rw?nta basanizo<menon a]rgupnou?nta e]pi> t^?

e]piqumi<% au]-

15 th?j kai> e@rwti, i!na au]th>n su<mbion a]pa<g^ ei]j to>n oi]ki<an

e[autou?. [Orki<-

zw se to>n poih<santa th>n h[mi<onon mh> tekei?n. [Orki<zw se

to>n diori<san-

ta to> [fw?j] a]po> tou? sko<touj. [Orki<zw se to>n suntri<bonta

ta>j pe<traj.

Orki<<zw[w s]e to>n a]po(r)rh<canta ta> o@rh. [Orki<zw se to>n

sunstre<fonta th>n

gh?n e][pi> t]w?n qemeli<wn au]th?j. [Orki<zw se to> a!gion o@noma

o{ ou] le<getai: e]n

20 t&? [. . .] & [o]]noma<sw au]to> kai> oi[ dai<monej e]cegerqw?sin

e@kqamboi kai> peri<-

fob[oi gen]o<menoi, a]gagei?n kai> zeu?cai su<mbion to>n Ou]r-

bano>n, o{n e@teken,

Line 3 and line 39, Israma: M. corr. ]Israh<l.

Line 4, line 5 had to be commenced after mega<lou.

Line 20, t&?[. . . ] &: M t&? (a]du<t)&.

276 BIBLE STUDIES. [29, 30

Ou]rbana>, pro>j th>n Domitiana>n, h{n e@teken Kandi<da, e]rw?nta

kai> deo<me-

non au]th?j, h@dh taxu<. [Orki<zw se to>n fwsth?ra kai> a@stra

e]n ou]ran&? poih<-

santa dia> fwnh?j prosta<g[m]atoj w!ste fai<nein pa?sin

a]nqrw<poij.

25 [Orki<zw se to>n sunsei<san[t]a pa?san th>n oi]koume<nhn kai

ta> o@rh

e]ktraxhli<zonta kai> e]kbra<[z]onta to>n poiou?nta e@ktromon

th>n [g]h?-

n a!pas(an kai>) kaini<zonta pa<ntaj tou>j katoikou?ntaj. [Or-

ki<zw se to>n poih<-

santa shmei?a e]n ou]ran&? k[ai>] e]pii> gh?j kai> qala<sshj,

a]gagei?n kai> zeu?cai

su<mbion to>n Ou]rbano>n, o{n e@[t]eken Ou]rbana>, pro>j th>n

Domitiana>n, h{n

30 e@teken Kandi<da, e]rw?nta au]th?j kai> a]grupnou?nta e]pi> t^?

e]piqumi<% au]-

th?j deo<menon au]th?j kai> e]rwtw?nta au]th>n, i!na e]pane<lq^

ei]j th>n oi]ki<an

[a]u]to? su<mbioj genome<nh. [Orki<zw se to>n qeo>n to>n me<gan

to>n ai]w<-

[ni]on kai> pantokra<tora, o{n fobei?tai o@rh kai> na<pai kaq ]

o!lhn [t]h>n oi]-

ko[u]me<[n]hn, di ] o{n o[ le<wn a]fi<hsin to> a!rpagma kai> ta>

o@rh tre<mei

35 ka[i> h[ gh?] kai> h[ qa<lassa, e!kastoj i]da<lletai o{n e@xei

fo<boj tou? Kuri<ou

a[i]wni<ou] a]qana<tou pantefo<ptou misoponh<rou e]pista-

me<nou ta>

[geno<men]a a]gaqa> kai> kaka> kai> kata> qa<lassan kai> po-

tamou>j kai> ta> o@rh

ka[i> th>n g]h?n, Awq Abawq to>n qeo>n tou? Abraan kai>

to>n [I] aw to>n tou? Iakou,

Ia[w] Awq Abawq Qeo>n tou? Israma: a@con zeu?con to>n

Ou]rbano>n, o{n

Line 27, kai before kaini<zonta had fallen out by hemigraphy.

Line 33, o!n: M. ou$.

Line 35, e{kastoj (in place of the e{kaston of the original) i]da<lleta.

M. (o{n) e!kastoj (e)i]da<lletai.

30, 31] A SEPTUAGINT MEMORIAL. 277

40 e@teken Ou]rba(na>), pro>j th>n Domitiana>n, h{n e@teken Kan-

di<da, e]rw?nta

mai[n]o<menon basanizo<menon e]pi> t^? fili<% kai> e@rwti kai>

e]piqumi<%

th Domitianh?j, h{n e@teken kandi<da. zeu?con au]tou>j ga<m&

kai>

e@rwti sumbiou?ntaj o!l& t&? th?j zwh?j au]tw?n xro<n&: poi<h-

son au]-

to>n w[j dou?lon au]t^? e]rw?nta u[potetaxqe<nai, mhdemi<an

a@llh[n]

45 gunai?ka mh<te parqe<non e]piqumou?nta, mo<nhn de> th>n Do-

mitia[na>n],

h{n e@teken Kandi<da, su<mb[i]on e@xein o{l& t[&?] th?j [zwh?j

au]tw?n xro<n&],

h@dh h@dh taxu> taxu<.

Line 44, a@llh[n]: M. mh<te.

Keeping up the formal peculiarities of the text, we may,

perhaps, translate it as follows:--

"I adjure thee, demonic spirit, who dost rest here,

with the sacred names Aoth Abaoth, by the God of

Abraan and the Jao of Jaku, the Jao Aoth Abaoth,

the God of Israma: hearken to the glorious and fearful

4 & 5 and great name, and hasten to Urbanus, whom Urbana

bore, and bring him to Domitiana, whom Candida bore,

so that he, loving, frantic, sleepless with love of her

and desire, may beg her to return to his house and

become his wife. I adjure thee by the great God, the

10 eternal and more than eternal and almighty, who is

exalted above the exalted Gods. I adjure thee by Him

who created the heaven and the sea. I adjure thee by

him who separates the devout ones. I adjure thee by

him who divided his staff in the sea^sic, that thou bring

Urbanus, whom Urbana bore, and unite him with Domit-

iana, whom Candida bore, so that he, loving, tormented,

sleepless with desire of her and with love, may take her

15 home to his house as his wife. I adjure thee by him

who caused the mule not to bear. I adjure thee by

him who divided the light from the darkness. I adjure

278 BIBLE STUDIES. [32

thee by him who crusheth the rocks. I adjure thee by

him who parted the mountains. I adjure thee by him

who holdeth the earth upon her foundations. I adjure

20 thee by the sacred Name which is not uttered; in the

[— —] I will mention it and the demons will be startled,

terrified and full of horror, that thou bring Urbanus,

whom Urbana bore, and unite him as husband with

Domitiana, whom Candida bore, and that he loving

may beseech her; at once! quick! I adjure thee by

him who set a lamp and stars in the heavens by the

command of his voice so that they might lighten all

25 men. I adjure thee by him who shook the whole world,

and causeth the mountains to fall and rise, who causeth

the whole earth to quake, and all her inhabitants to

return. I adjure thee by him who made signs in the

heaven and upon the earth and upon the sea, that thou

bring Urbanus, whom Urbana bore, and unite him as

30 husband with Domitiana, whom Candida bore, so

that he, loving her, and sleepless with desire of her,

beg her and beseech her to return to his house as his

wife. I adjure thee by the great God, the eternal and

almighty, whom the mountains fear and the valleys in

35 all the world, through whom the lion parts with the

spoil, and the mountains tremble and the earth and the

sea, (through whom) every one becomes wise who is

possessed with the fear of the Lord, the eternal, the

immortal, the all-seeing, who hateth evil, who knoweth

what good and what evil happeneth in the sea and the

rivers and the mountains and the earth, Aoth Abaoth;

by the God of Abraan and the Jao of Jaku, the

Jao Aoth Abaoth, the God of Israma, bring and unite

40 Urbanus, whom Urbana bore, with Domitiana, whom

Candida bore,—loving, frantic, tormented with love and

affection and desire for Domitiana, whom Candida bore;

unite them in marriage and as spouses in love for the

whole time of their life. So make it that he, loving,

45 shall obey her like a slave, and desire no other wife or

maiden, but have Domitiana alone, whom Candida

33] A SEPTUAGINT MEMORIAL. 279

bore, as his spouse for the whole time of their life,

at once, at once! quick, quick!"

EXPLANATION.

The tablet, as is shown not only by its place of origin

(the Necropolis of Adrumetum belongs to the second and

third centuries, A.D.; the part in which the tablet was

found is fixed in the third), but also by the character of the

lettering, is to be assigned to the third century,¹ that is—

to determine it by a date in the history of the Greek Bible—

about the time of Origen.

Maspero includes it among the Imprecation-tablets

(Devotions-oder Defixionstafeln) not infrequently found in

ancient tombs.² A leaden tablet, rolled up like a letter,

was placed in the tomb with the dead, in order, as it were,

to let it reach the residence of the deities of the underworld;

to their vengeance was delivered the enemy whose destruction

was desired.³ This tablet, however, contains no execrations

against an enemy, but is a love-spell⁴ dressed in the form of

an energetic adjuration of a demon, by means of which a

certain Domitiana desires to make sure of the possession of

her Urbanus. The technical details of the spell have no

direct significance for our subject; we are interested only in

the formulae by which the demon is adjured. It is upon

these, therefore, that the greatest stress will be laid in the

following detailed explanation.

We may at once take for granted that these formulae

were not composed by Domitiana herself. She copied them,

or had them copied, from one of the many current books of

Magic, and in doing so had her own name and that of the

¹ Maspero, p. 101.

² Cf. upon these A. Dieterich most recently, Fleckeisen's Jahrbb. Suppl.

xvi., p. 788 ff.; as regards the literature cf. also CIL. viii., Suppl. p. 1288,

and specially Wunsch, CIA. Appendix (1897).

³ Cf. M. Breal, in the fifth instalment of the already-cited Collections

(1890), p. 58.

⁴ On this species of Magic cf. the instructive citations of E. Kuhnert,

Feuerzauber, Rhein. Museum fur Philologie, N. F., vol. xlix. (1894), p. 37 ff.

280 BIBLE STUDIES. [34

person loved inserted at the respective places. To conclude

from the biblical nature of the formulae she used, that she

must have been a Jewess, or even a Christian,¹ would be a

precarious inference; it seems to the author more probable that

she and Urbanus, to judge from their names perhaps slaves or

emancipated² persons, were "heathens".³ Quite ingenuously

the love-sick girl applied the spell, which her adviser asserted

to be of use in love-troubles—just because it so stood, black on

white, in the "Books". On this assumption the historical

value of the formulae is increased, for the formulae thus em-

ployed in the third century must have been extracted by the

writer of the book in question at a certainly much earlier

date⁴ from the Alexandrian Old Testament. In the Magic

books now in Paris, Leiden and London, which were in the

main composed before the third century, we find quite a

multitude of similar adjurations compiled from biblical

materials, and the task of subjecting these to a critical sur-

vey is well worth while.⁵ It would thus, for the reasons

indicated, be a mistake, as the author thinks, to add this

tablet to the proofs of the presence of Jews westwards of

¹ Maspero, p. 107 f. ² Ibid., p. 107.

³ This is directly supported by the fact that several of the best-known

Bible names in the tablet are corrupt; they have been incorrectly copied.

Cf. the Explanation.

⁴ Cf. p. 323.

⁵ C. Wessely, On the spread of Jewish-Christian religious ideas among

the Egyptians, in The Expositor, third series, vol. iv. (London, 1886), No.

xxi. (incorrectly xiii. on the part), pp. 194-204. Further in A. Dieterich,

Abraxas, p. 136 ff.; Blau, p. 112 ff.; Schurer,³ p. 298 ff. A small col-

lection of Hellenistic-Jewish invocations of God, which might be made

on the basis of the Magic Papyri and Inscriptions, would be, in consideration

of the relatively early period of their composition, certainly not without

interest as regards the LXX-Text. Reference may also be made here to

the biblical passages found in the Inscriptions. The author is unaware

whether these have been treated of collectively from the standpoint of textual

criticism. They are also instructive for the history of the way in which the

Bible has been used. In very few cases will they be found to have been

derived from direct biblical readings.—Beginnings of the task here indicated

have been made by E. Bohl, Theol. Studien u. Kritiken, 1881, p. 692 ff., and

E. Nestle, ibid., 1883, p. 153 f. Materials from the Inscriptions have recently

been largely added to.

35, 86] A SEPTUAGINT MEMORIAL. 281.

Cyrenaica, a collection of which has been made by Schurer

so far as regards the imperial period.

In detail, the following observations must be made:--

Line 1 f. It is the daimo<nion pneu?ma of the tomb in

which or upon which the spell was laid that is addressed.

That the daimo<nia stay beside the grave is an idea of post-

biblical Judaism: these demons of the tomb help men in the

practice of Magic.² It is in the Papyri a frequently given

direction, to make sure of the assistance of a spirit who resides

in the grave of a murdered person or of one who has in any

other way perished unfortunately.³—o[rki<zw t&? o]no<mati t&?

a[gi<&: cf. 1 (3) Esd. 1⁴⁸, o[rkisqei>j t&? o]no<mati kuri<ou; for to>

o@noma to> a!gion, exceedingly frequent in "biblical" Greek,

specially in Lev., Pss. and Ezek., particular references are

unnecessary.— Awq: a Divine name in Magic, not infrequent

in the Papyri; in the Clavis Melitonis⁴ it is "explained"

as gloriosus. As in Pap. Lond. xlvi. 134,⁵ so also here it stands

in connection with Abawq, likewise a Magical Divine name.

—to>n qeo>n tou? Abraan: o[rki<zein tina< = to adjure by any

one, as in Mark 5 ⁷, Acts 19¹³. The God of Abraham, etc., is

the solemn biblical designation of God. We thought it

well to leave the form Abraan in the text, as it is sig-

nificant for the nationality of the writer of the tablet: a Jew

would hardly have written it so. Domitiana—or the obliging

magician—did not know the word. The writer of Pap. Lugd.

¹ ii., p. 504 (=³ iii. p. 26). [Eng. Trans., ii., ii., p. 231, note 48.]

² Hamburger, ii., p. 283. We may compare the idea of the Gospels,

that demons reside in lonely and desert regions (Matt. 12⁴³); the a@nqrwpoj e]n

pneu<mati a]kaqa<rt& had his dwelling among the tombs (Mark 5 ³). In

Baruch 4 ³⁵, devastated cities are already recognised as dwelling-places of

demons.

³ Maspero, p. 105. It was believed that the soul of such a person had

to hover about the grave so long as he should have lived had not his life come

to an untimely end (Maspero, ibid.). With reference to the notion as a whole

cf. E. Rohde, Psyche, Seelencult und Unsterblichkeitsglaube der Griechen,

Freiburg in Baden and Leipzig, 1894, p. 373 f. (= ² p. 410 f.) ; also

Kuhnert, p. 49.

⁴ In J. B. Pitra, Spicilegium Solesmense, iii., Paris. 1855, p. 305.

⁵ Kenyon, p. 69.

282 BIBLE STUDIES. [36, 37

J 384, ix. 7¹ has made a similar corruption where he, in the

midst of a long series of Magical Divine names, writes

Abraan, to>n Isak, to>n Iakkwbi; so also Codex B (Birch)

has Abraan in Luke 3³⁴. The interchanging of m and n at

the end of Semitic words is to be frequently seen elsewhere;

see below, p. 310 f.— to>n Iaw to>n tou? Iakou: on Iaw see

below, p. 324; observe the article here. Iakou was likewise

left as it was; probably it is a corruption of Isakou;² even

Josephus Graecises the simple transcription, as with most

proper names; Isak or Isaak he gives as @Isakoj.

Line 3 f. tou? Israma: clearly a corruption of Israhl,

arising from a copyist's error; the L might easily become

A. The use of the solemn designation the God of Abraham,

of Isaac and of Jacob is exceedingly common in the Magical

formulm.³ These names, according to Origen, had to be left

untranslated in the adjurations if the power of the incantation

was not to be lost:⁴—a@kouson tou? o]no<matoj e]nti<mou

kai> foberou? kai> mega<lou: LXX Deut. 28⁵⁸, fobei?sqai

to> o@noma to> e@ntimon to> qaumasto>n tou?to (Cf. also Ps. 71 [72]¹⁴,

o@noma e@ntimon said of a human name); Ps. 110 [111]⁹, fobero>n

¹ A. Dieterich, Fleckeisen's Jahrbb. Suppl. xvi., p. 810; Leemans, ii.,

p. 31.

² The form might also be a corruption of Iakoub, Pap. Lond. cxxi. 649

(see below, p. 324), and Pap. Par. Bibl. nat. 2224 (Wessely, p. 100); similarly

in a leaden tablet from Carthage published by A. L. Delattre, Bulletin de

correspondance hellenique, xii. (1888), p. 300 = CIL. viii., Suppl. i., No. 12511.

—But the other assumption is supported by the following Israma ( = Israhl

=Iakwb).

³ Cf., for instance, the Gem found in ancient Cyrenaica—Baudissin,

Studien, i., p. 193. Further particulars, especially also patristic authorities,

in R. Heim, Incantamenta magica Graeca Latina; Fleckeisen's Jahrbb. Suppl.

xix. (1893), p. 522 ff.

⁴ Contra Celsum, v. 45 (Lomm., xix., p. 250 f.): kai> e]a>n me>n o[ kalw?n h} o[

o[rkw?n o]noma<z^ qeo>n ]Abraa>m kai> qeo>n ]Isaa>k kai> qeo>n ]Iakw>b ta<de tina> poih<sai a}n

h@toi t&? le<gonti tau?ta. ]Ea>n de> le<g^: o[ qeo>j patro>j e]klektou? th?j h]xou?j kai> o[ qeo>j

tou? ge<lwtoj kai> o[ qeo>j tou? pternistou? ou!twj ou]de>n poiei? to> o]nomazo<menon, w[j ou]d ]

a@llo ti tw?n mhdemi<an du<namin e]xo<ntwn. Cf. ibid., i. 22, and iv. 33, and also G.

Anrich, Das antike Mysterienwesen in seinem Einfluss auf das Christentum.

Gottingen, 1891, p. 96.

37, 38] A SEPTUAGINT MEMORIAL. 283

to> o@noma au]tou?, similarly Ps. 98 [99] ³; to> o@noma to> me<ga of

the name of God, Ps. 98 [99]³, Ezek. 36 ²³, cf. Ps. 75 [76]²

and Is. 33 ²¹; the combination me<gaj kai> fobero<j is very

frequently applied to God in the LXX: Deut. 10¹⁷,

1 Chron. 16 ²⁵, Neh. 1⁵, 4 ¹⁴, Ps. 46 [47] ³, 88 [89] ⁸, 95

[96]⁴, Sirach 43 ²⁹.

Lines 4-8. The persons named, as has been said, were

probably slaves or had been emancipated. An Ou]rbano<j is

found also in Rom. 16 ⁹; he was a Christian of Ephesus,¹

and is distinguished by Paul with the title of honour

sunergo<j.--The consistent annexation of the name of the

person's mother is stereotyped in the Magic formulae, and

manifests itself up to a late period.² The directions found

in the Magic Papyri exhibit this pattern in innumerable ex-

amples; the construction is such that the particular person's

name requires only to be inserted instead of the provisional o[

dei?na, o{n e@teken h[ dei?na.— a]grupne<w e]pi<: cf. LXX Prov. 8 ³⁴,

Job 21 ³².— su<mbioj: as to the usage of this word, especi-

ally in Egyptian Greek, attention should be paid to the col-

lection of W. Brunet de Presle,³ which may be extended by

many passages in the Berlin Papyrus documents now in

course of publication. The word is common among the

Christians later on.

Line 8 f. to>n me<gan qeo>n to>n ai]w<nion: LXX Is.

26 ⁴, o[ qeo>j o[ me<gaj o[ ai]w<nioj; cf. Is. 40²⁸, Sus. ⁴².—e]paiw<nion

LXX Exod. 15¹⁸, ku<rioj basileu<wn to>n ai]w?na kai> e]p ] ai]w?na

kai> e@ti.--pantokra<tora, very frequent in LXX.--- to>n

u[pera<nw tw?n u[pera<nw qew?n: cf. LXX Ezek. 10¹⁹, kai>

do<ca qeou? ]Israh>l h#n e]p ] aut]w?n (the cherubim) u[pera<nw,

¹ If Rom. 16 is [or belongs to] a letter to,Ephesus.

² Particulars in Kuhnert, p. 41, note 7. With regard to the later

Jewish usage, cf. Schwab, Coupes a inscriptions magiques in the Proceedings

of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, xiii. (1890-91), p. 585 f., and J. Wohlstein,

Uber einige aramaische Inschriften auf Thongefassen des kgl. Museums zu

Berlin, in the Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie, viii. (1893), p. 331, and ix. (1894)

p. 19 f.

³ Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la bibliothegue imperiale, vol. xviii.

pt. 2, Paris, 1865, p. 425.

284 BIBLE STUDIES. [38, 39

similarly 11 ²²; and with the idea, fobero<j e]stin e]pi> pa<ntaj

tou>j qeou<j, Ps. 95 [96]^4.1

Line 10 f. to>n kti<santa to>n ou]rano>n kai> th>n

qa<lassan; an echo of Gen. 1¹, not in expression,² but in

sense, like LXX Gen. 14^{19. 22}, 1 [3] Esd. 6¹³, Bel ⁵, cf. Rev.

10⁶, and with this LXX Ps. 145 [146]⁶. The collocation

Heaven and sea instead of Heaven and earth is surprising in

this connection, but it is not foreign to the O.T. An exhaus-

tive collection of the many variants—echoes of Gen. 11.--

for Creator of the heavens and the earth in Judaeo-Hellenistic

and early Christian literature which have become formulaic,

would be an important contribution to the history of the text

of the "Apostolic" Symbol.

Line 11. to>n diaxwri<santa tou>j eu]sebei?j can

only mean, he who separates the devout ones, i.e., from the

godless; diaxwri<zw = to separate from is common in the

LXX. The passage is an allusion to Sir. 36 [33] ^{11 ff}. e]n

plh<qei e]pisth<mhj ku<rioj diexw<risen au]tou>j (men): so we have

the contrast a]pe<nanti eu]sebou?j a[martwlo<j (in ver. ¹⁴).

Line 12. to>n diasth<santa th>n r[a<bdon e]n t^? qa-

la<ss^, literally, he who divides his staff in the sea. This is,

of course, meaningless; the first writer of the incantation,

without doubt, wrote inversely: to>n diasth<santa th>n qa<las-

san e]n t^? r[a<bd& or t^? r[a<bd&, who divided the sea with his staff,

an allusion in sense to LXX Exod. 14^15f.: ei#pe de> ku<rioj pro>j

Mwu*sh?n . . . kai> su> e@paron t^? r[a<b& sou kai> e@kteinon th>n xei?ra<

sou e]pi> th>n qa<lassan kai> r[h?con au]th<n, with the difference

that in the Bible it is Moses who lifts the staff—though of

course at God's command. In regard to form its similarity

with Theodotion Ps. 73 [74]^{13 : 3} su> (God) die<sthsaj e]n t^?

¹ With regard to the whole expression, cf. the passage of the afore-

mentioned leaden tablet from Carthage in Bull. de corr. hell., xii., 302 = CIL.

viii., Suppl. i., No. 12511: e]corki<zw u[ma?j kata> tou? e]pa<nw tou? ou]ranou? qeou? tou?

kaqhme<nou e]pi> tw?n xeroubi, o[ diori<saj th>n gh?n kai> xwri<saj th>n qa<lassan, Iaw

ktl. The nominatives are illustrative of the formal rigidity of these expressions.

² Aquila alone has e@ktisen (F. Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt

2 tomi, Oxonii, 1875, i., p. 7).

³ Field, ii., p. 217.

39, 40] A SEPTUAGINT MEMORIAL. 285

duna<mei sou th>n qa<lassan, with which should be compared

LXX Exod. 15 ⁸: kai> dia> pneu<matoj tou? qumou? sou die<sth to>

u!dwr . . . e]pa<gh ta> ku<mata th?j qala<sshj. The miracle at

the Red Sea, so frequently celebrated in the Psalms and

elsewhere, is also alluded to in other Magical formulae.¹ See

under e]n, above, Art. ii., upon the possible e]n t^? r[a<bd&.

Line 16. to>n poih<santa th>n h[mi<onon mh> tekei?n

a peculiar designation of God. It does not occur, as

such, in the Old Testament, but the underlying idea of God's

providentia specialissima for the animals is very similarly ex-

pressed in the sublime address of Jahweh to the doubting

Job (Job 38 ff.); cf., in particular, 39^1-3: Knowest thou the time

when the wild goats of the rock bring forth? Or canst thou mark

when the hinds do calve? Canst thou number the months that they

fulfil, or knowest thou the time when they bring forth? They

bow themselves, they bring forth their young, they cast out their

sorrows. It is God who directs all this. Just as He gives

young to the wild goats and the hinds, so, the present passage

would say, He has made the mule to be barren. The barren-

ness of the mule is often mentioned in the Mishna;² it was

manifestly a fact of great interest in the Jewish Philosophy

of Nature, as also in Greek and Latin authors:³ Plin. Nat.

Hist. viii. 173: observatum ex duobus diversis generibus nata tertii

generis fieri et neutri parentium esse similia, eaque ipsa quae sunt

ita nata non gignere in omni animalium genere, idcirco mulas non

parere. When Zopyrus was besieging Babylon he received,

according to Herod. iii. 153, the oracle e]pea<nper h[mi<onoi te<kw-

sin, to<te to> tei?xoj a[lw<sesqai. The partus of a mule was

reckoned a prodigium Cic. de Div. ii. 22 49, 28 61, Liv. xxxvii.

3 3, JUV. xiii. 64, Sueton. Galba, 4, and this explains the

Roman proverb cum mula peperit, i.e., never. Then the fact

played a great part in incantations. Gargilius Martialis

¹ Cf. A. Dieterich, Abrazas, p. 139 f.

² Hamburger, i.³ (1892), p. 735.

³ Heim, 493 f. The passages which follow, to which the author's

notice was directed by A. Dieterich, are taken from Heim. Cf. also Centuria

illustrium quaestionum . . . a Joh. Jac. Hermanno, Herbornensi, Herbornae

Nassov iorum, 1615, decas septima, quaestio pinta.

286 BIBLE STUDIES. [40, 41

(third cent. A.D.) in de cura bourn § 19 (ed. Schuch)¹ hands

down the following healing charm: nec lapis lanam fert, nec

lumbricus oculos habet, nec mula parit utriculum; similarly

Marcellus (fifth cent. A.D.), De Medicam. viii. 191 (ed. Helm-

reich):² nec mula parit nec lapis lanam fert nec huic morbo

caput crescat aut si creverit tabescat, and a Codex Vossianus ed.

Piechotta Anecd. lat. clxx.:³ "quod mula non parit" et exspues,

"nec cantharus aquam bibit" et exspues, "nec palumba dentes

habet" et exspues, "sic mihi dentes non doleant" et expues.

Finally, reference must be made to a passage in the Leiden

copy of the Codex Corbeiensis of Vegetius,⁴ which gives the

formula: focus alget, aqua sitit, cibaria esurit, mula parit, tasca

masca venas omnes. But what comes nearest to our passage

is a sentence preserved in a poem of the Codex Vindobonensis,

93:⁵ herbula Proserpinacia, Horci regis filia, quomodo clausisti

mulae partum, sic claudas et undam sanguinis huius, and in a

still more instructive form in the Codex Bonnensis, 218 (66 a): ⁶

herbula Proserpinacia, Horci regis filia, adiuro te per tuas virtutes,

ut quomodo clausisti partum mulae, claudas undas sanguinis huinus.

Strange as at first sight the affirmation thus made of God

may appear in connection with the others, we now see that

in an incantation it is least of all strange. The Jewish com-

piler of our text borrowed it from pagan sources, probably

unconsciously but perhaps intentionally using a biblical

phrase—and, indeed, the intention did not directly oppose

the biblical range of thought.

Line 16 f. to>n diori<santa to> fw?j a]po> tou? sko<touj:

cf. LXX Gen. 1⁴, kai> diexw<risen o[ qeo>j a]na> me<son tou? fwto>j

kai> a]na> me<son tou? sko<touj—similarly Gen. 1¹⁸. The compiler

quotes freely: diori<zein, frequent elsewhere in the LXX, also

with a]po<, does not stand in any of the Greek translations of

this passage. It is significant that he has avoided the repeated

"between," a Hebraism taken over by the LXX.

¹ Heim, 493 f. ² Ibid. ³ Ibid.

⁴ In M. Ihm, Incantamenta magica, Rh. Mus. f. Phil., N. F., xlviii.

(1893), p. 635.

⁵ Heim, pp. 488, 547. ⁶ Ibid., p. 554.

41, 42] A SEPTUAGINT MEMORIAL. 287

Line 17. to>n suntri<bonta ta>j pe<traj: an echo

in form of LXX 1 Kings 19¹¹, pneu?ma me<ga . . . suntri?bon

pe<traj e]nw<pion kuri<ou: cf. LXX Nah. 1⁶, kai> ai[ pe<trai die-

qru<bhsan a]p ] au]tou ?.

Line 18. to>n a]porrh<canta ta> o@rh: cf. LXX Ps.

77 [78]¹⁵ die<rrhce pe<tran e]n e]rh<m&, similarly Ps. 104 [105] ⁴¹;

parallels to the thought are easily found.

Line 18 f. to>n sunstre<fonta th>n gh?n e]pi> tw?n

qemeli<wn au]th?j: sustre<fw, current in the LXX, though

not in this connection; ta> qeme<lia th?j gh?j is likewise

frequent. With regard to the sense, cf. LXX Prov. 8²⁹

i]sxura> e]poi<ei ta> qeme<lia th?j gh?j, and the common phrase

e]qemeli<wse th>n gh?n.

Line 19 ff. o[rki<zw se to> a!gion o@noma o{ ou]

le<getai: It is possible to doubt this punctuation. Mas-

pero writes o{ ou] le<getai e]n t&? a]du<t&, but if the reading a]du<t&

is correct, then, with his punctuation, the thought would be

in direct opposition to the Jewish view, for the Temple was just

the one place in which the name of God could be pronounced;

Philo, De Vit. Mos. iii. 11 (M., p. 152), says . . o]no<matoj o{

mo<noij toi?j w#ta kai> glw?ttan sofi<% kekaqarme<noij qe<mij a]kou<ein

kai> le<gein e]n a[gi<oij, a@ll& de> ou]deni> to> para<pan ou]damou?. The

Mischna, Tamid, vii. 2,¹ has "In the Temple the name of

God is pronounced as it is written; in the land [elsewhere]

another title is substituted". We consider it absolutely

impossible that any one having any kind of sympathy with

Judaism whatever could assert that the holy name was

not pronounced in the Temple. If the word read by Maspero

as a]du<t& can be made out at all—which to us, judging

at least from the fac-simile, appears impossible—then, if it

is to be read after o{ ou] le<getai, it must be a general term of

place such as ko<sm& or la&?; if, again, it is to be connected

with the following o]noma<sw au]to<, then e]n t&? a]du<t& were

meaningless, or at least very singular. Of which Temple

could the Jewish compiler be thinking? Can it be that he

¹ Hamburger, i.³, p. 53; Schurer, ii., p. 381 ( = ³ ii., p. 458). [Eng.

Trans., ii., ii., p. 82, note 143.]

288 BIBLE STUDIES. [42, 43

wrote before the destruction of the Temple?¹ We would

therefore propose to consider o{ ou] le<getai as a clause by

itself: it expresses the well-known Jewish idea that the

name of God is an o@noma a@rrhton,—see LXX Lev. 24¹⁶

o]noma<zwn de> to> o@noma kuri<ou qana<t& qanatou<sqw; Josephus,

Antt. ii. 12 4: kai> o[ qeo>j au]t& shmai<nei th>n e[autou? proshgori<an

ou] pro<teron ei]j a]nqrw<pouj parelqou?san, peri> h$j ou@ moi qemito>n

ei]pei?n.²—e]n t&? [. . . ]& o]noma<sw au]to> kai> oi[ dai<monej

e]cegerqw?sin e@kqamboi kai> peri<foboi geno<menoi.

How the lacuna after e]n t&? is to be filled up the present

writer does not know, and he will make no conjectures; thus

much only is probable, viz., that what stood there was a

designation of place or time. The magician utters the

severest possible threat against the demon; he will, in order

to win him over, pronounce the unutterable Name of God,

the very sound of which fills the demons with shudder-

ing and dread. That demons and spirits are controlled by

the mention of sacred names has remained to the present

day one of the most important ideas in magic.³ We have

no direct example of this in the LXX, but we can point to

James 2¹⁹ as being valid for biblical times, kai> ta> daimo<nia

pisteu<ousin kai> fri<ssousin, which presupposes the same

fearful impression upon the demons of the thought of God.

