08 - Footnotes
1Cf. the programme (of the superintendent) Dr. Carl Wilhelm Robert: . . . announces that the Literary Association . . . shall be duly opened . . . on the 27th inst. . . . [Marburg] Miller’s Erben and Weldige, 1772, p. 13. That the superintendent had still an eye for the requirements of practical life is shown by his remarks elsewhere. For example, on page 7 f., he good-naturedly asserts that he has carried out “in the most conscientious manner” the order that “the bursars shall be supplied with sufficient well-prepared food and wholesome and unadulterated beer”. The programme affords a fine glimpse into the academic life of the Marburg of a past time.
2 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.
3 It appears sufficiently naïve that Tatian (Or. ad Graec., p. 1 15 f Schwartz) and Clement of Alexandria (Strom. i. 16, p. 364, Potter) should say, following the historian Hellanikos, that the Persian queen Atossa (6th-5th cent. B.C.) was the discoverer of letter-writing. For it is in this sense that we should understand the expression that occurs in both, viz., ἐπιστολὰςσυντάσσειν, and not as collecting letters together and publishing them, which R. Bentley (Dr. Rich. Bentley’s Dissertation on the Epistles of Phalaris, London, 1699, p. 535 f., German edition by W. Ribbeck, Leipzig, 1857, p. 532) considers to be also possible; cf. M. Kremmer, De catalogis heurematum, Leipzig, 1890, p. 15.
4 [Pseudo-] Diogenes, ep. 3 (Epistolographi Graeci, rec. R. Hercher, Parisiis, 1873, p. 235).—Demetr., de elocut., 223 f. (Hercher, p. 13).—[Pseudo-] Proclus, de forma epistolari (Hercher, p. 6).
5 Cf. Th. Birt, Das antike Buchwesen in seinem Verhaltniss zur Litteratur, 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.
6 Demetr., de elocut., 231 (Hercher, p. 14).
7 Cic., Fam. 15,214, aliter enim scribimus quod eos solos quibus mittimus, aliter quod multos lecturos putamus. Cic., Phil. 2, 7, quam multa iota solent esse in epistulis quae prolata si sint inepta videantur! quam multa seria neque tamen ullo modo divolganda!—Johann Kepler wrote a letter to Reimarus Ursus, of which the latter then made a great parade in a manner painful to Kepler and Tycho Brahe. Having got a warning by this, Kepler determined that for the future: “scribam caute, retinebo exemplaria”. (Joannis Kepleri astronomi opera omnia, ed. Ch. Frisch, i. [Frankfurt and Erlangen, 1858], p. 234; of. C. Anschutz, Ungedruckte wissenschaftliche Correspondent zwischen Johann Kepler and Herwart von Hohenburg, 1599, Prague, 1886, p. 91 f.—The Palatinate physician-in-ordinary Helisaus Roslinus († 1616) says about one of his letters which had been printed without his knowledge: “I wrote it the day immediately following that on which I first beheld with astonishment the new star—on the evening of Tuesday, the 2/12 October; I communicated the same at once in haste to a good friend in Strassburg. . . . . This letter (6 paginarum) was subsequently printed without my knowledge or desire, which in itself did not concern me—only had I known beforehand, I should have arranged it somewhat better and expressed myself more distinctly than I did while engaged in the writing of it” (Joannis Kepleri opp. omn. i., p. 666). Moltke to his wife, 3rd July, 1864: “I have in the above given you a portrayal of the seizure of Alsen, which embodies no official report, but simply the observations of an 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, tend Denkwurdigkeiten des General-Feldmarschalls Grafen Helmuth von Moltke, vi. [Berlin, 1892], p. 408 f.). One notices, however, in this “letter,” that it was written under the impression that copies of it might be made. Compare also the similar sentiment (in the matter of diary-notes, which are essentially akin to letters) of K. von Hase, of the year 1877: “It may be that my knowledge that these soliloquies will soon fall into other hands detracts from their naturalness. Still they will be the hands of kind and cherished persons, and so may the thought of it be but a quickly passing shadow!” (Annalen meines Lebens, Leipzig, 1891, p. 271).
8 Demetr., de elocut., 227 (Hereher, p. 13). Greg. Naz., ad Nicobulum (Hercher, p. 16).
9 Birt, Buchwesen, p. 2: “ Similarly the point of separation between a private writing and a literary work was the moment when [in antiquity] an author delivered his manuscript to his own slaves or to those of a contractor in order that copies of it might be produced”.
10 A. Stahr, Aristotelia, i., Halle, 1830, p. 192 f.
11 Wellhausen, Israelitische and Judische Geschichte, p. 58: “Already in early times writing was practised, but in documents and contracts only ; also letters when the contents of the message were not for the light of day or when, for other reasons, they required to be kept secret”. Hebrew literature blossomed forth only later.
12 In the following pages the literary letter [Litteraturbrief ] will continue to be so named: the author considers that the borrowed word appropriately expresses the technical sense.
13 F. Susemihl, Geschichte der griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit, 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”.
14Cf. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Aristoteles and Athen, ii., Berlin, 1893, p. 392: “He [Isocrates] did not understand that the letter, as a confidential and spontaneous utterance, is well written only when it is written for reading, not hearing, when it is distinguished from the set oration κατεἶδος”. This judgment applies also to real, genuine letters by Isocrates.
15 Von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Antigonos von Karystos (Philologischz Untersuchungen, iv.), Berlin, 1881, p. 151, says, “Such letters as are actually written with a view to publication are essentially different in character from private correspondence”.
16Briefe, dots Studium der Theologie betreffend, Third Part, Frankfurt and Leipzig, 1790, Preface to the first edition, pp. i.-iii.
17 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 Olympiadisqueepistularum fontibus et reliquiis, Berlin, 1894, p. 1.—As late as 1551, Joachim Camerarius ventured on the harmless jest of fabricating, “ad institutionem puerilem,” a correspondence in Greek between Paul and the Presbytery of Ephesus (Th. Zahn, Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons, ii., 2, Erlangen and Leipzig, 1892, p. 365).
18 Cf. the confession made by U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Aristoteles und Athen, i., Berlin, 1893, Preface, p. vi. : “The task of authorship demands an end attained—in irreconcilable antithesis to the investigations of science. The Phaedrus has taught us that the book in general is a pitiful thing as compared with living investigation, and it is to be hoped that we are wiser in our classrooms 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.”
19 The term pseudonymous of itself certainly implies blame, but it has become so much worn in the using, that it is also applied in quite an innocent sense.
20Cf. on this point specially Julicher, Einleitung in das N.T., p. 32 ff.
21 The discussion which occupies the remainder of this paragraph is one which may, indeed, be translated, but can hardly be transferred, into English. It turns partly on the ambiguity of the German word echt, and partly on a distinction corresponding to that which English critics have tried to establish between the words “genuine” and “authentic”—a long-vexed question which now practice rather than theory is beginning to settle. Echt means authentic, as applied, for instance, to a book written by the author whose name it bears; it also means genuine both as applied to a true record of experience, whether facts or feelings, and as implying the truth (that is the naturalness, spontaneity or reality) of the experience itself. The translator 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 connotation of the German adjective.—Tr.
22 The history of the literature of “letters” among the Italian Humanists is, from the point of view of method, specially instructive. Stahr, Aristotelia, ii., p. 187 f., has already drawn attention to it. The best information on the subject is to be found in G. Voigt’s Die Wiederbelebung des classischen Alterthums oder das erste Jahrhundert des Humanismus, ii.3, Berlin, 1893, pp. 417-436.
23 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”.
24 J. Karabacek, Mittheilungen, aus der Sammlung der Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer, i., Vienna, 1887, p. 51; cf. J. Krall, Guide-book of the Exhibition [of the Pap. Erzh. Rainer], Vienna, 1894, p. 32.—The author doubts whether the term literature should really be applied to the letters in cuneiform character which were published by Fried. Delitzsch (Beitrage zur Assyriologie, 1893 and 1894) under the title of “Babylonisch-Assyrische Brief littertaur”.
25 Meyer, xiv.5 (1888), p. 187.
26 Cf. for instance the letter of K. Ninck to his congregation at Frucht, of the 1st September, 1870—from Corny ; partly printed in F. Cuntz’s KarlWilh. Theodor Ninck,. Ein Lebensbild. 2nd edn., Herborn, 1891, p. 94 ff.
27 This difference does not, of course, hold in modern English; we can hardly imagine a letter-writer employing the singular forms thou, thee, But the distinction does not necessarily hold in German either.—Tr.
28E. Reuss, Die Geschichte der h. Schriften N.T.6 § 74, p. 70, uses the expression true letters, addressed to definite and particular readers. Von Wilamowitz-Moellendorft, Aristoteles und Athen, p. 393; p. 394: real letters ; ibid., p. 392, letters, ἐπιστολαίin the full sense of the word. The same author in Ein Weihgeschenk des Eratosthenes, in Nachrichten der Kgl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, 1894, p. 5: true private letter.--Birt also uses—besides the designations private writing (Buchwesen, pp. 2, 20, 61, 277, 443) and incidental letter (pp. 61, 325)—the expression true correspondence (wirkliche Correspandenzen, p. 326). Similarly A. Westermann, De epistolarum scriptoribus graecis 8 progrr., i., Leipzig, 1851, p. 13, calls them “veras epistolas, h. e. tales, quae ab auctoribus ad ipsos, quibus inscribuntur, homines revera datae sunt”.
29 Von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Ein Weihgeschenk des Eratosthenes. p. 3.
30 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.
31The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, edited . . . by Bernard P. Grenfell and Arthur S. Hunt, Part I., London, 1898; Part II., London, 1899. For those who feel themselves more specially interested in the subject, a comparison with the original Greek texts will, of course, be necessary.
32 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.
33The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, No. 291, ii., p. 291. Chaireas was strategus of the Oxyrhynchite nome. Tyrannos was διοικητής.
34The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, No. 292, ii., p. 292.
35The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, No. 293, ii., p. 293.
36The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, No. 295, ii., p. 296.
37The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, No. 297, ii., p. 298.
38The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, No. 300, ii., p. 301.
39 Theon is probably the husband of Thaeisus.
40The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, No. 115, i., p. 181.
41πάντεςοἱἐμοί. Grenfell and Hunt: all my friends.
42The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, No. 113, i., p. 178 f.
43 Von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Antigonos von Karystos, p. 151.
44 Stahr, Aristotelia, p. 195.
45 Von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Antigonos von Karystos, p. 151; Susemihl, ii., 580.
49 Von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Aristoteles und Athen, ii., pp. 391-399. It is unfortunate that some of the most recent critics of Paul’s Letters had not those few pages before them. They might then have seen, perhaps, both what a letter is, and what method is.
56 Susemihl, i., p. 96 f.; H. Usener, Epicurea, Leipzig, 1887, p. liv.
57 From Usener’s edition, p. 154.
58 Of course, official letters, too, are primarily “true letters,” not literature, even when they are addressed to a number of persons.—(This note and the two following do not belong to the quotation from Teuffel-Schwabe.) 59 Hence in themselves they are manifestly not literature.
60 The insertion of letters in historical works was a very common literary custom among the Greeks and Romans. It is to be classed along with the insertion of public papers and longer or shorter speeches in a historical report. If it holds good that such speeches are, speaking generally, to be egarded as the compositions of the historian, yet, in regard to letters and public papers, the hypothesis of their authenticity should not be always summarily rejected. In regard to this question, important as it also is for the criticism of the biblical writings, see especially H. Schnorr von Carolsfeld, Uber die Reden and Briefe bei Sallust, Leipzig, 1888, p. 1 ff., and the literature given in Scharer, i., p. 66, note 14 [Eng. Trans. I., I., p. 90]; also Teuffel-Schwabe, 1., p. 84, pos. 3, and Westermann, i. (1851), p. 4.
61 W. S. Teuffel’s Geschichte der romischen Literatur, revised by L. Schwabe i., Leipzig, 1890, p. 83.
62 Teuffel-Schwabe, p. 356 ff.
63 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, 1885, p. 243, and E. Ruete, Die Correspondenz Ciceros in den Jahren 44 and 43, Marburg, 1883, p. 1.
64 The present writer would question this.
65 Teuffel-Schwabe, i., p. 356 f.
66 Teuffel-Schwabe, i., p. 357.
67 Teuffel-Schwabe, p. 357, quotes in connection with this Cic. ad Attic., 16, 55 (44 B.C.) mearum epistularum nulla estσυναγωγή, sed habet Tiro instar LXX, et quidem sent a te quaedam sumendae; eas ego oportet perspiciam, carrigam; tum denique edentur,—and to Tiro, Fam., 16, 171 (46 B.c.) tuas quoque epistulas vis referri in volumina.
73 Teuffel-Schwabe, i., p. 362.
74Teuffel-Schwabe, i., p. 364. This is another point highly important in regard to method,—for the criticism of the Pauline Letters in particular.
76 Von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Aristoteles und Athen, ii., p. 393.
77 Westermann, i. (1851), p. 13. See Susemihl, ii., p. 601, for many other examples in Greek literature.
78 Demetr. de elocut., 22S (Hercher, p. 13), and 231 (H., p. 14).
79 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 ἐπὶἈλεξάνδρῳἐπιτάφιος dedicated τῇβουλῇκαὶτῷδήμῳΚοτυαέων, of which he himself says (i., p. 148, Dindorf), ὅπεργεκαὶἐνἀρχῇτῆςἐπιστολῆςεἶπονἢὅτιβούλεσθεκαλεῖντὸβιβλίον. Hence Westermann, iii. (1852), p. 4, applies to this and to another “ letter “ of Aristides the name declamations epistolarum sub specie latentes.
80 Teuffel-Schwabe, i., pp. 84, 197 f.
81 Teuffel-Schwabe ii., p. 700.
82Teuffel-Schwabe, ii., pp. 849, 851 ff.
83 Teuffel-Schwabe, ii., p. 852.
84 Teuffel-Schwabe, ii., p. 849.
85 Teuffel-Schwabe, ii., p. 852.
86 Teuffel-Schwabe, ii., p. 852.
87 Teuffel-Schwabe, ii., p. 852.
88 Teuffel-Schwabe, i., p. 39 f.
92 A. Dieterich, Abraxas, p. 161 f. Particular references will be found there and specially in Fleck. Jbb. Suppl. xvi. (1888), p. 757.
93Cf. pp. 15 [↑] and 20 [↑] above.
94 J. F. Marcks, Symbola critica ad Epistolorgraphos Graecos, Bonn, 1883.
95 Cf. on this Westermann, (1851), p. 9 f. For Greek theorists in letter-writing, see Hercher, pp. 1-16; for the Latin, the Rhetores Latini, minores, em., C. Halm, fasc. ii., Leipzig, 1863, pp. 447 f. and 589.
96 [Pseudo-]Procl. De Forma Epistolari (Hercher, p. 6 f.). This quotation, it is true, refers not to the various logical divisions of the concept “letter,” but to the 41 [!] various sub-classes of true letters. The process of distinguishing these various classes ([Pseudo-]Demetr. [Hercher, p. 1 ff.] similarly enumerates 21 categories) is, in its details, sometimes very extraordinary.
98 The author has already briefly expressed these ideas about the history of biblical religion in the essay Zur Methode der Biblischen, Theologie des Neuen Testamentes, Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche, iii. (1893), pp. 126-139.
99 E. P. Gould, in an article entitled “The Literary Character of St. Paul’s Letters” in The Old and New Testament Student, vol. xi. (1890), pp. 71 ff. and 134 ff., seems to apply the same question to some at least of the biblical “letters,” but in reality his essay has an altogether different purpose.
100Uber die Anfange der patrristischen Litteratur in the Historische Zeitschrift, 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 important points.
101 P. 429, and foot of p. 428.
102 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 proposition on p. 423: “In the forms of literature is found its history”. Here form can be understood only as Eidos. The forms of literature are, e.g., Epos, Tragedy, History, etc. Overbeck, in his contention that the form is essential for the contents of a literary work, is undoubtedly correct, if he is referring to the good old εἴδη of literature. No one, for example, will expect a comedy to incite φόβοςκαὶ ἔλεος. But the contention is not correct when it refers to such a subordinate literary Eidos as the epistle. The epistle may treat of all possible subjects—and some others as well. And therefore when all is said, it is literature, a literary form—even when only a bad form (Unform).
103 P. 429.
106 Overbeck here means the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and Revelation.
109 Not solely, of course, those writings which we now recognise as canonical.
110 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 edification 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 explained 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.
111 It is, of course, possible, in these merely general observations, to avoid touching on the question of the integrity of this message.
112 The following is also instructive: It is reported at the end of the Greek Book of Esther that the “Priest and Levite” Dositheus and his son Ptolemaeus, had “brought hither” (i.e., to Egypt) the ἐπιστολὴτῶνΦρουραί (concerning the Feast of Purim) from Esther and Mordecai (LXX Est. 9꞉29, cf.20 20 [MT Est. 9:29, cf. 20]), which was translated (into Greek) by Lysimachus, the son of Ptolemaeus in Jerusalem. It would thus seem that a Greek letter concerning 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.
113 The Books of Maccabees, Epistle of Aristeas, specially also Eupolemos (cf. thereon J. Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien, part i. and ii., Breslau, 1875, p. 106 ff.), Josephus.
114 C. Bruston (Trois lettres des Juifs de Palestine, ZAW. x. [1890], pp. 110-117) has recently tried to show that 2Ma 1:1-36, 2Ma 2:1-18 contains not two but three letters (2Ma 1:1-36, 2Ma 2:1-18).
115 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.
116 Cf. J. Bernays, Lucian and die Kyniker, Berlin, 1879, p. 96 ff.
117 J. Bernays, Die heraklitisclien Briefe, Berlin, 1869, particularly p. 61 ff.
118 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.
119 But seldom has this been more distinctly maintained than quite recently 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 beginnings 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 understood the true nature of the genuine letters; the bringing together of the Apostle and the epistolographer Seneca is in itself a particularly significant fact. We may also mention here the connecting—whether genuine or not—of Paul with the Attic orators (in the Rhetorician Longinus: cf. J. L. Hug, Einleitung in die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, ii. 3, Stuttgart and Tubingen, 1826, p. 334 ff.; Heinrici, Das zweite Sendschreiben des Ap. P. an die Korinthier, p. 578). The same position is held very decidedly by A. Scultetus († 1624), according to whom the Apostle imitates the “letters” of Heraclitus (cf. Bernays, Die heraklitischen, Briefe, p. 151). How well the misunderstanding still flourishes, how tightly it shackles both the criticism of the Letters and the representation of Paulinism, the author will not further discuss at present; he would refer to his conclusions regarding method at the end of this essay. In his opinion, one of the most pertinent things that have been of late written on the true character of Paul’s letters is § 70 of Reuss’s Introduction (Die Geschichte der heiligen Schrr. N.T. p. 70). Mention may also be made—reference to living writers being omitted —of A. Ritschl’s Die christl. Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und Versohnung, ii.3, P. 22. Supporters of the correct view were, of course, not wanting even in earlier times. Compare the anonymous opinion in the Codex Barberinus, iii., 36 (saec. xi.): ἐπιστολαὶΠαύλουκαλοῦνται,ἐπειδὴταύταςὁΠαῦλοςἰδίᾳἐπιστέλλεικαὶδι’ αὐτῶνοὓςμὲνἤδηἑώρακεκαὶἐδίδαξεν ὑπομιμνήσκεικαὶἐπιδιορθοῦται,οὓςδὲμὴἑώρακεσπουδάζεικατηχεῖνκαὶδιδάσκειν in E. Klostermann’s Analecta zur Septuaginta, Hexapla und Patristik, Leipzig, 1895, p. 95.
120Cf. pp. 4 [↑] and 18 f. [↑]
121 The relative lengthiness of the letter must also be deemed an irrelevant consideration—one not likely, as the author thinks, to be advanced. The difference between a letter and an epistle cannot be decided by the tape-line. Most letters are shorter than the Letter to the Philippians, shorter still than the “great” Pauline letters. But there are also quite diminutive epistles: a large number of examples are to be found in the collection of Hercher.
122 At the present day it would be difficult enough, in many cases, to determine forthwith the character of such letters. For instance, the so-called Pastoral Letters of bishops and general superintendents might almost always be taken as epistles, not, indeed, because they are official, but because they are designed for a public larger than the address might lead one to suppose. Further, at the present day they are usually printed from the outset. An example from the Middle-Ages, the “letter” of Gregory VII. to Hermann of Metz, dated the 15th March, 1081, has been investigated in regard to its literary character by C. Mirbt, Die Publizistik im Zeitalter Gregors VII., Leipzig, 1894, p. 23. Cf., on p. 4 of the same work, the observations on literary publicity. The defining lines are more easily drawn in regard to antiquity. A peculiar hybrid phenomenon is found in the still extant correspondence 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 occasionally into a flame of passion, gives us an idea of how Heloise may once have written, when it was impossible for her to act against his wish, and when she felt herself altogether guilty and yet totally innocent. Neither, certainly, did Abelard, before the great sorrow of his life had deprived him of both his nature and his naturalness, write in the affected style of the convert weary of life, whose words like deadly swords pierced the soul of the woman who now lived upon memories. In his later “letters” he kept, though perhaps only unconsciously, a furtive eye upon the public into whose hands they might some day fall—and then he was no longer a letter-writer at all.
123 See p. 35. [↑] 124Cf. the observations upon this letter in the Spicilegium below. [↓]
125 This explains why, of the extant “letters” of celebrated men who have written both letters and epistles, it is the latter that have, in general, been preserved in larger numbers than the former. Compare, for instance, the extant “letters” of Origen.
126 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.
127 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 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 literature. Hence the present writer cannot think that Weiss (Meyer, xiv.5 [1888], p. 15) is justified in saying: “It is certainly a useless quarrel about words to refuse to call such a composition a letter in the sense of the New Testament letter-literature”. The question letter or epistle? is in effect the necessary pre-condition for the understanding of the historical facts of the case. The “sense” of the New Testament letter-literature, which Weiss seems to assume as something well known, but which forms our problem, cannot really be ascertained without first putting that question.—The author does not venture here to give a decision regarding the Second and Third Epistles of John; the question “letter or epistle?” is particularly difficult to answer in these cases.
128 This idea of a catholic writing is implied in the classification of the Aristotelian writings which is given by the philosopher David the Armenian (end of the fifth cent. A.D.) in his prolegomena to the categories of Aristotle (Ed. Ch. A. Brandis, Schol. in Arist., p. 24a, Westermann, iii. [1852], p. 9). In contrast to μερικόςspecial, καθολικός 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.
131 For the investigation of the Second Epistle of Peter see the observations which follow below in the Spicilegium.
132 That is to say, of course, publication within Christianity.
133 Especially those which were made on behalf of a definite circle of readers.
134 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.
135 Upon this point the author would specially desire to recommend a perusal of the sketch of the earliest dissemination of the New Testament letters in B. Weiss’s Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Berlin, 1886, §§ 6, 7, p. 38 ff. Many of the apparently striking facts in the history of the “evidence” which are indicated there might find a simple enough explanation if they were regarded from our point of view.
137 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.
138 Herder, Briefe, das Studium der Theologie betreffend, zweyter Then, zweyte verbesserte Auflage, Frankfurt and Leipzig, 1790, p. 209.
140 The only meaning that can be given to such observations—if they are to have any meaning at all—is when it is presumed that “the genius of the language of the New Testament” is not fond of certain words and constructions. It is of course quite a different matter to speak of the ἅπαξλεγόμενα of a single definite writer such as Paul.
141 W. Schmid, Der Atticismus in seinen Hauptvertretern von Dionysius von Halikarnass bis auf den zweiten Philostratus, iii., Stuttgart 1893, p. 338. The καί 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 Ælian. 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 μετὰκαί which, it is alleged, does not belong to the N. T., seems to the author to occur in Php 4:3 (differently Acts 25:23σύντε—καὶ): cf.ἅμασύν1 Thessalonians 4:17 and 1 Thessalonians 5:10
142 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.
