The Case of Proper Names

I will now examine a little the case of proper names; and then, for profitable use and further evidence, take some of the more important cases to which the doctrine can be applied in the Epistle to the Rom. 1 recur to John 1:6, ὄνομα αὐτω Ἰωάννης. Here it is evidently something referable to αὐτῶ. Εγένετο, as a verb of existence, gave the rest of the phrase the form of attributes of what existed: this, its name.
We might expect to find some apparent anomaly here, inasmuch as a name itself designates. But if this be carried in mind, we shall find the usual principles, viz., that where it has become an object (being named) in the sentence it will take the article: where it has not, it will take none. Verse 15, he is named. Here he is not an object; he has his name as the one bearing witness: so verse 17, Moses is a description of the giver of the law; Jesus Christ, of him by whom grace and truth came. Verse 12, we have an objective person introduced in a certain position before the Jews: he is the subject of the mind in the sentence. Ἠλίας points out the person, naming him for the first time here (verse 21). Ὁ Χριστὸς is not properly a name-it is the long expected Messiah the Anointed (verse 20). Ἠραίας (verse 23) designates the person again simply; whereas ὁ Ἠσαίας, would designate Isaiah himself the object, not the mere name of a person who did something. Verse 26, Ἰωάννης again becomes a distinctive object already known: in contrast with the others, and in respect of his conduct he is the subject of thought. Verse 28, Bethabara is just a name. Ἰορδάνουtakes the article, as designating the river specially as an object: it is an idiom of all languages from the nature of the thing-an object, not a mere name. We say "the Thames," "across the Thames," though we say "across London"; so in French: the division of the country by a river, and the continuity of it requiring an identification of the object, lead to this. I go forty miles, but it is still the same river, it is the Thames-the Jordan. The "the," or the article, gives unity or completeness as an object, to the whole course of that which would otherwise lose its identity to the mind in separate parts. This may be traced in many such objects, as oceans, tracts of country treated as one district. Ἰωάννης loses the article here: it is his name as acting merely, the acting itself being the object. Verse 29, Jesus is introduced as the positive object of the mind, so evidently is τώ Israel, verse 31. In verses 35, 36, both John and Jesus are so introduced; so verse 38. In verse 41, Ἀνδρέας is just a name, as Σίμωνος; so now again: John as having spoken, and Σίμωνα; again sheaving that recent mention does not annex the article when merely historical mention and not a definite object of the mind. It gives merely the name of this brother. Verse 43, Jesus is twice the object of the mind distinctly. The other names are evidently given as such characteristically. Verse 45, Philip becomes the object. It was the same Philip; and the evangelist proceeds to give an account about him who had been just mentioned; but in the next verse, historically mentioned, he loses it; so Moses, so Jesus. Joseph has it as particularly marked to designate who Jesus was, and τὸν ἀπὸ Ναξαρὲθ marks this distinctly. Ναξαρὲθ, as a mere name, has it not. Ναθαναὴλ is the only one peculiar here (verse 46). Who is he? Why is he thus designated as a special object? Not because he has been mentioned before, according to the ordinary rule; for he has not. As historically mentioned several times in the succeeding verses, he has it not. But it is to be remarked, the article is designative. It is first in the mind of the speaker. It points out an object of thought to the hearer. Hence when anything is such, it is used; though why it is, only comes out afterward. Hence it is used anticipatively. So here, Nathaniel is the subject specially of what follows, and whenever spoken of has the article, though not when mentioned historically. Galilee (2:1) is a district on the same principle as Ἰορδάνου: it gives unity to it as a whole. So Matt. 3:5.
