Bible studies, contributions chiefly from papyri and ... - Predestination

v 

>^ 

^^'a*^' 

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 

PROFESSOR OP THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF HEIDELBERG 

WITH AN ILLUSTRATION IN THE TEXT 

autbonse& XTranslation 

INCORPORATING DR. DEISSMANN'S MOST RECENT CHANGES AND ADDITIONS 

BY 

ALEXANDEK GEIEVE, M.A. (Edin.), D.Phil. (Lips.) 

MINISTER OF THE SOUTH UNITED FREE CHDROH, FORFAR 

EDINBUEGH 

T. & T. CLAEK, 38 George Street 

1901

61 Sk rj SiaKovia toS âvarow €v ypafx-fiafriv ivrervmofjievr] XiOoa 

iycvrjOr) ev 80^, uxrre fir] SvvaarOai arevia-ai rows uious 'ItrpaÂ 6is to 

TTpocrwirov MwiJtrews 8ia Tr}v 86âv tov irpocruyirov avrov rrjv KaTapyov/Jievrjv, 

TTws ouî jLtaWov 17 biaKovia tov Trvevp.aTO^ Icrrai ev So^ 

;

Pbeface to the English Edition 

CONTENTS. 

Extract prom the Preface to Bibelstudien 

Translator's Note 

Abbreviations 

I. Pbolegombna to the Biblical Letters and Epistles 

II. Contributions to the History of the Language of the Greek 

FAOB 

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 I87 

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 Formulse 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) 

vii

VI CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

VI. Greek Transcriptions op 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

AUTHOK'S PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH 

EDITION. 

Having been honoured Ijy a request to sanction 

an English translation of ni}' BUxd^tudieii and Neue 

BiheUtiidmi, 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. 8. 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) 

;

Vlll AUTHOR S PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION. 

tively the German Bibelstudien and Neue BibeUtudien 

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 Studiei^. With regard to the 

entries KvpiaKoq (p. 217 ff.), and especially iKao-TTJpLou 

(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 Encyclopaedia 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 Sirack applied with 

ingenuous complacency to himself : noXXrju aypvirviav 

/cat kTTLcrTyjfJLrji' TTpoaeveyKdp,^vo^. 

ADOLF DEI8SMANN. 

Heidelberg, 

Onth 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 experienced 

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 remembered 

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 Semindrium 

Philijypimim 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 :— ^ 

" 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, 

' 

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

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

on the 27th inst. . . . [Marburg] 

: 

. . 

Miiller's Erben und Weldige, 1772, p. 13. 

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

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

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 MichaeHs, 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 Septuagint 

will again be given in Germany.^ 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, l)ut I rejoice that I am 

able, as a clergyman, to publish it. 

Herborn : Department 

G. ADOLF DEISSMANN. 

of Wiesbaden, 

7th March, 1895. 

'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. 

! 

"

TRANSLATOH'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 Bibelstudieti, 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 Bihel- 

but there has been added an index 

of Scripture texts, which seemed on the whole more 

studien had none ; 

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 BlbelMudien 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 TEANSLATOE 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 Koniglichen 

Akademie der Wissenschaften 

zu Berlin. 

Benndorf u. Niemann, see p. 157, 

note 1. 

BU. = Aegyptische Urkunden aus den 

Koeniglichen Museen zu Berlin, 

Berlin, 1892 S. 

CIA. = Corpus Inscriptionum Atticarum. 

CIG. = Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum. 

CIL. — Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. 

CUavis^, see p. 88, note 5. 

Cremer, see p. 290, note 2. 

J)AW. = Denkschriften der K. K. 

Akademie der Wissenschaften zu 

Wien. 

Dieterich (A.), see p. 322, note 8. 

Dittenberger, see p. 93, note 2. 

f)LZ. = Deutsche Literaturzeitung. 

Fick-Bechtel, see p. 310, note i. 

Field, see p. 284, note 2. 

Fleck. Jbb. = Fleckeisen's Jahrbiicher. 

Frankel, see p. 84, note 2. 

(rGA. = G5ttingische gelelirte Anzeigen. 

HApAT. = Kurzgetasstes exegetisches 

Handbuch zu den Apocrvphen des 

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

Hamburger, see p. 271, note. 

HC. — Hand-Commentar zum N.T. 

Herclier, see p. 4, note 1. 

Humann u. Puchsteiu, see p. 309, 

note 1. 

IGrSI., see p. 200, note 1. 

IMAc, see p. 178, note 5. 

Kennedy, see p. 213, note 1. 

Keuyon, see p. 323, note 1. 

Lebas, see Waddington. 

Lcemans, see p. 322, note 6. 

Letronne, Recberches, see p. 98, note 3. 

— Recueil, see p. 101, note 6. 

Lumbroso, Recherches, see p. 98, note 2. 

Mahaffy, see p. 336, note 1. 

Meisterlians, see p. 124, note 1. 

Meyer = H. A. W. JMeyer, Kritisch 

exegetischer Kommentar iiber das 

N.T. 

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

Parthey, see p. 322, note 5. 

Baton and Hicks, see p. 131, note L 

PER., see p. 179, note 2. 

Perg., see p. 178, note 4. 

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

R-E 2 = Real-Encyclopadie fiir protest. 

Theologie und Kirche von Herzog, 

2. Aufl., Leipzig, 1877 ff. 

Scbleusner = J. F., Nevus Thesaurus 

philologico-criticus sive lexicon in 

LXX et reliquos interpretes graecos 

ac scriptores apocryphos V. T., 

5 voll., Lipsiae, 1820-21. 

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

Schmidt (Guil.), see p. 291, note 1. 

Schiirer, see p. 335, note 2. 

Swete = The Old Testament in Greek 

according to the Septuagint, edited 

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

1887-94. 

Thesaurus = H. Stephanus, Thesaurus 

Graecae Linguae, edd. Hase, etc., 

Paris, 1831-65. 

Thayer, see p. 176, note 3. 

ThLZ. = Theologische Literaturzeitung. 

Tromm. = Abrajiami Trommii concor- 

(XY) 

dantiae graecae versionis vulgo 

dictae LXX interpretum . 

. ., 2 

tomi, Amstelodami et Trajecti ad 

Rhenum, 1718. 

TU. — Texte und Untersuchungen zur 

Geschichte der altchristlichen 

Literatur. 

Waddington, see p. 93, note 1. 

Wessely, see p. 322, note 7. 

Wetstein, see p. 350, note 1. 

Winer', or Winer-Liinemann = G. B. 

Winer, Grammatik des neutestamentlicheu 

Sprachidioms, 7 Aufl. 

von G. Liinemann, Leipzig, 1867. 

[9th English edition, by W. F. 

Moulton, Edinburgh, 1882 = 3rd 

German edition.] 

Winer-Schmiedel = the same work, 

8th Aufl. neu bearbeitet von P. W. 

Schmiedel, Gottingen, 1894 ff. 

ZAW. = Zeitschrift fiir die alttestamentliche 

Wissenschaft. 

ZKG. = Zeitschrift fiir Kirchengeschichte.

PKOLEGOMENA TO THE BIBLICAL LETTEES 

AND EPISTLES.

ytvecrOe Soki/aoi TpaTreîTat.

PEOLEGOMENA TO THE BIBLICAL LETTERS AND 

EPISTLES. 

1. Men have written letters ever since they could v^rite 

at all. Who the first letter-v^riter was we know not.^ But 

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

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 

lit appears sufficiently naive that Tatian {Or. ad Graec, p. lisf.. 

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., 

eTTio-ToAos (rvvrda-fffiv, and not as collecting letters togetlwr and publishing them, 

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

Phalaris, Lond'on, 1699, p. 535 f., German edition by W. Ribbeck, Leipzig, 

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

heurematu^n, 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} A letter is destined for the receiver only, not for the 

public eye, and even vp'hen 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 httle 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 hterary 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 immaterial "-^ 

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.^ He who writes a letter under the impression that 

1 [Pseudo-] Diogenes, ep. 3 {Epistolograplii Gracci, rcc. R. Hercher, 

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

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

'^ 

Cf. Th. Birt, Das antikc Buchwesen in seincin Verhdltniss zihr 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. 

'' 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 ; ^ 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 hniiself freely to it. So must the letter, 

even the shortest and the poorest, present a fragment 

' Cic, Fain. 15,214, aliter enim scribimus qivod eos solos quibus mittimus, 

aliter quad imiltos lecturos putamus. Cic, Phil. 2,7, quam multa ioca solent 

esse in enistulis quae prolata si sint inepta videantur ! qtiain multa scria ncqiie 

tamen ullo niodo 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 ". 

(Jonnnis Kepleri astronomi opera omnia, cd. Ch. Frisch, i. [Frankfurt and 

Erlangen, 1858], p. 234 ; cf. C. Anschiitz, Ungedruckte tvissenschaftlicJie Cm-- 

rcspoiidenz zwischen Johann Kepler and Hencart von Hohenburg, 1599, 

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

linus (t 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 

Strassbiirg This letter (6 2J«(7iHa)'«»j) was subsequently printed without 

my knowledge or desire, which in itself did not concern me—only liad 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. o)nn., 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 eyewitness, 

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 

und Denkwimligkcifen des Gcncral-Fcldmarschalls 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 fi-om their naturalness. Still they will be the 

hands of kind and cherished persons, and so maj- the thought of it 

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

p. 271). 

:


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

true.^ 

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 pubhcity : 

the 

maker of Hterature 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 examined 

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 

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

carried home in v^riting 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, poUti- 

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 hbraries as sheet, or roll, or folio : all these are as 

1 Demetr., clc clocuL, 227 (Hercher, p. 13). Greg. Naz., ad Nicobiilum 

(Hercher, p. 16).

193, 194] LETTEES 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 pubhc.^ 

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, hke the hand that vôte it, like the eyes 

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

posterity as for the pubhc of his own time ; ^ 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.^ 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-hterary man, when there was no book to trouble him. 

1 Birt, Buchwescn, 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, Aristotelin, i., Halle, 1830, p. 192 f. 

•' Wellhausen, Israelitische itiid Jildisclie Gescldchte, 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. 

;


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 dehvered 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 

multipHed—among the great unknown pubhc 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 Testament 

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 hterature. As little, however, as 

some unknown man, Hving 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 hterature by pubhcation, to be, on that account, 

thought of as literature. Letters remain letters whether 

oblivion hides them with its protecting veil, or whether now


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,^ to the forms of pubHshed litera- 

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

the impetus to the development of this new literary eiclos} 

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 hterary machine than a true man, and thus, when the 

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

continue to be so named: tlie author considers that the borrowed ^ ord 

appropriately expresses the technical sense. 

- F. Susemihl, Geschichte dcr griechischcn Littcratitr in dcr Alexan- 

drimrzcit, 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 ".


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 purblind 

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 ; ^ 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 

stifidy 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, 

^ Cf. vou Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Aristoteles und 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 /car' 

«rSos". This judgment applies also to real, genuine letters hy Isocrates.


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 o-ood 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 wilhngly 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.^ 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 Ehine-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 

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 Kanjstos {Philologisclie 

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

Tvritten 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,^ in these vôrds, 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 " unhterary," 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 l)e 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 becomes 

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 phenomenon, 

is light ware indeed. 

6. Of collections of letters, bearing the name of wellknown 

poets and philosophers, we have, indeed, a great 

1 Briefe, das titudiuvi dcr Tlwologie betreffend, Third Part, Frankfurt 

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


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

composed and given to the world by others under the protection 

of a great name.^ A timid ignorance, having no 

true notion of Hterary usages, inconsiderately stigmatises 

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

imagines that everything in the world can be brought between 

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 

' 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 Olympiadisqtie 

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

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

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

Ephesus (Th. Zahu, Geschichte des Neutestamentlichcn Kaiwns, ii., 2, 

Eilangen and Leipzig, 1892, p. 565).


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,^ while the small 

prosperous folks, whose sleepy souls reck 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 because 

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"^ 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 

^ Of. the confession made by U. von Wilamowitz-MoellendorfE, Aristoteles 

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

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

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

compared vyith 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." 

- The term iKCudmiymoufi 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.


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,^ 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 timidit5^ Between the genuine ^ and the pseudonymous 

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 

^ C/. on this point specially Jiilicher, Einleitung hi 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 gentiine 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.


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- 

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

the basis. ^ 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 plausibihty 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, 

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

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

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 dcs classisclien 

Altcrthumfi odcr das erste Jahrhundert des Humanismus, ii.", Berlin, 1893, 

pp. 417-436.


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 considerationrS, 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.^ 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 hterature, 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 hterature of ancient Egypt ".^ 

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 ". 

- J. Karabacek, MittUeilungen aus der Savimlung 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 " Babylonisoh-Assyrische Brieilitt^ratur '\ 

2 

If,


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 hterary 

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,^ for instance, 

uses it as the antithesis of the pastoral letter (Gemeifidebrief) 

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 

' Meyur, xiv.-' (1888), p. 187. 

;


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 letter ^ to his distant congregation at home 

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

in church by the loc2im 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 ; 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. 

^ Cf. for instance the letter of K. Ninck to his congregation at Friicht, 

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

Willi. Theodor Ninck. Ein Lebensbild. 2nd edn., Herborn, 1891, p. 94 £f. 

- This diiierence 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.


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

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

AVhen 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 

were we to separate it in any way 

to respect its protest ; 

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,'^ 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, 

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

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

Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Aristoteles und Athen, ii., p. 393; cf. p. 394: real 

letters; ibid., p. 392, letters, 4in(noKai in the full sense of tJie 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 ivrilmg {Buchwesen, pp. 2, 20, 61, 

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

(wirkliche Conespondenzen, p. 326). Similarly A. Westermann, De epistolarum 

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

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

homines revera datae sunt". 

'•^ Von 

Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Ein Weiligesclwnk des EratosiJwfws. p. 3.

207, 208] LETTEKS AND EPISTLES. 21 

between innocent fabrications and forgeries with a " tendency 

". 

Furnished with these definitions, we approach the immense 

quantity of written material which has been be- 

queathed to us by Graeco-Roman antiquity under the 

ambiguous term eTriaroXai, epistnlae. 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.^ 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 iTrtaroXal 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 2)ossess—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.^ 

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.^ 

Letter from Chaireas to Tyrannos.^ 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 demanding 

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

and demand payment until I come in peace. Do not therefore 

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." 

" To Tyrannos, dioiketes ". 

Address : 

^ The Oxyrhynchus Pajyyri, 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. 

'^ 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. 

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

of the Oxyrhynchite nome. Tyrannos was SioiKT]Ti]s.

LETTEES AND EPISTLES. 23 

II. 

Letter of Recommendation from Theon to Tyrannos.^ 

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.- 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 household. 

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

tus, Athyr 18." 

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

IV. 

Letter from Thaeisus to her mother Syras.^ 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 . 

sister . . . and 

my father Theonas." 

V. 

. . and 

my 

Letter from Ammonios to his father Ammonios.* 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. 

" Ibid., No. 297, ii., p. 298. 

'• 

Ibid., No. 295, ii., p. 296.

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.i Late First Century. 

" Indike to Thaeisus, greeting. I sent you the breadbasket 

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. Goodbye. 

Month Germanikos 2." 

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

at the Gymnasion". 

VIT. 

Letter of Consolation from Elrene to Taonnophrls and 

Philon.^^ 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,^ 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 Herakleides.^ 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 Oxyrhynclms Papyri, No. 300, ii., p. 301. 

- Theon is probably the husband of Thaeisus. 

•"' 

Tlie Oxyrhynclms Papyri, No. 115, i., p. 181. 

* T?dvTes 01 e/LioL Grenfell and Hunt : all my friends. 

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


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 Oxyrhynchite 

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 x\mmonios." 

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 eTriaroXai, 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 hterature. Just as at 

some future time posterity will be grateful lo 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 

—


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 (f 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. ^ These letters were " true letters, 

occasioned by the requirements of private correspondence, 

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

This collection is usually considered to be the first instance 

of private letters being subsequently published.^ 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 ; 

by far the greater number of these were certainly products 

of the fictitious literary composition of the Alexandrian 

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

the nine letters transmitted to us under the name of Isocrates 

(f 338 B.c.).^ The most recent editor" 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 : 

^ Von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Antigonos vmi Karystos, p. 151. 

- Stahr, Aristotelia, i., p. 195. 

"so 

* 

much 

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

mihl, ii., 580. 

^ Hercher, pp. 172-174. ^ Susemihl, ii., 580 f. 

« Hercher, pp. .319-336. 

"Von Wil&movfitz-MoeWendorfi, Aristoteles U7id AtJien, 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.


detail, which, wherever we can test it, we recognise to 1)6 

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."^ 

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." ^ 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 hke 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 ".^ 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 ".* The 

evidence for and against the genuineness of letter 6 is 

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

not genuine ; 

are 

partly, in fact, forgeries with a purpose.* 

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. Undiscerning 

tradition may quite well have joined together one 

1 p. 391 f. 2 P. 392. 

s P. .397. 

* P. 399. 5 P. 395. 6 Pp. 393-397. 

;

— 


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 

the son of 

themselves from the eyes of the servants : when 

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

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

the much-misunderstood Epicurus (f 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,^ and have in 

part come down to us. The author cannot refrain from 

giving here ^ 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](êt7/U.eâ c-t? Ad/juylraKov vyiaivovTe^ eyco fcai Uvdo- 

kX?]^ Ka\l'' KpiJb\ap')(ô'^ /cal K[Tj;]cri7r7ros\ Kal e'/cet KareiXijcfiafjiev 

vylLâii'ovra^ Qe/xlaTav Kal rov


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

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

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

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

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

of the date 28th July, 43.'^ " Their contents are both per- 

sonal and political, and they form an inexhaustible source 

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

such a kind that the pubhcation 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 feehngs as they came, either m words or in letters to 

some confidential friend like Atticus, often affords a too 

searching, frequently even an illusory,'* glance into his inmost 

soul. Hence the accusers of Cicero gathered the greatest 

part of their material from these letters." ^ 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 ".*' 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. Sehnorr von Carolsfeld, Uber die Beclen und 

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

p. 66, note 14 [Eng. Trans. I., I., p. 90] 

2WS. 3, and Westermann, i. (1851), p. 4. 

; also Teufiel-Schwabe, i., p. 84, 

^ W. S. Teuffel's Geschichte der yomischen Literatur, revised by L. 

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

2 Teuffel-Schwabe, i., p. 856 ff. 

' 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 importance 

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, 1886, p. 243, and E. Ruete, Die Gorrespondenz Ciceros in 

den Jahrcn 44 und 43, Marburg, 1883, p. 1. 

* The present writer would question this. 

5 Teutfel-Schwabe, i., p. 356 f. 

" Ibid., i., p. 357.


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." ^ " After Cicero's death the 

collecting and publishing of his letters was zealously promoted 

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

Cicero was still hving, had resolved to collect his letters." ^ 

Cornehus 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 " 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."^ The following details of the 

work of collection may be taken as established."^ 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 pubhshed 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," ^ particularly those addressed 

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

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

Attic, 16, 5 6 (44 B.C.) mearum epistularmn nulla est a-vvaywyf), sed habet Tiro 

instar LXX, et quidem su7it a. te quaeda^n swne.ndae ; eas ego opm-tet perspiciam, 

corrigam ; turn denique edentur,—and to Tiro, Fam., 16, 17i (46 B.C.) tuas quc- 

que epistulas vis referri in volumina. 

•i Teuffel-Schwabe, i., p. 357. ^ Ibid. 

* Ibid., p. 358. •* Ibid., p. 83.


presses himself without a particle of constraint, and which 

often contain allusions intelligible to the receiver alone. In 

some parts they read like sohloquies." ^ 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 between 

Cicero's confidential judgments upon individuals and 

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

of but little weight." ^ 

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 pubhc of the time being ; it is also for the 

future. It has not been ascertained with certainty which 

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

ture. Susemihl ^ is inclined to think that the epidictic 

triflings of Lysias (f 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.* We have " didactic epistles " of Epicurus, as also of 

DionysiiLs of Halicarnassus, and we may add to these such 

writings of Plutarch as De Gonjugalibus Praeceptis, De Tran- 

quillitate Animi, De Animae Procreatione ^—literary productions 

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

in such things,^ ov fjua Trjv aXjjdeiau iirccrToXat Xeyocvro dv, 

dWa avyypd/x/jbara ro âipetv eôina Trpoayeypafxpievov, and 

€t yap Ti


ypd(f)€i fiei', ou firjv eirtaroXriv jpacfiei} Among the Romans, 

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

"^ 

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

are Seneca and Pliny. L. Annaeus Seneca^ (t ^5 A.D.) began 

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

" great " letters—to write the Epishdae Morales to his friend 

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

Hshed ; most probably the first three books were issued by 

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

Secundus^ {f 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 " ; ^ " with studied variety they enlarge upon a multi- 

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

in the most favourable light " ; 

^ " 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 " ; 

'' "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 ".^ " All possible care has likewise been 

bestowed upon the form of these letters."-' 

There are several other facts illustrative of the extremely 

' 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 eiri 'AAe^dvSpij} iinTdcpios dedicated tj7 

&ov\rj KOI TCf Sy'i/jLCji Tw KoTvaewv, of which he himself says (i., p. 148, Dindorf), 

ihrfp ye Ka\ ev apxfi rfis iiriffToXTjs flirov v)o tj fiovXe


wide dissemination of the practice of epistle-writing among 

the Greeks and Komans. 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 epistle ^ 

(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 ; 

further, there were episUdcB medicinales,'^ gastronomic " letters,"'* 

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 vdth 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."^ 

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 Eomans. 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.'' 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. Îbicl, i., p. 84. 

•* Ibid., i., p. 85. * Susemihl, ii., p. 601. 

''A. Dieterich, Abraxas, p. 161 f. Particular references will be found 

there and specially in Fleck. Jbb. Suppl. xvi. (1888), p. 757. 

® Cf. pp. 15 and 20 above. 

3 

"


assumed or protective names was found highly convenient by 

such obscure people as felt that they must make a contribu- 

tion to Hterature 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 Gams 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,^ viz., that the early imperial 

period was the classical age of this most unclassical manu- 

facturinef 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 

' J. F. Marcks, St/iitbola critica ad Epistolograpiios Gi-aecos, Bonn, 1883.

226, 227] LETTEKS 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 vîthout 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 Latm " guides to 

letter-writing " ^ 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 

yap eTretSr) 

eiTLcrroXi-j Trpoaayopeverai eviKw ovofxaTi, r^hrj Kal Traawv rcov 

Kara rov îov (f)epofj,€V(ov iirLcrToXoiv €l

36 BIBLE STUDIES. [228 

view. Just as the language of the Bible ought to be studied 

^ 

in its actual historical context of contemporary language ; 

just as its religious and ethical contents must be studied in 

their actual historical context of contemporary religion and 

civilisation-—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 ivritings, 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,^ but the question re- 

garding their literary character must be so framed that the 

answer will affirm the ^7-eliterary character, probably of 

some, possibly of all. 

1 Cf. p. 63 ff. 

^ The author has ah-eady briefly expressed these ideas about the history 

of biblical religion in the essay Ztir MetJwcle der Biblisclien Theologic des 

Neuen Testamentes, Zeitsdirift fur Theologic und KircJie, iii. (1893), pp. 126-139. 

^ E. P. Gould, in an article entitled " The Literary Character of St. 

Paul's Letters " in Tfie 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/—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 ; ^ 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 ".^ 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 

in any case, a circle of readers which 

company of persons : 

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.^ Though Overbeck thus indicates with proper precision 

the fundamental diiference between the letter and literature, 

^ Tiber die Anfdnge der patristischen 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. 

' 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 ". Hero 

forjii can be understood only as Eiclos. 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 e'iSr] of literature. No one, for example, will expect 

a comedy to incite


yet he has overlooked the necessary task of investigating 

whether the ApostoHc 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 " ^ 

; in point of fact, he has the right feeling,^ 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,^ but which, in consideration of the paucity of 

their different forms, must not be thought of as quaHfying 

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 disputes ^ 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.^ 

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_ 

'^ Overbeck here means the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and Revelation. 

< P. 426 ff. 5 p. 429. 

—


already manifests itself clearly in the "letters" found 

amon£,f the writings of pre-Christian Judaism. Looking 

at the writings of early Christianity from the standpoint 

of hterary history, we perceive that Jewish hterature ^ was 

precisely the Hterary sphere from which the first Christians 

could most readily borrow and adopt something in the way 

of forms, el'Srj, of composition.^ If, therefore, the existence of 

the elSos 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 fine of demarcation, quite unmistakably present in 

"profane" hterature, should have also touched the outlying 

province of the New Testament, that doubt will be stilled 

when it is shown that this hne 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 hterary, a morphological connec- 

tion ; if it be thought necessary to estabhsh 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 

canonical. 

^ Not solely, of course, those writings which we no2V recognise as 

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.


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 m 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),^ 

something which to his morbid literary taste seemed like an 

epistle. As a matter of fact, this message is a real letter, 

j)erhaps indeed the only genuine one we have from Old 

Testament times ; 

a real letter, which only became literature 

by its subsequent admission into the hook 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 simphcity 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. Tiiere 

' It is, of course, possible, in these merely genei-al observatious, to avoid 

touching on the question of the integrity of this message. 

—


has been transmitted to us, among the Old Testament 

Apocryphal writings, a little book bearing the name eTria-roXr] 

'lepe/jbiov. 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 htera- 

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 ! 

Having once gamed a footing, epistolography must 

we have still 

have become very popular in Greek Judaism ; 

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 works'-; in so far as these 

are unauthentic, they are undoubtedly of an epistolary 

^ 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 

Ptoleniaeus, had "brought hither" {i.e., to Egypt) the iTnaroKr) twv ^povpai 

{concerning tlie Feast of Purini) from Esther and Mordecai (LXX Esther 

929, c/. 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 j\Iaccabees, Epistle of Aristeas, specially also Eupolemos 

.{cf. thereon J. Preudenthal, Hellenist ische Studien, part i. and ii., Breslau, 

1875, p. 106 ff.), Josephus. 

^


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 two ^ epistles at the beginning of the 

2nd Book of Maccabees, the Epistle of " Baruch " to the nine and 

a half tribes in cap)tivity, attached to the Apocalypse of 

Baruch,'^ perhaps the twenty-eighth " Letter of Diogenes,'' ^ and 

certain portions of the collection of " letters " which bears the 

name of Heraclitus^ 

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 it& 

most pronounced form when we compare the letter to 

Philemon with that to the Komans ; 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 hes outside the scope of the present 

^C. Bruston (Trois letfres des Juifs de Palestine, ZAW. x. [1890], pp. 

110-117) has recently tried to show that 2 Mace. 1 1-2 '^ contains not two but 

three letters (li-^"- l^wo^, 1106-218). 

- 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. 

61 ff. 

•' 

Cf. J. Bernays, Lucian und die Kyniker, Berlin, 1879, p. 96 ff. 

^ J. Bernays, Die h^raklitisdien Briefe, Berlin, 1869, particularly p.


methodological essay.^ 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 epistles ^ is to take away what is best in them. 

They were, of course, collected, and treated as literature—in 

^ 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. 

^ 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 uncanonical) 

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, Einleitimg in die Schriffen des Nenen Testaments, n.'\ Stuttgart and 

Tubingen, 1826, p. 334 ff. ; Heinrici, Das zioeite Sendschreiben des Ai). P. an 

die Korinthier, p. 578). The same position is held very decidedly by A. 

Scultetus (t 1624), according to whom the Apostle imitates the "letters" of 

Heraclitus {cf. Bernays, Die Jieraklitischen Brief e, 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 dev lieiligen Schrr. N.T. 

p. 70). Mention may also be made—reference to living writers being omitted 

—of A. Ritschl's Diechristl. Lehre vender Rechtfertigung und Versohnmuj. ii.", 

p. 22. Supporters of the correct view were, of course, not wanting even in 

earlier times. Compare the anonymous opinion in tlie Codex Barberinus, 

111., 36 (saec. xi.) : iiriffroXai HavKov KaXovvraL, eiretSr) ravras 6 TlavAos ISia iiri- 

fTTeWei Kol 5i' avTwv ovs juLev ^Stj ecopane koI fSiSaêv uTrOjUi/urijcr/cei Kal eiriStopdovrai, 

ovs 5e fj.7] kdipaKi o-TrouSdfet (cottjx«'I' koX SiSacr/ceii', in E. Klostermann's Analecta 

zur Septuaginta, He.rapla und Patristik, Leipzig, 1895, p. 95. 

—


point of fact, as literature in the highest sense, as canonical 

—at an eaiiy 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 canonicity 

upon them ; should we desire to attain a historical 

estimate of their proper character, we must disregard l)oth. 

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 hturgical 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 Scriptiire ; 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 

;


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 Bom. 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 hkely 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.^ But 

the Letter to the Philijypians 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,- 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 

coufiregational 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. 

^ 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- 

plans, shorter still than the " great " Pauline letters. But there are also 

quite diminutive epistles : a 

collection of Hercher. 

large number of examples are to be found in the


"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, m its 

turn, beginning to be taught. Do such letters forthwith 

become tractates simply because they are "doctrinal"?^ 

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 tvttol of the old 

theorists ^ may be increased to whatever extent one wishes. 

^ 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 Publizisfik im Zeitalter Gregors VII., 

Leipzig, 1894, p. 28. 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 siuords pierced tlie 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.


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 Ejyistles " . They, 

contain, in fact, theological discussions : 

too, are partly doctrinal; they 

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.^ Hov^^ 

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-hke of ail 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 vîth 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, m 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 

^ Cf. the observations upon this letter in the Spicilegium below.

48 BIBLE STUDIES. . [240, 241 

them on this account. A letter is somethinp;- ephemeral,, 

and must be so by its very nature ; ^ it has as little desire 

to be immortal as a tete-a-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 httle 

company of men, whose very existence, one may say, was 

unknown to the pubhc at large, and who occupied a special 

position within Christianity. It is unhkely that the Apostle 

^ Tills 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. 

;


would send copies of the letter to the brethren in Ephesus, 

Antioch or Jerusalem ; it was to Borne that he despatched 

it : nor did the bearer of it go to the pubhshers in the 

Imperial City,^ but rather to some otherwise unknown 

brother in the Lord— just hke 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 Komans 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 raXatTrcopo? eyco avOpaiiro^; 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. 

13 ^^, to be a X070? tt}? Tra/ja/cA-rjo-eo)?, and one would have no 

occasion whatever to consider it anything but a literary ora- 

tion—hence not as an epistle ^ at all—îf the eVeo-retXa 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 circumstance 

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 

4

50 BIBLE STUDIES. [242, 24R 

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 Xoyo'^ can ])e 

made an epistle by any kind of an address. The Epistle 

to the Hebrews stands on the same Hterary plane as the 

Fourth Book of Maccabees, which describes itself as a 

(jiiXoaocfxoTaTo^ X0709 ; 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 " Ejnstles, 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.^ 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.-' [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 lettet- or epistle ? is in effect the necessary precondition 

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 tlie 

Aristotelian writings which is given by the philosopher David the Armenian 

—


tions addressed to Christians—one might perhaps say the 

Church— în general. The cathohcity of the address impHes, 

of course, a cathohcity in the contents. What the Church 

calls catholic, we require only to call ejnstle, and the un- 

solved enigma with which, according to Overbeck,^ 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, 

catholic means 

is due precisely to their literary character : 

in this connection literary. The impossibihty of recognising 

the "letters" of Peter, James and Jude as real letters fol- 

lows directly from the pecuHarity in the form of their 

address. Any one who writes to the elect ivho are sojourriers 

of the Diaspora in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and 

Bithynia, or to the tioelve tribes which are of the Diaspora, or 

even to them tvhich have obtained a like precious faith toith us, 

or to them that are called, beloved in God the Father arid 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 tJie 

Hebreios ; 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,^ 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 

hterature. Had the First Epistle of Peter,^ 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, Scliol. in Arisf., p. 24a, Westermann, iii. [1852], p. 9). 

In contrast to fjiepiKSs special, Ka.QoKi.K6s 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. "- Hercher, p. 241 ft. 

^ For the investigation of the Second Epistle of Peter,l&ee the observa- 

tions which follow below in the Spicilegi^mi.


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 hterature ; 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 hterature ; most address themselves to a section only of 

the immeasurable public—they are special literature, or 

party hterature, or national literature. It is quite admissible 

to speak of a literary pubhc, 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. Com.pare 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] LETTEES 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 alv^âys 

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 " vîsdom " 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


" 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 leastknown 

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 tlimcjs hard to he 

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 Eevelation, again, difl:er 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 ara 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-


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-Eoman 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 hterature ; 

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 

Eaiiy 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- 

hterary writings of primitive Christianity, and the history of 

the canonisation of the writings which subsequently became


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 Hterary 

temperament and the epistles which were its outcome can 

be older than the letters of Paul. 

(3) The collection and pubHcation^ of the letters of 

Paul was indirectly influenced by the analogy of other col- 

lections of letters ^ made in ancient times.^ 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 quern 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-apostoHc period, the 

so-called testimonia, and specially the testimonia e silentio, have 

an altogether different historical value according as they 

relate to letters or epistles.* The silentium regarding the 

readers. 

1 That is to say, of course, publication within Christianity. 

2 Especially those which were made on^ behalf of a definite circle of 

= 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. 

^ 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 Einleitîng in das Nezie Testament, Berlin, 

1886, §§ 6, 7, p. 38 fi. 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.


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 probabiHty 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,^ 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 

vdth regard to their literary character. Its task is not to 

penetrate into the knowledge of creative personalities in the 

rehgious 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 

iSeep. 31.


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.^ 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 " constitution 

" and the external circumstances of Christianity ; many 

details are only of typical value, w^hile others, again, are but 

literary exercises, or anticipations of conditions not yet fully 

realised. 

(8) In particular, the Nev^ 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 rehgion, 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 nothmg 

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 rehgion 

which was gradually accommodating itself to external conditions, 

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 

' 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. 

—


with his finger, and the learning of eighteen centuries has 

not yet divined what he then wrote." ^ If Jesus is the gospel, 

then it must hold good that the gospel is non-literary. Jesus 

had no wish to make a rehgion ; 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.^ 

Nor did the Apostle of Jesus Christ advocate the gospel by 

hterature ; 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-rehgion. The church, as a factor in history—which 

the gospel made no claim to be—required literature, and 

hence 

hence it made hterature, and made books out of letters : 

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 gam 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. 

^ Herder, Briefe, das Sttidmm der Theologie betreffend, zweyter Theil, 

zweyte verbesserte Auflage, Frankfurt and Leipzig, 1790, p. 209. 

2 2 Cor. 3 •'.

II. 

CONTKIBUTIONS TO THE HISTOEY OF THE 

LANGUAGE OF THE GEEEK BIBLE.

avolyui TO. fivrffxara v/xitiv koI avdÛ) {i/xas e/c Ttiiiv fivrjixa.TU)v vfxwv koi 

€lcrd$

CONTEIBUTIONS 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 tnne is past: the doctrine of verbal Inspiration, petrified 

almost mto 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 hnguistic 

investigation by themselves, and that it is possible vdthin 

such a sphere to trace out the laws of a special "genius of


language". Thus, in theological commentaries, even with 

regard to expressions which have no special religious significance, 

we may find the observation that so and so are "New 

Testament" aira^ Xeyo/jueva} 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.'^ 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 Testament 

" 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 

' The only meaning that can be given to such observations—if they are 

to have any meaning at all—is vyhen 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 o7ra| \ey6/j.eva 

of a single definite writer such as Paul. 

^ W. Schmid, Der Atticismus in seinen Hauptvertretern von Dionysius 

von Halikarnass bis auf den zweiten Philostratus, iii., Stuttgart 1893, p. 338. 

The Kui 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 ^lian. 

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 ij.eTa Kai which, it is alleged, does not belong to 

the N. T., seems to the author to occur in Phil. 4'' (differently Act. Ap. 25* 

(Tvu re— Kal) : c/. aua

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.^ 

It is only an extension of this presupposition w^hen 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 bibhcal 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, 

' 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. 

5


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 fragment 

or two of the Itala, the chief works of Tertulhan, 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 linsfuistic 

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 methodological 

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 v^th 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 translation 

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 reverence, 

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,^ 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-Greek ^ which no one ever spoke, far less 

used for literary purposes, either before or after.^ The sup- 

position, that they had an easy task because the problem of 

^ 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.


the syntax was largely solved for them through a " Judaeo- 

Greek " already long in existence/ is hardly tenable. We 

have a whole series of other Jewish texts from Alexandria,^ 

^ In particular, J. Wellhausen formerly advocated this supposition ; 

c/. his observations in F. Bleek's Einlciiung in das A. T.*, Berlin, 1878, p, 

578, and, previously, in Der Text der Bilcher Samiielis untersucht, Gottingen, 

1871, p. 11. But the very example which he adduces in the latter passage 

supports our view. In 1 Sam. 4 2- ^, the verb irraiw is twice found, the first 

time intransitively, the second time transitively, corresponding respectively 

to the Niphal and Qal of Pl^^. 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 wTaiea, with its distinction of meaning, 

to the already existent popular usage of the contemporaries of the LXX (i.c^ 

from the context—the Alexandrian Jews), he overlooks the fact that the 

transitive sense of irraiai 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 " Judteo-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. Schiirer, 

i., p. 53; further particulars and a new reading in U. Wilcken, Ein Aktens- 

tiick ztmi jiidischen Kriege Trojans, Hervics, xxvii. (1892), p. 464 ff. (see also^ 

Hermes, xxii. [1887], p. 487), and on this GGA. 1894, p. 749. P«p. 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 between 

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, p.f/.„ 

Kooa-TooSia (Matt. 27 "^f-, 28" KovcrruSia, Matt. 27^ Cod. A KoocTTovSia ; Cod. I> 

has KovcTTovSia), axpewi Sov\ot (Luke 17^", cf. Matt. 25^"). The identification 

of the 00-101 'lovSaloi with the successors of the 'AaiSaloi 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, " Neucntdecktc Papyrus-Frag'inevte 

zur Geschichte des griechisclien Judenthnms,'" in ThLZ. xxiii. (1898), p. 602 ff.)


but do their idioms bear comparison even in the shghtest 

with the peculiarities of the LXX, which arose quite inci- 

dentally ? ^ So long as no one can point to the existence of 

actual products of an original Judaeo-Greek, we must be permitted 

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 Judseo-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 formulae and formulaic 

turns of expression found in the Psalms or the Law were 

' The 

relation which tiie language of the Prologue to Sirach bears to 

the translation of the book is of the utmost importance in this question. 