143 Some centuries later an important Semitic work was translated into Greek in a very different manner, viz., the original text of Josephus’s Jewish War. In the preface he states that he had written it first of all in his native language (i.e., Aramaic). In the work of translation he had recourse to collaborateurs for the sake of the Greek style (c. Ap. i. 9), cf. Schurer, i. (1890), p. 60 f. [Eng. Trans., i., p. 83]. Here then we have the case of a Semitic text being translated under Greek superintendence with the conscious intention of attaining Greek elegance. Thus the Jewish War should not, strictly speaking, be used as an authority for the style of Josephus the Semite. The case is different with the Antiquities—unless they likewise have been redacted in form. Moreover, it has been shown by Guil. Schmidt, De Flavii Iosephi elocution observations criticae, Fleck. Jahrbb. Suppl. xx. (1894), p. 514 ff.—an essay in the highest degree instructive on the question of the “influences” of the Semitic feeling for language—that at most only one Hebraism is found in Josephus, and that a lexical one, viz., the use of προστίθεσθαι = ףסי
144Cf. the remarks of Winer, adopted by Schmiedel, Winer-Schmiedel, § 4, 1 b (p. 25 f.) [Eng. Trans., p. 28 f.], upon the Greek which was really spoken by the Jewish common people and was independent of the Greek of translation. But see the author’s remark on p. 74, note 1.
146 In particular, J. Wellhausen formerly advocated this supposition; cf. his observations in F. Bleek’s Einleitung in das A. T.4, Berlin, 1878, p. 578, and, previously, in Der Text der Bucher Samuelis untersucht, Gottingen, 1871, p. 11. But the very example which he adduces in the latter passage supports our view. In LXX 1 Kings 4:2-3 f. [MT 1 Samuel 4:2-3 f.], the verb πταίω is twice found, the first time intransitively, the second time transitively, corresponding respectively to the Niphal and Qal of נגף. Wellhausen rightly considers it to be incredible 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 πταίω, with its distinction of meaning, to the already existent popular usage of the contemporaries of the LXX (i.e., from the context—the Alexandrian Jews), he overlooks the fact that the transitive sense of πταίω, is also Greek. The LXX avoided a change of verb because they desired to represent the same Hebrew root by the same Greek word, and in this case a Greek could make no objection.—Regarding another peculiarity of the LXX, viz., the standing use “of the Greek aorist as an inchoative answering to the Hebrew perfect,” it is admitted by Wellhausen himself that “for this, connecting links were afforded by classical Greek.” —Wellhausen now no longer advocates the hypothesis of a “Judaeo-Greek,” as he has informed the author by letter.
147 To the literary sources here indicated there have lately been added certain fragments of reports which refer to the Jewish War of Trajan, and which were probably drawn up by an Alexandrian Jew: Pap. Par. 68 (Notices, xviii. 2, p. 383 ff.), and Pap. Lond. 1 (Kenyon, p. 229 f.); cf. Schurer, i., p. 53; further particulars and a new reading in U. Wilcken, Ein Aktens-Nick zum jadischen Kriege Trajans, Hermes, xxvii. (1892), p. 464 ff. (see also Hermes, xxii. [1887], p. 487), and on this GGA. 1894, p. 749. Pap. Berol. 8111 (BU. xi., p. 333, No. 341), is also connected with it. I cannot, however 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, e.g., κωστωδία (Matthew 27:65 f., Matthew 28:11κουστωδία, Matthew 27:66 Cod. A κωστουδία; Cod. D has κουστουδία), ἀχρεῖοιδοῦλοι (Luke 17:10, cf. Matthew 25:30). The identification of the ὅσοιἸουδαῖοι with the successors of the Ἀσιδαῖοι of the Maccabean period, which Wilcken advances, hardly commends itself; the expression does not refer to a party within Alexandrian Judaism, but is rather a self-applied general title of honour.—Wilcken, further, has in view the publication of another Papyrus fragment (Hermes, xxvii., p. 474), which contains an account of the reception of a Jewish embassy by the Emperor Claudius at Rome. (This publication has now seen the light; for all further particulars see the beginning of the author’s sketch, “Neuentdeckte Papyrus-Fragmente zur Geschichte des griechischen Judenthums,” in ThLZ. xxiii. (1898), p. 602 ff.)
148 The relation which the language of the Prologue to Sirach bears to the translation of the book is of the utmost importance in this question. (Cf. the similar relation between the Prologue to Luke and the main constituent parts of the Gospel; see below, p. 76, note 2 [↓].) The Prologue is sufficiently long to permit of successful comparison: the impression cannot be avoided that it is an Alexandrian Greek who speaks here; in the book itself, a disguised Semite. The translator’ himself had a correct 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 τισὶτῶνλέξεωνἀδυναμεῖν˙οὐγὰρἰσοδυναμεῖαὐτὰἐνἑαυτοῖςἑβραϊστὶλεγόμενακαὶὅτανμεταχῇεἰςἑτέρανγλῶσσαν. Whoever counts the Greek Sirach among the monuments of a “Judaeo-Greek,” thought of as a living language, must show why the translator uses Alexandrian Greek when he is not writing as a translator.
149 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. [↓] 150Cf. the remarks of Buresch, Rhein. Ins. fur Philologie, N. F., xlvi. (1891), p. 208 ff.
151 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.
152De dialecto Macedonica et Alexandrina liber, Leipzig, 1808.
153 We have Papyri of the very time of Ptolemy II. Philadelphus, who plays such an important part in the traditions of the LXX.
154 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, written by trained public functionaries, and approximately contemporaneous with the LXX. While the orthography of the letters and other private documents is in part, as amongst ourselves, very capricious, there appears to him to be a certain uniformity in those official papers. One may assume that the LXX, as “educated” people, took pains to learn the official orthography of their time. The Papyri have been already referred to in LXX-investigations by H. W. J. Thiersch, De Pentateuehiversione Alexandrina libri tres, Erlangen, 1841, p. 87 ff.; recently by B. Jacob, Das Bauch Esther bei den LXX, ZAW. x. (1890), p. 241 ff. The Papyri are likewise of great value for the criticism of the Epistle of Aristeas; hints of this are given in the writings of Giac. Lumbroso.
155 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.
156 It is specially instructive to notice that terms belonging to the language 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.
157 Quite similar modernisings and Germanisings of technical terms are found also in Luther’s translation. Luther, too, while translating apparentlyliterally, 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 υἱοὶθεοῦ by Kinder Gottes (children of God), of υἱὸςθεοῦ by Sohn Gottes (Son of God). Luther’s dogmatic sense strove against an identical renderingof υἱός in both cases: he was unwilling to call Christians sons of God, or Jesus Christ the child of God, and in consequence made a distinction in the word υἱός. We may also remember the translation of νόημα in 2 Corinthians 10:5 by Vernunft (reason), whereby biblical authority was found for the doctrine fides praecedit intellectum.
158 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.
159 The author cannot assent to the thesis of Winer (see the passage referred to above, p. 67, note 2 [↑]), viz., that if we are to ascertain what was the “independent” (as distinct, i.e., from the LXX-Greek, which was conditioned by the original) Greek of the Jews, we must rely “upon the narrative style of the Apocryphal books, the Gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles “. There are considerable elements in “the” Apocrypha and in “the” Gospels which, as translations, are as little “independent” as the work of the LXX.—With regard also to certain portions of the Apocalypse of John, the question must be raised as to whether they do not in some way go back to a Semitic original.
160 Cf. Julicher, Einleitung in das N. T., 1st and 2nd ed., Freiburg (Baden) and Leipzig, 1894, p. 235: important observations by Wellhausen in GGA. 1896, p. 266 ff.—We must at all events conceive of this kind of translation as being quite different from the translation of Josephus’s Jewish War from Aramaic, which was undertaken in the same half-century, and which might be called “scientific” (cf. p. 67, note 1 above [↑]). Josephus desired to impress the literary public: the translators of the Logia desired to delineate Christ before the eyes of the Greek Christians. The very qualities which would have seemed “barbaric” to the taste of the reading and educated classes, made upon the Greeks who “would see Jesus” the impression of what was genuine, venerable—in a word, biblical.
161 The author recalls, for instance, what is said in Wellhausen’s Israelitische and Judische Geschichte, Berlin, 1894, p. 312, note 1.—Meanwhile this important problem has been taken in hand afresh by Arnold Meyer (Jesu Muttersprache, Freiburg (Baden) and Leipzig, 1896) and others; cf. especially G. Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, vol. i., Leipzig, 1898.
162Also against the unmethodical way in which peculiarities in the diction of Paul, for example, are explained by reference to mere external similarities in the Synoptics. What a difference there is—to take one instructive example—between the Synoptical ἐντῷἄρχοντιτῶνδαιμονίων (Mark 3:22, etc.) and the Pauline ἐνΧριστῷἸησοῦ ! See the author’s essay Die neutestamentliche Formel “in Christo Jesu”untersucht, pp. 15 and 60.
163 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 worthwhile.
164 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.
165 This was probably the case, e.g., with Paul, who according to Acts 21:40 could speak in the “Hebrew language”. That means probably the Aramaic.
166 So far as the author is aware no Jewish Inscription in Hebrew is known outside of Palestine before the sixth century A.D.; cf. Schurer, ii., p. 513 (= 3 iii. p. 93 f.) [Eng. Trans., ii., p. 284], and, generally, the references given there.
167 Aristotle rejoiced that he had become acquainted with a man, a Jew of Coele-Syria, who Ἑλληνικὸςἦν,οὐτῇ διαλέτῳμόνον,ἀλλὰκαὶτῇψυχῇ (Josephus, c. Ap. 22).—The sentence (De confusion ling. § 26) [M. p. 424], ἔστιδὲὡςμὲνἙβραῖοιλέγουσι “φανουηλ,” ὡςδὲἡμεῖς is of great interest in regard to Philo’s opinion as to his own language: he felt himself to be a Greek. Cf. H. A. A. Kennedy, Sources of New Testament Greek, Edinburgh, 1895, p. 54, and the present writer’s critique of this book GGA. 1896, p. 761 ff.
168 Acute observations on this point will be found in J. Freudenthal’s Die Flavius Josephus beigelegte Schrift Ueber die Herrschaft der Vernunft, Breslau, 1869, p. 26 f.
169 The author ad opts this easily enough misunderstood expression from Buresch, Rh. Mus. f. Phil. N. F., xlvi. (1891), p. 207.
170 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 Inscriptions to the explanation of the N.T. W. M. Ramsay called attention to this, and gave new contributions of his own in The Expository Times, vol. x. p. 9 ff. A short while ago I found a very important little work in the University Library at Heidelberg, which shows that the Inscriptions had begun to be drawn from a hundred years ago: the booklet, by Io. E. Imm. Watch, is called Observationes in Mattizaeum ex graecis inscriptionibus, Jena, 1779; and is not without value even at the present day.
171 So far as the author can judge, this process shows itself more clearly in the Catholic and the Pastoral Epistles than in Paul.
172Altertumer von Pergamon, viii. 1, Berlin, 1890, p. xvii.
173 This matter is further dealt with in the author’s little work Die sprachliche Erforschung der griechischen Bibel, ihr gegenweirtiger Stand and ihre Aufgaben, Giessen, 1898; cf. also GGA. 1896, pp. 761-769; 1898, pp. 120-124, and 920-923; ThLZ. xxi. (1896), p. 609 ff., and xxiii. (1898), jp. 628 ff.; Theologische Rundschau, i. (1897-98), pp. 463-472.
174Essays in Biblical Greek, Oxford, 1889, p. 37.
175HApAT. iii. (1853), p.155 f.
177 The Persian loan-word recalls the Persian dominion over Egypt: cf. παράδεισος below.—It may appear strange that the LXX do not use ἄγγεαρος, etc., though אִגֶּרֶת, perhaps also derived from the Persian, is found in those portions which belong to the Persian period, and might have prompted them to use a cognate Greek substantive. But they translate both it and the Aramaic אִגֶּרֶת in every passage by ἐπιστολή, just because there was notany Greek word formed from ἄγγαρος for letter.—For the orthography ἐγγαρεύω, cf. III. i. 1 below.
179 What is the Aramaic word which is rendered by ἀγγαρεύω in Matthew 5:41?
180 Cf. Buresch, Rhein. Mus. fur Philologie, N. F., xlvi. (1891), p. 219: “The Persian loan-word ἀγγαρεύω, which was naturalised at a very early date, must have come to be much used in the vernacular—it is still found in the common dialect of Modern Greek”.
181Papyri Graeci regii Taurinensis musei Aegyptii, i. Turin, 1826, p. 60.
185Ch. G. Wilkii Clavis Novi Testamenti philologica3, Leipzig, 1888, p. 28.
186 Frankel, p. 129. The word occurs also in Polybius in the same sense. W. Schulze has also called the attention of the author to the Inscription of Sestos (c. 120 B.c.), line 27; on this cf. W. Jerusalem, Wiener Studien, i. (1879), p. 53.
187 For particular references see Mahaffy, i. (1891), Index [88], cf. Kenyon, p. 46; Notices, xviii. 2, p. 131. For the etymology, W. Schulze, Quaestionesepicae, Gutersloh, 1892, p. 464; the ἀναφαλαντίασις in Aristot. iii. 11 presupposes ἀναφάλαντος.
188 So with Hebrews 9:28.
189 If, that is to say, the LXX treated the conceptions ἀναφέρειν and נָשָׂא as equivalent.
190 E. Kuhl, Meyer, xii.5 (1887), p. 165.
193ἐπί were equally possible; cf. p. 91, note 1.
194 Mahaffy, i. [48], translates: “But concerning the debts chaged against me, which I dispute, I shall submit to the decision of Asklepiades”.
195 It is true that ἀναφέρειν occurs also in the technical sense of referre (cf., besides the dictionaries, A. Peyron, p. 110), frequently even in the LXX, and one might also translate the clause: as to the debts alleged (before the magistracy) against me; ἀναφέρειν would then mean something like sue for. But the analogies from the Attic Orators support the above explanation. In LXX 1 Kings 20:13 f. [MT 1 Samuel 20:13] ἀνοίσωτὰκακὰἐπὶσέ, we have ἀναφέρω in a qnite similar sense. Cf. Wellhausen, Der Text der Bb. Sam., p. 116 f., for the origin of this translation.
196 A. Blackert, De praepositionum apud oratores Atticos usu quaestiones selectae,Marp. Catt., 1894, p. 45.
197Cf. also the other forensic expressions of the section: κρίνειν ver. 23, and δικαιοσύνη ver. 24.
198 Sin is often viewed as a debt in the early Christian sphere of thought. —Cf. III. iii. 2 below. [↓]
199 With regard to the orthography, cf. the Programme of W. Schulze, Orthographica, Marburg, 1894, p. xiv. ff.; Winer-Schmiedel, § 5, 30 (p. 64).
200 “Peculiar to the LXX,” Cremer 7, p. 554 (= 8 587).
202 For the orthography cf. p. 91, note 4.
203 Contra Cremer 7, p. 554 (= 8 587); Clavis3, p. 84.
208 Upon this cf. Leemans, p. 5.
210 Frankel, Altertumer von Pergamon, viii. 1, p. 13 f.
211 Waddington, iii. (Ph. Le Bas et W. H. Waddington, Inscriptions grecques et latines recueillies en Grece et en Asie Mineure, vol. iii., part 2, Paris, 1870), No. 1652 (p. 390).
212Bull. de corr. hell. iv. (1880), p. 50 = Gull. Dittenberger, Sylloge inscriptionum Graecarum, Leipzig, 1883, No. 228.
215 References in Frankel, p. 16.
216 Upon this cf. also the investigations of Meister, Berichte der 1 Kgl. Sachsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, 1891, p. 13 ff., to which Wendland has called attention (Deutsche Litteraturzeitung, 1895, p. 902).
217Libri apocryphi Veteris Testamenti Graece, Leipzig, 1871, p. 475. Similarly the corrected text of 1887 in the edition of L. van Ess.
218Cf. on this 0. F. Fritzsche, HApAT. v. (1859), p. 201.
219 0. F. Fritzsche, HApAT. v. (1859), p. 201.
220 De Wette, guided by a true feeling, has obviated this objection by rendering ἆραι by a substantive.
221 Textual-critical note to the passage in his edition of the LXX, Cambridge, 1887 ff.
222 This is placed in the text by Tischendorf and Swete.
223From his standpoint a fairly good conjecture!
224 Naturally the word is not given in the lexica to the Greek Old Testament or the Apocrypha; nor is it given by Tromm, either in the Concordance or in the accompanying Lexicon to the Hexapla, by B. de Montfaucon and L. Bos. The Concordance of E. Hatch and H. A. Redpath, Oxford, 1892 which takes into account the variants of the most important manuscripts, was the first to bring the misunderstood word to its rightful position; although that book seems to err by excess of good when it constructs from the clerical error of אA a new word ἀρεταλόγιον.
225 Field, ii., p. 130. The Hexaplar Syriac thereupon in its turn took this word of Symmachus not as = εὐφημία, but as = acceptio eloquii, Field, ibid.
226Cf. Print edition of BS, p. 93, note 6. = ἀρετή Upon this cf. also the investigations of Meister, Berichte der 1 Kgl. Sachsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, 1891, p. 13 ff., to which Wendland has called attention (Deutsche Litteraturzeitung, 1895, p. 902).
228 That is, ἀρετή as synonymous with δόξα. The word may be used in this sense in 4Ma. 10:10 also (contra Cremer 7, p. 154 = 8, p. 164).
229Les Aretalogues dans l’antiquite, Bull. de corr. hell. ix. (1885), p. 257 ff. The present writer is indebted to W. Schulze for the reference to this essay.
232 The correct interpretation in Cremer 7, p. 153 (= 8, p. 163 f.), also points to this. But in the other passage there discussed after Krebs, Joseph. Antt. xvii. 55, ἀρετή most probably denotes virtue.
233 Kenyon, p. 78 f.; Wessely, p. 138; Dieterich, Abraxas, p. 64. The Papyrus was written in the fourth century A.D.; the present writer cannot decide as to the date of the composition, particularly of line 400 ff., but considers that it may, without risk, be set still further back.
234 A. Dieterich, Abr., p. 65.
235 In his attempt to restore the hymn, i., p. 29.
236Mnemosyne, xvi. (1888), p. 11. The present writer quotes from A. Dieterich, p. 65; cf. p. 51.
237CIG. iii., No. 2715 a, b Waddington iii. 2, Nos. 519, 520 (p. 142).
238 Cremer7, p. 153 (=8, p. 163), guided by the context, points to the true interpretation by giving self-manifestation; similarly Kuhl, Meyer xii.5 (1887), p. 355, performance, activity (Wirksamkeit); the translation virtue (H. von Soden, LTC. iii. 22 [1892], p. 197) must be rejected altogether. Moreover Hesychius appears to the present writer to be influenced by 2 Peter 1:3 when he, rightly, makes ἀρετή = θείαδύναμις.
239 Cf. B. Jacob, ZAW. x. (1890), p. 283 f.
240 Giac. Lumbroso, Recherches sur reconomie politigue de l’Egypte sous les Lagides, Turin, 1870, p. 191.
241 Jean-Ant. [not M.] Letronne, Recherches pour servir a l’hilstoire de l’Ègypte pendant la domination des Grecs et des Ramains, Paris, 1823, p. 56; Lumbroso, Rech. p. 191. Also in the Inscription of Cyprus, CIG. ii., No. 2617 (Ptolemaic period), an Egyptian official, probably the governor, is so named.
247 Elsewhere the LXX translate it more naturally by φάραγξ and χείμαρρος.
248 In LXX Psalms 125:4 f. [MT Psalms 126:4], the “fifth” translation of the Old Testament also has ἀφέσεις = streams (Field, ii., p. 283).
249 Similar cases in Wellhausen, Der Text der Bb. Sam., p. 10 f.—This supposition must be taken into account in Ezekiel 47:3διῆλθενἐντῷὕδατιὕδωρἀφέσεως, which, in its connection (it is previously stated that the water issued from under the αἴθριον = atrium), signifies: he walked in the water, in the water (the nominative has been set down mechanically) of release, i.e., in the (previously mentioned) released water. So must a reader of the LXX have understood their words; the remark of Jerome (in Field, ii., p. 895) that the LXX had rendered it aqua remissionis, rests upon a dogmatic misconception; ἄφεσις here can be translated only by dimissio. Now the Hebrew text has water of the ankles, i.e., water that reaches to the ankles. This is the only occurrence of אַפְסַיִם, ankles, in the 0.T. C. H. Cornill, Das Buch des Propheten Ezechiel, Leipzig, 1886, p. 501, conjectures that what the LXX translated was אֲפיקים.The author thinks it still more probable that their ἄφεσις represents the dual of אֶפֶם, cessation. But the most natural supposition is that they did not understand the ἅπαξλεγόμενον, and simply transcribed aph’sajim, the context prompting them not merely to transcribe, but to make out of their transcription an inflected word. The present writer will not reject the supposition that this singular passage might also be explained in the following way: The Greek translator did not understand the knotty word, and translated—or transcribed—it ὕδωρἕως (cf. ἕως twice in ver. 4) αφες (cf. LXX Ezekiel 28:16 [MT Ezekiel 27:16], Codd. 23, 62, 147 ἐναφεκ, Codd. 87, 88, Hexapl. Syr. ἐναφεγ; Theodotion ἐναφεκ, unless ναφεκ [= נפך] read by Parsons in a Cod. Jes. originally stood there; these data are borrowed from Field, ii., p. 842); Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, who understood the strange word, have a corresponding rendering, ἕωςἀστραγάλων (Field, p. 895). From ὕδωρἕωςαφες some inventive brain fabricated ὕδωρἁφέσεως, which could then have the sense explained above. The translator of Ezekiel has, in many other cases, shown tact in merely transcribing Hebrew words which he did not understand (Cornill, p. 96).—The reading ὕδωρἀφαιρέσεως of the Complutensian seems to be a correction of ὕδωρἀφέσεως made purely within the Greek text itself.
252ἄφεσις seems to bear the meaning of sluice and canal exactly.
253Cf. below, under διῶρυξ. [↓] 254 [English, “Jubilee”.]
255 In this way, and in no other, did the LXX construe the genitives, as we see from ver. 15 ; so in ver. 13, where the article belongs to σημασίας. A Greek reader indeed, ignoring the context, might understand the expression thus: year of theἄφεσιςof the signal, i.e., in which the signal was given; ἀφίημι does occur in similar combinations.
256 The expression Ezekiel 46:17 is such.
257 Cremer7, p. 439 ( = 8, p. 466).
259 This ἱερὰγῆ occurs still in the (Berlin) Egyptian documents of the second and third centuries A.D. (U. Wilcken, Observationes ad historiam Aegypti provinciae Romanae depromptae e papyris Graecis Berolinensibus ineditis, Berlin, 1885, p. 29).
260Recherches, p. 90. Brunet de Presle (Notices, xviii. 2, p. 471) gives the extraordinary explanation—with a mark of interrogation, it is true—conge militaire.
261 Letronne, Recueil des inscriptions grecques et latines de l’Egypte, vol. Paris, 1842, p. 244 ff. = CIG., iii. No. 4697.
264 B. Weiss, Meyer, i. 18 (1890), p. 169.
266Cf. the remark below upon the Gospel quotations, subυἱός. [↓]
267Cf., with reference to λαμβάνειν = סָבַל, LXX Isaiah 46:4 [MT Isaiah 46:4], where the same verb is rendered by ἀναλαμβάνειν.
268 Thus A. Resch, Aussercanonische Paralleltexte au den Evangelien, 2 Heft (TU. x. 2), Leipzig, 1894, p. 115.
273Die alttestamentlichen Citate im N.T., Vienna, 1878, p. 34. Bohl finds his Volksbibel (People’s Bible) quoted in this passage also. But the Volksbibel, or, more properly, a version that was different from the LXX, would hardly have transposed the two clauses of the original.