With this is to be compared Pap. Lond. xlvi. 80 f.⁴ (fourth cent.

A.D.), where the Demon is adjured kata> tw?n friktw?n o]noma<-

twn, just as Josephus, Bell. Jud. v. 10 3, speaks of the frikto>n

o@noma tou? qeou?. The overwhelming effect of the Divine name

upon the Demons was a very familiar idea in post-biblical

Judaism.⁵

¹ Moreover, a@duton is very infrequent in "biblical" literature; it is found

only in LXX 2 Chron. 33¹⁴, Cod. A.

² Cf. Hamburger, i. ³, p. 52 ff., with reference to the point as viewed by

post-biblical Judaism.

³ And not in magic only!

⁴ Kenyon, p. 68; Wessely, i., p. 129. More definitely still in Pap.

Lugd. J 384, iv. 11 f. (Fleck. Jbb. Suppl. xvi., p. 800; Leemans, p. 17):

me<llw to> me<ga o@noma le<gein Awq (or Qwq), o{n . . . pa?j dai<mwn fri<ssei.

⁵ Cf., e.g., Hamburger, ii., pp. 283 and 75; also J. A. Eisenmenger,

Entdecktes Judenthum, 1700, p. 165; the present author cites this work

43, 44] A SEPTUAGINT MEMORIAL. 289

Line 23. h@dh taxu<, cf. line 47, h@dh h@dh taxu> taxu<:

a very frequent concluding formula in the incantations,¹ which

is still seen, e.g., on Coptic amulets of the 5th-6th and

11th centuries;² it is also to be restored, of course, at the

end of the previously-cited Inscription from Carthage.³

taxu< for taxe<wj is very common in the LXX.

Line 23 ff. to>n fwsth?ra kai> a@stra e]n ou]ran&?

poih<santa: LXX Gen. 1 ^{16 f.} kai> e]poi<hsen o[ qeo>j tou>j du<o

fwsth?raj tou>j mega<louj . . . kai> tou>j a]ste<raj. The single

fwsth<r mentioned in the Tablet, since it is associated with

the stars, is probably the moon; the moon is also named

fwsth<r by Aquila and Symmachus, Ps. 73 [74]^16.4— dia>

fwnh?j prosta<gmatoj au]tou?: the acts of creation take

place at the command of God—LXX Ps. 32 [33]⁹, o!ti

au]to>j ei#pe kai> e]genh<qhsan, au]to>j e]netei<lato kai> e]kti<sqhsan;

in respect of form should be compared the not infrequent

phrases of the LXX, dia> fwnh?j kuri<ou and dia> prosta<gmatoj

kuri<ou. Observe the so-called "Hebraising" periphrasis ⁵ of

the preposition dia> by dia> fwnh?j, which a Greek might feel

to be a pleonasm, but which is not altogether un-Greek.

—w!ste fai<nein pa?sin a]nqrw<poij: LXX Gen. 1¹⁷ kai>

according to the copy in his possession, which was ostensibly printed in

the year after the birth of Christ 1700, but as it announces itself as Des ^sic

bey 40. Jahr von der Judenschafft mit Arrest bestrickt gewesene, nun-

mehro aber Durch Autoritat eines Hohen Reichs-Vicariats relaxirte Johann

Andrea Eisenmengers . . . Entdecktes Judenthum, it could manifestly have

been printed at the earliest in 1740. The explanation probably is that, in

the copies of the edition of 1700 (cf. C. Siegfried in the Allg. deutschen Bio-

graphie, v. [1877], p. 772 ff.), the interdict on which was cancelled about 1740,

the original title-page was supplanted by the present misleading one.

¹ Cf. Wessely's Index sub h@dh.

² J. Krall, Koptische Amulete, in Mittheilungen aus der Sammlung der

Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer V. Vienna, 1892, pp. 118, 121.

³ Delattre, in Bulletin de correspondance hellenique, xii. (1888), p. 302,

takes from the unmistakeable HDHHDHTAXUTA the extraordinary reading

"h@dh, h@dh, tau?ta (?) ".

⁴ Field, ii., p. 218.

⁵ Cf. A. Buttmann, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachgebrauchs,

Berlin, 1859, pp. 78, 158, 162, 273 f. As to the questionableness of commonly

asserting such periphrases to be " Hebraising," see above II., sub kata<

290 BIBLE STUDIES [44, 45

e@qeto au]tou>j o[ qeo>j e]n t&? sterew<mati tou? ou]ranou? w!ste fai<nein

e]pi> th?j gh?j.

Line 25 f. to>n sunsei<santa pa?san th>n oi]kou-

me<nhn: LXX Ps. 59 [60] 4, sune<seisaj th>n gh?n. For pa?san

th>n oi]koume<nhn, cf. LXX Is. 13⁵.— kai> ta> o@rh e]ktraxhli<-

zonta kai> e]kbra<zonta:¹ a repetition of the thought; in

line 18, but verbally independent.

Line 26 f. to>n poiou?nta e@ktromon th>n gh?n a!pas(an):

cf. LXX Ps. 103 [104] ³² o[ e]pible<pwn e]pi> th>n gh?n kai> poiw?n

au]th>n tre<mein; e@ktromoj does not seem to have been retained

anywhere else, the LXX using e@ntromoj in the same sense,

Ps. 17 [18] ⁸ and 76 [77] ¹⁹.

Line 27. (kai>) kaini<zonta pa<ntaj tou>j katoi-

kou?ntaj: the author follows Maspero in adding the kai<.

We may reject the idea that kaini<zonta has an ethical refer-

ence in the sense of the pneu?ma kaino<n of Ezek. 11¹⁹, cf. Ps.

50 [51] ¹², or of the kardi<a kainh< of Ezek. 36 ²⁶; we must

rather take it as expressing the idea of the preservation of

the race by the ceaseless upspringing of new generations.

The compiler may have had a confused recollection of

phrases like e]pe<bleyen e]pi> pa<ntaj tou>j katoikou?ntaj th>n

gh?n, LXX Ps. 32 [33] ¹⁴, and ku<rioj o[ qeo>j . . . kainiei? se e]n

t^? a]gaph<sei au]tou?, Zeph. 3 ¹⁷; cf. Ps. 102 [103] ⁵, a]nakaini-

sqh<setai w[j a]etou ? h[ neo<thj sou. In Wisdom 7 ²⁷, ta> pa<nta

kaini<zei, is predicated of the divine sofi<a.

Line 27 f. to>n poih<santa shmei?a e]n ou]ran&? kai>

e]pi> gh?j kai> qala<sshj: see Dan. 6 ²⁷ kai> poiei? shmei?a kai>

te<rata e]n t&? ou]ran&? kai> e]pi> th?j gh?j, cf. LXX Joel 2 ³⁰.

Line 31. e]rwtw?nta: here, as often in Paul, Synopt.,

Acts, John, in the sense of beg, beseech; not "an application

of the word which was manifestly first made through the

influence of the Hebrew lxw,"² (which in that case must

¹ e]kbra<zw, LXX Neh. 13²⁸, 2 Macc. 1¹², 5 ⁸ (Cod. A).

² Cremer, Biblisch-theologisch,es Worterbuch der Neutestamentlichen

Greiciteit,⁷ Gotha, 1893, p. 393 (= ⁸ [1895], p. 415).

45, 46] A SEPTUAGINT MEMORIAL. 291

surely have appeared first of all in the LXX), but popular

Greek.¹

Line 33. o{n fobei?tai o@rh kai> na<pai: instead of

the unmistakable o!n Maspero writes ou$. A specialising of

the idea that the earth also has a "fear of God": cf. LXX

Ps. 32 [33]⁸, fobhqh<tw to>n ku<rion pa?sa h[ gh?, and Ps. 66 [67]⁸,

fobhqh<twsan au]to>n pa<nta ta> pe<rata th?j gh?j. For the com-

bination of o@rh and na<pai cf. LXX Is. 40¹², Ezek. 6³, 36 ⁶.

Line 34. di ] o{n o[ le<wn a]fi<hsin to> a!rpagma: the

fact stated in this connection vividly recalls to>n poih<santa

th>n h[mi<onon mh> tekei?n in line 16. It is surprising that it

should be said that God causes the lion to abandon his

prey,² whereas the biblical idea is just that God supplies

the lion's food, Job 38 ³⁹. One might suppose an allusion to

Dan. 6²⁷, o!stij e]cei<lato to>n Dauih>l e]k xeiro>j tw?n leo<ntwn,

and similar passages, the more so as a little before, in line 27 f.,

there was a strong resemblance to the first half of the same

verse; but this may be considered as negatived by a!rpagma.

We shall not err in considering the statement to be an ex-

pression of God's omnipotence, of His complete dominion

over nature: God is even able to make possible that which

is against nature, viz., that the lion shall relinquish his prey.

We may be reminded by this of the prophetic pictures of the

Messianic future in Is. 11⁶, kai> mosxa<rion kai> tau?roj kai> le<wn

a!ma boskhqh<sontai kai> paidi<on mikro>n a@cei au]tou<j, and Is. 65 ²⁵

= 11 ^7, kai> le<wn w[j bou?j fa<getai a@xura, in which it is like-

wise affirmed that the lion may change his nature, if God so

wills it. The clause has been freely compiled from biblical

materials.— kai> ta> o@rh tre<mei: LXX Jer. 4²⁴ ei#don ta>

o@rh kai> h#n tre<monta.

Line 35. e!kastoj i]da<lletai o{n e@xei fo<boj tou?

Kuri<ou: perhaps this is the most difficult passage in the

Inscription. i]da<llomai, (ei]da<llomai) or i]nda<llomai means to

seem, appear, become visible, show oneself, also to resemble. The

¹ U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff in Guil. Schmidt's De Flavii Iosephi

clocutione observationes criticae, Fleck. Jbb. Suppl. xx. (1894), p. 516.

² a!rpagma is used for the lion's prey in LXX Ezek. 22 ²⁵; cf. 19 ^3.6

292 BIBLE STUDIES. [46, 47

word does not occur in the LXX, but i@ndalma, the noun, is

found in Jer. 27 [50] ³⁹, probably in the sense of ghost, in

Wisd. 17³ for image, which meanings are easily obtained

from, the verb. The first appearance of the verb in biblico-

ecclesiastical literature, so far as the author knows, is in

Clement of Rome, 1 Cor. 23 ², dio> mh> diyuxw?men mhde> i]ndal-

le<sqw h[ yuxh> h[mw?n e]pi> tai?j u[perballou<saij kai> e]ndo<coij

dwreai?j au]tou?) (God), where either it has the meaning to

seem imagine oneself, somewhat like fusiou?sqai, or it is, as

Bryennios, following others, has recently again proposed, a

synonym of the verbs i]liggia?n, to be confused, and e]ndoia<zein,

to waver.¹ Now e!kaston i]da<lletai, as the passage runs in the

original, does not give sense: Maspero conjectures o!n e!ka-

stoj ei]da<lletai and translates a qui chacun devient sembl-

able, which appears to us to be grammatically impossible.

In regard to the reading which we propose, which may re-

commend itself by the insignificance of the textual change,

we would refer to the explanation of the verb which

is given by Hesychius: i]nda<lletai: o[moiou?tai, fai<netai,

dokei?, stoxa<zetai, i]sou?tai, sofi<zetai,² with which is to be

compared the note of Suidas ei]dali<maj: suneta<j. Taking

then i]da<lletai=sofi<zetai,³ we get the familiar biblical

thought that the Fear of God gives men Wisdom, as in

LXX Ps. 110 [111] ¹⁰ = Prov. 1⁷, 9¹⁰ a]rxh> sofi<aj fo<boj

kuri<ou, Prov. 22⁴ genea> sofi<aj fo<boj kuri<ou; cf. Ps. 18

[19]^8.10 h[ marturi<a kuri<ou pisth> sofi<zousa nh<pia . . . o[ fo<boj

kuri<ou a[gno>j diame<nwn ei]j ai]w?na ai]w?noj. The only possible

objection to this explanation is that the clause has no con-

nection with the previous one; and certainly a kai>, or the

repetition of the di ] o{n, were desirable—only it would be

equally required with any other reading. The writer of

the tablet seems not to have understood the statement.—

¹ Further particulars in Patrum Apostolicorum opera recc. 0. de Geb-

hardt, A. Harnack, Th. Zahn, fast. i., part. i.², Leipzig, 1876, p. 42.

² sofi<zomai sapiens fio, sapio, often in LXX, e.g., 1 Kings 4^{27 [31]}; specially

frequent in Sir.

3 The vox media i]nda<llomai would then stand here sensu bono, as in

Clem. Rom. 1 Cor. 23 ² sensu malo.

47, 48] A SEPTUAGINT MEMORIAL. 293

With regard to o{n e@xei fo<boj tou? kuri<ou (cf. LXX Job

31²³ fo<boj ga>r kuri<ou sune<sxe me), reference should be made

to the equivalent (in profane Greek likewise common) use

of e@xein, LXX Job 21 ⁶, Is. 13 ⁸, Mark 16 ⁸. Examples of

fo<boj tou? kuri<ou would be superfluous.

Line 36. a]qana<tou: Sir. 51 ^{9 [13]} Cod. A has kai> a]po>

a]qana<tou r[u<sewj e]deh<qhn, which probably means and to the

Immortal One did I pray for deliverance; cf. 1 Tim. 6¹⁶, o[ mo<noj

e@xwn a]qanasi<an. The thought is a Greek one; this attribute

of God, in the present connection (cf. line 35), recalls the sub-

lime Hellenistic-Jewish thought that the knowledge of God,

the possession of the divine sofi<a and dikaiosu<nh, impart

immortality: Wisd. 15 ³ ei]de<nai sou to> kra<toj r[i<za a]qanasi<aj,

8¹⁷ e@stin a]qanasi<a e]n suggenei<% sofi<aj, cf. ver. ¹³ e@cw di ]

au]th>n a]qanasi<an, 1 ¹⁵ dikaiosu<nh ga>r a]qanasi<a e]sti<n.¹ –pante-

fo<ptou:² Esth. 5¹ to>n pa<ntwn e]po<pthn qeo<n; 3 Macc.

2 ²¹ o[ pa<ntwn e]po<pthj qeo<j; 2 Macc. 7 ³⁵ (cf. 3 ³⁹) tou? panto-

kra<toroj e]po<ptou qeou?; cf. LXX Job 34 ²⁴ o[ ga>r ku<rioj

pa<ntaj (Cod. A, ta> pa<nta) e]for%?, similarly 2 Macc. 12 ²² and

15 2.— misoponh<rou: the idea is common in the O.T.;³ in

regard to the word cf. misoponhre<w, 2 Macc. 4⁴⁹ and 8 ⁴;

misoponhri<a, 2 Macc. 3¹.

Line 36 ff. e]pistame<nou ktl.: a well-known biblical

idea, here developed independently with the assistance of

biblical expressions.

Line 43. sumbio?ntaj: Sir. 13⁵ has the word.

Line 45. e]piqumou?nta with the Accusative as not

infrequently in LXX; cf., e.g., Exod. 20¹⁷, ou]k e]piqumh<seij

th>n gunai?ka tou? plhsi<on sou.

Looking again at the Inscription, we find, in the first

place, confirmation of the supposition that the writer of the

¹ Cf. also Aquila Ps. 47 [48] ¹⁵ and the observations of Field, ii., p. 169,

thereon.

² Re the vulgar f cf. Winer-Schmiedel, § 5, 27e (p. 59 ff.): e]fo<ptaj is

also found in Pap. Par. Bibl. nat. 1353 (Wessely, i., p. 78).

³ Cf. also LXX Ps. 96 [97] ¹⁰ oi[ a]gapw?ntej to>n ku<rion misei?te ponhro<n.

294 BIBLE STUDIES. [48, 49

tablet, whether male or female, and the original author of

the text cannot have been the same individual. No One

apparently so familiar with even the deeper thoughts of the

Greek Bible could fall into such childish errors in the most

everyday matters, such as the names of the patriarchs and

other things. It is in all probability most correct to suppose

that the tablet (with the exception of such parts as referred

to the particular case) was copied from a book of Magic, and

that even there the original text was already corrupt. If

the tablet was itself written in the third century, and if

between it and the compiler of the original text there was

already a considerable period, in which corrupt copies were

produced and circulated, then the second century A.D. will

probably form a terminus ad quem for the date of its composi-

tion; nevertheless there is nothing to prevent our assigning

to the original text a still earlier date.

As the locality of the original composition we may

assume Egypt, perhaps Alexandria, not only from the general

character of the text, but also by reason of the Egyptian

origin of texts which are cognate with it.

The author was a Greek Jew:¹ this follows incontro-

vertibly, as it seems to us, from the formal character of

the text. If we had in the incantation a succession of verbal

citations from the Septuagint, the hypothesis of a Jewish

author were certainly the most natural, but we should then

have to reckon also with the presumption that some

"heathen," convinced of the magic power of the alien God,

may have taken the sayings from the mysterious pages of

the holy and not always intelligible Book of this same God,

very much in the same way as passages at large from

Homer² were written down for magical purposes, and as

to this day amulets are made from biblical sayings.³ Really

¹ A. Hilgenfeld in Berl. Philol. Wochenschrift xvi. (1896), p. 647 ff.,

considers that the author was a follower of the Samaritan Simon Magus.

² Cf. with reference to " Homeromancy," especially Pap. Lond. cxxi.

(third century A.D.), and the remarks upon this of Kenyon, p. 83 f.

³ A. Wuttke, Der deutsche Volksaberglaube der Gegenwart, 2nd edition,

thoroughly revised, Berlin, 1869, p. 321 f.

49, 50] A SEPTUAGINT MEMORIAL. 295

verbal quotations, however, such as could be copied mechani-

cally, are almost entirely absent from our text, in spite of

its extreme dependence in substance and form upon the

Greek Old Testament. We have here an instructive ex-

ample of the reproduction of biblical passages from memory

which played such a great part in quotations and allusions

in the early Christian writings. The compiler of our text

certainly did not consult his Greek Bible as he set down one

biblical attribute of God after another; the words flowed

from his pen without any consideration on his part of what

might be their particular origin, or any thought of checking

the letters in a scrupulous bibliolatry. Only a man who

lived and moved in the Bible, and, indeed, in the Greek

Bible, could write as he wrote. And if here and there some-

thing got mixed with his writing which has no authority in

the Septuagint, then even that speaks not against, but in

favour of, our view. For the theological conception of the

Canon has never been a favourite with popular religion,—we

might almost say, indeed, with religion in general. In every

age the religious instinct has shown an indifference in re-

spect to the Canon,—unconscious, unexpressed, but none the

less effective—which has violated it both by narrowing it and

extending it. How many words of the canonical Bible have

never yet been able to effect what Holy Scripture should!

How much that is extra-canonical has filled whole genera-

tions with solace and gladness and religious enthusiasm!

Just as the Christians of New Testament times not infre-

quently quoted as scripture words for which one should have

vainly sought in the Canon (assuming that even then an

exact demarcation had been made, or was known), so also

does this text from Adrumetum, with all its obligations to

the Bible, manifest an ingenuous independence with regard

to the Canon.

In respect of form, the following facts also merit atten-

tion. The text is almost wholly free from those grammatical

peculiarities of the Septuagint which are usually spoken

of as Hebraisms — a term easily misunderstood. This is a

proof of the fact, for which there is other evidence as

296 BIBLE STUDIES. [50, 51

well,¹ that the syntactic "influence" of the Alexandrian trans-

lation was less powerful by far than the lexical. The spirit

of the Greek language was, in the imperial period, sufficiently

accommodating where the enlarging of its stock of terms

was concerned; the good old words were becoming worn

out, and gropings were being made towards new ones and

towards the stores of the popular language—as if internal

deterioration could be again made good by means of external

enlargement. But notwithstanding all this it had a sense of

reserve quite sufficient to ward off the claims of a logic which

was repugnant to its nature. The alleged "Jewish-Greek,"

of which the Alexandrian translation of the Old Testament is

supposed to be the most prominent memorial, never existed

as a living dialect at all. Surely no one would seriously affirm

that the clumsy barbarisms of the Aramaean who tried to make

himself understood in the Greek tongue were prescribed by

the rules of a "Jewish-Greek" grammar. It may be, indeed,

that certain peculiarities, particularly with regard to the

order of words, are frequently repeated, but one has no right

to search after the rules of syntax of a "Semitic Greek" on

the basis of these peculiarities, any more than one should

have in trying to put together a syntax of "English High-

German" from the similar idioms of a German-speaking

Englishman. We need not be led astray by the observed

fact that Greek translations of Semitic originals manifest a

more or less definite persistence of Semitisms; for this per-

sistence is not the product of a dialect which arose and

developed in the Ghettos of Alexandria and Rome, but the

disguised conformity to rule of the Semitic original, which

was often plastered over rather than translated. How comes

it that the syntax of the Jew Philo and the Benjamite Paul

stands so distinctly apart from that of such Greek transla-

tions? Just because, though they had grown up in the

Law, and meditated upon it day and night, they were yet

Alexandrian and Tarsian respectively, and as such fitted

their words naturally together, just as people spoke in Egypt

¹ Cf. the author's sketch entitled Die neutestamentliche Formel "in

Christo Jesu" untersucht, Marburg, 1892, p. 66 f.

51, 52] A SEPTUAGINT MEMORIAT4. 297

and Asia Minor, and not in the manner of the clumsy pedan-

try¹ of the study, submitting line after line to the power of

an alien spirit. The translators of the Old Testament were

Hellenists as well as were Philo and Paul, but they clothed

themselves in a strait-jacket--in the idea perhaps that such

holy labour demanded the putting on of a priestly garment.

Their work gained a success such as has fallen to the lot of

but few books: it became one of the "great powers" of history.

But although Greek Judaism and Christianity entered into,

and lived in, the sphere of its ideas, yet their faith and their

language remained so uninjured that no one thought of the

disguised Hebrew as being sacred, least of all as worthy of

imitation,²—though, of course, there was but little reflection

on the matter.

Then the Tablet from Adrumetum manifests a pecu-

liarity, well known in the literature of Hellenistic Judaism,

which, we think, ought also to be considered as one of

form. This is the heaping up of attributes of God, which

appears to have been a favourite custom, especially in

prayers.³ It is a characteristic of certain heathen prayers;

it was believed that the gods were honoured, and that the

bestowal of their favours was influenced,⁴ by the enumera-

¹ We would point out that this judgment upon the LXX refers only

to its syntax. But even in this respect the investigation of Egyptian

and vernacular Greek will, as it advances, reveal that many things that

have hitherto been considered as Semitisms are in reality Alexandrianisms

or popular idioms. With regard to the vocabulary the translators have

achieved fair results, and have not seldom treated their original with

absolute freedom. This matter has been more thoroughly treated in Articles

II. and III. of the present work.

² The Synoptic Gospels, for instance, naturally occupy a special

position, in so far as their constituent parts go back in some way to

Aramaic sources. But the syntactic parallels to the LXX which they show

are not so much an "after-effect" of that book as a consequence of the

similarity of their respective originals.

³ Grimm, HApAT. iv. (1857), p. 45.

⁴ Grimm, ibid. The u[mn&di<a krupth< of Hermes Trismegistos (given by

A. Dieterich in Abraxas, p. 67), for example, affords information on this point,

though, of course, it is very markedly pervaded by biblical elements.

298 BIBLE STUDIES. [52, 53

tion of their attributes. We think it probable that this

notion also influenced the form of Judo-Greek prayers.¹

At all events we hear in them the expression of the same

naïve tendency which Grimm unjustifiably reproaches as "a

misunderstanding of and lack of the true spirit of prayer".

Good words were given to God—something must be given:

His divine self-importance, as it were, was appealed to. It

is children that flatter thus. With regard to this char-

acteristic in prayer, unmistakably present also in our text,

compare the prayer of the Three Men, then 3 Macc. 2 ^{2 ff.}

and 6 ^{2 ff.,} but specially the following passages:--

2 Macc. 1 ^{24 f}. ku<rie ku<rie o[ qeo>j o[ pa<ntwn kti<sthj o[

fobero>j kai> i]sxuro>j kai> di<kaioj kai> e]leh<mwn, o[ mo<noj basileu>j

kai> xrhsto>j o[ mo<noj xorhgo>j o[ mo<noj di<kaioj kai> pantokra<twr

kai> ai]w<nioj, o[ diasw<zwn to> ]Israh>l e]k panto>j kakou?, o[ poih<saj

tou>j pate<raj e]klektou>j kai> a[gia<saj au]tou<j.

Prayer of Manasses (in 0. F. Fritzsche, Libri apocr. V.

T. graece, p. 92) 1-4: ku<rie pantokra<twr o[ qeo>j tw?n pate<rwn

h[mw?n tou? ]Abraa>m kai> ]Isaa>k kai> ]Iakw>b kai> tou? spe<rmatoj

au]tw?n tou? dikai<ou, o[ poh<saj to>n ou]rano>n kai> th>n gh?n su>n panti>

t&? ko<sm& au]tw?n, o[ pedh<saj th>n qa<lassan t&? lo<g& tou? pros-

ta<gmato<j sou, o[ klei<saj th>n a@busson kai> sfragisa<menoj au]th>n

t&? fober&? kai> e]ndo<c& o]no<mati< sou, o{n pa<nta fri<ssei kai> tre<mei

a]po> prosw<pou duna<mew<j sou.

The agreement, especially of the latter passage, with the

tablet of Adrumetum is so striking that we should have

to suppose that our compiler used the Prayer of Manasses,

unless the case was that both were working with the same

materials in the same framework of a customary form. That

this form came in course of time to be of great influence

liturgically, and that it can still be perceived in the monotony

of many a service-book prayer, can only be indicated here.

It is doubtless a partial cause of the fact that the word

Litanei, in our customary speech, has gained an unpleasant

secondary signification. [Litanei = litany + jeremiad.]

The peculiarity just treated of was described as a formal

one. For even if its origin points, psychologically, to a

¹ Observe, however, the form seen already in certain Psalms.

53, 54] A SEPTUAGINT MEMORIAL. 299

temper of mind not entirely alien to religion, yet the employ-

ment of it, where the religious motive has given place to the

liturgical, the unconstrained feeling of the true worshipper

to the literary interest of the prayer-book writer, is in general

purely ritualistic, that is, formal. But the attributes of God

which are found in the text from Adrumetum are of deep

interest even in substance, when considered in reference to

the choice which the compiler has made. It is true that

they are here used as the vehicle of an incantation, but

how different is their simplicity and intelligibility from the

meaningless chaos of most other incantamenta! The context

in which they stand must not cause us to ignore their re-

ligious value. If we put aside the adjuration of the demon

for the trivial ends of a sickly affection, we are enabled to

gain a notion of how the unknown author thought about

God. The suspicion that he was an impostor and that he

intentionally employed the biblical expressions as hocus-

pocus is perhaps not to be flatly denied; but there is nothing

to justify it, and to assert, without further consideration, that

the literary representatives of magic were swindlers, would

be to misapprehend the tremendous force with which the

popular mind in all ages has been ruled by the "super-

stitious" notion that the possession of supernatural powers

may be secured through religion. Our compiler, just because

of the relative simplicity of his formulae, has the right to be

taken in earnest. What strikes us most of all in these are

the thoughts which establish the omnipotence of God. The

God, through Whom he adjures the demon, is for him the

creator, the preserver and the governor of nature in its

widest sense: He has, of course, the power to crush the

miserable spirit of the tomb. But besides this conception

of God, which impresses the senses more strongly than

the conscience, and upon which the poetry of biblical and

post-biblical Judaism long continued to nourish itself,¹ this

unknown man has also extracted the best of what was

¹ For a somewhat more remote application of this thought cf. J.

Bernays, Die heraklitischen Briefe, Berlin, 1869, p. 29. The magic Papyri

yield a multitude of examples of the idea.

300 BIBLE STUDIES. [64

best in the Jewish faith, viz., the ethical idea of the God of

prophecy, Who separates the pious from the transgressors

because He hates evil, and the "fear" of Whom is the

beginning of wisdom.

Thus the tablet of Adrumetum is a memorial of the

Alexandrian Old Testament. Not only does it reveal what

a potent formal influence the Greek Bible, and especially

the praise-book thereof, exercised upon the classes who

lived outside of the official protection of the Synagogue and

the Church, and who thus elude the gaze of history, but it

lets us also surmise that the eternal thoughts of the Old

Testament had not wholly lost their germinative power

even where, long after and in an obscure place, they had

seemingly fallen among thorns.

V.

NOTES ON SOME BIBLICAL PERSONS

AND NAMES

to>n h!lion au]tou? a]nate<llei e]pi> ponhrou>j kai> a]gaqou>j kai> bre<xei

e]pi> dikai<ouj kai> a]di<kouj.

NOTES ON SOME BIBLICAL PERSONS AND NAMES.

1. HELIODORUS.

The Second Book of Maccabees has a wonderful story

to tell of how King Seleucus IV. Philopator made an un-

successful attempt to plunder the temple-treasury in Jeru-

salem. A certain Simon, who had occasion to revenge himself

upon Onias the high-priest, had gone hurriedly to Apollonius,

the Syrian governor of Coelesyria and Phoenicia, and had

contrived to impress him with the most marvellous ideas

of the temple property in Jerusalem. The king, having

been informed of the sacred store, thought it well to send

his minister Heliodorus to Jerusalem, with orders to bring

back the gold with him. Heliodorus was the very man for

such a mission. Having reached Jerusalem, neither the

expostulations of the high priest nor the lamentations of

the people were able to dissuade him. In the extremity of

their distress recourse was had to prayer. And just as the

heartless official and his minions were actually preparing

to pillage the treasury, "there appeared unto them a horse

with a terrible rider upon him, and adorned with a very

fair covering, and he ran fiercely, and smote at Heliodorus

with his fore-feet; and it seemed that he that sat upon the

horse had complete harness of gold. Moreover, two other

young men appeared before him, notable in strength, ex-

cellent in beauty, and comely in apparel; who stood by him

on either side, and scourged him continually, and gave him

many sore stripes. And Heliodorus fell suddenly to the

ground and was compassed with great darkness; but they

that were with him took him up, and put him into a litter

and carried him forth." A sacrifice offered by the high-

303
304 BIBLE STUDIES. [172

priest saved the half-dead man, and then the two young

men, apparelled as before, appeared to him again, and told

him that he owed his life to Onias. Then Heliodorus, being

asked by the king after his return, who might be the proper

person to send on the same errand to Jerusalem, replied:

"If thou hast any enemy or adversary to thy government,

send him thither, and thou shalt receive him well scourged,

if he escape with his life: for in that place without doubt

there is an especial power of God".

The historical foundations of this tale in 2 Macc. 3,

which is certainly better known to-day through Raphael's

picture than through its original narrator, are not so obvious

as its pious aim. Grimm¹ is inclined to allow it a kernel of

history; up to verse 23 the story does not contain a single

feature which might not have been literally true. Owing

to the financial difficulties occasioned by the conclusion of

peace with Rome, temple-robbings seem to have become,

to some extent, the order of the day with the Seleucidae.

Grimm therefore accepts the historicity of the attempt to

plunder the temple, but leaves undecided the actual nature

of the event, thus ornamented by tradition, by which the

project of Heliodorus was baffled. The author is not in a

position to decide this question, though, indeed, the answer

given by Grimm seems to him to be in the main correct.²

But in any case the observation of Schurer,³ viz., that the

book as a whole (or its source, Jason of Cyrene) is not seldom

very well-informed in the matter of details, is confirmed in

the present passage.

The book undoubtedly says what is correct of the hero

of the story, Heliodorus,⁴ in describing him as first minister

¹ HApAT. iv. (1857), p. 77.

² The author, however, finds, even previous to verse 23, features which

are to be explained by the " edifying tendency " of the book.

³ Schurer, ii., p. 740 (= 3 iii., p. 360). [Eng. Trans., ii., ii. p. 211 f.]

⁴ According to the "fourth" Book of Maccabees, which uses this narra-

tive for purposes of edification, it was not Heliodorus, but Apollonius, who

tried to plunder the Temple. J. Freudenthal, in Die Flay. Joseph. beigelegte

Schrift Ueber die Herrsch. der Vernunft, p. 85 f., is inclined to reject both

reports as suspicious, but to consider that of 4 Macc. to be the better of the

178] HELIODORIIS. 305

of the Syrian king. It is indeed true that this assertion is

not vouched for in ancient literature; for Appian, Syr., p.