(C/. 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 tliat it is an Alexandrian Greek who speaks here ; in the book 

itself, a disguised Semite. The translator himself had a correct apprehension 

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 tktI tccu Kfêwv aSwafxelv • ov yap 

KroSwa/xfl: avra eV eavToTs efipal'crrl AeySfxeva Kal brav /u.eTaxBjj eis irepav y^wffcrav. 

Whoever counts the Greek Sirach among the monuments of a " Judseo-Greek," 

thought of as a living language, must sliow why the translator uses Alex- 

andrian Greek when he is not writing as a translator.


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 

0. 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.^ 

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." 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.^ Since F. W. Sturz'* began his studies 

^ 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 

^ Cf. the remarks of Buresch, Rhein. Mus. fiir 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. 

* De dinlecto Macedonica et Alexandrina liber, Leipzig, 1808. 

.

65, 66] LANGUAGE OF THE GEEEK 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 

translators ^ 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 unapproachable— 

ôn 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- 

^ We have Papyri of the very time of Ptolemy II. Philadelphus, who 

plays such an important part in the traditions of the LXX.


lization of the Ptolemaic period : 

we 

come to know the stilted 

speech of the com-t, 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,^ 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 realty the pre-Christian 

sources which have been used ; - but those of the early im- 

^ 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 decisions, 

writ; en 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 

orthograpliy of their time. The Papyri have been already referred to in 

LXX-investigations by H. W. J. Tliiersch, De Pentateuchi versionc Alexandrina 

libri tres, Erlangen, 1841, p. 87 ff. ; recently by B. Jacob, Das Buck Esther 

bei den LXX, ZA W. 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. 

- 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. 

;


perial 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.^ 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 

naively, and if, on that account, we cannot but pardon their 

obliteration of many historical and geographical particulars 

in their Bible, we inay, as counterbalancing this, admire the 

skill which they brought to bear upon their wrongly-conceived 

task.^ From such considerations arises the demand 

that no future lexicon to the LXX ^ shall content itself with 

the bringing forward of mere equations ; in certain cases the 

^ 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. 

- 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 vto\ 0eov by Kinder Gottes (children of God), of vlhs Oeov by Sohn Gottes 

(Son of God). Luther's dogmatic sense strove against an identical rendering 

of vi6s in both cases : he 

was unwilling to call Christians sons of God, or 

Jesus Christ tlw child of God, and in consequence made a distinction in the 

word vlos. We may also remember the translation of v6-nixa in 2 Cor. 10'' by 

Vernunft (reason), whereby biblical authority was found for the doctrine fides 

praecedit intcllectum. 

•' 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.


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 ; 

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 ivith 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 Judseo-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 elements 

which originally were thought and spoken in Aramaic.^ 

^ 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 tocertain portions of the Apocalj'pse of John, the question must 

be raised as to whether they do not in some way go back to a Semitic original. 

— 

we


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 considerable 

certainty, and to provide himself, at least in some 

degree, v^dth 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 ".^ 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.'^ Till that is done we must guard against the 

^ Cf. Jtllicher, Einleitimg 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. 

^ The author recalls, for instance, what is said in Wellhausen's Israelii- 

ische unci Jildische Geschiclite, Berlin, 1894, p. 312, note 1.—Meanwhile this, 

important problem has been taken in hand afresh by Arnold Meyer {Jesii 

Muttersprache, Freiburg (Baden) and Leipzig, 1896) and others ; cf. especially 

G. Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, vol. i., Leipzig, 1898.


illusion^ that an Antiochian or Ephesian Christian (even if, 

like Paul, he were a product of Judaism) ever really sj)oke as 

he may have translated the Loâ-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 unintentionally, 

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 differently"^ 

and Paul also spoke differently,^ 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 belonged 

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 hy reference to mere external 

similarities in the Synoptics. What a difference there is— to take one instructive 

example—between the Synoptical 4v rw apxovTi rwv haifj-oviuiv (Mark 

3 '•'^' ^t*^-) and the Pauline eV Xpta-r^ 'Irjaov ! See the author's essay Die 

nentestavientliche Forvwl "in Christo Jcsu" 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. 

•" 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.


tongue ? We may assume that a Sem.itic 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.^ It is more probable that their Hebrew 

would be Grsecised 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,^ 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. ^ 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 

^ This was probably the case, e.g., with Paul, who according to Acts 21 *" 

could speak in the "Hebrew language". That means probably the Aramaic. 

- So far as the author is aware no Jewish Inscription in Hebrew is 

known outside of Palestine before the sixth century a.d. ; cf. Schiirer, ii., 

p. 543 ( = ^ iii., p. 93 f.) [Eng. Trans., ii., ii., p. 284], and,' generally, the 

references given there. 

' Aristotle rejoiced that he had become acquainted with a man, a Jew 

of Coele-Syria, who 'EAAjjcikos -^v, ov rfi SfaAe'/crijj jmovov, aWa Kal ry ^vxfj 

(Josephus, c. A2). i. 22).—The sentence (De confusione ling. § 26) [M. i., p. 424], 

i(TTi 5? ais fxiv 'EfipaToi Aeyovcn " (âvourjA.," ws Se rifj.e7s " atroarpocp^ 6eov," 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 Netv Testament 

Cheek, Edinburgh, 1895, p. 54, and the present writer's critique of this book 

GGA. 1896, p. 761 &.


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.^ 

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 

^ Acute observations on this point will be found in J. Freudenthal's 

Die Flavins Josephus beigelegte Schrift Ueber die Herrschaft der Vernunft, 

Breslau, 1869, p. 26 f.


must the Colossians, for example, have conceived of Angels, 

as compared with the travelhng artisan who has grown up 

under the powerful influences of ecclesiastical artistic tradition, 

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 historj^ of religion 

as the history of religious terms, or, more correctly, one 

must apprehend the history of religious terms as being a 

chapter m 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 Trto-xi? of the LXX with the TrlaTtf 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.


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 phenomenon 

of the Koivrj. But even this fact, in several aspects of it, 

must not be conceived of mechanically. One must neither 

imagine the koiv/] 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 of 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 ".^ 

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. 

' The author adopts this easily enough misunderstood expression from 

Buresch, Rh. Mus. f. Phil., N. F., xlvi. (1891), p. 207. 

—


These direct sources are the Inscriptions^ 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 vdll give us the 

nearest approximation to the truth. Of course even they do 

not present us with unity in matters of fonn ; 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 

^ 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 lo. E. Imm. 

Walch, is called Observationes in Matthaeum ex graecis inscriptionibus, Jena, 

1779, and is not without value even at the present dav. 

6


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 receive 

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 are 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


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 emasculated 

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 dyvoi;, lepo^, 8tVai09, yi>/jaio^, dyad 6^, evcre- 

^6ta, dpTjcrKeia, dp)(îepev


who was described as 6 Kvpio

79] LANGUAGE OF THE GEEEK 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 quahty from the outset.

af^yapevo). 

Herodotus and Xenophon speak of the Persian ayyapot. 

The word is of Persian origin and denotes the royal couriers. 

From dyyapo^ is formed the verb uyyapevw, which is used, 

Mark 15 -^ = Matt. 27 ^^ and Matt. 5 ^^ (a saying of the Lord), 

in the sense of to compel one to something. E. Hatch ^ finds 

the earliest application of the verb in a letter of Demetrius I. 

Soter to the high-priest Jonathan and the Jewish people : 

KcXevo) Sk fjbrjSe dyyapeveaOai ra ^lovhalwv vTTo^vyta, Joseph. 

Antt. xiii. 2 s. 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 Mace. 10 -^"*^ 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. ^^ Kal 

7rdvT€


But we find the verb in use at a time much earHer than 

Hatch admitted. The Comedian Menander (f 290 B.C.) uses 

it in Sicyon. iv. (Meineke, p. 952). It is twice employed in 

Pap. Flind. Petr. ii. xx.^ (252 B.C.), both times in reference to 

a boat used for postal service : rov 

virdpôpro'^ Xe/n/Sov ayyapev- 

OevTo


similar use, made known to us by the Papyri, of d8e\(j)6a(pep(t). 

In 1 Pet. 2^"* it is said of Christ : 

09 ra? d/jbupTia'i >)fi(hv 

avTo-i di>)'iveyK€i> ev rep aoyfiaTi avrov eirt to ^vXov, I'va -rai

83,84] LANGUAGE OP THE GREEK BIBLE. 89 

be a quotation of LXX Is. 53 ^^ kuI atro"? d/jLapTi,a makes 

it certain that, even if the allusion is to Isaiah, di>a({)epei,v 

cannot be explained by its possible- 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 followed^ by 

eirl r(p ^v\(p : eirl cum ace. 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 dvaep€Lv n eirl to Ouaia- 

cTTijptov, and from this is deduced the idea that the death of 

Christ is an expiatory sacrifice. But this attempt at explana- 

tion breaks down'' 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 -«. 

- If, that is to say, the LXX treated the conceptions avafpepeiv and i^tZ}3 

as equivalent. 

" E. Kiihl, Meyer, xii. ' (1887), p. 165. * Cf. Kiihl, p. 166 f.


it is rather the afxapriai ijfxwv that form the object of avaipepeiv, 

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 hearimj up to is a taking aivay. The 

expression thus signifies quite generally that Christ took away 

our sins by His death : 

special ideas of substitution or sacrifice. 

there 

is no suggestion whatever of the 

This explanation, quite satisfactory in itself, appears to 

the author to admit of still further confirmation. In the 

Gontvskct Pap. Flind. Petr. i. xvi.2^ (230 B.C.), the following 

passage occurs : vrepi Se mp avriXeyo) di>a(f)epofjb6i' [ ] 

0(f>etXr)fjidTa)v KptOrjaofjuai tTr' ^ Aa-KXr/TruiSou. The editor re- 

stores the omission by wr et? e/me, and so reads di'aêpofievcoi' 

6t9 eue. 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 dva(êp6fxeva 6^€iXi)p.aTa should stand in 

relation to the "I" of avrtXeyoy. It can hardly be determined 

whether precisely the preposition et? ^ 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 6(f)etXi]/j,aTa uvaêpo/Meva 

upon (or against) me, against which I protest, I shall let myself be 

judged by Asklepiades.^ It is a priori probable that dvacêpew ra 

64>eiXr]/j,ara is a forensic technical expression : 

he who imposes'^ 

the debts of another upon a third desires to free the former 

1 Mahaffy, i. [47]. 

- iiri were equally possible ; cf. p. 91, note 1. 

•' Mahaffy, i. [48], translates : " But concerning the debts charged against 

me, which I dispute, I shall submit to the decision of Asklepiades ". 

* It is true that avacpepeiv occurs also in the technical sense of referrc 

(cf., besides the dictionaries, A. Pevron, i., p. 110), frequently even in the LXX, 

and one might also translate the clause : as to the debts alleged (before tiw 

magistracy) against dw : ai/afepeiv would then mean something like sue for. 

But the analogies from the Attic Orators support the above explanation. In 

LXX 1 Sam. 20^-' auoia-m ra koko eVi (Te, we have avaipepw in a quite similar 

sense. Cf. Wellhauson, Der Text der Bb. Ham., p. 116 f., for the origin of this 

translation.


from the payment of the same. The Attic Orators ^ employ 

dvaipepeip iiri in exactly the same way : ^sch. 3, 215, tcl'^ airo 

TOVTwv alTLa


Frequent, in the LXX and the Apocryphal books, for 

Help. This meaning is not^ pecuhar to "biblical" Greek, 

but occurs frequently in petitions to the Ptolemies : Paj). Par. 

26 '^ (163-162 B.C.), Pap. Lond. xxiii.* (158-157 B.C.), Pap. Par. 

î^ (131 B.C.), Pap. Liujd. K^ (Ptolemaic period); always 

synonymous with ôrjdeta. The last two passages yield 

the combination ryêty ai'Tt\7)ix-\lre(»i


Tralles ; ^ a decree of the Abderites (before 146 B.C.) from 

Teos ; - Inscription of Pergamus No. 13 (soon after 263 b.c.).^ 

" In all these examples the word signifies a request preferred 

before a higher tribunal, thus acquiring the sense of 'petition^ 

or ' memorial ' 

"*. 

airo. 

Of the construction 2 Mace. 14 ^^ diro rod êXria-Tov 

in the most hoiiourable loay, 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. ° 

apeTako-yia.'^ 

0. F. Fritzsche^ still writes Sirach 36^9 (i*"' ^^ in other 

editions) as follows : irXija-ov Xtcov apai ra \6yid aov koI cltto 

Trj

94 BIBLE STUDIES. [Si», 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.^ 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 : 

,'Â 7rXrjcroi'at,(ovap€Ta\o


Xoyiu, we find that its meaning is given as buffoonery (Posseu- 

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]^, 

could have answered the question : 

in that passage he renders 

the word 7131 {shouting for joy) of the original by aperaXoyta,^ 

while he always translates it elsewhere by evcfirj/buia. The 

equation of Symmachus, dperaXoyia = eucjirj/jLla, which can 

be inferred from this, and the parallelism of the passage in 

Sirach, dpeTuXoyla || 

Boâ, mutually explain and support each 

other, and force us to the assumption that both translators 

used dperaXoyia 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 

dperai, and only then received the bad secondary signification. 

As to the meaning of dperrj which is the basis of this usage, 

cf. the next article. 

dperr}.'^ 

The observations of Hatch ^ upon this word have added 

nothing new to the article dpen'] in Cremer, and have ignored 

what is there (as it seems to the author) established beyond 

doubt, viz., that the LXX, in rendering "Tin> magnificence, 

splendour (Hab. 3 ^ and Zech. 6 ^^) and H^nri, glory, praise, 

by dpeTTj, are availing themselves of an already-existent 

linguistic usage.'* The meaning of dpeToXoyia is readily 

deduced from this usage : the word signifies the same as is 

elsewhere expressed by means of the verbal constructions, 

LXX Is. 42 ^" 

ra


Is. 43^^ TO,? aperd


The original has fxavToavvaK ; the emendation fiavro- 

a-vva


dp-)(^t,(Tfji}/jiaTO(f)v\a^. 

This occurs in the LXX as the translation of keeper of 

the threshold (Esther 2 ^^) and body-guard (literally, keeper of 

the head, 1 Sam. 28^). The translation in the latter passage 

is correct, although aoyaarocfyvXa^ (Judith 12 \ 1 [3] Esd. 3 *) 

would have been sufficient. The title is Egyptianised in 

the rendering given in Esther ^ 

: the apxi'O-Qi/j,aT0(f)uXa^ 

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.^ Hence even the 

translation given in Esther is not incorrect. The title is 

known not only from Egyptian Inscriptions,^ but also from 

Pap. Tanr. i^ (third century B.C.), ii.^ (of the same period), 

xi.*' (of the same period), Pap. Lond. xvii." (162 B.C.), xxiii.^ 

(158-157 B.C.), Ep. Arist. {ed. M. Schmidt), p. 15 4 f.; cf. 

Joseph. Antt. xii. 2 2. 

1. The LXX translate water-brooks, Joel 1^**, and rivers 

of water, Lam. 3**", by a(j)ia-€L


to think that the rendering has been influenced by aph,^ the 

initial syllable of the original, but this does not explain 

u(f>eaei


itself most clearly—the genitive may also be omitted. a^€at


the addition of «0eo-e&J9, which comes from ver. ^" : htaQorja- 

ere a(p€crti' eirl Trj


jSacTTdto). 

In Matt. 8^'^ there is quoted, as the word of "the pro- 

phet Isaiah," avro'i Ta


10^.^ Of these last passages, Is. 53 deserves special atten- 

tion, as it approximates in meaning to the quotation in 

Matthew : xal rat; d/jLaprta


part ; the Synonymic ^ of this usage must raise for itself the 

problem of investigating words like alpo), eâlpw, âard^w, 

Xafj,^dvo), dvaXa/ji^dvco, (f)epa>, dva(êp(o, vTrocfyepco in their 

various shades of meaning. 

"The seller was required, in general, i.e., unless the 

opposite was stipulated, to deliver to the buyer the thing 

sold dva/x(f)i,a/37)rr]Tov, ivithoict 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 dvdyeiv et


regarding the details of the SUrj êlSaiooaeoiq that might 

possibly be raised by the buyer, but these are immaterial 

for the determination of the idea corresponding to the word 

This technical expression found admission into Egypt 

in the Ptolemaic period. The Papyrus documents speak not 

only of the êâicor-qs,^ the sale-surety, the auctor secimdus 

of Eioman law, but also of the iSe/Sauoo-t'i itself : Paj). Taur. 

i.^ (2nd cent. B.C.), Pajj. Par. 62^ (2nd cent. B.C.)—twice 

in the latter passage, once in the combination et\ t)]v 

fielâiwatu vTrodqicai} How thoroughly the expression had 

become naturalised in Egypt is shown by the fact that we 

still find the êSuLcoat^; 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, /tê/3atwo-i9 has no longer exactly 

the same specific meaning as it has in the more accurate 

terminology of the highly-pohshed juristic Greek of Attica : 

but the word is certainly used there also in the sense of 

guarantee, safe-guarding of ahargain: Pap. Par. 21 6is" (592 A.D.), 

Pap. Jomard' (592 A.D.), Pap. Par. 21* (616 A.D.). In these 

the formula Kara irdaav iSelSaLwcnv occurs several times, and 

even the formula et\- /SeâiMatv comes before us again in 

Pap. Par. 20^ (600 A.D.), having thus ^'^ maintained itself 

through more than seven hundred years. 

Reference has already been made by Lumbroso ^^ to the 

1 Hermann-Thalheim, p. 78. 

'^ A. Peyron, i., p. 32, cf. p. 120, and E. Revillout, Etiules sur divers points 

de droit et dliistoire PtoUmaiqiie, Paris, 1880, p. xl. f. 

•' Notices, xviii. 2, p. 355. 

^ The text is, indeed, mutilated, but is sufficient for our purpose. 

-' According 

to Hermann-Thalheim, p. 78, note 1, êfiatwrris, for instance, 

has become nothing but an empty form in the Papyri. 

'' Notices, xviii. 2, p. 250. 

^ Ibid., pp. 258, 259. » Ibid., p. 244. 

» Ibid., p. 241. 10 Cf. above, Pap. Par. 62 (2nd cent. B.C.). 

" RechercJies, p. 78. But the passage belonging to the 2nd cent. B.C., 

indicated above, is more significant than the one of GOO a.d. quoted by him. 

^


striking similarity of a passage in the LXX with this idiom 

of Egyptian Civil law. /Se/3atwcrt9 is found only once in 

the Alexandrian translation, Lev. 25 "^, but there in the 

characteristic formula et? êtâiwcr lv : Kal rj yrj ov TrpaSr]- 

aerai et? iBeâlwaiv, e/xr] yap iariv rj yrj. 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 

jnrTDlJv (properly unto annihilation, i.e., completely, for ever). 

Looked at superficially, the eU /SeâLwaw of the LXX is the 

exact opposite of the unto anniliilation of the original ; ^ considered 

properly, it testifies to an excellent understandmg 

of the text.^ A sale et? êâioyaiv is a definitive, legally 

guaranteed sale : mere 

sojourners could not, of course, sell 

the land which they held only in tenure,—least of all et? 

/Seâi'ooaiv. The reading et? ^€/3ij\(ii(Tii>'^ 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'*), who only 

spoiled the delicately-chosen expression of the LXX by 

school-boy literalness ; on 

the other hand, the in confirma- 

tionem of the Vetus Latina ^ is quite correct, while the renderings 

of Aquila,^ eh irayKTrâ-iav, and Symmachus,^ eh dXvrpwTov, 

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^^': 

Kupcotfijaerai rj oiKta rj ovcra ev TroXec rfj i-yovcrrj reiô? 

êâicoq T(o KTijcrapLevw avr/jv. That they did not here 

make choice of the formula eU êâiuiaiv, 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. 

^ Which fact explains the variants about to be mentioned. 

- In the same chapter we also found a pertinent application of &


The Alexandrian Christian to whom we owe the Xoyo? 

tt}? 7ra.pa«-\?/'crea)9 in the New Testament, writes, in Heb. 6 ^^-', 

avOpoiiroi 'yap Kara rov fieitôvo


a hundred and seventy years a


in an essential relation to each other. ^ 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 '^^ ^- 

: o 8e /Seâicov r)/j.d


it is already found in connection with Egypt in Pajy. Flind. 

Petr. i. xvi. 2^ (230 B.C.) : ra jevyjfiaTa tcov virapxcvrmv /mot 

TrapaSeiaiop, and in several other passages of the same age.^ 

yoyyv^co. 

Very familiar in the LXX, also in Paul,^ Synopt., John ; 

authenticated in the subsequent extra-biblical literature only 

by Marcus Aurehus and Epictetus ; 

^ but already used in the 

sense of murmur in Pap. Flind. Petr. ii. ix. 3^ (241-239 B.C.) : 

KoX TO 7rX7]pci)/xa (men) yoyyvêt (f)dfj,evoL ahtKelcrdai. 

ypafxixarev'^. 

In the 0. T. the person designated scribe (iDD and liotl?) 

is generally the official. The LXX translate verbally ypafx- 

fiaTeh

107] LANGUAGE OF THE GEEEK BIBLE. Ill 

25^*^ as a whole in Jer. 52. The Book of Kings speaks 

here of the scribe, the captain of the host} But in our text 

of Jeremiah we read (the article is wanting before "^Db) the 

scribe of the captain of the host. The LXX translate the first 

passage by roi' ypafjbjJiaTea'^ rov dp^^ôvra t/}? 8vi>d/j,6u>


choice of the plural Svvdfiemv, 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^^ is a most instructive case. Our Hebrew text 

has simply a "^DD there, without any addition ; the LXX, 

however, transfer him to the army with the rank of the 

jpa/jL/jbarevi; tt}? hvva^.e(i)


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 jtiristic 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 niiD by vofjuo^ 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} 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 ypd(j)eiv in legislative 

work,^ and uses these to explain the frequently-occurring 

" biblical " yeypaTrrai. This formula of quotation is, however, 

not " bibhcal " only, but is found also in juristic Papyrus 

documents of the Ptolemaic period and in Inscriptions : Pap. 

Flind. Petr. ii. xxx. a ; ^ further—and this is most instructive 

for the frequent KaOoi'^ yeypaTrrai, of the biblical authors * 

in the formula KaOori yeypairTai: Pap. Par. 13^ (probably 

157 B.C.); Pap. Ltujd. 0^ (89 B.C.); Inscription of Mylasa 

in Caria, Waddington, iii. 2, No. 416 = GIG. ii.. No. 2693 e 

(beginning of the imperial period) ; ^ Inscription from the 

1 Cf. the similar alteration of the idea of covenant into that of testament, 

and, upon this, Cremer^, p. 897 (= "î 

p. 946). 

2 The h y4ypa


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 

Kada ê'ypa'jnai, Pap. Par. 7^ (2nd or 1st cent. B.C.), cf. 

Ka{r)Td'irep . . . j€ypa7r[Toi] 

in line 5o f. of the architectural 

Inscription of Tegea (ca. 3rd cent. B.c.)'^—in all of which 

reference is made to a definite obligatory clause of the document 

quoted.^ 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. 68iff. : when the translation of 

the Bible into Greek was finished, then, Kadco^ eô? avroU 

eanv, et Tt9 hiaaKevdaet Trpoartdel's rj /ui,era(f)6p(ov rt, to avvoXov 

roiv fj.ivr} can 

neither be made void ^ 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 instnimenta, i.e., as legally valid 

documents." 

1 Notices, xviii. 2, p. 172. 

^ P. Cauer, Delectus inscriptionum Ch-aecarurn, propter dialectum memora- 

Ulium 2, Leipzig, 1883, No. 457. 

5 It is not in this pregnant sense that Plutarch uses y^ypa-KTai, but simply 

as a formula of quotation ; cf. J. F. TMarcks, Symbola critica ad epistolographos 

Graecos, Bonn, 1883, p. 27. So also LXX Esth. 10 -. 

* Cf. Deut. 42, 12 32, Pj-ov. 306, and later Rev. 22i8f- 

^ 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. 

' Cf. upon this E. Reuss, Die Geschichte der Heiligen ScJinften Neiien 

Testaments'", Brunswick, 1887, § 303, p. 340, and Jiilicher, Einleitung in das 

N. T., p. 303. 

—

Ill, 112] LANGUAGE OP THE GREEK BIBLE, 

8td8o')(ô

116 BIBLE STUDIES. [112, US 

lies at the basis of the Hebrew words) has been preserved 

most purely, i.e., where correct measures are described as 

just.^ That they did not translate mechanically in these 

cases appears from Prov. 11 \ where they likewise render 

the weight there described as D7tr, full, by aTaOfxiov hUaiov.'^ 

There can be established also for Greek a usage similar to 

the Semitic,^ but it will be better in this matter to refer to 

Egyptian usage than to Xenophon and others,* who apply 

the attribute hUaioq to Tinro'^, /SoO?, etc., when these animals 

correspond to what is expected of them. Thus in the decree 

of the inhabitants of Busiris,^ drawn up in honour of the 

emperor Nero, the rise of the Nile is called a BiKaia dvdâa-iî ; 

but more significant—because the reference is to a measîre 

—is the observation of Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom, vi. 4 

(p. 758, Potter), that, in Egyptian ceremonies, the ttti'^^v^ 

Tr]


phoricaliy 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 d

118 SbIBLE studies. [114, 115 

et? avTOv Kol rjVLoxov^ ^' . . dprcov KaOapwv ^' ')(oiviKa^ 

KoX et? cTTTroKo/Jiov^ ly' aprcov avroTrvpeov . . k


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 iv with the dativus instrumenti. 

Winer-Liinemann ^ still maintains that eV 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 21 "• 

Similarly A. Buttmann.'^ 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 5- to 

have influenced Paul. Thus Winer-Liinemann quotes Eom. 

15*^ ev ei'l (TTOfiaTi, 8o^d^7)T€, and Buttmann,'^ 1 Cor. 4^^ eV 

pd/3Ba) e\6w 7rpo9 vixd'=;, as Pauline examples of ei> with the 

instrumental dative. The author beheves 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 ev by Paul cannot be made out. For, 

to begin with, the passage in Eomans 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 repository 

; 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). 

^ Grammatik des netitestamentlichen Sprachgebrauchs, p. 157. 

^ P. 284. 

—


heart. In 1 Cor. 4-', again, the case seems to be more 

favourable for the view of Buttmann, for the LXX frequently 

use the very construction ev rfj pdj^hw ; what more easy 

than to maintain that "the" biblical Greek uses this construction 

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. 32 "\ Exod. 17 ^ 21 ^'\ 1 Sam. 17 *^ 2 Sam. 7 ^^ 

2321, 1 Chron. 11 --^^^ Ps. 2^ 88 [89]=^=^, Is. 10 ^ Mic. b\ T' 

cf. Ezek. 39 ^, also Hos. 4 '^ where ei' pa/3Boi) ev aydirrj TrvevixaTL xe 

7rpavTr)To


introduce a term better suited to Egyptian conditions : 

it 

was, of course, an embalming in Egypt. But the professional 

designation of the person ^ entrusted with this work 

was ivra^LaaTr)


meaning ; the correlative term for the king's giving an answer 

is -xpTj/jiaTLêiv} 

Both the verb and the substantive are frequently combined 

with Kara and virep, according to v^^hether the memorial 

expresses itself against or for some one ; cf. the Pauline 

virepevTvyx^dvco, Rom. 8"^. 

ipyoSicoKTrjî. 

This word, common in the LXX, but hitherto not 

authenticated elsewhere, is vouched for by Pap. Flind. Petr. 

ii. iv. i.^ (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 : 

Origen 

^ jestingly calls his 

friend Ambrosius his ipyoBiQ)KTr)

119, 120] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 123' 

settle what the et';>âpto-T77êt? in this passage refers to, owing 

to mutilation of the leaf. 

TO deueXiov. 

In deciding the question whether 6e/xe\iov 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^ (Ptolemaic period). Cf. also to 

0€/jLiXLov oi an unknown translator of Lev. 4 ^®.^ From this, 

the possibility, at least, of taking it as neuter, in the non- 

decisive passages ^ Sir.lÊom. 15 ô, Eph. 2^0, Luke G^^S 

14^^, 1 Tim. 6^^, Heb. 6\ may be inferred. 

The LXX not seldom (Gen. 47 l^ Deut. 15 2, Job 2'\. 

710.13^ Prov. 6^ 13 ^ 16 2^ 27 ^ Dan. 1^^) translate the 

possessive pronoun (as a suffix) by TSto?, though the con- 

nection does not require the giving of such an emphasis 

to the particular possessive relation. Such passages as Job 

2412^ Prov. 9^-, 22', 27^^, might be considered stranger still,, 

where the translator adds i8io


and in the Attic Inscriptions^ 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,'^ and especially Paul, 

much more strongly than is implied by Winer-Liinemann.^ 

Exegetes have, in many places, laid a stress upon the }'Sio


identification of ideas. We must rather, as in all cases where 

the Greek expression is not conûent 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 IXaa-rijpiov. They first en- 

countered the word in Exod. 25 

^^ ^'''^ 

: a7id thou shalt make a 

kapporeth of pure gold. The Greek translator rendered thus : 

Kai 7roi,r]cr€i

126 IBIBLE STUDIES.! [123 

17 ^^ (if Tov IXacTTTjpiov Oavdrov is to be read here with the 

Alexandrinus), an adjective, and signifies of use for propitiation. 

-The same theological gloss upon the ceremonial hap- 

poreth is observed when, in the Greek translation of the 

Pentateuch^—first in the passages immediately following 

upon Exod. 25-^^'^"^ and also later—it is rendered, brevilo- 

quently,^ by the simple IXaarrjpiov instead of iXacmjpiov 

eirideîa. 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 

crv/jbôXov Ti}(; iXeco tov 6eov hvvdp.eu>

124] LANGUAGE OP THE GREEK BIBLE. 127 

means neither ledge nor ledge of propitiation, but projjitiatory 

article. 

The proof of the fact that the LXX did not identify the 

concept IXaarrjptov with kapporeth and 'azdrah can be supplemented 

by the following observed facts. The two words 

paraphrased by IXaa-TrjpLov have other renderings as well. 

In Exod. 26^* the original runs, and thou shall put the kap- 

poreth upon the ark of the testimony in the most holy place 

LiXX Kai KaTaKa\v\{reL


is not correct to assert ^ that, following the example of the 

LXX, he describes kapporeth as tXaa-r-qpLov : he describes it 

correctly as eTridefia Tr}


Seov^ i\


sacrifice, after the analogy of acorijptov, \apLaTripioi>, KaOdpaioi^, 

etc., in connection with which Ovfxa is to be supphed. How- 

ever difficult it would be to find examples of the word being 

used in this sense,^ there is no objection to it linguistically. 

But it is opposed by the context ; it can hardly be said of a 

sacrifice that God irpoeOero it. The more general explanation 

therefore, which of late has been advocated again, specially 

by B. Weiss, ^ 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 connection— 

particularly in the more special sense of projyitiatory 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 (Keiske), 

KaTa\€Lyfreii> jap avTov


of removing the objection to the " lateness " of the quotation : 

[x.a(TTi]piop 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 21 ^) : the 

Inscription of Cos No. 81 ^ reads thus : 

— 

8a/jbo


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 tXaa-T/jpiov was in 

their time. To suppose that, in consequence of their 

"magnificent knowledge of the Old Testament,"^ they 

would immediately think of the kajjporeth, is to overlook two 

facts. First, that the out-of-the-way^ passages referring to 

the iXaarriptov 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 " Bitschlianism " or towards possible ex- 

amination questions, are acquainted with the kapj)dreth ? 

The second fact overlooked is, that such Christians of the 

imperial period as were conversant with those passages, 

naturally understood the IXaarripLov in the sense familiar to 

them, not in the alleged sense of jjrojntiatory 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 TrpoeOero admirably suits the iXaarripiov 

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 Cremer^ p. 448 ( = ^ p. 476). 

^ By the time of Paul the ceremony in which the kapporetli 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. 

I


the Cosmos—to the Jews a stumbhng block, to the Gentiles 

foolishness, to Faith a iXaarripiov. The crucified Christ is 

the votive-gift of the Divine Love for the salvation of men. 

Elsev^here it is hmnan hands v^hich dedicate to the Deity a 

dead image of stone in order to gain His favour ; here the 

God of grace Himself erects the consohng image,—for the 

skill and povsêr of men are not sufficient. In the thought 

that God Himself has erected the Ix.aartjptov, lies the same 

wônderful ixcopia of apostolic piety v^hich 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 beheve—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,! one of the most energetic upholders of the 

theory that the iXaartjptoi- of the passage in Romans signifies 

the kapijoreth, has, in his investigation of this question, laid 

down the following canon of method " : . . . for iXaaT/jptov 

the meanmg propitiatory sacrifice is authenticated in heathen 

usage, as being a gift by which the anger of the gods is 

the 

appeased, and they themselves induced to be gracious. . . . 

But . . . 

heathen meaning of the disputed word should 

be tried as a means of explaining the statement in question 

only when the bibhcal meanmg has proved to be wholly 

inapphcable to the passage." It would hardly be possible 

to find the sacred conception of a "bibhcal" 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 

IXaarr'jpiov in "biblical"" 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 und Versohnung dargestellt, 

ii. ^ Bonn, 1889, p. 171. 

^ Cf. A. Ritschl, p. 168 ; 

of correction. 

the opinions advanced there have urgent need


tion, on account of its importance, may be tested once more 

by an analogy which has already been indicated above. 

In the hymn Konig, dessen Majestdt, by Valentin Ernst 

Loscher (|-1749), there occurs the following couplet^ : 

Mein Abba, schaue Jesum an, 

Den Gnadenthron der Sunder 

Whoever undertakes to explain this couplet has, without 

doubt, a task similar to that of the exegete of Rom. 

3^^ Just as in the passage from Paul there is apphed 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 l\aaT7]piov ; 

l\a


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 ; ^ 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 ijrace 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, iXaaTrjpiov, Gnadenstuhl—cannot 

be connected by the sign of equality, not even, indeed, by 

a straight line, but at best by a curve. 

iaT6cov oOovlcov et? j" roin; eKarov, 

which is altogether meaningless. We must of course read, 

in accordance with Joseph. A7itt. xii. 2 14 {I3va-a[v7]


'yap ^v/ji7]v Kal rrav /jteXi ov it poaoicreTe ^tt' avrov (a ixiechanical 

imitation of ^3(2'?^) Kapiroyaat KvpUo. This looks like an in- 

adequate rendering of the original : in the equation, irpoacêpeiv 

Kapirwaai = hum incense as an offerimi 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 Kapirouv of course means 

" to make or offer as fntit "} The idea of the Seventy, that 

that which was leavened, or honey, might be named a fricit- 

offering, is certainly more striking than the fact that the 

offering made by fire is here supplanted by the offering of 

friiit. 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 m the narrower sense. According to 1 [3] Esd. 4^^ 

King Darius permits to the returning Jews, among other 

things, KUi Jtt/, to 6vcna(m]piov oXoKavToouara KapTTovcrOaL Ka6' 

rjfxepai', and, in the Song of the Three Children ^*, Azarias 

laments kuI ouk ecrriv iv tm /catpco rovrco ap\^(oi' Kai 7rpo(f)7]T7)


opposite of the primary meaning to bring forth fruit. It is 

not the LXX, however, who have taken Kapirow and jîct 

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. 2 ^^ and Deut. '26 ^^. In the first 

passage, one may doubt as to whether KapTrow is meant to 

represent ^''l^Dpn or 'HW'i^, but whichever of the two be 

decided upon does not matter : in either case it represents 

some idea like to offer a sacrifice made witli fire. In the other 

passage, KapTrow certainly stands for '^V^, and if, indeed, the 

Greek word cannot mean jmt away, yet the Hebrew one can 

mean to burii. 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 Kapirow in the sense 

oi put aivay 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 Kaprroco for to btirn both m a 

ceremonial and in a non-ceremonial sense. 

This strange usage, however, has received a bnlliant 

confirmation. P. Stengel ^ has shown, from four Inscriptions 

and from the old lexicographers,^ that Kap-rrooi must have been 

quite commonly used for to burn in the ceremonial sense.^ 

Stengel explains as follows how this meaning arose 

KapTTovv properly signifies to cut into pieces ; the holocausts 

of the Greeks were cut into pieces, and thus, in ceremonial 

language, KapTroM must have come to mean absumere, consu- 

mere, oXoKavrelv. 

161 fi. 

^ Zii den griechisdien Sacralaltertliilvievn, Hermes, xxvii. (1892), pp. 

- The passages he brings forward, in wliich the meaning, at least, of to 

sacrifice for Kapirdw is implied, may be extended by the translation sacrificiuin 

offero given by the Itala, as also by the note " Kapiraiaai, duaida-ai " in the MS. 

glossary (?) cited by Schleusner. Schleusner also gives references to the 

ecclesiastical literature. 

^ He counts also Deut. 26 " among the LXX passages in this connec- 

tion, but it is the non-ceremonial sense of to burn which Kapir6oii has tliere. 

:


The ceremonial sense of Kapirow grows more distinct 

when we notice the compound form oXofcapTrSo),^ Sir. 45 ^*, 

4 Mace. 18 ", Sibyll. Orac. 3 565, as also by the identity 

in meaning of the substantives oKoKdpTrwfia = oXoKavTwfia, 

and 6\oKdp7ru)at


the hypothesis of its being the original derives, as the author 

thinks, further support from the following facts. The LXX 

translate the absolute tT''^ by eKaaro^ in innumerable pas- 

sages. But in not a single passage except the present (ac- 

cording to the ordinary text), is it rendered by eh e/caaro


butive dv(i 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 Trpoaoi-nov, %etp, o-rofMa, 6^SaXfji6


Loîd. xxii.i (164-163 B.C.), xli.^ (161 B.C.), Pap. Dresd. ii.^ (162 

B.C.), Pap. Par. 33* (ca. 160 B.C.). But also of other cere- 

monial services elsewhere there were used Xecrovpyeco, Pap. 

Par. 5 ^ (113 B.C.) twice ; Xeiroupyla in the Papp. Lugd. G ^, 

' H and 

J,« written 99 B.c.^ 

XeiTovpyLK6


which was elucidated by Boeckh/ there occurs the phrase 

XtySo? oUia Te4>bT0'i. As the South {v6To


ai4 B.C.) twice; Pap. Lugd. M^ (114 B.C.). We find the 

word, further, in the taxation-roll Pap. Flind. Petr. ii. xxxix. c,^ 

of the Ptolemaic period,^ in which it is used six times— pro- 

bably in the sense of tax. 