This, which many minds might overlook (I mean as to names), has made the readings sometimes uncertain, and the presence or absence of the article is with the name a delicacy of thought, of which, as far as I know, Greek alone is susceptible. But though in some cases, a careless or inattentive mind, not bred in Greek thought, may scarcely see it, and the historical substance of the passage be no way altered by it, I think enough has been given to spew that while a name designating a person is, so to speak, an article;-yet that when it becomes an object of thought, it comes completely under the usual rule, and singularly confirms it. A. name is evidently in itself either the designation of a person, or a mere attribute or character; that is, when I say:"John said"-it points one to a person itself. If I say, "His name was John", I attribute to him something characteristic. In neither case would there be an article. If I talk about John, as a subject in the sentence, this comes under the common rule of the objective article. In a rapid conversation, I apprehend, the names might have it, having practically the force of ὁ μὲν ὁ δὲ, that is, replying one to another animatedly, they would be kept up as objects before the mind. When it returned to the historical account, they would drop it again. Such distinctions as these would evidently demand entering into the spirit of the author; but they form good writing and style. The presence of the article constantly with the name of Jesus, would stand most clearly and evidently accounted for, on the principle here spoken of: he may be named historically, of course, but he was constantly the subject and object before the inspired historian's mind-the central and chief leading figure in the scene, on which the eye was, and was meant to be fixed. I suspect it will be found that Κυρίος is often a name, when used in the New Testament. Jehovah, as Luke 1;16, ἐπὶ Κύριον τὸν Θεὸν αὐτὤν. I doubt that it is simply conversion to the Lord, as characterizing conversion, but to Jehovah. But this would be a subject for inquiry in each case, so ἑτοιμάσαι Κυρίω λαόν. It may be questioned whether it be ever otherwise than a name, when used by itself, and not coupled with the name of Jesus, or the like, so as to ascribe Lordship to Him. If the first chapter of Luke be referred to, where there are many names, abundant confirmation will be found of the general principle.
Before noticing the peculiar cases in the Romans, I will state certain applications of the principle, one of which may, to many minds, bring out the principle itself more clearly. We have seen that the article, giving the object of the mind, necessarily gives the definite totality. This is true even of the plural, only that there the entire object is composed of parts, as of οἱ μαθηταὶ, is all the disciples, as one whole, but made up of many members. Now the evident consequence of this is, that when a noun does not embrace the totality, but means only some, it cannot be such an object. It gives these some, as characteristic of a class, so as fully to come under, and verify the principle. The use of nouns after active verbs, comes really under this head. When a nominative characterizes the action, it will be true of it, as of the accusative. Under this the historically used names, and characteristic plurals come. Ποιήσατε ἑαυτοῖς φίλους (Luke 16:9), ἐκβάλλω δαιμόνια (12:32). But when it is a complete object, it has, ἐπέθηκε τὰς χεῖρας. So in singular, δοῦναι ὑμῖν τὴν βασιλείαν, but δότε ἐλεημοσύνην: so προςῆλθον αὐτῶ Σαδδουκαίοι. On the other hand, συνηγμένων δὲ τῶν φαρισαίων (Matt. 22.41), as a complete body of people in the mind, though, of course, all the individuals were not there. So ὄτι τὸ ἔν μέρος ἐστὶ Σαδδουκαίων, τὸ δὲ ἔτερον Φαρισαίων then στάσις τῶν Φαρισαίων καὶ τῶν Σαδδουκαίων the body of them there. Σαδδουκαῖοι μὲν γὰρ... φαρισαἴοι δὲ, that kind of persons (Acts 23:6,7,8).
The same rule holds with the singular, where it requires more abstraction to see its force, because - (these differences, however, English fully represents) --every one could understand the difference of " Sadducees hold so and so," and " Pharisees so and so," i.e. that kind of persons. It is characteristic of any of a class. " The Sadducees" and " the Pharisees" affirm it as a fact of a whole class. I now give instances of the singular when used as a nominative, which is the more difficult case. Περιτομὴ ὠφελεῖ ἡ περιτομὴ giving an actual object, would be either the fact of circumcision physically, or, by a figure, the whole class. But it means neither, but the state of circumcision -that condition, or character; so καὶ περιτομὴ καρδίας ν πνεύματι.
Another remarkable example of this, δικαοσύνη γὰρ Θεοῦ ἀποκαλύπτεται...ἀποκαλύπτεται γὰρ ὀργὴ Θεοῦ, a righteousness which is of God, a wrath which is of God. Another case important to remark, is a time which is characterized, and not given as a date, as ἡμέρα κρίσεως. It is not the day of judgment, that is specifying a time, nor a day, as if there were many; but, in judgment-day, as contrasted in character with men going on their own way without judgment (Matt. 11:22,24, etc).
I turn to the Romans:-