45 (Mendelssohn, i., p. 416) makes mention of only one

Heliodorus as tino>j tw?n peri> th>n au]lh<n of Seleucus. But

even if this note makes it more than "probable"¹ that it

refers to the same man as is alluded to in the Second Book

of Maccabees, yet, if there were no further proof of the

identity, it would be necessary to reckon seriously with the

possibility that the author of that book, in accordance with

his general purpose, transformed some mere court-official

into the first minister of the king of Syria, in order to make

still more impressive the miracle of his punishment and his

repentance. But this very detail, suspicious in itself, can be

corroborated by two Inscriptions from Delos, made known by

Th. Homolle, which may be given here:--

I.2 [Hlio<dwron Ai]sxu<lou ]Ant[ioxe<a]

to>n su<ntrofon³ tou? basileu<wj S[eleu<kou]

Filopa<toroj kai> e]pi> tw?n pra[gma<twn]

tetagme<non oi[ e]n La[okikei<% ?]

t^ ? e]n Foini<k^ e]gdoxei?j kai> na[u<klhroi?]

e]unoi<aj e!neken kai> filostro[rgi<aj]

[t]h?j ei]j to>n basile<a kai> eu]erg[esi<aj]

th?j ei]j au[tou>j

]Apo<llwni

The Inscription stands upon the base of a statue no

longer extant: its purport is that some Phoenician ship-

masters dedicated the statue of Heliodorus, out of gratitude

two: it "reports simply and without ornament that which is told in 2 Macc.

with distorted exaggeration". The present writer cannot agree with this

opinion; what Freudenthal calls in the one case "simple and without

ornament" and in the other "distorted exaggeration," should only, in view

of the wholly distinct purposes of the two books, be characterised by the

formal antitheses concise and detailed respectively. The hybrid form, Apollo-

doros, of which L. Flathe speaks in his Geschichte Macedcmiens, ii., Leipzig,

1834, p. 601, was in all probability formed from the Apollonius of 4 and

the Heliodorus of 2 Macc. (Freudenthal, p. 84).

¹ Grimm, p. 69.

² Bulletin de corresponclance hellenique, i. (1877), p. 285.

³ On this, see p. 310 f. below.

306 BIBLE STUDIES. [174

for his kindness, and on account of his being well-affected

towards the king, to the Delian Apollo.

II.1 [Hlio<dwron Ai]sxu<lou to>n s[u<ntrofon basile<wj]

Seleu<kou tetagme<non de> k[ai> e]pi> tw?n pragma<twn]

kai> th>n sugge<neian au]to[u?] . . . . . .

]Artemi<dworj [Hraklei<dou tw?n . . . . . .

a]reth?j e!neken kai> dika[iosu<nhj . . . . h$j e@xwn]

diatelei? ei@j te to>n basile<a k[ai>] . . . . .

fili<aj de> kai> eu]ergesi<aj t[h?j ei]j e[auto>n a]ne<qhken]

]Apo<llwni ]A[rte<midi Lhtoi?].

This Inscription also is found on the base of a statue;

its contents quite resemble those of No. 1; in line ³ sugge<-

neian, with some supplementary participle, will signify the

same title which is already known to us as suggenh<j.²

Homolle's conjecture that this Heliodorus is identical

with the one mentioned in 2 Maccabees, and by Appian,

seems to us to be fully established;³ note how accu-

rately 2 Macc. 3⁷ also introduces him as [Hlio<dwron

to>n e]pi> tw?n pragma<twn. This title, which is current

elsewhere in the Books of Maccabees (1 Macc. 3³², 2 Macc.

10¹¹, 13 ^2.23, 3 Macc. 7¹) is proved by other writings to

have belonged to Syria,⁴ as also to Pergamus.⁵ In Poly-

bius and Josephus it is applied to the viceroy, the representa-

tive of the absent king, similarly in 1 Macc. 3 ³², 2 Macc. 13²³;

in 2 Macc. 3⁷ it has the further meaning of chancellor of the

kingdom, first minister,⁶ similarly 10¹¹, 13², 3 Macc. 7¹.

The first Inscription, moreover, confirms the reading

pragma<twn which is given by most MSS. in 2 Macc. 3⁷.

¹ Bull, de corr. hell., (1879), p. 364. ² See p. 159 above.

³ In that case the Inscriptions must certainly have been written before

175 B.C.; for in that year Heliodorus carried out his filostorgi<a ei]j to>n

basile<a, which is here extolled, in a strange way, viz., by murdering the king.

⁴ Frankel, Altertumer von Pergamon, viii. 1, p. 110, cites Polyb. v. 41

and Joseph. Antt. xii. 7 2.

⁵ Inscriptions Nos. 172-176 (first half of 2nd cent. B.C.) in Frankel, p.

108 f.

⁶ This interpretation, proposed by Grimm, p. 69, is maintained also by

Frankel, p. 110.

175] HELIODORUS. 307

Codices 19, 44, 71, etc., which substitute xrhma<twn for

pragma<twn in this passage,¹ have obviously been so influenced

by the contents of the narrative as to turn the chancellor into

a chancellor of the exchequer; for such must have been the

sense of the title given by them, viz., to>n e]pi> tw ?n xrhma<twn.

As for Syncellus (8th cent. A.D.), Chronogr., p. 529 7 (Bonn

edition), who likewise describes Heliodorus as o[ e]pi> tw?n

xrhma<twn, he is probably dependent on these codices.²

Evidence from the Inscriptions has extended our know-

ledge thus far: Heliodorus came originally from Antioch,³

and was the son of a certain Aischylos. In the lofty

position of first minister of King Seleucus IV. Philopator,

to whose familiar circle (su<ntrofoi) he had certainly belonged

previously, he earned good repute in connection with the

shipping trade, and was in consequence the recipient of

frequent honours.

The marble statue of Heliodorus was prepared for

Phoenician merchants by the ancient sculptors, and the

pious gift was dedicated to the Delian Apollo; some narrator

of late pre-Christian times, full of faith in the written word,

made him the central figure of a richly-coloured picture, and

the fate of the temple-robber became a theme for edification,

not unmixed with pious horror; fifteen hundred years after-

wards Raphael's Stanza d'Eliodoro transformed this naive

exultation in the penalty paid by the godless man into the

lofty though unhistorical idea that the Church of the Vatican

is ever triumphant.

2. BARNABAS.⁴

The writer of the Acts of the Apostles reports, 4 ³⁶, that

there was given to the Cyprian ]Iwsh<f the surname Barnabaj

a]po> tw?n a]posto<lwn, o! e]stin meqermhneuo<menon ui[o>j para-

¹ This variation is found here only.

² Against Freudenthal, p. 86, who attributes the alteration to Syncellus.

³ I.e., if the restoration. in No. L be correct, as the author holds to be

very probable.

⁴ See p. 187 f. above.

308 BIBLE STUDIES. [176

klh<sewj. Now even if it be true that "the Apostles" so

named him, yet it is improbable that they were the first to

coin the name, which rather appears to be an ancient one.

The derivation given by the writer of the early history of

Christianity is clear only as regards its first part: bar is of

course the Aramaic rBa, son, so frequently found in Semitic

names. In regard to nabaj, however, the second element in

the name, it is not evident which Semitic word has been

translated para<klhsij in the Apostolic text. The usual

conjecture is hxAUbn;. But this signifies a prophecy, and is

accordingly rendered quite accurately in LXX 2 Es. [Ezra]

6¹⁴, Neh. 6¹², 2 Chron. 15⁸ by profhtei<a, and in 2

Chron.. 9²⁹ by lo<goi. A. Klostermann¹ therefore proposes

the Aramaic xHAvAn;, pacification, consolation; but we doubt

whether this will explain the transcription nabaj. It

would seem better, even were the etymology given in Acts

more intelligible than it is, to leave it out of account as a

basis of explanation,² since we are at once assailed by the

suspicion that we have here, as in many other passages, a

folk-etymology ex post facto. We must rather try to under-

stand the name from itself; and, as we believe, two possible

explanations of the -nabaj, which is alone in question, lie

open to us.

In the Greek Bible, Nun, the father of Joshua, is called

Nauh. Whatever be the explanation of this form, whether

or not it is actually to be understood, as has been supposed,

as a corruptions³ of NAUN into NAUH, does not signify.

The only important matter is that, for Nauh, there also

occur the variants Nabh or Nabi. Whether this Nauh-

¹ Problems im Aposteltexte neu erortert, Gotha, 1883, p. 8 ff.

² Even Jerome, Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum, 67 23 f.

(Onomastica sacra Pauli de Lagarde studio et sumptibus alterum edita, Gottin-

gen, 1887, p. 100), has not straightway adopted the etymology given in Acts;

he gives three interpretations: Barnabas filius prophetae uel filius uenientis

aut (ut plerique putant) filius consolations.

³ The author fails to understand how Nun should have originally been

transcribed Naun. It seems to him more probable that the LXX read hv,nA,

or that Nauh (or Nabh) or Nabi was in actual use as a personal name, and that

they substituted it for Nun.

177] BARNABAS. 309

Nabh--Nabi was already in use as a personal name

(= prophet) in the time of the LXX cannot be ascertained;

certainly, however, it had later on become known as such to

the Jews through the Greek Bible. We might, then, possibly

find this name in the -nabaj: Barnabaj would be a Barnabh

or Barnabi with a Greek termination—son of a prophet.

But the author thinks it a more promising theory to

connect Barnabaj with the recently-discovered Semitic name

barnebou?j. An Inscription¹ found in Islahie, the ancient

Nicopolis, in Northern Syria, which is assigned, probably on

account of the written character, to the 3rd or 4th century

A.D., runs as follows:--

Barnebou?n to>n kai>,² ]Apollina<rion Sammana? au]tqai<reton

dhmiourgo>n kai> gumnasi<arxon fi<l[oi].

The editors explain the name quite correctly as son of

Nebo.³ Their conjecture can be further confirmed, par-

ticularly by Symmachus, who in Is. 46¹ renders Obn;, Nebo,

by Nebou?j, while the LXX, Aquila and Theodotion tran-

scribe it by Nabw<.⁴ Barnebou?j is one of the many personal

names which have Nebo as a constituent part, and), as a

theophoric name, will be relatively old. The hypothesis of

the affinity, or of the original identity, of Barnabaj and

Barnebou?j is further borne out by the well-known fact that

in the transcription of other names compounded with Nebo

the E-sound of the word is sometimes replaced by a,⁵ e.g.,

Nebuchadnezzar = (LXX) Nabouxodonosor = (Berosus and

Josephus) Nabouxodono<soroj = (Strabo) Nabokodro<soroj;

¹ K. Humann and 0. Puchstein, Reisen in Kleinasien und Nordsyrien,

Textband, Berlin, 1890, p. 398. A much older Inscription has already been

cited, p. 188 above.

² For this to>n kai> see below, p. 313 f.

³ ]Apollina<rioj is (cf. ]Apollw<nioj = ]Iwna<qaj, p. 149 ante, sub parepi<dhmoj)

an imitation of the theophoric Barnebou?j; but one need not on that account

have recourse to any such religious-historical equation as Nebo = Apollo, as

the editors suggest.

⁴ Field, ii., p. 522.

⁵ The A-sound is also found in the Babylonian and Assyrian primary

forms. It is not impossible that the name Nabh, discussed above, if not

coined by the LXX, may be connected in origin with Nebo,

310 BIBLE STUDIES. [178

and Nebuzaradan 2 Kings 25 ⁸ = (LXX) Nabouzardan. It

is therefore highly probable that the form Barnabou?j might

occur instead of Barnebou?j. The former appears to us

to be the original form of the name Barnaba?j.¹ The

termination –ou?j must, in that case, have developed into –a?j,

but this is no extraordinary phenomenon in view of the

arbitrariness with which Semitic names were Graecised; per-

haps the Jews intentionally substituted the very common

Greek name-ending -aj for -ouj in order to remove from the

name its suspiciously pagan appearance: the mutilation of

Gentile theophoric names was looked upon by the Jews as

an actual religious duty,² on the authority of Deut. 7 ²⁶ and

12 ³. We indeed see this duty discharged in another personal

name formed with Nebo: the name Abed Nego³ in the Book

of Daniel is most probably an intentional defacement of Abed

Nebo, servant of Nebo. Thus did the later Graeco-Jewish

Barnaba?j arise from the ancient Semitic barnebou?j or

Barnabou?j. It then became the part of popular etymology

to give a religious interpretation to the name thus defaced

from motives of piety. The very difficulty of establishing

which Semitic word was believed to correspond to –nabaj

bears out the hypothesis enunciated above.

3. MANAEN.

In 1 Macc. 1 ⁶, according to the common reading,

mention is made of pai?dej su<ntrofoi< a]po> neo<thtoj of Alex-

ander the Great, and, in 2 Macc. 9 ²⁹, of a certain Philippos

as su<ntrofoj of King Antiochus IV. Epiphanes; similarly,

in Acts 13 ¹, the esteemed Antiochian Christian Manaen⁴

¹ In that case this accentuation would commend itself as preferable to

the "traditional" Barna<baj.—Blass, Gramm. des neutest. Griechisch, p. 123,

also writes Barnaba?j; on p. 31, Barna<baj. [Eng. Trans., pp. 125 and 31.]

² Winer-Schmiedel, § 5, 27 a, note 56 (p. 58). Many similar cases are

given there.

³ LXX, ]Abdenagw<). Note the rendering of the .E-sound by a here also.

⁴ His name is Manah<n; that is, of course, MHenam;. The Alexandrinus

likewise transcribes M^enachem in LXX 2 Kings 15^16ff. by Manah<n, while the

other Codices have Manah<m. The termination -hn gave the foreign name a

179] MANAEN. 311

is distinguished by the attribute [Hrw<dou tou? tetraa<rxou

su<ntrofoj.

In the first passage, however, we have good authority

(Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus, etc.) for sune<ktrofoi, a word not

found elsewhere, "but which, precisely on that account,

may have been displaced by suntr.";¹ the addition of a]po>

neo<thtoj seems to us to give additional support to the

assumption that sune<ktrofoi was the original form.² Ac-

cordingly 0. F. Fritzsche, in his edition, has also decided

for sune<ktrofoi. The meaning of the word is unquestionably

one reared along with another in the proper sense.³

The case is different with the su<ntrofoj of the other

two passages. The commentaries give, in connection with

Acts 13¹, the alternative meanings foster-brother and com-

panion in education;⁴ but the former explanation is forthwith

rendered void by the frequent occurrence (to be established

presently) of the expression in connection with a king's

name, if we but think what strange inferences would

follow from it! We should have to assume, for instance,

that in the most diverse localities, and at times most widely

apart, the newly-born crown-princes had very frequently

to be entrusted to the care of healthy citizens, and, further,

that the son of the plebeian nurse was still alive when

kind of Greek look: pet names in -hn are occasionally used by the Greeks

(A. Fick, Die Griechischen Personennamen nach. ihrer Bildung erklart, 2nd

ed. by F. Bechtel and A. Fick, Gottingen, 1894, p. 28). It will hardly be

necessary in this case to assume the arbitrary interchange of m and n which

occurs not infrequently in the transcription of Semitic proper names (cf. on

this point, Winer-Schmiedel, § 5, 27 g, and note 63 [p. 61]).

¹ Grimm, HApAT. iii. (1853), p. 6.

² The word appears to be confirmed also by the Syriac versions,

Grimm, ibid., p. 7.

³ It cannot be urged against this that the view thus obtained does not

correspond with the historical circumstances (i.e. the pai?dej among whom

Alexander divided his empire could hardly be all his sune<ktrofoi in the proper

sense); but the writer of Macc. certainly held this opinion. The variant

su<ntrofoi may perhaps be explained by the attempt of some thoughtful

copyist to get rid of the historical discrepancy; su<ntrofoi in the technical

sense presently to be determined was more accurate: the thoughtless thinker

of course allowed the a]po> neo<thtoj to stand.

⁴ Holtzmann, H.C. i.² (1892), p. 371.

312 BIBLE STUDIES. [180, 181

his conlactaneus ascended the throne of his father. The

interpretation companion in education is better: one might in

this connection compare the play-mates of the Dauphin, who

were, as a matter of course, taken from the best families,

and of whom, later on, one or another continued, so far as

consistent with the reverence that "cloth hedge a king," to

be the intimate friend of the prince, now come to man's

estate. But this hypothesis is likewise too special; su<ntrofoj

tou? basile<wj is a court title, which is of course to be ex-

plained by the fundamental meaning of the word, but in the

usage of which this fundamental meaning had disappeared,

having given place to the general meaning of intimate friend.

The case is on all fours with that of the title of king's

relative.¹ su<ntrofoj tou? basile<wj is established as regards

Pergamus by Polybius, xxxii. 25 10; further by the Perga-

menian Inscriptions, Nos. 179 3, 224 2, 248 6 and 28,² all of

pre-Roman times (before 133 B.C.). "It appears to have

been in general use throughout the Hellenistic kingdoms."³

In regard to Macedonia, Frankel cites Polyb. v. 9 4; for

Pontus, he refers to the Inscription, Bulletin de correspondance

hellenique, vii. (1883), p. 355; for Egypt, to the observations

of Lumbroso.⁴ But the Inscription of Delos (first half of

2nd cent. B.C.) given above,⁵ in which the title is established

for Syria also, is the most instructive of all in connection

with the passage in Acts; Heliodorus, probably an Antiochian

likewise, is there invested with the honorary title su<ntrofoj

tou? basile<wj Seleu?kou Filopa<toroj. And in the same way

it was allowable to speak of Manaen as the intimate friend of

Herod Antipas; nothing further is implied by the technical

term, and any inference drawn from it regarding the ante-

cedents of the man, or regarding any tender relationship

between his mother and the infant Herod, would be very

precarious. In the context of the narrative the attribute,

when understood in this sense, is of course still more

honourable for Manaen and the church at Antioch than

would be the case according to the traditional interpretation.

¹ Cf. . p. 159 above, sub suggenh<j. ² Frankel, pp. 111, 129, 164 ff.

³ Frankel, p. 111 f. ⁴ Recherches, p. 207 ff, ⁵ P. 305.

181, 182] SAULUS PAULUS. 313

4. SAULUS PAULUS.

In Acts 13⁹ the words Sau?loj o[ kai> Pau?loj, are quite

abruptly introduced to designate the Apostle who has always

hitherto been spoken of as Sau?loj, and from this place

onwards in the book the name Pau?loj is always used. The

passage has given rise to the most extraordinary conjectures;

it has even been asserted that the narrator meant the o[ kai>

Pau?loj to indicate that the change of name had some sort

of connection with the conversion of the Proconsul Sergius

Paulus described immediately before. It must not be for-

gotten, in investigating the point, that it is not said that

the Apostle made the change; it is the narrator who does

so: by means of the o[ kai< he makes the transition from

the previously-used Sau?loj to the Pau?loj to which he hence-

forth keeps.

We have never yet seen the fact recorded in con-

nection with this passage¹ that the elliptically-used kai<

with double names is an exceedingly common usage in N. T.

times. W. Schmid,² in his studies on Atticism (of great

importance for the history of the language of the Greek

Bible), has recently shown from the Papyri and Inscriptions

how widespread this usage was in all quarters; he names

an Inscription of Antiochus Epiphanes as his first authority.

"As qui et is similarly used in Latin in the case of familiar

designations . . . , we might suspect a Latinism, had the

¹ Winer-Lunemann, § 18, 1 (p. 102), refers only to quite late writings.

On the other hand, the painstaking Wetstein had already in 1752 annotated

the passage "Inscriptiones"! That means more for his time than dozens

of other "observations" by the industrious and open-eyed exegetes of last

(18th) century.

² Der Atticismus, iii. (1893), p. 338.—His authorities are to be supple-

mented by the Inscription of Mylasa in Caria, Waddington, iii. 2, No. 361

(imperial period), by a multitude of examples from Lycian Inscriptions,—see

the lists of the Gerontes of Sidyma in 0. Benndorf and G. Niemann, Reiser,

in Lykien and Karien, Vienna, 1884, p. 73 ff. (time of Commodus)—likewise

by many passages from the Egyptian documents in the Royal Museum at

Berlin, e.g., Nos. 39; 141 ²; 200; 277 ²; 281. In the Pap. Berol. 6815 (BU.

ii., p. 43, No. 30) we even find Ma<rkou ]Antwni<ou Dioko<rou o[ kai> Ptolemai<ou, an

evidence of the fixedness and formulaic currency of this o[ kai<.

314 BIBLE STUDIES. [182, 188

Antiochus Inscription not made it more likely that the Latin

usage is really a Graecism."¹

W. Schmid seems to think that certain passages from

AElianus and Achilles Tatius are the earliest instances of this

construction in the literature. But even in the literature

the usage, most likely derived from the popular speech, can

be shown to go much farther back. We find the reading

@Alkimoj o[ kai> ]Ia<kimoj, in 1 Macc. 7 ^{5. 12, 20 ff}., 9 ^{54 ff.}, 2 Macc.

14 ³, at least in Codd. 64, 93, 19 (also 62 in the last passage).

But even should this reading not be the original, yet we

need not be at a loss for literary authorities; a relatively

large number are supplied by Josephus.² The Jewish his-

torian, in giving double names, employs not only the fuller

forms of expression, such as Si<mwn o[ kai> di<kaioj e]piklhqei<j

(Antt. xii. 2 4), @Alkimoj o[ kai> ]Ia<kimoj klhqei<j (Antt. xii. 97),

]Iwa<nnhn to>n kai> Gaddi>n lego<menon (Antt. xiii. 1 2), Dio<dotoj o[

kai> Tru<fwn e]piklhqei<j (Antt. xiii. 51), Selh<nh h[ kai> Kleo-

pa<tra kaloume<nh (Antt. xiii. 16 ⁴), ]Anti<oxoj o[ kai> Dio<nusoj

e]piklhqei<j (Bell. Jud. 47), but he often simply connects the

two names by o[ kai>: ]Iannai?on to>n kai> ]Ale<candron (Antt. xiii.

12 1),³ ]Iw<shpoj o[ kai> Kai*a<faj (Antt. xviii. 2 2)³ Kleo<dhmoj o[

kai> Ma<lxoj (Antt. i. 15), @Arkh h[ kai> ]Ekdei<pouj (Antt. v. 1 22),

]Iou<daj o[ kai> Makkabai?oj (Antt. xii. 6 4), Pako<r& t&? kai> pre-

sbute<r& (Antt. xx. 3 3).

When Acts 13 ⁹ is placed in this philological context, we

see that it cannot mean "Saul who was henceforth also called

Paul"; an ancient reader could only have taken it to mean

"Saul who was also called Paul".⁴ Had the writer of Acts

intended to say that Paul had adopted the Graecised Roman

name in honour of the Proconsul, or even that he now

adopted it for the first time, he would have selected a

different expression. The o[ kai< admits of no other supposi-

tion than that he was called Saulos Paulos before he came to

¹ W. Schmid, Der Atticismus, iii. (1893), p. 838.

² Guil. Schmidt, De Flav. Ios. Elocution, Fleck. Jahrbb. Suppl. xx.

(1894), p. 355 f.

³ For the text see Gull. Schmidt, p. 355.

⁴ Cf. H. H. Wendt, Meyer, iii. ^6/7 (1888), p. 284.
183, 184] SAULUS PAULUS. 315

Cyprus; he had, like many natives of Asia Minor, many

Jews and Egyptians of his age, a double name. We know

not when he received the non-Semitic name in addition to

the Semitic one. It will hardly be demanded that we should

specify the particular circumstance which formed the occa-

sion of his receiving the surname Paulos. The regulations

of Roman Law about the bearing of names cannot in this

question be taken into consideration. If in Asia Minor or on

the Nile any obscure individual felt that, in adopting a non-

barbaric surname, he was simply adapting himself to the

times, it is unlikely that the authorities would trouble them-

selves about the matter. The choice of such Graaco-Roman

second names was usually determined by the innocent free-

dom of popular taste. But we can sometimes see that such

names as were more or less similar in sound to the native

name must have been specially preferred.¹ In regard to

Jewish names this is the case with, e.g., ]Ia<kim-- @Alkimoj

(Joseph. Antt. xii. 9 7), ]Ihsou?j o[ lego<menoj ]Iou?stoj (Col. 4 ¹¹),

]Iwsh>f . . . o{j e]peklh<qh ]Iou?stoj (Acts 1 ²³);² of Egyptian

names, we have noticed Satabou>j o[ kai> Sa<turoj (Pap.

Berol. 7080, Col. 2, Fayyum, 2nd cent. A.D.).³ Thus, too, in

¹ Winer-Schmiedel, § 16, 9 (p. 143).

² We must not confuse these cases, in which non-Jewish names of

similar sound were attached to the Jewish, with those in which non-Jewish

names of similar sound were substituted for the Jewish; those who had

adopted new names bore these alone in their intercourse with strangers.

Thus the name ]Ia<swn, common among Jews, is a substitute for ]Ihsou?j; the

Apostle Symeon (Peter) is usually called Si<mwn, not because (as Clavis³, p.

400, still maintains) this word is a transcription of NOfm;wi, but because it

resembles Sumew<n, the actual transcription of the Hebrew name (so, of Peter,

Acts 15 ¹⁴, 2 Pet. 1¹). Si<mwn is a good Greek name (Fick-Bechtel, p. 251) ;

thus, too, the Vulgate substitutes Cleophas (=Kleofa?j, Fick-Bechtel, p. 20

and foot of p. 164; not to be confounded with Kleopa?j in Luke 24¹⁸, Fick-

Bechtel, middle of p. 164) for the (probably) Semitic name Klwpa(j? Accent ?

[John 19 ²⁵]; the author does not know what authority Clavis³, p. 244, has

for saying that the Semitic form of Klwpa(j?) is xPAl;HA, still less how P.

Feine, Der Jakobusbrief, Eisenach, 1893, p. 16, can maintain that it is "else-

where recognised" that Klwpa?j is Greek, and = Kleopa?j); similarly Silouano<j

seems to be a substitute for the Semitic Silaj.

³ BU. ix., p. 274, No. 277 ².

316 BIBLE STUDIES. [184, 185

the case of the Tarsian Saou<l,¹ when he received a non-

Semitic second name (we do not know the exact time, but

it must have been before Acts 13 ⁹) the choice of Pau?loj may

have been determined by nothing more than the fact that

Pau?loj had a sound somewhat similar to the name made

venerable by association with his fellow-tribesman of old.²

So far as we know, there has hitherto been no

evidence to show that the name Pau?loj was adopted by any

other Jew; it is therefore of interest that the recently-

published Papyrus fragments relating to the Jewish war

of Trajan³ several times mention an Alexandrian Jew called

Pau?loj,⁴ who seems to have been the leader of a deputation

which negotiated with the emperor. The question why the

narrator calls the Apostle Sau?loj previous to Acts 13⁹,

and Pau?loj afterwards, has nothing to do with the science

of names, or with the history of Paul; it is altogether a

question of literary history. The most satisfactory solution

¹ The frequently-noted circumstance that in the accounts of Paul's

conversion, Acts 9^{4. 17}, 22^7.13, 26¹¹, he is addressed by Jesus and Ananias as

Itto6A. may be explained by the historian's sense of liturgical rhythm;—com-

pare the way in which he puts the name Sumew<n (for Peter, whom he else-

where calls Si<mwn and Pe<troj) in the mouth of James in a solemn speech,

15¹⁴. Similarly, the early Christians did not Graecise, e.g., the venerable

name of the patriarch Jacob: ]Iakw<b had a “biblical,” ]Ia<kwboj a modern,

sound. In the same way Paul appears to have made a distinction between

the ancient theocratic form ]Ierousalh<m and the modern political name [Iero-

so<luma: when he uses the former, there is ever a solemn emphasis upon the

word, especially noticeable in Gal. 4 ^{26. 25} (cf. Hebr. 12 ²², Rev. 3^12, 21 ^2.10);

but also as the dwelling-place of the saints, Jerusalem is more to him than

a mere geographical term: hence in 1 Cor. 16³, Rom. 15 ^{25 ff.}, he lovingly and

reverently marks a distinction by writing ]Ierousalh<m; lastly, in Rom. 15¹⁹

this form again best suits the subject, viz., an enthusiastic retrospect of the

diffusion of the gospel. We must also bear in mind that the Gospels preserve

many of our Lord's sayings in Aramaic; see p. 76 above. The assertion of A.

Buttmann, Gramm. des neutest. Sprachgebr., p. 6, that, when Paul is

addressed, the "popular" (??—for the readers of the Greek Book of Acts ?)

form Saou<l is regularly employed, is contradicted by Acts 26²⁴, 27²⁴.

² Cf. Acts 13 ²¹, and also Rom. 11¹ and Phil. 3 ⁵,

³ See p. 68 above.

⁴ The name, indeed, is mutilated in almost all the passages, so that

the restoration Sau?loj would also be possible, but in Col. vii. of the edition

of Wileken, Hermes, xxvii. (1892), p. 470, Pau?loj can be distinctly made out.

185, 188] SAULUS PAULUS. 317

so far (unless we are willing to go back to a difference in

the sources) is the supposition¹ that the historian uses the

one or the other name according to the field of his hero's

labours; from chap. 13¹ the Jewish disciple Sau?loj is an

apostle to the whole world: it is high time, then, that he

should be presented to the Greeks under a name about

which there was nothing barbaric, and which, even before

this, was really his own.

Sau?loj o[ kai> Pau?loj only as such perhaps did many

of his brethren of the same race understand him; from his

own confessions we know that he was rather a Pau?loj o[

kai> Sau?loj--a man who laboured for the future and for

humanity, though as a son of Benjamin and a contemporary

of the Caesars. Christians in later times would often have

fain called him Saul only; but on this account it is the

name Paul alone which in history is graven above the

narrow gate at which Augustine and Luther entered in.²

¹ The following phenomenon is perhaps instructive on this point. In

several passages of Acts mention is made of a ]Iwa<nnhj o[ e]pikalou<menoj Ma<rkoj,

either by this double name or by his Jewish name ]Iwa<nnhj; in 13¹³ it is

particularly evident that ]Iwa<nnhj has been used purposely: the man had

forsaken the Apostle Paul and had returned to Jerusalem. Quite differently

in 15³⁹; he now goes with Barnabas to Cyprus, and this is the only passage.

in Acts where the Greek name Ma<rkoj, standing alone, is applied to him.

This may, of course, be purely accidental.

² With this should be compared Professor W. M. Ramsay's brilliant

section on the same subject, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen²,

London, 1896, pp. 81-88.—Tr.

VI.

GREEK TRANSCRIPTIONS OF THE TETRA-

GRAMMATON.

kai> fobhqh<sontai ta> e@qnh to> o@noma< sou ku<rie.

GREEK TRANSCRIPTIONS OF THE TETRA-

GRAMMATON.

IN a notice of Professor W. Dindorf's edition of Clement,

Professor P. de Lagarde^l reproaches the editor, in reference

to the passage Strom. v. 6 34 (Dindorf, p. 27 25), with

having "no idea whatever of the deep significance of his

author's words, or of the great attention which he must pay

to them in this very passage". Dindorf reads there the form

]Iaou< as to> tetra<grammon o@noma to> mustiko<n. But in various

manuscripts and in the Turin Catena to the Pentateuch² we

find the variants ]Ia> ou]ai< or ]Ia> ou]e<.³ Lagarde holds that the

latter reading "might have been unhesitatingly set in the

text; in theological books nowadays nothing is a matter

of course". The reading ]Iaoue< certainly appears to be the

original; the e was subsequently left out because, naturally

enough, the name designated as the Tetragrammaton must

have no more than four letters.⁴

The form ]Iaoue< is one of the most important Greek

transcriptions of the Tetragrammaton usually referred to in

seeking to ascertain the original pronunciation. F. Dietrich

in a letter of February, 1866,⁵ to Franz Delitzsch, makes

the following collection of these transcriptions:—

¹ GGA. 1870, part 21, p. 801 ff. Cf. Symmikta, i., Gottingen, 1877, p. 14 f.

² Cf. upon this E. W. Hengstenberg, Die Authentic des Pentateuchs, i.,

Berlin, 1836, p. 226 f.

³ With reference to the itacistic variation of the termination, cf. the

quite similar variants of the termination of the transcription Ei]malkouai<

Macc. 11³⁹. ]Imalkoue<, Sinmalkouh<, etc., and on these C. L. W. Grimm,

HATAT. iii., Leipzig, 1853, p. 177.

⁴ Hengstenberg, p. 227.

⁵ ZAW. iii. (1883), p. 298.

321

322 BIBLE STUDIES. [4, 5

hv,h;ya UhyA h.yA

Cent. 2. Irenaeus ---- Iaoq (?)¹ ----

„ 2-3. Clement (Iaoue)² Iaou ----

„ 3. Origen — Iaw (Iaw Ia) Ia-IAH

„ 4. Jerome — Jaho ----

„ — Epiphanius Iabe — Ia

„ 5. Theodoret Iabe Iaw Ai*a (cod. Aug.