The derivation of the word from Xeyw is impossible ; 

Xoyela belongs to the class * of substantives in -ela formed 

from verbs in -evo). Now the verb Xoyevo) to collect, which has 

not been noticed in literary compositions, is found in the 

following Papyri and Inscriptions : 

Pap. Lond. xxiv.^ (163 B.C.), 

iii.*^ {ca. 140 B.C.), a Papyrus of date 134 B.C.," Pap. Taur. 8^ 

{end of 2nd cent. B.C.), an Egyptian Inscription, GIG. iii., 

No. 4956 37 (49 a.d.) ; cf. also the Papyrus-fragment which 

proves the presence of Jews in the Fayyum.*' 

The Papyri yield also the pair TrapaXoyevco, Pap. Flind. 

Petr. ii. xxxviii. b^^ (242 B.C.) and irapaXoyeia, Pap. Par. 61 ^^ 

(145 B.C.). 

In regard to the orthography of the word, it is to be 

observed that the spelling Xoyeia 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 : 

1 Cor. 16 2 12 at least. 

the 

Vaticanus still has it, in 

In speaking of the collection for ^^ the poor in Jerusalem, 

1 Leemans, i., p. 60. 2 Mahaffy, ii. [127]. 

' This Papyrus, it is true, is not dated, but is " a fine specimen of Ptole- 

maic writing" (Mahaffy, iUd.), 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. 

* Winer-Schmiedel, § 16, 2a (p. 134). 

5 Kenyon, p. 32. 6 J5j^_^ p_ 47^ 

^ Ph. Buttmann, AAB., 1824, hist.-phil. KL, p. 92, and, on this, p. 99. 

* A. Peyron, ii., p. 45. 9 issued by MahafEy, i., p. 43, undated. 

10 Mahaffy, ii. [122]. " Notices, xviii. 2, p. 351. 

12 The author has subsequently seen that L. Dindorf , in the Thesaurus 


Paul has other synonyms besides Xojeia, among them Xei- 

Tovpyla, 2 Cor. 9 ^^. This more general term is similarly 

associated with Xoyeta in Pap. Lond. iii. 9.-^ 

In 1 Cor. 16^ Donnaeus and H. Grotius proposed to 

alter " Xoyia " to €v\o


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 Mdvptji; êya'; is named in Pap. Flind. Petr. ii. 

XXV. i^ (Ptolemaic period). Mahaffy,^ 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 utto fjuiKpov eco? jj.e'yaXov) a usage of /jLircpo^ to 

signify age, e.g., 2 Chron. 22 \ 

19 ^ thus : 

L. van Ess's edition of the LXX (1887)^ still reads Is. 

Kal e'rre


ovoixa. 

In connection with the characteristic " bibhcal " con- 

struction et? TO 6vo/jbd Tiô?/ and, indeed, with the general 

usage of 6vofi,a in the LXX, etc., the expression ei'Teu^t? et? 

TO Tou âcriXeco^ ovoixa, which occurs several times in the 

Papyri, deserves very great attention : 

Pap. 

Flind. Petr. ii. 

ii. 1^ (260-259 B.C.), Pap. Flind. Petr. ii. xx. ee^ (241 B.C.) ; 

cf., possibly. Pap. Flind. Petr. ii. xlvii.^ (191 B.C.). 

Mahaffy^ 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 technical 

meaning. This is, doubtless, true of evTev^L


fjuevcov rots" KTr)/ji,aT(ovai


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. 

oy^coi'Lov. 

The first occurrence of ra o-^covia is not in Polybius ; 

it is previously found in Pap. Flincl. Petr. ii. xiii. 7 ^ and 

17 ^ (258-253 B.C.) ; ra o^coi'ta is found in Pap. Mind. Petr. 

ii. xxxiii. a^ (Ptolemaic period). In all three places, not 

pay of soldiers, but quite generally wages ; similarly Pap. 

Lond. xlv.^ (160-159 B.C.), xv. ^ (131-130 B.C.), Pap. Par. 62^ 

(Ptolemaic period). The word is to be found in Inscriptions 

onwards from 278 b.c.^ Further remarks below. III. iii. 6. 

This word resembles dyyapevco 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. ii. xlvi. h ^ 

(200 B.C.), cf. xxii.,^'' xxx. c," xxxix. i ^^ (all of the Ptolemaic 

^^ similarly in the Inscription of Pergamus, Wad- 

period) ; 

dington, iii. 2, No. 1720 h (undated). It is frequent in the 

LXX, always for garden (in three of the passages, viz., Neh. 

2^ Eccles. 2^ Cant. 4l^ as representing D'l'^Q^^); so in Sir., 

Sus., Josephus, etc., frequently. Of course, irapdheiao^ in 

LXX Gen. 2^*^- is also garden, not Paradise. The first 

witness to this new technical meaning ^^ is, doubtless, Paul, 

2 Cor. 12 \ then Luke 23 ^^ and Kev. 2 ^ ; 4 Esd. 7 ^^ 8 ''\ 

1 Câ^;^s^ p. 328. 2 Mahaffy, ii. [38]. 

'^ 

lUd.i^^l ^ Ibid.,\lV^]. 

5 Kenyon, p. 36. ^ Ibid., pp. 55, 56. '^ Notices, xviii. 2, p. 357. 

8 Examples in Guil. Schmidt, De Flav. los. cloc. Fleck. Jbb. Suppl. xx. 

(1894), pp. 511, 531. 

1-' 

9 Mahaffy, ii. [150]. 

i" Ibid. [68]. " Ibid. [104]. '^ j;,^^, [-134]. 

Cf. also Pap. Lond. cxxxi., 78-79 a.d. (Kenyon, p. 172). 

!•* The Mishna still uses ©"^^S 

only for j^rk in the natural sense 

(Schiirer, ii., p. 464, = ^, ii., p. 553) "[Eng. Trans., ii., ii., p. 183 f., note 88]. 

^® Cf. G. Heinrici, Das zweite Sendschreiben des Apostel Paulus an die 

Korinthier erhUirt, Berlin, 1887, p. 494. 

^ 

1


TrapeTri.Sij/jbO'i. 

In LXX Gen. 23 * and Ps. 38 [39] l^ this is the trans- 

lation of 2U)iil ; used, most probably in consequence thereof, 

in 1 Pet. 1 \ 2", Heb. 11 ^^ ; authenticated only ^ in Polybius 

and Athenaeus. But it had been already used in the will 

of a certain Aphrodisios of Heraklea, Pap. Flind. Petr. i. 

xix.^ (225 B.C.), who calls himself, with other designations, 

& TrapeTTiSrjfio'i. Mahaify ^ remarks upon this: "in the de- 

scription of the testator we find another new class, -Trapeiri- 

8r}/j,o'i, 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.* which gives the name 

of a Jewish vrapemST^/xos^ in the Fayyum : ^ ""ATroWtoviov 

\7rape7r'\ihr]iJbov 09 ical avptarl 'IcoiniOa'^^ [/caA-eirat]. 

The verb TrapeTriSTj/jieco, e.g., Pap. Flind. Petr. ii. xiii. 19^ 

(258-253 B.C.). 

TraaTocfiopiOL'. 

The LXX use this word in almost all the relatively 

numerous passages where it occurs, the Apocrypha and 

Josephus^ in every case, for the chambers of the Temple. 

Sturz " had assigned it to the Egyptian dialect. His con- 

jecture is confirmed by the Papyri. In the numerous documents 

relating to the Serapeum ^" at Memphis, iraaroôpLov 

is used, in a technical sense, of the Serapeum itself, or of 

cells in the Serapeum:" Pap. Par. 11 ^^ (157 B.C.), 40 1=* (156 

B.C.) ; similarly in the contemporary documents Pap. Par. 

1 Glavis ', p. 339. 

^ i. [55]. 

•' Upon 

'^ Mahaffy, i. [54]. 

* Ibid., ii., p. 23. 

Jews in the Fayyum cf. Mahaffy, i., p. 43 f., ii. [14]. 

^ 'ATToWcivios is a sort of translation of the name 'Iwvddas. 

^ Mahaffy, ii. [45]. The word is frequently to be found in Inscriptions 

references, e.g., in Letronne, Recacil, i., p. 340 ; Dittenberger, Syllocji' Nos. 

24680 and 267 5. 

8 Particulars in Guil. Schmidt, De Flav. los. eloc, Fleck. Jbb. Siippl. 

XX. (1894), p. 511 f. Reference there also to GIG. ii., No. 2297. 

^ De dialecto Macedonica ct Alexandrina, p. 110 f. 

1" Gf. p. 140 above. " Gf. Lumbroso, Recherches, p. 266 f. 

12 Notices, xviii. 2, p. 207. 

i= Ibid., p. 305. 

;

150 BIBLE STUDIES, [148,149 

41 ^ and 37 ^— in the last passage used of the 'Aa-raprtelov 

which is described as being contained iv tS fieyaXw Saap- 

TTieirp.^ The LXX have thus very happily rendered the 

general term n3tp7, wherever it denotes a chamber of the 

Temple, by a technical name with which they were familiar. 

7ra(TTO(f)6piov is also retained by several Codices in 1 Chron. 

9 ^\ and 2 Esd. [Hebr. Ezra] 8 ^^.^ 

TrepiSeîov. 

In LXX Numb. 31 '\ Exod. 35 -^ and Is. 3^0 (in the two 

latter passages without any corresponding original) for brace- 

let. To be found in Pap. Flind. Petr. i. xii.^ (238-237 B.C.). 

The enumeration given there of articles of finery resembles 

Exod. 35 ^^, and particularly Is. 3 ^*^ ; in the latter passage 

the ivMTta ^ (mentioned also in the former) come immediately 

after the TrepiBe^ta—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. 

Trepiaracrii;. 

In 2 Mace. 4i'\ Symmachus Ps. 33 [34]^' (here the 

LXX has dxl^lri'^, or TrapotKla), in the evil sense, for distress ; 

it is not found first of all in Polybius, but already in Pap. 

Lond. xlii.^ (172 B.C.); cf. the Inscription of Pergamus No. 

245 A ^ (before 133 B.C.) and the Inscription of Sestos {ca. 

120 B.C.), line 25.i« 

1 Notices, xviii. 2, p. 306. 2 iîd^^ p. 297. 

•" 

Cf. Brunet de Presle, ibid., and Lumbroso, Recherches, p. 266. 

•* Field, i., pp. 712, 767. It is these which De Lagarde uses to deter- 

mine the Lucianus : his accentuation of 1 Chron. 9^, iraffroôpiwv, is not 

correct. 

•' Better reading than in MahaiTy, i. ; [37] see MahafEy, ii., p. 22. 

" The Papyrus reads evoiiSjo ; that is also the Attic orthography—found 

in a large number of Inscriptions from 398 B.C. onwards, Meisterhans 2, 

pp. 51, 61. 

7 Field, ii., p. 139. « Kenyon, p. 30. » Frankel, p. 140, 

^'^ W. Jerusalem, Die Inschrift von Sestos und Polybios, Wiener Sfiidien, 

i, (1879), p. 34 ; cf. p. 50 f., where the references from Polybius are also given.


Treptrefjivoi. 

The LXX use irepnefjivw always in the technical sense 

this technical meaning 

of the ceremonial act of circumcision ; 

also underlies the passages in which circumcision is metaphorically 

spoken of, e.g., Deut. 10 ^'^ and Jer. 4"*. The word 

is never employed by the LXX in any other sense. The 

usual Hebrew word h^72 occurs frequently, it is true, in a 

non-technical signification, but in such cases the translators 

always choose another word : Ps. 57 [58] ^ dadeveco for to be 

cut off,' Ps. 117 [118] 10- 11- 1'^ a/xvmnai for the cutting in 

pieces (?) of enemies, Ps. 89 [90],*^ aTroTrtTrrw (of grass) for to 

be cut down.'^ Even in a passage, Deut. 30*^, where S'lQ, cir- 

cumcise, is used metaphorically, they reject TrepLTefivm and 

translate by TreptKaOapt^co.^ The textual history of Ezek. 

16^ affords a specially good illustration of their severely 

restrained use of language. To the original (according to 

our Hebrew text) thy navel-string loas not cut, corresponds, in 

the LXX (according to the current text), ovk eSr)aa where 

the LXX translate e/cinVTco. 

' Cf. Lev. [not Luc. as in Cremer^, p. 886 (= ^ p. 931)] 19'^. 

* Cornill, Das Buch des Proplieten Ezechiel, p. 258. 

' Which would be translated flicy bound. 

» For this Codex cf. Cornill, p. 15. ^ Field, ii., p. 803.


with the ev ar7rapydvoi


Now even if it cannot be made out with certainty that 

the IsraeHtes copied the practice from the Egyptians, yet it 

is in the highest degree probable that the Greek Jews are 

indebted to the Egyptians ^ for the word. Herodotus already 

verifies its use in ii. 36 and 104 : he reports that the Egyp- 

tians TrepLrd/iii'ovTai, to, alholn. But the expression is also 

authenticated by direct Egyptian testimony : 

Pap. 

Lond. 

xxiv.^ (163 B.C.), ftJ? edo


period) twice ; Josephus 

agrees with the LXX in using 

'Kr]ye(}iv and 'jr7]')^Mv promiscuously.^ 

TTOT/CT/tAo's'. 

In Aquila Prov. 3^'^ watering, irrigation ; to be found in 

Pap. Flincl. Petr. ii. ix. 4=^ (240 B.C.). 

•TTpdK.T(Op. 

In LXX Is. 3^'^ for M desjmt. In the Papyri fre- 

quently as the designation of an official ; the 

seems to have been the public accountant : 

mpcuKTwp * 

^ Pap. Flind. Petr. 

ii. xiii. 17*' (258-253 B.C.), and several other undated Papyri 

of the Ptolemaic period given in Mahaffy, ii." 

In Luke 12 ^^ also the word has most probably a technical 

meaning ; it does not however denote a finance-official, 

but a lower officer of the court. 

Symmachus Ps. 108 [109] ^^ ^ uses it for niT^ creditor. 

7rpecrl3vT€po


is made of 6 nrpea^vTepo'; tt;? Koo/jbrj'i—without doubt an 

official designation,—although, indeed, owing to the mutilation 

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.^ The author thinks that ol Trpea^vrepoc 

in Pap. Flind. Petr. ii. iv. 613^ (255-254 B.C.) is also an 

official designation ; cf. also Pap. Flind. Pet?-, ii. xxxix. a, 

3 .111.114.^ Similarly, in the decree of the priests at Diospolis 

in honour of Callimachus,* (ca. 40 B.C.), the irpeo-^vrepot are 

still mentioned along with the i6pel


who had to translate the term the old men found it convenient 

to render it by the famihar expression ol irpea-^vrepoi. 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 irpeajBvrepoi, may have borrowed the word from their 

surroundings, and may not have received it through the 

medium of Judaism at all.^ The Inscriptions of Asia Minor 

prove beyond doubt that -rrpea^vTepoL was the technical term, 

in the most diverse localities, for the members of a corpora- 

tion : 2 in Chios, GIG. ii. Nos. 2220 and 2221 (1st cent, b.c.^), 

—in both passages the council of the vpea/BurepoL is also 

named to Trpeo^vriKov ; in Cos, GIG. ii. No. 2508 = Paton 

and Hicks, No. 119 (imperial period*); in Philadelphia in 

Lydia, GIG. ii. No. 3417 (imperial period), in which the 

(TVpiSpioi' TMv Trpea/Bureptop,^ mentioned here, is previously 

named yepova-la. " It can be demonstrated that in some 

islands and in many towns of Asia Mmor there was, besides 

the Boule, also a Gerousia, which possessed the privileges of 

a corporation, and, as it appears, usually consisted of Bou- 

leutes who were delegated to it. Its members were called 


president {dpxc^v, •npoardrri'^, Trpot^yovfjuevo^), a secretary, a 

special treasury, a special place of assembly (jepovrtKov, 

yepovala), and a palasstra."^— See also III. iii. 4, below. 

TTpoêcrt?. 

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. 21'' and Neh. 10^^ by oi dproi tov TrpocrwTrov, and in 

Exod. 25 ^° by ol dproi ol epcoiriot, but their usual rendering 

is o' dproi T?79 irpoOeaew'i. The usual explanation of this 

vpodecri'i is setting forth, i.e., of the bread before God. The 

author leaves it undecided whether this explanation is correct 

; 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 j]hila7itropiques telle que la suivante : 

Le mcdecin Diodes cite jMr Athenee {3, 110), nous aj^prend qu'il 

y avail tme irpoOrjcri';'^"^ de pains periodique a Alexandrie, dans 

le temple de Sattirne (AXeâvZpel^ tm Kpovo) d(f)i€povvTe


anoixeTpiOv. 

In Luke 12 *^ for jjortio frumenti ; referred to in this 

passage only : 

to be verified by Pap. Flind. Petr. ii. xxxiii. a^ 

(Ptolemaic period). Cf. atTOfieTpew in Gen. 47^^ (said of 

Joseph in Egypt). 

crKevo


by the LXX, and Symmachus ^ uses o-racr/? in Is. 6^^ for 

illl-î?^ root-stock {truncus) or young tree, cuttiyuj ; ^ certainly 

a very remarkable use of the word, and one hardly explained 

by the extraordinary note which Schleusner ^ makes to the 

passage in Nahum : " ardaa est firmitas, consistentia, modus 

et via subsistendi ac resistendi ". What is common to the 

above three words translated by a-rdaif; 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 ardaa for any 

upright object} 

This conjecture is confirmed by Pap. Flind. Petr. ii. xiv. 

3^ (Ptolemaic period?), i.e., if the aTuaei*; which is found 

in this certamly very difficult passage be rightly interpreted 

as erections, buildings.'^ This use of the word seems to the 

author to be more certain in an Inscription from Mylasa in 

Caria, GIG. ii. No. 2694 a (imperial period), in which Boeckh 

interprets the word (TTdaec



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 viro^v


which this "periphrastic" vio


—Luke IC, vi6r]

164 BIBLE STUDIES. . [164 

antitheses KaTdpa


t6(; lo-'^vl ; " son " of misery, Prov. 31 ^ = aaOeui)'^ ; " son " of 

strokes, Deut. 25 " = a^coia


vlof 'A(f)poSiaie(i)v, etc. And thus, though the vl6

167, 159, 160] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 167 

vlov, where without doubt the Emperor Augustus is de- 

scribed as deov vi6


were, therefore, quite correct (from their standpoint) in trans- 

lating ^tr prhice by (/>/\o9, Esth. 1^,1 ^^ 6 ^,—a fact not 

taken into consideration in the Concordance of Hatch and 

Eedpath—and the same usage is exceedingly frequent in 

the Books of Maccabees. ^ We think it probable that the 

Alexandrian writer of the Book of Wisdom was following 

this idiom when he spoke of the pious as ^tX,of


elprjKa (f)L\.ov

III. 

FUKTHER CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HISTORY 

OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE, 

BEING NEUE BIBELSTUDIEN, MARBURG, 1897.

o de aypos €

I 

— 

FUETHEE CONTEIBUTIONS TO THE HISTOEY OF 

THE LANGUAGE OF THE GEEEK BIBLE. 

In the third article ^ of Bibelstudien we endeavoured 

to correct the widespread notion that the New Testament 

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 - of Bibelstudien has ex- 

pressed himself with regard to this inquiry in the following 

manner : 

The third treatise again ^ 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.'* 

itself. 

' I.e. the foregoing article. The present article was published later by 

2 ThLZ. XX. (1895), p. 487. 

^ This again refers to a previous remark in which Blass had " willingly 

conceded " to the author his " general, and not always short, reflections ". 

* 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 towards 

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. occupies 

an absolutely isolated position, or would be other than grateful ^ 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.^ 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.^ In the Introduction, as was to be expected, 

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 Testament 

itself—in the private records, the number and iruportance of which are 

^ 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. 

^ 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 ". 

Tr. 

3 Gottingen, 1896. [Eng. Trans., London, 1898.] 

—

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.^ 

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 hnguistic 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 idp used for dv in the 

New Testament or in a bill of sale from the Fayyum, and 

the lexicographer must register the /cupm/co? 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 vsdth 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.). 

— 

—


the historical method of bibHcal 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 " Nev^ Testament " Greek vîthout ever feeling any 

necessity to probe the v^hole 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,^ and the little-changed third,"'^ edition of his work 

with the English revision of Joseph Henry Thayer ^—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 

the New Testament texts were 

plausibility then than now ; 

decidedly the most characteristic of all the products of nonliterary 

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 venerable 

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 

Grdcitdt ^ has for its fundamental principle the idea of the 

formative power of Christianity in the sphere of languaga 

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. ^ Ibid., 1888 [quoted in this article as Clavis'^]. 

•' The 

author quotes the Corrected Edition, New York, 1896. 

^ 8th Edition, Gotha, 1895. 

—

N. 5] LANGUAGE OP 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 first ^ 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 element 

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 " bibhcal 

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 correctly, 

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 rehgion. 

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. 

12 

"


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 followîng 

investigations, polemics are not their chief aim. Their 

purpose is to offer, ^ towards the understanding of the New 

Testament, positive materials ^ from the approximately contemporary 

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.^ In these 

pages the following works have been laid under contribution : 

1. Collections of Inscriptions : 

the 

— 

Inscriptions of Per- 

gamus * and those of the Islands of the /Egean Sea, fasc. 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. 

2 Above, pp. 61-169 ; c/. also GGA. 1896, pp. 761-769 : and 

xxi. (1896), pp. 609-615, and the other papers cited above, p. 84. 

ThLZ. 

-* Altertiimer von Perqamon Jverausgegeben im Auftrage des Koniglich 

Preussischen Ministers der geistliclien, Unterrichts- und Medicinal-Angelegen- 

heiten. Band viii. : Die Inschriften von Pergamon unter Mitwirkung von Ernst 

Fabricius und Carl Schuchhardt herausgegeben von Max Frankel, (1) Bis zum 

Ende der Konigszeit, Berlin, 1890, (2) Bomische Zeit.—Inschriften auf Thon, 

Berlin, 1895 [subsequently cited as Perg. or Frankel]. 

5 Inscriptiones Graecae insidarum Maris Aegaei consilio et aiictoiitate 

Academiae Litterarum Regiae Borussicae editae. Fasciculus primus : Inscrip- 

ticmes Graecae insidarum Rhodi Chalces Carpathi cum Saro Casi . . . edidit 

Fridericus Hiller de Gaertringen, Berolini, 1895 [subsequently cited as IMAe.].

N. 7] LANGUAGE OF THE GEEEK BIBLE. 179 

2. Issues of Papyri : the Berlin Egyptian Documents, 

vol. i. and vol. ii., parts 1-9 ^ 

; also the Papyri of the Arch- 

duke Eainer, vol. i.- 

In reading these the author had in view chiefly the 

lexical element, but he would expressly state that a reperusal 

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 beheving 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 ^ 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 Aegijptische Urkunden aus den Koniglichen Museen zu Berlin Jierausgegeben 

von der GeneralverwaUung : Griechische Urkunden. Erster Band, 

Berlin, [completed] 1895 ; Zweiter Band, Heft 1-9, Berlin, 1894 ff. [subsequently 

cited as BU.\ 

^ Corpus Papyroi-um Raineri Archiducis Austriae, vol. i. Griechisclie 

Texte lierausgegeben von Carl Wessely, i. Band : Rechtsurktmden unter Mitwirkung 

von Ludwig Mitteis, Vienna, 1895 [subsequently cited as PEE.]. 

^ We need only think of the importance of Pergamus for the earlier 

period of Christianity.


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 formalism 

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 ! 

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 

ment of facts ! 

is a great opportunity for the ascertain- 

^ See below, suh KuOapiCw, 0idCo/xai, iXda-KOfjLai.

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.^ The present 

writer would here emphasise the fact that — notwith- 

standing all other diiferences—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.^ 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- 

lowdng observed facts are intended to yield materials for this 

purpose. 

1. Variation of Vowels. 

(a) The feminine termination -ia for -eia} That in 

2 Cor. 10* (TTpar La


intended, should no longer be contested. It is really super- 

fluous to collect proofs of the fact that (nparela could also 

be written (Trparia. Nevertheless, the mode of spelling the 

word in the Fayyiim 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, arparela is given by PER. i.s (83-84 

A.D.), BU. 14011.23 {ca. 100 a.d.) 581 4. i5 (133 A.D.), 256 is 

(reign of Antoninus Pius), 180 15 (172 a.d.), 592, i.6 (2nd 

cent. A.D.), 625 u (2nd-3rd cent, a.d.); a-Tparla 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 arpaTiati;, the author would prefer the accentu- 

ation arpaTlat

N.10,11] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 183 

Papyri. The author met with Taficelov only once, BU. 106 5 

(Fayyum, 199 a.d.) ; everywhere else ^ rafjêtov : FEB. lis. 30 

(83-84 A.D.), BU. 75 ii. 12 (2nd cent, a.d.), 15 ii. 16 (197 a.d. '?), 

156 (201 a.d.) 7 i. s (247 a.d.), 8 ii.so (248 a.d.), 96 8 (2nd 

half of 3rd cent. a.d.). Ilelv occurs in BU. 34 ii. 7. n. 22. 23, 

iii. 2, iv. 3. 10 (place and date "?), ttiv ibid. iv. 25 - and once more 

BU. 551(5 (Fayyum, Arabian period). 

2. Variation of Consonants. 

(a) Duplication. The materials with regard to dppa^cov 

given in Winer-Schmiedel, § 5, 26 c (p. 56 f.) may be supple- 

mented : the 

yum, 167-168 A.D.) ; 

author found dppaôov only in BU. 240 e (Fay- 

^ dpaîov, 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 dXa^cav), 

601 11 (Fayyum, 2nd cent, a.d., a badly written private letter), 

FEB. 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 dpa^cov 

is a purely " Western " reading, is hardly tenable. The 

author, moreover, would question the scientific procedure of 

Winer- Schmiedel's assertion that the spelling dppaôiv is 

" established " by the Hebrew origin of the word.* It 

would be established only if we were forced to pre- 

suppose a correct etymological judgment in all who used 

the word.^ But we cannot say by what considerations they 

1 All the Papyri cited here are from the Fayyum. 

'^ F. Krehs, the editor of this document, erroneously remarks on p. 46 : 

" ire7v = iriveiv ". In connection with this and with other details W. Schmid, 

GGA. 1895, pp. 26-47, has already called attention to the Papyri. 

•'' This 

p. 10, note 4.] 

passage is also referred to by Blass, Gramvi., p. 11. [Eng. Trans., 

* Blass similarly asserts, Granim., 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, 

'ApeOas, as the name of Nabatsean 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 'ApeVos, and thus 

'Apera in 2 Cor. 11-"^ may be considered " established " without the slightest 

"


were influenced in orthographical matters. It can no longer 

be questioned that the spelling dpa/Scov was very common. 

Who knows whether some one or other did not associate 

the non-Greek word with the Arabs ? ^ A popular tradition of 

this kind might, in the particular case, invahdate the ety- 

mological considerations advanced by us from the standpoint 

of our present knowledge, and so induce us to uphold an 

etymologically /a/se spelHng as " established ". 

y6vv7}/jba and yevrj/jia. The spelHng with a single v 

and, consequently, the derivation from yivecrdai have been 

already established by the Ptolemaic Papyri.- It is con- 

firmed by the following passages from Fayytim Papyri of the 

first four Christian centuries, all of which have to do with 

fruits 

'^ 

of the field : BU. 197 13 (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 

i.s (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 o (314 a.d.) ; cf. also jevrjfjLaro- 

ypacfêlu in BU. 282 lo (after 175 A.D.). 

A fluctuation in the orthography of those forms of 

yevvdo) and yivop,ai which are identical except for the v (v) 

has often been remarked ; * thus, yevrjOevra, undoubtedly 

from yevvdoi, occurs also in the Papyri : BU. 

110 u (Fayyum, 

138-139 A.D.) and 28 16 (Fayytim, 183 a.d.). Both documents 

are official birth-notices. On the other hand, the " correct " 

yevvr)06L


BU. Ill (Fayytim, 138-139 a.d.), where line 21 has eVt- 

yeuvi](r€(o

II. 

NOTES ON THE MOEPHOLOGY. 

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) airelpwi was not found by the author in the Papyri 

they seem always to have o-Trei/a?;? : ^ BU. 73-2 (Fayytim, 

135 A.D.), 136 22 (Fayyum, 135 a.d.), 142 lo (159 a.d.), 447 

[= 26] 12 (Fayyum, 175 a.d.), 2413 (Fayyum, 177 a.d.). The 

materials from the Inscriptions of Italy and Asia Minor 

which Frankel adduces in connection with a-Treipa = Thiasos, 

also exhibit tj in the genitive and dative. 

(b) The Genitive rjfj,i


(c) Svo} The following forms in the Fayyum Papyri 

are worthy of notice:- S6m BU. 2084 (158-159 a.d.), ^vmv 

RU. 282 25 (after 175 a.d.), hvelv BU. 256 5 (reign of Anto- 

ninus Pius), hv(Ti BU. 197 8 (17 a.d.) PER. ccxlii. lo (40 a.d.), 

i.7 (83-84 A.D.), BU. 588.5 (100 a.d.), 86 « (155 a.d.), 166 r 

(157 A.D.), 282 10 (after 175 a.d.), 326ii.7 (189 a.d.), 308 i9 

(586 A.D.). 

2. Proper Names. 

Abraham is Graecised "^/3pa/xo9 (as in Josephus) in BU, 

585 ii. 3 (Fayyum, after 212 a.d.) Uaaô)^ 'A/3pdfiov ; on the 

other hand, in Fayyum documents of the Christian period, 

'A/3pad/^w^ 395 7 (599-600 a.d.), 401 i3 (618 a.d.), 367 5 etc. 

(Arabian period); not Graecised, 'AjSpaafx 103, verso i 

(6th-7th cent. a.d.). 

'AKv\a>s. Clavis'^, p. 16, simply gives 'AkvXov as the 

genitive for the N. T., although a genitive does not occur 

in it. The Fayjami Papyri yield both 'AkvXov BU. 484b' 

(201-202 A.D.) and 'AKvXa 71 21 (189 a.d.).—The name of 

the veteran C. Longinus Aquila, which occurs in the last- 

mentioned document, is written '^/cuXa? in 826 ii. 19 (end 

of the 2nd cent, a.d.) and 'AKvXX.a


Graecising of the Semitic Bapveôv


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 

naprapa


Heb. 8*''; 

(b) Conjugation. TeTei;;^^ a Ms fairly well authenticated in 

cf. BU. 332 6 (Fayyum, 2nd-3rd cent, a.d.) eiri- 

reTevôTa^, unnecessarily altered by the editor to eTTirerv- 

^fa^ (Luke 13=^^2 Pet. 2^ Acts 14-' D) : 

(Faj^yum, 163 a.d.) Karrjâv. 

BU. 

607 is 

eXeiyfra' (Acts 6'-, Luke 5 ^^ D, Mark 12 ^^ ^, always 

in the compound Karekeiyâ) also occurs in the following 

Fayyum Papyri : 

BU. 

183 i9 (85 A.D.) KaTaXel-^y, 176 lo (reign 

of Hadrian) KaraXely^rai, 867.13 (155 a.d.) KaraXeiy^r),^ 467 6 

(no note of place, ca. Ill a.d.) KaraXeL-â^, 164 13 (2nd-3rd 

cent, a.d.) KaraXelyp-ai. The same compound is found also 

in the passages Clem. 2 Cor. 5\ 10 \ and Herm. Similit. 8, 

3^ cited by Blass, also in LXX 1 Chron. 28 ^ and GIG. 

4137 3 f. (Montalub in Galatia, date ?) ; 4063 6 f. (Ancyra, 

date ?) has evKarakiy^re. It is possible that the use of the 

form is confined to this compound. 

rjpTrdyrjv^ (2 Cor. 12'-'^) occurs also in the fragment 

of a document *^ 

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, rjpirdyrjaav is given as the corrected 

reading of this. 

The attaching of 1st aorist terminations to the Ind 

aorist ~ is of course very frequent in the Papyri. The author 

has noted the following : 

— 

1 Winer-Schmiedel, § 13, 2, Note 2 (p. 104) ; Blass, Grmmn., p. 57. [Eng. 

Trans., p. 57.] 

2 Wiuer-Schmiedel, § 13, 10 (p. 109) 

Trans., p. 43.] 

; Blass, Gramm., p. 42. [Eng 

•' Winer-Schmiedel, § 18, 10 (p. 109) ; Blass, Gramm., p. 43. [Eng. 

Trans., p. 43.] 

KaraKiirri ". 

* The Editor, P. Viereck, makes the unnecessary observation, " I. [read] 

•'Winer-Schmiedel. § 13, 10 (p. 110); Blass, Gramm., p. 43. [Eng. 

Trans., p. 43.] 

6 Cf. above, p. 68. 

" Winer-Schmiedel, § 13, 13 (p. Ill f.) ; Blass, Gramm., p. 44 f. [Eng. 

Trans., p. 45 f.]


e'êvdiJi'qv: PER. i. 26 (Fayyum, 83-84 a.d.) yevduevo

192 BIBLE STUDIES. [N. 19,20 

The termination -av for -aai in the Srd plural perfect''occurs 

in BU. 597 19 (Fayyum, 75 A.d.) yejovav (Kom. 16^ 

j^ AB, Kev. 21*^ ^'^ A) and 328 i. o (Fayyum, 138-139 a.d.) 

The termination -e? for -a? in the Qind singular perfect and 

aorist^ is found with remarkable frequency in the badly- 

written private letter BU. 261 (Fayyum, 2nd-3rd cent. 

A.D.?): line 14 SeSw/ce?, 17 rjp'nx^'^ (= eifjr}Ke- 48 f. [Eng 

Trans., p. 49 f.] Neither writer takes notice of 1 Cor. 7^ A aTroSiSfVo). 

•'' 

It is true that line 23 has yur? 5i5i avT^ (cf. Supplement, p. 358). The 

editor, F. Krebs, accentuates 5i5i, and explains thus : " I. [read] SiSei = SISmiti ". 

The present writer considers this impossible : SiSi ( = 5i5ei) is rather an im- 

perative of SiSciifj.1, formed in accordance with ridei. Similarly BU. 602 6 

Fayyum, 2nd cent, a.d.) iSeiSt ( = eSiSei) on the analogy of iridei. Other 

assimilations to the formation of ridrnjn in the Fayyum Papyri are: 3608 

(108-109 A.D.) the imperative TrapaSere, and 159 3 (216 a.d.) iêSero; the latter 

form already in PER. ccxxii.is (2nd cent. a.d.). 

® iiriSlSoo could also be an abbreviation of iiriSiScvui, specially as it occurs 

in a common formula. Hence the editor, U. Wilcken, writes iTri5iSai{fxi). 

^ Apocope of the preposition, like BU. 867 (Fayyiim, 155 a.d.) Ka\ei\pr] ; 

in contrast with line 12 of the same Papyrus KaTa\fi\f/7] (not, however, naSdcrw 

BU. 39 20 which has been corrected, in accordance with a more exact reading 

p. 354, to airoSiixrw). Cf. Winer-Schmiedel, § 5, 22 c, note 47 (p. 53).

N. 20, 21] LANGUAGE OF THE GEEEK BIBLE. 193 

(Fayyum, 189 A.d.) yields irapaKaTaridofxai.—tcOm { = ti0€q)) 

is indicated by BU. 350 is (Fayyum, reign of Trajan) vtto- 

TiOovaa, which, however, perhaps depends in this place 

merely on euphony ; it stands in the following connection 

ivoiKoSofjiOvaa koX eTTiCTKevdôvaa Kat iroKovaa "^ koI vttotl- 

dovaa Kol erepoi^ fierahihoixTa. 

Svvo/jLat^ 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.) gyi/o/ieiô?,—also 614 20 (217 A.D.). In 348 8 

(156 A.D.) there occurs &>? av Svvoi, which must certainly be 

3rd singular; this would involve a Svv(o.'^ 

1 Winer-Schmiedel, § 14, 17 (p. 123) ; Blass, Gramm., p. 48. [Eng.. 

Trans., p. 49.] 

'^ 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-knov7n Svvw. F. Krebs also places Svvoi in connection with Swafiai 

in his index. 

13 

:

III. 

NOTES ON THE VOCABULARY AND THE SYNTAX. 

1. So-called Hebraisms. 

ava


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 

et?. ra^ el^ rov Mdpcova .... oiKoi'Ofilaf;, PER. i. u (Fayytim, 

83-84 A.D.) is correctly translated by the editor as the en- 

dorsement of Marons accotmt ; cf. FEB. xviii. 12 f. (Fayyuni, 

124 A.D.) et? aWov TLva jpdêcv 8ta6j]K7]v, to draw uj) a loill in 

favour of any otJier jyerson. Leaving aside the New Testament 

passages, we find this ei? 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?,^ e.g.^ 

line 10, et? ravpo/36\iov. The abrupt ei? in the expenses-list 

Perg. 553 K (reign of Trajan) may also be mentioned as an 

example. The author has found this ek in other Inscriptions 

as well, 

ipoordco. 

Cremer*, p. 415, says : " in New Testament Greek also 

request — an application of the word which 

manifestly arose through the influence of the Hebr. 7^51!? ". 

But, as against this, Winer-Limemann, p. 30, had already made 

reference to some profane passages,'- which Clavis^^ p. 175, 

appropriates and extends—though with the accompanying 

remark, " ex imitatione hebr. vtÛ-*, significatu ap. j^fofanos 

rarissimo ". The author has already expressed his disagree- 

ment with the limitation of this really vulgar-Greek usage 

to the Bible. -^ The 

Fayytim Papyri yield new material : 

ipcordv request occurs in BU. 509 (115 A.D.), 423 11 (2nd cent. 

A.D.), 417 it. (2nd-3rd cent, a.d.), 624 15 (reign of Diocletian). 

1 Prankel, p. 353. 

2 Winer-Schmiedel, § 4, 2 a (p. 27), counts this usage among the "imperfect 

" Hebraisms. It would be better to abolish this term from Wmer's 

Grammar. 

" Below, p. 290 f., with a reference to the examples of Wilamowitz-Moel- 

lendorff in Guil. Schmidt, De Flavii losephi elocutione observationes a-iticae, 

Fleck. Jbb. Suppl. xx. (1894), p. 516.


To these should be added the adjuration-tablet of Adrumetum 

(probably belonging to the 2nd cent, a.d.), Hnesi. 

(See p. 276.) 

Ka6apo

— 


cent. A.D.) ra Trepiyeivofieva-"' ivoLKia Trpo? e/cacTToi' ovofxa 

t5)v Tpvyoyvruyv jpa(f>7]Tcoi^"^, 388 i. lo (Fayyum, 2nd-3rd cent. 