274 Cf., upon βαστάζειν in Josephus, Guil. Schmidt, De Flav. Ios. elocution, Fleck. Jahrbb. Suppl. xx. (1894), p. 521. Upon βαστάζω, in Galatians 6:17 see VII, below, the study on the “Large Letters” and the “Marks of Jesus,” Galatians 6:1-18. [↓]
275 Had we a discreetly prepared Synonymic of the religious expressions of Early Christianity—of which there is as yet, one may say, a complete want —we should then have a defence against the widely-currents mechanical method of the so-called Biblical Theology of the N.T. which looks upon the men whose writings stand in the Canon less as prophets and sons of the prophets than as Talmudists and Tosaphists. This dogmatising method parcels out the inherited territory as if Revelation were a matter of a thousand trifles. Its paragraphs give one the idea that Salvation is an ordo salutis. It desecrates the N.T. by making it a mere source for the history of dogma, and does not perceive that it was, in the main, written under the influence of Religion.
276 M. H. E. Meier and G. F. Schomann, Der Attische Process, neu bearbeitet von J. H. Lipsius, Berlin, 1883-1887, ii., pp. 717, 719, 720.
277 M. H. E. Meier and G. F. Schomann, Der Attische Process, neu bearbeitet von J. H. Lipsius, Berlin, 1883-1887, ii., p. 717 f.
278 M. H. E. Meier and G. F. Schomann, Der Attische Process, neu bearbeitet von J. H. Lipsius, Berlin, 1883-1887, ii., p. 721 f. ; K. F. Hermann, Lehrbuch der Griechis hen Rechtsalterthumer, 3rd edition by Th. Thalheim, Freiburg and Tubingen, 1884, p. 77.
280 A. Peyron, p. 32, cf. p. 120, and E. Revillout, Etudes sur divers points de droit et d’histoire Ptolemaique, Paris, 1880, p. xl. f.
282 The text is, indeed, mutilated, but is sufficient for our purpose.
283 According to Hermann-Thalheim, p. 78, note 1, βεβαιωτής, for instance, has become nothing but an empty form in the Papyri.
285Notices, xviii. 2, pp. 25 S, 259.
287 Notices, xviii. 2, p. 241.
288Cf. above, Pap. Par. 62 (2nd cent. B.C.).
289Recherches, p. 78. But the passage belonging to the 2nd cent. B.C., indicated above, is more significant than the one of 600 A.D. quoted by him.
290 Which fact explains the variants about to be mentioned.
291 In the same chapter we also found a pertinent application of ἄφεσις as a legal conception.
296 This interpretation is not impossible. For a legitimate sale an oath was requisite, e.g., according to the “laws of Ainos” (the name is uncertain) The buyer must sacrifice to the Apollo of the district; should he purchase a piece of land in the district in which he himself dwells—he must do the same; and he must take an oath, in presence of the recording authorities and of three inhabitants of the place, that he buys honourably: similarly the seller also must swear that he sells without falsity (Theophrastus περὶυμβολαίων in Stobaeus, Flor. xliv. 22); cf. Hermann-Thalheim, p. 130 ff.
297 Cf. the terms βέβαιος, Hebrews 2:2, Hebrews 3:6, Hebrews 9:17, and βεβαιόω, Hebrews 2:3, which in the light of the above should probably also be considered as technical.
298 Upon the form of this (Sorites or Anadiplosis), cf. Paul’s words in Romans 5:3-5, Romans 10:14 f.; also James 1:3 f., and LXX Hosea 2:21 f. [MT Hosea 2:21 f.], Joel 1:3 f. [MT Joel 1:3 f.]
299Paulus Tarsensis Jurisconsultus, seu dissertatio de jurisprudentia Pauli Apostoli habita, Franecker, 1722. The essay has often been reprinted: an edition Bayreuth, 1738, 36 pp. 4to lies before the present writer. A new treatment of the subject would be no unprofitable task.
300 Paul hopes, Php 2:23 (as also appears from the tone of the whole letter), for an early and favourable judgment on his case.
301 In Hermann-Thalheim, p. 77.
302Anecdota Graeca, i. Berlin, 1814, p. 219 f.
303 Hermann-Thalheim, p. 77; Meier-Sehomann-Lipsius, ii., p. 721.
304Cf. also below, III. iii. 4. [↓]
305 The κυρόω of Galatians 3:15, for instance, which is likewise forensic, is a synonym. Cf., besides, Pap. Par. 20 (600 A.D., Notices, xviii. 2, p. 240) : πράσεωςτῆςκαὶκυρίαςοὔσηςκαὶβεβαίας.
306Catenae Graecorum Patrum in N.T. ed. J. A. Cramer, v., Oxford, 1844, p. 357.
3071 Corinthians 1:6, 1 Corinthians 1:8 (observe ἀνεγκλήτους and πιστός), Romans 15:8cf. Mark 16:20.
3082 Corinthians 1:6, Romans 4:16; cf. 2 Peter 1:10, 2 Peter 1:19.
310 In reference to the orthography cf. Winer-Schmiedel, § 5, 26 a (p. 55 f.) The Papyri have γένημα; cf. below, III. i. 2. [↓] 311Clavis3, p. 78.
313 Cf. Index in Mahaffy, ii. [190].
314 He probably knows the word from his Bible-readings: 1 Corinthians 10:10 is an allusion to LXX Numbers 14:27 [MT Numbers 14:27.] 315Clavis3, p. 82.
319 Cf. Lumbroso, Recherches, p. 231.
320 On the technical meaning of this word see below, subδιάδοχος. [↓] 321 Cod. A has quite a different reading.
322 So De Wette renders ; similarly E. Reuss: the scribe, who as captain . . .. ; A. Kamphausen (in Kautzsch) translates the text as altered in accordance with Jeremiah 52:25 by and “the” scribe of the commander-in-chief. The present writer cannot perceive why this alteration should be made “as a matter of course” (W. Nowack, Lehrbuch der heb. Archaologie, i., Freiburg and Leipzig, 1894, p. 360). But it is scarcely possible, with K. H. Graf (who does not change the text, but explains the article as referring to the following relative clause, and translates the scribe of the captain of the host), to pronounce categorically that “The captain of the host cannot be called a סֹפֵר: that title pertains only to the people who use the pen” (Der Prophet Jeremiaerklart, Leipzig, 1862, p. 628).
323 The γραμματαιαν of Cod. A is the same form (αι = ε) with the affixed ν of the popular dialect (Winer-Schmiedel § 9, 8, p. 89).
324 If the article was really taken from 2 Kings 25:19 and inserted in the Hebrew text here, then the translation of the LXX is an altogether pertinent rendering of the original, and the supposition of Siegfried-Stade, p. 467, viz., that the LXX read the passage in Jeremiah without שַׂר, would not be absolutely necessary. The LXX, in rendering the original by a firmly-fixed terminus technicus, could leave untranslated the שַׂר, which was irrelevant for the sense; the taking of it over would have ruptured the established phrase γραμματεὺςτῶνδυνάμεων.—The author has subsequently noticed that the most recent editor of Jeremiah actually emends the text here by the Book of Kings for internal reasons, and explains the chancellor, under whom the army was placed, as a military minister who took his place beside the chancellor mentioned elsewhere (F. Giesebrecht, Das Buch Jeremia [Handkomm. zum A. T. iii. 21], Gottingen, 1894, p. 263 f.).
325 Thus 0. Thenius, Die Bücher der Könige (Kurzgef. ex. Handb. zum A. T. ix.), Leipzig, 1849, p. 463.
326 In this technical γραμματεύς the fundamental meaning of scribe seems to have grown quite indistinct: LXX Isaiah 22:15 [MT Isaiah 22:15], Cod. A, has preserved the translation γραμματεύς for house-steward, a reading which, as compared with ταμίας (which is better Greek), e.g. of Cod. B, decidedly gives one the impression of its being the original; with reference to γραμματεύς as a designation of a civil official in Egypt, cf. Lumbroso, Recherches, p. 243 ff. The word is common elsewhere in the latter sense. When the LXX speak of the Egyptian task-masters, in LXX Exodus 5:6, Exodus 5:10, Exodus 5:14-15, Exodus 5:19 [MT Exodus 5:6, Exodus 5:10, Exodus 5:14-15, Exodus 5:19], as γραμματεῖς, it is not only a verbal, but, from their standpoint, also an accurate translation. They subsequently designate Israelitic officials also in this way. In LXX Isaiah 33:18 [MT Isaiah 33:18], γραμματικός is used for γραμματεύς in this sense.
327 Cf. Grimm, ad loc., and Wellhausen, Israelitische und Judische Geschichte, p. 209.
330Viz., the regulative position which falls to the lot of legal documents.
331 Cremer7, p. 241 (= 8, p. 255).
332 Cremer7, p. 241 (= 8, p. 255).
333Cf. the similar alteration of the idea of covenant into that of testament, and, upon this, Cremer , p. 897 (= 8, p. 946).
334 The ὃγέγραφαγέγραφα of Pilate, John 19:22, is also to be understood in this pregnant sense.
336 In the O.T. cf., e.g., LXX Nehemiah 10:34 [MT Nehemiah 10:34 ff]. and, in particular, LXX Job 42꞉18 (in the Greek appendix to the Book of Job [No Hebrew Parallel]).
338 Leemans, i., p. 77; on this Leemans, p. 133, remarks: “γράφειν: in contractu scribere”.
339 As to the date see below, subὄνομα. [↓] 340Notices, xviii. 2, p. 172.
341 P. Cauer, Delectus inscriptionum Graecarum propter dialectum memorabilium2, Leipzig, 1883, No. 457.
342 It is not in this pregnant sense that Plutarch uses γέγραπται, but simply as a formula of quotation; cf. J. F. Marcks, Symbola critica ad epistolographos Graecos, Bonn, 1883, p. 27. So also LXX Esth. 10:5.
343 Cf. LXX Deuteronomy 4:2, Deuteronomy 12:32 [MT Deuteronomy 4:2, Deuteronomy 12:32,], LXX Proverbs 30:6 [MT Proverbs 30:6], and later Revelation 22:18 f.
344 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.
345 Upon the revocation of a will cf. Meier-Schomann-Lipsius, ii., p. 597 f.
346 Cf. upon this E. Reuss, Die Geschichte der Heiligen Schriften Neuen Testaments6, Brunswick, 1887, § 303, p. 340, and Julicher, Einleitung in das N. T., p. 303.
347Novus Thesaurus, ii. (1820), p. 87.
350 A. Peyron, i. p. 56 ff. On this see Brunet de Presle, Notices, xviii. 2, p. 228, and Lumbroso, Recherches, p. 195.
351 As such frequent also in the London Papyri of the 2nd cent. B.C. ; cf. on these, Kenyon, p. 9. On the military signification of διάδοχος cf. Lumbroso, Recherches, p. 224 f.
352Cf., in regard to later usage, F. Krebs, Agyptische Priester unter romischer Herrschaft, in Zeitschr. fur agyptische Sprache and Alterthumskunde, xxxi. (1893), p. 37.
353Cf. E. Kautzsch, [Über] die Derivate des Stammesצדקalttestamentlichen Sprachgebrauch, Tubingen, 1881, p. 59.
354Cf. Kautzsch, p. 56 f., on the inadequacy of the German gerecht for the rendering of the Hebrew word.
355 LXX Deuteronomy 25:15 [MT Deuteronomy 25:15], ἀληθινόν.
356 Kautzsch, p. 57 ff. In Arabic the same word is used, according to Kautzsch, to describe, e.g., a lance or a date [the fruit] as correct.
357 Cremer7, p. 270 ( = 8, p. 284).
358 Letronne, Recueil, p. 467, cf. p. 468 f.; also Letronne, Recherches, p. 396 f., Lumbroso, Recherches, p. 290. Pliny, Nat. Hist. v. 58, speaks in the same way of the iustum incrementum, and Plutarch, de Isid. et Osirid., p. 368,says: ἡδὲμέσηἀνάβασιςπερὶΜέμφιν,ὅτανᾖδικαία,δεκατεσσάρωνπηχῶν.
359 Cf. also the Egyptian measure δικαιότατονμύστρον in F. Hultsch’s Griechische und romische Metroloyie2, Berlin, 1882, p. 636.
360 Winer-Lunemann, § 31, 5 (p. 200).
362 Theodotion (ver. 3) translates the same passage thus: καὶἐδαπανῶντοεἰςαὐτὸν [Bel] σεμιδάλεωςἀρτάβαιδώδεκα (Libri apocrypha V. T. graece, ed. 0. F. Fritzsche, p. 87).
363 Cf. the author’s work Die neutest. Formel “in Christo Jesu,” p. 55 f.
364 Mahaffy, ii. [72] 365 Mahaffy, iii., [72].
366Notices, xviii. 2, p. 131.—The same words are found in Pap. Lugd. M. (Leemans, p. 59); Leemans, p. 63, explains εἰς as a periphrasis for the genitive similarly W. Schmid, Der Atticismus, iii. (1893), p. 91. One should notice in this latter work the other observations upon the prepositions—they are of importance for biblical philology.
367 Winer-Lunemann, § 65, 3 (p. 563); Schmiedel, HC., ii. 1 (1891) p. 143.
369Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachgebrauchs, p. 157.
371 The ἐντῇῥάβδῳ, which should possibly be restored as the original reading in line 12 of the leaden tablet of Adrumetum to be discussed in Art. IV., might be explained as a reminiscence of these LXX passages, in view of its association with the many other quotations from the LXX found there.—In the passage in Lucian, Dial. Mort. 23 3, καθικόμενονἐντῇῥάβδῳ the ἐν is regarded as doubtful (Winer-Lunemann, p. 364).
372 Cf. on this point Lumbroso, Recherches, p. 136 f.
375 The word does not occur in the LXX. In 2Ma 4:8, ἔντευξις signifies conference.
377Cf. the indexes of Leemans, of the Notices, xviii. 2, of Mahaffy and Kenyon.
379a In addition to Wisdom 8:21, a later testimony, Pap. Berol. 7351 (BU. viii., p. 244, No. 24613) 2-3 cent. A.D. εἰδότεςὅτινυκτὸςκαὶἡμέραςἐντυγχάνωτῷθεῷ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, is significant in regard to the use of this word in religious speech. (Romans 8:27, Romans 8:34, Romans 11:2, Hebrews 7:21, Clem. Rom. 1 Cor. 56꞉1.
379b A. Peyron, p. 102; Lumbroso, Recherches, p. 254; Mahaffy, ii., p. 28.
380 Mahaffy, ii. [6], cf. p. 6.
381 Hieron. de vir. inl. 61; cf. P. D. Huetii, Origenianorum, i. 8 (Lomm. xxii., p. 38 f.).
382 Upon the usage of the word in ecclesiastical Greek and Latin, cf. the Greek and Latin Glossaries of Du Cange. The ἅπαξλεγόμενονἐργοπαρέκτης of Clem. Rom. 1 Cor. 34꞉1 seems to be allied.
383 Cod. A reads ἱλάτου (thus the ιλαστου of the second hand should perhaps be restored).
384 Mahaffy, ii. [45]. The word refers to the king.
385 Cf. Clavis3, p. 184, in the concluding note, and G. Heinrici, Meyer vi. ; (1890), p. 25.
386 Mahaffy, ii., [41.] 387 Mahafly, ii. [4], p. 30.
389 Winer-Schmiedel notes the “unambiguous” ones, § 8, 13 (p. 85).
390 References in Guil. Schmidt, De Flavii Iosephi elocutione, Fleck. (Jbb. Suppl. xx. (1894), p. 369. Specially important are the many examples given there from Josephus, in whose writings a similar use of οἰκεῖος is also shown.—A more out-of-the-way example of this worn-out οἰκεῖος may be mentioned here. In the second (spurious) Prologue to Jesus Sirach, near the middle, it is said: (τὴνβίβλον) Σιράχοὗτοςμετ’αὐτὸνπάλινλαβώντῷοἰκείῳπαιδὶκατέλιπενἸησοῦ (Libri apocr. V. T. ed. 0. F. Fritzsche, p. 388). 0. F. Fritzsche assigns this Prologue to the 4th-5th cent. A.D., HApA T. v. (1859), p. 7; in his edition of 1871, ad loc., he seems to agree with K. A. Credner, who dates it cent. 9-10.
391 K. Meisterhans, Grammatik der attischen Inschriften2, Berlin, 1888, p. 194.
392 Genuine examples are readily found in all of these except Revelation, in which ἴδιος does not occur at all. The reason of this is not, of course, that they all wrote “New Testament” Greek, but that they wrote at a time when the force of ἴδιος had been long exhausted. The Latin translations, in their frequent use of the simple suus (A. Buttmann, p. 102, note), manifest a true understanding of the case.
393 § 22, 7 (p. 145 f.). Here we read: “no example can be adduced from the Greeks”; reference is made only to the Byzantine use of οἰκεῖος and the late-Latin proprius =suus or ejus. A. Buttmann, p. 102 f., expresses himself more accurately.
394ἐπίθεμα is wanting in Cod. 58 only; in Codd. 19, 30, etc., it stands before ἱλαστήριον. A second hand makes a note to ἱλαστήριον in the margin of Cod. vii. (an Ambrosianus of cent. 5,—Field, p. 5), viz., σκέπασμα (covering), (Field, i., p. 124). Cremer7, p. 447 ( = 8, p. 475), following Tromm, quotes also LXX Exodus 37:6 [≈ MT Exodus 26:37] for kappōreth, = ἱλαστήριονἐπίθεμα. But the Complutensian alone has it there—not the manuscripts.
395 The Concordance of Hatch and Redpath is therefore inaccurate in affirming, sub ἐπίθεμα, that this word has no corresponding Hebrew in Exodus 25:16 [17], and also in quoting this passage sub ἱλαστήριον instead of subἱλαστήριος.
396 This is also the opinion of Philo, cf. p. 128 below. [↓]
397 Against Cremer7, p. 447 ( = 8, p. 475), who has no hesitation in identifying ἱλαστήριον with kapporeth. His taking ἱλαστήριον as a substantive in this passage would have better support if the word stood after ἐπίθεμα; it could then be construed as in apposition to ἐπίθεμα. The passage he quotes, LXX Exodus 30:25 [MT Exodus 30:25 [not 35] is not to the purpose, for, at the end of the verse, ἔλαιονχρῖσμαἅγιον ἔσται should be translated the (previously mentioned) oilshall be aχρῖσμαἅγιον ἔσται, and, at the beginning of the verse, χρῖσμαἅγιον appears to be in apposition to ἔλαιον. If Cremer takes ἱλαστήριον as a substantive = propitiatory cover, then he could only translate LXX Exodus 25:16 [MT Exodus 25:17]by and thou shalt make a propitiatory cover as a cover of pure gold, which the original does not say.
398 The apparent equation ἱλαστήριον = kappōreth is found only in Exo., Lev., Num.
399 The present writer cannot understand how Cremer,7, p. 447 (= 8, p. 475), inverting the facts of the case, can maintain that ἱλαστήριονἐπίθεμα is an expansion of the simple ἱλαστήριον= kappōreth. This is exactly the same as if one should explain the expression symbolum apostolicum as an “expansion” of the simple apostolicum, which we do in fact use for Apostolic Symbol. But, besides, it would be very strange if the LXX had expanded an expression before they had used it at all! No one can dispute that ἱλαστήριονἐπίθεμα is their earliest rendering of kappōreth. Then it must also be conceded that the simple ἱλαστήριον is an abbreviation. We have in this a case similar to that of the breviloquence Jobel and of ἄφκεσις (cf. p. 100 above.) [↑] 400 This fact is almost always overlooked in the commentaries.
401 In the same way they probably read in Amos 9:1כַּפֹּרֶת instead of כַּפְתֹּר, capital of a column, and translated ἱλαστήριον, unless the θυσιαστήριον of Cod. A and others (Field, ii., p. 979) should be the original; cf. the same variant to ἱλαστήριον in LXX Exodus 37:6 [≈ MT Exodus 26:37] (in Field, i., p. 152) and LXX Leviticus 16:14 [MT Leviticus 16:14].
402 Hardly any one would maintain in regard to this that ἐξιλασμός in the LXX “means” kappōreth.
403 Had the Greek translators understood the construction here, they ought certainly to have written καὶἐπὶτὰςτέσσαραςγωνίαςτοῦἱεροῦτοῦθυσιαστηρίου.
404 Cremer p. 447 ( = 8, p. 475).
405 It is to be doubted whether the Hebrew concept kappōreth was present to the mind of the writer at all: in any case it is wrong to assume forthwith that he consciously described kappōreth as ἱλαστήριον. It is exactly the same as if one were to assert that wherever the word Gnadenstuhl (mercy-seat) occurs in the biblical quotations of German devotional books, the original being kappōreth, the writers describe the kappōreth as Gnadenstuhl. In most cases the writers will be simply dependent upon Luther, and their usage of the word Gnadenstuhl furnishes nothing towards deciding the question how they understood kappōreth. Cf. p. 134 1.—Similarly, Hebrews 9:5 is an allusion to LXX Exodus 25:20 [MT Exodus 25:21]; what was said about the passage in Philo holds good here.
406 Cremer7, p. 447 ( = 8, p. 475).
407 Field, i., p. 23 f. The present writer agrees with Field in this matter, and believes that Symmachus desired by this rendering to describe the Ark as a means of propitiation: God was gracious to such as took refuge in the Ark.
408 Cremer 8, p. 474, joins ἱλαστήριον with μνῆμα and therefore construes ἱλαστήριον adjectivally—as did the present writer in the German edition of this book, pp. 122 and 127—which is not impossible, but improbable. See note 2 on p. 127 of the German edition.
409 Cremer 7, p. 448 ( = 8, p. 475).
410 The absence of the article is more important than Cremer supposes; if “the” kappōreth, “the” ἱλαστήριον, was something so well known to the readers as Cremer asserts, then it would be exactly a case where the article could stand with the predicate (contra E. Kuhl, Die Heilsbedeutung des Todes Christi, Berlin, 1890, p. 25 f.).
411Winer-Schmiedel, § 16, 2b, note 16 (p. 134) refers only to the Byzantine Theophanes Continuatus.
412 Meyer, iv.8 (1891), p. 164 f. and elsewhere.
413 This ἱλαστήριον should not be described as a sacrifice.
414 W. R. Paton and E. L. Hicks, The Inscriptions of Cos, Oxford, 1891, p. 126.
414b For this expression see below, subυἱὸςθεοῦ. [↓] 415 The editors, p. 109, number it among the Inscriptions on votive offerings and statues.
416 Paton and Hicks, p. 225 f.
417 Cremer7, p. 448 (=8, p. 476).
418 By the time of Paul the ceremony in which the kappōreth 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.
419Die christliche Lehre von der Rechtfertigung and Versohnung dargestellt, ii. 3, Bonn, 1889, p. 171.
420Cf. A. Ritschl, p. 168; the opinions advanced there have urgent need of correction.
421 The quotation is from [C. J. Bottcher] Liederlust fur Zionspilger, 2nd edition, Leipzig, 1869, p. 283.
422I.e., literally: My father, look upon Jesus, the sinner’s throne of grace! Tr.
423 Luther undoubtedly took this nuance from Hebrews 4:16, where the θρόνοςτῆςχάριτος is spoken of: this also he translates by Gnadenstuhl.
424Recherches, p. 109, note 7.
425 O. F. Fritzsche HApAT. i. (1851), p. 32, in reference to this passage. Thus also the Greek lexica.
426 In LXX Joshua 5:12 [MT Joshua 5:12] we should most probably read ἐκαρπίσαντο.
427 Schleusner explains καρπόω = aufero by καρπόω = decerpo, but it is only the middle voice which occurs in this sense.
428Zu den griechischen Sacralalterthumern, Hermes, xxvii. (1892), pp. 161 ff.
429 The passages he brings forward, in which the meaning, at least, of tosacrifice for καρπόω is implied, may be extended by the translation sacrificiumoffero given by the Itala, as also by the note “καρπῶσαι,θυσιάσαι” in the MS. glossary (?) cited by Schleusner. Schleusner also gives references to the ecclesiastical literature.
430 He counts also LXX Deuteronomy 26:14 [MT Deuteronomy 26:14] among the LXX passages in this connection, but it is the non-ceremonial sense of to burn which καρπόω has there.
431 This of course does not “properly” signify to offer a sacrifice which consists wholly of fruits (Grimm, HApAT. iv. [1857], p. 366), but to burn completely.