(Sam.) Ia>,

,, 7. Isidore — — Ja. Ja.

It is an important fact that nearly all the transcriptions

which have thus come down from the Christian Fathers

are likewise substantiated by "heathen" sources. In the

recently-discovered Egyptian Magic Papyri there is a whole

series of passages which—even if in part they are not to be

conceived of as transcriptions of the Tetragrammaton—merit

our attention in this connection. As early as 1876 W. W.

Graf Baudissin,³ in his investigation of the form ]Ia<w, had

referred to passages relating to it in the Magic Papyri in

Leiden⁴ and Berlin.⁵ Since that time the edition of the

Leiden Papyri by C. Leemans,⁶ and that of the Paris and

London Papyri by C. Wessely,⁷ the new edition of the Leiden

Papyri by A. Dieterich,⁸ the latest publications of the British

¹ Wrongly questioned by F. Dietrich; cf. p. 327 below.

² F. Dietrich reads Iaou.

³ Studien zur semitischen Religionsgeschichte, Heft i., Leipzig, 1876,

p. 197 ff.

⁴ At that time there were only the preliminary notes of C. J. C. Reuvens:

Lettres a. m. Letronne sur les papyrus bilingues et grecs . . . du musee d'an-

tiguites de l'universite de Leide, Leiden, 1830.

⁵ Edited by G. Parthey, AAB., 1865, philol. und histor. Abhh., 109 ff.

⁶ In his publication, Papyri Graeci musei antiguarii publici Lugduni-

Batavi, vol. ii., Leiden, 1885.

⁷ DAW. philos. -histor. Classe, xxxvi. (1888), 2 Abt. p. 27 ff. and xlii.

(1893), 2 Abt. p. 1 ff.

⁸ Papyrus magica musei Lugdunensis Batavi, Fleckeisen's Jahrbb-

Suppl. xvi. (1888), p. 749 (= the edition of Papyrus J 384 of Leiden).

Dieterich, Abraxas, Studien zur Religions-Geschichte des spateren Altertums,

Leipzig, 1891, p. 167 (=edition of Papyrus J 395 of Leiden). The author

has to thank his colleague and friend the editor (now in Giessen) for divers

information and stimulating opposition.

5, 6] THE TETRAGRAMMATON. 323

Museum,¹ and other works, have rendered still more possible

the knowledge of this strange literature, and an investiga-

tion of these would be worth the trouble, both for the

historian of Christianity² and for the Semitic philologist.³

The Papyri in their extant form were written about the

end of the third and beginning of the fourth century A.D.;

their composition may be dated some hundred years before

—in the time of Tertullian.⁴ But there would be no risk of

error in supposing that many elements in this literature be-

long to a still earlier period. It is even probable, in view of

the obstinate persistence of the forms of popular belief and

superstition, that, e.g., the books of the Jewish exorcists at

Ephesus, which, according to Acts 19¹⁹, were committed to

the flames in consequence of the appearance of the Apostle

Paul, had essentially the same contents as the Magic Papyri

from Egypt which we now possess.⁵

In the formulae of incantation and adjuration found in

this literature an important part is played by the Divine

names. Every possible and impossible designation of deities,

¹ F. G. Kenyon, Greek Papyri in the British Museum, London, 1893,

p. 62 ff.

² Cf. A. Julicher, ZKG. xiv. (1893), p. 149.

³ Cf. E. Schurer, Geschichte des jadischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu

Christi, 3 3, Leipzig (1898), p. 294 ff., and especially L. Blau, Das altjudische

Zauberwesen (Jahresbericht der Landes-Babbinerschule in Budapest, 1897-98),

Budapest, 1898.

⁴ Wessely, p. 36 ff. Though A. Harnack, Geschichte der altchrist-

lichen Litteratur bis Eusebius, i., Leipzig, 1893, p. ix., maintains that the age

of the Magic Literature is as yet quite undetermined, this must so far be

limited as that at least a terminus ad queen can be established on palmo-

graphical and internal grounds for a not inconsiderable part of this literature,

⁵ The Book of Acts—if we may insert this observation here—manifests

in this passage an acquaintance with the terminology of magic. Thus the

expression ta> peri<erga, used in 19 ¹⁹, is a terminus technicus for magic; cf., in

addition to the examples given by Wetstein, ad loc., Pap. Lugd., J 384, xii.19

and 21, periergi<a and periera<zomai (Fleck. Jahrbb. Suppl. xvi., p. 816: cf.

Leemans, p. 73). So also pra?cij, 19¹⁸, a terminus technicus for a particular

spell, of which the indexes of Parthey, Wessely and Kenyon afford numerous

examples. The ordinary translation artifice (Rinke) obliterates the peculiar

meaning of the word in this connection. [English A.V. and R.V. deeds even

more completely].

324 BIBLE STUDIES. [6, 7

Greek, Egyptian and Semitic, is found in profuse variety,

just as, in general, this whole class of literature is character-

ised by a peculiar syncretism of Greek, Egyptian and Semitic

ideas.

But what interests us at present are the forms which

can in any way be considered to be transcriptions of the

Tetragrammaton. For the forms which are handed down

by the Fathers, in part still questioned, are all verified by the

Papyri, with the sole possible exception of Clement's Iaove.

Iaw.

To the examples given by Baudissin there is to be added

such a large number from the Papyri since deciphered, that a

detailed enumeration is unnecessary.¹ The palindromic form

iawai² is also frequently found, and, still more frequently,

forms that seem to the author to be combinations of it, such

as arbaqiaw.¹ The divine name Iaw became so familiar that

it even underwent declension: ei]mi> qeo>j qew?n a[pantwn iawn

sabawq adwnai a[brac]aj (Pap. Lugd. J 384, iii. 1).³

Ia.

Likewise not infrequent. Without claiming exhaustive-

ness we cite the following:--

o[ e]pi> th?j a]na<gkhj tetagme<noj iakoub ia iaw sabawq

adwnai [a]brasac (Pap. Lond. cxxi. 648, 640),⁴ with which com-

pare the gem-inscription ia ia iaw adwnai sabawq,⁵ the

combinations iahl (Pap. Lond. xlvi. 56,⁶ Pap. Paris. Bibl. nat.

¹ Cf. the indexes of Leemans, Wessely and Kenyon.

² In the form iaoai in Pap. Par. Bibl. nat. 996 (Wessely, p. 69). It is to

be regretted that the editor does not give the library number of this Papyrus.

³ Fleck. Jahrbb. Suppl. xvi., p. 798 ; Leemans, p. 15. K. Buresch,

APOLLWN KLARIOS, Untersuchungen zum Orakelwesen des spatteren Altertums,

Leipzig, 1889, p. 52, unnecessarily brackets the n of iawn.

⁴ Kenyon, p. 105; Wessely, p. 44. We do not give Wessely's number-

ing of the lines, which is different from Kenyon's. In line 327 of the same

Papyrus we are not quite certain whether La is meant for a Divine name or

not.

⁵ U. F. Kopp, Palaeographia critica, iv., Mannhe. n, 1829, p. 226.

⁶ Kenyon, p. 67 ; Wessely, i., p. 128.

7, 8] THE TETRAGRAMMATON. 325

961 and 3033¹), and iawl (Pap. Paris. Louvre 2391 151),² as also

a whole mass of other combinations.

Iawia:³

(read) e]pi> tou? metw<pou i*awi*a (Pap. Paris. Bibl. nat. 3257).⁴

Iah

occurs more frequently; in particular, in the significant

passage:—

o[rki<zw se kata> tou? qeou? tw?n [Ebraiwn ]Ihsou: iaba:

iah: abrawq: ai*a: qwq: ele: elw: ahw: eou: iiibaex: abarmaj:

i*aba raou: abelbel: lwna: abra: maroia: brakiwn (Pap. Paris.

Bibl. nat. 3019;⁵ again, in the same Papyrus, 1222 ff.^.6 ku<rie

iaw aih iwh wih wih ih aiwai aiouw ahw hai iew huw ahi aw awa

aehi uw aeu iah ei:. One might surmise that the form iah

in the latter passage should be assigned to the other mean-

ingless permutations of the vowels.⁷ But against this is to

be set the fact that the form is authenticated as a Divine

name by Origen, that in this passage it stands at the end of

the series (the ei of the Papyrus should likely be accented ei#),

and thus seems to correspond to the well-known form iaw at

the beginning. Nevertheless, too great stress should not be

laid upon the occurrence, in similar vowel-series, of purely

vocalic transcriptions of the Tetragrammaton.

Further, in the same Papyrus, 1564⁸ and 1986 ⁹; also in

Pap. Lond. xlvi. 23."

¹ Wessely, i., pp. 68 and 121. ² Ibid., p. 144.

³ Combined from Iaw and Ia (cf. Baudissin, p. 183 f., and F. Dietrich,

p. 294).

⁴ Wessely, i., 126.

⁵ Ibid., p. 120. This passage, so far as regards the history of religion,

is one of the most interesting: Jesus is named as the God of the Hebrews;

observe the Divine names combined with as (in reference to abelbel, cf.

Baudissin, p. 25, the name of the King of Berytus ]Abe<lbaloj); on ai*a and

i*aba see below, pp. 326 and 333 f.; with reference to qwq (Egyptian deity) in

the Papyri, cf. A. Dieterich, Abraxas, p. 70.

⁶ Ibid., p. 75. ⁷ Cf. upon these, p. 829 below.

⁸ Wessely, p. 84. ⁹ Ibid., p. 94.

¹⁰ Kenyon, p. 66; Wessely, i., p. 127.

326 BIBLE STUDIES. [8, 9

This form is also found in W. Frohner's¹ issue of the

bronze tablet in the Museum at Avignon: the last two lines

should not be read kai> su< sune<rgei ]Abrasa<c ilh ]Iaw<, as

Frohner reads them, but kai> su> sune<rgei abrasac iah² iaw.

The reverse combination iaw iah is found in a leaden tablet

from Carthage, CIL. viii. Suppl. i., No. 12509.

We may, finally, at least refer to the passage o!ti disu<l-

laboj ei# a h (Pap. Paris. Bibl. nat. 944).³ According to

Dieterich,⁴ ah is "simply a mystical Divine name," and "it

is possible that it should be read aw". We consider

this alteration quite unnecessary. Either ah is an indistinct

reminiscence of our iah, or else we must definitely conclude

that the i of iah coining after et has fallen out by hemi-

graphy.⁵

Ai*a.

Theodoret's form Ai*a, for which the Augsburg Codex

and the ed. print. of Picus read Ia,⁶ is found not only in the

above-cited passage, Pap. Par. Bibl. nat. 3019 ff., but also in

Pap. Lugd. J 395, xvii. 31,⁷ as—a fact of special interest—

the correction of the aira which originally stood in the MS.

Jaoth.

The Latin codices of Iremeus yield the form Jaoth.⁸

Irenus distinguishes one pronunciation with a long, and

another with a short, o (ii. 35 3, Massuet: Jawth, extensa

cum aspiratione novissima syllaba, mensuram praefinitam mani-

festat; cum autem per o graecam corripitur ut puta Jaoth, eum

qui dat fugam malorum significat).

¹ Philologus, Suppl. v. (1889), p. 44 f.

² That is, A instead of L; tacitly corrected by Wessely, Wiener Studien,

viii. (18S6), p. 182.

³ Wessely, p. 68. ⁴ Abraxas, p. 97.

⁵ The i of iah must, in that case, on account of the metre and the

disu<llaboj, be pronounced as a consonant (cf. on this point, Kuhner-Blass,

Ausfuhrliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, i³. 1, Hanover, 1890, p. 50).

⁶ Hengstenberg, p. 227; F. Dietrich, p. 287.

⁷ A. Dieterich, Abr., p. 196; Leemans, p. 141.

⁸ Cf., in particular, Baudissin, p. 194 1.

9, 10] THE TETRAGRAMMATON. 327

F. Dietrich has erroneously questioned this form.¹ The

following should be added to the citations given by Bau-

dissin:--

Pap. Lond. xlvi. 142 (iawt),²

„ ,, xlvi. 479 (iawq),³

Pap. Par. Bibl. nat. 3263 (iawq),⁴

Pap. Lugd. J 395, xxi. 14 (abratiawq),⁵

Pap. Lond. xlvi. 56 (arbaqiawq),⁶

Pap. Berol. 2 125 (ambriqiawq).⁷

With reference to the agglutination of a T-sound to

iaw, cf. the literature cited by Baudissin.⁸ The Papyri yield

a large number of examples of similar forms in -wq. Similar

forms with Greek terminations (e.g., Faraw<qhj), in Josephus

and others.⁹

Iaoue.

Regarding Clement's form Iaoue, the author calls atten-

tion to the following passages:—

qeo>j qew?n, o[ ku<rioj tw?n pneuma<twn¹⁰ o[ a]pla<nhtoj ai]w>n

iawouhi, ei]sa<kouso<n mou th?j fwnh?j: e]pikalou?mai< se to>n

duna<sthn tw?n qew?n, u[yibreme<ta Zeu?, Zeu? tu<ranne, adainai^sic

ku<rie iawouhe: e]gw< ei]m o[ e]pikalou<meno<j se suristi> qeo>n

me<gan zaalahriffou kai> su> mh> parakou<s^j th?j fwnh?j e[brai*sti>

ablanaqanalba abrasilwa: e]gw> ga<r ei]mi silqaxwoux lailam

baasalwq iaw iew nebouq sabioqarbwq arbaqiaw iawq sa-

bawq patourh zagourh baroux adwnai elwai iabraam bar-

barauw nausif u[yhlo<frone . . . (Pap. Lond. xlvi. 466-482).¹¹

¹ P. 294. 2 Kenyon, p. 69; Wessely, p. 130.

³ Kenyon, p. 80; Wessely, p. 139. ⁴ Wessely, p. 126.

⁵ A. Dietericb, Abr., p. 201. ⁶ Kenyon, p. 67; Wessely, p. 128.

⁷ Parthey, p. 154. We begin the word with a, and affix the q to the

previous word; cf. Kenyon, p. 111, line 849, ambriqhra.

⁸ P. 195.

⁹ Cf., for example, the Fareqw<qhj of Artapanus (Eusebius, Praep. ev.

ix. 18), and, upon this, J. Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien, Heft 1 and 2,

Breslau, 1875, p. 169.

¹⁰ With this expression, also common in the Book of Enoch, compare

LXX Num. 16 ²², 27 ¹⁶.

¹¹ Kenyon, p. 80; Wessely, i., 139. We have given the passage in

extenso because it is particularly instructive in respect to the Syncretism

of this literature.

328 BIBLE STUDIES. [10, 11

a]kousa<tw moi^sic pa?sa glw?ssa kai> pa?sa fwnh<, o!ti e]gw<

ei]mi pertaw [mhx xax] mnhx sakmhf iawoueh whw whw ieouwhi

hiaha [corrupt] ihwuoei¹ . . . (Pap. Lugd. J 384, vi. 12-14).²

su> ei# o[ a]gaqodai<mwn o[ gennw?n a]gaqa> kai> trofw?n th>n

oi]koume<nhn, sou? de> to> a]e<nnaou komasth<rion, e]n &$ kaqi<drutai<

sou to> e[ptagra<mmaton o@noma pro>j th>n a[rmoni<an tw?n z < fqo<g-

araf aia braarmarafa abraax pertawmhx akmhx iawoueh

iawoue eiou ahw ehou iaw . . . (Pap. Lugd. J 395, xvii. 25-32).³

o!ti prosei<lhmmai th>n du<namin tou? ]Abraa>m ]Isa>k kai> tou?

]Iakw>b kai> tou? mega<lou qeou? dai<monoj iaw ablanaqanalba

siabraqilaw lamythr ihi ww. qee<, poi<hson, ku<rie, pertawmhx

xax mhx iawouhe iawouhe ieouahw ehouiaw (Pap. Lugd., J

395, xviii., 21-26).⁴

It might appear at first sight very natural to assume that

these forms are related to Clement's Iaoue. In considera-

tion of the great freedom with which the Hebrew vowels

were transcribed in Greek, it need not seem strange that

the E-sound at the end of words is rendered by hi, he and eh

in the Papyri; in point of fact the strengthening or length-

ening of the e by the addition of h would give a more distinct

rendering of the h ,- than the bare e of Clement. The coming

of w before ou is the only strange feature. Still, even this

peculiarity might be explained by the preference for law, the

most popular transcription, which it was desired should have

a place also here.

For these reasons Kenyon maintains that the form

Iawouhe is actually the Divine name, and, indeed, that it is

an expansion of the form Iaw.⁵

Notwithstanding, we must not trust entirely to plausi-

¹ Considered by A. Dieterich to be a palindrome of the ieouwhi.

² A. Dieterich, Fleck. Jahrbb. Suppl. xvi., p. 304; Leemans, iii., p. 23.

³ A. Dieterich, Abr., p. 195 f.; Leemans, p. 141 f.

⁴ A. Dieterich, Abr., p. 197; Leemans, p. 145.

⁵ P. 63: " The exact pronunciation of that name . . was preserved a

profound secret, but several approximations were made to it; among which

the commonest is the word Iaw . . , which was sometimes expanded, so as

to employ all the vowels, into Iawouhe".

11, 12] THE TETRAGRAMMATON. 329

bility. We must first of all investigate whether the said

forms do not belong to the manifold permutations of the

seven vowels,¹ which are all but universally considered to be

capricious and meaningless, mocking every possible attempt

at explanation, and which can therefore, now less than ever,

yield a basis for etymological conjectures.

An instructive collection of these permutations and com-

binations of the seven vowels for magical purposes is found

in Wessely's treatise, Ephesia Grammata.² That writer else-

where³ passes judgment upon them as follows: "other

[names] again appear to have no special meaning, for, just

as magical formulae are formed from the seven vowels aehiouw

and their permutations and combinations . . . , so in all

probability there were magic formulae formed from the

consonants also, now Hebraising, now Egyptianising, now

Graecising, and without any definite meaning". We are

unable to decide whether this assertion concerning the

consonantal formulae is correct. But certainly when the

chaos of the vocalic formations is surveyed, the possibility

of accounting for the great majority of the cases may be

doubted.⁴ If, then, it were established that the forms cited

above should also be assigned to this class, they could, of

course, no longer be mentioned in the present discussion.

We should otherwise repeat the mistake of old J. M. Gesner,⁵

who believed that he had discovered the Divine name

Jehovah in the vowel series IEHWOUA.

But in the present instance the matter is somewhat

different, and the conjecture of Kenyon cannot be sum-

marily rejected. To begin with, the form twooune or mammy,

¹ Cf. on this point Baudissin, p. 245 ff.; Parthey, p. 116 f.; A. Dieterich,

Abr., p. 22 f.

² The 12th Jahresb. Aber das K. K. Franz-Josephs-Gymn. in Wien, 1886.

³ Wiener Studien, viii. (1886), p. 183.

⁴ Let one example suffice: Pap. Lugd. J 395, xx. 1 ff. (A. Dieterich,

Abr., p. 200; Leemans, p. 149 f.): e]pikalou?mai< se iueuo waehiaw aehaiehah

iouweuh ieouahwhi whiiah iwouhauh uha iwiwai iwai wh ee ou iwi aw to> me<ga o@noma

⁵ De laude dei per septem vocales in the Commentationes Soc. Reg. Scient.

Gotting., i. (1751), p. 245 ff.

330 BIBLE STUDIES. [12, 13

in the first passage quoted, does not stand among other

vowel-series; on the contrary, it is enclosed on both sides by

a number of indubitable Divine names. Further, the same

form with insignificant modifications is found in various

passages of various Papyri; from this we may conclude

that it is at least no merely hap-hazard, accidental form.

Finally, its similarity with Clement's Iaoue is to be noted.

At the same time, wider conclusions should not be drawn

from these forms—none, in particular, as to the true pro-

nunciation of the Tetragrammaton: for the fact that in

three of the quoted passages the form in question is followed

by vocalic combinations in part meaningless, constitutes an

objection that is at all events possible.

The value of the vocalic transcriptions of the Tetragrammaton

for the determination of its true pronunciation appears to us,

by reason of the diffuse and capricious usage of the vowels which

we find throughout the Magic Literature, to be at most very small.

The very great uncertainty of the traditional texts must also be

urged as an objection to its being so employed. Nowhere

could copyists' errors¹ be more easily made, nowhere are

errors in reading by editors more possible, than in these

texts. Let any one but attempt to copy half a page of such

magic formulae for himself: the eye will be continually losing

its way because there is no fixed point amidst the confusion

of meaningless vowels by which it can right itself.

Iabe.

It is thus all the more valuable a fact that the important

consonantal transcription of the Tetragram, Iabe, given by

Epiphanius and Theodoret, is attested likewise by the Magic

Literature, both directly and indirectly. The author has

found it four times in the collocation iabe zebuq:--

e]corki<zw u[ma?j to> a!gion o@nom[a

erhkisqarhararararaxararahfqis . . . .

¹ Cf. Wessely, p. 42, on the "frivolity" (Leichtfertigkeit) with which

the copyists treated the magic formulae. The state of the text generally with

regard to Semitic names in Greek manuscripts, biblical and extra-biblical, is

instructive.

13, 14] THE TETRAGRAMMATON. 331

iaw iabe zebuq lanabisaflan . . .

ektipatmmoupofdhntinaco

o[ tw?n o!lwn basileu>j e]cege<rqhti

(leaden tablet of cent. 2 or 3 from a Cumean tomb, CIG.

iii., No. 5858 b). J. Franz¹ has correctly explained this

form: habes in ea formula IAW Judaicum satis no turn illud ex

monumentis Abraxeis, deinde IABE, quo nomine Samaritanos

summum numen invocasse refert Theodoretus Quaest. in Exod. xv.

On zebuq see below. Wessely² conjectures that law

SABAwq appears in the third line. But zebuq is vouched

for by the two following passages which give the same magic

precept as a precept, which is actually put in practice in the

Cumman tablet:--

On a tablet of tin shall be written before sunrise among

other words the lo<goj ei . . . sifqh< iabe zebuq (Pap. Lond.

cxxi. 410),³

On a chalice one shall write besides other words erh-

kisiqfh lo<gon iabe zebuq (Pap. Par. Bibl. nat. 2000),⁴

Similarly e]pikalou?mai< sou . . . t&? mega<l& sou o]no<mati

. . . erhkisiqfh araraxar ara hfqiskhre iabe zebuq

iwbuqie (Pap. Par. Bibl. nat. 1784 ff.).⁵

How are we to explain the form zebuq⁶ which thus

occurs four times in union with iabe? F. Lenormant ⁷ main-

tains that it is the names Beelzebuth and Jao which are found

on the tablet. He reads i]aw> i]a? bezebu>q qlanabi> saflan . . . ⁸

Leaving aside the fact that the form Beelzebuth can be no-

¹ CIG. p. 757. ² Wiener Studien, viii. (1886), p. 182.

³ Kenyon, p. 98 ; Wessely, ii., p. 34. ⁴ Wessely, i., p. 95.

⁵ Ibid., p. 89. This passage renders it possible to restore the text of

the Inscription CIG. iii., No. 5858 b, and of the quotation from Pap. Lond.

cxxi. 419, with certainty ; observe the palindrome erhkisiqfh ararax, etc.

⁶ Cf. also ku<rie arxandara fwtaza purifwta zabuq . . . (Pap. Par. Bibl.

nat. 631-6.32; Wessely, p. 60).

⁷ De tabulis devotionis plumbeis Alexandrinis, Rhein. Mus. fur Philo-

logic, N. F., ix. (1854), p. 375.

⁸ Ibid., p. 374.

332 BIBLE STUDIES. [14, 15

where authenticated,¹ it is very precarious to see it in the

bezebuq of the Inscription. The mere absence of the l,

indeed, would not be decisive² against Lenormant's idea, but

certainly the f, which cannot be read as u,³ is decisive, and

above all the great improbability of the assumption that the

names of God and the Devil stand thus closely together.

We consider it to be much less objectionable to explain⁴

zebuq as a corruption of hOxbAc;, and to see in iabe zebuq

the familiar tOxbAc; hOAhy;.

With reference to this identification, the author's col-

league, Herr P. Behnke, Pastor and Repetent at Marburg, has

kindly given him the following additional information:--⁵

"u = Heb. o is frequently found. The examples, how-

ever, in which this vowel-correspondence appears before r

should not be taken into account (rmo = mu<r]r[a, rco = Tu<roj,

rObTA = ]Itabu<rion ]Atabu<rion, wr,OK = Ku?roj, rOn.Ki=kinu<ra.

In rmo, rco, wr,OK, rObTA [?] the ō is a lengthened ŭ and the

ordinary transcription of Sem. u, is u. But a difference

¹ The French scholar's assertion is only to be explained by the fact

that the form of Satan's name is, in French, Belzebuth or Belsebuth. We

have not been able to ascertain when this form can be first vouched for,

or how it is to be explained. Should we find in the variant belzebud of

(Vulgate) Codex mm, Matt. 10 ²⁵ (Tischendorf), authority for saying that the

T-sound has supplanted the original ending b or l in later Latin, and so in

French also? What form is found in the "Romance" Bibles?

² Cod. B., occasionally also x of the N. T. yield the form beezeboul;

cf. on this Winer-Schmiedel, § 5, 31 (p. 65).

³ Viva-voce information by W. Schulze. Cf. Winer-Schmiedel, § 5, 21 b

(p. 51), on kollou<rion.

⁴ Cf. Franz, p. 757. Franz, in his explanation of the syllable buq,

recalls the buqo<j of the Valentinians. It is more correct to point to the

frequently occurring (Egyptian?) termination in -uq—the b is got from

zebawq. Cf. the name of deities and months qwuq, the formations bienuq

(Kopp, iv., p. 158), mennuquq iaw (Pap. Lond. CXXI. 820; Kenyon, p. 110;

Wessely, p. 49), i*wbuqie (Pap. Par. Bibl. nat. 1799; Wessely, p. 89).

Cf. on Egyptian female names in –uq, A. Boeckh, AAB., hist.-phil. Klasse,

1820-1821, p. 19.

⁵ Cf. also H. Lewy, Die semitischen Fremdworter im Griechischen

Berlin, 1895, pp. 38, 42 f., 225.

15, 16] THE TETRAGRAMMATON. 333

appears in rOn.Ki, which goes back to an original kannar; here

therefore the u corresponds to an o which has been derived

from ā as would be the case with -uq = tO-). But it seems

to me to be of greater consequence that the Phoenician pro-

nunciation of Heb. ō (and ô) is y. Thus we have in the

Poenulus of Plautus (ed. Ritschl) [chyl = lKo = kull],

(= mausai) given as mysehi; tOx (sign, original form ath) as

yth, txzo as syth. Moreover, Movers (Phoniz., ii., 1, p. 110)

has identified Berytos with tOrxeB;, and Lagarde (Mitteil., i.,

p. 226) has acknowledged the identification. It is thus quite

possible that tvxbc could have become zebuq in the mouth

of a Phoenician juggler. Still, the omission of the ā before

oth in the pronunciation remains a difficulty."

Perhaps Iabe is also contained in the word seriabe-

bwq (Pap. Lond, xlvi. 8)¹; but the text is uncertain and

the composition of the word doubtful.

Reference must finally be made to a number of forms,

in respect of which the author is again unable to allow him-

self a certain conclusion, but which appear to him to be

corruptions of the form iabe, and therefore in any case to

merit our attention:—

iaboe, Pap. Lond. xlvi. 63 ; 2

iaba³ is frequently found: o[rki<zw se kata> tou? qeou? tw?n

[Ebrai<wn ]Ihsou?: iaba: iah: . . . . abarmaj: i*aba raou.

abelbel . . . (Pap. Par. Bibl. nat. 3019 ff.),⁴ e]pikalou?mai< se to>n

me<gan e]n ou]ran&? . . . . baqabaqi : iatmwn : alei : iaba

qabawq⁵ sabawq : adwnai o[ qeo>j o[ me<gaj orsenofrh (Pap. Par.

¹ Kenyon, p. 65; Wessely, i., p. 127.

² Kenyon, p. 67; Wessely, p. 128.

³ F. Dietrich, p. 282: "The principal thing is, however, that the pro-

nunciation Jahava has no historic authority whatever. If Theodoret had

intended to signify that, while hvhy was pronounced ]Iabe< by the Samari-

tans, the Jews pronounced this full form of the name with a at the end,

then he would have written ]Ioudai?oi de> ]Iaba<, which is warranted by none of

the variants." But "historic authority" for this form has now been

shown as above.

⁴ Wessely, i., p. 120.

⁵ With the form qabawq cf. tabawq, Pap. Par. Bibl. nat. 1413 (Wessely,

334 BIBLE STUDIES. [17

Bibl. nat. 1621 ff.),¹ u[ma?j e]corki<zw kata> tou? i*aw kai> tou? sabawq

kai> adwnai . . . baliaba (Pap. Par. Bibl. nat. 1484 ff.),²

iaba edd iaw (a gem-inscription)³;

iabawq⁴: iawq iabawq (Pap. Par. Bibl. nat. 3263),⁵ dia>

to> me<ga e@ndocon o@noma abraam e]meinaaeoubawq baiqwb esia

iabawq (Pap. Lond. cxxi. 314 f.)⁶;

iabaj: su> ei# iabaj su> ei# iapwj (Pap. Lond. xlvi. 104).⁷

A.. Dieterich⁸ thinks it superfluous "to seek a ]Ia<bhj or

similar name" in this; it is but "mystical play-work set

down at random". But the supposition that iabaj and

iapwj are not mere capricious forms, but rather corrupt

Graecisings of Iabe, is supported by the context of the whole

passage, which belongs to those that are most strongly

permeated by Jewish conceptions.

There may also be mentioned another series of forms,

chiefly verbal combinations, in which this transcription

appears, in part at least, to be contained. We mention only

the examples: iabw (Geoponica, ed. Niclas, ii., 42 5);⁹

iabounh (Pap. Lond. xlvi. 340);¹⁰ the names of angels

baqiabhl and abraqiabri (Pap. Lond. cxxi. 906 f.);¹¹ further,

iaboux and iabwx (Pap. Par. Bibl. nat. 2204).¹²

Even putting aside the last-quoted series of forms,

we consider it to have nevertheless been made plain that

Iabe must have enjoyed an extraordinary popularity in the

Magic Literature. Now this may appear strange if we re-

member the observation given by the Fathers that it was the

Samaritan pronunciation of the Tetragram: how did it get

to Egypt and the land of the Cumaean Sybil? The question,

i., p. 80), Pap. Lond. xlvi. 62, 6:3, in which the form iaboe follows (Kenyon,

p. 67; Wessely, p. 128), Pap. Lugd. J 384, iii. 7 (Fleck. Jahrbb. Suppl.,

xvi., p. 798; Leemans, p. 15).

¹ Wessely, i., p. 85. ² Ibid., p. 82.

³ Kopp, iv., p. 159 f. ⁴ Cf. above on iawq.

⁵ Wessely, i., p. 126. ⁶ Kenyon, p. 94; Wessely, ii., p. 31.

⁷ Kenyon, p. 68; Wessely, p. 120. ⁸ Abr., p. 68.

⁹ In R. Helm's Ltcantaineuta iiuujica Graeca Latina; Fleck., Jahrbb

Suppl. xix. (1893), 523.

¹⁰ Kenyon, p. 76, cf. the note to line 357; Wessely, i., pp. 135, 136.

¹¹ Kenyon, p. 118; Wessely, ii., p. 52. ¹² Wessely, i., p. 100.

18] THE TETRAGRAMMATON. 335

however, does not appear to the writer to be unanswerable.

We must not of course so conceive of the dissemination of the

form as if it had been consciously employed, in such various

localities, as the true name of the Mighty God of the Jews;

the writer of the Cumaean tablet simply copied it along with

other enigmatic and, of course, unintelligible magic formula

from one of the numerous books of Magic, all of which, very

probably—to judge from those still extant—point to Egypt

as their native region. But Egypt was just the country which,

because of the ethnological conditions, was most ready to trans-

fer Jewish conceptions into its Magic. One may therefore not

unjustifiably suppose that here especially the Tetragramma-

ton was used by the magicians as a particularly efficacious

Name in its correct pronunciation, which was, of course,

still known to the Jews, though they shrank from using it,

up to and into the Christian era. Thus we have been using

the Iabe not necessarily for the purpose of indicating the

specifically Samaritan pronunciation as such, but rather as

an evidence for the correct pronunciation. But we con-

sider it quite possible to account for the occurrence of Iabe

in Egyptian Papyri by "Samaritan" influence. Besides

the Jews proper¹ there were also Samaritans in Egypt.