A.D.) rajSeWaL hv[ô\ iXevdepaoaewv rov avrou 6v6fiaTo

198 BIBLE STUDIES. [N 26. 

words : 

o'iTLve


has been kindly communicated to us by M. Pierret, the 

Conservator of Egyptian Antiquities in the Louvre, has had 

the result " quon ne trouve, dans le papyrus N^ 49, auctme 

trace du mot ajciTrriv, mais seulement a la ligne 6 la vraisemblance 

d'une lecture rapa'x^^v". The author, therefore, has no hesi- 

tation in here withdrawing his reference to this Papyrus.^ 

[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. Zezschwitz,^ 

Clavis'^ and Cremer'* 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.^ In Q^cod Deus 

immut. § 14 (M., p. 283), it is said : irap' 6 /jlol SoKel Tot9 

Trpoeiprj/jLevoif; Sval Ke(f>a\aLoi


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 schohon to Thuc. ii. 51, 5, we 

find îXavOpctiTTiaq Koi dya-Trr]^ as a gloss to ap€Tri


astical " Greek in Cremer's sense: BU. 308.8 (Fayyum, 

Byzant. period) eTrdvayKe'i iirireXeacofieu ra Trpo? ttjv KaWtep- 

'yiav rSiv apovpwv epya iravra aKaTa'yi'u)

0,0-2 BIBLE STUDIES. [N. 30 

cf. 607 23 (Fayyum, 163 A.d.) oTTorav ^ dvaip{o]vvTai and the 

passages cited below, 86 19, 22. 

2. Winer-Liinemann, p. 291, writes as follows, in refer- 

ence to the frequent edv instead of av in relative clauses : 

" In the text of the N. T. (as in the LXX and the Apocrypha 

. . ., now and then in the Byzantine writers, . . .), av after 

relatives is frequently displaced, according to most authorities 

and the best, by idv [here the passages are given], as not 

seldom in the Codices of Greek, even of Attic, writers. 

Modern philologists . . . substitute dv throughout. . . . 

The editors of the N. T. have not as yet ventured to do 

this, and in point of fact edv for dv may well have been a 

peculiarity of the popular language in later (if not, indeed, in 

earher) times." A. Buttmann, p. 68 f., is of a hke opinion : 

"We may at least infer with certainty, from the frequent 

occurrence of this substitution, that this form, certainly incorrect 

(but still not quite groundless), was extant among 

later writers". Schmiedel- also recognises this edv as late- 

Greek. But even in 1888 Grimm, Clavis,^ p. 112, had ex- 

plained it '' ex usic ap. profanos maxwie 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 abundantly ^ 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 

' oTTOTav and oTw with the future indicative in the Sibyllists are treated 

of by A. Rzach, Zur Kritik der Sibyllinischen Orakel, Pldlologtis, liii. (1894), 

p. 283. 

2 HC. ii. 1 (1891), p. 98, ad loc. 1 Cor. 6i«. 

^ In the LXX in innumerable passages (H. W. J. Thiersch, De Pcnfa- 

teuchi versione Alcxandrina librl trcs, Erlangen, 1841, p. 108) ; in the Apocry- 

pha, Ch. A. Wahl, Clavis librorum V. T. ApocrypJiorum pliilologica, Leipzig, 

1853, p. 137 f., enumerates 28 eases ; in the N.T. Clavis =' gives 17. Many 

other cases, without doubt, have been suppressed by copyists or editors. 

U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff considers % iav, 3 John'', to be an "orthographic 

blunder " (Hermes, xxxiii. [1898], p. 581), but this is a mistake. 

—


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 eav—so far at least as regards 

New Testament times ^—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 Papyri - and the 

Inscriptions yield further material, which would similarly 

substantiate the idv 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 hnguistic-historical framework 

for the New Testament passages : BU. 543 5 (Hawarah, 

27 B.C.) ?) ocTfov iav r)v, PER. ccxxiv. 10 (Fayyum, 5th-6th 

cent. A.D.) Yj ocrwv evav'"^ fj,^ BU. 197 10 (F., 17 a.d.) j) oawv 

iav alp[fJTai.^, ibid. 10 ol? iav aipfJTai, 177 7 (F., 46-47 A.D.) ij 

oacov iav mctiv, PER. iv. 11 (F., 52-53 a.d.) rj oawv iav oiai, 

ibid.-ii ax; iav fBovXrjrai, BU. 251 u (F., 81 A.D.) [d](f> /;[? i]dj/ 

[a7r]atT?7crei '"', PER. i.-i9 {¥., 83-84 A.D.) 009 iav [ôvX(i)]vTai, 

ibid.M 77 oaai iav Mai, BU. 183 8 (F., 85 A.D.) a


xxviii.7 (F., 110 A.D.) ola eav ey^f]'^'^'', ibid.u i) oawv eav Stai, 

BU. 101 (F., 114 A.D.) e'f ov eav alpfj fiepou


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 " civ 

only in the following passages : BU. 372, ii.ir (Fayyum, 154 

A.D.) e^ ov av . 

. . TrporeOfj, 619 7 (F., 155 A.D.) a%/ot au 

iêraa-dfj, 3485 (F., 156 A.D.) a>9 av 8oK€t/jbdcrT]


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 Tj fii-jv with the wholly un-Greek el firj, which originates 

in a literal imitation of the Hebrew form " (top of p. 250). 

Clavis", 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 ?? with et, and 7} jjli'jv be 

intended. But O. F. Fritzsche,^ 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 ?} î']v, on 

the other the Hebrew 'iAh Db5 = et /i>i—by blending the two 

the genius of the biblical diction constructs an el fxi'^v ! True, 

it might have made an yu.?/ ^ from them, but it did not—it 

preferred el fjajv. Pity, that this fine idea should be put out 

of existence by the Papyri.- BU. 543 jti. (Hawarah, 28-27 

B.C.) runs : 6/jiVU/j,i Kalaapa AvTOKpdropa Oeov vlov el /xtjv 

'irapa)(0)pi]a-eLv . . . top . . KXrjpolv], and we read, in PEE. 

ccxxiv. 1 fi'. (Soknopaiu 

ofivvo ?*


{el ?) 

/jbi]v as a form of oath—on Papyrus leaves which are 

some hmidred 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 el (el?) /x/jv, thus 

much, at all events, is clear : it is no specific phenomenon 

of biblical or of Jewish ^ Greek. It is either a case of mere 

itacistic confusion of 7? with et,'- as Fritzsche assumes in 

regard to the biblical, Krebs^ and Wessely* 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,'' 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 el fxrjv, at least 

of the first passage, BU. 543: he writes thus, Gramm., p. 

9 [Eng. Trans., p. 9] : ''El 

mv for ^ fjî'jv, Heb. 6 ^^ (^ÂBDi), 

is also attested by the LXX and Papyri [Note 4, to this 

word, is a reference to BU. 543, and to Blass, Aussyr. d. Gr.'^, 

pp. 33, 77] ; 

all this, moreover, properly belongs to orthoepy, 

and not to orthography ". Then on p. 60 [Eng. Trans., p. 

60] : 

" 

>7, more correctly el, in el /Jb-qv," 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. 

- Thus, e.g., in the Berlin MS., immediatelj- before, we have, conversely, 

xpv^f for XP^"^''- (The document is otherwise well-written, like that of 

Vienna). Cf. also BU. 316 12 (Askalon, 359 a.d.) d [ = r)] kol ei nvi erepw 

6v6fj.aTi KaATre, and, conversely, 261 ir. (Faj'yum, 2nd-3rd cent, a.d.) fi /utj, with- 

out doubt for 61 yuTj. 

V "• 

. 

" Krebs writes el in the Berlin MS., and adds the note " : I. [i.e., read] 

^ Wessely writes ei"''' fj-r^v, and adds " Z. [ = read] ^ fxriv ". 

5 The note on p. 416 of the Etymologicum magnum, vis., 77 evippijfi.a 

opKiKov oirep Kal Sia 5i

'208 BIBLE STUDIES. [N. 36 

duced by 77 ixrjv, for which, in Hellenistic-Eioman times, we 

find el (accent ?) firjv written ; so LXX and consequently 

Heb. 6^^ ". 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 el, 

which he seems to uphold, to be wholly free from doubt. 

The above-quoted work of Blass, Uher die Aussprache des 

Griechischen^, Berhn, 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/jajo? 

'yuvaiKovofiov begins, in line 27, el fiav eêiv eTrifieXeLav "rrepL re 

Tov e'lfiaricr/jiov (Dittenberger, Sylloge, No. 388, p. 570). 

Blass observes regarding this : "El fidv seems, nevertheless, 

rather to be a jussum speciale of the language than to rest 

upon general rules ". 

eXaicov. 

This word is undoubtedly found in Acts 1 ^2, awo opov


just as well be in a valley or anywhere else. eXaioov does 

not, of course, mean " Oliye-Mount " in Acts 1 ^'" either, but 

" place of ohves " or, if one prefers, " olive-wood ".^ The 

word is, doubtless, used here as a place-name ; but when a 

particular mountain has the name iXaicov, it cannot be in- 

ferred therefrom that the lexicographer has a right to render 

iXaioiv by " mons " olearum. To do so would be quite as pre- 

posterous as to translate Xeyicov, in Mark 5 ^, etc., by legio7i 

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 19 ^^ 

reads, according to universal testimony, Trpo? to opo


line24f, eV tottw OIkuk;^ Sa[ l^^X ['^^Toj/'te/'oi;**'-' 

FEB. xxxviii. 9 (F., 263 A.D.) iv tottw Wtîardveoii; Xeyo/xievo)). 

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 iXatcov were necessarily a genitive. Now, since 

we may without misgiving accentuate iXacoiv ", the question 

alone remains whether this form, which is urged upon us 

by Acts 1 ^'^, and which is a priori more probable than eXmcov 

without the article (which never occurs in Luke), is gram- 

matically tenable. And the answêr 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,"^ but by reference 

to the more lax usage of later Greek,* our knowledge of 

which is enlarged by the Papyri. In these the formulae, 6 

KoXovfievo^, €7rLKa\ovfj,evo^ , eiriKeKXrjfxevo'i, X(='yofievo


which appears to the author to deserve a more exact investigation, 

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 \ 24 ^, 26 ^°) called to 0/009 tmv 

iXacMv, in the corresponding passages in the Vulgate mons 

oliveti ; similarly (except in Luke 19 ^^ 21 ^'' and Acts 1 ^^, 

passages which on account of iXaicov require no explanation) 

in Luke 19^'' and John 8\ where also mons o/weî corresponds 

to the opo^ Twv iXaicov. The matter would have no further 

importance if the Mount of Olives were always designated 

thus in the Vulgate. But in Mark always (11 \ 13 ^ 14^6) 

and Luke 22 ^^, as in Zech. 14 *, to 6po

212 BIBLE STUDIES. [N.39,40 

must read iXaiMv (to opo^; r wv iX. in Luke 19 ^'^ and else- 

where), and, in the single passage Acts 1 ^^ {opovq rod koXov- 

fievov) e\aiwvo


evdiirtov. 

H. A. A. Kennedy ^ assigns the " adverb " evcoTrtov, 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- 

Liinemann, p. 201, " the preposition ivcoTVLov (^^^y^) 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., evMiriov is a new formation of " biblical " 

Greek.'^ But BU. 578 (Fayytim, 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: /ieTaS(o?) 

iv(07n(ov) CO? Ka6i]K(€i,) Totii 7rpoaT€TayfM(evoi

214 BIBLE STUDIES. [N. 41, 42 

€7riouai,o


621) €vap€aKOT€po}


tongue.^ In these circumstances it is very fortunate that the 

Inscriptions yield quite a multitude of examples of this very 

vvôrd, 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 v^hich occur in the tviô collections 

of Inscriptions investigated by the author, viz., those of the 

Mgesin 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.). 

KudapL^w. 

Cremer,^ p. 490, asserts it to be a fact "that KaOapiô) 

is found only in Biblical'^ and (seldom indeed) in ecclesiastical 

Greek". But already Glavis ^'^ quotes Joseph. Antt. 11, 5, 4, 

eKaOdpiê ry-jv irepl ravra (Tvvrjdeiav. 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 : dva-ypaâvTca 

he Kol d(f)' &v Sel KaOapLêiv Kai a p-r] Bet eôi'Ta? elcnropevecrOat 

(Dittenberger, Sylloge No. 388, p. 571). Further, there come 

into consideration the directions (preserved in a double form^ 

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,'* cf. 73 (found near Sunium, not older than the 

imperial period). No unclean person shall enter the temple: 

KaOapiêaTco^^'^ he aTro cr\^K]6phwv Ka\l "ôipeuiv^ Ka\î lyvvaiKc^^ 

Xov(Tafievov/lloge No. 379. 

: 

the


which latter passage is to be interpreted in the Hght of 

the well-known idea, exemphfied in the above-mentioned 

Inscription and frequently elsewhere, viz., that the touching 

of a corpse renders one ceremonially unclean.^ 

Kvpi,aK6

218 BIBLE STUDIES. [N .45, 4G 

examples from Asia Minor—all of the imperial period. The 

KvpiaKo

N.46,47] LANGUAGE OF THE GEEEK BIBLE. 219 

authority for Seâa-ri] as first day of the month in the Inscription 

of lasos,— given by Th. Reinach in the Revue des Etudes 

Grecques, vi. (1893), p. 159,—hne25, /cat rov Kar eviavrov 

fêvQjxevuv tokov Saxret alel rov TrapeXOovroq eviavrov /xrjvl 

TrpojTfo êâarfj. 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 Kvpia} 

Xoyela. 

We have succeeded in tracing this word in other 

quarters;^ first, in Pap. Grenfell and Hunt (Oxford, 1897), 

No. xxxviii.i5 (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. 538ifif. 

(Fayyum, 100 a.d.) l3oraviaiJLov


Since Codd. 44 and 71 give Kar avhpa Xoylav (74 

Xoyiav), and again Codd. 52, 55, 74, 106, and 243 omit 

: kut avSpa- 

KaraaKevdaiuna, one might feel tempted to regard the former 

as the original reading and the latter as a gloss to Xoyoav 

—unless perhaps KaraaKevdafi. was too uncommon a word, 

and the more familiar avWoy^ was a more obvious gloss ". 

We^ cannot comprehend how Grimm can thus speak of 

dvSpoXoyla ^ as analogous to êvoXoyia : for this analogy 

would precisely imply that dvhpoXoyia 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 Kar avhpa 

Xoyiav (read Xoyeiav ^) certainly deserves serious consideration 

; on this view, KaTacrKevda/jbara 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 silver^ to 

Jerusalem.* 

veo^vTo

N. 48,49] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. 221 

Ps. 127 [128]^, ve6(f)VTa i\aio)v; similarly in BU. 565 u and 

566 3 (fragments of the same document as 563). 

Glavis^, p. 326, " Neqtie in graeco V. Ti. cod., neque ap. 

profanos offenditur ". This negative statement is at all events 

more cautious than the positive one of Cremer^, p. 737: 

" only in New Testament Greek ". But both are invalidated 

by the Papyri.^ The word, meaning debt (in the literal sense, 

as in Matt. 18^'^), is found in formulae in BU. 112 n {ca. 60 

A,D.) KaOapa airo re ocpiXrj'i "* Kal v[7rôd7]Kr]


1. According to Cremer^, 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 Trpoaevxô-Oai, and which 

is at the same time a characteristic mark of the difference 

between Israel and the Gentile world ". But the fact that 

irpoaevxn, place of prayer,'^ is found also in connection with 

pagan worship ^ tells against this isolating of the word. 

2. The authorities for Trpoaevx^'] i^ ^^^^ sense of a Jewish 

place of prayer^ 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., GIL. iii. Suppl. 6583 (original in the Berlin Egyptian 

Museum) : " BaatXtaa-rjii koi /3acri\eft)9 irpocrTa^di'Tcov avrl 

T?}? TrpoavaKetixevq^ irepl t?}? avadecredxi Trj


eluding remark about the Inscription (col. 1419) : " Most 

probably it has hitherto remained unnoticed that the omis- 

sion of d€6


added BU. 613 is (Fayyum, probably of the reign of Antoninus 

Pius). 

dpecTKeia. 

" Even those terms which, among the Greeks, are debased 

to common uses on account of their exchisive human apph- 

cation, such as dpeaKeia^'^ 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. 1 ^^ in an 

undoubtedly good sense, and this transformation is to be 

attributed chiefly to the prevailing usage of dpea-To^; and 

€vdpe(Tro


pound i^cXdaKo/xai 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 eîXdaKeadai Ta


malmen). Clavis^, 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 particular 

alteration of meaning having taken place in " biblical " 

Greek. If \iKfidco = 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 5flf. (Fayytim, 2nd-3rd cent, a.d.), the prosecutor 

reports : eirrjKdav ' AfyadoKXr)^ koI Sov\o


the washings required under the theocracy for purposes of 

purification". This sets up an unjustifiable antithesis be- 

tween "profane" Greek and bibhcal, 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. Prohl. Bom. 264, D : XovaaaQat irpo rr\


alien were unknown in the former, which is said to use 

fieTotKo


to a document ; 

quite similarly in 196 2if. (109 A.D.), 281 isf. 

(reign of Trajan), and 394 i4t. (137 a.d.). In all these 

passages adertjaL'i is used in a technical juristic sense, being 

found in the formula et? aOerTjaw koI aKvpooatv. Compare 

these with et? adeTqcnv in Heb. 9 ^'\ and with the usage of the 

contrary formula et? /Be/Saiwaiv in LXX Lev. 25 ^^, Heb. 6 ^^ 

and the Papyri.^ The formula was maintained for long 

afterwards : we still find et9 dOerrja-iv koL aKvpaxnv in PEB. 

xiv. i7f. (Fayyum, 166 a.d.) and ix. lo (Hermopolis, 271 a.d.). 

dvaTrifMTro). 

The references given by Clavis^, p. 27, and Thayer, p. 

41, for the meaning ad personam dignitate, auctoritate, potestate 

superiorem sursum mitto (Luke 23 '' 

, Acts 25 ^^) from Philo, 

Josephus and Plutarch can be largely increased from the 

Fayyum Papyri: BU. 19 i. 20 (135 a.d.), 5 ii. i9f. (138 a.d.), 

613 4 (reign of Antoninus Pius?), 15 i. 17 (194 a.d.), 168 25 

(2nd-3rd cent. a.d.). 

In regard to the use of this word in Matt. 6 '^- ^- ^*^, Luke 

'6 ^*, Phil. 4 ^^, 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.) koL a-wex'j^ rrjv 

avvKeywprifjievT]v rt/xrjv iraaav eK ifKrjpovi, and 612 2 f. (Fayyum, 

6th September, 57 a.d.) d7rex(^ Trap v/xmv rov (popov rov 

i\a[i]ovpylov, &v e^^re [/xo]f iv fjnaOwaei. The words they 

have their reward in the Sermon on the Mount, when considered 

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. diro'xi] means receipt 

•exactly, and in Byzantine times we also find /uLiaOaTroxv'^ 

^ See p. 105 ff. above. 

^ Wessely, Goypus Papyrorum Rainer-i, i. 1, 151 ; but no example is given 

there. The word might signify receipt for rent or hire, not deed of cunveymtce 

as Wessely supposes.


/8eySatft)crt9. 

The conjunction of the terms ê/Saiovv or êâtcocn^ and 

appa^cov ^ is also found in BU. 446 [ = 80] ^^ (reign of Marcus 

Aurelius) ; 

the sentence is unfortunately mutilated. 

In the technical sense of to try, to hear judicially (Acts 

23^5 ; cf. LXX Deut. 1^\ Dion Cass. 36, 53 [36]), also BU. 

168^^ (Fayyum, 2nd-3rd cent. a.d.). 

TO iiTi^dWov fxepo's. 

Frequent references given in connection with Luke 

15^^; a technical formula, also used in the Papyri: BU. 

234 13. 8 (Fayyum, 121 a.d.) to koX avrS eTn^dXKov fjuepo'i, 

419 5f. (276-277 a.d.) to eTn^dXXov [xoc /xepo^ of the paternal 

inheritance; similarly 614 17 f. (Fayyum, 216 a.d.) rrjv iiri- 

^dWovaav avrfj rcov 7raTp(po)[v^ fiepuSa. 

i'mCTKOTTO'^. 

Of this word as an official title Cremer^ 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 eVtV/coTrot as communal officials in Rhodes ; thus 

in IMAe. 49 43 fr. (2nd-lst cent. B.C.) there is named a council 

of five iiria-KOTTOL ; 

in 50 34^ (1st cent. B.C.) three eTrLa-KCTroi are 

enumerated. Neither Inscription gives any information as 

to their functions ; in the first, the eVtV/coTroi are found 

among the following officials : [Trpvravek (?)], ypa/ji/uiarev'i 

ôv\d

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 

iirtardTai, one 

ypa/j,/jbaT€u


that we find the title 6€o\6jo


2", but especially 15^", where the Christian Church at 

Antioch is called to TrXrjdo'i. Thus also to 7r\r]do


or /SouXevrai,). In our little provincial temple ^ we find 

. . corresponding to it, a council— also changed yearly 

of ' five of the oldest of the five phylse of the god Soknopaios 

for the present '23rd year ' {i.e., of Antoninus Pius = 

159-160 A.D.). This council gives in a report which the 

Eoman authorities had demanded from it concerning disci- 

plinary proceedings against a priest of the temple " (p. 35). 

The author has met with these Egyptian irpea^vrepoi m the 

following Papyri from the Fayytim : 

BU. 

— 

16 5 e (159-160 a.d. 

—the passage quoted by Krebs), twv e irpea^vrepoov lepewv 

7revTacf)v\ia^ Oeov ÔKVo\Trâiov ; 347 i. 5f. (171 A.D.), SaraySovTo? 

'7r[pea]/3vT€po[v i€peco]


proved, we should thus have two valuable analogies of the 

early Christian irpea-^vrepoi. 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 lepeix;. 

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,^ was of course facilitated by 

the fact that there already existed elder 2^'>'i&sts or priestly 

elders, of whom both the designation and the institution were 

but waiting for admission into a church which was gradually 

becoming secularised.''^ 

'irpo


the smallness of which we may perhaps infer that the duties 

of this office were not his chief occupation."^ In BU. 488 3 f. 

(Fayyum, 2nd cent. A.D.), if the restoration be correct, we 

find a •7rpo(p7]Tr}


This is to be read : Sacerdos Osirim ferens. npo(f)7j[rr]

^38 BIBLE STUDIES. [N. 65, 66 

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 (Koman period), in which it occurs, 

Frankel quotes the following note from Mommsen,^ which 

gives what is most likely the oldest example of the word : 

" It appears that the word av^fiovXiov 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. [GIG. 

1543 = Dittenberger, Sylloge, 242]. Gf. Plutarch, Bom. 14: 

wvofiaôv Se top Oeov Kcovcrov, eire ôvXalov ovra • KcovatXcov 

yap en vvv to crv/xlSouXiov KaXovcri." 

The author found the word also in B U. 288 u (reign of 

Antoninus Pius) K[a]dri/ji,evcov iv crvfjiôvXiw iv rm 7rpat[T(opia)], 

and 511 15 {ca. 200 A.D.^) [i]v avixôvXeia eKcidtaev. 

cr(f>pa'yl^(o. 

In Kom. 15 ^^ Paul describes the collection on behalf of 

Jerusalem which he had gathered among the Gentile Christ- 

ians as Kap7r6


an analogous expression/ which Professor Wilcken, in a 

letter to the author, explains as follows : seal (the sacks contaming) 

the wheat and the barley. The same thing is meant 

in 15 ii. 21 [Fayyum, 197 (?) a.d., i)/xa


Xapa'yfia. 

The other beast of Revelation 13 ^^ ^^ causes ^^ all, the 

small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free and 

the bond, Xva hwatv avTol


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." ^ 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."" 

Bousset is certainly well aware that to trace backwards 

is not to explain.^ And yet, should it be successfully de- 

monstrated that the 'âpa'îxa 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.* 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 

Eev. 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 fact that the 

mark embodies the name or the number of the beast, ^ that it 

has some general connection with buying and selling,*' 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. ^ p. 4.31. - Ibid., p. 432. 

* 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 eschatologicalmytho 

logical ideas". 

* Der Antichrist, p. 132 ft". 

® 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. ', p. 432, it is more accurately put that the mark 

is "changed in meaning". 

® In the passages cited by Bousset the buying (and selling) is inti- 

mately connected with the famine. 

16


allusion to sometliing 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,^ 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 ;^;apa7/ia. 

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 ".^ 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 X.e' Katcrapo9, 

i.e., in the 35th year^ of Caesar (= 5-6 a.d.). 

^ Whether the use of this imperial x^P^TM" ^^ 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 13 ^^f- an allusion 

to the imperial mo7iey (Romische Geschichte, v.*, 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. 

2 L is the common abbreviation for Itous. 

—

N. 71, 72] LANGUAGE OF THE GKEEK BIBLE. 243 

In the middle, surrounded by the circle of these 

letters, there are also the letters 7/3, which we do not 

understand. Krebs resolves them thus :


(c) PEB. 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.^ " 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 t/S' AvTOKpdTopo


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. Wessely^ thinks indeed that one might "take it 

to be a credential that the material v^ritten 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 

PEE. 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 vahd. 

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. Wessely - has already called special atten- 

tion to this in regard to the deed of partition ; but BU. 183 

also relates to a similar matter.^ 

4. We are indebted to a fortunate coincidence for the 

knowledge of the official name of this imperial seal. PER. 

^ In connection with PER. xi., p. 37. 

^ In connection with PER. xi., p. 34. 

^ 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.


iv. is the copy of a bill of sale from the Fayytim, 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 

ypacfyelov, an authority whom Wessely describes as the 

" graphische Eegisteramt ". Each of these three parts is 

prefaced by a note stating it to be a copy, thus : 

dvTLypa


what we now know of the emperor's %a/)a7/ia, we can very 

well understand the 'x^dpa'yfia of the beast. The yapa'^yâ 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,^ 

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. 

Xîpojpaôv. 

The technical signification bond, certificate of debt, authen- 

ticated in reference to Col. 2 ^* by Clavis ^ and Thayer in 

Plutarch and Artemidorus only, is very common in the 

Papyri. Many of the original xî'Poypa(l>ct, indeed, have been 

preserved ; some of these are scored through and thus 

cancelled {e.g. BU. 179, 272, FEB. ccxxix). The following 

passages from Fayyum Papyri may be cited for the word 

FEB. i. 29 (83-84 a.d.), xiii.3 (110-111 a.d.), BU. 50 5.10. is (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), FEB. 

ix.6. 9 (Hermopolis, 271 a.d.). 

As in 1 Cor. 7 ^'^ ^^ ^^ , a technical expression for divorce 

also in the Fayyum Papyri.'- In the marriage-contracts there 

are usually stated conditions for the possibility of separation ; 

these are introduced by the formula eav 8e [01 ya/j,ovvT€

248 bible studies. [n. 75, 76 

5. Phrases and Formulae. 

eK TMv recraapcov dve/jioyv. 

One might imagine the formula (LXX Zech. 11 '\ Mark 

13 "\ Matt. 24 ^^) to be a mere imitation of the corresponding 

Hebrew one. But it occurs also in PER. cxv. e (Fayyum, 

2nd cent, a.d.) [yeLTo]v€


trouble any further about it, were it not that the Papyri 

indicate how Paul may have come to make this particular 

insignificant change. In the deed of partition PER. 

xi.23f. (Fayyum, 108 a.D.) we read ev/xeveraxxav [o/] ofioXo- 

yovvTeii iv toI


B.C.) we have Kada koI ev Tol


ii. 11 (Elephantine, 232 a.d.) euda cnrov8d['i re /cat 8e]7;cret9 

7roir}adfxevo


Acts. Note especially the formula kuto. to Wo^; (Luke 1 ^, 

2*^): BU. 250 17 (reign of Hadrian) KaOapo'i Kara to eô?, 

131 5 (2nd-3rd cent, a.d.) and 96 is (2nd half of 3rd cent, a.d.) 

KUTCi TO, ' P(i)/juai(ov €07},^ 347 i. 17, ii. 15 (171 A.D.) and 82 12 (185 

A.D.) freptTfiTjOrjvac kuto. to 6^09 (c/. Acts 15^ TrepcTfMrjdrjTe tw 

edei M(ovaeo)(;). 

Manifold authorities for the phrase in connection with 

2 Cor. 12 ^*, 1 Pet. 4 ^ Acts 21 ^^ ; 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 ; 

is followed by the infinitive. 

as in all the New Testament passages it 

Tov Oeov deXovTo^, 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 tov Oeov 

6ekovTo


(Fayyiim, 2nd-3rd cent, a.d.) like e medio tollo in the proper 

sense. 

arro rov vvv. 

This formula, employed in 2 Cor. 5 ^^, as also often by 

Luke (Gospel, and Acts 18 -), is very common in the Fayyum 

legal documents. We find it in the following combinations : 

atro Tov vvv eVl tov a-iravra ^^poiôi/ PER. iv. 9. i7 (52-53 A.D.), 

xi.G (108 A.D.), BU. 350 19 (reign of Trajan), 193 ii. n (136 

A.D.) ; airo rov vvv et? rov aei ^povov 282 5 (after 175 A.D.) ; 

[a7r]o rov vvv eirl rov ael koI arravra [^poiôi'] 4569 (348 A.D.); 

also standing by itself, airo rov vvv 153 u (152 A.D.) and 13 u 

(289 A.D.). 

A corresponding form, /i€;^/o[tJ t[oi)] vvv (cf. ci'xpi rov vvv 

Eom. 8"^ Phil. 1^), is found in BU. 256 9 (Fayyum, reign of 

Antoninus Pius). 

Kar ovap. 

The references for this phrase, as found in Matt. 1 '^^, 

2 ^'^ ^- ^^- '^'\ 27 ^'', cannot be supplemented by Perg. 357 ^ (Koman 

times) [/cjar' ovap or IMAe. 979 4 1. (Carpathus, 3rd cent, 

A.D.) Kara ovap ; in these cases the phrase does not mean in 

a dream, but in consequence of a dream, like Kar ovecpov in Perg. 

327 (late Koman ^). 

Trapatrio^ aya6(ov. 

In the letter of Lysias to the Jews, 2 Mace. 11 ^^, it is 

said Kal et? ro Xotirov Treipdao/nai 7rapalrio


to the Mitylenians, Sitzungsber. d. Berl. Ahad. 1889, pp. 960, 

965. Elsewhere also, e.g. in Dittenberger, 252, 2 ; 280, 

23". IMAe. 1032 11 (Carpathus, 2nd cent. B.C.) 7rapaiTio


aries of King Eumenes I., soon after 263 a.d.) [7rap]eôfiai Se 

Kol Tr)v [d]XX,7]p j^^peLav evv6a)


'lo'uXiO'i Bdaaoi; 

rfj yXv/cvraTj} 

[y^vvaiKi, (j)L\dvSp[Q)] 

Koi (f)L\OTeKPO), 

avv/3iQ}(Td(Tr} 

dfjbeUTTTOO'i 

err] \' 

An Inscription of the imperial period, from Paros, GIG. 

2384 \ similarly extols a wife as (f)i,XavBpov koi (ficXoiracSa. 

We need no evidence to prove that precisely a combination 

of this kind could readily become popular, 

TO avro (f)poveiv. 

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.'- The epitaph IMAe. 149 

(Rhodes, 2nd cent. B.C.), in which it is said of a married 

couple, ravrd \eyovT€


dfieravoTjTO^. 

According to Clavis^, p. 21, found only in Lucian, Abdic. 

11 ; Thayer, p. 82, adds Philo, De Praem. et Poen. § 3 (M. p. 

410). In PEPi. ccxvi. 5 (Fayytim, l8t-2nd cent. A.D.), the 

word is used, passively, of a sale {Kvplav kol êâiav koI 

d/j,€Tav6r]Tov) 

. 

diroKpLfia. 

For this manifestly very rare word in 2 Cor. 1 ^, Clavis ^ 

p. 43, gives only the reference Joseph. Antt. 14, 10, 6 

Thayer, p. 63, supplements this by Polyb. Excpt. Vat. 12, 

26 '', 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 (Khodes, 51 a.d.), in which 

rd evKTaiorara diroKpiixara certainly relates to favourable 

decisions of the Emperor Claudius. 

ttp/ceT09. 

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.). 

aairdôfjiai,. 

With the meaning pay Gyve's respects (Acts 25 ^^, 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.). 

Of the special meaning ^ furtim sepono in John 12 ^ BU. 

the 

Fayyum Papyri yield a number of fresh examples : 

361 

iii. 10 (end of 2nd cent, a.d.), 46 10 (193 a.d.), 157 s (2nd-3rd 

cent. A.D.). The last two documents contain speeches of 

the public prosecutor in regard to cases of theft. 

^ The more general meaning also is found in B U. 388 ii. 24 (Fayyum, 

2nd-3rd cent. a.d.). 

17 

;


Without entering into the controversy over Matt. 11 '- 

and Luke 16 ^'", the author wishes only to estabhsh the 

following facts. Cremer *', 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 /3id


A word belonging" to the Greek Bible which the Papyri 

are brinoring again to hfe, after the exegetes had well-nigh 

strangled it. With reference to the passages James 1 ^ to 

hoKifiLov v/jLmv t^9 TrtcTTe&j? Karepydêrai vTrofxovrjv, and 1 Pet. 

1 ' 

'tva TO SoKL/xiou vfxcoj' Ty]^ TTtcrreo)? iroXvTLfioTepov ')(^pu


Rainer's collection. In the pawn-ticket FEB. xii. e f. (93 a.d.) 

there are mentioned gold buckles of the weight of 1^ minae of 

good gold (xpvaov Soki/ilov); the marriage contract xxiv. 5 (136 

A.D.) enumerates ornaments in the bride's dowry to the 

value of 13 quarters of good gold {-x^pvaov hoKifieiov *"^) ; a fragment 

of the same contract, xxvi., reads in Hne e \j(pvcr']iov 

\hoK\LiJiiov, and in line 9 [x/^]i'[o']ol' [K\oKi\^^^dov ^"' 

; 

similarly 

the fragments of marriage contracts xxiii. 4 (reign of 

Antoninus Pius) [xpvatov] SoKei/xetov **^, xxii. 5 (reign of 

Antoninus Pius) [xpv]o-Lov SoIki/jllov], and xxi. 12 (230 a.d.) 

[xp^(ôv] BoKLfiiov. There can be no doubt about the meaning 

of this SoA;t/xto9, 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, FEB. xxv., line 4, reads ;)(;puo-ioi; Bokl/jôv 

instead of the ^puaou SoKifieiov of the original. Now this 

BoKifiov can hardly be a clerical error, but rather an easy 

variant, as iminaterial for the sense as ;;^pucrtou for xp^^ôv : 

BoKi/uLiof; has the meaning of B6ki/j,o^ proved, acknowledged, 

which was used, precisely of metals, in the sense of valid, 

standard, genuine {e.g., LXX Gen. 23^*^ apyvpiov SoKLfôu, 

similarly ] Chron. 29 *, 2 Chron. 9 ^^ 

ticulars in Cremer ^, p. 335 f.). 

xP^^^V SoKifxw ; 

par- 

Hence, then, the adjective SoKi/jLco'i, proved, genuine, must 

be recognised, and may be adopted without misgiving in both 

the New Testament passages.^ ro BoKi/jitov vfMcov Trj


2 Cor. 8 ^ TO T^


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 Kiihl, we take Bokluiov as a sub- 

stantive equivalent to means of testing (which hoKLfitov [or 

SoKifiiov '?] can quite well mean), then the sentence runs : 

The ivorcls of the Lord are pure loords, 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- 

get a tolerable 

We ing,^ but what is gained thereby '? 

meaning only by taking hoidixLov adjectivally : the loords of 

ike Lord are pure luords, genuine silver, purified by fire, seven 

times refilled, 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 somewhat 

in this way, the sentence fits into the course of thought 

in the Greek psalm. 

Finally, the texts of the LXX yield still further testimony 

to the existence of this adjective. In 1 Chron. 29 ''j 

B" ' gives the reading ()pyvpiov BoKifxiov instead of apyvpuov 

BoKL/jiov. The same confusion of So/ctfto? and hoicLiJ,to^, which 

we have already seen in the Papyri and the New Testament 

MSS., is shown in Zech. 11 ^^ : instead of Soki/jlov, ^ ""'^'^ Q* 

(Marchalianus, 6th cent, a.d., Egypt) have BoKifitov, Q'* 

SoKifM€lOV. 

i/CTeveia, iKTevco

N.90,91] LANGUAGE OF THE GBEEK BIBLE. 263 

But few references for this word are given in connection 

with Acts 1 1^ Luke 24 •• A, etc. ; cf. BU. 16 K 12 (Fayyum, 

159-160 A.D.) ')(^p(t)[/uL]evov epeaU eoSi'^crecn} 

KaKoirdOeia or KaKOTraOia. 

For this word in James 5 ^^, usually written KaKoirdSeta, 

Clavis^, p. 222, gives only the meaning vexatio, calamitas, 

aerumna, and Beyschlag ^ expressly rejects the meaning vexa- 

tionnm patientia. Cremer ^, 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, hearing 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 Mace. 9 ^ and Plut. Num. 3, 5, may be 

supplemented by references from the Inscriptions. In IMAe. 

1032 10 (Carpathus, 2nd cent. B.C.) rav irdcrav eKreveiav kol 

KaKoiradiav '7rape')(6/jievo


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 KaKoiradia is of different formation from 

KaKoirddeia,^ there still remains the question whether the 

traditional KaKoiradeia'i may not be an itacistic variation of 

KaKOTradia'i. The present writer would, with Westcott and 

Hort, decide for this alternative, and read KaKorrradia^ (so 

B* and P). 

KaraKpLâ. 

This rare word is authenticated (apart from Eom. 5 ^^- ^^, 

8^) only in Dion. Hal. 6, 61. All the less should the follow- 

ing passages be disregarded. In the deed of sale, PEB. i. 

(Fayyum, 83-84 a.d.), hneisf., it is said of a piece of land 

that it is transferred to the purchaser KaOapa diro Travroff 

otjieiXrjfjbaro'i diro [xev 8r]/j.o(TiCi)v reXeafidrcov (le) iravrcov koI 

[eTeptov er\ho)v koX dpra/Siaiv -' Kal vav^Kov koI dpiOp^riTtKOiv Kal 

evrt/SoyV?}? K(i)fir)^ Kal KaraKpifMaTcov iravroyv Kal Travro

N.92,93] LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE. '265 

of evidence (? Evidenzhaltungssteuern), of the additional pay- 

ments of the village-comviunities— in short, of all payments of 

every kind ; in line 3-.' of the same Papyrus he again renders 

[/cara^pt/iaTjcwj/ 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 Clavis ^ 

and Cremer^—a meaning in accordance with the abovementioned 

usage— is particularly suitable in Rom. 8 ^ ; cf. 