433 For the orthography cf. Winer-Schmiedel, § 5, 7 g (p. 36).
434 In the non-Johannine passage about the adulteress.
435 A. Buttmann, p. 26 f., Winer-Lunemann, § 37, 3 (p. 234).
436 The Concordance of Hatch and Redpath puts, very strangely, a point of interrogation to καθ’. Holmes and Parsons (Oxf. 1798) read “καὶuncisinclus.” for καθ’. But the facsimile (ed. H. H. Baber, London, 1816) shows ΚΑΤ’ quite distinctly.
438 In 0. F. Fritzsche, Libraapocrypha V. T. graece, 4Ma. 4:26, 5:2, 8:5, 8, 13:13 (in which the connected verb stands in the plural), 4Ma. 13:17, 14:12, 15:5 (καθ’ἕναἕκαστον —according to AB, which codices should not be confused with the similarly designated biblical MSS.; cf. Praefatio, p. xxi.), 4Ma. 15:16, 16:24.
439 The author cannot of course assume the responsibility of guaranteeing this.
440 Nor does it occur in the Epistle to the Hebrews. If we could assign 4 Maccabees to an Alexandrian writer, we should have the first example of it in that book.
441Hence also the frequent corrections in Mark 14:19 and John 8:9.
442 Cf. also LXX 2Es 6:20 [MT Ezra 6:20] ἕωςεἷςπάντες, which indeed is perhaps a Hebraism, and LXX 1 Chronicles 5:10 [MT 1 Chronicles 5:10], Cod. A [N.B.] ἕωςπάντες (Field, i., p. 708).
445 Cremer 7, p. 560 ( = 8, p. 592). But before this there had been noted in the Thesaurus Graecae Linguae, Diod. Sic. i. 21, τὸτρίτονμέροςτῆςχώραςαὐτοῖςδοῦναιπρὸςτὰςτῶνθεῶνθεραπείαςτεκαὶλειτουργίας.
446Cf. upon this H. Weingarten, Der Ursprung des Monchtums, ZKG. i. (1877), p. 30 ff., and R-E 2, x. (1882), p. 780 ff.
457 Wessely, Die griechischen Papyri Sachsens, Berichte uber die Verhandlungen der Sgl. Sachs. Gesellsch. der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, philo 1.-histor. Classe, xxxvii. (1885), p. 281.
459Notices, xviii. 2, pp. 137 and 143.
463 A Berlin Papyrus of date 134 B.C. (Ph. Buttmann, AAB. 1824, hist.-phil. Klasse, p. 92) uses λειτουργία for the duties of the funeral society mentioned below under λογεία. Similarly in Pap. Land. iii., 146 or 135 B.C. (Kenyon, pp. 46, 47). But it is doubtful whether such duties were of a ceremonial character.—Further examples of λειτουργεῖν in the religious sense, from the, Inscriptions, in H. Anz, Subsidia ad cognoscendum Graecorumsermonem vulgarem e Pentateuchi versione Alexandrina repetita, Dissertationes Philologicae Halenses, vol. xii., Halle, 1894, p. 346.
464 Cremer 7, p. 562 ( = 8, p. 595).
466 Tromm and Cremer also give LXX Exodus 39:23 [MT Exodus 39:43]; probably they intend LXX Exodus 39:18[MT Exodus 39:41], where the word is found only in Cod. 72 and the Complutensian in regard to the confused state of the text, cf. Field, i., p. 160.
467 Erkleirung einer Agyptischen Urkunde in Griechischer Cursivschrift vom Jahre 104 vor der Christlichen Zeitrechnung, AAB. 1820-21 (Berlin, 1822), hist.-phil. Klasse, p. 4.
469 Mahaffy, i. [59] ; cf. [60].
470 Th. Ch, Edwards, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, London, 1885, p. 462, even maintains that Paul coined the word.
472 Pap. Taur. i., 2nd cent. B.C. (A. Peyron, p. 24). For the name brother, cf. p. 87 f. above [↑]; νεκρία A. Peyron, i., p. 77, takes to be res mortuaria. For these guilds in general, cf., most recently, Kenyon, p. 44 f.
474Notices, xviii. 2, pp. 143, 147.
477 This Papyrus, it is true, is not dated, but is “a fine specimen of Ptolemaic writing” (Mahaffy, ii. [127].), 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.
478 Winer-Schmiedel, § 16, 2a (p. 134).
481 Ph. Buttmann, AAB., 1824, hist.-phil. Kl., p. 92, and, on this, p. 99.
483 Issued by Mahaffy, p. 43, undated.
486 The author has subsequently seen that L. Dindorf, in the Thesaurus Graecae Linguae, v. (1842-1846), col. 348, had already noted XoyEia in the London Papyrus (as in the older issue by J. Forshall, 1539). He certainly treats λογία and λογεία in separate articles, but identifies the two words and decides for the form λογεία.
487 For the εἰς following λογεία cf. p. 117 f. above. [↑]
488 Kenyon, p. 46. Also in line 17 of the same Papyrus, λειτουργιων should doubtless be read instead of λειτουργων. Cf. also line 42 and Pap. Par. 5 (Notices, xviii. 2, top of p. 143).
490 Winer-Schmiedel, § 11, 4 (p. 97).
492 B. Weiss, Meyer i. 27 (1885), p. 231.
497 It is true that the edition is stereotyped, but the plates were corrected at certain places before each reprint.
498 Cf. Schleusner, Nov. Thes. s. v.
499 Thus also Tischendorf6 (1880), and Swete (1894).
500 Passages in Cremer7 p. 676 f. ( = 8, p. 710).
506 The synonymous phrase ἔντευξινἀποδιδόναι (or ἐπιδιδόναι) τῷβασιλεῖ occurs frequently in the Papyri of the 2nd cent. B.C. (Kenyon, 9, 41 and 10, 11, 17, 28).
507It is undated, but an approximate point is afforded by its affinity with long series of similar decrees from Mylasa (Waddington, iii. 2, Nos. 403-415), of which No. 409 must have been written not long after 76 B.C. The date given above seems to the author to be too late rather than too early.
508 The very same formula is found in the Inscription CIG. ii. No. 2694 b, which also comes from Mylasa, and in which, as also in CIG. ii. No. 2693 e, Boeckh’s reading τοῖςκτημάτωνδὶςεἰςτὸτοῦθεοῦὄνομα is to be corrected by that of Waddington.
509 In connection with No. 338, p. 104.
510 Cremer7, p. 678 ( = 8, p. 712).
518 Examples in Guil. Schmidt, De Flav. Ios. eloc. Fleck. Job. Suppl. xx. (1894), pp. 511, 531.
523Cf. also Pap. Lond. cxxxi., 78-79 A.D. (Kenyon, p. 172).
524 The Mishna still uses פַּרְדֵּס only for park in the natural sense (Schurer, p. 464, = 3, p. 553) [Eng. Trans., ii., p. 183 note 88].
525Cf. G. Heinrici, Das zweite Sendschreiben des Apostel Paulus an die Korin thier erklart, Berlin, 1887, p. 494.
530 Upon Jews in the Fayytun cf. Mahaffy, p. 43 f., [14].
531Ἀπολλώνιος is a sort of translation of the name Ἰωνάθας.
532 Mahaffy, ii. [45]. The word is frequently to be found in Inscriptions; references, e.g., in Letronne, Recueil, p. 340; Dittenberger, Sylloge Nos. 246 30 and 267 5.
533 Particulars in Guil. Schmidt, De Flav. Ios. eloc., Fleck. Jbb. Suppl. xx. (1894), p. 511 f. Reference there also to CIG. ii., No. 2297.
534De dialecto Macedonica et Alexandrina, p. 110 f.
535Cf. p. 140 above. [↑] 536Cf. Lumbroso, Recherches, p. 266 f 537Notices, xviii. 2, p. 207.
541Cf. Brunet de Presle, Notices, xviii. 2, p. 297, and Lumbroso, Recherches, p. 266.
542 Field, i., pp. 712, 767, It is these which De Lagarde uses to determine the Lucianus: his accentuation of LXX 1 Chronicles 9:26 [MT 1 Chronicles 9:26], παστοφοριῶν, is not correct.
543 Better reading than in Mahaffy, i. [37]; see Mahaffy, p. 22.
544 The Papyrus reads ενωιδα ; that is also the Attic orthography—found in a large number of Inscriptions from 398 B.C. onwards, Meisterhans2, pp. 51, 61.
548 W. Jerusalem, Die Inschrift von Sestos and Polybios, Wiener Studien. i. (1879), p. 34; cf. p. 50 f., where the references from Polybius are also given.
549The author does not clearly understand the relation of this translation to the (corrupt) original.
550 If the original should not be derived from מלל; cf. Job 14:2 where the LXX Job 14:2 translate ἐκπίπτω.
551Cf. Lev. [not Luc. as in Cremer 7, p. 886 (= 8, p. 931)] Leviticus 19:23.
552 Cornill, Das Buch des Propheten Ezechiel, p. 258.
553 Which would be translated they bound.
554 For this Codex cf. Cornill, p. 15.
556 The reading οὐκ ᾔδεισαν, which is given in two late minuscules, and from which Cornill makes the emendation οὐκᾔδεισας (as a 2nd person singular imperfect founded on a false analogy) as being the original reading of the LXX, appears to the author to be a correction of the unintelligible ἔδησαν which was made in the Greek text itself, without reference to the original at all.
557 Field, ii., p. 803, where a general discussion is given of the materials which follow here.
558 Should have been circumcisus, if Jerome was presupposing περιετμήθη.
559 Cremer7, p. 886 (= 8, p. 931). The remark is evidently traceable to the misleading reference of Tromm.
560 Similarly περιτομή, occurring only in LXX Genesis 17:12 [MT Genesis 17:12] and LXX Exodus 4:26 [MT Exodus 4:26]. In LXX Jeremiah 11:16 [MT Jeremiah 11:16 it has crept in through a misunderstanding of the text; cf. Cremer7, p. 887 (= 8, p. 932).
561 J. Benzinger, Hebraische Archaologie, Freiburg and Leipzig, 1894, p. 154.
562 The author does not know how the Greek Egyptians came to use the compound with περί. Did the corresponding Egyptian word suggest it to them? Or did the anatomical process suggest it to them independently?
564BU. xi., p. 337 f., No. 347.
565 Cremer7, p. 887 (=8, p. 932).
566 And circumcision as σημεῖον: cf., in reference to this, LXX Genesis 17:11 [MT Genesis 17:11] and Romans 4:11.
567 F. Krebs, Philologus, liii. (1894), p. 586, interprets ἄσημος differently, viz., free from bodily marks owing to the presence of which circumcision was forborne.
568 Winer-Schmiedet, § 9, 6 (p. 88).
570 Guil. Schmidt, De Flav. Ios. eloc., Fleck. Jbb. Suppl. xx. (1894), p. 498.
573 On the πράκτορες in Athens, cf. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Aristoteles and Athen, i., Berlin, 1893, p. 196.
576 Further details in E. Revillout, Le Papyrus grec 13 de Turin in the Revue egyptologique, ii. (1881-1882), p. 140 f.
579 Leemans, i., foot of p. 3.
582CIG. iii., No. 4717: on this, as on the title πρεσβύτεροι in general, cf. Lumbroso, Recherches, p. 259.
584 U. Wilcken, Observationes ad historiam Aegypti provinciae Romanae depromptae e papyris Graecis Berolinensibus ineditis, Berlin, 1885, p. 29 f.
585 Schürer, ii., p. 132 ff. (= 3ii., p. 176 ff.). [Eng. Trans., ii., p. 150 f.] 586 Schürer, ii., p. 144 ff. (= 3 ii., p. 189 ff.). [Eng. Trans., ii., p. 165 ff.]
587Cf. the use of the word πρεσβύτεροι in the Apocrypha and in Josephus.
588 In any case it is not correct to contrast, as does Cremer7, p. 816 8, p. 858), the word ἐπίσκοπος, as the “Greek-coloured designation,” with the term πρεσβύτεροι (almost certainly of Jewish colouring). The word was a technical term in Egypt before the Jews began to speak of πρεσβύτεροι, and it is similarly to be found in the Greek usage of the imperial period in the most diverse localities of Asia Minor.
589 This reference to the πρεσβύτεροι of Asia Minor has of course a purely philological purpose. The author does not wish to touch upon the question regarding the nature of the presbyterial “Office”. It may have been developed quite apart from the name—whatever the origin of that may have been.
590 Both Inscriptions are contemporary with No. 2214, which is to be assigned to the 1st cent. B.C.
591 Possibly, with Paton and Hicks, p. 148, to be assigned, more exactly, to the time of Claudius.
592Cf. the data of Schurer, p. 147 f., note 461. [Eng. Trans. ii., i., p. 169, note 461.] 593 0. Benndorf and G. Niemann, Reisen in Lykien and Karien, Vienna, 1884, p. 72.
594 Lumbroso, Recherches, p. 280 ; the Papyrus passage—certainly not fully legible—in Notices, xviii. 2, p. 347. Lumbroso defends his reading in Recherches, p. 23, note 1.
597 Mahaffy, i. [43]. The passage is mutilated.
598 Mahaffy, ii. [113]. In this an οἰκονόμος submits an account of his house-keeping. The present writer thinks that the σιτομετρια which occurs in this account should be taken as the plural of σιτομέτριον, and not as a singular, σιτομετρία. The passage is mutilated.
599 Edited by De Lagarde, Librorum V. T. canonicorurn pars prior graece, Gottingen, 1883.
600 The simple φύλακος of our LXX text is marked with an astertscus by Origen, Field, i., p. 516.
602 Mahaffy, ii. [16]. On σκευοφυλάκιονcf. Suidas.
603Winer-Schmiedel, § 5, 27 e (p. 60).
607 In the LXX this passage is wanting ; Aquila translates στήλωσις ; Theodotion, στήλωμα (Field, ii., p. 442.).
608Novus Thesaurus, v. (1821), p. 91.
609 Cf. the German Stand for market-stall. [Also the English stand = support, grand-stand; etc.—Tr.] 610 Mahaffy, ii. [51].
613Recherches, p. 189 f. Also the Inscription of Delos (3rd cent. B.C.), Bull. de corr. hell. iii. (1879), p. 470, comes into consideration for Egypt: the Χρύσερμος there named is συγγενὴςβασιλέωςΠτολεμαίου.
616 Ch. A. Lobeck ad Phryn. (Leipzig, 1820), p. 378.
617Cf. the old scholium to the passage, σώματατοὺςδούλουςἴσωςλέγει (Field, i., p. 52).
622 In this passage the interpretation ass is not in any way necessary; the she-ass of Balaam, which is called ἡὄνος in the LXX, might quite well be designated there by the general term beast of burden.
625 It should be stated that Mahaffy sets a? to βους.
628Gramm. des mutest. Sprachgebrauchs, p. 141.
629 § 34, 3b, note 2 (p. 223 f.).
631 7th edition, p. 907 = 8, p. 956.
632 The solemn expression υἱός or τέκναθεοῦ has, of course, no connection with this, as it forms the correlative to θεὸςπατήρ.
633 One dare hardly say, with respect to this passage, that “Matthew” “quotes” from the original Hebrew text; the present writer conjectures that “Matthew,” or whoever wrote this Greek verse, translated its Hebrew original, which, already a quotation, had come to him from Semitic tradition. The Old Testament quotations of “Matthew” agree, in most passages, with the LXX: wherever the Semitic tradition contained words from the Hebrew Bible, the Greek translator just used the Greek Bible in his work, i.e., of course, only when he succeeded in finding the passages there. The tradition gave him, in Matthew 21:5, a free combination of Zechariah 9:9 and Isaiah 62:11 as a word of “the Prophet”: he could not identify it and so translated it for himself, a similar case is Matthew 13:35; here the tradition gave him, as a word of “the Prophet Isaiah,” a saying which occurs in Psalms 78:2, not in Isaiah at all; but as he could not find the passage, ἡρμήνευσεδ’αὐτὰὡςἦνδυνατός. Similarly, in Mark 1:2 f., a combination of Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3 is handed down as a word of “the Prophet Isaiah”: only the second half was found in Isaiah and therefore it is quoted from the LXX; the first half, however, which the Greek Christian translator could not find, was translated independently, and, in the form in which it occurs in Matthew 11:10 and Luke 7:27, it is taken over as an anonymous biblical saying. — In all these passages we have to do with biblical sayings which do not form part of the discourses of Jesus or of His friends or opponents, and which therefore do not belong to the earliest material of the pre-Synoptic Gospel tradition. But the peculiar character of the quotations just discussed, which the author cannot interpret in any other way, requires us to postulate that a sort of “synthetic text” (verbindender Text ), and, in particular, the application of certain definite O.T. words to Christ, had been added, at a very early period, to this primitive Semitic tradition; here and there in the Gospels we can still see, as above, the method by which they were rendered into Greek.
634 See further p. 307 f. below. [↓] 635 These might be added to.
636 The translator of the same combination in Matthew 21:5 has scrupulously imitated the original by his υἱὸς ὑποζυγίου.
637 Thus the unanimous tradition of all the Codices except 239 and, the Syro-Hexaplar (Field, ii., p. 754) which read υἱοὶφαρέτρας, an emendation prompted by the Hebrew text.
638 The author does not know in what proportion these cases are distributed among the several books of the LXX, or to what degree the special method of the particular translator influenced the matter.
639 The genus “Hebraisms” must be divided into two species, thus: “Hebraisms of translation,” and “ordinary Hebraisms”.
640 These are the passages given by Cremer 7, pp. 907 and 901 ( = 8, pp. 956 and 950) with the references corrected.
641 In the passage 2 Samuel 2:7, cited by Cremer for υἱὸςθανάτου, stands υἱοὺςδυνατούς. Probably 2 Samuel 12:5 is meant.
642 LXX Psa. 88꞉23 [MT Psalms 89:23] υἱὸςἀνομίας, and 1Ma 2:47υἱὸςτῆς ὑπερηφανίας may be added to these.
643 The references to this in the Clavis3, p. 429, at the end of the article τέκνον, are not accurate.
644 Particulars in Waddington, iii. 2, p. 26.
645 On this cf. also Paton and Hicks, The Inscriptions of Cos, p. 125 f. υἱὸςγερουσίας is also found in these, Nos. 95-97.
647Particular references are unnecessary. The author would name only the Inscription of Tarsus, interesting to us by reason of its place of origin, Waddington, iii. 2, No. 1476 (p. 348), also in honour of Augustus : — ΑὐτοκράτοραΚαί]σαραθεοῦυἱὸνΣεβαστὸνὁδῆμ]οςὁΤαρσέων. Perhaps the young Paul may have seen here the expression Son of God for the first time—long before it came to him with another meaning.
648 It may be just indicated here that the history of the terms used by Christians of the earlier time teaches us that other solemn expressions of the language of the imperial period were transferred to Christ.
649Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, i.2, Freiburg, 1888, pp. 103,159. [Eng. Trans., i., pp. 116 f., 179 f.]
650 Jacob, ZAW. x., p. 283. The examples in the Papyri and the Inscriptions are exceedingly numerous. Cf., in addition to the literature instanced by Jacob, Letronne, Rech., p. 58, A. Peyron, p. 56, Grimm, HApAT. iii. (1853), p. 38, Letronne, Notices, xviii. 2, p. 165, Bernays, Die heraklitischenBriefe, p. 20, Lumbroso, Rech., pp. 191 ff., 228.
651 The expression φίλοςτοῦΚαισαρος, John 19:12, is doubtless to be understood in the light of Roman usage; but, again, amicus Caesaris is most likely dependent upon the court speech of the Diadochi.
652 Cf. James 2:23, Clem. Rom.1 Corinthians 10:1, 17׃2.
653 The expression Gottesfreund (friend of God), again, used by the German mystics, is certainly dependent on the biblical passages, but they use it in a sense different from that mentioned in the text.
654 The designation of Abraham in particular (the standard personality of Judaism and of earlier Christianity) as the φίλοςθεοῦ accords with the position of honour which he had in Heaven.
655 W. Beyschlag, Meyer, xv. 5 (1888), p. 144.
656 Grimm, HApAT. vi. (1860), p. 145.
657I.e. the foregoing article. The present article was published later by itself.
659 This again refers to a previous remark in which Blass had “willingly conceded” to the author his “general, and not always short, reflections”.
660 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.
661 Blass writes denkbar, conceivable, but the sentence in that case seems to defy analysis. After consultation with the author, the translator has substituted dankbar, and rendered as above.—Tr.
662 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”.
663 Gottingen, 1896. [Eng. Trans., London, 1698.] 664 In the note to this Blass refers to the author’s Bibelstudien, p. 57 f. above, p. 63 f. [↑]).
665 Wilke Clavis Novi Testamenti Philologica, Leipzig, 1879.
666 Wilke Clavis Novi Testamenti Philologica, Leipzig, 1888 [quoted in this article as Clavis3].
667 The author quotes the Corrected Edition, New York, 1896.
669 Those parts of the N.T. which go back to translations must be considered by themselves.
670On the other hand, the Greek Bible contains much, of course, which may promote the understanding of the Inscriptions and Papyri.
671 No intelligent reader will blame the author for having, in his investigations 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.
672 Above, pp. 161-169 [↑]; cf. also GGA. 1896, pp. 761-769: and ThLZ. xxi. (1896), pp. 609-615, and the other papers cited above, p. 84. [↑]
673Altertumer von Pergamon herausgegeben im Auftrage des Koniglich Preussischen Ministers der geistlichen, Unterrichts- und Medicinal-Angelegenheiten, Band viii.; Die Inschrif ten von Pergamon unter Mitwirkung von Ernst Fabricius und Carl Schuchhardt herausgegeben von Max Frankel, (1) Bis zum Ende der SOnigszeit, Berlin, 1890, (2) Romische Zeit.—Inschriften auf Thon, Berlin, 1895 [subsequently cited as Perg. or Frankel].
674Inscriptiones Graecae insularum Maris Aegaei consilio et auctoritate Academiae Litterarum Regiae Borussicae editae. Fasciculus primus Inscriptiones Graecae insularum Rhodi Chalces Carpathi cum Saro Casi . . . edidit Fridericus Hiller de Gaertringen, Berolini, 1895 [subsequently cited as IMAe.].
675Aegyptische Urkunden aus den Etiniglichen Museen zu Berlin herausgegeben von der Generalverwaltung: Griechische Urkunden. Erster Band, Berlin, [completed] 1895; Zweiter Band, Heft 1-9, Berlin, 1894 ff. [subsequently cited as B U.].
676Corpus Papyrorum Raineri Archiducis Austriae, vol. i. Griechische Texte herausgegeben von Carl Wessely, i. Band : Rechtsurkunden unter Mitwirkung von Ludwig Mitteis, Vienna, 1895 [subsequently cited as PER.].
677 We need only think of the importance of Pergamus for the earlier period of Christianity.
678 See below, subκαθαρίζω, βιάζομαι, ἱλάσκομαι. [↑] 679 See above, p. 81. [↑] W. Schmid makes some pertinent remarks in GGA. 1895, p. 36 f.
680 Cremer 8, p. xiii. (Preface to the 4th edition).
681 Winer-Schmiedel, § 5, 13 c (p. 44) ; Blass, Grammatik, p. 9 [Eng. Trans., p. 8].
682 Winer-Schmiedel, § 5, 20 c (p. 50) ; Blass, Grammatik, p. 21 [Eng. Trans., p. 20 f.].
683 “Delm. as well as Dalm. occurs also in Latin” (Blass, Gramm., p. 21. [Eng. Trans., p. 21.] P. Jürges has called the author’s attention also to the excursus CIL. iii. 1, p. 280.
684 Winer-Schmiedel, § 5, 23 b (p. 53 f.) ; Blass, Gramm., p. 23 [Eng, Trans., p. 23]. “πεῖν = πίνειν”. In connection with this and with other details W. Schmid, GGA. 1895, pp. 26-47, has already called attention to the Papyri.
685 All the Papyri cited here are from the Fayyûm.
686 F. Krebs, the editor of this document, erroneously remarks on p. 46.
687 This passage is also referred to by Blass, Gramm., p. 11. [Eng. Trans., p. 10, note 4.]
688 Blass similarly asserts, Gramm., p. 11 [Eng. Trans., p. 10], that the duplication is “established” in the Semitic form.