"Ptolemy I. Lagi in his conquest of Palestine had taken

with him many prisoners-of-war not only from Judaea and

Jerusalem but also 'from Samaria and those who dwelt in

Mount Gerizim,' and settled them in Egypt [Joseph. Antt.

xii. 1]. In the time of Ptolemy VI. Philometor, the Jews

and Samaritans are reported to have taken their dispute con-

cerning the true centre of worship (Jerusalem or Gerizim)

to the judgment-seat of the king [Joseph. Antt. xiii. 34]."²

Some Papyri of the Ptolemaic period confirm the relatively

early residence of Samaritans in Egypt. As early as the

time of the second Ptolemy we find (Pap. Flind Petr. ii. iv.

¹ Cf. on the Jewish diaspora in Egypt, Hugo Willrich, Juden and

Griechen, vor der makkabdischen Erhebung, Gottingen, 1895, p. 126 ff.; and,

against Willrich, Schurer, ThLZ. xxi. (1896), p. 35. Cf. also Wilcken, Berl.

Philol. Wochenschrift, xvi. (1896), p. 1492

² E. Schurer, Geschichte des jiklischen Volkes ins Zeitalter Jesu Christi,

ii., Leipzig, 1886, p. 502 (= ³ iii., p. 24). [Eng. Trans., ii., ii.,p. 230.]

336 BIBLE STUDIES. [19, 20

11)¹ mention of a place Samaria in the Fayyum, and two

inhabitants of this Samaria, qeo<filoj and Pur]r[i<aj,² are

named in Pap. Flind. Petr. xxviii.³ Even more im-

portant, in this connection, than such general information,

is a passage in the supposed letter of Hadrian to Servianus,

in which it is said that the Samaritans in Egypt, together

with the Jews and Christians dwelling in that country,

are all Astrologers, Aruspices and Quacksalvers.⁴ This is

of course an exaggeration; but still the remark, even if the

letter is spurious, is direct evidence of the fact that magic and

its allied arts were common among the Egyptian Samaritans.

We may also refer here to Acts viii.: Simon the magian was

altogether successful among the Samaritans: "to him they all

gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is that

power of God which is called Great".⁵ As the Divine name

played a great part in the adjurations, we may conclude that

the Samaritan magicians used it too—naturally in the form

familiar to them. From them it was transferred, along with

other Palestinian matter, to the Magic Literature, and thus

it is explained why we should find it in a remote region,

scratched by some one unknown, full of superstitious dread,

upon the lead of the minatory magical tablet.

¹ In J. P. Mahaffy, The Flinders Petrie Papyri, ii., Dublin, 1893 [14].

The paging of the text is always given in brackets [ ] in Mahaffy. Vol. i,

was published in Dublin, 1891.

² Mahaffy, ii. [97], conjectures that these are translations of Eldad and

Esau. With this he makes the further conjecture that the name qeo<filoj,

common in the imperial period, occurs here for the first time. But the name

is found earlier, and Mahaffy's question whether it is perhaps a "Jewish in-

vention" must be answered in the negative.—The author has made further

observations on Samaria in the Fayyum in ThLZ. xxi. (1896), p. 611.

³ Mahaffy, ii. [87] ff.

⁴ Vopisc., vita Saturnini, c. 8 1 (Scriptores histariae Augustae, ed. Peter,

vol. ii., p. 225): nemo illic archisynagogus Judaeorum, nemo Samarites, nemo

Christianorum presbyter non mathematicus, non haruspex, non aliptes. Schurer

refers to this passage, ii., p. 502 (= 3 p. 24). [Eng. Trans., II., p. 230.]

Cf. also c. 7 4.

⁵ Compare with the expression h[ du<namij tou? qeou? h[ kaloume<nh mega<lh,

Pap. Par. Bibl. nat. 1275 ff. (Wessely, i., 76), e]pikalou?mai< se th>n megi<sthn du<namin

th>n e]n t&? ou]ran&?. (a@lloi: th>n e]n t^? a@rkt&) u[po< kuri<ou qeou? tetagme<nhn. See also

Harnack, Bruchstacke des Evangeliums und der Apokalypse des Petrus (TU

also ix. 2), 2 Aufl., Leipzig, 1893, p. 65 f.

VII.

SPICILEGIUM

i!na mh> ti a]po<lhtai

1. THE CHRONOLOGICAL STATEMENT IN THE

PROLOGUE TO JESUS SIRACH.

]En ga>r t&? o]gdo<& kai> triakost&? e@tei e]pi> tou ? ]Euerge<tou

basile<wj paragenhqei>j ei]j Ai@gupton kai> sugxroni<saj eu$ron ou]

mikra?j paidei<aj a]fo<moion: of this chronological statement of

the grandson of the son of Sirach, which is of the highest

importance not only as regards the date of the book itself,

but also, on account of the other contents of the prologue,

for the history of the Old Testament canon, various inter-

pretations are given.¹ If it be "a matter of course" that

the writer of the Prologue wishes to indicate, not the year

of his own life, but the thirty-eighth year of King Euergetes,²

no doubt can exist as to the year in which the writer came

to Egypt; of the two Ptolemies who bore the surname

of Euergetes, the reign of the second only, Ptolemy VII.

Physcon, extended to thirty-eight years, and hence the

date given in the Prologue would signify the year 132 B.C.

But when we find a writer like L. Hug preferring the other

interpretation,³ we cannot but feel that there must be a

difficulty somewhere. The chief support of those who inter-

pret the date as the year of the prologue-writer's age, and,

at the same time, the chief difficulty of the other inter-

pretation, lie in the e]pi< which stands between the number

and the name of the king. "La preposition e]pi< paratit ici tout

a fait superflue, puisque toujours le mot e@touj est suivi d'un

genitif direct. On ne dit jamais e@touj prw<tou, deute<rou . . .

e]pi> tino<j, en parlant d'un roi, mais bien e@touj. . . tino<j ou th?j

basilei<aj tino<j. Cette locution serait donc sans exemple:" the

difficulty in question may be formulated in these words of

¹ See O. F. Fritzsche, HApAT. v. (1859), p. xiii.

² Schurer, ii., p. 595 (=³ iii., p. 159). [Eng. Trans., ii., iii., p. 26.)

³ Cf. HApAT. v. (1859), p. xv.

339
340 BIBLE STUDIES. [256

Letronne,¹ written in reference to a passage in the Inscrip-

tion of Rosetta to be noticed presently.

The difficulty, nevertheless, can be removed. But

certainly not by simply referring, as does 0. F. Fritzsche,²

to the passages LXX Hagg. 1 ¹, 2¹, Zech. 1⁷, 7 ¹, 1 Macc.

13 ⁴², 14 ²⁷, to which may be added LXX Zech. 1¹, for, all

these passages being translations of Semitic originals, the e]pi<,

might be a mere imitation of l;, and would thus yield nothing

decisive for the idiom of the Prologue to Sirach, which was in

Greek from the first. The following passages seem to the

present writer to be of much greater force. In an Inscription

from the Acropolis,³ as old as the 3rd cent. B.C., we find in

line 24f. the words i[ereu>j geno<menoj e]n t& ? e]pi> Lusia<dou a@rxontoj

e]niaut&?. Still more significant for the passage in Sirach

are the following parallels of Egyptian origin. The Inscrip-

tion of the Rosetta Stone (27th March, 196 B.C.), line 16,⁴

runs thus: prose<tacen [Ptolemy V. Epiphanes] de> kai>

peri> tw?n i[ere<wn, o!pwj mhqe>n plei?on didw?sin ei]j to> telestiko>n

ou$ e]ta<ssonto e!wj tou? prw<tou e@touj e]pi> tou? patro>j au]tou?

[Ptolemy IV. Philopator]. Though Letronne, in view of

the alleged want of precedent for this usage of tries

a different interpretation, he is yet forced to acknowledge

that, if we translate the concluding words by until the first

year [of the reign] of his father, the whole sentence is made

to fit most appropriately into the context;⁶ the priests, who

are hardly inclined to speak of the merits of Epiphanes for

nothing, would be again but manifesting their ability to

do obeisance to him, and, at the same time, to extol the

memory of his father. Had Letronne known the example

¹ Recueil, i. (1842), p. 277. ² P. xiii.

³ Bulletin de corr. hell., i. (1877), p. 36 f.

⁴ In Letronne, Recueil, i., p. 246 = CIG. iii., No. 4697. Lumbroso,

Recherches, p. xxi., has already referred to this.

⁵ See his words as cited above. J. Franz, in CIG. iii., p. 338, agrees

with Letronne, and refers to line 29 of the Inscription. But the present

writer is again unable to see how the words occurring there, viz., e[wj tou ?

o]gdo<ou e@touj, can signify the years of the priests' service.

⁶ The author thinks that the explanation given by Letronne (year of

their priesthood) is somewhat forced.

257, 258] EDICT AGAINST EGYPTIAN JEWS. 341

from the Prologue to Sirach, perhaps he would have decided

for this way of taking e]pi<, which so admirably suits the

context. The two passages mutually support one another.

But the usage of e]pi< is further confirmed by other passages

of Egyptian origin. In Pap. Par. 151 (120 B.C.) two ai]gu<p-

tiai suggrafai< are mentioned, which are dated as follows:

mia?j me>n gegonui<aj [tou ? IH < e@touj pax]w>n e]pi> tou ? Filomh<-

toroj, the one of Pachon (Egyptian month) of the 18th

year (of the reign) of Philometor; e[te<raj de> gegonui<aj tou ? LE <

mesorh> e]pi> tou? au]tou? basile<wj, the other of Mesore [Egyptian

month] (of the year) 35 (of the reign) of the same king. Finally,

Pap. Par. 5 ² begins thus: basileuo<ntwn Kleopa<traj kai>

Ptolemai<ou qew?n Filomhto<rwn Swth<rwn e@touj D < e]f ] i[ere<wj

basileu<wj Ptolemai<ou qeou? Filmh<toroj Swth?roj ]Aleca<ndrou

kai> qew?n Swth<rwn, ktl. If the interpretation advocated by

Brunet against Brugsch,³ viz., under King Ptolemy . . . . , the

priest of Alexander [the Great] and of the gods be correct,

then this passage also must be taken into consideration.

The pleonastic e]pi< of the Prologue to Sirach is thus sup-

ported by several authorities of about the same date and

place. Hence also, in the light of this result, the passages

from the Greek Bible, cited above, acquire a new signi-

ficance. The pleonastic girl found in these is not to be

explained by that excessive scrupulosity of the translators

which manifests itself elsewhere; in point of fact, their

desire to translate literally was assisted by a peculiar idiom

of their locality, and hence we have a translation which

is at once literal and accurate.

2. THE SUPPOSED EDICT OF PTOLEMY IV. PHILO-

PATOR AGAINST THE EGYPTIAN JEWS.

In 3 Macc. 3 ^{11 ff.} is quoted a decree of Ptolemy IV.

Philopator against the Egyptian Jews, according to which a

reward is promised to every one who informs against a Jew.

In our editions the Greek text of verse²⁸ runs thus: mhnu<ein

¹ Notices, xviii. 2, p. 220 f. ² Ibid., p. 130.

³ Ibid., p. 153. Brugsch translates thus: under the priest of "the" king

Ptolemy. . . .

342 BIBLE STUDIES. [258

de> to>n boulo<menon e]f ] &$ th>n ou]si<an tou? e]mpi<ptontoj u[po> th>n

eu@qunan lh<yetai kai> e]k tou? basilikou? a]rguri<ou draxma>j

disxili<aj kai> th?j e]leuqeri<aj teu<cetai kai> stefanwqh<setai.

Grimm¹ explains the ungrammatical (constructionslos) accusa-

tive at the beginning of the verse as an anacoluthon,—as if

the writer had in his mind some such construction as ei]j th>n

e]leuqeri<an a]fairhso<meqa. In that case we translate as fol-

lows: him, however, who is willing to inform against a Jew—he

shall receive, in addition to the property of him upon whom the

punishment falls, two thousand silver drachmae from the royal

treasury, shall obtain his freedom, and shall be crowned with a

garland. A most extraordinary proclamation,—extraordinary

even for the third Book of Maccabees, which is by no means

wanting in extraordinary things. "It cannot but seem

strange that slaves only are invited to become informers,

and that this fact is announced quite indirectly, and, what is

more, only at the end of the statement."² But even this

invitation, which, in the circumstances related in the book,

is by no means impossible, does not appear so strange to

the present writer as the proffered reward, which, in con-

sideration of the great ease with which an information

might be lodged against any individual Jew among so many,³

is hardly less than horrifying: not so much, indeed, the

monetary reward, as the declaration that the slave who

acted as informer was to receive not only his freedom, but

also the honour which was the special prerogative of dis-

tinguished men, viz., the being crowned with a garland.

The passage thus awakes suspicion of its being corrupt, and,

as a matter of fact, the Alexandrinus, as well as other

manuscripts, omits teu<cetai kai>, and reads thus: kai> th>j

e]leuqeri<aj stefanwqh<setai. But nothing is really gained

thereby, for this reading, as such, gives no sense—though,

indeed, its very unintelligibility makes it probable that it

represents the older, though already corrupt, form of the

¹ HApAT. iv. (1857), p. 249. ² Grimm, ibid.

³ According to 4²⁰, the number of the Jews was so enormous that, when

their names were being entered in the lists before their execution, pens and

papyrus ran short!

259] EDICT AGAINST EGYPTIAN JEWS. 343

text, by which the received reading can be explained as

being an attempt to make the statement more plausible.

Hence Grimm gives it the preference, and "cannot hesitate

for a moment" to accept the emendation of Grotius, viz.,

kai> toi?j ]Eleuqeri<oij stefanwqh<setai, i.e., and he shall be

crowned at the feast of the Eleutheria. The alteration is

certainly not extensive, and the conjecture has at all events

the advantage of explaining away the invitation to the

slaves, which seems so offensive to its proposer. Neverthe-

less, 0. F. Fritzsche¹ hesitates to accept it, and, as we

think, not without good reason. We know nothing of

any feast of the Eleutheria as a custom in Egypt under

the Ptolemies, and it is extremely precarious to take refuge

in a conjecture which, by introducing an entirely new

historical consideration, would give the text such a very

special meaning.

The author believes that the following facts from

Egyptian sources contribute something towards the elucida-

tion of the verse.

In the first place, for the supposed "construction-less"

accusative mhnu<ein de> to>n boulo<menon, reference might have

been made to the similar, apparently absolute, infinitive at

the end of the edict of Ptolemy II. Philadelphus which is

given in the Epistle of Aristeas (ed. M. Schmidt), p. 17 f.,

viz., to>n de> boulo<menon prosagge<llein peri> tw?n a]peiqhsa<ntwn

e]pi> tou? fane<ntoj e]no<xou th>n kuri<an e!cein (p. 18 7f.); as a matter

of fact, e!cein depends upon the technical dieilh<famen of the

previous sentence. Similarly we might construe the mhnu<ein

de> to>n boulo<menon with the dieilh<famen of verse²⁶. We

cannot but perceive that there is on the whole a certain

similarity between the official formulae of the two edicts,

and it seems very natural to suppose that, even if both

are spurious, yet in form they fully represent the official

style of the Ptolemaic period. In fact, a comparison of

this Maccabean passage with Pap. Par. 10 ² (145 B.C.)—a

¹ In a critical note upon the text of the passage in his edition of the

Old Testament Apocrypha.

² Notices, xviii. 2, p. 178 f.

344 BIBLE STUDIES. [260

warrant for the apprehension of two runaway slaves—raises

the supposition to a certainty. The warrant first gives an

exact description of each fugitive, and then sets forth a

reward for their recapture, or for information concerning

their whereabouts. When we place the two passages in

parallel columns as below, we see at once the remarkable

similarity between the formula employed in each ; be it

noted that the Maccabean passage has been correctly

punctuated.

3 Macc. 3 28. Pap. Par. 10.

mhnu<ein de> to>n bou- tou?ton o{j a}n a]naga<g^

lo<menon, e]f ] &$ th>n ou]si<an lh<yetai xalkou ? ta<lanta

tou ? e]mpi<ptontoj u[po> th>n eu@- du<o trisxili<aj (draxma<j)

qunan lh<yetai kai> e]k tou? . . . .mhnu<ein de> to>n bou-

basilikou? a]rguri<ou draxma>j lo<menon toi?j para> tou? stra-

disxili<aj [Codd. 19, 64, 93, thgou?.

Syr.: trisxili<aj].

In reference to the absolute mhnu<ein de> to>n boulo<menon

of the Papyrus, the French editor¹ remarks that the in-

finitive does duty for the imperative, as in similar formula

generally. It would perhaps be more accurate, especially

as the imperative infinitive is itself to be explained as a

breviloquence, to make the infinitive depend upon a verb

of command which the edict tacitly presupposes.' We must,

in any case, reject the hypothesis of an anacoluthon in the

Maccabean passage; it would destroy the impression given by

the peculiarly official style of the edict. The words mhnu<ein

de> to>n boulo<menon are a complete sentence in themselves:

he shall inform, who so desires. Hence the comparison in-

stituted above is not without interest for the criticism of

¹ Notices, xviii. 2, p. 203.

² Cf. dieilh<famen in the other two edicts. The official language of the

Ptolemaic period may depend here also (ante, p. 104 ff.) on the usage of

Greek jurisprudence. The identical usage of the infinitive is found in an

Inscription on a building in Tegea (ca. 3rd cent. B.C., Arcadian dialect), line

24f.: i[mfai?nen de> to>m bolo<menon e]pi> toi? h[mi<ssoi ta?j zami<au (edited by P. Cauer;

see p. 114, note 2, above). These examples of the absolute infinitive in

edicts might be largely supplemented from Inscriptions.

261] EDICT AGAINST EGYPTIAN JEWS. 345

the third Book of Maccabees; while, conversely, it may be

maintained that the Ptolemaic edicts in Jewish-Alexandrian

literature, even if they were each and all spurious, and were

without value as sources for the facts, are yet of great

historical importance, in so far, that is,¹ as they faithfully

represent the forms of official intercourse.

What, then, shall we say of the "extraordinary" pro-

clamation at the end of v. ²⁸? There is no necessity what-

ever that we should connect the passage itself (according to

the ordinary reading) with slaves; the present writer is

surprised that Grimm did not perceive the much more

obvious explanation, viz., that the invitation is really

directed to the Jews. The edict threatened their freedom

and their lives, as may not only be inferred from the circum-

stances of the case, but as is also confirmed by the expression

of their feelings once the danger had been happily averted:

they felt that they were a]sinei?j, e]leu<qeroi, u[perxarei?j.²

Hence when those who appeared as king's evidence against

their proscribed brethren were thereby promised the freedom

which was otherwise in danger, the bargain was an exceed-

ingly tempting one. It is, finally, quite unnecessary to speak

of a crowning of the informer. Assuming that the reading of

the Alexandrinus, kai> th?j e]leuqeri<aj stefanwqh<setai, is the

older—though itself a corrupt—form of the text, the author

would propose to make a trivial alteration, and read kai> t^?

e]leuqeri<% stefanwqh<setai.³ The verb stefano<w has not

infrequently the general meaning reward,⁴ and this is what

it means here.

¹ To say nothing of their value as indicating the wishes and ideas of

the waiters of them.

² 3 Macc. 7 ²⁰.

³ In t^? e]leuqeri<% stefanwqh<setai, e]leuqeri<aj might very easily arise from

dittography, and this error, again, might result in th?j e]leuqeri<aj.

⁴ Brunet de Presle, Notices, xviii. 2, p. 303; he refers, inter alia, to

Polyb. xiii. 95, e]stefa<nwsan to>n ]Anti<oxon pentakosi<oij a]rguri<ou tala<ntoij, and to

the use of stefa<nion for reward in Pap. Par. 42 (153 B.C.); on this cf. the

Thesaurus, and Lumbroso, Recherches, p. 285.—In reference to the whole

subject see now E. Ziebarth, Popularklagen mit Delatorenpramien nach

griechischem Recht, in Hermes, xxxii. (1897), pp. 609-628.

346 BIBLE STUDIES. [262

3. THE "LARGE LETTERS" AND THE "MARKS OF

JESUS" IN GAL. 6.

Paul began his preaching of the gospel to the Gala-

tians in most promising circumstances; they received the

invalid traveller as a messenger of God, yea, as if it had

been the Saviour himself who sank down upon their thres-

hold under the burden of the cross. Whereas others might

have turned from Paul with loathing, they came to him,

aye, and would have given away their eyes if by so doing

they could have helped him. And then with childlike piety

they gazed upon the majestic Form which the stranger

pictured to them. Ever afterwards they were his children;

and like a father's, indeed, are the thoughts which, across

land and sea, bind him to the far-off churches of Galatia.

True, he knows that they had forsaken their native idols

with the zeal of the newly-awakened, but he also knows that

they had not followed up this advance by full realisation

of the sacred fellowship in which the majesty of the living

Christ ever anew assumes human form. The confession

regarding his own life in Christ, which Paul, on the very

eve of his martyrdom, made to his dearest friends, had been

confirmed in his own mind by the painful yet joyful experi-

ence of his long apostolic labours among the churches; Not

as though I had already attained! So then, as he left these

infant churches in Asia Minor, his heart, full of love and

gratitude, would yet have some foreboding of the dangers

which their isolation might bring about; we cannot imagine

that he was one to think, with the blind affection of a father,

that the newly-awakened had no further need of tutors and

governors. Nay, but rather that, as he prayed to the Father

on their behalf, his remembrance of them would be all the

more fervent.

With their good-natured Gallic flightiness of disposition,

these young Christians, left to themselves, succumbed to the

wiles of their tempters. Paul was compelled to recognise

that here too, the wicked enemy, who was always sowing

tares among his wheat, did not labour in vain. In their

263] "LARGE LETTERS" AND "MARKS OF JESUS". 347

simple-hearted ignorance the Galatians had allowed them-

selves to be bewitched by the word of the Law, and, in

course of time, their idea of the man whom they had once

honoured as their father in Christ became somewhat dis-

torted in the light which streamed from national and

theological animosity.

How shall we figure to ourselves the feelings of the

Apostle as the news of this reached his ears? If we would

understand not only the words, but, so to speak, also the

spirit, of the Letter to the Galatians, we must, above

all, endeavour to bring home to our minds the movements

of this marvellous human soul. The keen biting polemic

of the missive gives us to know exactly how Paul judged

of the legal particularism of his opponents; it was the

salutary indignation of the reformer that guided his pen

here. But we dare not assume that he meted out the

same measure to the tempted as to their tempters. The

bitter incisiveness with which he speaks of these churches

does not proceed from the self-willed sullenness of the mis-

interpreted benefactor who is pleased to pose as a martyr:

it is rather the lament of the father who, in the unfilial

conduct of his son, sees but the evil which the wrong-doer

brings upon himself. The harsh and formal speech of the

first page or two of the letter is that of the paidagwgo>j ei]j

Xristo<n. But he speaks thus only incidentally; once he

has risen above the warfare of embittering words to the

praise of the faith in Christ which may again be theirs,

the warm feelings of the old intimacy will no longer be

subdued, and the man who a moment before had feared

that his labour among these foolish ones had been in vain,

changes his tone and speaks as if he were addressing the

Philippians or his friend Philemon.

As in his other letters, so in this does Paul add to the

words he had dictated to his amanuensis a postscript in his

own handwriting. More attention ought to be paid to the

concluding words of the letters generally; they are of the

highest importance if we are ever to understand the Apostle.

The conclusion of the Letter to the Galatians is certainly a

348 BIBLE STUDIES. [264

very remarkable one. Once again, in short and clear anti-

theses, the Law and Christ are set over against each other;

and, moreover, the fact that it is only his opponents whom

he now treats severely, fully consorts with the mood of

reconciliation with the church, to which, in course of writing,

he had been brought. The letter does not close with com-

plaints against the Galatians; and in view of the occasion

of the letter, this must be taken as signifying very much the

same as what can be observed in the conclusion of other

letters called forth by opposition, viz., the express indication

of the cordiality that subsisted between the writer and the

readers. Paul has again attained to perfect peace—so far,

at least, as concerns his Galatian brethren; and we are of

opinion that in this placid frame of mind lies the explanation

of the much-discussed words at the beginning of the auto-

graph conclusion: See with how large letters I write unto you

with mine own hand. The true mode of interpreting these

words is to take them as a piece of amiable irony, from which

the readers might clearly realise that it was no rigorous

pedagogue that was addressing them. The amanuensis,

whose swift pen was scarcely able to record the eloquent

flow of Paul's dictation upon the coarse papyrus leaves, had

a minute commonplace handwriting. Between his fluent

hand and that of Paul there was a pronounced difference¹-

not only in the Letter to the Galatians. Surely it is hardly

quite accurate to say that Paul used large letters in the

present isolated instance for the purpose of marking the

importance of the words to follow. The large letters naturally

suggest that the explanation rather lies in the formal and

external matter of caligraphy, and the fact that Paul calls

special attention to them can only be explained, as we

think, on the theory indicated above. Large letters are

calculated to make an impression on children; and it is as

his own dear foolish children that he treats the Galatians,

playfully trusting that surely the large letters will touch

their hearts. When Paul condescended to speak in such a

¹ See the remarks of Mahaffy, i., p. 48.

265] "THE MARKS OF JESUS." 349

way, the Galatians knew that the last shadows of castigatory

sternness had died from his countenance. The real stern-

ness of the letter was by no means obliterated thereby; but

the feeling of coolness that might have remained behind was

now happily wiped away by Paul's thrice-welcome good-

natured irony, and the readers were now all the more ready

to receive the final message that still lay on his heart.

The closing words present no difficulty in themselves.

It is only the last sentence but one¹--one of the strangest

utterances of Paul—which is somewhat enigmatical. Tou?

loipou?² ko<pouj moi mhdei>j parexe<tw : e]gw> ga>r ta> sti<gmata

tou? ]Ihsou? e]n t&? sw<mati< mou basta<zw, henceforth let no man

trouble me, for I bear in my body (R.V. branded on my body) the

marks of Jesus. Two questions arise here: first, what does

Paul mean by the marks of Jesus? and, secondly, to what

extent does he base the warning, that no one shall trouble

him, upon his bearing of these marks?

"sti<gmata . . . are signs, usually letters of the alphabet

(Lev. 19 ²⁸), which were made upon the body (especially on

the forehead and the hands) by branding or puncturing,—

on slaves as a symbol of their masters, on soldiers as a

symbol of their leaders, on criminals as a symbol of their

crime, and also, among some oriental peoples, as a symbol

of the deity they served (3 Macc. 2 ²⁹, . . )."³ Hence an

ancient reader would know perfectly well what these stig-

mata were, but the very variety of their possible application

renders less evident the special reference in the case before

us. In any case, it seems to us quite evident that Paul is

speaking metaphorically; is alluding, in fact, to the scars

of the wounds he had received in his apostolic labours,⁴

and not to actual, artificially-produced sti<gmata. Sieffert

decides in favour of the hypothesis that Paul's intention

was to describe himself as the slave of Christ; but in that

case, how can the ga<r possibly be explained? We feel,

in fact, that the ga<r is of itself sufficient to invalidate

the hypothesis. Had Paul said the exact contrary; had

¹ Gal. 6 ¹⁷. ² For tou? loipou??; cf. W. Schmid, Der Atticismus, iii., p. 135,

³ F. Sieffert, Meyer, vii. 7 (1886), p. 375. ⁴ 2 Cor. 11. ⁵ P. 376.

350 BIBLE STUDIES. [266

he said, for instance, Henceforth go on troubling me as you

will,¹—then the ga<r would have admirably fitted the con-

text; that is, Paul might have gone on to say, with

proud resignation, I am accustomed to that, for I am naught

but a despised slave of Jesus Christ.

No one will seriously contend that Paul wished to com-

pare himself with a branded criminal; and the reference to

the tattooing of soldiers would seem equally far-fetched.

The ga<r sneaks against the latter explanation quite as

forcibly as against the hypothesis of slave-marks; for the

miles christianus does not quench the fiery darts of the Evil

One by striking a treaty, but by going forth to active warfare,

armed with the shield of faith.

The explanation of Wetstein² still seems to us to

be the best; according to this, Paul means sacred signs,

in virtue of which he is declared to be one consecrated to

Christ, one therefore whom no Christian dare molest. But

Wetstein, too, fails adequately to show the causal relation

between the two clauses, and as little does he justify

the unquestionably strange periphrasis here used to express

metaphorically the idea of belonging to Christ.³

Provisionally accepting, however, this theory of the

sti<gmata, we might represent the causal relation somewhat

as follows: Anyone who bears the marks of Jesus is His

disciple, and, as such, is under His protection; hence any-

one who offends against Paul lays himself open to the

punishment of a stronger Power. We should thus be led to

look upon the sti<gmata as sacred protective-marks, and to

interpret our passage in connection with certain lines of

thought to which B. Stade has recently called attention.⁴

Already in the Old Testament, according to him, we find not

¹ Cf. J. J. Wetstein, Novum Testamentum Graecum, ii., Amsterdam,

1752, p. 238 f.: "Notae enim serviles potius invitabant aliorum conturneliam".

² P. 238: "Sacras notas intelligit Paulus; se sacrum esse, cui ideo nemo

eorum, qui Christum amant, molestus esse debeat, profltetur".

³ Besides, Paul does not speak of the marks of Christ at all; he uses

the name Jesus, otherwise rare in his writings.

⁴ Beitrage zur Pentateuchkritik, ZAW. xiv. (1894), p. 250 ff.

267] "THE MARKS OF JESUS." 351

a few indications of such protective-marks. He explains

the mark of Cain as such, but, even apart from this,

reference may be made to Is. 44 ^{5 1} and Ezek. 9;² in the

latter passage we read that, before the angels bring ruin

upon Jerusalem and destroy its inhabitants, one of them

sets a mark upon the forehead of all those who mourn for

the abominations practised in the city; these are spared by

the destroying angels.³ In Lev. 19 ^{27 f.}, ⁴ 21^{5 f.} Deut. 14^1f.,

there is likewise implied an acquaintance with sacred signs

by which the bearer indicates that he belongs to a certain

deity: were the Israelites to permit of the sign of another

god among them, they would thereby rupture their special

relation to Jahweh as being His people. Circumcision, too,

may be looked upon as a mark of Jahweh.⁵ The following

passages, belonging to a later time, may be mentioned:⁶

Psal. Sol. 15 ⁸ o!ti to> shmei?on tou? qeou? e]pi> dikai<ouj ei]j

swthri<an, cf. v. ¹⁰, where it is said of the poiou?ntej a]nomi<an

that they have to> shmei?on th?j a]pwlei<aj e]pi> tou? metw<pou

au]tw?n; according to 3 Macc. 2 ²⁹ the Alexandrian Jews were

compelled by Ptolemy IV. Philopator to have branded upon

them an ivy leaf, the sign of Dionysos, the king himself

being similarly marked;⁷ Philo, de Monarchia (M.), p. 220 f.,

reproaches the Jewish apostates for allowing themselves to

be branded with the signs of idols made with hands (e@nioi de>

tosau<t^ ke<xrhntai mani<aj u[perbolh^?, w!st ] . . . i!entai pro>j

doulei<an tw?n xeirokmh<twn gra<mmasin au]th>n o[mologou?ntej . . . .

e]n toi?j sw<masi katasti<zontej au]th>n sidh<r& pepurwme<n&

pro>j a]neca<leipton diamonh<n: ou]de> ga>r xro<n& tau?ta a]maurou?n-

¹ kai> e!teroj e]pigra<yei xeiri> au]tou? : tou? qeou? ei]mi; see the remarks upon 1

Kings 20 ^35ff., and Zech. 13 ⁶ in Stade, p. 313, also p. 314 ff.

² Stade, p. 301.

³ Stade also draws attention to the protective-marks of the Passover

night; as these, however, were not made upon the body, they come less into

consideration here. But note that in Exod. 13 ^{9. 16} feast of the Passover

is compared to a sign upon the hand and upon the forehead.

⁴ Note that the LXX has gra<mmata stikta< here.

⁵ Gen. 17¹¹, Rom. 4¹¹; cf. on this point Stade, p. 308.

⁶ Cf., most recently, Stade, pp. 301, 303 ff.

⁷ Etymologiculn Magnum, sub Ga<lloj.

352 BIBLE STUDIES. [268

tai); and similarly the worshippers of the beast in Revela-

tion bear the name or the number of the beast as a xa<ragma

on the forehead or on the right hand,¹ while the faithful are

marked with the name of the Lamb and of the living God.²

Finally—a fact which is specially instructive in regard to the

significance of protective-marks in Greek Judaism—the The-

phillin, prayer-fillets, were regarded as protective-marks, and

were designated fulakth<ria, the technical term for amulets.

These various data are sufficient, in our opinion, to justify

us in supposing that the Apostle might quite easily charac-

terise his scars metaphorically as protective-marks.³

In confirmation of this supposition we feel that we

must draw attention to a certain Papyrus passage, which

seems to grow in significance the longer we contemplate it,

and which, moreover, may even merit the attention of those

who cannot at once accept the conclusions here drawn from

it, as we think, with some degree of justification.