Hesychius : 

KaTuKpcfia' 

KaTdfcpiat apxefXTropfov.^ 

Here we have the construction with vtto as in Acts 10 ^'^ 

16 ^ 22^1 So in an Inscription from Naples, IGrSI. 758 

10 f. (second half of 1st cent, a.d.), fxe/xaprvprj/jievov v(f>^ i)fi(bv 

Scd T€ TTJV TCOV rpOTTCdV KOCT/jLlOTIJTa. 

fieTa Kai. 

With the late pleonastic Kai after ixerd in Phil 4*"^ 

Blass^ rightly compares avv Kai in Clem. 1 Cor. 65 \ In 

the Papyri we have found /xera Kai only in BU. 412 et. (4th 

p. 429. 

^ Quotation from Mommsen, BomiscJie Geschichte, v, *, Berlin, 1894, 

^ See p. 64, note 2. 

' Ch: des Neutest. Griechisch, p. 257. [Eng. Trans., p. 263.]


cent. A.D.); auv Kai is more frequent, e.VL0V.'^ 

Neither Clavis ^ nor Thayer gives any authority earHer 

than Polybius (t 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 (t 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. is. u 

(soon after 263 B.C.)—always in the singular. Note in liner 

the combination o-ôovlov Xafi^dveiv as in 2 Cor. 11 ^. The 

singular is used in the Papyri for army pay, BU. 69$ 

(Fayyum, 120 a.d.) ; for wages of the v8po(f)v\aK€


Attalus writes in a letter to the council and people of Pergamus 

that his mother Stratonike has brought rov Ala rov 

Sa^dîov TraTpoTrapdSoTov ^ to Pergamus. 

a/xapdyBLVo';. 

Apart from Rev. 4 ^, Glavis ^ gives no references at all. 

Thayer adds Lucian. In PEB. xxvii. s (Fayyum, 190 a.d.) 

the word is used to describe a woman's garment : emerald-green. 

ri]pr^cn^. 

As in Acts 4^, 5^^, imprisonynent, ward, also in BU. 388 

iii. 7 (Fayyum, 2nd-3rd cent, a.d.) eKeXevaev S/xapajBov kuI 

EvKaipov 6t

1 

IV. 

AN EPIGKAPHIC MEMOEIAL OF THE 

SEPTUAGINT.

€1 apaye if/rjXa(f>T^(r€iav avTov Koi evpoiev.

AN EPIGEAPHIC 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.^ 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 {Beligiositdt) 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 

' Cf. L. Dukes, Literat ivrhistorische Mittlieilungen uber die altesten 

hebi-aischen Exegeten, Grammatiker zi. Lexikographen (Ewald & Dukes, 

Beitrdge, ii.), Stuttgart, 1844, p. 53 ; Schurer, ii., p. 700 ff. [Eng. Trans., ii., 

lii., p. 168 f.]; J. Hamburger, Real-Encyclopddie fur Bibel und Talmud, ii., 

Leipzig, 1883, p. 1234. 

— "


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^—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 ofi&cial 

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 Superstition ^ 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,^ 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.^, Gottingen, 1854, p. 1060, says 

"Superstition formed in some ways a religion for the homes of the lower 

classes throughout ". 

3 C/. F. Piper, Mythologie der christUchen Kunst, Erste Abth., Weimar, 

1847, p. ix. f.

25] A SEPTUAGINT MEMORIAL. 273 

of being divided into the three classes : Heathen, Jeivish, 

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 hterary 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,^ 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, premUre 

serie, Q" 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 archeologiqiie, Hi t. xxi. 

(1893), p. 397 ff. (Reprint from Collections du Musee Alaoui, i., 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 

altjildische Zauberwesen (1898), p. 96 ff. The tablet has been noticed (with obser- 

vations by A. Dieterich) by P. Hiller von Gaertringen in the Sitzungsherichte 

der Berlitier Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1898, p. 586. Cf. also Schiirer, îii., 

p. 298 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 afiorded by Hilgenfeld 

^nd Blau in particular. In the following he has corrected his former reading 

AofiiTiavai/ (line '') to AofiiTiaviiy, and (line j^) 

iVa avrriv to iV axn^v. Hilgen- 

feld's assertion (p. 648) that AoîTia»''(/v should be read throughout is erroneous. 

18


June of 1890 ; ^ he noticed it only when a prong of his mattock 

had pierced the roll. This damaged the tablet in three places." 

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 supphed. 

We read the text thus 

^ : 

— 

OpKi^co (T€, Saifioviov TTvevfjua to ivOdhe Ketîevov, ro) ovo- 

fiaTL Tw a'yiu) Acod 

A^[aw]d Tov deov tou A^paav kul top law top rov 

laKOv, laoi 

Line 2, \aKov: M. corr. 'I((r)a«:ou. 

^ In 1889 a tabula devotionis had been discovered in the Necropolis of 

Adrumetum, and it was discussed by M. Breal 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., Sîppl. i. (1891), sub Nos. 12504-12511, there have recently been brought 

together some tabulce execrationuyn discovered in Carthage, of which the 

last affords some parallels to our tablet : see below. 

— 

Cf. now the copious 

material collected by R. Wiinsch in the CIA. Appendix coniinens de- 

fixionuni tabellas in Attica regione repertas, Berlin, 1897 ; also M. Siebourg, 

Ein gtwstisches Goldamulet aus Gellep, in Bonner Jahrbilcher, Heft 103 (1898), 

p. 123 ff. 

2 We imagine that these are the three holes upon the right margin 

of the tablet. 

^ 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 fe (p. 75 f.). [Eng. 

Trans., p. 59.]

28, 29] A SEPTUAGINT MEMORIAL. 275 

Au)[6 A^]a(od deov rov la-pa/jua • ukovo-ov tov 6v6/xaTO


Ovpâva, Trpo? rrjv AojxiTLavav, fjv €T€K6v Kavhihn, epoivra 

Kal oeufie- 

vov avTri


40 eT€K€v Ovpâ(va), irpof; ttjv Ao/j,iTiavav, fjv erexev Kav" 

BiSa, ipoJi'Ta 

fiai[v]6/jL€vov fSaaai'iô/xevov iirl rfi a?/ca fxi'-jre irapdivov eTTidviMovvra, /ulovtjv 8e rrjv Ao- 

lxiTia\vav\ 

rjv ereKep KavSiSa, avfjil3[t]ov e^î-v oXw T[


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 

" 

thne 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 Adruinetum 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,^ 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. 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.^ This tablet, however, contains no execrations 

against an enemy, but is a love-spell * 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 

^ Maspero, p. 101. 

^ Cf. upon these A. Dieterich most recently, Fleckeisen's Jahrbb. Suppl. 

xvi., p. 788 ff. ; as regards the literature cf. also CIL. viii., Suppl. i., p. 1288, 

and specially Wiinsch, CIA. Appendix (1897). 

^ Cf. M. Breal, in the fifth instalment of the already-cited Collections 

(1890), p. 58. 

•* On 

this species of Magic cf. the instructive citations of E. Kuhnert, 

Feuerzauher, Bhein. Museum fur Philologie, N. F., vol. xlix. (1894), p. 37 ff.


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,^ would be a 

precarious inference; it seems to the author more probable that 

she and Urbanus, to judge from their names perhaps slaves or 

emancipated - persons, were " heathens ".^ 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 

date'' 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. ^ 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. ^ Ibid., p. 107. 

^ 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. 

* Cf. p. 323. 

^ C. Wessely, On tlie spread of Jewish-Christian religions ideas among 

the Egyptians, in TJie 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. ; Schiirer,^ iii., p. 298 ff. A small collection 

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, Tlieol. Studien u. Kritiken, 1881, p. 692 if., and 

E. Nestle, ibid., 1883, p. 153 f. Materials from the Inscriptions have recently 

been largely added to.


Cyrenaica, a collection of which has been made by Schiirer^ 

so far as regards the imperial period. 

In detail, the following observations must be made : 

Line 1 f. It is the haitxainov irvevfxa of the tomb in 

which or upon which the spell was laid that is addressed. 

That the SaifxoiHa stay beside the grave is an idea of post- 

biblical Judaism : 

these 

— 

demons of the tomb help men in the 

practice of Magic- 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.^ opKi^w tm ovofxarL tw 

a

— 

— 


J 384, ix. 7 ^ has made a similar corruption where he, in the 

midst oi a long series of Magical Divine names, writes 

A^paav, Tov laaK, top luKKOiî ; SO also Codex B (Birch) 

has A^paav in Luke 3 ^'*. The interchanging of fi and v at 

the end of Semitic words is to be frequently seen elsewhere 

see below, p. 310 f. tov law lov tov Iukou: on lao) see 

below, p. 324 ; observe the article here. laKov was likewise 

left as it was ; probably it is a corruption of laaKov ; " even 

Josephus Graecises the simple transcription, as with most 

proper names ; laaK or laaaK he gives as "laaico'^. 

Line 3f. tov lo-pafxa: clearly a corruption of laparfK, 

arising from a copyist's error ; the A 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 

formulae.^ These names, according to Origen, had to be left 

untranslated in the adjurations if the power of the incantation 

was not to be lost.* aicovaov tov 6v6fjbaTo


TO 6vo/j,a avTov, similarly Ps. 98 [99]^; to ovofxa to iikâ of 

the name of God, Ps. 98 [99]^ Ezek. 36'^^ cf. Ps. 75 [76]^ 

and Is. 33 ^^ ; the 

frequently applied 

combination yLteya? koI oi3ep6


similarly 11 ^- ; and with the idea, (f>o^€p6


Svvdfiet aov t7]v daXacrcrav, with which should be compared 

LXX Exod. 15 * : Kal 8ia 7n'eufj,aT0


(third cent, a.d.) in de cura houm § 19 (ed. Schuch) ^ hands 

down the following healing charm : nee lapis lanam fert, nee 

lumbricus oculos habet, nee mula parit utricuhim ; similarly 

Marcellus (fifth cent, a.d.), De Medicam. viii. 191 (ed. Helm- 

reich) : ^ nee mitla parit nee lapis lanam fert nee huic morho 

caput creseat aut si creverit tabescat, and a Codex Vossianus ed. 

Piechotta Anecd. lat. clxx. : ^ " quod nmla non parit " et exspues, 

"nee cantharus aquam bibit" et exspues, '' ?iee palumba denies 

habet" et exspues, "sic mihi denies non doleant" et expues. 

Finally, reference must be made to a passage in the Leiden 

copy of the Codex Corbeiensis of Vegetius,* 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 : ^ herbula Proserpinacia, Horei regis filia, quomodo elausisti 

mulcB partum, sic claudas et undam sanguinis huius, and in a 

still more instructive form in the Codex Bonnensis, 218 (66 a) : 

herbula Proserpinatia, Hard regis filia, adiuro te per tuas virtutes, 

ut quomodo elausisti partum mulae, claudas undas sanguinis huius. 

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. rov htopiaavTa to (f)co

41, 42] A SEPTUAGINT MEMOEIAL. 287 

Line 17. rov awrpiôvra Ta


wrote before the destruction of the Temple?^ AVe would 

therefore propose to consider o ov Xeyerai as a clause by 

itself : it expresses the well-known Jewish idea that the 

name of God is an 6vo/xa app-qrov,—see LXX Lev. 24^'' 

ovofidâyv Se to ovopa Kvplov OapciTW davarovcrOw ; Josephus, 

Antt. U. 12 4 : Kal o êo? avTM arjixaivet rrjv eavrou TrpoaijyopCav 

ov Trporepov et? di'dp(07rov


Line 23. ^8?; Ta')(^v, cf. line 47, ^8?/ rjhrj ra')(^v ra'y^v: 

a very frequent concluding formula in the incantations,^ which 

is still seen, e.g., on Coptic amulets of the 5th-6th and 

"^ 

11th centuries ; 

it is also to be restored, of course, at the 

end of the previously-cited Inscription from Carthage.* 

raxv for Ta;)êa)9 is very common in the LXX. 

Line 23 ff. t6v (fxoaTij pa kuI dcrrpa iv ovpav^ 

iroiTjaavTa: LXX Gen. l^^^', Kal eiroirjo-ev o êo? rov


eOero avrov^ o deo^ iv tco arepecofiari tov ovpavov ware (f)aiv€cv 

£7rt T^? 'yrj'i. 

Line 25 f. tov a-wcre [a-avra irdaav Trjv oIkov- 

ixevr)v : LXX Ps. 59 [60]^, aweaeiaa^ rrjv yrjv. For iraaav 

rrjv oLKovixevrjv, cf. LXX Is. 13^. Kal ra opt) €kt pa^Vî^- 

ôvTa Kal eK^pdôvra:^ a repetition of the thought in 

hne 18, but verbally independent. 

— 

Line 26 f. tov iroLovvTa eKTpofXov ttjv yrjv aTraaiav): 

cf. LXX Ps. 103 [104] ^^ 6 iiri^XeTTcov evl Tr}v jrjv koI Troimv 

avTTjv Tpifietv ; 

eKTpo/xo'i does not seem to have been retained 

anywhere else, the LXX using evTpojjio^ in the same sense, 

Ps. 17 [18] « and 76 [77] 19. 

Line 27. {Kal) Katv iôvTa 7rdvTa


surely have appeared first of all in the LXX), but popular 

Greek. ^ 

— 

Line 33. ov (fjoêlrai oprj Kal v air at,: instead of 

the unmistakable ov Maspero writes ov. A specialising of 

the idea that the earth also has a " fear of God " : c/. LXX 

Ps. 32 [33] ^ (f)o^T}9i]T(o Tov Kvpcov TTcicra rj yrj, and Ps. 66 [67]*, 

(j)o^rid7]TQ)aav avrbv iravTa to, irepara Trjoô^ rov 

KvpLov: perhaps this is the most difficult passage in the 

Inscription. iSdXXofiai {elSdWo/jbac) or lvhd\Xop,ai means to 

seem, appear, become visible, show oneself, also to resemble. The 

1 U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff in Guil. Schmidt's De Flavn losephi 

elocutione observationes criticae, Fleck. Jbb. Suppl. xx. (1894), p. 516. 

2 apiray/xa is used for the lion's prey in LXX Ezek. 22 ^s ; cf. 19 =• «.

292 BIBLE STUDIES. [46, 4T 

word does not occur in the LXX, but ivSaXfia, the noun, is. 

found in Jer. 27 [50]^'', probably in the sense of ghost, in 

Wisd. 17 ^ 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 ^, ^lo /xr) 8i-\lrvx(OfJLev fir/ê lv8a\- 

Xeadd) rj '\jrv')(r) tj/mmv eirl ral


With regard to ov ff%et (f)6/3o


tablet, whether male or female, and the original author of 

the text cannot have been the same individual. No one 

apparently so familiar wîth 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 quern 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 : ^ 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 

Horner^ were written down for magical purposes, and ;i.s 

to this day amulets are made from bibhcal sayings.^ Keally 

1 A. Hilgenfeld in Berl. Philol. Wochenschrift xvi. (1896), p. 647 ff., 

considers that the author was a follower of the Samaritan Simon Magus. 

"^ 

Cf. with reference to " Homeromancy," especially Pap. Lwid. 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.


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 example 

of the reproduction of biblical passages from memory 

vi^hich 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 indiiference 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 generations 

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 obhgations 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 

!


well,^ 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 Eome, 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 

^ Cf. the author's sketch entitled Die neutsstamentliche Formel " in 

Christo Jesu'' untersucht, Marburg, 1892, p. 66 f.


and Asia Minor, and not in the manner of the clumsy pedan- 

try ^ 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,^—though, of course, there was but little reflection 

on the matter. 

Then the Tablet from Adrumetum manifests a peculiarity, 

well known in the literature of Hellenistic Judaism 

which, we think, ought also to be considered as one of 

form. This is the heaping iip of attributes of God, which 

appears to have been a favourite custom, especially in 

prayers.^ 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,* 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. 

^ 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. 

' Grimm, HApAT. iv. (1857), p. 45. 

* Grimm, ibid. The v/j.vcfSia Kpvrrr'fi 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. 

;


tion 'of their attributes. We think it probable that this 

notion also influenced the form of Judaeo-Greek prayers.^ 

At all events we hear in thena the expression of the same 

naive tendency w^hich 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 Mace. 2^^' 

and 6^*"^-, but specially the following passages: 

2 Mace. 1 

^* ^' 

: /cvpie Kvpie 6 êo

53, 54] A SEPTUAGINT MEMOEIAL. 299 

temper of mind not entirely alien to religion, yet the employment 

of it, where the religious motive has given place to the 

liturgical, the unconstrained feeling of the true worshipper 

to the hterary 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 religious 

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 hterary 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 rehgion. 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 bibHcal and 

post-bibhcal Judaism long continued to nourish itself,^ this 

unknown man has also extracted the best of what was. 

^ 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.


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 PEKSONS 

AND NAMES.

Tov ^Xioy ainov dvareXXei iirl Trovqpov^ koI dyaôvs /cat /Sp^xî lin 

Si/catWs Ktti dScKovs.

NOTES ON SOME BIBLICAL PERSONS AND NAMES. 

1. HELIODORUS. 

The Second Book of Maccabees has a wonderful story 

to tell of how Ejng 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, excellent 

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-


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, repHed 

" 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 Mace. 3, 

which is certainly better known to-day through Eaphael's 

picture than through its original narrator, are not so obvious 

as its pious aim. Grimm ^ 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 Bome, 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 bafifled. 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.^ 

But in any case the observation of Schiirer,^ viz., that the 

book as a whole (or its source, Jason of Gyrene) 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,^ in describing him as first minister 

^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 Schiirer, ii., p. 740 (= Mii., p. 360). [Eng. Trans., ii., ii., p. 211 f.] 

* According to the "fourth " Book of Maccabees, which uses this narrative 

for purposes of edification, it was not Heliodorus, but Apollonius, who 

tried to plunder the Temple. J. Freudenthal, in Die Flav. Joseph, beigelegte 

Schrift Ueber die Herrsch. der Vernunft, p. 85 f., is inclined to reject both 

reports as suspicious, but to consider that of i Mace, to be the better of the 

:

173] HELIODORUS. 305 

of the Syrian king. It is indeed true that this assertion is 

not vouched for in ancient hterature ; for Appian, Syr., p. 

45 (Mendelssohn, i., p. 416) makes mention of only one 

Heliodorus as tlvo^ tmv irepl rrjv avkrjv of Seleucus. But 

even if this note makes it more than "probable"^ 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.^ HXcoSco pov Ala')(y\ov ' AvT\^to')(êa\ 

rov avvTpocpov^ rod âaiXe(o


for his kindness, and on account of his being well-affected 

towards the king, to the Delian Apollo. 

11.^ HXioBcopov Alo-)(y\ov tov a\yvrpo

175] HELIODORUS. 307 

Codices 19, 44, 71, etc., which substitute T^p77/iaT&)i/ for 

7rpay/j,dT(ov in this passage,^ 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., rov iirl tmv xpVH'"''^^^^- 

As for Syncellus (8th cent, a.d.), Chronogr., p. 529 7 (Bonn 

edition), w^ho likewise describes Heliodorus as 6 eVt r&v 

XpvM'O'Twv, he is probably dependent on these codices.^ 

Evidence from the Inscriptions has extended our know- 

ledge thus far : Heliodorus came originally from Antioch,^ 

and was the son of a certain Aischylos. In the lofty 

position of first minister of King Seleucus IV. Philopator, 

to whose familiar circle (avvTpo


/cXr;cre&)9. 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 : 

/3ap is of 

course the Aramaic '^'R, son, so frequently found in Semitic 

names. In regard to vaâ

177] BAENABAS. 309 

Na^T)— Naî 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 -vaâ


and Nehuzaradan 2 Kings 25 

^ = (LXX) NaôvâpSav. It 

is therefore highly probable that the form Bapvai3ov

179] MANAEN. 311 

is distinguished by the attribute 'Hpd}8ov rov rerpadpôv 

avvrpo


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 famihes, 

and of whom, later on, one or another continued, so far as 

consistent with the reverence that "doth hedge a king," to 

be the intimate friend of the prince, now come to man's 

estate. But this hypothesis is hkewise too special ; crvvTpo(ô

181, 182] SAULUS PAULUS. . 313 

4. SAULUS PAULUS. 

In Acts 13 ^ the words Sav\o

•gl4 BIBLE STUDIES. [182, 183 

Antiochus Inscription not made it more likely that the Latin 

usage is really a Graecism." ^ 

W. Schmid seems to think that certain passages from 

iElianus 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 

''A\Ktfjio

183, 184] SAULUS PAULUS. 315 

Cyprus ; he had, Hke 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 Eoman 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 themselves 

about the matter. The choice of such Graeco-Roman 

second names was usually determined by the innocent freedom 

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.^ In regard to 

Jewish names this is the case with, e.g., 'laKifi— "A\Kt/j,o


the case of the Tarsian Saov\,^ when he received a non- 

Semitic second name (we do not know the exact time, but 

it must have been before Acts 13 ^) the choice of JTa,{)\o

185, 186] SAULUS PAULUS. 317 

SO far (unless we are willing to go back to a difference in 

the sources) is the supposition ^ that the historian uses the 

one or the other name according to the field of his hero's 

labours ; from chap. 13 ^ the Jewish disciple âv\G

1 

VI. 

GKEEK TRANSCKIPTIONS OF THE 

TETRAGRAMMATON.

Km (f}o/3r}$rj(TOVTaL to. eOvr) to ovofid crov Kvpu.

GEEEK TRANSCEIPTIONS OF THE TETRA- 

GRAMMATON. 

In a notice of Professor W. Dindorf's edition of Clement, 

Professor P. de Lagarde^ reproaches the editor, in reference 

to the passage Strom, v. 634 (Dindorf, iii. 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 

^laov as TO rerpdypa/nfiov ovofxa to fxvaTiKov. But in various 

manuscripts and in the Turin Catena to the Pentateuch ^ we 

find the variants 'la oval or 'la ove.'^ 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 'laove certainly appears to be th© 

original ; the e was subsequently left out because, naturally 

enough, the name designated as the Tetragrammaton must 

have no more than four letters.* 

The form 'laove 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,^ 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. 

^ With reference to the itacistic variation of the termination, cf. the 

quite similar variants of the termination of the transcription El/xaXKovai 

1 Mace. 11^9 'ifiaAKoue, '2,ivfjLa\Kovi\, etc., and on these C. L. W. Grimm, 

HApAT. iii., Leipzig, 1853, p. 177. 

* Hengstenberg, p. 227. 

^ ZAW. iii. (1883), p. 298. 

21 

—

322 BIBLE STUDIES. [4,5 

Cent. 2. Irenaeus 

2-3. Clement 

3. Origen 

4. Jerome 

— Epiphanius 

5. Theodoret 

(Sam.) 

7. Isidore 

mn"" 

{laove 

Ia/36 

^n^ 

laod (?) 1 

laov 

laoo (lacu la) 

JaJio 

law 

n*" 

la—lAH 

la 

Ai'o {cod. Aug. 

la) 

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,^ in his investigation of the form Îdw, had 

referred to passages relating to it in the Magic Papyri in 

Leiden^ and Berlin.'' Since that time the edition of the 

Leiden Papyri by C. Leemans/' and that of the Paris and 

London Papyri by C, Wessely/ the new edition of the Leiden 

Papyri by A. Dieterich,*^ the latest pubhcations of the British 

p. 197 ff. 

i Wrongly questioned by F. Dietrich ; c/. p. 327 below. 

'^ F. Dietrich reads laov. 

^ Studien zur semitischen ReligionsgeschicJite, Heft i., Leipzig, 1876, 

^ At that time there were only the preliminary notes of C. J. C. Reuvens 

Lettres d M. Letronne sur Us papyrus bilingues et grecs . . . du niusfie d'an- 

tiquites dc I'universite de Leide, Leiden, 1830. 

•'' 

Edited by G. Parthey, AAB., 1865, philol. und histor. Abhh., 109 f^'. 

•^ In his publication. Papyri Graeci viusei antiquarii publici Lugduni- 

Batavi, vol. ii., Leiden, 1885. 

"DAW. philos. -histor. Classe, xxxvi. (1888), 2 Abt. p. 27 ff. and xlii. 

(1893), 2 Abt. p. 1 ff. 

^ Papyrus magica musei Lugdunensis Batavi, Fleckeisen's Jahrbb. 

Suppl. xvi. (1888), p. 749 ft. (=the edition of Papyrus J 384 of Leiden). 

Dieterich, Abraxas, Studien zur Religions- Geschichte des spdteren Altertums, 

Leipzig, 1891, p. 167 Q. (= 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,^ 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 Christianity '^ and for the Semitic philologist.^ 

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 TertuUian.^ 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 19 ^^, 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.^ 

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, 

p. 62 ff. 

1 F. G. Kenyon, Greek Papyri in tJie British Museum, London, 1893, 

2 Cf. A. Julicher, ZKG. xiv. (1893), p. 149. 

•^ 

Cf. E. Schiirer, Geschichte des jildischen Volkes im ZeitaUer Jesu 

Christi, 3", Leipzig (1898), p. 294 ft'., and especially L. Blau, Das altj Udlsdie 

Zauberwesen (Jahresbericht der Landes-Babbinerschule in Budajyest, 1897-98), 

Budapest, 1898. 

* Wessely, i., p. 36 ft'. Though A. Harnack, Geschichte der altchrlst- 

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 quem can be established on palseo- 

graphical and internal grounds for a not inconsiderable part of this literature. 

•'' 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 to irfpiepya, used in 19 ^^, is a terminus technicus for magic ; of., in 

addition to the examples given by Wetstein, ad loc., Pap. Lugd., J 384, xii. is 

and 21, irepiepyia and nepiepydCo/jLai (Fleck. Jahrbb. Suppl. xvi., p. 816: cf. 

Leemans, ii., p. 73). So also irpaîs, 19^**, a terminus technicus for a particular 

spell, of which the indexes of Parthey, Wessely and Kenyon afford numerous 

examples. The ordinary translation artifice (Ranke) 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, v^th the sole possible exception of Clement's laove. 

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.^ The palindromic form 

Lacoat^ is also frequently found, and, still more frequently, 

forms that seem to the author to be combinations of it, such 

as apâOiao)} The divine name law became so familiar that 

it even underwent declension : elfxl 6eo

7, 8] THE TETRAGRAMMATON. 325 

961 and 3033'^), and cawX (Paj). Paris. Louvre 2391 isi)," as also 

a whole mass of other combinations. 

laojia : 

(read) eVt rov fMercoirov iacoCa {Pap. Paris. Bihl. 7iat. 3257).'* 

larf 

occurs more frequently ; in particular, in the significant 

passage : 

— 

opKL^co ere kuto. tov deov tmv 'E/Bpaicov 'lijaov' laâ' 

larj' ajSpaoid' aia' dcoO' eXe' eXoi' arfOi' euV ttt/Sae;^* alSapfxaî' 

laâ paov' aêXêX' Xcova' a^pa' p,apoia' /SpaKcwv {Pap. Paris. 

Bibl. nat. 3019 s. 

^ 

; again, in the same Papyrus, 1222 ff. ® Kvpt,e 

law aiT] io)r] wlt] wlt] it] aicoac atov(o arjco 7]ai tea) 7]vco arji aco awa 

aerji vo) aev tat] ei\ One might surmise that the form larj 

in the latter passage should be assigned to the other mean- 

ingless permutations of the vowels/ But against this is to 

be set the fact that the forin 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 el), 

and thus seems to correspond to the well-known form caoy 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, istu * and igse ^ ; also in 

Pap. Lo7id. xlvi. 23.^** 

p. 294). 

1 Wessely, i., pp. 68 and 121. - Ibid., p. 144. 

^ Combined from laoi and la (c/. Baudissin, p. 183 f., and F. Dietrich, 

* Wessely, i., 126. 

^ Ibid., p. 120. This passage, so far as regards the history of religion, 

is one of the most interesting : Jesus is named as the Ood of tlie Hebrews ; 

observe the Divine names combined with aB (in reference to afieK&eX, cf. 

Baudissin, p. 25, the name of the King of Berytus 'Afie\$a\os) ; on aia and 

io)3o see below, pp. .326 and .333 f. ; with reference to Ood (Egyptian deity) in 

the Papyri, cf. A. Dieterich, Abraxas, p. 70. 

^ Ibid., p. 75. 

* Wessely, i., p. 84. ^ Ibid., p. 94. 

" Kenyon, p. 66 ; Wessely, i., p. 127. 

^ 

" Cf. upon these, p. 329 below.


This form is also found in W. Frohner's 

bronze tablet in the Museum at Avignon : 

^ issue of the 

the last two lines 

should not be read Kal


F. Dietrich has erroneously questioned this form.^ The 

following should be added to the citations given by Bau- 

dissin : 

— 

Pap. Lond. xlvi. 142 (lacor),^ 

,, ,, xlvi. 470 (tacod),^ 

Pap. Par. Bihl. nat. 3263 {iawO),'^ 

Pap. Lugd. J 395, xxi.14 {a^pariawB),^ 

Pap. Lond. xlvi. 56 {ap0adia(od),^ 

Pap. Berol. 2 125 {afi^pid lacod).^ 

With reference to the agglutination of a T-sound to 

t,a(o, cf. the literature cited by Baudissin.^ The Papyri yield 

a large number of examples of similar forms in -q)6. Similar 

forms with Greek terminations {e.g., âpacodrjq) , in Josephus 

and others.^ 

laove. 

Regarding Clement's form laove, the author calls atten- 

tion to the following passages : 

— 

6eo


dKova-droi fjboc '"^ iraaa yX(ba(Ta koI rrdaa (f>Q)Vi], ort iyo) 

elfiL Trepraco [/u./?^ %


bility. We must first of all investigate whether the said 

forms do not belong to the manifold permutations of the 

seven vowels/ 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, Ejyhesia Grammata.- That writer else- 

where^ 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 aerjiovo) 

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.* 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,* 

who believed that he had discovered the Divine name 

Jehovah in the vowel series lEHflOTA. 

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 lacoovrje or lacoovrji, 

1 Cf. on this point Baudissin, p. 245 ff. ; Parthey, 

Abr., p. 22 f. 

p. 116 f. ; A. Dieterich, 

* The 12th Jahrcsb. ilber das K. K. Fianz-Josephs-Gymn. in Wien, 1886. 

3 Wiener Studien, viii. (1886), p. 183. 

* Let one example suffice : Pap. Lugd. J 395, xx. i flf. (A. Dieterich, 

Abr., p. 200 ; Leemans, i., p. 149 f.) : iiriKa\ov/xai ere ivevo waerjiacu aerjaieTjari 

lovuirvj] liovariCDTii. oiTjuttTj laiovrjavTf vrja lODLcaat ituai

330 BIBLE STUDIES. [12, IS 

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 laove 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 voivels which 

we find throughout the Magic Literature, to be at most very smalh 

The very great uncertainty of the traditional texts must also be 

urged as an objection to its being so employed. Nowhere 

could copyists' errors ^ 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. 

Ia0€. 

It is thus all the more valuable a fact that the important 

consonantal transcription of the Tetragram, laê, given by 

Epiphanius and Theodoret, is attested hkewise by the Magic 

Literature, both directly and indirectly. The author has 

found it four times in the collocation la/Se ê/Svd : 

iôpKiô) y/xa? rh aytov 6vo/j,[a 

€pr}iii(T6apr}apapapaxapapar](^6c(7 

1 Cf. Wessely, ii., 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. 

—


lao) la/Se ê^vd Xava^tcra4>\ai> 

€KTi7ra/xfxovTro(f)8'r)VTii'aô 

o TOiv oXcov âai\eu


where authenticated/ it is very precarious to see it in the 

^€l;e0vO of the Inscription. The mere absence of the X, 

indeed, would not be decisive- against Lenormant's idea, but 

certainly the v, which cannot be read as u,'-" 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 explain* 

ê^v6 as a corruption of ilit^ll*, and to see in ca/Se lê/SvO 

the familiar nii^l!? 71^T1\ 

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 :— 

" V = Heb. o is frequently found. The examples, how- 

ever, in which this vowel-correspondence appears before p 

should not be taken into account {"^72 = H'Vppa, "12 = Tvpo^, 

"^"iHn = 'iTajSvpcov, 'AralSvpcov, 12)113 = Kvpo


appears in 1'i33, which goes back to an original kanndr ; here 

therefore the v corresponds to an o which has been derived 

from a, as would be the case with -v6 = r»V). But it seems 

to me to be of greater consequence that the Phoenician pro- 

nunciation of Heb. 6 (and o) is y. Thus we have in the 

Poenulus of Plautus {ed. Eitschl) [chyl = ^^ = kuW], "'i^^JiD 

(= mausdi) given as myseJii ; jli^^ (sign, original form dth) as 

yth, jnt^T as syth. Moreover, Movers {Phoniz., ii., 1, p. 110) 

has identified Berytos with n'^*1^«l5., and Lagarde {Mitteil., i., 

p. 226) has acknowledged the identification. It is thus quite 

possible that i^1^5!l!^ could have become ll,e^v6 in the mouth 

of a Phoenician juggler. Still, the omission of the a before 

dth in the pronunciation remains a difficulty." 

Perhaps Ia/3e is also contained in the word aeptaê- 

^cod {Pap. Lond. xlvi. s) ^ ; 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 laê, and therefore in any case to 

merit our attention : 

— 

laôe, Pap. Lond. xlvi. b3 ; 

laâ^ is frequently found : 

^ 

opKL^cv ere Kara rev deov tmv 

E0paiu>v 'Irjaov' ta/3a' lat]' aâpfia^' laâ paov. 

aêXêX . . . {Pap. 

Par. Bibl. nat. 3019 sf.),* iiriKakovfiai ae top 

pik


Bibl. nat. i6-2i tr.)/ u/xa? eôpKi^w Kara rov laoi Kal tov (raâwO 

Kal ahwvat âXcaâ (Paj). Par. Bibl. nat. usifr.),'^ 

la/Sa ebS caco (a gem-iiiscription) ^ 

lajSatad^: iaoiO laâcoO {Paj). Par. Bibl. nat. am),^ Bta 

TO fieya evhoôv ovofia a^paafj. efieivaaeov/SawO âidu)^ eaia 

la/Saayd [Pa]). Lond. cxxi. -iu t.) " 

Laâ^: av el ia/3ai: cru el Lairoi'i (Paj). Lond. xlvi. loi).' 

A. Dieterich^ thinks it superfluous "to seek a 'Id^r]

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 

locahties, 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 formulae 

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 laê 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 Ia^€ 

in Egyptian Papyri by " Samaritan " influence. Besides 

the Jews proper ^ 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. 3 4]."'' 

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 {Paj). Flind Petr. ii. iv. 

1 Cf. on the Jewish diaspora in Egypt, Hugo Willrich, Juden und 

Griechen vor der makkahdiscJien Erliebung, Gottingen, 1895, p. 126 ff. ; and, 

against Willrich, Schiirer, ThLZ. xxi. (1896), p. 35. Cf. also Wilcken, Berl. 

PMlol WocJienschrift, xvi. (1896), p. 1492 S. 

^ E. Schiirer, Geschichte des jildischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 

ii., Leipzig, 1886, p. 502 (= nii., p. 24). [Eng. Trans., ii., ii., p. 230.]


11)1 mention of a place Samaria in the Fayyum, and two 

inhabitants of this Samaria, ©eoc^tAo? and Ilvppia^^ are 

named in Pap. Flind. Petr. ii. xxviii.^' 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.'^ 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 alhed 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 

poiver of God tvhich is called Great". ^ 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, Tlie Flinders Petrie Papijri, 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 @i6

VII. 

SPICILEGIUM. 

22

Lva /J-rj TL aTroXrjTai,

1. THE CHEONOLOGICAL STATEMENT IN THE 

PEOLOGUE TO JESUS SIRACH. 

'Ev yap TM oyBoqy koI rpiaKoarS erei eVi rov Evepyerov 

fiacrt\eoy


Letronne/ 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,^ 

to the passages LXX Hagg. 1\ 2\ Zech. 1^ 7\ 1 Mace. 

13 *^ 14 2^ to which may be added LXX Zech. 1 \ for, all 

these passages being translations of Semitic originals, the eVi 

might be a mere imitation of 7, 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,^ as old as the 3rd cent. B.C., we find in 

line 24 f. the words lepev'i y€v6/jL€vo

257, 258] EDICT AGAINST EGYPTIAN JEWS. 341 

from the Prologue to Sirach, perhaps he would have decided 

for this way of taking eiri, which so admirably suits the 

context. The two passages mutually support one another. 

But the usage of eVt is further confirmed by other passages 

of Egyptian origin. In Pap. Par. 15 ^ (120 B.C.) two al'^vir- 

Tiac (Tvyypa(pai are mentioned, which are dated as follows : 

p.id

! 


8e TOP I3ov\6/jL€vov i(f> u> Trjv ovaiav rov efnri/rrTOVTO'i vtto ttjv 

€v6vvav Xrjyêrat koI e'/c tov âaiXiKov apyvplov Spa-y^fia'^ 

Sca^yîXia'i koX T7J

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., 

Kol Toi


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 formulae employed in each ; be it 

noted that the Maccabean passage has been correctly 

punctuated. 

3 Mace. 3 28. Pap. Par. 10. 

/MTjvvetv Be rov ySou- tovtov 09 av avaydyrj 

\o fjuevov, e(^' w Trjv ovcnav XTfyfrerat ')(aKK0V rakavra 

Tov e/iTrtTTTOi/TO? vTTo TT]v €v- Bvo T p t a')(^l,\ LU^ {8pa')(^/j,d

. which 

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,^ as they faithfully 

represent the forms of official intercourse. 

What, then, shall we say of the "extraordinary" pro- 

clamation at the end of v. ^* ? 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 daovec^, eXevdepoi, v'7rep-)(apetav(i)0ij(T€TaL, is the 

older—though itself a corrupt—form of the text, the author 

would propose to make a trivial alteration, and read kuI rfj 

ekevdepia aTe(papcodr]aeTac.'^ The verb arecftavoo) has not 

infrequently the general meaning reward,'^ and this is what 

it means here. 

1 To say nothing of their value as indicating the wishes and ideas of 

the writers of them. 

•^ 3 Mace. 7 •^». 

'' In Trj eKeuOepia (TTe(pavajdri


3. THE " LAEGE LETTEES " AND THE " MAEKS 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 v^ho 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 GaHic 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 distorted 

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 misinterpreted 

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 iraiSaywyo^; eot 

Xpiarov. 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 

:


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 

reconcihation 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 cordiahty 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 hes the explanation 

of the much-discussed words at the beginning of the auto- 

graph conclusion : See with how large letters 1 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 reahse 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 difference ^— 

not only in the Letter to the G-alatians. Surely it is hardly 

quite accurate to say that Paul used large letters m 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 cahgraphy, 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 foohsh 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 Mahafiy, i., p. 48. 