689 The matter is still more evident in proper names. For example, Ἀρέθας, as the name of Nabataean kings, is undoubtedly “established” by etymological considerations; on the other hand, the Inscriptions and other ancient evidence, so far as the author knows, all give Ἀρέτας, and thus Ἀρέτα in 2 Corinthians 11:32 may be considered “established” without the slightest misgiving. It is exceedingly probable (according to the excellent conjecture of Scharer, Gesch. d. jud. Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, i., Leipzig, 1890, p. 619 [Eng. Trans., i., p. 359]) that this spelling was influenced by the desire to Hellenise the barbaric name by assimilation to ἀρετή.—Moreover, also Blass, Gramm., p. 11 [Eng. Trans., p. 11], takes this view in regard to Ἰωάνης.
690 Cf. the case of ἀλαβών for ἀραβών, as above, with the well-known ἀλαβάρχης for ἀραβάρχης.
691 Above, p. 109 f. [↑]; cf. Blass, Gramm., p. 11 [Eng. Trans., p. 11].
692 The author has not found the spelling with vv anywhere in the Papyri.
693 Winer-Schmiedel, § 5, 26 a (p. 56).
694 The problem of orthography became later a point of controversy in the History of Dogma; cf. A. Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dogrnengeschichte, 3, Freiburg and Leipzig, 1894, p. 191 f. [Eng. Trans., iv., p. 12 ff.] *Bel = Bel and the Dragon, a.k.a. Daniel 14.
696 Cf. Winer-Schmiedel, § 5, 27 d (p. 59); Blass, Gramm., p. 10. [Eng. Trans., p. 10.]
697Cf. also BU. 69 s (Fayydm, 120 A.D.) νομίζματος.3 Above, p. 158. [↑] 698 Examples of this abbreviation from the Inscriptions are given by Frankel, p. 341.
699 Winer-Schmiedel, § 8, 1 (p. 80 f.); Blass, Gramm., p. 25 [Eng. Trans., p. 25], gives other examples from the Papyri.
700 Winer-Schmiedel, § 9, 6 (p. 87); Blass, Gramm., p. 27 [Eng. Trans., p. 27].
701 Winer-Schmiedel, § 9, 6 (p. 87), note 4; here we already find the Papyrus, Notices, xviii. 2, 230 (154 A.D.), cited in reference to the form.
702 Winer-Schmiedel, § 9, 11 (p. 90).
703 Exhaustiveness is not guaranteed: it was only lately that the author directed his attention to the point. In particular, he has no general idea as to the usage of the common forms in the Papyri.
704 Cf. Tischendorf on Romans 16:3 and Acts 18:2.
705 Cf. A. Meyer, Jesu Muttersprache, Freiburg and Leipzig, 1896, p. 47 f., and E. Nestle, Philologica sacra, Berlin, 1896, p. 19 1.
706 The reference from the Inscriptions for this name which is given below belongs to the 3rd or 4th century A.D. P. Jensen has called the author’s attention to a much older passage. In the Aramaic Inscription of Palmyra No. 73, of the year 114 B.c. (in M. de Vogue’s Syrie Centrale, Inscriptions Semitiques . . ., Paris, 1868, p. 53) mention is made of a Barnebo (ברנבי).
707 Blass, ThLZ. xx. (1895), p. 488, holds this supposition to be absolutely impossible. According to A. Hilgenfeld, Berl. Philol. Wochenschr., 1896, p. 650, it deserves consideration, but also requires to be tested. The author stands by his hypothesis quite confidently—the more so as Blass has not mentioned his counter-reasons. He has been informed by several well-known Semitists that they accept it; cf. most recently, G. Delman, Die Worte Jesu, vol. i., Leipzig, 1898, p. 32.—From the genitive βαρνα, CIG. 4477 (Larissa in Syria, ca. 200 A.D.) we may most likely infer a nominative Bapvas. The author does not venture to decide whether this might be a pet form of βαρναβᾶς (cf. Heinrici, Meyer, v 8. [1896], p. 525).
708 Aram. תְּרַע , i.e., son of the palace, Or son of Therach, Terah (LXX θαρρα and θαρα, but, as a place-name, with τ for תNumbers 33:27 f. ταραθ)
709 The author does not know of any other examples of π for ב. The accentuation –ᾶς should probably be preferred to the Παρτάρας given by Frankel.
710Cf. Wendt, Meyer, iii. 6/7 (1888), p. 235.
711 Winer-Schmiedel, § 12, 7 (p. 103).
712 For the reading see Winer-Schmiedel, Supplement, p. 359.
713 Winer-Schmiedel, § 13, 2, Note 2 (p. 104) ; Blass, Gramm., p. 57. [Eng. Trans., p. 57.] 714 Winer-Schmiedel, § 13, 10 (p. 109) ; Blass, Gramm., p. 42. [Eng. Trans., p. 43.] 715 Winer-Schmiedel, § 13, 10 (p. 109) ; Blass, Gramm., p. 43. [Eng. Trans., p. 43.]
716The Editor, P. Viereck, makes the unnecessary observation, “1. [read] καταλίπῃ.
717 Winer-Schmiedel, § 13, 10 (p. 110); Blass, Gramm., p. 43. [Eng. Trans., p. 43.]
718 Cf. Print edition, p. 68. note. 2 = To the literary sources here indicated there have lately been added certain fragments of reports which refer to the Jewish War of Trajan, and which were probably drawn up by an Alexandrian Jew: Pap. Par. 68 (Notices, xviii. 2, p. 383 ff.), and Pap. Lond. 1 (Kenyon, p. 229 f.); cf. Schurer, i., p. 53; further particulars and a new reading in U. Wilcken, Ein Aktens-Nick zum jadischen Kriege Trajans, Hermes, xxvii. (1892), p. 464 ff. (see also Hermes, xxii. [1887], p. 487), and on this GGA. 1894, p. 749. Pap. Berol. 8111 (BU. xi., p. 333, No. 341), is also connected with it. I cannot, however 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, e.g., κωστωδία (Matthew 27:65 f., Matthew 28:11κουστωδία, Matthew 27:66 Cod. A κωστουδία; Cod. D has κουστουδία), ἀχρεῖοιδοῦλοι (Luke 17:10, cf. Matthew 25:30). The identification of the ὅσοιἸουδαῖοι with the successors of the Ἀσιδαῖοι of the Maccabean period, which Wilcken advances, hardly commends itself; the expression does not refer to a party within Alexandrian Judaism, but is rather a self-applied general title of honour.—Wilcken, further, has in view the publication of another Papyrus fragment (Hermes, xxvii., p. 474), which contains an account of the reception of a Jewish embassy by the Emperor Claudius at Rome. (This publication has now seen the light; for all further particulars see the beginning of the author’s sketch, “Neuentdeckte Papyrus-Fragmente zur Geschichte des griechischen Judenthums,” in ThLZ. xxiii. (1898), p. 602 ff.).
719 Winer-Schmiedel, § 13, 13 (p. 111 f.) ; Blass, Gramm., p. 44 f. [Eng Trans., p. 45 f.] 720 Winer-Schmiedel, § 13, 13 (p. 112); Blass, Gramm., p. 45. [Eng. Trans., p. 46.] 721 Most likely an assimilation to ὄφελον.
722Winer-Schmiedel, § 13, 14 (p. 112 f.); Blass, Gramm., p. 45 f. [Eng. Trans., p. 46.] 723 The editors accentuate προεγάμουσαν.
724 Winer-Schmiedel, § 13, 15 (p. 113); Blass, Gramm., p. 45. [Eng. Trans., p. 46.]
725 Conversely, -ασι for -αν in BU. 275 5 (Fayyûm, 215 A.D.) ἐπήλθασι.
726 Winer-Schmiedel, § 13, 16 (p. 113 f.) ; Blass, Gramm., p. 46. [Eng, Trans., p. 46.]
727 Winer-Schmiedel, § 14, 11 ff. (p. 121 f.); Blass, Gramm., p. 48 f. [Eng Trans., p. 49 f.] Neither writer takes notice of 1 Corinthians 7:3ἀποδιδέτω.
728 It is true that line 23 has μὴδιδιαὐτῇ (cf. Supplement, p. 358). The editor, F. Krebs, accentuates 3/51, and explains thus : “1. [read] δίδει = δίδωσι. The present writer considers this impossible: δίδι (=δίδει) is rather an imperative of δίδωμι, formed in accordance with τίθει. Similarly BU. 602 6 Fayyûm, 2nd cent. A.D.) ἐδείδι (= ἐδίδει) on the analogy of ἐτίθει. Other assimilations to the formation of τίθημι in the Fayyûm Papyri are: 360 8 (108-109 A.D.) the imperative παράδετε, and 159 3 (216 A.D.) ἐξέδετο; the latter form already in PER. ccxxii.18 (2nd cent. A.D.).
729ἐπιδίδω could also be an abbreviation of ἐπιδίδωμι, specially as it occurs in a common formula. Hence the editor, U. Wilcken, writes ἐπιδίδω(μι).
730 Apocope of the preposition, like BU. 86 7 (Fayyûm, 155 A.D.) καλείψῃ; in contrast with line 12 of the same Papyrus καταλείψῃ (not, however, παδώσω, B U. 39 20 which has been corrected, in accordance with a more exact reading p. 354, to ἀποδώσω). Cf. Winer-Schmiedel, § 5, 22 c, note 47 (p. 53).
731 Winer-Schmiedel, § 14, 17 (p. 123); Blass, Gramm., p. 48. [Eng. Trans., p. 49.]
732 The particular sentence (from a private letter) is not quite clear to the author, but he considers it impossible that the form could be derived from the well-known δύνω. F. Krebs also places δύνοι in connection with δύναμαι in his index.
733 It is significant that Thayer should note this usage in Xenophon (An. 2, 5, 14) and Polybius (1, 9, 7; 74, 13 ; 86, 5, etc.), while Clavis3 does not.
734 P. Wendland, Deutsche Litteraturzeitung, 1895, col. 902, refers further to Schenkl’s Index to Epictetus, and to Viereck, Sermo graecus, p. 75.
736 Winer-Schmiedel, § 4, 2 a (p. 27), counts this usage among the “imperfect” Hebraisms. It would be better to abolish this term from Winer’s Grammar.
737 Below, p. 290 f., [↓] with a reference to the examples of Wilamowitz-Moel-lendorff in Guil. Schmidt, De Flavii Iosephi elocutione observations criticae, Fleck. Jbb. Suppl. xx. (1894), p. 516.
738 The passage in Demosthenes had been cited by G. D. Kypke, Observationes sacrae,Wratisl. 1755, ii., p. 109; after him by Winer for example (e.g., 4[1836], p. 183, 7[1867], p. 185, and Blass, Gramm., p. 104 [Eng. Trans., p. 106]. The author’s attention was called to Kypke by Wendt on Acts 2026 (Meyer, iii.6/7 [1888], p. 444. The right view is advocated also by Cremer8, p. 489.
739 In regard to both of these passages, Professor Wilcken of Breslau observes, in a letter to the author, that ὄνομα is there used “for the possessorof the name, the person,” but that the translation name answers quite well. —The present writer would, with Luther, render the word by name in the New Testament passages also, so that the special character of the usage might not be obliterated.
740In Corpus Papyrorum Raineri, i. 1, 270, note, L. Mitteis translates this passage: alles Vermogen meiner Mutter ist in seinem Besitz [all the property of my mother is in his possession].
741 A different case is 153 27 (Fayyûm, 152 A.D.) ἀπογράψασθαιἐντῇτῶνκαμήλωνἀπογραφῇ. . . ἐπ’ὀνόματοςαὐτῶν. What we have here is the entering on the list of a camel under the name of its new owner. Still, that which is specified as ἐπ’ὀνόματος of any one is, in point of fact, his property. One sees that here, as also in the above formulm, there can be no thought of a new meaning of the word, but only of a realising of its pregnant fundamental meaning.
742But not in Mark 9:38 A and Matthew 7:22, where the dative is instrumental.
743ThLZ. xx. (1895), p. 488, 744Cf. W. M. Ramsay, The Expository Times, vol. ix., p. 567 f.
745Profangraecitaet und biblischer Sprachgeist, Leipzig, 1859, p. 62:” Ἀγάπη does not occur as a genuine term, so far as the references in the Lexica avail, in the κοινή either”.
746 Clavis5, p. 3: “In Philone et Josepho legi non memini” (after Bret-schneider).
747 Cremer8, p. 14, “this word, apparently formed by the LXX, or, at any rate, in their circle (Philo and Josephus do not have it) . . . . “
748 The present writer had not the book by him when he wrote the article evycirn in the German Bibelstudien.
749The passage relates to the apparent contradiction between LXX Deuteronomy 1:31 [MT Deuteronomy 1:31] and LXX Numbers 23:19 [MT Numbers 23:19].
750 Inscriptions Graecae Siciliae et Italiae additis Graecis Galliae Hispaniae Britanniae Germaniae inscriptionibus consilio et auctoritate Academiae Litterarum Regiae Borussicae edidit Georgivs Kaibel, . . . Berolini 1890.
751 Kaibel, Epigrammata Graeca ex lapidibus conlecta, Berlin, 1878, p. 296 f., treats the Inscription under No. 728 as a Christian one, but without giving his reasons.
752 So the editor, Wilcken, restores; the author considers that ἀκατάγνωστ[οι] is also possible.
753Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachgebrauchs, Berlin, 1859, p. 192.
754 Strictly speaking, this point is out of place in the above paragraph, but it is discussed here in order to avoid breaking up the article ἐάν.
755 The editor’s proposal to change ἦν into ᾖ seems to the present writer wrong. Cf. also the passage B 543 5, quoted below.
756ἐάν with the subjunctive is found three times (lines 4. 12. 17) in the same Papyrus.
757 Winer-Lunemann, p. 277, β at the foot.
758Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la bibliotheque imperiale, vol. xviii., part 2, Paris, 1865, p. 232 f.
759 For μάχω cf. the analogous cases in Winer-Lunemann, top of p. 244.
760 This peculiar form (developed from εἶπον ?) must in any case be interpreted as indicative.
761ὁπόταν and ὅταν with the future indicative in the Sibyllists are treated of by A. Rzach, Zur Kritik der Sibyllinischen, Orakel, Philologus, liii. (1894), p. 283.
762HC. ii. 1 (1891), p. 98, ad loc. 1 Corinthians 6:18.
763 In the LXX in innumerable passages (H. W. J. Thiersch, De Pentateuchi versione Alexandrina libri tres, Erlangen, 1841, p. 108); in the Apocrypha, Ch. A. Wahl, Clavis librorum V. T. Apocryphorum philologica, Leipzig, 1853, p. 137 f., enumerates 28 cases; in the N.T. Clavis3 gives 17. Many other cases, without doubt, have been suppressed by copyists or editors.—U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff considers ὃἐάν, 3 John 1:5, to be an “orthographic blunder” (Hermes, xxxiii. [1898], p. 531), but this is a mistake.
764 It is only the Papyri of the (early and late) imperial period which have been collated by the author in regard to this question.
765 This conjecture is confirmed by a Papyrus in the British Museum, from the Thebaid, belonging to the year 132 A.D.; given in Grenfell’s An Alexandrian Erotic Fragment and other Greek Papyri chiefly Ptolemaic, Oxford, 1896, No. xviii. 27, p. 40: καὶἐξοὗἐὰναἱρῆται.
766 In almost every case the editors of the Berlin and the Vienna Papyri prefer to read ἄν instead of ἐάν, but what we have to do with here is not really a clerical error. ἐάν should be read in every case, just as it is written. In Vol. II. of the Berlin documents, ἐάν has for the most part been allowed to remain, and rightly so.
767 Pap.: η. Wessely, p. 255, accentuates ἦsic.
768 Proceeding from this twice-occurring εἰ with (ἐάν = ) ἄν following, we can understand the peculiar negative εἰμήτιἄν, in 1 Corinthians 7:5. Schmiedel, HC. ii. 1 (1891), p. 100, explains thus: “εἰμήτιἄν = ἐὰνμήτι, as Origen reads”. This equation ought not to be made; it only explains the meaning of the combination, but not its special syntactic character. εἰμήτιἄν has philologically nothing to do with the ἐάν in ἐὰνμήτι; ἄν, occurring here after εἰ, is rather exactly the same as if it occurred after a hypothetical relative, thus: unless in a given case, unless perhaPsa. The fact that the verb (say, ἀποστερῆτε or γένηται has to be supplied is absolutely without importance for the grammatical determination of the case. —Blass, Gramm., p. 211 [Eng. Trans., p. 216], counts εἰμήτιἄν among the combinations in which εἰ and ἐάν are blended together. We consider this hypothesis untenable, on account of the ἄν. A. Buttmann, p. 190, note, agrees with it, though indeed he also refers to the explanation which we consider to be the correct one, pp. 189, bottom line, and 190, first two lines. It is confirmed by the εἰἄν of the Papyrus.
769Der Brief an die Hebraer erlautert, part 2, Berlin, 1840, pp. 248-250.
770HApAt. ii (1853), p. 138; cf. i. (1851), p. 186.
771 Further, the hypothesis of blending, considered purely by itself, is inconceivable. If εἰμήν is a Hebraising form, as regards one half of it, then εἰ must have the sense of אִם. But then also the formula takes on a negative sense, so that, e.g., Hebrews 6:14 would read: Truly if I bless thee and multiply thee—[scil. : then will I not be God, or something similar].
772 That the author of either Papyrus was a Jew is impossible.
773 Thus, e.g., in the Berlin MS., immediately before, we have, conversely, χρηων for χρειων. (The document is otherwise well-written, like that ofVienna). Cf. also BU. 316 12 (Askalon, 359 A. D. εἲ [=ἢ] καὶεἴτινιἑτέρῳὀνόματικαλίτε”, and, conversely, 261 33 (Fayyûm, 2nd-3rd cent. A.D.) ἠμή, without doubt for εἰμή.
774 Krebs writes ειsic in the Berlin MS., and adds the note : “ l. [i.e., read] 775 Wessely writes ειsic μην, and adds “ 1. [ = read] ἦμήν”.
776 The note on p. 416 of the Etymologicum magnum, viz., ἦ˙ἐπίρῥημαὁρκικόν˙ὅπερκαὶδιὰδιφθόγγουγράφεται, has in itself no weight; it but repeats the documentary information found in the passage quoted in connection with it, Hebrews 6:14 = LXX Genesis 22:17 [MT Genesis 22:17.]
777 A. Buttmann, p. 20, refers to the similarly-formed Greek names of mountains (Κιθαιρών, Ἑλικών, etc.).
778 The author is not quite able to determine whether the mistake in procedure which underlies the above-named identification should be attributed to W. Grimm, or whether it is a result of the erroneous view of Chr. G. Wilke. In any case we may characterise the mistake in the pertinent words of the latter (Die Hermeneutik des Neuen Testaments systematisch dargestellt, zweiter Theil: die hermeneutische Methodenlehre, Leipzig, 1844, p. 181): “Exegetes are frequently in the habit of giving to this or the other word a meaning which belongs only to some word which is combined with it, and which does not apply to the word in question, either in this combination or elsewhere “.
779 The passages which follow, so far as the author knows, have in no case been previously noticed.
780 Winer-Schmiedel, § 10, 4 (p. 93); the author perceives here that also Niese and Bekker always write ἐλαιῶν in Josephus. The relevant passages are cited in Clavis3, p. 140.
781 The editor, Krebs, writes οἰκίας, but the word most likely belongs to the name of the field, and should thus, according to our custom, be written with a capital. The two names, in the author’s opinion, should be set in the Index subΟἰκίαςΚανν[.] and ΟἰκίαςΣα[. . . . ]λοχ.
782 The later editors accentuate thus.
783 This could be asserted only of the reading in Mark 11:1 according to B 784 Winer-Schmiedel, § 10, 4 (p. 93), and Winer7, § 29, 1 (p. 171).
785 Tischendorf’s Apparatus ignores the whole matter.
786 Specially the Peschito must be taken into consideration; cf. Winer, p. 171. So far as the author can decide, it implies ἐλαιών in all the passages in Luke. But he cannot guarantee this.
787 To mention a similar case: When we read the title of a book, e.g., “Jesu Predigt in ihrem Gegensatz zum Judenthum. Ein religionsgeschichtlicher Vergleich von Lic. W. Bousset, Privatdocent in Gottingen,” we would not say that Privatdocent is used as an indeclinable, but would decide that it is one of the many cases of a more lax usage of the nominative in titles of books. [In German we ought, properly speaking, to write “Privatdocenten,” i.e., the dative.—TR.] 788Sources of New Testament Greek, Edinburgh, 1895, p. 90.
789 Cf. also Blass, Gramm., p. 125 [Eng. Trans., p. 127 f.] “ ἐνώπιον. . . . , κατενώπιον . . . , ἔναντι . . . ,κατέναντι . . are derived from the LXX, and are unknown in profane authors even of later times “.—Yet on p. xii. Blass refers to ἔναντι as being profane Greek!!
790Also in line 6 the editor, Krebs, restores ἐν[ώπι] ον; in that case the combination μεταδιδόναιἐνώπιον would be repeated here also. Wilcken, however, questions the correctness of this restoration, and proposes ἔν[τειλ]ον, as he has informed the author by letter.
791 See Print edition, p. 203, note 2. = This conjecture is confirmed by a Papyrus in the British Museum, from the Thebaid, belonging to the year 132 A.D.; given in Grenfell’s An Alexandrian Erotic Fragment and other Greek Papyri chiefly Ptolemaic, Oxford, 1896, No. xviii. 27, p. 40: καὶἐξοὗἐὰναἱρῆται.
792 The testimony of Origen renders it probable that this word is actually a “biblical” one; thus, strictly speaking, it should not be treated here.
794 The author is indebted for this and the following passage to a reference of Frankel, p. 315, relating to Perg. 461.
795Sources of N.T. Greek, p. 119.
796 He certainly discusses the other possibility, viz., that the word was used previously to the LXX.
798 The one copy CIA. iii. 73 is the rough draught, so to speak: the other has had the language corrected, and gives a longer text.
799 = Dittenberger, Sylloge No. 379.
800 Examples from classical antiquity in Frankel, p. 188 f.
801Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 1st and 2nd edn. Freiburg and Leipzig, 1894, p. 31.
802Cf., in line is of the same edict, ταῖςκυριακαῖςψήφοις.
803 This [i.e., the German] translation is from a letter of Wilcken. The author has since found in BU. 620 15 (Fayyilm, 3rd cent. A.D.) προσετέθηἐντοῖςκυριακοῖςλόγο[ις].
804 This is the Richter Inscription named above.
805θεῖος is also used in a corresponding manner: the θεῖαιδιατάξεις, in Pap. Par. 69 iii. 20 (Elephantine, 232 A.D.), edited by Wilcken, Phiologus, liii. (1894), p. 83, cf. p. 95, are imperial arrangements.
806 The earliest passages are given in A. Harnack’s Bruchstuke des Evangeliums and der Apokalypse des Petrus2 (TU. ix. 2), Leipzig, 1893, p. 67.
808 The author is indebted to a communication of his friend B. Bess of Gottingen for the information that Lightfoot, p. 694 f., gives the following references for Σεβαστή: CIG. 4715 and Add. 5866 c (both of the time of Augustus), 4957 (Galba) from Egypt; from Ephesus, an Inscription of the year 104 A.D.; from Traianopolis, Lebas and Waddington, 1676 (130 A.D.). The investigations of Usener are given in the Bullettino dell’ Instit. di Corr. Archeol., 1874, p. 73 ff.
809 The author hopes at some future time to be able to make an investigation of the use of ὁκύριος and ὁκύριοςἡμῶν to designate deities and emperors in the imperial period.
811 So reads the Papyrus: which σίφωνες are meant the author does not clearly understand.
812HApAT. iv. (1857), p. 183 f.
813 The edition of Van Ess, like Wahl in the Clavis librorum V.T.Apocry. phorum, p. 44, reads ἀνδραλογία. This is a printer’s error in Wahl, as is ἀνδραφονέω) a little farther on (cf. the alphabetical order). The author cannot say whether ἀνδραλογία is a possible form.