It is found in the bilingual (Demotic and Greek)

Papyrus J. 383 (Papyrus Anastasy 65) of the Leiden

Museum. C. J. C. Reuvens⁴ was the first to call attention

to it, assigning it to the first half of the 3rd cent. A.D.⁵

Then it was published in fac-simile⁶ and discussed⁷ by C.

¹ Rev. 13 ^16f., 14 ^{9 ff.}, 16 ², 19 ²⁵, 20 ⁴. See ante, p. 240 ff.

² Rev. 14¹, 7 2 ff., 9 4. On the meaning of signs in the Christian Church,

see the suggestions of Stade, p. 304 ff.

³ We think it probable that the expression forms an antithesis to the

previously mentioned circumcision (cf. Rom. 4¹¹ shmei?on peritomh?j) and that

emphasis is to be laid upon tou? ]Ihsou?.

⁴ Lettres ci, M. Letronne . . . sur les papyrus bilingues et grecs . . . du

musee d'antiquites de l'universite de Leide, Leiden, 1880, i., pp. 3 ff., 36 ff.

In the Atlas belonging to this work, Table A, some words from the passage

under discussion are given in fac-simile.

⁵ Appendice (to the work just cited), p. 151.

⁶ Papyrus egyptien demotique a transcriptions grecques du musee d'an-

tiquites des Pays-Bas a Leide (description raisonnee, J. 383), Leiden, 1839.

Our passage is found in Table IV., col. VIII. ; in the tables the Papyrus is

signed A. [= Anastasy?] No. 65.

⁷ Monumens egyptiens du musee d'antiquites des Pays-Bas a Leide,

Leiden, 1839.

269] “THE MARKS OF JESUS.” 353

Leemans, the director of the museum, who has lately again¹

indicated his agreement with Reuvens' date. H. Brugsch²

has expressly emphasised the great importance of the

Papyrus for the study of the Demotic, and has made most

exhaustive use of it in his Demotic Grammar.³ He follows

Reu-vens and Leemans in describing it as Gnostic—a term

that may either mean much or little. The passage in

question has been recently discussed more or less elaborately

by E. Revillout,⁴ G. Maspero⁵ and C. Wessely.⁶

It is found in the Demotic text of this "Gnostic"

Papyrus,⁷ which belongs to that literature of magic which

has been handed down to us in extensive fragments, and

recently brought to light. To judge from the fac-similes,

its decipherment is quite easy—so far, at least, as it affects

us here. First of all, the text, as we read it, is given, the

various readings of Reuvens (Rs), Leemans (L), Brugsch

(B), Maspero (M), Revillout (Rt) and Wessely (W) being

also indicated.

It is introduced by a sentence in the Demotic which

Revillout translates as follows: "Pour parvenir a e'tre aime de

quelqu'un qui lutte contre toi et ne veut pas to parler (dire):"

¹ Papyri graeci musei antiquarii publici Lugduni-Batavi, ii., Leiden,

1885, p. 5.

² Uber das agyptische Museum zu Leyden, in the Zeitschr. der Deutschen

morgenlandischen Gesellschaft, vi. (1852), p. 250 f.

³ Grammaire demotique, Berlin, 1855. A fac-simile of our passage is

found on Table IX. of that book, a transcription on p. 202.

⁴ Les arts egyptiens, in the Revue egyptologique, i. (1880), p. 164; cf. the

same author's discussion of the Papyrus, ibid., ii. (1881-1882), p. 10 ff. His

book, Le Roman de Setna, Paris, 1877, was not accessible to the present

writer.

⁵ Collections du Musee Alaoui, premiere serie, 5^e livraison, Paris, 1890,

p. 66 f.; see the same author's discussion of the Papyrus in his Etudes

demotiques, in the Recueil de travaux relatifs á, la philologie et a l'archeologie

egyptiennes et assyriennes, i. (1870), p. 19 ff. A study by Birch mentioned

there is unknown to the present writer. Our passage is found on p. 30 f.

⁶ Mittheilungen aus der Saminlung der Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer, v.

(Vienna, 1892), p. 13 f.

⁷ This Papyrus contains another and longer Greek incantation, most

recently read and discussed by Revillout, Rev. eg., (1880), p. 166 f.

354 BIBLE STUDIES. [270

In the original the spell occupies three and a half lines.

A rent runs down the Papyrus column, nearly in the middle;

the number of the missing letters is indicated in the tran-

script by dots, the ends of the original lines by |.

MHMEDIWKEODE ANOX

PAPIPET. . METOUBANES

BASTAZW THNTAFHN

TOUOSIREWSKAIUPAGW

5 KATA . . HSAIAUTHNE S

ABIDOS|KATASTHSAIEIS

TASTASKAIKATAQESQAI

EIS. . . XASEANMOIOD

KOPOUS|SPARASXH PROS

REYWAUTHNAUTW|

2 papipe . . . : Rs. papipe . . . ., L. papipet., B. papipet(ou), M.

Papipetu, Rt. Papepitou, W. papipetou| 4 osirewj: W. osiroij [!]

5 kata . . . hsai: Rs. pata(sth)sai, L. kata. . . hsai, B. M. Rt. kata-

sthsai, W. kata(sth)sai e j: Rs. B. M. Rt. eij, L. e. j | 7 tastaj:

Rs. taj taj, B. taj tafaj, W. taj taj^sic | 8 ... xaj: Rs. (m)axaj,

L. axaj, M. alxaj, W. . . axaj | D: B. M. Rt. interpret as deina,

W. d(e) i(na)| 9 reyw: B. M. Rt. treyw, W. ferw |

The editors differ from one another principally in their

reproduction (or restoration) of the non-Greek words in the

text. As these are irrelevant to our present purpose, we

shall not further pursue the subject, feeling constrained to

follow Maspero in reading thus:—

Mh< me di<wke o!de: anox

papipet[ou] metoubanej:

basta<zw th>n tafh>n

tou? ]Osi<rewj kai> u[pa<gw

5 kata[st]h?sai au]th>n e(i]) j

@Abidoj, katasth?sai ei]j

tastaj kai> kataqe<sqai

ei]j [al]xaj: e]a<n moi o[ dei?na

ko<pouj para<sx^, pros-

10 (t)re<yw au]th>n au]t&?.

In the Papyrus a Demotic rendering of the incantation

follows the Greek text,—not literal, indeed, but showing,

271] "THE MARKS OF JESUS." 355

few variations. This Demotic version is thus rendered by

Revillout:¹

"Ne me persecute pas, une telle!—Je suis Papipetou Metou-

banes, je porte le sepulcre d' Osiris, je vais le transporter a Abydos; je

le ferai reposer dans les Alkah. Si une telle me resiste aujourd'hui,

je le renverserai.—Dire sept fois."

We perceive at once that we have here a formula of

adjuration. The following notes will help towards an under-

standing of the Greek text.

Line 1. The commentators take anox to be the Coptic

anok (cf. ykinoxA) I am. In the Greek books of magic we very

frequently find similar instances of the e]gw< ei]mi followed by

the divine name, by which the adjurer identifies himself with

the particular deity in order to invest his spell with special

efficacy, and to strike the demon with terror.

L. 2. We have not as yet discovered any satisfactory

etymological explanation of the words papipetou metoubanej;

Reuvens and Leemans give nothing more than conjectures.

It is sufficient for our purpose to remember that such foreign

words play a very great part in adjurations. Even if they

had originally any meaning at all, it is yet unlikely that those

who used the formula ever knew it; the more mysterious

the words of their spell sounded, the more efficacious did

they deem it.

L. 3. The editors translate th>n tafh>n tou? ]Osi<rewj as

the coffin, or the mummy, of Osiris. tafh< in this sense is of

frequent occurrence in the Papyri and elsewhere.² By this

tafh> tou? ]Osi<rewj we must understand a model of the coffin

or of the mummy of Osiris used as an amulet. The efficacy

¹ Cf. also the translation of Brugsch, Gramm. dem., p. 202.

² Notices, xviii. 2, pp. 234, 435 f. Wessely, Mitth. Rainer, v., p. 14,

explains that "tafh< here means mummy, as we learn in particular from the

language of the wooden tablets which were employed in the conveyance of

mummies as labels of recognition". See also Leemans, Monumens, p. 8.-

C. Schmidt, Ein altchristliches Muinienetikett in the Zeitschr. fur die

agyptische Sprache und Alterthumskuncle, xxxii. (1594), p. 55, says, "I am

of opinion that in Roman times tafh< was understood as the ‘mummy' only".

356 BIBLE STUDIES. [272

of this amulet is explained by the Osiris myth.¹ The Osiris

of Graeco-Roman times was the god of the dead. His

corpse, dismembered by Typhon, was again put together

with the greatest difficulty by Isis; and it was ever after-

wards the most cherished task of Isis, Nephthys, Horus,

Anubis and Hermes, deities friendly to Osiris, to guard his

tomb, and to prevent the wicked Typhon from repeating

his mutilation of the divine body. The magicians took

advantage of this conflict among the gods in order to make

sure of the assistance of those who were friendly to Osiris.

They strove to get possession of the sacred coffin; they

carried it about with them—at least in effigie, as an amulet—

and they threatened to demolish it if their desires were

not fulfilled. Thus, according to Jamblichus,² the threats

to destroy the heavens, to reveal the mysteries of Isis, to divulge

the ineffable secret hidden in the depths, to stay the sacred sun-

barge, to gratify Typhon by scattering the limbs of Osiris belong

to the biastikai> a]peilai<, of the Egyptian magicians. The

adjuration under notice is an efficacious minatory formula of

this kind. It is directed to a demon, who is believed to

be the cause of the difficulties which, it is hoped, will be

eluded by its means;³ the possession of the tafh> tou? ]Osi<rewj

cannot but impress him, being a guarantee for the support

of the most powerful deities, seeing that it was to their own

best interests to be favourable to the possessor of the im-

perilled mummy. A quite similar menace, made by some

"obscure gentleman," is found in a recently-published

tabula devotionis⁴ from Adrumetum: if not, I shall go down

to the holy places of Osiris, and break his corpse in pieces, and

throw it into the river to be borne away.⁵

¹ In reference to what follows, see Maspero, Coll. Al., p. 66.

² De mysteriis, 6, (ed. G. Parthey, Berol., 1857, p. 245 f.): h} ga>r to>n

ou]rano>n prosara<cein h} ta> krupta> th?j @Isidoj e]kfanei?n h} to> e]n a]bu<ss& a]po<rrhton [for this we find, 6 7, p. 248, ta> e]n ]Abu<d& a]po<rrhta; cf. 1. 6 of our formula] dei<cein

h} sth<sein th>n ba<rin, h} ta> me<lh tou? ]Osi<ridoj diaskeda<sein t&? Tufw?ni.

³ Reuvens, i., p. 41. ⁴ See p. 279.

⁵ Collections du Musa Alaoui, prem. serie, 5^e livraison (1890), p. 60:

Si minus, descendo in adytus Osyris et dissolvam th>n tafh>n et mittam, ut a

flumine feratur. See Maspero's explanatory notes.

273] "THE MARKS OF JESUS." 357

L. 6. @Abidoj is the Egyptian Abydos. The town is

of great importance in the history of Osiris. It was looked

upon as the burial-place of the god, and its mysteries are

spoken of by several ancient writers.¹ The assertion of the

bearer of the amulet, viz., that he is about to convey the

mummy of Osiris to Abydos, seems to us to signify that he

wishes, by means of an act which exercises a secret influence

upon the friends of Osiris, to be all the more assured of their

favour, and all the more dangerous to the demon.

L. 7 and 8. tastaj and alxaj are the Greek transcrip-

tions of two Egyptian words which are rendered by Maspero²

as les retraites and les demeures eternelles respectively. They

help us to obtain a clearer understanding of the preceding

lines: the user of the spell, in thus reverently entombing the

body which Typhon had abused, lays the most powerful

deities under the highest obligation to himself.

L. 8. o[ dei?na is represented in the original by the

abbreviation D, which is frequently used in the Papyri in

the same way; when the formula prescribed in the book of

magic was actually used against some troublesome person,

this person's name was substituted for the o[ dei?na, just as

the name of the demon who was the cause of the ko<poi took

the place of the o!de in line 1. (U. von Wilamowitz-Moellen-

dorff informs the author by letter that he reads o[ de(i?na) also

in line 1 (not o!de), for which there is much to be said).

L. 9. pros(t)re<yw: the Papyrus distinctly shows

prosre<yw, i.e., the future of prosre<pw, to incline towards,

intransitive: here it would be transitive, for which usage

there is no authority.³ Hence prostre<yw⁴ would seem the

preferable reading. But the question is of no importance

for the sense of the concluding sentence; in either case, the

adjurer threatens to use his efficacious amulet against the

troubler.

¹ E.g., Epiphanius, Adv. Haer., iii. 2, p. 1093 D (Dindorf, vol. iii., p

571). See Reuvens, p. 41 ff. and Leemans, Monumens, p. 9.

² Coll. Al., p. 67. ³ Leemans, Monumens, p. 9.

⁴ Leemans, ibid., suggests prosri<yw.

358 BIBLE STUDIES. [274

The spell may accordingly be translated as follows:--

Persecute me not, thou there am PAPIPETOU METU-

BANES; I carry the corpse of Osiris and I go to convey it to

Abydos, to convey it to its resting-place, and to place it in the

everlasting chambers. Should any one trouble me, I shall use it

against him.

Now, differ as we may as to the meaning of the indi-

vidual details of this spell, and, in particular, as to the

allusions to Egyptian mythology, it is, after all, only the

essential meaning which concerns us here, and this meaning

the author holds to be established: the basta<zein of a par-

ticular amulet associated with a god acts as a charm against

the ko<pouj pare<xein on the part of an adversary.

Starting from this point, let us now seek to understand

the enigmatical words of the Apostle. One can hardly resist

the impression that the obscure metaphor all at once be-

comes more intelligible: Let no man venture ko<pouj pare<xein

for me, for in the basta<zein of the marks of Jesus I possess a

talisman against all such things. In this way the sense of the

ga<r, in particular, becomes perfectly clear. The words are

not directed against the Judaisers, but to the Galatians, and,

moreover, it seems probable that we must explain the threat

by the same temper of mind¹ to which we attributed the

sportive phrase about the large letters. Just as the Apostle,

with kindly menace, could ask the Corinthians, Shall I come

unto you with the rod?² so here, too, he smilingly holds up his

finger and says to his naughty but well-beloved children:

Do be sensible, do not imagine that you can hurt me—I am

protected by a charm.

We must confess that we do not feel that Paul, by this

mixture of earnest and amiable jest, lays himself open to

the charge of trifling. Only by a total misapprehension of

¹ We would not, however, attach any special importance to this. The

explanation given above is quite justifiable, even if Paul was speaking wholly

in earnest.

² 1 Cor. 4 ²¹; see p. 119 f.

275] "THE MARKS OF JESUS." 359

the actual letter-like character of his writings as they have

come down to us, could we expect that he should in them

assume the severe manner of the doctor gentium, who, caught

up into the third heaven, proclaims to mankind and to the

ages what eye hath never seen. Paul is no bloodless and

shadowy figure of a saint, but a man, a man of the olden

time. One in whose letters utterance is found for the rap-

tured glow of faith and for a sensitive and circumspect love,

for bitter feelings of scorn and relentless irony—why should

the winning kindliness of the jest be deemed alien to him?

He wishes to bring back the Galatians to the true way, but

perhaps feels that he, in treating as te<leioi those who are but

nh<pioi, has overshot the mark. So he withdraws, though as

regards the manner rather than the matter of his charges;

and who that has ever loved the Apostle could find fault?

Paul has taken care, in this passage, that his words shall

have no hackneyed ring; he does not use general terms

about the purposelessness of the attacks made on him, but

intimates that what preserves him are the protective-marks of

Jesus. Jesus guards him; Jesus restrains the troublers;

Jesus will say to them: ti< au]t&? ko<pouj pare<xete; kalo>n

e@rgon h]rga<sato e]n e]moi<.

We cannot, of course, go so far as to maintain that

Paul makes conscious allusion to the incantation of the

Papyrus; but it is not improbable that it, or one similar

to it, was known to him, even were it not the case that he

composed the Letter to the Galatians in the city of magicians

and sorcerers. The Papyrus dates from the time of Ter-

tullian; the incantation itself may be much older.¹ The

same Papyrus furnishes us with another incantation,² mani-

festly pervaded by Jewish ideas,—another proof of the

supposition that the Apostle may have been acquainted

with such forms of expression. Moreover, we learn even

from Christian sources that Paul on more than one

¹ See p. 323.

² It begins thus: e]pikalou?mai< se to>n t&? kene&? pneu<mati deino>n a]o<raton

pantokra<tora qeo>n qew?n fqoropoio>n kai> e]rhmopoio<n (Revue egyptologique, i., p. 168).

360 BIBLE STUDIES. [276, 277

occasion came into contact with magicians,¹ while he him-

self warns the Galatians against farmakei<a,² and reproaches

them for having suffered themselves to be bewitched:³ all

these things but serve as evidence for the fact that the sphere,

from which, haply, some light has been thrown upon the

obscure phrase about the marks of Jesus, was in no wise

outwith the circle of ideas in which the writer moved.⁴ Be

it at least conceded that our contention should not be

met by aesthetic or religious objections. We would not

maintain, of course, that the figure used by Paul can

be fitted into the formulas of dogmatic Christology; but in

its context it forms a perfectly definite and forcible metaphor.

And as for the possible religious objection, that Paul was

not the man to apply terms originating in the darkest

“heathenism" to facts distinctively Christian, it is a fair

counter-plea to ask whether it is an unchristian mode of

speech, at the present day, to use the verb charm (feien) in

a similar connection, or to extol the Cross as one's Talisman.

In the same manner does Paul speak of the wounds which

he had received in his apostolic work—and which in 2 Cor.

4¹⁰ he describes as the ne<krwsij tou? ]Ihsou?—as the marks

of Jesus, which protected him as by a charm.

4. A NOTE TO THE LITERARY HISTORY OF SECOND

PETER.

Graven upon the stones of a locality where we should

not expect it, we find a piece of evidence which, in any

treatment of the Second Epistle of Peter, deserves the

highest consideration. The beginning of this early Christian

booklet has many points in common with a decree of the

inhabitants of Stratonicea in Caria in honour of Zeus Pan-

hemerios and of Hekate, which, dating from the early im-

perial period, has been preserved in an Inscription. This

Inscription has already, in our investigation of the word

¹ Acts 13 and 19. ² Gal. 5²⁰. ³ Gal. 3¹.

⁴ The peculiarly emphatic e]gw< too, recalls the emphasis of certain

incantations; see p. 355 with reference to anok.

277, 278] A NOTE TO SECOND PETER 361

a]reth<, been laid under contribution,¹ and it will once again

engage our attention.² We begin here by giving the two

texts in parallel columns, duly marking the cognate elements

in each; be it observed that it is not only the unquestion-able similarities in expression and meaning which are thus

emphasised, but also certain—for the present let us call

them mechnanical—assonances between the two texts, the

calling of attention to which will be justified as we proceed.

in order to understand the Inscription, which, omitting the

introductory formula, we give in the original orthography,

let it be borne in mind that the infinitive sesw?sqai depends

upon an antecedent ei]po<ntoj.

Decree of Stratonicea. 2 Pet. 1 3ff.

. . . .th>n po<lin a@nwqen t^? tw?n w[j ta> pa<nta h[mi?n th?j

proestw<twn au]th?j megi<stwn qei<aj duna<mewj au]tou? ta> pro>j

qew?n [pronoi<% Dio>j P]anhme- zwh>n kai> eu]se<beian dedwrh-

[ri<ou kai> [E]ka<thj e]k pollw?n me<nhj dia> th?j e]pignw<sewj tou?

kai> mega<lwn kai> sunexw?n kin- kale<santoj h[ma?j i]di<% do<c^ kai>

du<nwn sesw?sqai, w$n kai> ta> a]ret^? di ] w$n ta> ti<mia h[mi?n kai>

i[era> a@sula kai> i[ke<tai kai> h[ me<gista e]pagge<lmata dedw<-

i[era> su<nklhtoj do<gmati Se- rhtai, i!na dia> tou<twn ge<nhsqe

[bastou? Kai<saroj e]pi>] th?j tw?n qei<aj koinwnoi> fu<sewj a]po-

kuri<wn [Rwmai<wn ai]wni<ou a]r- fugo<ntej th?j e]n t&? ko<sm& e]n

xh?j e]poih<santo profanei?j e]n- e]piqumi<% fqora?j, kai> au]to>

argei<aj: kalw?j de> e@xi pa?san tou?to de> spoudh>n pa?san par-

spoudh>n i]sfe<resqai i]j th>n eisene<gkantej e]pixorhgh<sate

pro>j [au]tou>j eu]se<b]eian kai> e]n t^? pi<stei u[mw?n th>n a]reth>n

mhde<na kairo>n paralipi?n tou? e]n de> t^? a]ret^? th>n gnw?sin e]n

eu]sebei?n kai> litaneu<in au]- de> t^? gnw<sei th>n e]gkra<teian

tou<j: kaqi<drutai de> a]ga<lmata e]n de> t^? e]gkratei<% th<n u[po-

e]n t&? sebast&? bouleuthri<& monh>n e]n de> t^? u[pomon^? th>n

tw?n proeirhme<nw[n qew?n e]pi- eu]se<beian e]n de> t^? eu]se-

fan]esta<taj pare<xonta th?j bei<% th>n filadelfi<an e]n de>

qei<aj duna<mewj a]reta<j, di ] a{j t^? filadelfi<% th>n a]ga<phn.

¹ See p. 95ff. The Inscription is given in CIG. ii., No. 2715 a. b-

Waddington, iii. 2, Nos. 519-520 (p. 142).

² P. 370.

362 BIBLE STUDIES. [278, 279

kai> to> su<npan plh?qoj qu<ei te . . . (V. 11): ou!twj ga>r

kai> e]piqumi%? kai> eu@xetai kai> plousi<wj e]pixorhghqh<setai

eu]xaristei? a][ei> toi?s]de toi?j u[mi?n h[ ei@sodoj ei]j th>n ai]w<nion

ou!twj e]pifanesta<toij qeoi?j basilei<an tou? kuri<ou h[mw?n kai>

ka]k th?j di ] u[mn&di<aj proso<dou swth?roj ]Ihsou? Xristou?.

tou>j [ei@qistai] : e@docet^? boul^?

ktl.

Let us allow these parallels to speak for themselves,

wholly ignoring the feelings of unpleasantness or, it may

be, of wonder which they may wake in the breasts of some.

The most important feature is manifestly this: that both

texts contain the expression h[ qei<a du<namij,¹ and in the same

case to boot. Now this is no trite expression; its occurrence

in the Inscription could not be ignored, even if there were

no further point of similarity with the Epistle. But the fact

that this solemn periphrasis of the term God is in both

passages connected with the word a]reth<, and further, that

it occurs in an altogether peculiar and unfamiliar sense,

lends a peculiar intrinsic importance to the external simi-

larity. Suppose for a moment that the th?j qei<aj duna<mewj

a]reta<j of the decree occurred somewhere in the LXX; there

would not, in that case, be the shadow of a doubt that the

Epistle had quoted it—dismembered, it might be—or at

all events had alluded to it. Nor can this analogy be set

aside by the objection that the use, by the author of the

Epistle, of an out-of-the-way Inscription, in a manner corre-

sponding to that of biblical quotation, is inconceivable—for

we have as yet said nothing as to our idea of the relation

between the two texts; the objection, in any case, would

be a pure petitio prineipii But further: it is an especially

significant, though apparently trivial, circumstance, that in

both texts a relative sentence beginning with dia<, follows

the a]reta<j (or a]ret^?); if on other grounds it seems probable

that the Inscription and the Epistle are so related that either

¹ In 2 Pet. 1³ the genitive th?j qei<aj duna<mewj is of course the subject of

the middle verb dedwrhme<nhj.

279, 280] A NOTE TO SECOND PETER. 363

presupposes a knowledge of the other, then we should have

here the recurrence of a phenomenon often observed in

parallel or internally-dependent texts, viz., that consciously

or unconsciously the dependent text has been so framed, by

means of a slight alteration,¹ as to obliterate the traces of its

origin.

We are of opinion that the parallels already indicated

are sufficiently evident. Should further instances be made

out, these will naturally gain a much stronger evidential

value from their connection with what has been already

pointed out. There is nothing remarkable in the mere fact

that the Inscription contains this or that word which occurs

in the Epistle. But what is significant, is that the same

definite number of what are, in part, very characteristic

expressions, is found in each of the two texts; and it is this

which renders improbable the hypothesis of mere accident.

Little value as we would place upon individual cases of

similarity, yet in their totality these strike us as very forcible.

Hence the connection also brings out the full importance of

the parallels h[ ai]w<nioj basilei<a tou? kuri<ou and h[ tw?n kuri<wn

ai]w<nioj a]rxh<, an importance which appears still more decided,

when we compare these parallels with, e.g., those (by no means

so striking) given by H. von Soden² in connection with the

Epistle ad loc., viz., Heb. 12²⁸ basilei<a a]sa<leutoj, and 2

Tim. 4 ¹⁸ basilei<a e]poura<nioj. In both of these passages the

only real parallel is the word basilei<a; but it was surely

unnecessary to seek references for that.³ The outstanding

feature of the phrase in the Epistle is the term ai]w<nioj,

applied to kingdom;⁴ hence, even if the Inscription joins this

term with what is only a synonym of basilei<a, the force of

¹ Note that the cases following dia< are different.

² HC. iii. 2 ² (1892), p. 199.

³ A real biblical parallel is LXX Dan. 3 ³³.

⁴ ai]w<nioj, of which the Inscriptions contain many examples, is, in titles

and solemn forms of expression, nearly similar in meaning to the Latin

perpetuus; a]i~dioj, in similar connections, appears to be a synonym. Refer-

ences in Bull. de corr. hell., xii. (1888), p. 196 f. Hence, when we find the

word in the Bible, we should not allow the presuppositions concerning an

alleged biblical Greek to induce us to interpret it mechanically in every case.

364 BIBLE STUDIES. [280, 281

our parallel is in no way lessened. Observe, moreover,

kuri<wn || kuri<ou. Then, again, the likeness of pa?san spoudh>n

ei]sfe<resqai in the Inscription to spoudh>n pa?san pareisene<g-

kantej in the Epistle, cannot fail to strike the eye. Even at

some risk of repetition, we cannot help remarking that this

expression would not of itself prove anything, for it is com-

mon in later Greek. It is only by a false method of pro-

cedure that M. Krenkel¹ reckons it among the assonances

which are thought to prove an alleged indebtedness to

Josephus on the part of the author of the Second Epistle of

Peter. But in the present case the phrase, connected as it is

with the other parallels, has a force at least equivalent to

that ascribed to the shorter spoudh>n pa?san² in connection

with our Epistle's numerous unquestionable plagiarisms from

the Epistle of Jude.³ The same will hold good, with more

or less force, of the eu]se<beia. The statistics of the word in

the biblical writings—if we may, for once, isolate the

concept "biblical Greek"—are very remarkable. Relatively

seldom,⁴ on the whole, as it occurs there, it is yet quite

frequently found in the Pastoral Epistles and the Second

Epistle of Peter; while the Acts of the Apostles also uses

eu]se<beia, eu]sebei?n, and eu]sebh<j.⁵ Now these words occur

frequently in the Inscriptions of Asia Minor: they appear to

have been familiar terms in the religious language of the

imperial period.

The more external resemblances between the two texts

have also been indicated; for, if the hypothesis of relation-

ship be valid, they cannot but prove to be of interest. In

connection with this very Epistle of Peter it has been

demonstrated that the writer of it not seldom depends upon

his assiduously-used model, the Epistle of Jude, in quite an

¹ Josephus and Lukas, Leipzig, 1894, p. 350. Krenkel refers to Jose-

phus, Antt. xx. 92; a more acute glance into Wetstein would have made him

more cautious.

² Cf. Jude ³. ³ See e.g., Julicher, Einleitung in das N.T., p. 151.

⁴ The same may be said of the adjective and the verb. The "Fourth

Book of Maccabees" forms an exception.

⁵ These words are not found elsewhere in the New Testament.

281, 282] A NOTE TO SECOND PETER. 365

external way. "Some peculiar expression, the purpose of

which is made plain only by the context in Jude, is retained,

or an expression is fabricated from reminiscences of the

purely local connection in that book. In 2 Pet. 2¹³, the

leading word suneuwxou<menoi is taken from Jude v.¹², and

yet its concrete relationship to the love-feasts has been allowed

to fall out, so that it is only the sound of the words which

influences the choice of the essentially different expressions

(a]pa<taij¹ instead of a]ga<paij, spi<loi instead of spila<dej)."²

Now, precisely as in regard to the formal assonances in the

very instructive example just given, viz.:—

Jude v. ¹²: 2 Pet. 2 ¹³

ou$toi< ei]sin oi[ e]n tai?j a]ga<- spi<loi³ kai> mw?moi e]ntru-

paij u[mw?n spila<dej, suneuw- fw?ntej e]n tai?j a]pa<taij au]-

xou<menoi a]fo<bwj tw?n suneuwxou<menoi u[mi?n

so might we perhaps judge of the instance a]ga<lmata-

e]pagge<lmata in the Decree and the Epistle respectively—

although the author would advance the point with all due

reserve. Shall we count it more probable that the epiqumia

of the one text has exercised an outward influence on the

syntactically and lexically different epiqumia of the other?

Once more, the use of the superlative me<gistoj in both pass-

ages cannot be ignored,—though, at first sight, such a state-

ment may seem strange; but its cogency will be more readily

perceived when it is remembered that the superlative of

me<gaj occurs nowhere else in "the" New Testament.⁴

¹ [But see Revisers' text.—Tn.].

² B. Weiss, Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das N.T., Berlin, 1886, p. 439.

³ For the accentuation see Winer-Schmiedel, § 6, 3 b (p. 68).

⁴ Further, in the whole range of "biblical" Greek (apart from 2nd, 3rd

and 4th Maccabees), me<gistoj occurs elsewhere (if we may depend upon

Tromm) only in Job 26³ and 31²⁸; moreover, the Alexandrinus reads mega<lh

for megi<sth in the latter passage. me<gistoj seems to he very rare also in the

Papyri of the Ptolemaic period. According to the indexes we have only the

idiomatic phrase o{ e]moi> me<giston e@stai, in Pap. Flind. Petr., ii., xiii. (19), ca.

255 B.C. (Mahafly, ii. [45]), and th?j megi<sthj qea?j {Hraj, Pap. Par., 15, 120

B.C. (Notices, xviii. 2, p. 219), as a solemn designation, most probably a

fixed form of expression, similar to that in our Inscription.

366 BIBLE STUDIES. [282, 283

Is it possible to hold that the similarities in the two

texts are merely accidental? We have again and again

pondered this question, but have always come to the con-

clusion that it must be answered in the negative. Doubt-

less, the deciding of such questions always implies a certain

inner susceptibility, and is thus subjective. But here, as

we judge, there are objective grounds to proceed upon. We

would endeavour, therefore, to define more precisely the very

general impression made by the two texts, by saying that

they must be inter-related in some way.

Now the Decree of Stratonicea is undoubtedly older

than the Second Epistle of Peter. From its contents, we

might infer its date to be previous to 22 A.D.; from its form,

somewhat later. But even if the Inscription were of later

date than the Epistle, it would be an improbable hypothesis

that the former was in its contents dependent upon the

latter. The dependence must rather be, if the relationship

is granted, on the side of the Epistle. Hence the general

statement made above may be specialised thus far: the

beginning of the Second Epistle of Peter must be in some

way dependent upon forms of expression occurring in the

Decree of Stratonicea.

We speak of the forms of expression of the Decree.

For it is not urgently necessary to assert a dependence

upon the Decree itself. Of course, it is certainly possible

that the writer of the Epistle may have read the Inscrip-

tion. Assuredly Paul is not the only Christian of the

century of the New Testament who read "heathen" inscrip-

tions, and reflected thereon. The inscriptions, official and

private, found in the streets and market-places, in temples

and upon tombs, would be the only reading of the great

majority of people who could read. Of what we call classical

literature, the greater number would hardly ever read any-

thing at all. The heads of the Christian brotherhoods who

were versed in literature were influenced, in respect of their

range both of words and thoughts, by their sacred books, but

manifestly also by the forms of expression common in their

locality. The present writer would count the expressions

283, 284] A NOTE TO SECOND PETER. 367

before us, found in the Inscription of Stratonicea, as belong-

ing to the solemn forms of the official liturgical language of

Asia Minor. From the nature of the case it seems certain

that they were not used for the first time in this Decree in

honour of Zeus Panhemerios and Hekate. Conceivable

though it be that the author of the Second Epistle of Peter

had adopted them directly from the Carian Inscription,¹ yet

we would confine ourselves to the more cautious conjecture

that the author of the Epistle, like the author of the Decree

before him, simply availed himself of the familiar forms and

formulm of religious emotion.² The mosaic-like character

of the writer's work, specially evident in his relation to the

Epistle of Jude, is illustrated once more by the facts just

adduced.