;

265] "THE MABKS OF JESUS." 349" 

way, the Galatians knew that the last shadows of castiâtory 

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 one ^—one of the strangest 

utterances of Paul—which is somewhat enigmatical. Tov 

XoiTTov ^ KOTTOv; fiot /bLTjSel^ irapex^TO) • iyco yap ra (TriyjiaTa 

TOV 'Irjaov iv toi acofxari /xov /Sacrra^co, 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 ? 

" crriyîara . . are signs, usually letters of the alphabet 

(Lev. 19 ^^), 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 Mace. 2^®, . . )."^ 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 apostohc labours,* 

and not to actual, artificially-produced arlyfiara. 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 yap possibly be explained ? We feel, 

in fact, that the yap is of itself sufficient to invalidate 

the hypothesis. Had Paul said the exact contrary ; had 

^ Gal. 6 ". "^ For rod \onrov cf. W. Schmid, Der Atticismus, iii., p. 135. 

» F. Sieffert, Meyer, vii. "> 

(1886), p. 375. * 2 Cor, 11. * P. 876.


he said, for instance, Henceforth go on troubling me as you 

will,^ —then the ydp 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- 

the reference to 

pare himself with a branded criminal ; and 

the tattooing of soldiers would seem' equally far-fetched. 

The ydp speaks 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 Wetstein ^ 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.^ 

Provisionally accepting, however, this theory of the 

ariyfiara, 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 arly/jiaTa as sacred protective-marks, and to 

interpret our passage in connection with certain lines of 

thought to which B. Stade has recently called attention.* 

Already in the Old Testament, according to him, we find not 

^ Cf. J. J. Wetstein, Novum Testaynentum Graecum, ii., Amsterdam, 

1752, p. 238 f. : " Notae enim serviles potius invitabant aliorum co7itumeliam'\ 

^ P. 238 : " Sacras notas intelligit Paulus ; se sacrmn esse, cui idea nemo 

eorum, qui Christum mnant, molestus esse debeat, profitetur ". 

' Besides, Paul does not speak of the marks of Christ at all ; lie uses 

the name Jesus, otherwise rare in his writings. 

* Beitrdge zur Pentatev/ihkritik, ZAW. xiv. (1894), p. 250 fi.

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^^ and Ezek, 9 ; ^ 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.=^ In Lev. 19'^^/ 21 ^f-, Deut. U^^-, 

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.^ The following 

passages, belonging to a later time, may be mentioned : 

Psal. Sol. 15 * on ro cnj/iieiov rod deov iirl hiKaiov^; et? 

(TcoTTjpLav, cf. v. ^^, where it is said of the Troiovvre^ avofiiav 

that they have to a-rnxelov rrj


Tai) ; and similarly the worshippers of the beast in Eevela- 

tion bear the name or the number of the beast as a ')(dpay/j,a 

on the forehead or on the right hand,^ while the faithful are 

marked with the name of the Lamb and of the living God.* 

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 (^vXaKr-^pta, the technical term for am^dets. 

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? 

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. Eeuvens * was the first to call attention 

to it, assigning it to the first half of the 3rd cent. A.D.* 

Then it was pubHshed in fac-simile ^ and discussed ^ by C. 

1 Rev. 13i^f-, 14 9ff-, 16 2, 19 ô, 20'*. See ante, p. 240 ff. 

2 Rev. 14 \ T'^ff-, 9*. On the meaning of signs in the Christian Church, 

see the suggestions of Stade, p. 304 fi. 

', We think it probable that the expression forms an antithesis to the 

previously mentioned circumcision (cf. Rom. 4" a-vi^f'tov n-epjTo^^s), and that 

emphasis is to be laid upon rod 'Iriffod. 

4 Lettres a M. Letrcmne . . . sur les papyrus hilingues et grecs . . . du 

musie d'antiquiUs de VuniversiU de Leide, Leiden, 1830, 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. 

" Appendice (to the work just cited), p. 151. 

'^Papyrus igyptien dimotique a transcriptions grecques du musie d'an- 

tiquitis des Pays-Bas a Leide {description raisonn^£, J. 383), Leiden, 1839. 

Our passage is found in Table IV., col. VIII. ; in the tables the Papyrus is 

signed A. [ = Anastasy ?] No. 65. 

' Monumens dgyptiens du musfe d'antiquitis des Pays-Bas a Leide, 

Leiden, 1839.

269] " THE MARKS OF JESUS." 363 

Leemans, the director of the museum, who has lately again ^ 

indicated his agreement with Reuvens' date. H. Brugsch ^ 

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.^ He follows 

Beuvens 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. Eevillout,* G. Maspero^ and C. Wessely.^ 

It is found in the Demotic text of this "Gnostic" 

Papyrus,''' 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 Eeuvens (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 d etre aime de 

quelqu'un qui lutte contre toi et ne veut pas te parler [dire] : 

1885, p. 5. 

^ Papyri graeci musei antiquarii publici Lugduni-Batavi, ii., Leiden, 

^ Uber das dgyptische Museum zu Leyden, in the Zeitschr. der Deutschen 

morgenlandischen Gesellschaft, vi. (1852), p. 250 f. 

^ Orammaire dimotique, Berlin, 1855. A fac-simile of our passage is 

found on Table IX. of that book, a transcription on p. 202. 

* Les arts igyptiens, in the Revue igyptologigv^, i. (1880), p. 164 ; cf. the 

same author's discussion of the Papyrus, ibid., ii. (1881-1882), p. 10 ff. His 

book, Le Raman de Setna, Paris, 1877, was not accessible to the present 

writer. 

^ Collections du Musde Alaoui, premiere serie, 5^ livraison, Paris, 1890, 

p. 66 f. ; see the same author's discussion of the Papyrus in his Etudes 

dimotiques, in the Recueil de travaux relatifs d la philologie et d I'archôlogie 

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. 

* Mittheilungen aus der Sammlung der Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer, v, 

(Vienna, 1892), p. 13 f. 

'This Papyrus contains another and longer Greek incantation, most 

recently read and discussed by Revillout, Rev. 6g., i. (1880), p. 168 f. 

23 

"


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 | 

MHMEAIflKEOAE ANOX 

HAninET . . METOTBANES 

BASTAZflTHNTA^HN 

TOYOSiPEn^KAirnArn 

5 RATA..HXAIATTHNE X 

ABIAOXKATAXTHXAIEIX 

TASTASKAIKATAOESeAI 

EIX . . . XAXEANMOIOA 

KonomnAPASxH lipos 

10 PEWfLATTHNATTfLi 

j 

2 TraTTiTreT . . : Rs. ira-nnri . . ., L. naTrnreT . , B. iraTnir(T(ov), M. 

Papipetu, Rt. IlaTreTnToi;, W. iraTrnreTov 4 otripecos : W. oaipios [!J | 

5 KOTO . . ricrai : Rs. TraTa{(rTr))aat, L. Kara . . Tjtroi, B. M. Rt. koto- 

ffrriffaL, W. Ka,Ta[(rT7]]aai \ 

e 

s : Rs. B. M. Rt. eis, L. 6 . s 7 toittos : 

| 

Rs. T05 Tos, B. Tos racpas, W. ras ras ^^'^ 8 . . . • 

| x«s B,S. (ju)axas, 

L. . axes, M. aXxas, W. . . oxos | A : B. M. Rt. interpret as Seivo, 

W. 5(€)i(i'o) 9 peifa> : B. M. Rt. rpeôo, W. ,pepa> 

I \ 

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 : 

— 

M.rj fxe SlcoKe oSe ' clvo')(^ 

7ra,7r(7reT[oL'] [xerovâve^; 

/Sacrraô) rr^v Ta(j)r]v 

rov ÔaLp€a>

271] "the MAEKS of JESUS." 355 

few variations. This Demotic version is thus rendered by 

^ 

Eevillout : 

" Ne me persecute pas,>~une telle !— Je suis Papipetou Metou- 

banes, je porte le sf^pulcre d' Osiris, je vais le transporter a Abydos; je 

le ferai reposer dans les Alkah. Si une telle me rdsiste 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 avo^ to be the Coptic 

anok {cf. "^^Jh^) I am. In the Greek books of magic we very 

frequently find similar instances of the iyco et/xt 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 TraTmreTov /Merovâve'? 

Heuvens 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 unhkely 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 rrjv Ta(f)r)v rod 'Oa-lpe(o


of this amulet is explained by the Osiris myth.^ The Osiris 

of Graeco-Ronian 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 afterwards 

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,^ 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 ^laariKal aireiXai 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 ; ^ the possession of the Ta(^r} rod '"Oatpew'i 

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 imperilled 

mummy. A quite similar menace, made by some 

" obscure gentleman," is found in a recently-published 

tabula devotionis * from Adrumetum : if not, I shall go doum 

to the holy places of Osiris, and break his corpse in pieces, and 

throw it into the river to be borne away.^ 

1 In reference to what follows, see Maspero, Coll. Al., p. 66. 

^ De mysteriis, 65 (ed. G. Parthey, Berol., 1857, p. 245 f.) : ^ yap rhv 

ovpavhv 7rpocrapd^€iv ^ to, KpvirTo. ttjs ''icriSos iK(pav€7v ^ rh tV afivaff^ a.Tr6ppr]Toy [for 

this we find, 67, p. 248, ra eV 'AfivStf dTrdppTjro ; cf. 1. 6 of our formula] Seiêiy 

fj (TTTtcreiv rriv ^dpiv, f) ra fiihi) rov 'OffipiSos SiacTKeSdffeiv rcfi Tv

273] "THE MARKS OP JESUS." 357 

L. 6. "A/3i8o


The spell may accordingly be translated as follows : 

Persecute me not, thou there !—I am PAPIPETOU METU- 

BANES ; 1 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 

— 

âaraêtv of a par- 

ticular amulet associated with a god acts as a charm against 

the KQ7rov 

moreover, it seems probable that we must explain the threat 

by the same temper of mind^ 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 ? ^ 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 

^ 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 MAEKS 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 reXetot those who are but 

v7]7rioL, 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 : tl avrS Koirovi '7rape')(ere ; Kakov 

epyov rjpydcraTO iv eôi. 

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 Tertullian 

; the incantation itself may be much older.^ The 

same Papyrus furnishes us with another incantation,^ 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. 

' It begins thus : firiKa\ovfiai at rhv iv t^ Keyef irvfvfiari Seiuhv aSparov 

vai/TOKpdropa Oehi' Oewv (pOopoirothy koI ip7}fiLoiToi6v [Revue igyptologiqice , i., p. 168). 

;

360 BIBLE STUDIES, [276, 277 

occasion came into contact with magicians,^ while he him- 

self warns the Galatians against âp/xaKela,'^ and reproaches 

them for having suffered themselves to be bewitched:^ all 

these things but serve as evidence for the fact that the sphere, 

from which, haply, some hght 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.* 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. 

4 ^^ he describes as the vefcp(0(rL

277, 278] A NOTE TO SECOND PETER. 361 

dperrj, been laid under contribution,^ and it will once again 

engage our attention.^ 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 smiilarities m expression and meaning which are thus 

emphasised, but also certain—for the present let us call 

them mechanical—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 aeacoa-dai depends 

upon an antecedent etTrovro^. 

Decree of Stratonicea. 

. . . T-qv TToXiv avwOev rfj rcov 

irpoeaTMTcov avTri

362 BIBLE STUDIES. [278, 27* 

Kal TO avvirav ttXt^ô? Ovei re (V. ii) : ovrw

279, 280] A NOTE TO SECOND PETEE. 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,^ 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 rj ala>vto


our parallel is in no way lessened. Observe, moreover, 

Kvpicov II Kvpiov. Then, again, the likeness of iracrav airovhrjv 

elacpepeaOat in the Inscription to cnrovhrjv iraaav Trapetaevey- 

Kavre

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. 2 ^^, the 

leading word avvevcoxov/jLevot is taken from Jude v. ^^, 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 

(aTrdracii^ instead of dyaTraL^;, airiKoL instead of crTrtXaSe?)." ^ 

Now, precisely as in regard to the formal assonances in the 

very instructive example just given, viz. :— 

Jude V. 12 

: 

2 Pet. 2 i^ 

ovTol elcTiv 01 ev raiî dyd- o-n-iAot ^ Kal /x(OfA,oi evrpv- 

Trai^ v/jiMv airiKaBes, (Twevco- (ftojvre'i ev rai^ dirdraL^ av- 

')(ôv fxevoL d(f)6ô)


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 conclusion 

that it must be answered in the negative. Doubt- 

less, the deciding of such questions always impHes 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, ofificial 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 anything 

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 PETEE. 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/ 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 

formulae of religious emotion."^ 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. 

Oertainly 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,^ as we have not yet mastered 

^ The above-discussed series of purely formal assonances might be put 

forward as supporting this. 

- 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 an Inscription of Halicarnassus of the early imperial period : 

see G. T. Newton, A History of Discoveries at Halicarnassus, Cnidus and 

Branchidae, ii. 2, London, 1863, p. 695.— C/. also W. M. Ramsay, The Greek 

of the Early Church and five Pagan Ritual, in the Expository Tunes, vol, x., 

p. 9ff. —A similar instance from ancient times has been noted by R. Kittel in 

ZAW. xviii. (1898), p. 149 if. ; Isaiah 45 iff- shows dependence upon the court- 

phraseology made known to us by the clay-cylinders of Cyrus. 

^ The theory becomes still more probable when we compare the above 

conjecture with what Th. Zahn, Geschichte des Neutestarnentl. Kanons, i. 1, 

Erlangen, 1333, p. 312 ff., says about the locality in which the Espistle "was 

first circulated, and gained the esteem ot the church" ; but see A. Harnack, 

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/ or Asia Minor,^ including those 

of the Papyri and the Inscriptions. 

5. WHITE EOBES 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 

^ 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. 

^ 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. 1 * we find the peculiar phrase, 'iva . . yeu-qcrde Oeias Kotvaivol (pixreoos ; 

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., iraaiv Sffoi 

(pixreois KOLvwvovvres a,vOp(j3\ji]vr)s (in Humann and Puchstein's Reisen in Klei/n- 

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. 8()9 

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 Eev. 7 ^ ^- 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 indwidiial elements provides no difficulty.^ 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. ^'') ; and, even without this special reference, 

they have already a distinct and well-known sense (see 

6 ^^). 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. Diisterdieck, Meyer, xvi. ^ (1887), p. 289. 

24


diverse elements. But we are of opinion that there are 

good grounds for the supposition that the portrayer of the 

7rav7]'yvpi

. 

I. 

INDEX OF GEEEK WOEDS AND PHEASES. 

«t interchanging with e, 182. 

-a, -as in imperf. , 191. 

'A$awe, 281. 

'APSevayci, 310. 

'A;3e'A3a\os, 325. 

A3«A)3e\, 325. 

'AfftSos, 357. 

'A/3paayU, 187. 

'A)3paa|Uios, 187. 

A^paav, 281. 

A^padia&pi, 334. 

"A^pafMOS, 187. 

A^pariawd, 327. 

d7a7rrj, 198 f. 

ayyapivw, 86 f., 182. 

a^Yapoj, 86 f. 

a.ypvTrv€(ti iiri, 283. 

070), 190. 

d56A.(^($s, 87 f. , 142. 

aSoAos, 256. 

^5uT0j/, 287. 

Atj [?], 326. 

aâi/aros, 293. 

«is aOfT-qffiv, 228 f. 

tiS dSeTTjcriv /col aKvpaxriv, 

228 f 

d0eT7jo-|/is, 92, 223. 

'Ai'Ti7ra[Tpo]s, 187. 

aîoo/xa, 92 t. 

diiots ToC 0«oii, 248. 

dTrepiT/urjTos, 153. 

dTre'x'î 229. 

dTrd, 196, 216, 227. 

airh Tov fieKriaTov, 93. 

airb TOV vvv, 253. 

OTroSiSeTO), 192. 

air6Kpifj.a, 257. 

' ATroWivdpios , 309. 

'AiroWdovios, 149. 

I 

229. 

apaîpxv^! 184. 

apa^wv, 183 f. / 

Ap/8aeiao, 324. / 

Ap3afliaa)0, 327. 

/' 

'ApeSas, 183 f. / 

apfffKeia, 224. / 

dpeTaAo7ia, 93 f. / 

aperaXSyiov, 94. / 

apeTa\6yos, 96. 

'ApeTas, 183 f. 

' dirox''). 

dp€T7J, 95 f. , 3f 

apKfrds, 257. 

apirayfxa, 291. 

dpirdô), 190. 

appaîiiv, 108 f, 

r37 

1 Ba9ici/3r)A, 

01 &pTOl oi ivcOTTLOL, 157. 

01 ^proi T7)s irpoOeffeciis, 157. 

01 aproi TOV irpoffdirov, 157. 

dpxiij. 267. 

apxifiofxaTopvAa^, 98. 

-aj, 188 f. 

&ffrifj.os, 153. 

-atri for -ov, 192. 

'AfriSoToi, 68. 

dtTTrdfo/xai, 257. 

'AcrrapTielov, 150. 

'ATa^vpiov, 332. 

a(/)6(Tis, 98 t'. 

dxpf '01 SoOAoi, 68. 

Aa)0, 281, 288. 

334. 

BaAia;3a, 334. 

BopiTjcroi), 163. 

Bapfa, 188. 

Bapvdfiasm, 310. 

Bapw/35s, 187 f., 307. 

Bapva0T][U. 309. 

Bapw^Si [?], 309. 

Bapiâfiods [1], 187 f., 309 f. 

BapvSs [?], 188. 

Bapuefiods, 188, 309. 

BapTapas, 189. 

jSaffiAei'a dcrdAeuTos, 363. 

âcriXeia iirovpavios, 363. 

âo-TdCco, 102 f.. 191, 257. 

354 f., 358. 

fieâios, 107, 109. 

Peâtdw, 108 f., 230. 

rb 5oKi;i 281. 

rb 5oKi/Kai (poê- 

Tb 5oKi/.2 f. 

' 'foKiyuio s, 146 f., 

odKip-os 

AopKCLSl. 

Sve'iv, 1197 f. 

Svvafj.iss, 197 f. 

r] dvvai^ 

fj.€vv 202, 204. 

Swo/J-a 

vafia 

Uo, 18>02. 

Sutri, 1'

372 INDEX OF GEEEK WOEDS AND PHEASES. 

yiv-n/xa, 109 f., 184. 

•yivt]âT0'ypa(pi03, 184. 

yevvaoi, 184. 

yevvridds, 184. 

'yivv7)yi.a, 184. 

yev6ix^vos, 191. 

yivofiai, 184, 191, 192. 

T^ yvi]aiov, "2.50. 

yoyyvQoi, 110. 

ypd^jxara ffTiKrd, 351. 

ypa/jL/xaTevs, 106 t. 

ypa/j.fxaT€vs rwv Swa/j-eoov, 

110 f. 

ypa/n/iiaTevs riiv juax'/tiw;/, 

110. 

ypa/x/xaTLKos, 112. 

KOTO ras ypacpds, 250. 

ypacpTi, 112 t'. 

Kara t?}!/ •)pa(pr\v, 250. 

7pa

tJ) OeaeKiov, 123. 

ee6s,'l67, 223. 

rod deov B^Kovtos, etc. , 252. 

0eo(îAos, 336. 

6p6vos t7(s x^pi-'ôs, 135. 

Kara, dvyarpoirouav , 239. 

SwO, 288, 325. 

I as a consonant, 326. 

l=Lei, 182 f. 

-I'a for -eia, 181 f. 

la, 322, 324. 

'la ovai, 321. 

lo ovf, 321. 

Ia0a, 325, 333. 

Ia;8as, 334. 

laâwd, 334. 

Ia;6e, 322, 330 f. 

lafieêBvO, 3-30 f. 

Ia/87js[?], 334. 

Ia)3o6, 333. 

Ia;8oi;cr), 334. 

lajSoux, 334. 

Ia;3co, 334. 

la/Scox, 334. 

laTj, 322, 325 f. 

larjA, 325. 

IaK/cai;3i, 282. 

laKov, 282. 

IaKoy;3, 282, 324. 

'laKiifi. -316. 

'lOKCOySos, 316. 

laoai, 324. 

laod, 322, 326. 

'loov, 321, 322. 

'laoue, 321, 322, 327 f. 

laircDs, 334. 

'Idffccv, 315. 

lao), 282, 322, -324. 

law la, 322, 325. 

lacoat, 324. 

laaiS, .327. 

lacoA, 325. 

law, 324. 

Iaa>ou6, 328. 

laoJoueTj, 328. 

lawouve, 327, 328, 329. 

laceovrii. 327, 329. 

lacDT, 327. 

ISdWoixai, 291 f. 

rSios, 123 f. 

lEHnOTA, 329. 

lei = I, 182 f. 

ieparevw, 215 f. 

lepocroAuMa, 316. 

'lepouffa\rj/j., 316. 

i\d(TKOfj.ai, 224 f. 

IXdffKoixai afxaprias, 224 t. 

l\a(rrr)piov , 124 f. 

l\a(Tri)pwv iiziQefxa, 125. 

iKa, 141 f. 

Ao76ia, 142 f., 219 f. 

Aoyeuoi, 143. 

Ao7ia[?], 142 f., 219 f. 

ToC AoiTTof}, 349. 

AouQ), 226 f. 

Aouco aTTo, 227. 

Mava-fj/j., 310 f. 

Mafo:^;/, 310 f. 

/xaprvpovfiai, 265. 

fj.dxw, 201. 

fxiyiaros, 365. 

/j-eiônpos, 144. 

EK ToC jxiaov atpai, 252. 

/.lera /coi, 64, 265. 

/a6Ta x^^pas exu), 370. 

;UeTa5i'5a)î ivunriov, 213. 

fjLsmnyiypacpai', 192. 

fj-iroLKos, 228. 

/.teTouySoi'ej, 355. 

d fiiKpos, 144 f. 

jMLffdanoxhi 229. 

fxiffOTTov-qpiw, 293. 

/xtcroTTovrjpia, 293. 

/j.iaoir6v7}pos, 293. 

fxvppa, 332. 

Naj3rj, 308. 

Naî, 308. 

Naô/coSpdcropos, 309. 

Naôi/C.'apSaj', 310. 

NaPouxoSovocrop, 309. 

NaySouxoSoi/dcopos, 309. 

NaySoS, 309. 

Naur;, 308. 

N€)3oCs, 309. 

veKpia, 142. 

veKpooiTis Tov 'Ir/(ro5, 360. 

i'6d(|)uTos, 220. 

j'drj,ua, 73. 

v6fj.iQlxa, 185. 

vofjtds, 145. 

lej/oAo'yia, 220. 

olSes, 192. 

of/ceros, 123. 

olKovofLia, 246. 

6\oKapT6(ji, 138. 

6\oKdpiroi}fj.a, 138. 

dAo/capTTcoins, 138. 

oKoKavroofxa, 138. 

dAoKadToxTis, 138. 

ofioKoyia, 249. 

/car' dj/ap, 253. 

/car' ovfipov, 253. 

gôâ, 146 f., 196 f. 

rb ovofxa rh 'dyiov, 281. 

TO ovop-a ivrifiov Koi (poêphv 

Koi fj.iya, 282 t. 

61S rb ovop-d rivos, 146 f., 

197. 

ovoixa (ppiKrov, 288. 

Tci ovofxari rivos, 197 1. 

eV TO) OUOfidTl Tivos, 197 f. 

eir' oj'd/.taTOS, 197. 

dTrdrar/ with indie. , 202, 204. 

bpKiQw riva, 281. 

dtrioi 'louSaroi, 68. 

oToi' witli indie. , 

Oup/Sai'ds, 283. 

202.

374 INDEX OF GEEEK WORDS AND PHRASES. 

-ods, 188. 

6

vlhs viro^vyiov, 162. 

viol [?] (paperpas, 164. 

ol vTTipavoo dfoi, 283 f. 

impevrvyxo-vco, 122. 

ol eV inrfpoxy ovTes, 255. 

vTToyeypaiVTai, 250. 

inro^vyiov, 160. 

u7ro7r($5ior, 223. 

yiroTiôCffa, 193. 

(pavovT)\, 77. 

4>apaa)97js, 327. 

INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 375 

4>ape0a)9T)F, 327. 

(piXavdpos Kal (piXoT^Kvos, 

255 f. 

(piXoTTpooT^vai, 198. 

(Î'Aos, 167 f. 

(pi\os dfov, 168. 

(pi\os Tov Kaicrapos, 168. 

(ppevaTrdrris, 198. 

tJ» aurb (ppoveiv, 256. 

(pv\aKT-i)pia, 352. 

(pvffis avOpwirivri, 368. 

6eia (pv, 251. ^ 

T7)i/ Xf'P« eK:5i'5a)/ii, 251. 

Tas X6

376 

— 

Demons, in Tombs, 281. 

Believing and Trembling, 288. 

Diogenes, Epistle of, 42, 51. 

Diouysius of Halicarnassus, Epistles of, 31. 

Egyptian Church Fathers, 70. 

Egyptian Greek, 70 ff. 

Eisenmenger, J. A., Eutdecktes Juclenthum, 

288 f. 

Eldad, 336. 

El eon, 209. 

Eleutheria, Festival of, in Egypt [?], 343. 

Emperor's Day, 218 f. 

Epicurus, Letters, 9, 28. 

Epistles, 31. 

Epistle, 9, 20. 

Idea of, 9f., 31 f. 

and Letter, 9 If. 

Address, 12. 

Epistles 

Catholic, 38, 50 fi". 

Early Christian, 50 tf., 57. 

Egyptian, 17. 

Graeco-Roman 

' 

— 

INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 

Gastronomic, 33. 

Juristic, 33. 

Magic, -33. 

Medical, 33. 

Poetical, 33. 

Religious, 33. 

Jewish, 38 f. 

Aristeas, 42, 72, 34-3. 

Aristides, 32. 

Aristotle, 31. 

Cato, M. Porcius, -32. 

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 31. 

Epicurus, 31. 

Lysias, 31. 

Pliny, 32. 

Plutarch, 31. 

Seneca, 32. 

"Baruch," 42. 

"Diogenes," 42. 

"Esther and Mordecai," 41. 

"Heraclitus," 42. 

"Jeremiah," 41. 

Epistle to Hebrews, 49 f. 

Epistle of James, 52 f. 

Epistles at beginning of 2nd Maec, 

42. 

Pastoral Epistles, 54. 

First lOp. of Peter, 51 f. 

Second Ep. of Peter, 360 ff. 

Seven Epistles in Revelation, 54. 

Herder, 11 f. 

Epistles, Collections of, 12 ff. 

Unauthentic, 12 ff. , 33 f. 

Forged, 12. 

Epistolography, Pseudonymous, -33 f. 

Esau, 3.36. 

Esther and Mordecai, 41. 

Esther, Royal Letters subsequently added 

to, 41. 

Evangelium, 39. 

Forgery, Literary, 13 f. 

Forms, Literary, 37. 

I 

I 

Formulaic Expressions, 191, 195, 196, 

197 f., 204, 205 If., 213. 221, 228 f., 

230, 248-256. 

Friend of God, 167 ff. 

Fruit, Sacritice of, 135 ff. 

Galatians, Letter to, 47, 346 ff. 

Genuineness, Literary, 13 f. 

Gnostic, 353. 

God, 79. 

of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, in Magic 

Formulae, 282. 

Grace 73. 

Greek', "Biblical," 65 ff 

Egyptian, 70 ff. 

Spoken among Jews, 77. 

of Biblical Writings, 61 ff 

Translation of Semitic into, 74 ff. 

Biblical Writings originally in, 76 ff. 

Gregory VII., Letter of, 46. 

Grimm, W., 176, etc. 

Hebraisms of N.T., 177. 

Imperfect, 195. 

So-called, 67, 70, 161 ff, 165. 194-198, 

205 ff., 213, 248, 286, 289, 290, 295 ff. 

Hebrews, Epistle to, 49 f. 

Heliodorus, 303 ff 

Heloise, Letters, 46. 

Heraclitus, Epistles, 42. 

Herder, Epistles, 11 f. 

Homeromancy, 294. 

Homily, 53. 

Humanists, Letters, 16. 

Immortality, 293. 

Imperfect, 191. 

Inscriptions, 173 ff, 178 ff. , etc. 

Greek (from Asia Minor) and the N. T. 

80 ff.. 366 ff. 

(xreek (from Egypt) and the LXX, 72. 

Hebrew (outside Palestine), 77. 

Importance for Textual Criticism, 280. 

Imprecation-Tablets, see Tabulae Devo- 

tionis. 

Inspiration (verbal), 63, 81. 

Introduction to N. T., 55. 

Isocrates, Letters, 26 f. 

Ja, J a, 322. 

Jahava, 33-3. 

Jaho, 322. 

James the Less, 144 f. 

James, Epistle of, 52 f. 

Jaoth, -326 t. 

Jason of Cyrene, 304. 

Jeremiah, Letter of, 40 f. 

Epistle of, 41. 

Jesus, 58 f. 

Words of. Translated into Greek, 75. 

•Jesus Justus, 315. 

Jesus Sirach, Prologue, 69, 339 tl. 

Chronology, 339 ff 

Jews, 222 f., 232. 

Edict of Ptolemv IV. Philopitor a-aiust, 

341 f. 

In the Fayyum, 149. 

,

Jews (corUiniied)— 

Dissemination of Greek among, 77. 

on Coast of N. Africa, 280 f. 

(See also Claudius, Name, Trajan.) 

Jewish Greek, 68, 296 ff. 

Words and Constructions, 198 S. 

Jobel, 100 f. 

John the Divine, 231. 

John Mark, 317. 

John, "Letters" of, 49 f. 

Joseph Justus, 315. 

Josephus, Hebraisms in, 67, 70. 

The Jemsh War as a Translation, 67, 

75. 

Jubilee, Year of, 100 f. 

Juristic Expressions, 196 ff. , 200, 213, 221, 

227, 228 f., 229 f., 230, 231, 2-32 f., 233, 

238, 239 f., 242 ff., 247, 248 f., 249 f., 

251 f., 253, 254 f., 257, 264 f., 266. 

Kapporeth, 124 IF. 

Kepler, Letters, 5. 

KoivT), the, 80. 

Late Greek, 173 f}'., 296. 

Legal Terms, etc., see Juristic. 

Letter, Conception of, 3 f., 6 f. 

Address, 50 f. 

addressed to more than one, 4, 18 f. 

and Epistle, 9 ff. 

and Literature, 6 f., 16, 21. 

Ancient Classifications, 35. 

Modern Classifications 

— 

Congregational, 19, 45. 

Doctrinal, 45 f. 

Family, 18 f. 

Otticial, 28. 

Pastoral, 46. 

Private, 19, 45. 

Subsequently Published, 8 ff., 20 f. 

True, 20. 

See also Atossa. 

Letters, Babylonian-Assyrian, 17. 

Early Christian, 42 ff. 

Greek, 21 tf. 

Jewish, 38 ff. 

Papyrus, 22 ff. 

Roman, 28 ff. 

Aristotle, 26. 

Abelard and Heloise, 46. 

Cicero, 29 tf. 

Epicurus, 9, 28. 

Gregory VIL, 46. 

I Socrates, 10, 26 f. 

Italian Humanists, 16. 

Jeremiah, 40 f. 

Kepler, 5. 

Luther, 28. 

Moltke, 5. 

Ninck, 19. 

Origen, 48. 

Paul, 42 ff. 

Roslinus, 5. 

Letters, Public Papers and Speeches, insertion 

of, in Historical Works, 28 f., 

39, 41 f. 

INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 377 

Letters and Epistles of the Bible, problem 

of Literary History, 34 ff. 

Literature of [Brlejlitteratm-], 17, 50. 

Collections of, 27 f. 

Letter- writing. Guides to, 35. 

"Letters," "Large," 348. 

Lexical and Syntactical Notes, see Vocabulary 

and Syntax. 

Litanei, 298. 

Literature, Character of, 6 f. , 13 f. 

Biblical, 36. 

History of Early Christian, 55 f. 

Jewish, its Inffiieuce on Early Chri.stiau 

Authors, 39. 

See also Letter, Christianity. 

Liturgy, 298. 

Logia, Translators of, 75. 

Longinus, 43. 

Lord's Day, 218 f. 

Love Spell, 279. 

Luke, Prologue to Gospel of, 76. 

Luther, Letter to his Son, 28. 

Luther's Bible, 73, 134 f. 

Lysias, Epistles of, 31. 

Maccabees, Books of, 179. 

Second, 42, 303 f. 

Third, 342. 

Fourth, 50. 

Magic Literature, Greek, 273 ff., 323, 

352 ff. 

Manaen, 310 ff. 

Mark of the Beast, in Revelation, 240 ff. 

Marks of Jesus 349 ff. 

Mercy-seat, 124 tf. 

Minatory Formulae, 356. 

Miracle at Red Sea in Magic Formulae, 

285. 

Moltke, Letter of, 5. 

Mons Olivarum, 211. 

Olive ti, 211. 

Mordecai, see Esther. 

Morphology, Notes on, 186-193. 

Mother's Name in Magic Formulae, 283. 

Mule, Infertility of, 285 f. 

Mysehi, 333. 

Name of God, Unutterable, 287 f. 

Names, in -rjc, 310 f. 

Double, of Jews, 314. 

Greek, of Similar Sound added to Barbaric, 

315 f. 

Greek, substituted for Hebrew, 315. 

Theophoric, 309 f. 

See also Proper. 

Nebo, 309 f. 

"New Testament" Greek, 173 flf. 

Words and Constructions, 198 ff. 

Ninck, Letter to his Congregation, 19. 

Nun, 308 f. 

Olives, Mount of, 208 tf. 

Origen, Letters, 48. 

Orthography, Notes on, 181-185. 

of N. T., 81. 

of Ptolemaic Papyri and LXX, 72.

— 

378 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 

Osiris Myth, 356 f. 

Overbeck, F. , his Conception of the 

Beginnings of Christian Literature, 

37 f. 

tlieir Value as Sources, 57 f. 

to Corinthians, 47 f. ; (Second) 47 f., 54. 

to Galatians, 47, 346 ff. 

to Philemon, 45, 56. 

to Philippians, 45. 

to Romans, 48 f. 

Rom. xvi., 45, 283. 

See also Camerarius. 

Permutations of Vowels in Magic, 325, 329. 

Perfect, 192. 

Peter, First Epistle of, 51 f.. Second, 

360 ff. 

Peschito, 211. 

Philemon, Letter to, 45, 56. 

Philippians, Letter to, 45. 

Phrases and Formulse, see Formulaic. 

Pliny, Letters, .32. 

Plutarch, Letters, 31. 

Praecido, 152. 

Prayers, Form of, 297 f. 

Prepositions, 192, 195, 196, 197, 213, 216 f., 

221, 227, 265 f. 

See also Greek Preps, in Index I. 

Presbyter, 154 ff. , 233 ff. 

Priests, 233 ff. 

Proper Names, 187 ft'., 301 ff'. 

Prophets, 235 ft'. 

Propitiatory Cover, 124 ff. 

Proseuche, 222 f. 

Protective Marks, 240 f., 350 ft'. 

Providentia Specialissima. 285. 

Pseudonymity, Idea of Literary, 13 ft'., 41. 

Ptolemaic Period 

Official Diction of, 343 ff. 

Greek Legal Terminology of, 104 f. , 344. 

Ptolemy IV. Philopator, Edict against 

Jews, 341 ft'. 

Quotation, Mode of Biblical, 76, 89, 295. 

in Synoptists, 102 ff. , 162 f. 

Religion of Book or Document, 59, 113. 

Religion, History of, 36, 58, 271 f. 

Religious ideas. Change of Meaning, 78 ft". 

Religious Diction of Asia Minor, 360 ft'. 

366 f. 

Religious Terms and Expressions, 195 f., 

Palms and White Robes, 368 If. 

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 if. 

Ritschl's (A.) view of iKaariiptop, 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 Fayyum, 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 

Canonisation, 43. 

Philology, 200. 

Seal, Roman Imperial, 242 ft'. 

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. 

Septuagint, 66 ff., 173, 179, 199, 202, 

205 ft'., 261 f., 271, 280, 294, 295 ff., 

etc. 

Change of Meaning in terms of, 

124 f. 

Lexicon to, 73 f. 

Mode of Investigating, 124 ff. 

Quotations from, 76. 

Study of, X f. 

and Early Christian Writers, 77 ff. 

78 f. 

as a Monument of Egyptian Greek, 70 ff. 

Egyptianising "Tendency" of, 73. 

Influence of Hebrew Sounds on 

Greek Words, 99. 

its 

Relation to the Ptolemaic Papyri, 70 ff. 

Transcription 

Words, 99. 

of Unknown Hebrew 

Serapeum at Memphis, 140. 

Show bread, 157. 

Signs, Sacred, 349 ft". 

Son of God, 73. 

Spirit, 78. 

Stigma, Purpose of, 349 f. 

Superstition, 272 f., 297 f., 323, 352 ft'. 

Sunday, 218 f. 

Synagogue, 222 f. 

Synonymic of Religious Terms Of Early 

Christianity, 

Synoptists, 297. 

104. 

Linguistic Character of, 74 f. 

Semitic Sources of, 162 f. 

Syntax, Notes on, 194 ft'. 

Syth, 333. 

Tabulae Devotionis, 279. 

from Adrumetum, 273 ft'., 356. 

from Carthage, 274, 284, 289. 

Technical Expressions, 228-247, 254, 257, 

264 f., 266, 267. 

See also Formulaic Expressions. 

,

Tetragrammaton, 319 If. 

Thayer, J. H. , 176, etc. 

Thephillin, 353. 

Traditional Forms of Sem. Names in Greek 

Texts, 330. 

Trajan's Jewish War, Sources for, 68, 316. 

Transcriptions, Vocalic, of the Tetragram- , 

maton, 330. 

INDEX OF TEXTS. 379 

White 

Verb, 189 tt. 

Vocabulary and Syntax, Notes on, 194- 

267. 

Vowels, Variation of, 180 fi. 

Vulgate, 211, 225. 

Robes and Palms, 368 S. 

Translations of Sem. Originals into Greek, Y, Phoenician = Heb. 6 (and 6) 333 

74 ff. Yth. 333. 

III. 

INDEX OF TEXTS. 

Ge STES IS. Leviticus 

11 284 2" 135 f. 

1^ . 286 4 18 

. 123 

116£. . 289 1341.42 117 

118 

. 