815 A construction like e.g., εἰςἑξήκονταταλάντωνλόγος, a sum of about sixty talents.
816 Swete writes ποιησάμενόςτεκατ’ ἀνδρολογεῖονεἰςἀγρυρίουδραχμὰςδισχιλίας . . . What κατ’ ἀνδρολογεῖον is meant to signify we do not understand.
817 “Of the time of Hadrian at the earliest” (Wilcken re this Papyrus).
818The author has subsequently noticed in Pape that even the Etymologicum Magnum quotes the word from Xenophon!! The New Testament lexicographers really ought to have noted this. The note of the Et. M. in regard to ὀφειλή is as follows: ... σπανίωςδὲεὕρηταιἐνχρήσει˙εὑρίσκεταιδὲπαρὰΞενοφῶντιἐντοῖςΠερὶΠόρων.
819 But on p. 296 this Papyrus is assigned to the 2nd cent.
820 We do not quite understand this; the sacred debt is perhaps a debt owing to the temple treasury.
822 The author has not as yet met with the word, in the sense of prayer, in heathen usage. But the question as to its “formation” is sufficiently answered by showing that it occurs outside of the Bible. It is improbable that the heathen usage is in any way to be traced back to Jewish influence.
823 References in Scharer, Geschichte des jadischen Volkes im ZeitalterJesu Christi, ii. (1886), p. 370 = 3 ii., p. 444 (Eng. Trans. ii., p. 69).
824 References in Scharer, Geschichte des jadischen Volkes im ZeitalterJesu Christi, ii. (1886), p. 370 = 3 ii., p. 444 (Eng. Trans. ii., p. 69), and in Thayer s. v. The latter cites also Cleomedes 71, 16.
825 Wilcken, Berl. Philol. Wochenschr., xvi. (1396), col. 1493 (Review of Willrich, Juden and Griechen var der makkab. Erhebung, Gottingen, 1895.
826 In the case of a Graecism like σουδάριον (authenticated hitherto only for the N.T.), if anywhere at all, we have to deal with a simple case of chance.
827 Above, p. 92. [↑] 828Profangraecitaet and biblischer Sprachgeist, Leipzig, 1859, p.
829These references have rightly been adopted by Cremer 8, p. 159.
830 This quotation is from Frankel, p. 315.
831 We have in this combination a synonym for ἀλλοτριοἐπίσκοπος hitherto authenticated only for Christian usage; this compound becomes intelligible by comparison with ἄδικος.
832 Cf. also Blass, Gramm., p. 88, note 1 [Eng. Trans., p. 88, note 3]: “ Ἱλάσκεσθαιἁμαρτίας, Hebrews 2:17, strikes as being strange by reason of the object : the classical (ἐξ)ιλάσκ. θεόν means ‘to dispose Him in mercy towards one’. Similarly, however (=expiare), also LXX and Philo.”
833 Dittenberger, Sylloge, No. 379. Cf. p. 216 above in reference to καθαρίζω. [↑] 834 Cf. 2 Thessalonians 3:11.
835 Meyer, i. 1 8 (1890), p. 363.
837 There is a second a placed above the first α in the original.
838 Cf. Jdt 2:27τὰπεδίαἐξελίκμησε.
839 Quoted in Kennedy, Sources of N.T. Greek, p. 126 f.
840 The author gives this quotation because it yields further epigraphic materials. Kennedy, Sources of N.T. Greek, p. 102, also refers to the Inscriptions (CIG. 3595, “ etc.”).— Cf. now also A. Schulten, Mittheilungendes Kaiserlich-Deutschen Archaol. Instituts, Romische Abtheilung, xiii. (1898). p. 237 841 See p. 105 ff. above. [↑]
842 Wessely, Corpus Papyrorum Raineri, i. 1, 151; but no example is given there. The word might signify receipt for rent or hire, not deed of conveyance as Wessely supposes.
844επισκοπο can be read quite plainly, thereafter either an ι or the fragment of another letter. The editor writes ἐπίσκοποι in his transcription. But as only one name follows it would be more correct to read ἐπίσκοπο[ς]. It appears thus in the index, p. 235, which contains many a tacit correction.
845 Wessely reads PER. xxx. 5 f. (Fayyûm, 6th cent. A.D.) τουαγιουϊωαννουτουευλογουκαιευαγγελιστου, and translates of Saint John, the apostle and evangelist. Should not θεολόγου be read?
846 The editor, in the index, p. 238, remarks upon this “πλῆθος, i.q., κοινόν”.
847 Agyptische Priester unter romischer Herrschaft in the Zeitschrift fur agypt. Sprache and Alterthuntskunde, xxxi. (1893), p. 31 ff.—Reference is made on p. 34 to Wilcken, Kaiserl. Tempelverwaltung in Agypten, Hermes, xxiii., p. 592, and Arsinoitische Tentpelrechnungen, Hermes, xx., p. 430.
848 There is one passage belonging to the Ptolemaic period attesting πρεσβύτεροι in this sense which is not cited here by Krebs. In CIG. 4717 2 f. (Thebes in Lower Egypt, between 45 and 37 B.C.) it is said: [ἔδο]ξετοῖςἀπὸΔιοσπόλεωςτῆ[ςμεγάληςἱ]ερεῦσιτο[ῦμεγίστουθεοῦἈμο]νρασωνθὴρκαὶτοῖςπρεσβυτέροιςκαὶτοῖςἄλλοιςπᾶσι. Here the πρεσβύτεροι plainly belong to the priesthood.
849 The Soknopaios-temple in the Fayyûm, belonging to imperial times, is meant.
850 See the corrected reading in the Supplement, p. 397.
851 They seem always to have formed a college (of 3, 4 or 5 persons).
852 According to Krebs, p. 35, πρεσβύτεροι was thus used—without the addition of ἱερεῖς—even in the Ptolemaic period [as above, CIG. 4717 2f.].
853 Frankel, p. 821, in ref. to Perg. 477 (time of Claudius or Nero): “This and the following Inscription (478, imperial period) prove the existence in Pergamus of a Gerousia, for which institution, particularly frequent in Roman Asia Minor, reference may be made to the careful discussion of Menadier (Ephesii, p. 48 ff.) and its continuation by Hicks (Greek Inscriptions in the Brit. Mus., iii. 2, p. 74 ff.). According to these, the Gerousia is to be thought of as an official body whose authority lay in sacred affairs. Otherwise Mommsen, Rom. Gesch. 5, 326.”
854 A. Harnack, Lehrbuch, der Dogmengeschichte, i.2 (Freiburg, 1888), p. 385 [Eng. Trans., ii., p. 131]: “ One might perhaps say that the internal form of the churches was altered by no other development so thoroughly as by that which made priests of the bishops and elders “.
855 Cf. the similar circumstances in regard to προφήτης, p. 236. [↑]
856 F. Krebs, Agyptische Priester unter romischer Herrschaft in the Zeitschrift fur agypt. Sprache und Alterthumskunde, xxxi. (1893), p. 36.
857 F. Krebs, Agyptische Priester unter romischer Herrschaft in the Zeitschrift fur agypt. Sprache und Alterthumskunde, xxxi. (1893), p. 36.
858 There were priestly prophets in other places. We doubt indeed, whether, in IMAe. 833 6 ff. (Rhodes, 1st cent. u.c.) προφατεύσαςἐντῷἄστεικαὶἐπιλαχὼνἱερεὺςἉλίου, the προφατεύσας actually refers to priestly duties. Compare, however, the passages in Kaibel, IGrSI. Index, p. 740 subπροφήτης.
859 A. Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, i 2, p. 183 [Eng. Trans., i., p. 214].
860Eine agyptische Statue aus Tyrus in the Zeitschr. fur agypt. Spracheund Alterthumskunde, xxxi. (1893), p. 102.
861κωμάζων, carrying in the procession. This Inscription is a little reminscent of the passage from the Leiden Papyri on p. 354.
862Hermes, xx., p. 287, note 7.
863 The Papyrus was written about this time; the text itself may be older.
864 Meyer, iv. 8 (1891), p. 595.
866B U. 248 40 (letter from the same person and to the same as in 249) τὰἀμύγδαλασφραγ(ιζόμενα) might also be added.
867 Cf. the Index of personal names in the IMAe. These Inscriptionshave ὑοθεσίαν. The formula κατὰγένεσιν, 19 10, 884 14 (?) 964 add., expresses the antithesis to it.
868 The IMAe. mostly read so; also θυγατροποιΐαν in 646 2.
869 Meyer, xvi. 5 (1896), p. 427.
870Der Antichrist, Gottingen, 1895, p. 7.
873 Cf. Der Antichrist, p. 8: “At the same time I am quite conscious that in the last resort I do not attain to an understanding of the eschatological-mythological ideas”.
875 According to Bousset, the mark seems to have been originally a serpent-mark: the reference to the name of the beast was added by the writer of the Apocalypse (Der Antichrist, p. 133). But nothing is added: and therefore in Meyer, xvi. 5, p. 432, it is more accurately put that the mark is “changed in meaning”.
876 In the passages cited by Bousset the buying (and selling) is intimately connected with the famine.
877 Whether the use of this imperial χάραγμα is found elsewhere is unknown to the author. But he is of opinion that it is not; otherwise it would be inconceivable that Mommsen, who finds in John 13:16 f. an allusion to the imperial money (Romische Geschichte, v. 4, Berlin, 1894, p. 522), should not have lighted upon the author’s conjecture. Wessely also, in his issue of PER., treats the matter as something new.
878 Wessely in ref. to PER. xi., p. 11.
879L is the common abbreviation for ἔτους.
880 We have found only imperial seals in the Papyri.
881 The author applied, March 15, 1897, to the directors of the Imperial and Royal Printing Establishment at Vienna with the request to lend him the cast of this fac-simile for his book. The directors, to their great regret, could not grant this request, “as the editors of the work Corpus Papyrorum Raineri are unable, on principle, to give their consent to it”. [Reply of 22nd March.] 882 In connection with PER. xi., p. 37.
883 In connection with PER. xi., p. 34.
884We are of opinion that, by a more exact examination of the fragments 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.
885οἰκονομία = document is often found in the Papyri.
886 The supposition that the day of the month also belonged to the seal is in itself improbable, as, in that case, the plate must have been altered daily; it is further opposed by the fact that the preserved seals only give the year.
887 Even if all the imperial seals were as large as that of Trajan in PER. xi., which, with its diameter of 9.7 centimetres, could find sufficient room only on the brows of thinkers and the hands of the proletariat, yet our hypothesis would lose nothing in probability; surely we do not wish to control the seer with the centimetre rod. But there was manifestly no prescribed standard diameter for the seal; cf. that on BU. 183, or even the original stamp of Augustus; a seal of its size could quite well have found room on forehead or hand.
888 Examples are also to be found in other places.
889 Cf., if the restoration be correct, Perg. 223 (ca. 156 B.C.) ἀναστ[ρεφο. μένη]νκαλ[ῶς] καὶεὐσεβῶςκαὶἀ[ξίωςτῆςθεᾶς], said of Bito, a priestess of Athena.
890 As the author has not the Turin Papyri by him, he quotes according to Corp. Papp. Raineri, i. 1, p. 12.
893 It was remarked on p. 114, note 3 [↑], that the formula is also found without this technical meaning. As examples of this we have the ἀναγέγραπται of Josephus (references in Hans Droner, Untersuchungen Uber Josephus, Thesis, Marburg, 1896, pp. 54 note 1, and 85), Arrian (cf. Wilcken, Philologus, liii. [1894], p. 117 f.), and most likely of other authors as well. I am indebted to a kind communication of Dr. Hans Droner for the information that Josephus frequently employs ἀναγέγραπται for O.T. references also, while he certainly uses γέγραπται very seldom for these; γέγραπται in c. Ap. ii. 18 refers to a non-biblical quotation.
894 Benndorf and Niemann, Reisen in Lykien and Karien, i., Vienna, 1894, p. 77; for the date see p. 75.
895Hermes xvi. (1881), p. 172, note; cited by Frankel, p. 16.
896 The citation is made from the issue of this Papyrus (from Notices et extraits, xviii. 2, pp. 890-399) by Wilcken in Philologus, liii, (1894), p. 82.
897 The restorations are certain.
898 With this we must not confound ἐκδιδόναιτὴνχεῖρα, BU. 405. (Fayyûm, 348 A.D.) where χείρ means manuscript, document.
899 See also Grimm on 2Ma 4:34, HApAT. iv. (1857), p. 93.
900 This formula often occurs in the PER. also.
902 This passage is quoted from Frankel, p. 186, who also refers to the active παρασχόνταχρήσιμονἑαυτὸντῇπατρίδι, CIG. 2771 i. 10 (Aphrodisias), and would restore Perg. 25315 in a similar way.
903 Meyer, iv. 8 (1891), p. 512.
904 HC. iii. 1 (1891), p. 209.
905 Citation from Frankel, p. 134.
906Cf. A. H. Franke on Php 2:2 (Meyer, ix.5 [1886], p. 84).
907 Meyer, xii. 6 (1897), p. 136.
908 The more general meaning also is found in BU. 388 ii. 24 (Fayyûm, 2nd-3rd cent. A.D.).
910 Dittenberger, Sylloge, No. 379. See, in reference to καθαρίζω, p. 216.
911 Cf. its antithesis, εὐπρόσδεκτος, also said of a sacrifice, Romans 15:16 and 1 Peter 2:5, like θυσίαδεκτήPhp 4:18 and LXX.
912 An additional reference for this word; cf. p. 122.
913 Meyer, xii.6 (1897), p. 87 ff.
914 Tholuck also, in Beitrage zur Spracherklarung des Neuen Testaments, Halle, 1832, p. 45, makes this conjecture, with a reference to Wahl; but he has no example at his disposal.
915 It is very highly probable that the Greek writer Oecumenius still understood it as an adjective in these passages; he interprets δοκίμιοντὸκεκριμένονλέγει, τὸδεδοκιμασμένον, τὸκαθαρόν, (Tischendorf in reference to James 1:3). The substitution, in some minuscules, of δόκιμος for δοκίμιος, in both the New Testament passages (as in the Papyrus document PER. xxv. 4), likewise supports the view that late Greek copyists understood the word. The formation of the word is plain: δοκίμιος comes from δόκιμος, as ἐλευθέριος from ἐλεύθερος, and καθάριος from καθαρός.
916Cf. most recently Blass, Gramm., p. 151 f. [Eng. Trans., p, 155.] 917 See p. 250, subτὸγνήσιον. [↑]
918τῇγῇ could also be connected with the verb as an instrumental dative: but that would make the sentence more enigmatic than ever. We do not understand the suggestion of Cremer8, p. 340, at the end of the article δοκίμιον.
919 Corrected reading in the Supplement, p. 395.
920 Meyer, xv. 5 (1888), p. 222.
921 Wiener Studien, i. (1879), p. 47.—Cf. also A. Wilhelm, GGA., 1898, p. 227: “The κακοπαθία, with which the travelling of embassies, particularly over sea, is usually associated, is prominently mentioned in numberless psephismata”.
922 Further particulars in Winer-Schmiedel, § 5, 13 c (p. 44 f.).
923 Also in BU. 233 11 to be thus read, not ἀρταβιωτ[. . .].
924 Quotation from Mommsen, Romische Geschichte, v. 4, Berlin, 1894, p. 429.
925 See p. 64, note 2. [↓] 926Gr. des Neutest. Griechisch, p. 257. [Eng. Trans., p. 263.] 927 Improved reading in Supplement, p. 357.
928Above, p. 148. [↑] 929 Stratonike came originally from Cappadocia.
930 Meyer, iii. 6/7 (1888), p. 52.
931 Frankel, p. 267, remarks on this that εἰσιέναιεἰςτὸντόπον is used like εἰσιέναιεἰςἀρχήν, (e.g. Speech against Neaira, 72, Plutarch’s Praec. Ger. Reip. 813 D). Ἀρχή is similarly used in Jude 1:6; cf. LXX Genesis 40:21 [MT Genesis 40:21].
932 Cf. L. Dukes, Literaturhistorische Mittheilungen uber die altesten hebraischen Exegeten, Grammatiker u. Lexikographen (Ewald & Dukes, Beitrttge, ii.), Stuttgart, 1844, p. 53; Schurer, p. 700 ff. [Eng. Trans., ii., iii., p. 168 f.]; J. Hamburger, Real-Encyclopadie fur Bibel und Talmud, ii., Leipzig, 1883, p. 1234.
933 A similar relation subsists in kind between the materials of literary speech and of popular speech.
934 J. Grimm, Deutsche Mythologie, ii.3, Gottingen, 1854, p. 1060, says “Superstition formed in some ways a religion for the homes of the lower classes throughout”.
935 Cf. F. Piper, Mythologie der christlichen Kunst, Erste Abth., Weimar, 1847, p. ix. f.
936 The author here follows the information which G. Maspero, the first editor of the Inscription, gave in the Collections du Musee Alaoui, premiere serie, 8elivraison, Paris, 1890, p. 100 ff. A phototypic facimile of the tablet forms the frontispiece of BIBELSTUDIEN. Only after the original issue of the present work did the author learn of the sketch by Josef Zingerle in Philologus, liii. (1894), p. 344, which reproduces the text from Revue archeologigue, iii t. xxi. (1893), p. 397 ff. (Reprint from Collections du Musee Alaoui, p. 100 ff.) The text has been discussed also by A. Hilgenfeld, Berl. Philol. Wochenschrift, xvi. (1896), p. 647 ff.; R. Wunsch, CIA. Appendix (1897), xvii. f. ; and L. Blau, Das altjudische Zauberwesen (1898), p. 96 ff. The tablet has been noticed (with observations by A. Dieterich) by F. Hiller von Gaertringen in the Sitzungsberichteder Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1898, p. 586. Cf. also Schurer, 3 iii., p. 29S f. Individual textual conjectures and exegetic proposals are found in the various critiques of the BIBELSTUDIEN. The author hopes subsequently to take special advantage of the new exegetic material afforded by Hilgenfeld and Blau in particular. In the following he has corrected his former reading Δομιτιανὰν (line 6) to Δομιτιανὴν, and (line15) ἵνααὐτὴν to ἵν’αὐτὴν. Hilgenfeld’s assertion (p. 648) that Δομιτιανὴν, should be read throughout is erroneous.
937 In 1889 a tabula devotionis had been discovered in the Necropolis of Adrumetum, and it was discussed by M. Bread and G. Maspero in the fifth instalment of the Collections (1890) just cited; it, too, contains a love-spell, but is, apart from a few Divine names, free from biblical ideas and phrases. A third tablet of Adrumetum, the publication of which was prospectively announced on the cover of the eighth instalment, has not yet been issued. Professor Maspero of Paris, Member of the Institute of France, had the great kindness to inform the author (16th April, 1894) that the contents of this tablet and similar unpublished pieces were likewise non-Jewish. In CIL. viii., Suppl. i. (1891), sub Nos. 12504-12511, there have recently been brought together some tabulae execrationum discovered in Carthage, of which the last affords some parallels to our tablet: see below.—Cf. now the copious material collected by R. Wunsch in the CIA. Appendix continens defixionum tabellas in Attica regime repertas, Berlin, 1897; also M. Siebourg, Ein gnostisches Goldamulet aus Gellep, in Bonner Jahrbacher, Heft 103 (1898), p. 123 ff.
938 We imagine that these are the three holes upon the right margin of the tablet.
939 We have indicated the divergent readings of Maspero by M. The numerous errors in accentuation which his text contains are not noted here. Restorations are bracketed [ ], additions (). We have left unaccented the Divine names and the other transcriptions, not knowing how these were accented by the writer of the tablet and the author of his original text. To furnish them with the “traditional” accents given in the editions of the Greek Bible, so far as the names in question occur there, serves no purpose, to say nothing of the fact that these “traditional” accents themselves cannot be scientifically authenticated. Cf. Winer-Schmiedel, § 6, 8 b (p. 75 f.). [Eng. Trans., p. 59.] 940 Maspero, p. 101.
941Cf. upon these A. Dieterich most recently, Fleckeisen’s Jahrbb. Suppl. xvi., p. 788 ff.; as regards the literature cf. also CIL. viii., Suppl. p. 1288, and specially Wunsch, CIA. Appendix (1897).
942 Cf. M. Breal, in the fifth instalment of the already-cited Collections (1890), p. 58.
943 On this species of Magic cf. the instructive citations of E. Kuhnert, Feuerzauber, Rhein. Museum fur Philologie, N. F., vol. xlix. (1894), p. 37 ff.
946 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.
948 C. Wessely, On the spread of Jewish-Christian religious ideas among the Egyptians, in The Expositor, third series, vol. iv. (London, 1886), No. xxi. (incorrectly xiii. on the part), pp. 194-204. Further in A. Dieterich, Abraxas, p. 136 ff.; Blau, p. 112 ff.; Schurer,3 p. 298 ff. A small 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, Theol. Studien u. Kritiken, 1881, p. 692 ff., and E. Nestle, ibid., 1883, p. 153 f. Materials from the Inscriptions have recently been largely added to.
949 ii., p. 504 (=3 iii. p. 26). [Eng. Trans., ii., ii., p. 231, note 48.]
950Hamburger, ii., p. 283. We may compare the idea of the Gospels, that demons reside in lonely and desert regions (Matthew 12:43); the ἄνθρωποςἐνπνεύματιἀκαθάρτῳ had his dwelling among the tombs (Mark 5:3). In Bar 4:35, devastated cities are already recognised as dwelling-places of demons.
951 Maspero, p. 105. It was believed that the soul of such a person had to hover about the grave so long as he should have lived had not his life come to an untimely end (Maspero, ibid.). With reference to the notion as a whole cf. E. Rohde, Psyche, Seelencult und Unsterblichkeitsglaube der Griechen, Freiburg in Baden and Leipzig, 1894, p. 373 f. (= 2 p. 410 f.) ; also Kuhnert, p. 49.
952 In J. B. Pitra, Spicilegium Solesmense, iii., Paris. 1855, p. 305.
954 A. Dieterich, Fleckeisen’s Jahrbb. Suppl. xvi., p. 810; Leemans, ii., p. 31.
955 The form might also be a corruption of Ιακουβ,Pap. Lond. cxxi. 649 (see below, p. 324), and Pap. Par. Bibl. nat. 2224 (Wessely, p. 100); similarly in a leaden tablet from Carthage published by A. L. Delattre, Bulletin de correspondance hellenique, xii. (1888), p. 300 = CIL. viii., Suppl. i., No. 12511. —But the other assumption is supported by the following Ισραμα ( = Ισραηλ = Ιακωβ).
956 Cf., for instance, the Gem found in ancient Cyrenaica—Baudissin, Studien, i., p. 193. Further particulars, especially also patristic authorities, in R. Heim, Incantamenta magica Graeca Latina; Fleckeisen’s Jahrbb. Suppl. xix. (1893), p. 522 ff.
957Contra Celsum, v. 45 (Lomm., xix., p. 250 f.): καὶἐὰνμὲνὁκαλῶνἢὁὁρκῶνὀνομάζῃθεὸνἈβραὰμκαὶθεὸνἸσαὰκκαὶθεὸνἸακὼβτάδετινὰποιήσαιἄνἤτοιτῷλέγοντιταῦτα. Ἐὰνδὲλέγῃ˙ὁθεὸςπατρὸςἐκλεκτοῦτῆςἠχοῦςκαὶὁθεὸςτοῦγέλωτοςκαὶὁθεὸςτοῦπτερνιστοῦοὕτωςοὐδὲνποιεῖτὸὀνομαζόμενον,ὡςοὐδ’ἄλλοτιτῶνμηδεμίανδύναμινἐχόντων. Cf. ibid., i. 22, and iv. 33, and also G. Anrich, Das antike Mysterienwesen in seinem Einfluss auf das Christentum. Gottingen, 1891, p. 96.