Should our conjecture hold good—particularly, of course,

if a direct dependence upon the Decree of Stratonicea could

be made probable—we should have a new factor for the

solution of the problem as to the origin of the Epistle.

Certainly the hypothesis of an Egyptian origin, which has

gained great favour in recent years, is not confirmed by the

local colouring, which belongs to Asia Minor; we would,

however, refrain meanwhile from categorically asserting

that it originated in Asia Minor,³ as we have not yet mastered

¹ The above-discussed series of purely formal assonances might be put

forward as supporting this.

² How such formulae were used, spontaneously, so to speak, in the

writings of other representatives of the new Faith, may be seen, e.g., in the

relationship between certain Pauline passages and the solemn words made

known to us by au Inscription of Halicarnassus of the early imperial period:

see C. T. Newton, A History of Discoveries at Halicarnassus, Cnidus and

Branchidae, ii. 2, London, 1863, p. 695.—Cf. also W. M. Ramsay, The Greek

of the Early Church and the Pagan Ritual, in the Expository Times, vol. x.,

p. 9 ff.—A similar instance from ancient times has been noted by R. Kittel in

Z A.W. xviii. (1898), p. 149: Isaiah 45 ^1ff. shows dependence upon the court-

phraseology made known to us by the clay-cylinders of Cyrus.

³ The theory becomes still more probable when we compare the above

conjecture with what Th. Zahn, Geschichte des Neutestamentl. Kanons, i. 1,

Erlangen, 1888, p. 312 ff., says about the locality in which the Epistle "was

first circulated, and gained the esteem of the church"; but see A. Harnaok,

Das N.T. um das Jahr 200, Freiburg i. B., 1889, p. 85 f.

368 BIBLE STUDIES. [284, 285

the lexical relations of the Epistle. It would at least be

necessary to inquire how far its peculiar vocabulary has

points of contact with that of literary sources (of the im-

perial period) from Egypt,¹ or Asia Minor,² including those

of the Papyri and the Inscriptions.

5. WHITE ROBES AND PALMS.

"After these things I saw, and behold, a great multi-

tude, which no man could number, out of every nation,

and of all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before

the throne and before the Lamb, arrayed in white robes,

and palms in their hands; and they cry with a great voice,

saying, Salvation unto our God which sitteth on the throne,

and unto the Lamb." So does the early Christian seer

depict those who have been made perfect, who have come

out of the great tribulation, and now serve God day and

night in His temple. Few Bible passages have taken such

hold of the everyday Christian consciousness, few have been

inscribed so hopefully on the impassive tombstone, as these

chaste verses from the mysterious final pages of the Holy

Book. So deeply have they entered into the sphere of

religious ideas, that, generally speaking, we are not struck

by the thought, how eloquent of ancient days is the colour-

ing of the artist who created the picture. The inner

beauty of the thought keeps in abeyance any impression

which its form might suggest; the captivated spirit even

¹ Of course, such expressions as may probably seem to be derived from

the Alexandrian translation of the O.T. would not prove anything regarding

the hypothetical Egyptian origin of the Epistle.

² So far as we are able, from a general knowledge of a portion of

the Inscriptions of Asia Minor, to judge, the lexical relations of the Epistle

do, indeed, point to Asia Minor or Syria. He gives but one example here,

which he would likewise attribute to the fixed phraseology of solemn speech.

In 2 Pet. 1⁴ we find the peculiar phrase, i!na . . . ge<nhsqe qei<aj koinwnoi> fu<sewj;

with this compare a passage from a religious inscription of King Antiochus I.

of Kommagene (middle of 1st cent. B.C.; discovered at Selik), viz., pa?sin o!soi

fu<sewj koinwnou?ntej a]nqrw[pi<]nhj (in Humann and Puelistein's Reisen in Klein-

asien und Nordsyrien, Textband, p. 371). The resemblance had already struck

the editors of the Inscription. The Kommagenian Inscriptions, moreover,

afford other materials for the history of the language of early Christianity.

285, 286] WHITE ROBES AND PALMS. 369

of the modern man readily and unconstrainedly accepts

the unaccustomed scenery, which yet has its proper place

only under the eternal blue of the eastern sky, or in the

serene halls of an ancient temple. The pious Christian of

the times of decadence did not depict things to come in the

forms of the pitiful present; he saw them rather in the

crystal mirror of the authoritative past.

The exegetes of Rev. 7 ^9ff. have striven, in widely diver-

gent ways, to explain the peculiar colouring of this celestial

scenery. How does it come about that the adornment of

the blessed choir of the saints before the throne of God

should be portrayed exactly as it is? The explanation of

the individual elements provides no difficulty.¹ The white

robes, of course, according to the bold symbolism of the text

itself, are connected with the cleansing power of the blood

of the Lamb (v.14); and, even without this special reference,

they have already a distinct and well-known sense (see

611). Again, the expression palms in their hands is familiar

to the reader of the Bible as a sign of festive joy. Attempts

have been made to supply a more definite background for

this latter feature, now from Jewish, now from Hellenic,

ideas. On the one hand, the palms have been looked upon

as suggesting a comparison of the heavenly glory with the

Feast of Tabernacles; on the other, they have been taken

as an allusion to the palm-twigs bestowed upon the victor

in the Greek games.

We would not deny that such explanations, so far

as concerns the details of a picture which is not after

all so difficult to grasp, are quite adequate. But they

do not elucidate the scene in its entirety. How did the

writer come to bring together precisely these two features?

And how comes it that both are assigned to the choir of

the blessed, which, in alternate song with the angels, raises

a hallelujah to the Most High? If we knew of no historical

circumstance which might suggest an answer to these

questions, we might naturally enough infer that the writer

of the Apocalypse had himself composed his picture from

¹ For what follows cf. F. Dilsterdieck, Meyer, xvi. ⁴ (1887), p. 289.

370 BIBLE STUDIES. [286, 287

diverse elements. But we are of opinion that there are

good grounds for the supposition that the portrayer of the

panh<gurij e]poura<noij had availed himself of the scenery of

a religious ceremony with which he was familiar.

In the Inscription of Stratonicea in Caria (already

mentioned several times), belonging to the beginning of the

imperial period,¹ the inhabitants of the city, out of gratitude

to Zeus Panhemerios and Hekate, resolve that, in honour

of these deities, thirty boys of noble parentage, under the

leadership of the paidono<moj and the paidofu<lakej, shall

daily sing a prescribed hymnus in the bouleuterion—clothed

in white and crowned with a twig, likewise holding a twig in their

hands. This custom would hardly be inaugurated by the

piety of the people of Stratonicea; such choirs of sacred

singers, similarly accoutred, were, without doubt, also to be

seen elsewhere in the Greek districts of Asia Minor.

Here, then, in all probability, we have the model by

which the writer of the Apocalypse was consciously or un-

consciously guided; and those belonging to Asia Minor who

read his book—a book full of the local colour of that region

—would grasp his imagery with special facility. What they

beheld in heaven was something that had, by association

with their native soil, become familiar and dear to them—

a choir of pious singers in festive attire; and if they had an

ear to hear what the Spirit said to the churches, they could

also, of course, surmise that in this instance what came from

holy lips was a new song.

¹ See pp. 96 f. and 360 ff. The passage runs: . . . leuximonou?ntaj kai>

e]stefanwme<nouj qallou? e@xontaj de> meta> xi?raj [for this construction of meta<, which

is found elsewhere in the idiom meta> xei?raj e@xein (W. Schmid, Der Atticismus,

iii., p. 285), cf. the variant of LXX Gen. 43²¹, ti<j e]ne<balen h[mi?n mata> xei?raj to>

a]rgu<rion, Codd. 31 and 83, i., p. 61] o[moi<wj qallou>j oi!tinej sunparo<n [twn

ka]i> kiqaristou? kai> kh<rukoj %@sontai u!mnon. The original orthography has been

retained. On the fact cf. the remark of the scholiast upon Theocr. Id. ii. 12,

quoted by the editor, Waddington, iii. 2, p. 143: oi[ palaioi> th>n [Eka<thn tri<morfon

e@grafon xruseosa<ndalon kai> leuxei<mona kai> mh<kwnaj tai?n xeroi?n e@xousan kai>

lambpa<daj h[mme<naj.

THE END.

I.

INDEX OF GREEK WORDS AND PHRASES.

a interchanging with 6, 182. a]na<., 139 f. oi[ a@rtoi oi[ e]ne<pioi, 157.

-a, -aj in imperf., 191. a]na> ei$j e !kastoj, 139 f. oi[ a@rtoi th ?j proqe<sewj, 157.

]Abawq, 281. a]nage<graptai, 249 f. oi[ a@rtoi tou ? prosw<pou, 157.

]Abdenagw<, 310. a]nape<mpw, 229. a]rxh<, 267.

]Abe<lbaloj, 325. a]nastre<<fomai, 88, 194. a]rxiswmatofu<lac, 98.

Abelbel, 325. a]nastrofh<, 194. -aj, 188 f.

@Abidoj, 357. a]nafalanti<asij, 88. a@smhmoj, 153.

]Abraa<m, 187. a]nafa<lantoj, 88. -asi for -an, 192.

]Abraa<mioj, 187. a]nafala<ntwma, 88. ]Asidai?oi, 68.

Abraan, 281. a]nafe<rw, 88 f. a]spa<zomai, 257.

Abraqiabri, 334. a]nafe<rw ta>j a[marti<aj, 88 f. ]Astartiei?on, 150.

Abramoj, 187. a]nafe<rw ta> o]feilh<mata, 90. ]Atabu<rion, 332.

Abratiawq, 327. a]ndidou?nta, 192. a@fesij, 98 f.

a]ga<ph, 198 f. a]ndralogi<a [?], 219. a]xrei?oi dou?loi, 68.

a]ggareu<w, 86 f., 182. a]ndrafone<w, 220. Awq, 281, 288.

a@ggaroj, 86 f. a]ndroloei?on, 220.

a]grupne<w e]pi<, 283. a]ndrologi<a, 219 f. Baqiabhl, 334.

a@gw, 190. a@nemoi, 248. Baliaba, 334.

a]delfo<j, 87 f., 14.2. a]noi<gw, 189. Barihsou?, 163.

a@doloj, 256. anox, 355. Barna, 188.

a@duton, 287. a]ntilh<mptwr, 91. Barna<baj [?], 310.

Ah [?], 326. a]nti<lhmyij, 92, 223. Barnaba?j, 187 f., 307.

a]qa<natoj, 293. ]Anti<pa[tro]j, 187. Barnabh [?], 309.

ei]j a]qe<thsin, 228 f. a]ci<wma, 92 f. Barnabi [?], 309.

ei]j a]qe<thsin kai> a]ku<rwsin, a]ci<wj tou? qeou?, 248. Barnabou?j [?]' 187 f., 309 f.

228 f. a]peri<tmhtoj, 153. Barna?j [ ?], 188.

a]qe<thsij, 228 f. a]pe<xw, 229. Barnebou?j, 188, 309.

Ai*a, 322, 325, 326. a]po<, 196, 216, 227. Bartara?j, 189.

a]i !dioj, 363. a]po> tou? belti<stou, 93. basilei<a a]sa<leutoj, 363.

ai@qrion, 99. a]po> tou? nu?n, 253 basilei<a e]poura<nioj, 363.

ai@rw, 93. a]pou? nu?n, 192. basta<zw, 102 f., 191, 257,

ai]w<nioj, 283, 363. a]po<krima, 257. 354 f., 358.

h[ ai]w<nioj a]rxh<, 363. ]Apollina<rioj, 309. be<baioj, 107, 109.

h[ ai]w<nioj basilei<a, 363. ]Apollina<rioj, 149. bebaio<w, 108 f., 230.

a]kata<gnwstoj, 200. a]poxh<, 229. ei]j bebai<wsin, 229.

]Aku<laj, -a, 187. a]poxh<, 184. bebai<wsij, 104 f., 230.

]Aku<laj, -ou, 187. ]Are<qaj, 183 f. bebaiwth<j, 105.

]Aku,llaj, 187. Arbaqiaw, 324. beezeboul, 332.

a]laba<rxhj, 184. Arbaqiawq, 327. bezebuq [?], 331 f.

a]labw<n, 183 f. ]Are<qaj, 183 f. bia<zomai, 258.

a]llotrioepi<skopoj, 224. a]reskei<a, 224. Boanergej, 162.

alxaj, 357. a]restalogi<a, 93 f. Boanhrgej, 162.

a@!ma su<n, 64. a]retalo<gion, 94. buqo<j, 332.

a[marti<a, 225. a]retalo<goj, 96.

a[marti<an o]fei<lw, 225. ]Are<taj, 183 f. ge<gonan, 192.

Ambriqhra, 327. a]reth<, 95 f., 362. kata> to> gegramme<non, 250.

Ambriqiawq, 327. a]rketo<j , 257. ge<graptai, 112 f., 249 f.

a]metano<htoj, 257. a!pagma, 291. gena<menoj, 191.

-an for -asi, 192. a[rpa<zw, 190. kata> ge<nesin, 239.

a@n, supplanted e]a<n, 202 f. a]rrabw<n, 108 f., 183 f., 230. genhqei<j, 184.

(371)

372 INDEX OF GREEK WORDS AND PHRASES.

ge<nhma, 109 f., 184. du<w (numeral), 187. e]ph?lqa, 191.

genhmatografe<w, 184. duw ?n, 187. e]ph<lqasi, 192.

genna<w, 184. e]ph<lqosan, 191.

ge<nnhqei<j, 184. e, interchange of, with a, e]pi<, 197, 339 f.

ge<nnhma, 184. 182. o[ e]pi> tw ?n pragma<twn, 306 f.

geno<menoj, 191. e]a<n, 201 f. o[ e]pi> tw ?n xrhma<twn, 307.

gi<nomai, 184, 191, 192. e]a<n with indicative, 201 f. to> e]piba<llon me<roj, 230

to> gnh<sion, 250. e]ba<stazan, 175, 202. e]pig<nhsij, 185.

goggu<zw, 110. e]gena<mhn, 191. e]pige<nnhsij, 185.

gra<mmata stikta<, 351. e]ggareu<w, 182. e]pidi<dw, 192.

grammateu<j, 106 f. e]gena<mhn, 191 e]piqema, 125.

grammateu>j tw ?n duna<mewn, e@grayej, 192. e]piqume<w tina<, 293

110 f. e]gw< ei]mi, 355, 360 e]piqumhth<j, 224.

grammateu>j tw ?n maxi<mwn e]dei<di, 192. e]pikalou<menoj, o[ 210.

110. e@qoj, 251. e]pikeklhme<noj, o[ , 210.

grammatiko<j, 112. kata> to> e@qoj, 251. e]piou<sioj, 214.

kata> ta>j grafa<j, 250. ei# ma<n, 208. e]pi<skopoi, 230 f.

grafh<, 112 f. ei] mh<, 206. e]pi<skopoj, 156, 230 f.

kata> th>n grafh<n, 250. ei] mh< ti a@n, 204. e]pistola>j sunta<ssein, 3.

fra<fw, 112 f., 249 f. ei] (ei] ?) mh<n, 205 f. e]pite<teuxa, 190.

ei] mh<n, 206. e]rgodiw<kthj, 122.

D, 357. -ei<a, 181 f. e]rgopare<kthj, 122.

diamo<nion pneu ?ma, 281. ei]da<llomai, 291 f. e@rxomai, 191.

Dalmati<a, 182. Ei]malkouai<, 321. e]rwta<w, 195, 290.

dalmatikh<, 182. ei]po<sei, 201. -ej, for –aj, 192.

de<dwkej, 192. ei@rhkej, 192. e@sqhsij, 263.

de<hsin, deh<seij poiou ?mai, ei]j, 117 f., 194 f., 197. e@sxa, 191.

250. ei]j bebai<wsin, 105 f. e[toi<mwj e@xw, 252.

Delmati<a, 182. ei]j to> o@noma< tinoj, 146 f. eu]a<restoj, 214 f.

delmatikh<, 182. ei$j e !kastoj, 139. eu]are<swj, 214 f.

decia>n di<dwmi, 251. ei$j kaq ] ei$j, 138 f. eu]i~latoj, 122, 258.

--j di<dwmi, 251. ei$j kaq ] ei$j, 138 f. eu]se<beia, 364.

decia>n di<dwmi, 251. ei$j kaq ] e !kastoj, 138f. eu]sebe<w, 364.

---j lamba<nein, 251. 248. eu]sebh<j, 364.

Dermati<a, 182. e]kbra<zw, 290. eu]xariste<w, 122.

dia<, 289. e@krona th ?j zwgrafi<aj, 165. e]fo<pthj, 293.

dia<, 289. e@krgona th ?j a]gaqou?, 165. e@xw, 191, 293.

diage<graptai, 250. e]klikma<w, 226. e!wj ei$j pa<ntej, 139.

diadexo<menoj, 115. e]kte<neia, 262. e !wj pa<ntej, 139.

dia<doxoj, 110, 115. e]ktenw?j, 262.

diakou<w, 230. e]kto>j ei] mh<,118. z, interchanging with s,185

diaxwri<zw, 284. e@ktromoj, 290. Zabuq, 331.

di<di, 192. e@laba, 191. Zebawq, 332.

didou?ntej, 192. e]laiw<n, 208 f. Zebuq, 330 f.

dido<w 192. e@legaj, 191. zmu<rna, 185.

di<dw, 192. e@leiya, 190. Zmu<rna, 185.

di<dw ?, 192. e]mme<nw (e]n) pa ?si toi?j ge- Zmurnai?oj, 185.

di<dwmi, 192. =gramme<noij, 248 f.

dieti<a, 258. e]n, 76, 118 f., 197, 284. h# mh<n, 206 f.

ei]j to> dihneke<j, 251. e]n o]no<mati< tinoj, 147. h@dh h@dh taxu> taxu<, 289.

di<kaioj, 115 f. e]n r[a<bd&, 120. h@lqa, 191.

diori<zw, 286. e]n t^? r[abd&, 120, 284. h[mi<onoj, 285.

diw ?ruc, 116. e]ngari<a, 182. h !misoj, 186.

to> dokimi?on, 259 f. entafiasth<j, 120 f. h !misoj (gen.), 186.

to> dokimei?on, 259 f. e@nteucij, 121, 146. h]noi<ghn, 189.

to> doki<mion [?], 259 f. e@ntromoj, 290. h]nu<gh, 189.

doki<mioj, 259 f. e]ntugxa<nw, 121. h@ca, 190.

do<kimoj, 260 f. e]ntuxi<a, 121. h@rhxej, 192.

Dorka<j, 189. e]nw<tion, 150. h[rpa<ghn, 190.

duei?n, 187. e]nw<ion, 213 f.

du<namij, 110 f. e]nw<tion, 150. qabawq, 333.

h[ dunamij tou ? qeou ? h[ kalou- e]ce<deto, 192. qara, 189.

me<nh mega<lh, 336. e]ce<laba, 191. qarra, 189.

du<nomai and du<nw, for du<- e]cila<skomai a[marti<an, 225. h[ qei<a du<namij, 362.

namai, 193. e]cila<skomai a[marti<an, 225. qei?oj, 218.

du<o, 187. e]cilasmo<j, 127. qeolo<goj, 231 f.

dusi<, 187. e]opaiw<nioj, 283. ta> qeme<lia th ?j gh?j, 287.

INDEX OF GREEK WORDS AND PHRASES. 373

to> qeme<lion, 123. @Isakoj, 189, 282. lou<w, 226 f.

qeo<j, 167, 223. Israma, 282. lou<w a]po<, 227.

tou? qeou ? qe<lontoj, etc., 252. i[sto<j, 135.

qeo<filoj, 336. ]Itabu<rion, 332. Manah<m, 310 f.

qro<noj th ?j xa<ritoj, 135. ]Iwa<nhj, 184. Manah<n, 310 f.

kata> qugaropoii~an, 239. ]Iwna<qaj, 149. marturou?mai, 265.

qwq, 288, 325. ma<xw, 201.

kaqari<zw, 216. me<gistoj, 365.

i as a consonant, 326. kaqari<zw a]po<, 216. meizo<teroj, 144.

i = iei, 182 f. kaqaro>j a]po< tinoj, 196, 221. e]k tou? me<sou ai@rw, 252.

-i<a for –ei<a, 181 f. kaqw>j ge<graptai, etc., 249 f. meta> kai<, 64, 265.

Ia, 322, 324. kai< placed between prepo- meta> xei?raj e@xw, 370.

]Ia> ou]ai<, 321. sition and noun, 64, 265. metadi<dwmi e]nw<pion, 213.

]Ia> ou]e<, 321. o[ kai>, 309, 313 ff. metepige<grafan, 192.

Iaba, 325, 333. kaini<zw, 290. me<toikoj, 228.

Iabaj, 334. o[ kaq ] ei$j, 138 metoubanej, 355.

Iabawq, 334. kaqoliko<j, 50 f. o[ mikro<j, 144 f.

Iabe, 322, 330 f. kakopa<qeia, 263 f. misqapoxh<, 229.

Iabezebuq, 330 f. kakopa<qeia, 263 f. misoponhre<w, 293.

Iabhj [?], 334. kalei<y^, 192. misopo<nhri<a, 293.

Iaboe, 333. kalou<menoj, o[, 210. misopo<nhroj, 293.

Iabounh, 334. kapro>n sfragi<zomai, 238 f. mu<rra, 332.

Iaboux, 334. karpo<w, 135 f.

Iabw, 334. ka<rpwma 138. Nabh, 308.

Iabwx, 334. ka<rpwsij, 138. Nabi, 308.

Iah, 322, 325 f. kata<, 138 f. Nabokodro<soroj, 309.

Iahl, 325. kata> pro<swpo<n tinoj, 140. Nabouzardan, 310.

Iakkwbi, 282. kata<krima, 264 f. Nabouxodonosor, 309.

Iakou, 282. kate<leiya, 190. Nabouxodono<soroj, 309.

Iakoub, 282, 324. kath ?ca, 190. Nabw<, 309.

]Iakw<b, 316. kinu<ra, 332. Nauh, 308

]Ia<kwboj, 316. Kleopa?j, 315. Nebou?j, 309.

Iaoai, 324. Kleofaj, 315. nekri<a, 142.

Iaoq, 322, 326. Klwpa[j?], 315. ne<krwsij tou ? ]Ihsou?, 360.

]Iaou<, 321, 322. Klwpa ?j [?], 315. neo<futoj, 220.

]Iaoue<, 321, 322, 327 f. koinwne<w fu<sewj a]nqrwpi<- no<hma, 73.

Iapwj, 334. nhj, 368. no<mizma, 185.

]Ia<swn, 315. koinwno>j qei<aj fu<sewj, 368. nomo<j, 145.

Iaw, 282, 322, 324. koustoudi<a, 68.

Iaw Ia, 322, 325. koustwdi<a, 68. cenologi<a, 220.

Iawai, 324. kthmatw<nhj, 147.

Iawq, 327. h[kuriakh< (h[me<ra), 218 f. oi#dej, 192.

Iawl, 325. kuriako<j, 175, 217 1. oi]kei?oj, 123.

Iawai, 324. ku<rioj, 219. oi]konomi<a, 246.

Iawoueh, 328. o[ ku<rioj, 219. o[lokarpo<w, 138.

Iawoueh, 328. o[ ku<rioj h[mw?n, 83 f., 219. o[loka<rpwma, 138.

Iawouhe, 327, 328, 329. ku<rioj tw ?n pneuma<twn: 327. o[loka<rpwsij, 138.

Iawouhi, 327, 329. Ku?roj, 332. o[lokau<twsij, 138.

Iawt, 327. kwma<zw, 237. o[lokau<twma, 138.

i]da<llomai, 291 f. kwstoudi<a, 68. o[mologi<a, 249.

i@dioj, 123 f. kwstwdi<a, 68. kat ] o@nar, 253.

IEHWOUA, 329. kat ] o@neiron, 253.

iei= i, 182 f. lamba<nw, 191. o@noma, 146 f., 196 f.

i[erateu<w, 215 f. legiw<n, 209. to> o@noma to> a!gion, 281.

[Ieroso<luma, 316. lego<menoj, o[, 210. to> o@noma e@ntimon kai> fobe-

]Ierousalh<m, 316. le<gw, 191. ro>n kai> me<ga, 282 f.

i[la<skomai, 224 f. lei<pw, 190. o@noma, 146 f.,

i[la<skomai a[marti<aj, 224 f. leitourge<w, 140 f. 197.

i[lasth<rion, 124 f. leitourgi<aj, 140 f., 144. o@noma frikto<n, 288.

i[lasth<rion e]pi<qema, 125. leitourgiko<j, 141. t&? o]no<mati tinoj, 197 f.

i[lasth<rioj, 124 f. leitourgi<a, 140 f. e]n t&? o]no<mati< tinoj, 197 f.

ilh [?], 326. likma<w, 225 f. e]p ] o]no<matj, 197.

]Imalkoue<, 321. li<y, 141 f. o[po<tan with indic., 202, 204.

i]nda<llomai, 291 f. logei<a, 142 f., 219 o[rki<zw tina<, 281.

i@ndalma, 292. logeu<w, 143. o!sioi ]Ioudai?oi, 68.

]Isaak, 189. logi<a [?], 142 f., 219 f. o!tan with indic., 202

]Isak, 189. tou? loipou?, 349. Ou]rbano<j, 283.

374 INDEX OF GREEK WORDS AND PHRASES.

-ou ?j, 188. prosre<pw, 357. sw ?ma, 160.

o]feilh<, 221. prosri<ptw, 357. swmatofu<lac, 98.

o]fei<lw, 191. prosti<qesqai, 67. swth<r, 83.

o]fei<lw a[marti<an, 225 prostre<pw, 357.

o]fi<late, 191. profh<thj, 235 f. t for t, 189.

o@filen, 191. ptai<w, 68. tabawq, 333.

o]yw<nion, 148, 266. purra<khj, 157 tamei ?on, 182 f.

o]yw<nion lamba<nw, 266. Purri<aj, 336. tamiei ?on, 182 f.

-tara, 189.

p for b ( ?), 189 s interchanging with z, 185. Taraq, 189.

(paradw<sw), 192. -san for -n, 191. tastaj, 357.

pantepo<pthj, 293. Saou<l, 316. tafh<, 355 f.

pantefo<pthj, 293. Sau?loj o[ kai> Pau?loj, 313 f. taxu<, 289.

pantokra<twr 283. Seb., 218. te<kna a]pwlei<aj, 163, 165.

papipetou, 355. Sebasth<. 218 f. te<kna tou ? diabo<lou, 163.

paragena<menoj, 191. seriabebwq, 333. te<kna th?j e]paggeli<aj, 163

para<deisoj, 148 f. Silaj, 315. te<kna kata<raj, 164.

para<dete, 192. Silaj, 315. te<kna o]rgh ?j, 164.

parai<tioj a]gaqw?n, 253. Si<mwn, 315, 316. te<kna pornei<aj, 165.

parakatati<qomai, 193. Sinmalkouh<, 321. te<kna th ?j sofi<aj, 163.

para<klhsij, 308, sitometre<w, 158. te<kna u[pakoh?j, 163.

paralogei<a, 143. sitometre<w [?], 158. te<kna fwto<j, 163.

paralogeu<w, 143. sitome<trion, 158. te<knon, 161 f.

parepidhme<w, 149. sifwnologei<a, 219. te<teuxa, 190.

parepi<dhmoj, 149. sitometri<a [?], 158. th<rhsij, 267.

pa<resij, 266. skeuofula<kion, 158. tiqe<w, 192 f.

pare<xomai e[mauto<n 254. skeuofula<kion, 158. ti<qhmi, 192.

pari<sthmi qusi<an, 254. smara<gdinoj, 267. ti<qw, 192.

pa<roikoj, 227 f. Smurnai ?oj, 185. ti<qw, 192.

Partara?j, 188 f. Smurnai ?oj, 185. to<poj, 267.

pastofori<on, 149 f. souda<rion, 223. tugxa<nw, 190.

patropara<dotoj, 266. sofi<zomai, 292. Tu<roj, 332.

Pau ?loj, 316. spei<raj, 186. ou]x o[ tuxw<n, 255.

pei ?n, 182 f. spei<rhj, 186.

peride<cion, 150. spoudh>n ei]sfe<romai, 364, u = Heb. o, 332.

ta> peri<aerga, 323. spuri<dion, 158. -uq, 332.

perierga<zomai, 323. spuri<j, 158, 185. ui[oqesi<a, 239.

periergi<a, 323. sta<sij, 158 f. kaq ] ui[oqesi<an, 239.

peripatei?n a]ci<wj, 194. stefa<nion, 345. ui[oi> th ?j a]nasta<sewj„ 163

peride<cion, 150. stefano<w, 345. ui[oi> th ?j a]nasta<sewj, 163.

perite<mnw, 151 f. sth<lwma, 159. ui[oi> th ?j a]peiqei<aj, 163.

peritomh<, 152. sth<lwsij, 159. ui[oi> a]poiki<aj, 165.

a]po> pe<rusi, 221. sti<gmata, 349 f. ui[oi> basilei<aj, 162.

ph?xuj, 153 f. strati<a, 181 f. ui[oi> brnth ?j, 162.

pi ?n, 183. strati<a, 181 f. ui[oi> h[me<raj, 163.

pi<nw, 182 f. suggenh<j, 159. ui[oi> duna<mewj, 165.

pi<stij, 79. su<mbioj, 283. ui[oi> h[me<raj, 163.

plh ?qoj, 232 f. sumbio<w, 293. ui[oi> qeou ?, 73.

plh<rwma, 110. sumbou<lion, 238. ui[oi> tou ? numfw ?noj, 162.

potismo<j, 154. Sumew<n, 316. ui[oi> parano<mwn, 165.

pra?gma, 233. su>n kai<, 255. ui[oi> tou ? ponhrou?, 162.

pra?gma e@xw pro<j tina, 233. su>n kai<, 265. ui[oi> tw?n proftw?n 163,

pra<ktwr, 154. sune<drion tw ?n presbute<rwn ui[oi> tou ? fwto<j, 163.

pra<cij, 323. 156. ui[o<j, 161 f.

presbu<teroi, oi[, 154 f., 233 f. sune<ktrofoj, 310. ui[o>j a]nomi<aj, 165.

presbu<teroi i[erei ?j, 154 f., sune<sxan, 191. ui[o>j th ?j a]pwlei<aj, 163.

233 f. sune<xw, 160 ui[o>j ]Afrodisie<wn, 166.

presbu<teroj, 154 f., 233 f. sunsei<w, 290 ui[o>j gee<nhj, 162.

presbutiko<n, 156. suntri<bw, 287. ui[o>j th ?j gerousi<aj, 165.

kata> ta> progegramme<na su<ntrofoj, 305, 310 f. ui[o>j tou ? dh<mou, 165.

250. su<ntrofoj tou ? basile<wj, ui[o>j diabo<lou, 163.

proge<graptai, 250. 311 f. ui[o>j ei]rh<nhj, 163.

proegamou ?san, 191. sustre<fw, 287. ui[o>j qana<tou, 165.

pro<qesij, 157. sfragi<zw, 238 f. ui[o>j qeou?, 73, 83, 131, 166 f.

pro<qesij a@rtwn, 157. sfuri<dion, 185. ui[o>j parakh<sewj, 163,307 f,

meta> pa<shj proqumi<aj, 254. sfuri<j, 158, 185. ui[o>j th ?j po<lewj, 165.

proseuxh<, 222. sfuri<tin, 185. ui[o>j th ?j u[perhfani<aj, 165.

INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 375

ui[o>j u[pozugi<ou, 162. fareqw<qhj, 327. xa<ragma,, 210 f.

ui[oi> [?] fare<traj, 164. fi<landroj kai> filo<teknoj, xei<r, 251.

oi[ u[pera<nw qeoi<, 283 f. 255 f. th>n xei?ra e]kdi<dwmi, 251.

u[perentugxa<nw, 122. filoprwteu<w, 198. ta>j xei?raj di<dwmi, 251.

oi[ e]n u[perox^? o@ntej, 255. fi<loj, 167 f. xeiro<grafon, 247.

u[poge<graptai, 250. fi<loj qeou?, 168. xrhmati<zw, 122.

u[pozu<gion, 160. fi<loj tou?” Kai<saroj, 168. xwri<zomai, 247.

u[popo<dion, 223. frenapa<thj, 198.

u[potiqou?sa, 193. to> au]to> fronei?n, 256. -wq, forms in, 326 f.

fulakth<ria, 352 -w<n, 208 f.

fanouhl, 77. fu<sij a]nqrwpi<nh, 368. w]fei<lamen, 191.