. 

289 

286 

• 4S 

1614 

. 

. 

88 

127 

192a 

. 151 

2Sff. 

6 

. 148 1927£. . . 351 

'6 [15] . 128 192s 

. 349 

141SI- 22 

. 284 19 36 

. 116 

1711 

1712 

181" 

. 153, 351 

. 152 

. 168 

214 

21 5 f. 

24 

. 106 

. 351 

16 

221- . 207 25 

. 288 

lu 

23* 

2311 

23 

. 149 

. 164 

2510-11 • 12 1». 15- 

2523 

101. 138 

. 100 f. 

106, 229 

1« 

. 260 25 «» 

2523 . 157 27 . 

. 106 

. 101 

32 lu 

. 120 

3429 . 160 Numbers 

36 « 

. 160 412-26 

. 141 

36 24 

4021 

411 

. 

. 

. 

160 

267 

258 

75 

1427 

14 

. . 

. 

141 

110 

28 

. 

4321 . 370 16 22 

205 

. 327 

45-1 . 258 2319 . 199 

4712 . 158 27 16 

47 

. 327 

18 

. 123 3150 . 150 

50 2 f. 

. 120 3327f. 36" 

. 

. 

189 

164 

Exodus. 

42B 152 Deuteronomy. 

5 6- 10- 14. 15- 19 

. 112 116 230 

15 18 

175 

20" 

2120 

. 

. 

. 

. 

283 

120 

293 

120 

1016 

10" 

12:' 

12 

. 

. 

. 

151 

28.3 

310 

"2 

. 114 

2516P7] .125f. 14 If. 

. 351 

25 20 [21] 

25 

. 128 152 . 123 

so 

2634 

. . 

. 

157 

127 

252 . 165 

•2515 3028 . 125 2614 

. 116 

.136f. 

3110 

3522 

. 

. 

141 

150 

2726 . 248 

28-58 . 282 

376 125. 127 306 . 151 

38 5 

. 127 

391 . 141 Joshua. 

39 41 [19 I . . 141 512 . . 136 

Judges. 

5i« 160 

514 110.112 

191" 160 

1922 165- 

1 Samuel. 

42-3 

1612, 1742 .., _ 

68- 

157 

1722 

17« 

158 

120 

2013 90' 

2031 165 

216 157 

282 98 

2 Samuel. 

27 165 

714 120 

125, 1328 165 

223 91 

2216 98 

2321 120 

1 Kings. 

4 27 [31] 292 

72-38 153 

1911 287 

2035 163 

2035fif. 351 

139-16. 

1415f. 

15 

_ . 

. 

351 

284 

l-'i 

412 

. 

. 

199 

114 

8 

. 285 726 . 310 

2 3-5-7 

15i6ff- 

2 Kings. 

163 

310 

1814 102 

24 18 

f, 2519. . . .llOf. 

258 310 

1 Chronicles. 

510 139 

926-33 150 

1123 120 

16 25 283 

18" 115 

282 158 

28» 190 

2811 127 

29 4 260, 262

380 INDEX OP TEXTS. 

2 Chronicles. 

4«, 613 127 

8- 18 10 

[19] 

29 [30' 6 

. 

. 

292 

95 312 

Isaiah. 

154 

917 260 32 [33 8 9 

. -291 3-20 

. . 150 

2» 308 32 [33 9 

1311 157 32 [33 

. 289 57 . . 220 

14 . 290 613 . . 1.59 

15« 308 33 [34^ 5 

. 150 10 2J 

. . 120 

221 145 38 [39] 13 

24" 141 46 [47] 

. 149 llH-7 . . ^291 

3 

. 283 13^' 26" 110,115 47 [48] 

. . 290 

1-5 

. 293 13 8 

288 164 .50 [51] 

. . 293 

12 

28' 115 .57 [58] 

. 290 1412 . . 164 

8 

3112 115 59 [60] 

. 1.51 192 . . 145 

^ 

32S" 141 66 [67] 

. 290 •22 15 

. . 112 

8 

33" 141,288 71 [72]" 

. 291 26^ . . ^283 

73 [74] 13 

. -282 -2712 

. 284 30 '7 

. . 116 

. . 135 

33 18 

. . 112 

Ezra. 73 [74] 16 . 289 ' 

(2 Ezra or Esdras.) 

75 [76] 

76[77]i» 

. 

. 

283 

-290 

3321 

3323 

41 165 77 [78] 15 . -287 362-i 

" 8 

. 116, 283 

. . 135 

. . 112 

61^ 

62U 

. 

. 

. 

308 

139 

78'- . 

88 [89] 

. 

. 

162 

283 

3812 

40 

. . 135 

3 

. . 162 

8 2S . 150 88 [89] 23 

107-16. 165 88 [89] 

. 165 4011 . . 102 

-25 

. 109 4012 . . 291 

88 [89] 33 

. 120 40 28 

Nehemiah. 89 [90] 

. . 283 

6 

. 1.51 42 12 

15 283 95 [96] 

. 95, 96 

^ 2« . 148 96 [97] 

283, 284 43-21.20 f. 

. . 96 

10 

414 . 283 98 [99] 

. 293 44' . . 351 

3 

. -283 45 1«- 

612 _ 308 98 [99] 

. . 367 

8 10-3 . 157 102 [103] 

. 122 

. 290 

461 

46-' 

. 

. 

. 309 

. 102 

1034ff. 

. 

13 '-^8 

. 

113 

•290 

J2 

103 [104] 

104 [105] 

. 290 53^-11 . . 102 

•" 

. 287 53 12 

. . 89 

108 [109] 11 

. 154 562 . . 164 

Esther. 110[111]9 . 282 57 •> 

13, 

. 163, 165 

21s 168 110 [111] i» 

221 . 

53-8 . 

98 

92 

10-1 1- 1 

117 [118] 

118 [119] 

. 

. 

292 

151 

595-6 

62" 

. . 135 

. . 162 

17" 

. 92 65 25 

. . ^291 

5 1-4 

153 125 [126] J 

. 98 6612 . . 102 

6« 

'. 

168 r27[r28]3 .220f. 

7 2f. . 92 143 [144] 12 

7« . 153 

. 

145 [146] 

220 Jeremiah. 

6 

9 20- 29 

102 . 

41 

114 

. 

Proverbs 

284 4^ 151 

4 -24 

. . . ^291 

10 5 . . . , 

103 . 

Job 

2" . . . . 

J 

115 

. 123 

17 . . 

'. 

38 . . 

6 2 . . . 

8 29 

. 

292 

154 

123 

287 

103 

1116 , . . 1.52 

27[50]3» . . 292 

38[31]» . . 116 

10 38 [31] . . 226 

10. 13 123 8 "^ 142 . 

14« . 

21 

151 

220 

'. 

'. 

. 

9 1" . . . 

9 12 . . . 

283 

292 

1^23 

15. 44 20 

[37] . 110, 112 

,52-25 . . . . 110 f. 

3 . 102 216 . 

2132 . 

-J93 

283 

11 1 . . 

13 8 

. 

1511 . . 

116 

123 

164 

Lamentations. 

313 164 

3 ^7 2412 . 

26 3 . 

273 . 

123 

365 

205 

1623 _ 

. 

22-1 . . . 

227 . . . 

1-23 

292 

1^23 

98 if. 

Ezekiel. 

6 3 3123 _ 

3128 . 

•293 

365 

8- 27 15. . . 

27 21 . . 

123 

261 

291 

9 351 

10 w, 11 22 342-1 . 

38 

293 30 6 . , 114 

. . . 283, 284 

111" 290 

3» . •291 

31 5 . iKfi 16 ^ 38 

151 

ff, 391- i 4218 . . 

Psalms. 

285 

113 ECCLBSIASTES. 

2 

19 3-6 291 

2225 291 

275 1.35 

5 2» 

11 [12] 

120 

148 •27 16 99 

3327,34 8,356,36 5 . 205 

7 261 f. Canticles. 366 291 

17[18]8 290 413 . 148 3623 . . 283

Daniel. 

110 123 

3'« 363 

6^ 92 

Q^ 290,291 

8 5 141 

HOSEA. 

24 165 

221 f- 107 

412 120 

Joel. 

1-'- 107 

120 98 

2 30 290 

Amos. 

91 127 

MiCAH. 

51, 7" 120 

Nahum. 

1« 287 

311 158 

Habakkuk. 

3» 95 

Zephaniah. 

3I' 290 

Haggai. 

11,21 340 

Zechariah. 

11,17 

6" 

340 

95 

71 

99 

310 

... 160,162,164 

lie 248 

1113 

13 6 . . • ... 

262 

351 

144 211 

Malachi. 

31 162 

1 [3] ESDBAS. 

1*6 281 

3* 98 

452 136 

612 284 

84 92 

855 122 


3626 290 

4 ESDRAS. 

3819 205 7 

39 » 

120 

40^,4122 

4314.17-20 

153 

.... 126 

451" 116 

4519 

46" 

127 

101 

47- 99 

s:!, 8 52 Psalms of Solomon. 

148 158-10 .351 

212 

TOBIT. 

135 16 

1 Maccabees. 

310 

1010 160 247 165 

Judith. 

323-32 

542 

306 

112 

112 205 6 

227 226 

49 262 

911 91 

12^ 98 

58 

Wisdom of Solomon. 

1 15 293 

35 248 

619 107 

714 168 

72' 168,290 

8i-'-i' 293 

8 21 121 

15-' 293 

17» 292 

SiRACH. 

(ECCLESIASTICDS. )" 

Prologue .... 340 ft. 

115 123 

1212 -267 

135 293 

1322 91 

36 11 [33] « .... 284 

.36 la [14 or in?] ... 93 

37^ 117 

4329 

45 n 

283 

138 

51 9 [i-!] 293 

Bakuch. 

229 205 

4»5 281 

Epistle of Jeremiah. 

V. 9 117 

Song of the Three 

Children. 

V. " 136 

Susanna. 

V. •'s 283 

Bel and the Dragon. 

V.2-" 117 

V. 5 117,284 

V. 22 117 

V. 32 160 

Rest of Esther. 

51 293 

Prayer of JTanasses. 

V. 1-4 298 

251 

7 6- 12- 20 ff. _ 3J4 

820 . . ; ; ; ; 232 

954ff. 314 

102-5.45 86 

1139 321 

11.50-62-66 _ 251 

1342 . . ; 

. 

; 340 

1350 251 

142V .340 

2 Maccabees. 

1*^ 214 

112 290 

124£. 298 

3 303 

3139 293 

3v 306 

311 255 

48 121 

4 16 150- 

429-31 115 

4« 251 

447 200 

449 293 

5'^ 290 

735, 84 293 

811 160 

929 310 

103 157 

1011 306 

1116 232 

1119 2.53 

11 2B 2.M 

1134 232 

1211-12 2.51 

12 22 293 

1243 219 

132- -23 306 

1322 2.51 

143 314 

1419 251 

14 28 115 

1430 93 

14 38 262 

152 293 

157 92 

3 Maccabees. 

22ff- 298 

221 293 

229 349,351 

2 33 92 

37 255 

3iiff-28 . . . . 341 ff. 

420 342 

5-« 138 

62ff. 298 

6 40 121

382 INDEX OF TEXTS. 

6« 262 

71 306 

720 345 

4 Macoabees. 

426, 52, 8 5-8 . . . 139 

98 263 

1010 95 

131a. 17^ 1412, 15 5- IS, 

1624 139 

1722 

18" 

126 

138 

Matthew. 

120 212M9-22. , , 253 

5''i 86,182 

62- 5- 16 229 

611 214 

722 198 

812 162 

817 102f. 

915 162 

1025 332 

10«7f- 248 

llio-ia 163 

1112 258 

1243 281 

1335-38 162 f. 

15 37,1610 .... 158 

1832 221 

211 211 

215 160-2-4 

21 « 225 

2315 162 

243 211 

2431 248 

2530 68 

2630 211 

2719 253 

2732 86 

27B5f. 66^ 28" ... 68 

Mark. 

12f-, 219, 317 . . . 162 

322 76 

53-7 281 

59 209 

735 189 

88-20 158 

8i9f- 118 

9 38 198 

111 209f. 

12 19 190 

133 211 

1327 248 

1419 138,139 

1428 211 

1521 86,182 

1540 144 

168 293 

1620 109 

Luke. 

19 252 

110 232 

2« 252 

3*4 282 13 13 . 317 

5" 190 1321 . 316 

533 250 1427 . 190 

534 162 151 . 252 

624 229 15 12. 30 233 

648£. 123 1514 . .... 

315, 316 

7 27- 35 K . 3s 163 1539 . 317 

113 214 162 . 265 

1242 

12 

158 1633 . 227 

58 1.54 17" . 254 

1334 190 182 . 187 

1410 267 18 s 

. 253 

1429 123 18 21 . 252 

19 . . 360 

1512 230 

16 8 163 199 . 233 

16 1« 258 19" . 255 

1710 68 1913 _ 281 

19 2H 209 tf. 19 18- 19 323 

1937 212, 232 2026 . 196 

2018 . 225 2113 . 252 

2034-36 . 163 21 22 . 233 

2137, 2239 209 ff. 227-13. 316 

22 S3 . . 160 2212 . 265 

237 . 229 2335 . 230 

23 43 

. 148 2417 . 117 f. 

244 . 263 2427 . 258 

24 18 . 315 25 13 . 257 

2521 . 229 

John. 2523 . 64 

81 211 25 24 . 232 

89 . 138f. 26 14- 24 316 

12 B 257 267 . 262 

1236 163 2724 . 316 

1316£. 242 282 . 255 

1515 . 168 28 30 . 258 

1712 . 163 

1922 . 113 Romans. 

1925 

2015 

. 

. 

315 

102 

325 

4" 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

.129,266 

153, 351 f. 

218 . 1.53 4 16 109 

53-5 . 107 

Acts. 5 16- 18 264 

110 263 81 . 264 f. 

112 208 ff. 822 . 253 

lis 196 8 26 . 122 

123 315 8 27. 34 121 

125 

2S 

267 

232 f. 

98 . 

1014f- . 

163 

107 

325 163 Ill . 316 

43 267 112 . 121 

432 233 121 . 254 

4 36 163, 307 125 _ 138 

5 18 267 15 s . 119 

6 2 190, 233 158 . 109 

6 5 233 15 16 . 258 

757 191 1519 . 316 

810 3.36 1520 . 123 

9 4-17 316 15 26 . 118 

925 158 1528 . 238 

9 36-39 189 16 3 . 187 

1022 265 167 . 192 

1210 189 169 . 283 

13 360 

131 310tf. 1 Corinthians. 

13B-10 163 16-8 _ 109 

139 . 313 f. 421 . 

. . . 119 f., 358

61 233 

618 202 

72 124 

7'-> 

192 

75 

710- 11.15 

204, 255 

.... 247 

106 224 

1010 110 

1218 252 

1228 92 

145, 152 118 

15 3 f. 

15 25fl. 

1538 . 

161 , 

162 . 

163 

167 

2 Corinthians. 

16 

1» 

1" 

112 

121f. 

33 

410 

413 

55 

5 16 

71 

8i« . 

9 1. 13 . 

92 . 

9 5. 12 . 

10* 

10 5 

. 

. 

11 . . 

118 . 

1132 

122 

. 

. 

124 

12" 

. 

. 

. . 250 

. . 316 

. . 252 

118, 142 f. 

. 142 f. 

. . 316 

. . 252 

250 

109 

257 

122 

88 

109 

59 

360 

250 

109 

253 

216 

118 

261 

221 

118 

221 

144 

181 

73 

349 

266 

183 

190 

148 

252 

Galatians. 

29 251 

31 360 

310 248 

315 109,114 

425-26 .31g 

428 163 

520 360 

6" 346 ff. 

«".... 103, 346 ff. 

Ephesians. 

22 163 

23 88,164 

220 123 

56-8 163 

1* 

15 

Philippians. 

250 

253 


1^ 

23 

223 

35 

43 

4 18 

110 

214 

38 

411 

1 

212 

417 

55 

510 

2 Thessalonians. 

23 

311 

21 

22 

36 

315 

45 

519 

6 IB 

619 

410 

4 18 

2'i 

2^ 

28 

1" 

22.3 

217 

36 

4 16 

61 

63 

6" 

616 

71s 

725 

86 

914 

917 

COLOSSIANS 

'. '. 

'. 

'91', 

247 

Thessalonians. 

1 TiMOTHT 

2 Timothy 

Titus. 

Hebrews. 

108 

•?56 

108 

SI 6 

64 ,265 

229 ,258 

. 

224,248 

,252 

163 

315 

121 

. . . . 205-( 

107 

926 9 

928 

10 :« 

1113 

1222 

1228 

13 18 88 

248 

64 

163 

64 

163 

225 

,250 

255 

220 

88 

121 

118 

293 

123 

182 

363 

255 

254 

200 

141 

107 

225 

107 

135 

123 

252 

5-7-8 

229 

228 

121 

190 

216 

107 

28 f. 

89 

88 

149 

316 

363 

194 

Jambs. 

13 259 

131- 107 

28 250 

223 1Q8 

313 194 

510 198,263 

1 Peter. 

11 149 

l^" 259 f. 

11* 163 

1" 88 

118 266 

22 256 

25 258 

29 96 

2" 149 

212 194 

223 91 

224 88 f. 

45 252 

2 Peter. 

11 315 

13 97,362 

1 3 ff. .361 ff. 

1* 368 

110-19 109 

25 190 

213 365 

21-' 164 

216 160 

218 88 

1 John. 

310 163 

4 18 199 

3 John. 

v.* 144 

V. 5 202 

V. 6 248 

JUDE. 

V. 3 .364 

V. 6 267 

V. 12 365 

Revelation. 

27 148 

213 187 

34 196 

312 316 

43 267 

48 139 

6 11 .368 ff. 

72ff- 352 

7 9 ff- 368 ff. 

9* 3,52 

10 6 284 

1113 196 

1119 189 

1311-1' 240 ff.

384 INDEX OF TEXTS. 

13ifif-, 141, 149ff- 

155 .... 

162 .... 

18i:' 

. . . . 

192«, 20'» . . 

21 2- 1". . . . 

21 « .... 

21" ... . 

352 

189 

352 

160 

352 

316 

192 

163 

101, 172 

232 . 

2121 

221S1 

... . 139 

114 

341 

561 

651 

. 

. 

Clem. Rom. 


168 

292 

122 

121 

265 

WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 

Clem. Rom. 


51, 101 190 

DiDACHE. 

13- 236 

DIE NEUTESTAMENTLICHE FORMEL 

„IN CHRISTO JESU". 

1892. Gr. 8, x. 136 S. M. 2.50. 

JOHANN KEPLER UND DIE BIBEL. 

EIN BEITEAG ZUE GESCHICHTE DEE SCHEIFT- 

AUTOEITAT. 

1894. 8. 36 S. M. —.60. 

Marburg in Hesse: N. G. ELWERT. 

THE ABERDEEN UNIVERSITY PRESS LIMITED.

— 

— 

— 

— — — 

— — 

PUBLICATIONS OF 

T. & T. O L J^ I^ lEC, 

38 GEORGE STREET, EDINBURGH. 

LONDON: SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, & CO. LIMITED. 

Abbott (T. K, B.D., D.Lit.)—EpHESIANS and CoLOSSIANS. {International 

Critical Commentary.) Post 8vo, 10s. 6d. 

Adam (J,, D.D.) An Exposition of the Epistle of James. 8vo, 9s, 

Adamson (Rev. T., D.D.) 

8vo, 4s. 6d. 

Studies of the Mind in Christ. Post 

The Spirit of Power. Second Edition, fcap. 8vo, Is. 

Ahlfeld (Dr.), etc. The Voice from the Cross. Cr. 8vo, price 5s. 

Alcock (Deborah) The Seven Churches of Asia. Is. 

Alexander (Prof. W.Lindsay)—Biblical Theology. Twovo1s.8vo,21s. 

Allen (Prof. A. V. G., D.D.) 

Theological Librao'tj.) Post 8vo, 12s. 

Christian Institutions. {International 

Ancient Faith in Modern Light, The. 8vo, 10s. 6d, 

Andrews (S. J.) The Life of our Lord. Large post 8vo, 9s. 

Ante-Nicene Christian Library—A Collection of all the Works 

OF THE Fathers of the Christian Chukch prior to the Council of 

NicÂ. Twenty-four vols. Svo, Subscription price, £6, 6s. Selection 

of Four Volumes at Subscription price of 21s. Additional Volume, 

containing MSS. discovered since the completion of the Series, 12s. 6d. net. 

Augustine's Works—Edited by Marcus Dods, D.D. Fifteen vols. 

Svo, Subscription price, £3, 19s. net. Selection of Four Volumes at Subscription 

price of 21s. 

Balfour (R. G., D.D.) Central Truths and Side Issues. Crown 

Svo, 3s. 6cl. 

Ball (W. E., LL.D.)—St. Paul and the Eoman Law. Post 8vo, 4s. 6d. 

Ballard (Frank, M.A., B.Sc.) 

— 

The Miracles of Unbelief. Third 

Edition. Post Svo, 6s. 

Bannerman (Prof.) The Church of Christ. Two vols. Svo, 21s. 

Bannerman (D. D., D.D.) The Doctrine of the Church. 8vo, 12s. 

Bartlet (Prof. J. Vernon, M.A.) The Apostolic Age : Its Life, 

Doctrine, Worship, and Polity. {Eras of Church History.) Crown Svo, 6s. 

Baumgarten (Professor) Apostolic History. Three vols. Svo, 27s. 

Bayne (P., LL.D.) The Free Church of Scotland. Post Svo, 3s. 6d. 

Beck (Dr.) Outlines of Biblical Psychology. Crown Svo, 4s. 

Bengel 

— 

Pastoral Theology of the Xew Testament. Crown Svo, 6s. 

Gnomon of the New Testament. With Original Notes, 

Explanatory and Illustrative. Five vols. Svo, Subscription price, 31s. 6d. 

Cheaper Edition, the five volumes bound in three, 24s. 

Besser's Christ the Life of the World. Price 6s. 

Beyschlag (W., D.D.) New Testament Theology. Two vols. 

demy Svo, Second Edition, ISs. net. 

Bible Dictionary. Edited by Jas. Hastings, D.D. Special Prospectus 

on application. In Four Volumes. (Vols. I., II., and III. now ready.) 

* ^* Detailed Catalogue free on application.

— 

T. and T. Clark' s Publications. 

Bible-Class Handbooks. Crown 8vo. Forty-four Volumes, Is. 3cl. to 

3s. each. Edited by Prof. Marcus Dods, D.D., and Alex. Whyte, D.D. 

Detailed List free on ax>pUcation. 

Bible-Class Primers. Thirty-nine now issued in the Series. Edited 

by Princ. S. D. F. Salmoxd, D.D. Paper covers, 6d. each ; free by post, 7d. 

In cloth, 8d. ; free by post, 9d. Detailed List free on application. 

Bigg (Prof. C, D.D.)— St. Peter and St. Jude. (Mernational 

Critical Coonmentary.) Post 8vo, 10s. 6d. 

Blaikie (Prof. W. G., D.D.) The Preachers of Scotland from the 

6th to the 19th Century. Post 8vo, 7s. 6d. 

Blake (Buchanan, B.D.)—How to Read the Prophets. Part I.— 

The Pre-Exilian Minor Prophets (with Joel). Second Edition, 4s. Part II. 

—Isaiah (ch. i.-xxxix.). Second Edition, 2s. 6d. Part III.—Jeremiah, 4s. 

Part IV.—Ezekiel, 4s. Part V.— Isaiah (ch. xl.-lxvi.), and the Post-Exilian 

Prophets. The Series Icing now complete, Messrs. Clark offer the Set of Five 

Volumes for 15s. 

Bleek's Introduction to the New Testament. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. 

Briggs (Prof. C. A., D.D.) General Introduction to the Study 

OF Holy Scripture [Replacing the Author's 'Biblical Study,' entirely 

re-iorittcn and greatly enlarged). 8vo, 12s. net. 

The Messiah of the Apostles. Post 8vo, 7s. 6d. 

The Messiah of the Gospels. Post Svo, 6s. 6d. 

The Bible, the Church, and the Reason, Post Svo, 6s. 6d. 

Brockelmann (C.)—Lexicon Syriacum. With a Preface by Professor 

T. NoLDEKE. Crown 4to, 30s. net. 

Bruce (Prof. A. B., D.D.)—The Training of the Twelve ; exhibiting 

the Twelve Disciples under Discipline 

Svo, 10s. 6d. 

for the Apostleship. Fifth Edition, 

The Humiliation of Christ. 4th Ed., Svo, 10s. 6d. 

The Kingdom of God ; or, Christ's Teaching according to the 

Synoptical Gospels. New Edition, post 8vo, 7s. 6d. 

Apologetics ; or, Christianity Defensively Stated. 

{Liternational Theological Library.) Third Edition, post Svo, 10s. 6d. 

— St. Paul's Conception of Christianity. Post Svo, 7s. 

The Epistle to the Hebrews : 

6d. 

The First Apology for 

Christianity. Second Edition, post Svo, 7s. 6d. 

Bruce (W. S., D.D.)—The Ethics of the Old Testament. Cr. Svo, 4s. 

Buchanan (Professor)—The Doctrine of Justification. Svo, 10s. 6d. 

On Comfort in Affliction. Crown Svo, 2s. 6d. 

On Improvement of Affliction. Crown Svo, 2s. 6d. 

Buhl (Prof. F.)—Canon and Text of the Old Testament. Svo, 

7s. 6d. 

Bungener(Felix)—Rome and theCouncil in 19Century. Cr.8vo,5s. 

Burton (Prof. E.)—Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in 

Testament Greek. Post Svo, 5s. 6d. net. 

New 

Calvin's Institutes of Christian Religion. (Translation. )2vo1s.8vo, 1 4s. 

Commentaries. Forty -five Vols. Price on application. 

Calvini Institutio Christianae Religionis. Curavit A. Tholuck. 

Two vols. Svo, Subscription price, 14s. 

Candlish (Prof. J. S., D.D.)—The Kingdom of God, Biblically and 

Historically considered. Svo, 10s. 6d.

— — — 

— 

— — — 

— 

T. and T. Clark's Publications. 

' 

Candlish (Prof. J. S., D.D.) The Christian Salvation. Lectures 

on the Work of Christ. 8vo, 7s. 6d. 

Caspar! (C. E.)—A Chronological and Geographical Introduction 

TO THE Life of Christ. 8vo, 7s. 6d. 

Caspars (A.) The Footsteps of Christ. Crown 8vo, 7s. 6d. 

Cassel (Prof.) Commentary on Esther. 8vo, 10s. 6d. 

Cave (Principal A., D.D.) The Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice 

AND Atonement. Second Edition, 8vo, 10s. 6d. 

An Introduction to Theology. Second Edition, 8vo, 12s. 

Chapman (Principal C, LL.D.) Pre-Organic Evolution and the 

Biblical Idea of God. 

Christlieb (Prof. T., D.D.) 

Crown 8vo, 6s. 

Modern Doubt and Christian Belief. 

8vo, 10s. 6d. 

Homiletic : Lectures on Preaching. 7s. 6d. 

Clark (Professor W. K., LL.D., D.C.L.) The Anglican Eeforma- 

TiON. {Eras of Church History.) 6s. 

The Paraclete. The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit. 

Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d. 

Witnesses to Christ. A Contribution to Christian Apolo- 

getics. Crown Svo, 4s. 

Clarke (Professor W. N., D.D.)—An Outline of Christian 

Theology. Ninth Edition, post Svo, 7s. 6d. 

What shall we think of Christianity ? Cr. Svo, 2s. 6d. 

Can I believe in God the Father 1 CroAvn Svo, 3s. 

Concordance to the Greek Testament Moulton (W. F., D.D.) and 

Geden (A. S., M.A.). Second Edition, crown 4to, 26s. net. 

Crawford (J. H., M.A.) 

8vo, 5s. 

The Brotherhood of Mankind. Crown 

Cremer (Professor) Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament 

Greek. 

Crippen (Eev. T. 

Third Edition, with Supplement, demy 4to, 38s. 

G.)—A Popular Introduction to the History 

of Christian Doctrine. 8vo, 9s. 

Cunningham (Principal) Historical Theology. Two vols. Svo, 21s. 

Curtiss (Dr. S. I.) The Levitical Priests. Crown Svo, 5s. 

Franz Delitzsch : A Memorial Tribute. Portrait. Cr. Svo, 3s. 

Dabney (Prof. R. L., D.D.) The Sensualistic Philosophy of 

THE Nineteenth Century considered. Crown 8vo, 6s. 

Dahle (Bishop) Life after Death. Demy Svo, 10s. 6d. 

Dalman (Prof. G.)— The Words of Jesus. 

Davidson (Prof. A.B., D.D., LL.D.) An Introductory Hebrew 

Grammar. With Progressive Exercises in Reading and Writing. 17th 

Edition, 8vo, 7s. 6d. 

A Syntax of the Hebrew Language. 2nd Ed., Svo, 7s. 6d. 

Davidson, Dr. Samuel. Autobiography and Diary. Edited by his 

Daughter. 8vo, 7s. 6d. 

Davies (Principal D. C.)—The Atonement and Intercession of 

Christ. Crown 8vo, 4s. 

Deane (Wm., M.A.) — Pseudepigrapha : An Account of Certain 

Apocryphal Writings of the Jews and Early Christians. Post 8vo, 7s. 6d. 

Deissmann (Dr. G. A.) Bible Studies. Svo, 9s. 

Delitzsch (Prof.)— System of Biblical Psychology, Svo, 12s.; 

New Commentary on Genesis, 2 vols. 8vo, 21s. ; Psalms, 3 vols., 31s. 6d. 

Proverbs, 2 vols., 21s. ; Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes, 10s. 6d. ; 

Isaiah, Fourth Edition, rewritten, 2 vols., 21s. Hebrews, ; 2 vols., 21s. 

*.^* Any Four Volumes may be had at original Subscription price of 21s. net. 

;

4 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— — 


Dictionary of the Bible, A. {See page 1 . 

Dillmann (Prof. A,, D.D.) Genesis: Critical and Exegetical Commentary. 

Two vols., 21s. 

Doedes Manual of New Testament Hermeneutics. Cr. 8vo, 3s. 

Bollinger (Dr.) Hippolytus and Callistus. 8vo, 7s. 6d. 

Declarations and Letters on the Vatican Decrees, 

1869-1887. Authorised Translation. Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d. 

Domer (Professor) History of the Development of the Doctrine 

OF THE Person of Christ. Five toIs. Subscription price, 26s. 3(i. net. 

System of Christian Doctrine. Subscription price, 2 1 s. net. 

System of Christian Ethics. 8vo, 14s. 

Driver (Prof. S. R., D.D.)—An Introduction to the Literature 

of the Old Testament. {International Theological Library.) 7th 

Edition, post 8vo, 12s. 

Deuteronomy : A Critical and Exegetical Commentary. 

{International Critical Commentary.) Second Edition, post 8vo, 12s. 

Drummond (R. J., D.D.) 

Teaching to the Teaching of Christ. Second Edition, 8vo, 10s. 6d. 

Du Bose (Prof. W. P., D.D.) 

) 

The Relation of the Apostolic 

The Ecumenical Councils. {Eras 

of Church History. ) 6s. 

Duff (Prof. David, D.D.)—The Early Church. 8vo, 12s. 

Dyke (Paul Van)—The Age of the Renascence. With an Introduction 

by Henry Van Dyke. {Eras of Church History.) 6s. 

Eadie (Professor) 

Commentaries on St. Paul's Epistles to the 

Ephesians, Philifpians, Colossians. New and Revised Editions, Edited 

by Rev. Wm. Young, M.A. Three vols. 8vo, 10s. 6d. each ; or set, 18s. net. 

Ebrard (Dr. J. H. A.) The Gospel History. 8vo, 10s. 6d. 

Apologetics. Three vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d. 

Commentary on the Epistles of St. John. 8vo, lOs. 6d. 

Edgar (R. M'C, D.D.) The Gospel of a Risen Saviour. Post 8vo, 

7s. 6d. 

Elliott On the Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. 8vo, 6s. 

Eras of the Christian Church 

Notv complete in Ten Vohimes— 

Du Bose (Prof. W. P., D.D.)—The Ecumenical Councils. 6s. 

Waterman (L., D.D.)—The Post-Apostolic Age. 6s. 

Dyke (Paul Van)—The Age of the Renascence. 6s. 

Locke (Clinton, D.D.)—The Age of the Great Western Schism. 6s. 

Ludlow (J. M., D.D.)—The Age of the Crusades. 6s. 

Vincent (Prof. M. R., D.D.)—The Age of Hildebrand. 6s. 

Clark (Prof. W. R., LL.D., D.C.L.)—The Anglican Reformation. 6s. 

Wells (Prof. C. L.)—The Age of Charlemagne. 6s. 

Bartlet (Prof. J. Vernon, M.A.)—The Apostolic Age. 6s. 

Walker (Prof. W., Ph.D., D.D.)—The Protestant Reformation. 6s. 

Ernesti Biblical Interpretation ofNew Testament. Two vols., 8s. 

Ewald (Heinrich) Hebrew Syntax. 8vo, 8s. 6d. 

Revelation: Its Nature and Record. 8vo, 10s. 6d. 

Old and New Testament Theology. 8vo, 10s. 6d. 

Expository Times. Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Monthly, 6d. 

The Revelation of Law in Scripture, 8vo, 10s, 6d. 

EzEKiEL and the Book of his Prophecy. 4thEd.,8vo, 10s. 6d. 

Fairbairn (Prin.)

— 

— 

— — 

— — 

T. and T. Clark's Publicatio7is. 

Fairbairn (Prin.)—Prophecy. Second Edition, Svo, 10s. 6d. 

Pastoral Theology. Crown Svo, 6s. 

Fairweather (Eev. W., M.A.)—Origen and Greek Patristic 

Theology. 3s. 

Falconer (J. W., B.D.)—From Apostle to Priest. A Study of 

Early Church Organisation. Crown Svo, 4s. 6d. 

Fisher (Prof. G. P., D.D., LL.D.)—History of Christian Doctrine. 

[International Theological Library.) Second Edition, post Svo, 12s. 

Forbes (Prof.) Symmetrical Structure of Scripture. Svo, Ss. 6d. 

Analytical Commentary on Romans. Svo, 10s. 6d. 

Studies in the Book of Psalms. Svo, 7s. 6d. 

The Servant of the Lord in Isaiah xl.-lxvi. Cr. Svo, 5s. 

Foreign Theological Library—Four Volumes for One Guinea. De- 

tailed List on ajyplication. 

Forrest (D. W., D.D.)—The Christ of History and of Experience. 

Third Edition, post Svo, 6s. 

Frank (Prof. F. H.)— System of Christian Certainty. Svo, 10s. 6d. 

Funcke (Otto) The World of Faith and the Everyday World, 

As displayed in the Footsteps of Abraham. Post Svo, 7s. 6d. 

G-arvie (Alex., B.D.) The Ritschlian Theology. Svo, 9s. 

Gebhardt (H.) ^The Doctrine of the Apocalypse, and its relation 

TO THE Doctrine of the Gospel and Epistles of John. Svo, 10s. 6d. 

Gerlach Commentary on the Pentateuch. Svo, 10s. 6d. 

Gieseler (Dr. J. C. L.) Ecclesiastical History. Four vols. Svo, £2, 2s, 

Gifford (Canon) Voices of the Prophets. Crown Svo, 3s. 6d. 

Given (Eev. Prof. J. J.) 

The Truth of Scripture in connection 

WITH EeVELATION, INSPIRATION, AND THE CaNON. SvO, 6s. 

Gladden (Washington, D.D., LL.D.) The Christian Pastor and 

THE Working Church. {International Theol. Library.) Post Svo, 10s. 6d. 

Glasgow (Prof.) Apocalypse Translated and Expounded. Svo, io/6. 

Gloag (Paton J., D.D.) The Messianic Prophecies. Cr. Svo, 7s. 6d. 

Introduction to the Catholic Epistles. Svo, 10s. 6d. 

Exegetical Studies. Crown Svo, 5s. 

Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels. Svo, 7s. 6d. 

The Primeval World. Crown Svo, 3s. 

Evening Thoughts. Crown Svo, 4s. 

Godet (Prof. F.) 

An Introduction to the New Testament— 

I. The Epistles of St. Paul. Svo, 12s. 6d. net. 

II. The Gospel Collection, and St. Matthew's Gospel. Svo, 6s. net. 

Commentary on St. Luke's Gospel. Two vols. Svo, 21s. 

Commentary on St. John's Gospel. Three vols. Svo, 31s. 6d. 

Commentary ON Epistle TO THE Romans. Two vols. Svo, 21s. 

Commentary ON 1st Epistle TO Corinthians. 2vo1s.Svo, 21s. 

*^* Any Four Volumes at the original Subscription price of 21s. net. 

Defence of The Christian Faith. Crown Svo, 4s. 

Goebel (Siegfried) The Parables of Jesus. Svo, 10s. 6d. 

Gotthold's Emblems ; or, Invisible Things Understood by Things 

THAT ARE Made. Crown Svo, 5s.

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 


Gould (Prof. E. P., D.D.)— St, Mark. {International Critical 

Commentary.) Post 8vo, 10s. 6d. 

Grimm's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Trans- 

lated, Revised, and Enlarged by Joseph H. Thayer, D.D. Demy 4to, 36s. 

Guyot (Arnold, LL.D.) Creation; or, The Biblical Cosmogony in the 

Light of Modern Science. With Illustrations. Crown 8vo, 5s. 6d. 

Hagenbach (Dr. K. E.) History of Doctrines. 3 vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d. 

History of the Eeformation. 2 vols. 8vo, 21s. 

Halcombe (Rev. J. J., M.A.)—"What Think Ye of the Gospels? A 

Handbook of Gospel Study. 8vo, 3s. 6d. 

Hall (Newman, D.D.) The Lord's Prayer. Third Edition, crown 

Svo, 4s. 6d. 

Gethsemane ; or. Leaves of Healing from the Garden of Grief. 

Second Edition, crown Svo, 4s. 

Divine Brotherhood. Third Edition, crown Svo, 4s. 

Hamilton (T., D.D.) Beyond the Stars; or, Heaven, its Inhabitants, 

Occupations, and Life. Third Edition, crown Svo, 3s. 6d. 

Harless (Dr. C. A.) System of Christian Ethics. Svo, 10s. 6d. 

Harris (S., D.D.)— God the Creator and Lord of All. Two 

vols, post Svo, 16s. 

Haupt (Erich) The First Epistle of St. John. Svo, 10s. 6d. 

Havernick (H. A. Ch.) Introduction to Old Testament. 10s. 6d. 