958 If Romans 16:1-27 is [or belongs to] a letter to Ephesus.
959 Particulars in Kuhnert, p. 41, note 7. With regard to the later Jewish usage, cf. Schwab, Coupes a inscriptions magiques in the Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, xiii. (1890-91), p. 585 f., and J. Wohlstein, Uber einige aramaische Inschriften auf Thongefassen des kgl. Museums zu Berlin, in the Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie, viii. (1893), p. 331, and ix. (1894) p. 19 f.
960Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la bibliothegue imperiale, vol. xviii. pt. 2, Paris, 1865, p. 425.
961 With regard to the whole expression, cf. the passage of the aforementioned leaden tablet from Carthage in Bull. de corr. hell., xii., 302 = CIL. viii., Suppl. i., No. 12511: ἐξορκίζω ὑμᾶςκατὰτοῦἐπάνωτοῦοὐρανοῦθεοῦτοῦκαθημένουἐπὶτῶνχερουβι,ὁδιορίσαςτὴνγῆνκαὶχωρίσαςτὴνθάλασσαν,Ιαωκτλ. The nominatives are illustrative of the formal rigidity of these expressions.
962 Aquila alone has ἔκτισεν (F. Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt 2 tomi, Oxonii, 1875, i., p. 7).
964 Cf. A. Dieterich, Abrazas, p. 139 f.
965 Hamburger, i.3 (1892), p. 735.
966 Heim, 493 f. The passages which follow, to which the author’s notice was directed by A. Dieterich, are taken from Heim. Cf. also Centuria illustrium quaestionum . . . a Joh. Jac. Hermanno, Herbornensi, HerbornaeNassov iorum, 1615, decas septima, quaestio pinta.
970 In M. Ihm, Incantamenta magica, Rh. Mus. f. Phil., N. F., xlviii. (1893), p. 635.
973 Hamburger, i.3, p. 53; Schurer, ii., p. 381 ( = 3 ii., p. 458). [Eng. Trans., ii., ii., p. 82, note 143.]
974 Moreover, ἄδυτον is very infrequent in “biblical” literature; it is found only in LXX 2 Chronicles 33:14 [MT 2 Chronicles 33:14], Cod. A.
975Cf. Hamburger, i.3, p. 52 ff., with reference to the point as viewed by post-biblical Judaism.
977 Kenyon, p. 68; Wessely, i., p. 129. More definitely still in Pap. Lugd. J 384, iv. 11 f. (Fleck. Jbb. Suppl. xvi., p. 800; Leemans, p. 17): μέλλωτὸμέγαὄνομαλέγεινΑωθ (or Θωθ), ὃν . . . πᾶςδαίμωνφρίσσει.
978Cf., e.g., Hamburger, ii., pp. 283 and 75; also J. A. Eisenmenger, Entdecktes Judenthum, 1700, p. 165; the present author cites this work according to the copy in his possession, which was ostensibly printed in the year after the birth of Christ 1700, but as it announces itself as Dessicbey 40. Jahr von der Judenschafft mit Arrest bestrickt gewesene, nunmehro aber Durch Autoritat eines Hohen Reichs-Vicariats relaxirte Johann Andrea Eisenmengers . . . Entdecktes Judenthum, it could manifestly have been printed at the earliest in 1740. The explanation probably is that, in the copies of the edition of 1700 (cf. C. Siegfried in the Allg. deutschenBiographie, v. [1877], p. 772 ff.), the interdict on which was cancelled about 1740, the original title-page was supplanted by the present misleading one.
979Cf. Wessely’s Index sub ἤδη.
980 J. Krall, Koptische Amulete, in Mittheilungen aus der Sammlung der Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer V. Vienna, 1892, pp. 118, 121.
981 Delattre, in Bulletin de correspondance hellenique, xii. (1888), p. 302, takes from the unmistakeable ΗΔΗΗΔΗΤΑΧΥΤΑ the extraordinary reading “ἤδη,ἤδη,ταῦτα (?)”.
983 Cf. A. Buttmann, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachgebrauchs, Berlin, 1859, pp. 78, 158, 162, 273 f. As to the questionableness of commonly asserting such periphrases to be “Hebraising,” see above II., subκατά. [↑] 984ἐκβράζω, LXX Nehemiah 13:28[MT Nehemiah 3:8], 2Ma 1:12, 2Ma 5:8 (Cod. A).
985 Cremer, Biblisch-theologisch,es Worterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Greiciteit,7 Gotha, 1893, p. 393 (= 8 [1895], p. 415).
986 U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff in Guil. Schmidt’s De Flavii Iosephi clocutione observationes criticae, Fleck. Jbb. Suppl. xx. (1894), p. 516.
987ἅρπαγμα is used for the lion’s prey in LXX Ezekiel 22:25 [MT Ezekiel 22:25]; cf. LXX Ezekiel 19:3, Ezekiel 19:6[MT Ezekiel 19:3, Ezekiel 19:6].
989 Further particulars in Patrum Apostolicorum opera recc. 0. de Gebhardt, A. Harnack, Th. Zahn, fast. i., part. i.2, Leipzig, 1876, p. 42.
990σοφίζομαιsapiens fio, sapio, often in LXX, e.g., LXX 3Ki. 4꞉27 [31] [MT 1 Kings 4:27 (31)]; specially frequent in Sir.
991 The vox mediaἰνδάλλομαι would then stand here sensu bono, as in Clem. Rom. 1 Cor. 23꞉3sensu malo.
992Cf. also Aquila LXX Psa. 47꞉14 [MT Psalms 48:14] and the observations of Field, ii., p. 169, thereon.
993Re the vulgar φcf. Winer-Schmiedel, § 5, 27e (p. 59 ff.): ἐφόπτας is also found in Pap. Par. Bibl. nat. 1353 (Wessely, i., p. 78).
994Cf. also LXX Psalms 96:10 [MT Psalms 97:10] οἱἀγαπῶντεςτὸνκύριονμισεῖτεπονηρόν.
995 A. Hilgenfeld in Berl. Philol. Wochenschrift xvi. (1896), p. 647 ff., considers that the author was a follower of the Samaritan Simon Magus.
996Cf. with reference to “ Homeromancy,” especially Pap. Lond. cxxi. (third century A.D.), and the remarks upon this of Kenyon, p. 83 f.
997 A. Wuttke, Der deutsche Volksaberglaube der Gegenwart, 2nd edition, thoroughly revised, Berlin, 1869, p. 321 f.
998 Cf. the author’s sketch entitled Die neutestamentliche Formel “in Christo Jesu” untersucht, Marburg, 1892, p. 66 f.
999 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.
1000 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.
1001Grimm, HApAT. iv. (1857), p. 45.
1002 Grimm, HApAT. iv. (1857), p. 45. The ὑμνῳδίακρυπτή 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.
1003 Observe, however, the form seen already in certain Psalms.
1004 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.
1006 The author, however, finds, even previous to verse 23, features which are to be explained by the “edifying tendency” of the book.
1007 Schurer, ii., p. 740 (= 3 iii., p. 360). [Eng. Trans., ii., ii. p. 211 f.]
1008 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 Flay. Joseph. beigelegte Schrift Ueber die Herrsch. der Vernunft, p. 85 f., is inclined to reject both reports as suspicious, but to consider that of 4 Maccabees. to be the better of thetwo: it “reports simply and without ornament that which is told in 2 Maccabees with distorted exaggeration”. The present writer cannot agree with this opinion; what Freudenthal calls in the one case “simple and without ornament” and in the other “distorted exaggeration,” should only, in view of the wholly distinct purposes of the two books, be characterised by the formal antitheses concise and detailed respectively. The hybrid form, Apollodoros, of which L. Flathe speaks in his Geschichte Macedcmiens, ii., Leipzig, 1834, p. 601, was in all probability formed from the Apollonius of 4 and the Heliodorus of 2Macc. (Freudenthal, p. 84).
1010Bulletin de corresponclance hellenique, i. (1877), p. 285.
1011 On this, see p. 310 f. below. [↓] 1012Bull, de corr. hell., (1879), p. 364.2 See p. 159 above. [↑]
1013 In that case the Inscriptions must certainly have been written before 175 B.C.; for in that year Heliodorus carried out his φιλοστοργίαεἰςτὸνβασιλέα, which is here extolled, in a strange way, viz., by murdering the king.
1014Frankel, Altertumer von Pergamon, viii. 1, p. 110, cites Polyb. v. 41 and Joseph. Antt. xii. 7 2.
1015 Inscriptions Nos. 172-176 (first half of 2nd cent. B.C.) in Frankel, p. 108 f.
1016 This interpretation, proposed by Grimm, p. 69, is maintained also by Frankel, p. 110.
1017 This variation is found here only.
1018 Against Freudenthal, p. 86, who attributes the alteration to Syncellus.
1019I.e., if the restoration. in No. L be correct, as the author holds to be very probable.
1020 See p. 187 f. above. [↑] 1021Problems im Aposteltexte neu erortert, Gotha, 1883, p. 8 ff.
1022 Even Jerome, Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum, 67 23 f. (Onomastica sacra Pauli de Lagarde studio et sumptibus alterum edita, Gottingen, 1887, p. 100), has not straightway adopted the etymology given in Acts; he gives three interpretations: Barnabas filius prophetae uel filius uenientis aut (ut plerique putant) filius consolations.
1023 The author fails to understand how Nun should have originally been transcribed Ναυν. It seems to him more probable that the LXX read נָוֶה, or that Ναυη (or Ναβη) or Ναβι was in actual use as a personal name, and that they substituted it for Nun.
1024 K. Humann and 0. Puchstein, Reisen in Kleinasien und Nordsyrien, Textband, Berlin, 1890, p. 398. A much older Inscription has already been cited, p. 188 above.
1025 For this τὸνκαὶ see below, p. 313 f. [↓]
1026Ἀπολλινάριος is (cf. Ἀπολλώνιος = Ἰωνάθας, p. 149 ante, subπαρεπίδημος) an imitation of the theophoric Βαρνεβοῦς; but one need not on that account have recourse to any such religious-historical equation as Nebo = Apollo, as the editors suggest.
1028 The A-sound is also found in the Babylonian and Assyrian primary forms. It is not impossible that the name Ναβη, discussed above, if not coined by the LXX, may be connected in origin with Nebo.
1029 In that case this accentuation would commend itself as preferable to the “traditional” Βαρνάβας.—Blass, Gramm. des neutest. Griechisch, p. 123, also writes Βαρναβᾶς; on p. 31, Βαρνάβας. [Eng. Trans., pp. 125 and 31.] 1030 Winer-Schmiedel, § 5, 27 a, note 56 (p. 58). Many similar cases are given there.
1031LXX, Ἀβδεναγώ). Note the rendering of the E-sound by a here also.
1032 His name is Μαναήν; that is, of course, מְנַחֵם. The Alexandrinus likewise transcribes Menachēm in LXX 4Ki. 15:16 [MT 2 Kings 15:16 ff.by Μαναήν, while the other Codices have Μαναήμ. The termination -ην gave the foreign name a kind of Greek look: pet names in -ην are occasionally used by the Greeks (A. Fick, Die Griechischen Personennamen nach. ihrer Bildung erklart, 2nd ed. by F. Bechtel and A. Fick, Gottingen, 1894, p. 28). It will hardly be necessary in this case to assume the arbitrary interchange of μ and ν which occurs not infrequently in the transcription of Semitic proper names (cf. on this point, Winer-Schmiedel, § 5, 27 g, and note 63 [p. 61]).
1033 Grimm, HApAT. iii. (1853), p. 6.
1034 The word appears to be confirmed also by the Syriac versions, Grimm, HApAT. iii. (1853), p. 7.
1035 It cannot be urged against this that the view thus obtained does not correspond with the historical circumstances (i.e. the παῖδες among whom Alexander divided his empire could hardly be all his συνέκτροφοι in the proper sense); but the writer of Macc. certainly held this opinion. The variant σύντροφοι may perhaps be explained by the attempt of some thoughtful copyist to get rid of the historical discrepancy; σύντροφοι in the technical sense presently to be determined was more accurate: the thoughtless thinker of course allowed the ἀπὸνεότητος to stand.
1036 Holtzmann, H.C. i.2 (1892), p. 371.
1037 Cf. p. 159 above, subσυγγενής. [↑] 1038 Frankel, pp. 111, 129, 164 ff.
1042 Winer-Lunemann, § 18, 1 (p. 102), refers only to quite late writings. On the other hand, the painstaking Wetstein had already in 1752 annotated the passage “Inscriptiones”! That means more for his time than dozens of other “observations” by the industrious and open-eyed exegetes of last (18th) century.
1043Der Atticismus, iii. (1893), p. 338.—His authorities are to be supplemented by the Inscription of Mylasa in Caria, Waddington, iii. 2, No. 361 (imperial period), by a multitude of examples from Lycian Inscriptions,—see the lists of the Gerontes of Sidyma in 0. Benndorf and G. Niemann, Reiser, in Lykien and Karien, Vienna, 1884, p. 73 ff. (time of Commodus)—likewise by many passages from the Egyptian documents in the Royal Museum at Berlin, e.g., Nos. 39; 1412; 200; 2772; 281. In the Pap. Berol. 6815 (BU. ii., p. 43, No. 30) we even find ΜάρκουἈντωνίουΔιοκόρουὁκαὶΠτολεμαίου, an evidence of the fixedness and formulaic currency of this ὁκαί.
1044 W. Schmid, Der Atticismus, iii. (1893), p. 838.
1045 Guil. Schmidt, De Flav. Ios. Elocution, Fleck. Jahrbb. Suppl. xx. (1894), p. 355 f.
1046 For the text see Gull. Schmidt, p. 355.
1047 For the text see Gull. Schmidt, p. 355.
1048Cf. H. H. Wendt, Meyer, iii. 6/7 (1888), p. 284.
1049 Winer-Schmiedel, § 16, 9 (p. 143).
1050 We must not confuse these cases, in which non-Jewish names of similar sound were attached to the Jewish, with those in which non-Jewish names of similar sound were substituted for the Jewish; those who had adopted new names bore these alone in their intercourse with strangers. Thus the name Ἰάσων, common among Jews, is a substitute for Ἰησοῦς; the Apostle Symeon (Peter) is usually called Σίμων, not because (as Clavis3, p.400, still maintains) this word is a transcription of שִׁמְעוֹן, but because it resembles Συμεών, the actual transcription of the Hebrew name (so, of Peter, Acts 15:14, 2 Peter 1:1). Σίμων is a good Greek name (Fick-Bechtel, p. 251) ; thus, too, the Vulgate substitutes Cleophas (= Κλεοφᾶς, Fick-Bechtel, p. 20 and foot of p. 164; not to be confounded with Κλεοπᾶς in Luke 24:18, Fick-Bechtel, middle of p. 164) for the (probably) Semitic name Κλωπα(ς ? Accent ? [John 19:25]; the author does not know what authority Clavis3, p. 244, has for saying that the Semitic form of Κλωπα(ς?) is חָלְפָּא, still less how P. Feine, Der Jakobusbrief, Eisenach, 1893, p. 16, can maintain that it is “elsewhere recognised” that Κλωπᾶς is Greek, and = Κλεοπᾶς); similarly Σιλουανός seems to be a substitute for the Semitic Σιλας.
1051BU. ix., p. 274, No. 2772.
1052 The frequently-noted circumstance that in the accounts of Paul’s conversion, Acts 9:4, Acts 9:17, Acts 22:7, Acts 22:13, Acts 26:11, he is addressed by Jesus and Ananias as Σαούλ may be explained by the historian’s sense of liturgical rhythm;—compare the way in which he puts the name Συμεών (for Peter, whom he elsewhere calls Σίμων and Πέτρος) in the mouth of James in a solemn speech, Acts 15:14. Similarly, the early Christians did not Graecise, e.g., the venerable name of the patriarch Jacob: Ἰακώβ had a “biblical,” Ἰάκωβος a modern, sound. In the same way Paul appears to have made a distinction between the ancient theocratic form Ἰερουσαλήμ and the modern political name Ἱεροσόλυμα: when he uses the former, there is ever a solemn emphasis upon the word, especially noticeable in Galatians 4:25-26 (cf. Hebrews 12:22, Revelation 3:12, Revelation 21:2, Revelation 21:10); but also as the dwelling-place of the saints, Jerusalem is more to him than a mere geographical term: hence in 1 Corinthians 16:3, Romans 15:25 ff., he lovingly and reverently marks a distinction by writing Ἰερουσαλήμ; lastly, in Romans 15:19 this form again best suits the subject, viz., an enthusiastic retrospect of the diffusion of the gospel. We must also bear in mind that the Gospels preserve many of our Lord’s sayings in Aramaic; see p. 76 above. The assertion of A. Buttmann, Gramm. des neutest. Sprachgebr., p. 6, that, when Paul is addressed, the “popular” (??—for the readers of the Greek Book of Acts ?) form Σαούλ is regularly employed, is contradicted by Acts 26:24, Acts 27:24.
1053 Cf. Acts 13:21, and also Romans 11:1 and Php 3:5.
1054 See Print edition p. 68 above. = To the literary sources here indicated there have lately been added certain fragments of reports which refer to the Jewish War of Trajan, and which were probably drawn up by an Alexandrian Jew: Pap. Par. 68 (Notices, xviii. 2, p. 383 ff.), and Pap. Lond. 1 (Kenyon, p. 229 f.); cf. Schurer, i., p. 53; further particulars and a new reading in U. Wilcken, Ein Aktens-Nick zum jadischen Kriege Trajans, Hermes, xxvii. (1892), p. 464 ff. (see also Hermes, xxii. [1887], p. 487), and on this GGA. 1894, p. 749. Pap. Berol. 8111 (BU. xi., p. 333, No. 341), is also connected with it. I cannot, however 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, e.g., κωστωδία (Matthew 27:65 f., Matthew 28:11κουστωδία, Matthew 27:66 Cod. A κωστουδία; Cod. D has κουστουδία), ἀχρεῖοιδοῦλοι (Luke 17:10, cf. Matthew 25:30). The identification of the ὅσοιἸουδαῖοι with the successors of the Ἀσιδαῖοι of the Maccabean period, which Wilcken advances, hardly commends itself; the expression does not refer to a party within Alexandrian Judaism, but is rather a self-applied general title of honour.—Wilcken, further, has in view the publication of another Papyrus fragment (Hermes, xxvii., p. 474), which contains an account of the reception of a Jewish embassy by the Emperor Claudius at Rome. (This publication has now seen the light; for all further particulars see the beginning of the author’s sketch, “Neuentdeckte Papyrus-Fragmente zur Geschichte des griechischen Judenthums,” in ThLZ. xxiii. (1898), p. 602 ff.)
1055 The name, indeed, is mutilated in almost all the passages, so that the restoration Σαῦλος would also be possible, but in Col. vii. of the edition of Wileken, Hermes, xxvii. (1892), p. 470, Παῦλος can be distinctly made out.
1056 The following phenomenon is perhaps instructive on this point. In several passages of Acts mention is made of a ἸωάννηςὁἐπικαλούμενοςΜάρκος, either by this double name or by his Jewish name Ἰωάννης; in Acts 13:13 it is particularly evident that Ἰωάννης has been used purposely: the man had forsaken the Apostle Paul and had returned to Jerusalem. Quite differently in Acts 15:39; he now goes with Barnabas to Cyprus, and this is the only passage in Acts where the Greek name Μάρκος, standing alone, is applied to him. This may, of course, be purely accidental.
1057 With this should be compared Professor W. M. Ramsay’s brilliant section on the same subject, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen2, London, 1896, pp. 81-88.—Tr.
1058 GGA. 1870, part 21, p. 801 ff. Cf. Symmikta, i., Gottingen, 1877, p. 14 f.
1059 Cf. upon this E. W. Hengstenberg, Die Authentic des Pentateuchs, i., Berlin, 1836, p. 226 f.
1060 With reference to the itacistic variation of the termination, cf. the quite similar variants of the termination of the transcription Εἰμαλκουαί Macc. 11:39. Ἰμαλκουέ,Σινμαλκουή, etc., and on these C. L. W. Grimm, HATAT. iii., Leipzig, 1853, p. 177.
1063 Wrongly questioned by F. Dietrich; cf. p. 327 below.
1064 F. Dietrich reads Ιαου.
1065Studien zur semitischen Religionsgeschichte, Heft i., Leipzig, 1876, p. 197 ff.
1066 At that time there were only the preliminary notes of C. J. C. Reuvens: Lettres a. m. Letronne sur les papyrus bilingues et grecs . . . du musee d’antiguites de l’universite de Leide, Leiden, 1830.
1067 Edited by G. Parthey, AAB., 1865, philol. und histor. Abhh., 109 ff.
1068 In his publication, Papyri Graeci musei antiguarii publici LugduniBatavi, vol. ii., Leiden, 1885.
1069DAW. philos. -histor.Classe, xxxvi. (1888), 2 Abt. p. 27 ff. and xlii. (1893), 2 Abt. p. 1 ff.
1070Papyrus magica musei Lugdunensis Batavi, Fleckeisen’s Jahrbb. Suppl. xvi. (1888), p. 749 (= the edition of Papyrus J 384 of Leiden). Dieterich, Abraxas, Studien zur Religions-Geschichte des spateren Altertums,Leipzig, 1891, p. 167 (=edition of Papyrus J 395 of Leiden). The author has to thank his colleague and friend the editor (now in Giessen) for divers information and stimulating opposition.
1071 F. G. Kenyon, Greek Papyri in the British Museum, London, 1893, p. 62 ff.
1072Cf. A. Julicher, ZKG. xiv. (1893), p. 149.
1073Cf. E. Schurer, Geschichte des jadischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 3 3, Leipzig (1898), p. 294 ff., and especially L. Blau, Das altjudische Zauberwesen (Jahresbericht der Landes-Babbinerschule in Budapest, 1897-98), Budapest, 1898.
1074 Wessely, p. 36 ff. Though A. Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius, i., Leipzig, 1893, p. ix., maintains that the age of the Magic Literature is as yet quite undetermined, this must so far be limited as that at least a terminus ad queen can be established on palmographical and internal grounds for a not inconsiderable part of this literature.
1075 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 τὰπερίεργα, used in Acts 19:19, is a terminus technicus for magic; cf., in addition to the examples given by Wetstein, ad loc., Pap. Lugd., J 384, xii. 19 and 21, περιεργία and περιεράζομαι (Fleck. Jahrbb. Suppl. xvi., p. 816: cf. Leemans, p. 73). So also πρᾶξις, Acts 19:18, a terminus technicus for a particular spell, of which the indexes of Parthey, Wessely and Kenyon afford numerous examples. The ordinary translation artifice (Rinke) obliterates the peculiar meaning of the word in this connection. [English A.V. and R.V. deeds even more completely].
1076Cf. the indexes of Leemans, Wessely and Kenyon.
1077 In the form ιαοαι in Pap. Par. Bibl. nat. 996 (Wessely, p. 69). It is tobe regretted that the editor does not give the library number of this Papyrus.
1078 Fleck. Jahrbb. Suppl. xvi., p. 798 ; Leemans, p. 15. K. Buresch, ΑΠΟΛΛΩΝΚΛΑΡΙΟΣ, Untersuchungen zum Orakelwesen des spatteren Altertums, Leipzig, 1889, p. 52, unnecessarily brackets the ν of ιαων.
1079 Kenyon, p. 105; Wessely, p. 44. We do not give Wessely’s numbering of the lines, which is different from Kenyon’s. In line 327 of the same Papyrus we are not quite certain whether La is meant for a Divine name or not.
1080 U. F. Kopp, Palaeographia critica, iv., Mannhe. n, 1829, p. 226.
1081 Kenyon, p. 67 ; Wessely, i., p. 128.
1082 Wessely, i., pp. 68 and 121.
1084 Combined from Ιαω and Ια (cf. Baudissin, p. 183 f., and F. Dietrich, p. 294).
1086 Wessely, i., p. 120. This passage, so far as regards the history of religion, is one of the most interesting: Jesus is named as the God of the Hebrews; observe the Divine names combined with as (in reference to αβελβελ, cf. Baudissin, p. 25, the name of the King of Berytus Ἀβέλβαλος); on αϊα and ϊαβα see below, pp. 326 and 333 f.; with reference to θωθ (Egyptian deity) in the Papyri, cf. A. Dieterich, Abraxas, p. 70.