Faraw<qhj, 327. qei<a fu<sij, 368.

II.

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

Abelard, Letters of, 46. Bible, Authority of, see Authority.

Abydos in Egypt, 357. Mode of Using, 271 f., 281, 294 f., 300.

Accentuation of Greek Transcriptions of Quotation of, see Quotation.

Semitic Words, 274. Biblical Writings, 36.

Acts of the Apostles- Material in Greek Magic Books, 280 f.

Lexical, 323. "Biblical" Greek, 65 ff., 173 ff.

Literary Character, 39. Words and Constructions, 198 ff.

"We" Source, 58. Bills of Sale, in Papyri, 242 ff.

Address, Form of, 22 ff. Bishops, 230 f.

Angel, 79. Blass, 173 ff., etc.

Aorist, 190 f. Book, Idea of, 6 f.

Aorist as Inchoative, 68. Book of Humanity, 173.

a!pac lego<mena, 64.

Apocalypse of John- Cain, Mark of, 351.

Letters to Seven Churches, 51. Camerarius, J., 13.

Linguistic Character, 74. Canon, 295.

Literary Character, 39. History of 0. T., 339 ; N. T., 56.

Local Colouring (Asia Minor), 368 f. Catholic Epistles, 50 f.

Mark of the Beast, 240 ff. Writings, 51.

Method of Exegesis, 240 ff. Cato, Epistles, 32.

Apocope of Prepositions, 192. Charagma, 240 ff.

Apocrypha of 0. T., Linguistic Character, Children of God, 73.

74 f. Christianity and Literature, 58 f.

Aristeas, Epistle of, 42, 72, 343. Chyl, 333.

Aristides, Epistles, 32. Cicero, Letters, 29 f.

Aristotle, Letters, 26 ff. Circumcido, 152.

Epistle, 31. Circumcision, 151 ff.

Ark, Noah's, as a i[lasth<rion, 128. Citation, see Quotation.

Associations, Language of Religious, 232, Claudius, Emperor, and the Jews, 68.

267. Classics, Greek, and the N. T., 80, 366.

Atossa, Supposed Inventor of Letter-writ- Clavis³, 176, etc.

ing, 3. Cleophas, 315.

Attributes of God,¹ Heaping up of, 297. Codd. Sergii, 214.

Augment, 189, 191. Conjugation, 190 ff.

Authority of Bible, Juristic Conception of, Consonants, Variation of, 183 tI,

113 f. Corinthians, Letters to, 47 f.

Second Letter to, 47 f., 54.

Barnabas, 307 ff. Court and Religion, Language of, 73, 91 f.

Barnebo, 188. Creator of Heaven and Earth, 284.

Baruch, Epistle of, 42. Cremer, H., 176 f., etc.

Beast, the, in Revelation, 240 ff.

Beelzebuth [?], Belsebuth, Belzebud, Bel- Dalmatia, 182.

zebuth. 331 f. Declension, 186 F.

Berytos, 333. Delmatia, 182.

¹ On the same characteristic in Christian liturgies, see F. Probst, Liturgie des

vierten Jahrhunderts and deren Reform, Munster i. W., 1893, p. 344 ff.

376 INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

Demons, in Tombs, 281. Formulaic Expressions, 191, 195, 196,

Believing and Trembling, 288. 197 f., 204, 205 ff., 213, 221, 228 f.,

Diogenes, Epistle of, 42, 51. 230, 248-256.

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Epistles of, 31. Friend of God, 167 ff.

Fruit, Sacrifice of, 135 ff.

Egyptian Church Fathers, 70.

Egyptian Greek, 70 ff. Galatians, Letter to, 47, 346 ff.

Eisenmenger, J. A., Entdecktes Juden- Genuineness, Literary, 13 f.

thum, 288 f. Gnostic, 353.

Eldad, 336. God, 79.

Eleon, 209. of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, in Magic

Eleutheria, Festival of, in Egypt [?], 343. Formulae, 282.

Emperor's Day, 218 1. Grace, 73.

Epicurus, Letters, 9, 28. Greek, "Biblical," 65 ff.

Epistles, 31. Egyptian, 70 ff.

Epistle, 9, 20. Spoken among Jews, 77.

Idea of, 9 f., 31 f. of Biblical Writings, 61 ff.

and Letter, 9 ff. Translation of Semitic into, 74 ff.

Address, 12. Biblical Writings originally in, 76 ff.

Epistles-- Gregory VII., Letter of, 46.

Catholic, 38, 50 ff. Grimm, W., 176, etc.

Early Christian, 50 ff., 57.

Egyptian, 17. Hebraisms of N.T., 177.

Graeco-Roman- Imperfect, 195.

Gastronomic, 33. So-called, 67, 70, 161 ff., 165, 194-198,

Juristic, 33. 205 ff., 213, 248, 286, 289, 290, 295 ff.

Magic, 33. Hebrews, Epistle to, 49 f.

Medical, 33. Heliodorus, 303 if.

Poetical, 33. Heloise, Letters, 46.

Religious, 33. Heraclitus, Epistles, 42.

Jewish, 38 f. Herder, Epistles, 11 f.

Aristeas, 42, 72, 343. Homeromancy, 294.

Aristides, 32. Homily, 53.

Aristotle, 31. Humanists, Letters, 16.

Cato, M. Porcius, 32.

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 31. Immortality, 293.

Epicurus, 31. Imperfect, 191.

Lysias, 31. Inscriptions, 173 ff, 178 ff., etc.

Pliny, 32. Greek (from Asia Minor) and the N. T.,

Plutarch, 31. 80 ff., 366 ff.

Seneca, 32. Greek (from Egypt) and the LXX, 72.

"Baruch," 42. Hebrew (outside Palestine), 77.

"Diogenes," 42. Importance for Textual Criticism, 280.

"Esther and Mordecai," 41. Imprecation-Tablets, see Tabulae Devo-

" Heraclitus," 42. tionis.

"Jeremiah," 41. Inspiration (verbal), 63, 81.

Epistle to Hebrews, 49 f. Introduction to N. T., 55.

Epistle of James, 52 f. Isocrates, Letters, 26 f.

Epistles at beginning of 2nd Macc.,

42. Ja, Ja, 322.

Pastoral Epistles, 54. Jahavk 333.

First Ep. of Peter, 51 f. Jaho, 322.

Second Ep. of Peter, 360 ff. James the Less, 144 f.

Seven Epistles in Revelation, 54. James, Epistle of, 52 f.

Herder, 11 f. Jaoth, 326 f.

Epistles, Collections of, 12 ff. Jason of Cyrene, 304.

Unauthentic, 12 ff., 33 f. Jeremiah, Letter of, 40 f.

Forged, 12. Epistle of, 41.

Epistolography, Pseudonymous, 33 f. Jesus, 58 f.

Esau, 336. Words of, Translated into Greek, 75.

Esther and Mordecai, 41. Jesus Justus, 315.

Esther, Royal Letters subsequently added Jesus Sirach, Prologue, 69, 339 ff.

to, 41. Chronology, 339 if.

Evangelium, 39. Jews, 222 f., 232.

Edict of Ptolemy IV. Philopator against,

Forgery, Literary, 13 f 341 f.

Forms, Literary, 37. In the Fayyum, 149.

INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 377

Jews (continued)- Letters and Epistles of the Bible, problem

Dissemination of Greek among, 77. of Literary History, 34 ff.

on Coast of N. Africa, 280 f. Literature of [Brieflitteratur], 17, 50.

(See also Claudius, Name, Trajan.) Collections of, 27 f.

Jewish Greek, 68, 296 ff. Letter-writing, Guides to, 35.

Words and Constructions, 198 ff. "Letters," "Large," 348.

Jobel, 100 f. Lexical and Syntactical Notes, see Voca-

John the Divine, 231. bulary and Syntax.

John Mark, 317. Litanei, 298.

John, "Letters " of, 49 f. Literature, Character of, 6 f., 13 f.

Joseph Justus, 315. Biblical, 36.

Josephus, Hebraisms in, 67, 70. History of Early Christian, 55 f.

The Jewish War as a Translation, 67, Jewish, its Influence on Early Christian

75. Authors, 39.

Jubilee, Year of, 100 f. See also Letter, Christianity.

Juristic Expressions, 196 ff., 200, 213, 221, Liturgy, 298.

227, 228 f., 229 f., 230, 231, 232 f., 233, Logia, Translators of, 75.

238, 239 f., 242 ff., 247, 248 f., 249 f., Longinus, 43.

251 f., 253, 254 f., 257, 264 f., 266. Lord's Day, 218 f.

Love Spell, 279.

Kapp0reth, 124 ff. Luke, Prologue to Gospel of, 76.

Kepler Letters 5. Luther, Letter to his Son, 28.

Koinh<, the, 80. Luther's Bible, 73, 134 f.

Lysias, Epistles of, 31.

Late Greek, 173 ff., 296. Maccabees, Books of, 179.

Legal Terms, etc., see Juristic. Second, 42, 303 f.

Letter, Conception of, 3 f., 6 f. Third, 342.

Address, 50 f. Fourth, 50.

addressed to more than one, 4, 18 f. Magic Literature, Greek, 273 if., 323,

ff.and Epistle, 9 . 352 ff.

and Literature, 6 f., 16, 21. Manaen, 310 ff.

Ancient Classifications, 35. Mark of the Beast, in Revelation, 240 ff.

Modern Classifications- Marks of Jesus, 349 ff.

Congregational, 19, 45. Mercy-seat, 124 ff.

Doctrinal, 45 f. Minatory Formulae, 356.

Family, 18 f. Miracle at Red Sea in Magic Formulae,

Official, 28. 285.

Pastoral, 46. Moltke, Letter of, 5.

Private, 19, 45. Mons Olivarum, 211.

Subsequently Published, 8 ff., 20 f. Oliveti, 211.

True, 20. Mordecai, see Esther.

See also Atossa. Morphology, Notes on, 186-193.

Letters, Babylonian-Assyrian, 17. Mother's Name in Magic Formulae, 283.

Early Christian, 42 ff. Mule, Infertility of, 285 f.

Greek, 21 ff. Mysehi, 333.

Jewish, 38 ff.

Papyrus, 22 ff.

Roman, 28 ff. Name of God, Unutterable, 287 f.

Aristotle, 26. Names, in -hn, 310 f.

Abelard and Heloise, 46. Double, of Jews, 314.

Cicero, 29 ff. Greek, of Similar Sound added to Bar.

Epicurus, 9, 28. baric, 315 f.

Gregory VII., 46. Greek, substituted for Hebrew, 315.

Isocrates, 10, 26 f. Theophoric, 309 f.

Italian Humanists, 16. See also Proper.

Jeremiah, 40 f. Nebo, 309 f.

Kepler, 5. "New Testament" Greek, 173 ff.

Luther, 28. Words and Constructions, 198 ff.

Moltke, 5. Ninck, Letter to his Congregation, 19.

Ninck, 19. Nun, 308 f.

Origen, 48.

Paul, 42 ff. Olives, Mount of, 208 ff.

Roslinus, 5. Origen, Letters, 48.

Letters, Public Papers and Speeches, in- Orthography, Notes on, 181-185.

sertion of, in Historical Works, 28 f., of N. T., 81.

39, 41 f. of Ptolemaic Papyri and LXX, 72.

378 INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

Osiris Myth, 356 f. Religion of Book or Document, 59, 113.

Overbeck, F., his Conception of the Religion, History of, 36, 58, 271 f.

Beginnings of Christian Literature, Religious ideas, Change of Meaning, 78 ff,

37 f. Religious Diction of Asia Minor, 360 ff.,

366 f.

Palms and White Robes, 368 ff. Religious Terms and Expressions, 195 f.,

Papyri, 173 ff., 179 f., etc. 196, 215 f., 216 f., 222 f., 224 f., 226 f.,

their Value for LXX-study, 71 ff. 230 f., 231 f., 232 f., 233 ff., 235 ff.,

Papyrus Letters, 21 ff. 248, 250, 254, 258.

Paradise, 148. Remissio, 99.

Pastoral Epistles, 54. Revelation, see Apocalypse.

Paul, his Name, 313 ff. Ritschl's (A.) view of i[lasth<rion, 133 f.

Characteristics, 359. Romans, Letter to, 48 f.

and the Galatians, 346 ff. Rom. xvi., 45, 283.

his Greek, 64, 76, 296 f. Roslinus, Letter, 5.

Legal Terms used by, 107 f. (see also

Juristic Expressions). Samaria in the Fayiam, 336.

Opinion of Longinus, 43. Samaritan Pronunciation of Tetragramma-

and the Religious Speech of Imperial ton, 334 ff.

Period, 366 f. Samaritans in the Fayyum, 335 f.

was he an Epistolographer ? 42 if. Scholia, possible Value of, for Biblical

Paul, Letters of— Philology, 200.

Canonisation, 43. Seal, Roman Imperial, 242 ff.

Collection and Publication, 56. Semitic Elements in Greek Inscriptions,

False Conceptions regarding, 43. 188 f.

Standpoint of Criticism, 57 ff. Semitisms, see Hebraisms.

Standpoint of Exegesis, 57. Seneca, Epistles, 32.

their Value as Sources, 57 f. Septuagint, 66 ff., 173, 179, 199 202,

to Corinthians, 47 f.; (Second) 47 f., 54. 205 ff., 261 f., 271, 280, 294, 295 ff.,

to Galatians, 47, 346 ff. etc.

to Philemon, 45, 56. Change of Meaning in terms of, 78 1.,

to Philippians, 45. 124 f.

to Romans, 48 f. Lexicon to, 73 f.

Rom. xvi., 45, 283. Mode of Investigating,, 124 ff.

See also Camerarius. Quotations from, 76.

Permutations of Vowels in Magic, 325, 329. Study of, x f.

Perfect, 192. and Early Christian Writers, 77 ff.

Peter, First Epistle of, 51 f., Second, as a Monument of Egyptian Greek, 70 ff.

360 ff. Egyptianising " Tendency " of, 73.

Peschito, 211. Influence of Hebrew Sounds on its

Philemon, Letter to, 45, 56. Greek Words, 99.

Philippians, Letter to, 45. Relation to the Ptolemaic Papyri, 70 ff.

Phrases and Formula, see Formulaic. Transcription of Unknown Hebrew

Pliny, Letters, 32. Words, 99.

Plutarch, Letters, 31. Serapeum at Memphis, 140.

Praecido, 152. Show-bread, 157.

Prayers, Form of, 297 f. Signs, Sacred, 349 ff.

Prepositions, 192, 195, 196, 197, 213, 216 f., Son of God, 73.

221, 227, 265 I. Spirit, 78.

See also Greek Preps. in Index I. Stigma, Purpose of, 349 f.

Presbyter, 154 ff., 233 ff. Superstition, 272 f., 297 f., 323, 352 ff.

Priests, 233 ff. Sunday, 218 f.

Proper Names, 187 ff., 301 ff. Synagogue, 222 f.

Prophets, 235 ff. Synonymic of Religious Terms of Early

Propitiatory Cover, 124 ff. Christianity, 104.

Proseuche, 222 1. Synoptists, 297.

Protective Marks, 240 f., 350 ff. Linguistic Character of, 74 f.

Providentia Specialissima, 285. Semitic Sources of, 162 f.

Pseudonymity, Idea of Literary, 13 ff., 41. Syntax, Notes on, 194 ff.

Ptolemaic Period— Syth, 333.

Official Diction of, 343 ff.

Greek Legal Terminology of, 104 f., 344. Tabulae Devotionis, 279.

Ptolemy IV. Philopator, Edict against from Adrumetum, 273 ff., 356.

Jews, 341 ff. from Carthage, 274, 284, 289.

Technical Expressions, 228-247, 254, 257,

Quotation, Mode of Biblical, 76, 89, 295. 264 f., 266, 267.

in Synoptists, 102 ff., 162 f. See also Formulaic Expressions.

INDEX OF TEXTS. 379

Tetragrammaton, 319 ff. Verb, 189 ff.

Thayer, J. H., 176, etc. Vocabulary and Syntax, Notes on, 194•

Thephillin, 353. 267.

Traditional Forms of Sem. Names in Greek Vowels, Variation of, 180 ft.

Texts, 330. Vulgate, 211, 225.

Trajan's Jewish War, Sources for, 68, 316.

Transcriptions, Vocalic, of the Tetragram- White Robes and Palms, 368 ff.

maton, 330.

Translations of Sem. Originals into Greek, Y, Phoenician = Heb. a (and '5), 333.

74 ff. Yth, 333.

III.

INDEX OF TEXTS.

GENESIS. LEVITICUS. JUDGES.

1:1 284 2:11 135 f 5:10 160

1:4 286 4:18 123 5:14 110 112

1:16 289 13:31-42, 43 88 19:10 160

1:17 289 16: 14 127 19:22 165

1:18 286 19:23 151

2:8 ff. 148 19:27 f. 351

6:16 [15] 128 19:28 349 1 SAMUEL.

14:19-22 284 19:36 116 4:2-3 68

17:11 153, 351 21:4 106 16:12, 17:42 157

17: 12 152 21:5 f. 351 17:22 158

18:17 168 24:16 288 17:43 120

22:17 207 25:10 101, 138 20:13 90

23:4 149 25:10-11, 12, 13, 15 100f 20:31 165

23:11 164 25:23 106, 229 21:6 157

23:16 260 25:30 106 28:2 98

25:25 157 27 101

32:10 120 2 SAMUEL.

34:29 160 NUMBERS. 2:7 165

36:6 160 4:12-26 141 7:14 120

36:24 160 7:5 141 12:5, 13:28 165

40:21 267 14:27 110 22:3 91

41:1 258 14:28 205 22:16 98

43:21 370 16:22 327 23:21 91

45:5 258 23:19 199

47:12 158 27:16 327 1 KINGS.

47:18 123 31:50 150 4:27 [31] 292

50:2f. 120 33:27f. 189 7:2-38 153

36:11 164 19 :11 287

EXODUS. 20:35 163

4:26 152 DEUTERONOMY. 20:35 ff. 351

5:6. 10, 14, 15, 19 112 1:16 230

13:9-16 351 1:31 199

14:15 f. 284 4:12 114 2 KINGS.

15:8 285 7:26 310 2:3, 5, 7 163

15:18 283 10:16 151 15:16 ff. 310

17:5 120 10:17 283 18:14 102

20:17 293 12:2 310 24:18 f., 25:19 110f.

21:20 120 12:32 114 25:8 310

25:16 [17] 125 f 14:1f. 351

25:20 [21] 128 15:2 123 1 CHRONICLES.

25:39 157 25:2 165 5:10 139

26:34 127 25:15 116 9:26, 33 150

30:25 125 26:19 136 f 11:23 120

31:10 141 27:26 248 16:25 283

35:22 150 28:58 282 18:17 115

37:6 125,127 30:6 151 28:2 158

38:5 127 28:9 190

39:1 141 JOSHUA. 28:11 127

39:41[19] 141 5:12 136 29:4 260, 262

380 INDEX OF TEXTS.

2 Chronicles 18 [19]:8,10 292 ISAIAH.

4:9; 6:13 127 29[30]:6 95 3:12 154

9:17 260 32 [33]:8 291 3:20 150

9:29 308 32 [33]:9 289 5:7 150

13:11 157 32 [33]:14 290 6:13 159

15:8 308 33 [34]:5 150 10:24 120

22:1 145 38 [39]:13 149 11:6-7 291

24:14 141 46 [47]:3 283 13:5 290

26:11 110, 115 47 [48]:15 293 13:8 293

28:6 164 50 [51]:12 290 14:12 164

28:7 115 57 [58]:8 151 19:2 145

31:12 115 59 [60]:4 290 22:15 112

32:30 141 66 [67]:8 291 26:4 282

33:14 141, 288 71 [72]:14 116 27:12 116

EZRA 73 [74]:13 284 30:17 135

(2 EZRA or ESDRAS.) 73 [74]:16 289 33:18 112

75 [76]2 283 33:21 116, 283

4:1 165 76 [77]:19 290 33:23 135

6:14 308 78:2 162 36:22 112

6:20 139 88 [89]:8 283 38:12 135

8:29 150 88 [89]:23 165 40 3 162

10:7-16 165 88 [89]:25 109 40:12 291

88 [89]:33 120 40:28 283

Nehemiah 89 [90]:6 151 42:12 95, 96

1:5 283 95 [96]:4 283, 284 43:21, 20 f. 96

2:8 148 98 [97]:10 293 44:5 351

4:14 283 98[99]:3 283 45:1ff. 367

6:12 308 98 [99]:8 122 46:2 309

10:33 157 102 [103]:5 290 46:4 102

10:34ff. 113 103[104]:32 290 53:4-11 102

13:28 290 104 [105]:41 287 53:12 89

108[109]:11 154 56:2 164

ESTHER 110 [111]:9 282 57:4 163, 165

1:3; 2:18 168 110[111]:10 292 59:5,.6 135

2:21 98 117 [118]:10, 11,12 151 62:11 162

5:3-8 92 118 [119]:17 92 65:25 291

5:14 153 125[126]:4 98 66:12 102

6:9 168 127 [128]:3 220 f.

7:2 f. 92 143 [144]:12 220 JEREMIAH

7:9 153 145 [146]:6 284 4:4 151

9:20, .29 41 4:24 291

10:2 114 PROVERBS. 10:5 103

10:3 115 1:7 292 11:16 152

JOB 3:8 154 27[50]:39 292

2:11 123 6:2 123 38 [31]:9 116

7:10, 13 123 8:29 287 38 [31]:10 226

14:2 151 8:34 283 44 [37]:15, 20 110, 112

14:9 220 9:10 292 52:25 110f.

21:3 102 9:12 123

21:6 293 11:1 116 LAMENTATIONS.

21:32 283. 13:8 123 3:13 164

24:12 123 15:11 164 3:47 98ff.

26:3 365 16:23 123

27:3 205 22:4 292 EZEKIEL.

31:23 293 22:7 123 6:3 291

34:24 293 27:8, 15 123 9 351

38:39 291 27:21 261 10:19, 11:22 283, 284

38ff. 39:1-3 285 30:6 114 11:19 290

42:18 113 16:4 151

ECCLESIASTES 19:3-6 291

PSALMS. 2:5 148 22:25 291

2:9 120 27:5 135

11[12]:7 261f. CANTICLES 27:16 99

17:[18]:8 290 4:18 148 33:27, 34:8, 35, 36:5 205 36:6 291

36:23 283

INDEX OF TEXTS. 381

36:26 290 4 ESDRAS. PSALMS OF SOLOMON.

38:19 205 7:53, 8:52 148 15:8.10 351

39 9 120

40:7, 41:22 153 TOBIT. 1 MACCABEES.

43:14. 17. 20 126 2:12 135 1:6 310

45:10 116 10:10 160 2:47 165

45:19 127 3:23. 32 306

46:17 101 JUDITH. 5:42 112

47:3 99 1:12 205 6:58 251

2:27 226 7:5. 12. 20ff. 314

DANIEL. 4:9 232 8:20 232

1:10 123 9:11 91 9:54 ff. 314

3:33 363 12:7 98 10:25, 45 86

6:7 92 11:39 321

6:27 290, 291 WISDOM OF SOLOMON. 11:50, 62, 66 251

8:5 141 1:15 293 13:42 340

3:5 248 13:50 251

HOSEA. 6:19 107 14:27 340

2:4 165 7:14 168

2:21 f. 107 7:27 168, 290 2 MACCABEES.

4:12 120 8:13. 17 293 1:8 214

8:21 121, 1:12 290

JOEL. 15:3 293 1:24f. 298

1:3 f. 107 17:3 292 3 303

1:20 98 3:1-39 293

2 30 290 3:7 306

SIRACH. 3:11 255

Amos. (ECCLESIASTICUS) 4:8 121

9:1 127 Prologue 340ff. 4:16 150

1:15 123 4:29. 31 115

MICAH. 12 12 267 4:34 251

5:1, 7:14 120 13:5 293 4:47 200

13:22 91 4:49 293

NAHUM. 36[33]11ff. 284 5:8 290

1 6 287 36:19[14 or 16] 93 7:35, 8:4 293

3:11 158 37:7 117 8:11 160

43:29 283 9 29 310

HABAKKUK. 45:14 138 10:3 157

3 3 95 51:9 [131 293 10:11 306

11:16 232

ZEPHANIAH. BARUCH, 11:19 253

3:17 290 2:29 205 11:26 251

4:35 281 11:34 232

HAGGAI. 12:11.12 251

1:1, 21 340 EPISTLE OF JEREMIAH. 12:22 293

12:43 219

ZECHARIAH. v. 9 117 13:2. 23 306

1:1, 1:7 340 13:22 251

6:13 95 SONG OF THE THREE 14:3 314

7:1 310 CHILDREN. 14:19 251

9:9 160, 162, 164 v. 14 136 14:26 115

11:6 248 14:30 93

11:13 262 SUSANNA. 14:38 262

13:6 351 v. 42 283 15 2 293

14:4 211 15:7 92

BEL AND THE DRAGON. 3 MACCABEES.

MALACHI v. 2.3 117 2:2 ff. 298

3:1 162 v. 5 117, 284 2:21 293

v. 22 117 2:29 349, 351

1 [3] ESDRAS. v. 32 160 2:33 92

1:46 281 3:7 255

3:4 98 REST OF ESTHER. 3:11 ff. 28 92

4:52 136 5:1 293 4:20 342

6:12 284 5:34 138

8:4 92 PRAYER OF MANASSES. 6 2 ff. 298

8:53 122 v. 1-4 298 6:40 121

382 INDEX OF TEXTS.

6:41 262 3:34 282 13:13 317

7:1 306 5:11 190 13:21 316

7:20 250 5:33 250 14:27 190 5 34 162 15:1 252

4 MACCABEES. 6:24 229 15:12. 30 233

4:26, 5:2, 8:5.8 139 6:48 f. 123 15:14 315, 316

9:8 263 7:27, 35, 10:6 163 15:39 317

10:10 95 11:3 214 16:2 265

13:13, 17, 14:12, 15:5. 16, 12:42 158 16:33 227

16 24 139 12:58 254 17:11 126

17:22 126 13:34 190 18:2 187

18:11 138 14:10 267 18:6 253

14:29 123 18:31 252

MATTHEW. 15:12 230 19 360

1:20, 2:12f. 19. 22 253 16 8 163 19:9 233

5:41 86,182 16:16 258 19:11 255

6:2, 5, 16 229 17:10 68 19:13 281

6:11 214 19:29 209 ff. 19:18. 19 323

7:22 198 19:37 212, 232 20:26 196

8:12 162 20:18 225 21:13 252

8:17 102f 20:34, 35 163 21:22 233

9:15 162 21:37, 22:39 209ff 22:7, 13 316

10:26 332 22:63 160 22:12 265

10:37f. 248 23:7 229 23:35 230

11:10. 19 163 23:43 148 24:17 117 f

11:12 258 24:4 263 24:27 258

12:43 281 24:18 315 25:13 257

13:35. 38 162 25:21 229

15:37, 16:10 158 JOHN. 25:23 64

18;32 221 8:1 211 25:24 232

21:1 211 8:9 138 f. 26:14.24 316

21:5 160-2-4 12:6 257 26:7 262

21:44 225 12:36 163 27:24 316

23:15 162 13:16f. 242 28:2 255

24:3 211 15:15 168 28:30 258

24:31 248 17:12 163

25:39 68 19:22 113 ROMANS.

26:30 211 19:25 315 3:25 129, 266

27:19 253 20:15 102 4:11 153, 351f.

27:32 86 21:8 153 4:16 109

27:65 f. 66, 28:11 68 11 5:3-5 107

ACTS 5:16. 18 264

MARK. 1:10 263 8:1 264 f.

1:2 f., 2:19, 3:17 162 1:12 208 ff. 8:22 253

3:22 76 1:15 196 8:26 122

5:37 281 1:23 121 8 :27, 34 121

5:9 209 1:25 267 9:8 163

7:35 189 2:6 232 f. 10:14f. 107

8:8, 20 158 3:25 163 11:1 316

8:19 f. 118 4:3 267 11:2 121

9:38 198 4:32 233 12 :1 254

11:1 209 f 4:36 163, 307 12:5 138

12:19 190 5:18 267 15:6 119

13:3 211 6:2 190, 233 15: 8 109

13:27 248 6:5 233 15:16 258

14:19 138, 139 7:57 191 15:19 316

14:26 211 8:10 336 15:20 123

15:21 86, 182 9:4. 17 316 15:26 118

15:40 144 9 :25 158 15:28 238

16:8 293 9:36, 39 189 16:3 187

16:20 109 10:22 265 16:7 192

12:10 189 16 :9 233

LUKE 13 360

1:9 252 13:1 310ff. 1 CORINTHIANS. .

1:10 232 13:6-10 163 1:6, 8 109

2:42 252 13:9 163 4:21 119f, 358

INDEX OF TEXTS. 383

6:1 233 1:7 108 JAMES.

6:16 202 2:3 256 1:3 259

7:2 124 2:23 108 1:3 f. 107

7:3 192 3:5 316 2:8 250

7:5 204, 255 4:3 64, 265 2:23 168

7:10.11.15 247 4:18 229, 258 3:13 194

10:6 224 5:10 198, 263

10:10 110 COLOSSIANS

12:18 252 1:10 224, 248 I PETER

12:28 92 2:14 91, 247, 252 1:1 149

14:5, 15:2 118 3:6 163 1:7 259 f.

15:3 f. 250 4:11 315 1:14 163

15:25ff. 316 1:17 88

15:38 252 1 THESSALONIANS 1:18 266

16:1 118, 142 f. 2:12 248 2:2 256

16:2 142 f. 4:17 64 2:5 258

16:3 316 5:5 163 2:9 96

16:7 252 5:10 64 2:11 149

2:12 194

2 CORINTHIANS 2 THESSALONIANS 2:23 91

1:6 109 2:3 163 2:24 88 f.

1:9 257 3:11 225 4:5 252

1:11 122

1:12 88 1 TIMOTHY 2 PETER

1:21 f. 109

3:3 59 2:1 121, 250 1:1 315

4:10 360 2:2 255 1:3 97, 362

4:13 250 3:6 220 1:4 368

5:5 109 3:15 88 1:10. 19 109

5:16 253 4:5 121 2:5 190

7:1 216 5:19 118 2:13 365

8:4 118 6:16 293 2:14 164

8:8 250, 261 6:19 123 2:16 160

8:10 221 2:18 88

9:1. 13 118 2 TIMOTHY

9:2 221 2:1 182 I JOHN

9:5. 12 144 4:18 363 3:10 163

10:4 181 4:18 199

10:5 73 TITUS

11 349 2:4 255 3 JOHN

11:8 266 2:7 254 v. 4 144

11:32 183 2:8 200 v. 5 202

12:2 190 v. 6 248

12:4 148 HEBREWS

12:24 252

1:14 141 JUDE

GALATIANS 2:2.3 107

2:9 251 2:17 225 v. 4 144

3:1 360 3:6 107 v. 6 267

3:10 248 4:16 135 v. 12 365

3:15 109, 114 6:1 123

4:25. 26 316 6:3 252 REVELATION

4:28 163 6:14 205, 6, 7, 8 2:7 148

5:20 360 6:16 107, 229 2:13 187

6:11 346 ff. 7:18 228 3:4 196

6:17 103, 346ff. 7:25 121 3:12 316

8:6 190 4:3 267

EPHESIANS 9:13 216 4:8 139

2:2 163 9:17 107 6:11 368 ff.

2:3 88, 164 9:26 228 f. 7:2 ff. 352

2:20 123 9:28 89 7:9 ff. 368 ff.

5:6. 8 163 10:33 88 9:4 352

11:13 149 10:6 284

PHILIPPIANS 12:22 316 11:13 196

1:4 250 12:28 316 11:19 189

1;5 253 13:18 88, 194 13:11. 17 240ff.

384 INDEX OF TEXTS.

13:16f., 14:1, 14:9ff. 352

15:5 189 CLEM. Rom. CLEM. ROM.

16:2 352

18:13 160 1 CORINTHIANS. 2 CORINTHIANS.

19:20, 20 4 352

21:2. 10 316 10:1, 17:2 168 5:1, 10:1 190

21:6 192 23:2 292

21:17 153 34:1 122

21:21 139 56:1 121 DIDACHE.

22:18 f. 114 65:1 265 13:3 236

Please report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at: ted.hildebrandt@gordon.edu