Heard (Rev. J. B., M.A.) The Tripartite Nature of Man—Spirit. 

Soul, and Body. Fifth Edition, crown Svo, 6s. 

Old AND New Theology. A Constructive Critique. Cr. Svo,6s. 

Alexandrian and Carthaginian Theology contrasted. 

The Hulsean Lectures, 1892-93. Crown Svo, 6s. 

Hefele (Bishop)—A History of the Councils of the Church. 

Vol. L, to A.D. 325. Vol. II., A.D. 326 to 429. Vol. IIL, a.d. 431 to the close 

of the Council of Chalcedon, 451. Vol. IV., a.d. 451 to 680. Vol. V., A.D. 

626 to 787. Svo, 12s. each. 

Hengstenberg (Professor) Commentary on Psalms, 3 vols. Svo, 33s. 

EccLEsiASTES, ETC., Svo, 9s. ; EzEKiEL, Svo, lOs. 6d. ; The Genuineness 

OF Daniel, etc., Svo, 12s. ; History of the Kingdom of God, 2 vols. Svo, 

21s.; Chrlstology of the Old Testament, 4 vols. 21s. net; St. 

John's Gospel, 2 vols. Svo, 21s. 


Herkless (Prof. J., D.D.) Francis and Dominic. Crown Svo, 3s. 

Herzog Encyclopedia of Living Divines, etc., of all Denominations 

IN Europe and America. {Su^plemeiit to Herzog's Encyclopcedia.) 

Imp. Svo, 8s. 

HiU (Rev. J, Hamlyn, D.D.) The Earliest Life of Christ 

ever Compiled from the Four Gospels : 

' The Diatessaron of 

Being 

Tatian' Literally Translated from the Arabic Version, and containing the 

Four Gospels woven into one Story. With an Historical and Critical 

Introduction, Notes, and Appendix. Svo, 10s. 6d. 

St. Ephraem the Syrian. Svo, 7s. 6d. 

Hodgson (Principal J. M., M.A., D.Sc, D.D.) 

Theologia Pectoris : 

Outlines of Religious Faith and Doctrine. Crown Svo, 3s. 6d. 

Hutchison (John, D.D.) 

— 

Commentary on Thessalonians. Svo, 9s. 

Commentary on Philippians. Svo, 7s. 6d. 

Our Lord's Signs in St. John's Gospel. Demy Svo, 7s. 6d. 

;

— — 

— 

— — 

— — 

— 


Innes (A. D., M.A.)—Cranmer and the English Ebformation. 

Crown 8vo, 3s. 

Innes (A. Taylor)—The Trial of Jesus Christ. In its Legal 

Aspect. Post 8vo, 2s. 6(1. 

International Critical Commentary. 

Dkiver (Prof. S. R., D.D.)—Deuteronomy. 12s. 

Moore (Prof. G. F., D.D.)—Judges. 12s. 

Smith (Prof. H. P., D.D.)—Samuel. 12s. 

Toy (Prof. C. H., D.D.)—Proverbs. 12s. 

Gould (Prof. E. P., D.D.)—St. Mark. 10s. 6d. 

Plummeu (Alfred, D.D.)—St. Luke. 12s. 

Sanday (Prof. W., D.D.) and Headlam (A. C, B.D.)—Eomans. 12s. 

Abbott (Prof. T. K., B.D., D.Lit.)—Ephesians and Colossians. 10s. 6d. 

Vincent (Prof. M. R., D.D.)—Pliilippians and Philemon. 8s. 6d. 

Bigg (Prof. G., D.D.)—St. Peter and St. Jude. 10s. 6d. 

For List offuture Volu7nes see p. 1 5. 

International Theological Library. 

Driver (Prof. S. Pt., D.D.)—An Introduction to the Literature of the Old 

Testament. 12s. 

Smyth (Newman, D.D.)— Christian Ethics. 10s. 6d. 

Bruce (Prof. A. B., D.D.)— Apologetics. 10s. 6d. 

Fisher (Prof. G. P., D.D., LL.D.)—History of Christian Doctrine. 

Allen (Prof. A. V. G., D.D.)— Christian Institutions. 12s. 

McGiffert (Prof. A. C, Ph.D.)—The Apostolic Age. 12s. 

Gladden (Washington, D.D.)— The Christian Pastor. 10s. 6d. 

Stevens (Prof. G. B., D.D.)—The Theology of the New Testament. 

Rainy (Prin. R.)—The Ancient Catholic Church. 12s. 

12s. 

12s. 

For List of f-iLture Volumes see p. 14. 

Janet (Paul) Final Causes. Second Edition, demy 8vo, 12s. 

The Theory of Morals. Demy 8vo, 10s. 6d. 

Johnstone (P. De Lacy, M.A.) Muhammad and his Power. 3s. 

Johnstone (Prof. K., D.D.) Commentary on 1st Peter. 8vo, 10s. 6d. 

Jones (E. E. C.) Elements of Logic. Svo, 7s. 6d. 

Jouffroy Philosophical Essays. Fcap. Svo, 5s. 

Kaftan (Prof. J., D.D.) The Truth of the Christian Eeligion. 

Authorised Translation. 2 vols. Svo, 16s. net. 

Kant The Metaphysic of Ethics. Crown Svo, 6s. 

Philosophy of Law. Trans, by W. Hastie, D.D. Cr. Svo, 5s. 

Principles of Politics, etc. Crown Svo, 2s. 6d. 

Pentateuch, 3 vols. Svo, 31s. 6d. ; Joshua, Judges, 

and Ruth, Svo, 10s. 6d. ; Samuel, Svo, 10s. 6d. ; Kings, Svo, 10s. 6d. 

Chronicles, Svo, 10s. 6d. ; Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Svo, 10s. 6d. ; 

Jeremiah, 2 vols. Svo, 21s. ; Ezekiel, 2 vols. Svo, 21s. ; Daniel, Svo, 

10s. 6d. ; Minor Prophets, 2 vols. Svo, 21s. ; Introduction to the 

Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament, 2 vols. Svo, 21s. ; 

Handbook of BrsLicAL Archaeology, 2 vols. Svo, 21s. 


Keil (Prof.) 

Keymer (Rev. N., M.A.) Notes on Genesis. Crown Svo, Is. 6d. 

Kidd (James, D.D.) Morality and Eeligion. Svo, 10s. 6d. 

Killen (Prof.) The Framework of the Church. Svo, 9s. 

The Old Catholic Church. Svo, 9s. 

The Ignatian Epistles Entirely Spurious. Cr. Svo, 2s. 6d. 

Kilpatrick (Prof. T. B., D.D.)— Christian Character. 2s. 6d. 

;

— — 

— 

— — 

— — 

T. and T. ClarJi^s Publications. 

Konig (Dr. Ed.)—The Exiles' Book or Consolation (Deutero-Isaiah). 

Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d. 

Konig (Dr. F. E. )—The Religious History of Israel. Cr. 8vo, 3s. 6d. 

Krause (F. C. F.)—The Ideal of Humanity. Crown 8vo, 3s. 

Krummacher (Dr. F. W.) The Suffering Saviour ; or, Meditations 

on the Last Days of the Sufferings of Christ. Eighth Edition, crown 8vo, 6s. 

David, the King of Israel. Second Edition, cr. 8vo, 6s. 

Autobiography. CroAvn Svo, 6s. 

Kurtz (Prof.)—Handbook of Church History (from 1517). 8vo,7s. 6d. 

Ladd 

History of the Old Covenant. Three vols. Svo, 31s. 6d. 

(Prof. G. T.)—The Doctrine of Sacred Scripture: A 

Critical, Historical, and Dogmatic Inquiry into the Origin and Nature of the 

Old and New Testaments. Two vols. Svo, 1600 pp., 24s. 

Laidlaw (Prof. J., D.D.) The Bible Doctrine of Man ; or, The 

Anthropology and Psychology of Scripture. New Edition Revised and 

Rearranged, post Svo, 7s. 6d. 

Lane (Laura M.) 

Lange (J. P., D.D.) 

Life of Alexander Vinet. Crown Svo, 7s. 6d. 

The Life of our Lord Jesus Christ. Edited 

by Marcus Dods, D.D. 2nd Ed., in 4 vols. Svo, price 2Ss. net. 

Commentaries on the Old and New Testaments. Edited 

by Philip Schaff, D.D. Old Testament, 14 vols. ; New Testament, 10 

vols. ; Apocrypha, 1 vol. Subscription price, net, 15s. each. 

St. Matthew and St. Mark, 3 vols. Svo, 31s. 6d.; St. Luke, 

2 vols. Svo, 18s. ; St. John, 2 vols. Svo, 21s. 

* J' Any Four Volumes at the original Subscription price of 21s. net. 

Le Camus (E., Bishop of La Kochelle)—The Children of Nazareth. 

Fcap. 4to. 4s. 

Lechler (Prof. G. V., D.D.) The Apostolic and Post-Apostolic 

Times. Their Diversity and Unity in Life and Doctrine. 2 vols. cr. Svo, 16s. 

Lehmann (Pastor) Scenes from the Life of Jesus. Cr. Svo, 3s. 6d. 

Lewis (Tayler, LL.D.)—The Six Days of Creation. Cr. Svo, 7s. 6d. 

Lilley (J. P., M.A.)—The Lord's Supper: Its Origin, Nature, and 

Use. Crown Svo, 5s. 

The Pastoral Epistles. 2s. 6d. 

Principles of Protestantism. 2s. 6d. 

LilHe (Arthur, M.A.)—Buddha and Buddhism. Crown Svo, 3s. 

Lindsay (Prof. T. M., D.D.) Luther and the German Eeformatign. 

Crown Svo, 3s. 

Lisco (F. Gr.) Parables of Jesus Explained. Fcap. Svo, 5s. 

Locke (Clinton, D.D.) The Age of the Great Western Schism. 

{Eras of Church History.) 6s. 

Lotze (Hermann) Microcosmus : An Essay concerning ]\Ian and his 

relation to the World. Cheaper Edition, 2 vols. Svo (1450 pp.), 24s. 

Ludlow (J. M., D.D.) The Age of the Crusades. {Ems of 

Church History.) 6s. 

Luthardt, Kahnis, and Brilckner The Church. Crown Svo, 5s. 

Luthardt (Prof ) St. John the Author of theFourth Gospel. 7s. 6d. 

Commentary on St. John's Gospel. 3 vols. Svo, 31s. 6d. 

History of Christian Ethics. Svo, 10s. 6d. 

Apologetic Lectures on the Fundamental (7 Ed.), Saving 

(5 Ed.), Moral Truths of Christianity (4 Ed.). 3 vols. or. Svo, 6s. each.

— 

— — 

— 

T. and T. Clarks Publications. 

Macdonald Introduction to Pentateuch, Two vols. 8vo, 21s. 

The Creation and Fall. 8vo, 12s. 

Macgregor (Rev. Jas., D.D.) — The Apology of the Christian 

Religion. 8vo, 10s. 6d. 

The Revelation and the Eecord : 

Essays on Matters of 

Previous Question in the Proof of Christianit}'. 8vo, 7s. 6d. 

Studies in the History of New Testament Apologetics. 

8vo, 7s. 6d. 

Macgregor (Eev. G. H. C.JM.A.)- So Great Salvation. Cr. 32mo, Is. 

Macpherson (Eev. John, M.A.)- 

THE Ephesians. 8vo, lOs. 6d. 

-Commentary on the Epistle to 

Christian Dogmatics. Post 8vo, 9s. 

McCosh (James), Life of. 8vo, 9s. 

McGiffert (Prof. A. C, Ph.D.)—History of Christianity in the 

Apostolic Age. {International Theological Library.) Post 8vo, 12s. 

M'Hardy (G. D.D.)— Savonarola. Crown 8vo, 3s. 

M'Intosh (Rev. Hugh, M.A.)— Is Christ Infallible and the 

Bible True ? Second Edition, jiost 8vo, 9s. 

M'Realsham (E. D.)—Romans Dissected. A Critical Analysis of the 

Epistle to the Piomans. Crown 8vo, 2s. 

Mair (A., D.D.) Studies in the Christian Evidences. Third 

Edition, Revised and Enlarged, crown 8vo, 6s. 

Martensen (Bishop) 

Christian 

Christian Dogmatics. 8vo, 10s. 6d. 

Ethics. (General — Individual — Social.) 

Three vols. 8vo, 10s. 6d. each. 

Matheson (Geo., D.D.) Growth of the Spirit of Christianity, from 

the First Century to the Dawn of the Lutheran Era. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. 

Meyer (Dr.) — Critical and Exegetical Commentaries on the 

New Testament. Twenty vols. 8vo. SiLbscription jmce, £5, 5s. net ; 

selection of Four Volumes at Subscription irrice of 21s. ; Non-Sicbscription 

price, 10s. 6d. each volume. 

St. Matthew, 2 vols. ; Mark and Luke, 2 vols. ; St. John, 2 vols. ; 

Acts, 2 vols. ; Romans, 2 vols. ; Corinthians, 2 vols. ; Galatians, one vol. ; 

Ephesians and Philemon, one vol. ; Philippians and Colossians, one vol. 

Thessalonians {Dr. Lilnemann), one vol. ; The Pastoral Epistles {Dr. 

Huther), one vol. ; Hebrews {Dr. Lilnemann), one vol. ; St. James and St. 

John's Epistles {Huther), one vol. ; Peter and Jude {Dr. Huther), one vol. 

Michie (Charles, M.A.) 

— 

Bible Words and Phrases. 18mo, Is. 

Milligan (George, B.D.)—The Theology of the Epistle to the 

Hebrews. Post 8vo, 6s. 

Milligan (Prof. W., D.D.) The Resurrection of the Dead. 

Second Edition, crown 8vo, 4s. 6d. 

Milligan (Prof. W., D.D.) and Moulton (W. F., D.D.) — Commentary 

ON THE Gospel of St. John. Imp. 8vo, 9s. 

Mofifatt (James, B.D.) 

The Historical New Testament. Second 

Edition, demy 8vo, 16s. 

Monrad (Dr. D. G.) The World of Prayer. Crown 8vo, 4s. 6d. 

Moore (Prof. G. F., D.D.) Judges. {International Critical Com- 

inentary.) Second Edition, post 8vo, 12s. 

Morgan (J., D.D.) Scripture Testimony to the Holy Spirit. 7s. 6d. 

Exposition of the First Epistle of John. 8vo, 7s. 6d. 

;

— 

— 

— 

— 

lo T. and T. Clark s PMblications. 

Moulton (W. F., D.D.) and Geden (A. S., M.A.)—A Concordance 

TO THE Greek Testament. Crown 4to, 26s. net, and 31s. 6d. net. 

Muir (Sir W.)—Mohammedan Controversy, Etc. 8vo, 7s. 6d. 

MUller (Dr. Julius)—The Christian Doctrine of Sin. 2 vols. 8vo, 21s. 

Murphy (Professor)—Commentary on the Psalms. 8vo, 12s. 

A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Exodus. 9s. 

Naville (Ernest)—The Problem of Evil. Crown Svo, 4s. 6d. 

The Christ. TranslatedbyEev. T. J.Despres. Cr.8vo,4s.6d. 

Modern Physics. Crown 8vo, 5s. 

Neander (Dr.) Church History. Eight vols. 8vo, £2, 2s. net. 

Nicoll (W. Kobertson, M.A.., LL.D.)—The Incarnate Saviour. 

Cheap Edition, price 3s. 6d. 

NovaLis—Hymns and Thoughts on Religion. Crown Svo, 4s. 

Oehler (Prof.)—Theology of the Old Testament. 2 vols. 8vo, 21s. 

Olshausen (Dr. H.) Biblical Commentary on the Gospels and 

Acts. Four vols., 21s. net. Crown Svo Edition, four vols., 24s. 

Romans, one vol. Svo, 10s. 6d. ; Corinthians, one vol. Svo, 

9s. ; Philippians, Titus, and First Timothy, one vol. Svo, 10s. 6d. 

Oosterzee (Dr. Van)—The Year of Salvation. 2 vols. Svo, 6s. each. 

Moses : A Biblical Study. Crown Svo, 6s. 

Orelli (Dr. C. von)—Old Testament Prophecy ; 

Isaiah ; Jeremiah ; The Twelve Minor Prophets. 

Commentary on 

4 vols. Subscription 

price, 21s. net ; separate vols., 10s. 6d. each. 

Owen (Dr. John)—Works. Best and only Complete Edition. Edited 

by Rev. Dr. Goold. Twenty-four vols. Svo, Subscription price, £4, 4s. 

The 'Hebrews' may be had separately, in seven vols., £2, 2s. net. 

Palestine, Map of. Edited by J. G. Bartholomew, F.R.G.S., and 

Prof. G. A. Smith, M.D., D.D. With complete Index. Scale—4 Miles to 

an Inch. 

Philippi (F. A.)—Commentary on the Romans. Two vols. Svo, 21s. 

Piper—Lives of Leaders of Church Universal. Two vols. Svo, 2 1 s. 

Popular Commentary on the New Testament. Edited by Philip 

Schaff, D.D. With Illustrations and Maps. Vol. I. The Synoptical 

Gospels. 

Vol. III. 

Vol. II. St. John's Gospel, and the Acts of the Apostles. 

Romans to Philemon. Vol. IV. Hebrews to Revelation. 

In four vols, imperial Svo, 12s. 6d. each. 

Plmnmer (Alfred, D.D.)— St. Luke. {International Critical Com- 

vientanj.) Second Edition, post Svo, 12s. 

Pressens6 (Edward de) 

— 

The Redeemer : 

— 

— 

Discourses. Crown Svo, 6s. 

Piinjer (Bemhard)—History of the Christian Philosophy of 

Religion from the Reformation to Kant. Svo, 16s. 

Rabiger (Prof.)—Encyclopedia of Theology. Two vols. Svo, 21s. 

Rainy (Principal) — Delivery and Development of Christian 

Doctrine. Svo, 10s. 6d. 

The Ancient Catholic Church. [International Theological 

Library). Post Svo, 12s. 

Reusch (Prof.)—Nature and the Bible : Lectures on the Mosaic 

History of Creation in relation to Natural Science. Two vols. Svo, 21s. 

Reuss (Professor)—History of the Sacred Scriptures of the New 

Testament. 640 pp. Svo, 15s.

— 

— 

— 

— — 

— — 

— — 

T. and T. Clai'ks Publications. 1 

Riehm (Dr. E.) Messianic Prophecy. New Edition. Post 8vo, 7s. 6d. 

Eitschl (Albrecht, D.D.)—The 

cation AND Reconciliation. 

Christian 

8vo, 14s. 

Doctrine of Justifi- 

Bitter (Carl) Comparative Geography of Palestine. 4 vols. 8vo, 213. 

Robinson (Rev. S., D.D.) Discourses on Redemption. 8vo, 7s. 6d. 

Robinson (E., D.D.) Greek and Eng. Lexicon of the KTest. 8vo,9s. 

Rooke (T. G., B.A.) Inspiration, and other Lectures. 8vo, 7s, 6d. 

Ross (C.)—Our Father's Kingdom. Crown Bvo, 2s. 6d. 

Rothe (Prof.) Sermons for the Christian Year. Cr. Bvo, 4s. 6d. 

Saisset Manual of Modern Pantheism. Two vols. 8vo, 10s. 6d. 

Salmond (Princ. 

Immortality. 

S. P. P., D.D.)—The 

Xew Edition, post 8vo, 9s. 

Christian Doctrine of 

Sanday (Prof. W., D.D.) and Headlam (A. C, B.D.)—Romans. 

{International Critical Commentary.) Third Edition, post Bvo, 12s. 

Sartorius (Dr. E.)—Doctrine of Divine Love. 8vo, 10s. 6d. 

Schaff (Professor) History of the Christian Church, (New 

Edition, thoroughly Revised and Enlarged.) Six 'Divisions,' in 2 vols, 

each, extra 8vo. 

1. Apostolic Christianity, a.d. 1-100, 2 vols. 21s. 2, Ante-Nicene, 

A.D. 100-32:., 2 vols., 21s. 3. Nicene and Post-Nicene, a.d. 325-600, 

2 vols., 21s. 4. Medieval, a.d. 590-1073, 2 vols., 21s. {Completion of 

this Period, 1073-1517, in preparation). 5. The Swiss Reformation, 

2 vols., extra demy 8vo, 21s, 6, The German Reformation, 2 vols,, extra 

demy 8vo, 21s, 

Schleiermacher's Christmas Eve, Crown Bvo, 2s. 

Schubert (Prof. H, Von,, D,D.) The Gospel of St. Peter. Synoptical 

Tables. With Translation and Critical Apparatus. 8vo, Is. 6d. net. 

Schultz (Hermann) Old Testament Theology. Two vols, IBs. net. 

Schiirer (Prof.) History of the Jewish People. 5 vols. Subscription 

price, 26s. 3d. net. 

*^* Index. In separate Volume. 2s. 6d. net. 

Schwartzkopff (Dr. P,) The Prophecies of Jesus Christ. Crown 

Svo, 5s. 

Scott (Jas., M.A., D.D.) Principles of New Testament Quotation 

Established and Applied to Biblical Criticism. Cr. Svo, 2nd Edit., 4s. 

Sell (K., D.D.) The Church in the Mirror of History. Cr, Bvo, 3/6. 

Shedd—History of Christian Doctrine. Two vols. Bvo, 21s. 

Sermons to the Natural Man. Bvo, 7s. 6d, 

Sermons to the Spiritual Man, Bvo, 7s, 6d. 

Dogmatic Theology. Three vols. ex. Bvo, 37s. 6d. 

Sime (James, M. A.) William Herschel and his Work. Cr, Bvo, 3s. 

Simon (Prof.) The Bible; An Outgrowth of Theocratic Life. Cr.8vo,4/6. 

PiECONCILIATION BY INCARNATION. Post Bvo, 7s. 6d. 

Skene-Bickell The Lord's Supper & The Passover Ritual, svo, 5s. 

Smeaton (Oliphant, M,A,) The Medici and the Italian Renaissance. 

3s. 

Smeaton (Professor) Doctrine of the Holy Spirit. 2nd Ed., 8vo, 9s. 

Smith (Prof. H. P., D.D.)— I. and II. Samuel. {International Critical 

Commentary.) Post Svo, 12s. 

1

1 

2 

Smith (Professor Thos.jD.D.) 


Medieval Missions. Cr. 8vo, 4s. 6d. 

Smyth (John, M.A., D.Ph.) Truth and Reality. Crown 8vo, 4s. 

Smyth (Newman, D.D.) Christian Ethics. {International Theo- 

logical Library.) Third Edition, post 8vo, 10s. 6d. 

Snell (F. J., M.A.) Wesley and Methodism. Crown 8vo, 3s. 

Somerville (Rev. D., D.D.) 

Stahlin (Leonh.) 

Stalker (Jas., D.D.) 

— — 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

St. Paul's Conception of Christ. 9s. 

Kant, Lotze, and Ritschl. 8vo, 9s. 

Life of Christ. Large Type Ed., cr. 8vo, 3s. 6d. 

Life of St. Paul. Large Type Edition, crown 8vo, 3s. 6d. 

The Jewish and The Christian Messiah. 

Stanton (V. H., D.D.) 

A Study in the Earliest History of Christianity. 8vo, 10s. 6d. 

Stead (F. H.)—The Kingdom of God. Is. 6d. 

Steinmeyer (Dr. F. L.) The Miracles of our Lord. 8vo, 7s. 6d. 

The History of the Passion and Resurrection of our 

Lord, considered in the Light of Modern Criticism. 8vo, 10s. 6d. 

Stevens (Prof. G. B., D.D.) The Theology of the New Testament. 

{International Theological Library.) Post 8vo, 12s. 

Stevenson (Mrs.) The Symbolic Parables. Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d. 

Steward (Rev. G.) Mediatorial Sovereignty. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. 

The Argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 8vo, 10s.6d. 

Stier (Dr. Eudolph) On the Words of the Lord Jesus. Eight 

vols. 8vo, Subscription price of £2, 2s. Separate volumes, price 10s. 6d. 

The Words of the Risen Saviour, and Commentary on 

THE Epistle of St. James. 8vo, 10s. 6d. 

The Words of the Apostles Expounded. 8vo, 10s. 6d. 

Stirling (Dr. J. Hutchison) Philosophy and Theology. Post 8vo, 9s. 

Darwinianism : Workmen and Work. Post 8vo, 10s. 6d. 

What is Thought? 8vo, 10s. 6d. 

Tholuck (Prof. ) The Epistle to the Romans. Two vols. fcap. 8 vo, 8s. 

Thomson (J. E. H., D.D.)—Books which Influenced our Lord 

AND His Apostles. 8vo, 10s. Cd. 

Thomson (Rev. E. A.) Memorials of a Ministry. Crown 8vo, 5s. 

Tophel (Pastor G.) The Work of the Holy Spirit. Cr. 8vo, 2s. 6d. 

Toy (Prof. 0. H., D.D.) Proverbs. {International Critical Comvientary.) 

Post 8vo, 12s. 

Words to Young Christians : 

Troup (Rev. G. Elmslie, M.A.) 

Being Addresses to Young Communicants. On antique laid paper, chaste 

binding, fcap. 8vo, 4s. 6d. 

IThlhorn(G.) ChristianCharityinthe AncientChurch. Cr. 8vo, 6s. 

UUmann (Dr. Carl) Reformers before the Reformation, principally 

in Germany and the Netherlands. Two vols. Svo, 21s. 

ITrwick (W., M.A.) The Servant of Jehovah : A Commentary 

upon Lsaiahlii. 13-liii. 12; with Dissertations upon Isaiah xl.-lxvi. Svo, 3s.

— 

T. and T, Clark's Publications. 

Vinet (Life and Writings of). By L. M. Lane. Crown 8vo, 7s. 6d. 

Vincent (Prof. M. R., D.D.)—The Age of Hildebrand. {Eras of 

Church History.) 6s. 

Philippians and Philemon. {International Critical Commentary.) 

Post 8vo, 8s. 6d. 

Walker (James, of Carnwath)—Essays, Papers, and Sermons. 

Post Svo, 6s. 

Walker (J., D.D.)—Theology and Theologians of Scotland. 

New Edition, crown Svo, 3s. 6d. 

Walker (Prof, W., D.D.) The Protestant Reformation. {Eras 

of Church History.) 6s. 

Walker (Rev. W. L.)—The Spirit and the Incarnation. Second 

Edition, Svo, 9s. 

Warfield (B. B., D.D.)—The Right of Systematic Theology. 

CroAvn Svo, 2s. 

Waterman (L., D.D.)—The Post-Apostolic Age. {Eras of Church 

History. ) 6s. 

Watt (W. A., M.A., D.Ph.)—The Theory of Contract in its Social 

Light. Svo, 3s. 

A Study of Social Morality. Post Svo, 6s. 

Watts (Professor)—The Newer Criticism and the Analogy of 

THE Faith. Third Edition, crown Svo, 5s. 

Vindication of the Scientific 

The Reign of Causality : A 

Principle of Telic Causal Efficiency. Crown Svo, 6s. 

The New Apologetic. Crown Svo, 6s. 

Weir (J.F.,M.A.)—The Way : 

Ex. crown Svo, 6s. 6d. 

The Nature and Means of Salvation. 

Weiss (Prof. )—Biblical Theology ofNewTestament. 2 vols. Svo, 2 1 s. 

Life of Christ. Three vols. Svo, 31s. 6d. 

Welch (Rev. A. C, B.D.)—Anselm and his Work. 3s. 

Wells (Prof. C. L.)—The Age of Charlemagne. {Eras of the 

Christian Church.) 6s. 

Wendt (H. H., D.D.)—The Teaching of Jesus. 2 vols. Svo, 21s. 

Wenley (R. M.)—Contemporary Theology and Theism. Crown 

Svo, 4s. 6d. 

White (Rev. M.)—Symbolical Numbers of Scripture. Cr. Svo, 4s. 

Williams (E. P., D.D.)—Christian Life in Germany. Crown Svo, 5s. 

Wilson (S. Law, D.D.)—The Theology of Modern Literature. 

Post Svo, 7s. 6d. 

Winer (Dr. G. B.)—A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament 

Greek, regarded as the Basis of New Testament Exegesis. Third 

Edition, edited by W. F. Moulton, D.D. Ninth English Edition, Svo, 15s. 

TheFormoftheChristianTemple. 8vo,io/6. 

Witherow(Prof.T.,D.D.)— 

Woods (F. H., B.D.)—The Hope of Israel. Crown Svo, 3s. 6d. 

Workman (Prof. G. C.)—The Text of Jeremiah; or, A Critical Investigation 

of the Greek and Hebrew, etc. Post Svo, 9s. 

Wright (C. H., D.D.)— Biblical Essays. Crown Svo, 5s.

H T. and T. Clark s Publications. 

THE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY. 

The following eminent Scholars have contributed, or are 

engaged upon, the Volumes named : 

An Introduction to the Literature of 

the Old Testament. 

Christian Ethics. 

Apologetics. 

History of Christian Doctrine. 

A History of Christianity in the Apostolic 

Age. 

Christian Institutions. 

The Christian Pastor. 

Theology of the New Testament. 

The Ancient Catholic Church. 

Theology of the Old Testament. 

The Literature of the New Testament. 

Old Testament History. 

Canon and Text of the New Testament. 

The Latin Church. 

Encyclopaedia. 

Contemporary History of the Old Testament. 

Contemporary History of the New Testament. 

Philosophy of Religion. 

The Study of the Old Testament. 

Rabhinical Literature. 

The Life of Christ. 

The Christian Preacher. 

— 

r.y S. R. Driver, D.D., Regius Professor 

of Hebrew, and Canon of Christ Church, 

Oxford. {Seventh Edition. 12s. 

By Newman Smyth, D.D., Pastor of the 

First Congregational Church, New Haven, 

Conn. [Third Edition. los. 6d. 

By the late A. B. Bruce, D.D., Professor of 

New Testament Exegesis, Free Church 

College, Glasgow. [Third Edition. los. 6d. 

By G. P. Fisher, D.D., LL.D., Professor 

of Ecclesiastical History, Yale University, 

New Haven, Conn. [Second Edition. 12s. 

By Arthur Cushman McGiffert, Ph.D., 

D.D., Professor of Church History, Union 

Theological Seminary, New York. [12s. 

By A. y. G. Allen, D.D., Professor of 

Ecclesiastical History, Episcopal Theological 

School, Cambridge, Mass. [12s. 

By Washington Gladden, D.D., Pastor 

of Congregational Church, Columbus, 

Ohio. [los. 6d. 

By George B. Stevens, Ph.D., D.D., Professor 

of Sj'stematic Theology in Yale 

University, U.S.A. [12s. 

By Robert Rainy, D.D., Principal of The 

New College, Edinburgh. 12s. 

By A. B. Davidson, D.D., LL.D., Professor 

of Hebrew, The New College, Edinburgh. 

By S. D. F. Salmond, D.D., Principal, 

and Professor of Systematic Theology and 

New Testament Exegesis, United Free 

Church College, Aberdeen. 

By H. P. Smith, D.D., late Professor of 

Biblical History and Interpretation, 

Amherst College, U.S.A. 

By Caspar Ren€ Gregory, Ph.D., Professor 

in the University of Leipzig. 

By Archibald Robertson, D.D., Principal 

of King's College, London. 

By C. A. Briggs, D.D., Professor of Biblical 

Theology, Union Theological Seminary, 

New York. 

By Francis Brown, D.D., Professor of 

Hebrew and Cognate Languages, Union 

Theological Seminary, New York. 

By Frank C. Porter, Ph.D., Yale University, 

New Haven, Conn. 

By Robert Flint, D.D., LL.D., Professor 

of Divinity in the University of Edinburgh. 

By the Right Rev. H. E. Ryle, D.D., Lord 

Bishop of Exeter. 

By S. Schechter, M. a. , Reader in Talmudic 

in the University of Cambridge. 

By ^VILLIAM Sanday, D.D., LL.D., Lady 

JMargaret Professor of Divinity, and Canon 

of Christ Church, Oxford. 

By John Watson, D.D. ('Ian Maclaren 

'). Sefton Park Presbyterian Church 

of England, Liverpool.


THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY, 

TEN VOLUMES NOW READY, viz. :— 

Deuteronomy, Judges, I. and II. Samuel, Proverbs, S. Mark, S. Luke, Romans, 

Ephesians and Colossians, Philippians and Philemon, S. Peter and S. Jude. 

Genesis. 

Exodus. 

The following other Volumes are in course of preparation : 

Leviticus. 

Numbers. 

Joshua. 

Kings. 

Isaiah. 

Jeremiah. 

Minor Prophets. 

Psalms. 

Job. 

Daniel. 

Ezra and Nehemiah. 

Chronicles. 

Synopsis of the 

Four Gospels. 

Matthew. 

Acts. 

Corinthians. 

Galatians. 

The Pastoral Epistles. 

Hebrews. 

James. 

The Johannine 

Epistles. 

Revelation. 

THE OLD TESTAMENT. 

T. K. Cheyne, D.D., Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy 

Scriiiture, Oxford, and Canon of Rochester. 

A. R. S. Kennedy, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, University of Edinburgh. 

J. F. Stenning, M.A., Fellow of Wadham College, Oxford ; and the late 

Rev. H. A. White, M.A., Fellow of New College, Oxford. 

G. Buchanan Gray, M.A., Lecturer in Hebrew, Mansfield College, 

Oxford. 

Gboroe Adam Smith, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, United Free Church 

College, Glasgow. 

Francis Brown, D.D., Professor of Hebrew and Cognate Languages, 

Union Theological Seminary, New York. 

A. B. Davidson, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Hebrew, New College, 

Edinburgh. 

A. F. KiRKPATRiCK, D.D., Regius Professor of Hebrew, and Fellow of 

Trinity College, Cambridge. 

W. R. Harper, Ph.D., President of Chicago University. 

C. A. Briggs, D.D., Edward Robinson Professor of Biblical Theology, 

Union Theological Seminary, New York. 

S. R. Driver, D.D., Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford. 

Rev. John P. Peters, Ph.D., late Professor of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity 

School, Philadelphia, now Rector of St. Michael's Church, New 

York City. 

Rev. L. W. Batten, Ph.D., Professor of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity School, 

Philadelphia. 

Edward L. Curtis, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Yale University, New 

Haven, Conn. 

THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

W. Sanday, D.D., LL.D., Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, Oxford; 

and Kev. W. C. Allen, M.A., Exeter College, Oxford. 

Rev. Willoughby C. Allen, M.A., Chaplain, Fellow, and Lecturer in 

Theology and Hebrew, Exeter College, Oxford. 

Frederick H. Chase, D.D., Christ's College, Cambridge. 

Arch. Robertson, D.D., Principal of King's College, London. 

Rev. Ernest D. Burton, A.B., Professor of New Testament Literature, 

University of Chicago. 

Walter Lock, D.D., Dean Ireland's Professor of Exegesis, Oxford. 

Rev. A. Nairne, M.A., Professor of Hebrew in King's College, London. 

Rev. James H. Ropes, A.B., Instructor in New Testament Criticism in 

Harvard University. 

S. D. F. Salmond, D.D., Principal, and Professor of Systematic Theology, 

United Free Church College, Aberdeen. 

Robert H. Charles, D.D., Professor of Biblical Greek In the University 

of Dublin. 

Other engagements will he announced shortly. 

—

i6 T. and T. Clark's Publications. 

Cbe World's €pocl)=maker$ 

Edited by OLIPHANT SMEATON. 

Messrs. T. & T. Clark have much pleasure in announcing that they have 

commenced the publication of an important new Series, under the above title. 

The following Volumes have now been issued:— 

Buddha and Buddhism. By Arthur 

LiLLIE, M.A. 

Luther and the German Reformation. 

By Professor T. M. Lindsay, D.D. 

Wesley and Methodism. By F. J. 

Snell, M.A. 

Cranmer and the English Reformation. 

By A. D. Innes, M.A. 

William Herschel and his Work. 

By James Sime, M.A. 

Francis and Dominic. By Professor 

J. Herkless, D.D. 

Savonarola. By G, M 'Hardy, D.D. 

Anselm and his Work. By Rev. A. 

C. Welch, B.D. 

The Medici and the Italian Renaissance. 

By Oliphaxt Smeatox, 

M.A., Edinburgh. 

Origen and Greek Patristic Theology. 

By Rev. W. Fairweather, M.A. 

Muhammad and his Power. By P. De Lacy Johnstone, M.A.(Oxon.). 

The following have also been arranged for 

Socrates. By Rev. J. T. Forbes, 

M.A., Glasgow. 

Plato. By Professor D. G. Ritchie, 

M.A., University of St. Andrews. 

Marcus Aurelius and the Later 

Stoics. By F. AV. Bussell, D.D., 

Vice-Principal of Brasenose College, 

Oxford. 

Augustine and Latin Patristic Theology. 

By Professor B. B. Warfield, 

D.D., Princeton. 

Scotus Erigena and his Epoch. By 

Professor R. Latta, Ph.D., D.Sc., 

University of Aberdeen. 

Wyclif and the Lollards. By Rev. 

J. C. Caerick, B.D. 

The Two Bacons and Experimental 

Science. By Rev. W. J. Couper, 

M.A. 

CalYin and the Reformed Theology. 

By Principal Salmond, D.D., U.F.C. 

College, Aberdeen. 

Pascal and the Port Royalists. By 

Professor W. Clark, LL.D., D.C.L., 

Trinity College, Toronto. 

Published Price, THREE 

: 

— 

Descartes, Spinoza, and the New 

Philosophy. By Professor J. Iverach, 

D.D., U.F.C. College, Aberdeen. 

Lessing and the New Humanism. 

By Rev. A. P. Davidson, M.A. 

Hume and his Influence on Philosophy 

and Theology. By Professor 

J. Orr, D.D., Glasgow. 

Rousseau and Naturalism in Life 

and Thought. By Professor W. H. 

Hudson, M.A., Leland Stanford 

Junior University, California. 

Kant and his Philosophical Revolution. 

By Professor R. M. Wenley, 

D.Sc., Ph.D., University of Michigan. 

Schleiermacher and the Rejuvenescence 

of Theology. By Professor 

A. Martin, D.D., New College, 

Edinburgh. 

Hegel and Hegelianism. By Pro- 

fessor R. Mackintosh, D.D., Lancashire 

Independent College, Man- 

chester. 

Newman and his Influence. By 

C. Sarolea, Ph.D., Litt. Doc, 

University of Edinburgh. 

SHILLINGS per Volume.

IQ 

O 

CO 

DNIYfiRSlTY OF TORONTO 

LIBRARY

Bible studies, contributions chiefly from papyri and ... - Predestination

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?