1088Cf. upon these, p. 329 below. [↓] 1089 Wessely, p. 84.
1091 Kenyon, p. 66; Wessely, i., p. 127.
1092Philologus, Suppl. v. (1889), p. 44 f.
1093 That is, A instead of Λ; tacitly corrected by Wessely, Wiener Studien, viii. (18S6), p. 182.
1096 The ι of ιαη must, in that case, on account of the metre and the δισύλλαβος, be pronounced as a consonant (cf. on this point, Kuhner-Blass, Ausfuhrliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, i3. 1, Hanover, 1890, p. 50).
1097 Hengstenberg, p. 227; F. Dietrich, p. 287.
1098 A. Dieterich, Abr., p. 196; Leemans, p. 141.
1099Cf., in particular, Baudissin, p. 194 1.
1101 Kenyon, p. 69; Wessely, p. 130.
1102 Kenyon, p. 80; Wessely, p. 139.
1104 A. Dietericb, Abr., p. 201.
1105 Kenyon, p. 67; Wessely, p. 128.
1106 Parthey, p. 154. We begin the word with α, and affix the θ to the previous word; cf. Kenyon, p. 111, line 849, αμβριθηρα.
1108Cf., for example, the Φαρεθώθης of Artapanus (Eusebius, Praep. ev. ix. 18), and, upon this, J. Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien, Heft 1 and 2, Breslau, 1875, p. 169.
1109 With this expression, also common in the Book of Enoch, compare LXX Numbers 16:22 [MT Numbers 16:22], Numbers 27:16 [MT Numbers 27:16].
1110 Kenyon, p. 80; Wessely, i., 139. We have given the passage inextenso because it is particularly instructive in respect to the Syncretism of this literature.
1111 Considered by A. Dieterich to be a palindrome of the ιεουωηι.
1112 A. Dieterich, Fleck. Jahrbb. Suppl. xvi., p. 304; Leemans, iii., p. 23.
1113 A. Dieterich, Abr., p. 195 f.; Leemans, p. 141 f.
1114 A. Dieterich, Abr., p. 197; Leemans, p. 145.
1115 P. 63: “ The exact pronunciation of that name . . was preserved a profound secret, but several approximations were made to it; among which the commonest is the word Ιαω . . , which was sometimes expanded, so as to employ all the vowels, into Ιαωουηε”.
1116Cf. on this point Baudissin, p. 245 ff.; Parthey, p. 116 f.; A. Dieterich, Abr., p. 22 f.
1117 The 12th Jahresb. Aber das K. K. Franz-Josephs-Gymn. in Wien, 1886.
1118Wiener Studien, viii. (1886), p. 183.
1119 Let one example suffice: Pap. Lugd. J 395, xx. 1 ff. (A. Dieterich, Abr., p. 200; Leemans, p. 149 f.): ἐπικαλοῦμαίσειυευοωαεηιαωαεηαιεηαηιουωευηιεουαηωηιωηιιαηιωουηαυηυηαιωιωαιιωαιωηεεουιωιαωτὸμέγαὄνομα.
1120De laude dei per septem vocales in the Commentationes Soc. Reg. Scient. Gotting., i. (1751), p. 245 ff.
1121Cf. Wessely, p. 42, on the “frivolity” (Leichtfertigkeit) with which the copyists treated the magic formulae. The state of the text generally with regard to Semitic names in Greek manuscripts, biblical and extra-biblical, is instructive.
1123Wiener Studien, viii. (1886), p. 182.
1124 Kenyon, p. 98 ; Wessely, ii., p. 34.
1126 Wessely, i., p. 89. This passage renders it possible to restore the text of the Inscription CIG. iii., No. 5858 b, and of the quotation from Pap. Lond. cxxi. 419, with certainty ; observe the palindrome ερηκισιθφηαραραχ, etc.
1127 Cf. also κύριεαρχανδαραφωταζαπυριφωταζαβυθ . . . (Pap. Par. Bibl. nat. 631-6.32; Wessely, p. 60).
1128De tabulis devotionis plumbeis Alexandrinis, Rhein. Mus. fur Philologic, N. F., ix. (1854), p. 375.
1129De tabulis devotionis plumbeis Alexandrinis, Rhein. Mus. fur Philologic, N. F., ix. (1854), p. 374.
1130 The French scholar’s assertion is only to be explained by the fact that the form of Satan’s name is, in French, Belzebuth or Belsebuth. We have not been able to ascertain when this form can be first vouched for, or how it is to be explained. Should we find in the variant belzebud of (Vulgate) Codex mm, Matthew 10:25 (Tischendorf), authority for saying that the T-sound has supplanted the original ending b or l in later Latin, and so in French also? What form is found in the “Romance” Bibles?
1131 Cod. B., occasionally also א of the N.T. yield the form βεεζεβουλ; cf. on this Winer-Schmiedel, § 5, 31 (p. 65).
1132Viva-voce information by W. Schulze. Cf. Winer-Schmiedel, § 5, 21 b (p. 51), on κολλούριον.
1133Cf. Franz, p. 757. Franz, in his explanation of the syllable βυθ, recalls the βυθός of the Valentinians. It is more correct to point to the frequently occurring (Egyptian?) termination in -υθ—the β is got from ζεβαωθ. Cf. the name of deities and months θωυθ, the formations βιενυθ (Kopp, iv., p. 158), μεννυθυθιαω (Pap. Lond. CXXI. 820; Kenyon, p. 110; Wessely, p. 49), ϊωβυθιε (Pap. Par. Bibl. nat. 1799; Wessely, p. 89). Cf. on Egyptian female names in –υθ, A. Boeckh, AAB., hist.-Php. Klasse, 1820-1821, p. 19.
1134Cf. also H. Lewy, Die semitischen Fremdworter im Griechischen Berlin, 1895, pp. 38, 42 f., 225.
1135 Kenyon, p. 65; Wessely, i., p. 127.
1136 Kenyon, p. 67; Wessely, p. 128.
1137 F. Dietrich, p. 282: “The principal thing is, however, that the pronunciation Jahava has no historic authority whatever. If Theodoret had intended to signify that, while יהוה was pronounced Ἰαβέ by the Samaritans, the Jews pronounced this full form of the name with a at the end, then he would have written ἸουδαῖοιδὲἸαβά, which is warranted by none of the variants.” But “historic authority” for this form has now been shown as above.
1139 With the form θαβαωθcf. ταβαωθ, Pap. Par. Bibl. nat. 1413 (Wessely,i., p. 80), Pap. Lond. xlvi. 62, 6:3, in which the form ιαβοε follows (Kenyon, p. 67; Wessely, p. 128), Pap. Lugd. J 384, iii. 7 (Fleck. Jahrbb. Suppl., xvi., p. 798; Leemans, p. 15).
1143Cf. above on ιαωθ. [↑] 1144 Wessely, i., p. 126.
1145 Kenyon, p. 94; Wessely, ii., p. 31.
1146Kenyon, p. 68; Wessely, p. 120.
1148 In R. Helm’s Ltcantaineuta iiuujica Graeca Latina; Fleck., JahrbbSuppl. xix. (1893), 523.
1149Kenyon, p. 76, cf. the note to line 357; Wessely, i., pp. 135, 136.
1150 Kenyon, p. 118; Wessely, ii., p. 52.
1152 Cf. on the Jewish diaspora in Egypt, Hugo Willrich, Juden and Griechen, vor der makkabdischen Erhebung, Gottingen, 1895, p. 126 ff.; and, against Willrich, Schurer, ThLZ. xxi. (1896), p. 35. Cf. also Wilcken, Berl. Philol. Wochenschrift, xvi. (1896), p. 1492.
1153 E. Schurer, Geschichte des jiklischen Volkes ins Zeitalter Jesu Christi, ii., Leipzig, 1886, p. 502 (= 3 iii., p. 24). [Eng. Trans., ii., ii.,p. 230.]
1154 In J. P. Mahaffy, The Flinders Petrie Papyri, ii., Dublin, 1893 [14]. The paging of the text is always given in brackets [ ] in Mahaffy. Vol. i, was published in Dublin, 1891.
1155 Mahaffy, ii. [97], conjectures that these are translations of Eldad and Esau. With this he makes the further conjecture that the name θεόφιλος, common in the imperial period, occurs here for the first time. But the name is found earlier, and Mahaffy’s question whether it is perhaps a “Jewish invention” must be answered in the negative.—The author has made further observations on Samaria in the Fayyûm in ThLZ. xxi. (1896), p. 611.
1157 Vopisc., vita Saturnini, c. 8. 1 (Scriptores histariae Augustae, ed. Peter, vol. ii., p. 225): nemo illic archisynagogus Judaeorum, nemo Samarites, nemo Christianorum presbyter non mathematicus, non haruspex, non aliptes. Schurer refers to this passage, ii., p. 502 (= 3 p. 24). [Eng. Trans., II., p. 230.] Cf. also c. 7. 4.
1158 Compare with the expression ἡδύναμιςτοῦθεοῦἡκαλουμένημεγάλη, Pap. Par. Bibl. nat. 1275 ff. (Wessely, i., 76), ἐπικαλοῦμαίσετὴνμεγίστηνδύναμιντὴνἐντῷοὐρανῷ. (ἄλλοι : τὴνἐντῇἄρκτῳ) ὑπόκυρίουθεοῦτεταγμένην. See also Harnack, Bruchstacke des Evangeliums und der Apokalypse des Petrus (TU also ix. 2), 2 Aufl., Leipzig, 1893, p. 65 f.
1159 See O. F. Fritzsche, HApAT. v. (1859), p. xiii.
1160 Schurer, ii., p. 595 (=3 iii., p. 159). [Eng. Trans., ii., iii., p. 26.) 1161Cf.HApAT. v. (1859), p. xv.
1162Recueil, i. (1842), p. 277.
1164Bulletin de corr. hell., i. (1877), p. 36 f.
1165 In Letronne, Recueil, i., p. 246 = CIG. iii., No. 4697. Lumbroso, Recherches, p. xxi., has already referred to this.
1166 See his words as cited above. J. Franz, in CIG. iii., p. 338, agrees with Letronne, and refers to line 29 of the Inscription. But the present writer is again unable to see how the words occurring there, viz., ἑωςτοῦὀγδόου ἔτους, can signify the years of the priests’ service.
1167 The author thinks that the explanation given by Letronne (year of their priesthood) is somewhat forced.
1168Notices, xviii. 2, p. 220 f.
1169Notices, xviii. 2, p. 130.
1170Notices, xviii. 2, p. 153. Brugsch translates thus: under the priest of “the” king Ptolemy. . . .
1171 Grimm, HApAT. iv. (1857), p. 249.
1172 Grimm, HApAT. iv. (1857), p. 249.
1173 According to 3Ma. 4:20, the number of the Jews was so enormous that, when their names were being entered in the lists before their execution, pens and papyrus ran short!
1174 In a critical note upon the text of the passage in his edition of the Old Testament Apocrypha.
1175Notices, xviii. 2, p. 178 f.
1176Notices, xviii. 2, p. 203.
1177Cf. διειλήφαμεν in the other two edicts. The official language of the Ptolemaic period may depend here also (ante, p. 104 ff.) on the usage of Greek jurisprudence. The identical usage of the infinitive is found in an Inscription on a building in Tegea (ca. 3rd cent. B.C., Arcadian dialect), line 24f.: ἱμφαῖνενδὲτὸμβολόμενονἐπὶτοῖἡμίσσοιτᾶςζαμίαυ (edited by P. Cauer; see p. 114, note 2, above [↑]). These examples of the absolute infinitive in edicts might be largely supplemented from Inscriptions.
1178 To say nothing of their value as indicating the wishes and ideas of the waiters of them.
11793Ma. 7:20.
1180 In τῇἐλευθερίᾳστεφανωθήσεται,ἐλευθερίας might very easily arise from dittography, and this error, again, might result in τῆςἐλευθερίας.
1181 Brunet de Presle, Notices, xviii. 2, p. 303; he refers, inter alia, to Polyb. xiii. 95, ἐστεφάνωσαντὸνἈντίοχονπεντακοσίοιςἀργυρίουταλάντοις, and to the use of στεφάνιον for reward in Pap. Par. 42 (153 B.C.); on this cf. the Thesaurus, and Lumbroso, Recherches, p. 285.—In reference to the whole subject see now E. Ziebarth, Popularklagen mit Delatorenpramien nach griechischem Recht, in Hermes, xxxii. (1897), pp. 609-628.
1182 See the remarks of Mahaffy, i., p. 48.
1183Galatians 6:17.
1184 For τοῦλοιποῦ ?; cf. W. Schmid, Der Atticismus, iii., p. 135,.
1185 F. Sieffert, Meyer, vii. 7 (1886), p. 375.
1188 Cf. J. J. Wetstein, Novum Testamentum Graecum, ii., Amsterdam, 1752, p. 238 f.: “Notae enim serviles potius invitabant aliorum conturneliam ”.
1189 P. 238: “Sacras notas intelligit Paulus; se sacrum esse, cui ideo nemo eorum, qui Christum amant, molestus esse debeat, profltetur ”.
1190 Besides, Paul does not speak of the marks of Christ at all; he uses the name Jesus, otherwise rare in his writings.
1191Beitrage zur Pentateuchkritik, ZAW. xiv. (1894), p. 250 ff.
1192καὶἕτεροςἐπιγράψειχειρὶαὐτοῦ˙τοῦθεοῦεἰμι; see the remarks upon LXX 3Ki. 21꞉35 [MT 1 Kings 20:35 ff.], and LXX Zechariah 13:6 [MT Zechariah 13:6] in Stade, p. 313, also p. 314 ff.
1194 Stade also draws attention to the protective-marks of the Passover night; as these, however, were not made upon the body, they come less into consideration here. But note that in Exodus 13:9, Exodus 13:16 feast of the Passover is compared to a sign upon the hand and upon the forehead.
1195 Note that the LXX has γράμματαστικτά here.
1196 LXX Genesis 17:11 [MT Genesis 17:11], Romans 4:11; cf. on this point Stade, p. 308.
1197 Cf., most recently, Stade, pp. 301, 303 ff.
1198Etymologiculn Magnum, subΓάλλος.
1199Revelation 13:16 f., Revelation 14:9 ff., Revelation 16:2, Revelation 19:20, Revelation 20:4. See ante, p. 240 ff.
1200Revelation 14:1, Revelation 7:2 ff., Revelation 9:4. On the meaning of signs in the Christian Church, see the suggestions of Stade, p. 304 ff.
1201 We think it probable that the expression forms an antithesis to the previously mentioned circumcision (cf. Romans 4:11σημεῖονπεριτομῆς) and that emphasis is to be laid upon τοῦἸησοῦ.
1202 Lettres ci, M. Letronne . . . sur les papyrus bilingues et grecs . . . du musee d’antiquites de l’universite de Leide, Leiden, 1880, i., pp. 3 ff., 36 ff. In the Atlas belonging to this work, Table A, some words from the passage under discussion are given in facsimile.
1203Appendice (to the work just cited), p. 151.
1204Papyrus egyptien demotique a transcriptions grecques du musee d’antiquites des Pays-Bas a Leide (description raisonnee, J. 383), Leiden, 1839. Our passage is found in Table IV., col. VIII. ; in the tables the Papyrus is signed A. [= Anastasy?] No. 65.
1205Monumens egyptiens du musee d’antiquites des Pays-Bas a Leide, Leiden, 1839.
1206Papyri graeci musei antiquarii publici Lugduni-Batavi, ii., Leiden, 1885, p. 5.
1207Uber das agyptische Museum zu Leyden, in the Zeitschr. der Deutschen morgenlandischen Gesellschaft, vi. (1852), p. 250 f.
1208Grammaire demotique, Berlin, 1855. A fac-simile of our passage is found on Table IX. of that book, a transcription on p. 202.
1209Les arts egyptiens, in the Revue egyptologique, i. (1880), p. 164; cf. the same author’s discussion of the Papyrus, ibid., ii. (1881-1882), p. 10 ff. His book, Le Roman de Setna, Paris, 1877, was not accessible to the present writer.
1210 Collections du Musee Alaoui, premiere serie, 5e livraison, Paris, 1890, p. 66 f.; see the same author’s discussion of the Papyrus in his Etudes demotiques, in the Recueil de travaux relatifs á, la philologie et a l’archeologieegyptiennes 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.
1211Mittheilungen aus der Saminlung der Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer, v. (Vienna, 1892), p. 13 f.
1212 This Papyrus contains another and longer Greek incantation, most recently read and discussed by Revillout, Rev. eg., (1880), p. 166 f.
1213Cf. also the translation of Brugsch, Gramm. dem., p. 202.
1214Notices, xviii. 2, pp. 234, 435 f. Wessely, Mitth. Rainer, v., p. 14, explains that “ταφή here means mummy, as we learn in particular from the language of the wooden tablets which were employed in the conveyance of mummies as labels of recognition”. See also Leemans, Monumens, p. 8. - C. Schmidt, Ein altchristliches Muinienetikett in the Zeitschr. fur die agyptische Sprache und Alterthumskuncle, xxxii. (1594), p. 55, says, “I am of opinion that in Roman times ταφή was understood as the ‘mummy’ only”.
1215 In reference to what follows, see Maspero, Coll. Al., p. 66.
1216De mysteriis, 6, (ed. G. Parthey, Berol., 1857, p. 245 f.): ἢγὰρτὸνοὐρανὸνπροσαράξεινἢτὰκρυπτὰτῆς Ἴσιδοςἐκφανεῖνἢτὸἐνἀβύσσῳἀπόρρητον [for this we find, 6 7, p. 248, τὰἐνἈβύδῳἀπόρρητα; cf. 1. 6 of our formula] δείξεινἢστήσειντὴνβάριν, ἢτὰμέλητοῦὈσίριδοςδιασκεδάσειντῷΤυφῶνι.
1219Collections du Musa Alaoui, prem. serie, 5e livraison (1890), p. 60: Si minus, descendo in adytus Osyris et dissolvamτὴνταφὴνet mittam, ut a flumine feratur. See Maspero’s explanatory notes.
1220 E.g., Epiphanius, Adv. Haer., iii. 2, p. 1093 D (Dindorf, vol. iii., p 571). See Reuvens, p. 41 ff. and Leemans, Monumens, p. 9.
1223 Leemans, Monumens, p. 9, suggests προσρίψω.
1224 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.
12251 Corinthians 4:21; see p. 119 f. [↑] 1226 See p. 323. [↑]
1227 It begins thus: ἐπικαλοῦμαίσετὸντῷκενεῷπνεύματιδεινὸνἀόρατονπαντοκράτοραθεὸνθεῶνφθοροποιὸνκαὶἐρημοποιόν (Revue egyptologique, i., p. 168).
1228Acts 13:1-52 and Acts 19:1-41.
1229Galatians 5:20.
1230Galatians 3:1.
1231 The peculiarly emphatic ἐγώ too, recalls the emphasis of certain incantations; see p. 355 with reference to anok.
1232 See p. 95 ff. [↑] The Inscription is given in CIG. ii., No. 2715 a, b = Waddington, iii. 2, Nos. 519-520 (p. 142).
1234In 2 Peter 1:3 the genitive τῆςθείαςδυνάμεως is of course the subject of the middle verb δεδωρημένης.
1235 Note that the cases following διά are different.
1236HC. iii. 22 (1892), p. 199.
1237 A real biblical parallel is LXX Dan. 3:33 [No Hebrew Parallel] .
1238αἰώνιος, of which the Inscriptions contain many examples, is, in titles and solemn forms of expression, nearly similar in meaning to the Latin perpetuus; ἀΐδιος, in similar connections, appears to be a synonym. References in Bull. de corr. hell., xii. (1888), p. 196 f. Hence, when we find the word in the Bible, we should not allow the presuppositions concerning an alleged biblical Greek to induce us to interpret it mechanically in every case.
1239Josephus and Lukas, Leipzig, 1894, p. 350. Krenkel refers to Josephus, Antt. xx. 92; a more acute glance into Wetstein would have made him more cautious.
1240 Cf. Jude 1:3.
1241 See e.g., Julicher, Einleitung in das N.T., p. 151.
1242 The same may be said of the adjective and the verb. The “Fourth Book of Maccabees” forms an exception.
1243 These words are not found elsewhere in the New Testament.
1244 [But see Revisers’ text.—Tn.].
1245 B. Weiss, Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das N.T., Berlin, 1886, p. 439.
1246 For the accentuation see Winer-Schmiedel, § 6, 3 b (p. 68).
1247 Further, in the whole range of “biblical” Greek (apart from 2nd, 3rd and 4th Maccabees), μέγιστος occurs elsewhere (if we may depend upon Tromm) only in LXX Job 26:3 [MT Job 26:3], and LXX Job 31:28 [MT Job 31:28]; moreover, the Alexandrinus reads μεγάλη for μεγίστη in the latter passage. μέγιστος seems to he very rare also in the Papyri of the Ptolemaic period. According to the indexes we have only the idiomatic phrase ὃἐμοὶμέγιστον ἔσται, in Pap. Flind. Petr., ii., xiii. (19), ca. 255 B.C. (Mahafly, ii. [45]), and τῆςμεγίστηςθεᾶςἫρας, Pap. Par., 15, 120 B.C. (Notices, xviii. 2, p. 219), as a solemn designation, most probably a fixed form of expression, similar to that in our Inscription.
1248 The above-discussed series of purely formal assonances might be put forward as supporting this.
1249 How such formulae were used, spontaneously, so to speak, in the writings of other representatives of the new Faith, may be seen, e.g., in the relationship between certain Pauline passages and the solemn words made known to us by au Inscription of Halicarnassus of the early imperial period: see C. T. Newton, A History of Discoveries at Halicarnassus, Cnidus and Branchidae, ii. 2, London, 1863, p. 695.—Cf. also W. M. Ramsay, The Greek of the Early Church and the Pagan Ritual, in the Expository Times, vol. x., p. 9 ff.—A similar instance from ancient times has been noted by R. Kittel in Z A.W. xviii. (1898), p. 149: LXX Isaiah 45:1 ff. [MT Isaiah 45:1 ff.]shows dependence upon the court-phraseology made known to us by the clay-cylinders of Cyrus.
1250 The theory becomes still more probable when we compare the above conjecture with what Th. Zahn, Geschichte des Neutestamentl. Kanons, i. 1, Erlangen, 1888, p. 312 ff., says about the locality in which the Epistle “was first circulated, and gained the esteem of the church”; but see A. Harnaok, Das N.T. um das Jahr 200, Freiburg i. B., 1889, p. 85 f.
1251 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.
1252 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 Peter 1:4 we find the peculiar phrase, ἵνα. . .γένησθεθείαςκοινωνοὶφύσεως ; 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., πᾶσινὅσοιφύσεωςκοινωνοῦντεςἀνθρω[πί]νης (in Humann and Puelistein’s Reisen in Kleinasien 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.
1253For what follows cf. F. Dilsterdieck, Meyer, xvi.4 (1887), p. 289.
1254 See pp. 96 f. and 360 ff. The passage runs: . . . λευχιμονοῦνταςκαὶἐστεφανωμένουςθαλλοῦ ἔχονταςδὲμετὰχῖρας [for this construction of μετά, which is found elsewhere in the idiom μετὰχεῖρας ἔχειν (W. Schmid, Der Atticismus, iii., p. 285), cf. the variant of LXX Genesis 43:21 [MT Genesis 43:21], τίςἐνέβαλενἡμῖνματὰχεῖραςτὸἀργύριον, Codd. 31 and 83, i., p. 61] ὁμοίωςθαλλοὺςοἵτινεςσυνπαρόν [τωνκα]ὶκιθαριστοῦκαὶκήρυκοςᾄσονταιὕμνον. The original orthography has been retained. On the fact cf. the remark of the scholiast upon Theocr. Id. ii. 12, quoted by the editor, Waddington, iii. 2, p. 143: οἱπαλαιοὶτὴνἙκάτηντρίμορφονἔγραφονχρυσεοσάνδαλονκαὶλευχείμονακαὶμήκωναςταῖνχεροῖν ἔχουσανκαὶλαμβπάδαςἡμμένας.