‹ Chapter 6 of 137 ›

01.03. The Characteristics Of New Testament Greek.

55 min read · Chapter 6 of 137

‹ Previous Chapter Table of Contents Next Chapter ›

Section Second. The Characteristics Of New Testament Greek.

I. Being satisfied that the books of the New Testament were written in Greek, our next inquiry naturally turns on the precise character of this Greek. Is it fashioned after the model of classical Greek, or has it laws and properties of its own? If the latter, wherein consist its distinctive peculiarities? This is evidently a subject of no small moment for the correct interpretation of the New Testament writings, and demands a careful examination. In the present day, it can scarcely be said, that there is any material difference of opinion upon the subject. This common agreement, however, is the result partly of a long controversy, and partly of the more exact and impartial treatment of Scripture, which is the general characteristic of present, as compared with earlier, times. Indeed, the question, in so far as it has been agitated, has usually turned, not so much upon the fact of a difference between New Testament and classical Greek, (which no competent scholar could fail to perceive,) as upon the extent of the difference, and the precise light in which it was to be regarded. So early as the period of the Reformation, we find distinct notice taken of the difference. Erasmus, for example, says on Acts 10:38, “The apostles had not learned their Greek from the speeches of Demosthenes, but from the language of common discourse; and I should think it best suited to the gospel of Christ, that it was communicated in a simple and unpolished style, and that the discourse of the apostles resembled their clothing, their manners, and their whole life. Pious persons should as little take offence at the language of the apostles, as at their unwashed bodies, and their plebeian garments.” Beza, in a long note on the same chapter, only so far controverts the sentiments of Erasmus, as the latter had affirmed the language of the apostles to be relatively imperfect and obscure, as well as unpolished; but he admits the existence of Hebraistic peculiarities, and of occasional solecisms. Practically, however, the theological writers of that period treated the language of the New Testament much as they would have done any other production in Greek, and as if it had no very marked peculiarities of its own. The doctrinal discussions, too, in which they, and their immediate successors in sacred learning, were so much engaged, tended not a little to impede the exact philological study of the Greek Scriptures, and their relation in point of dialect to other Greek writings, from a too prominent regard to polemical discussions.

Often, indeed, Greek studies were prosecuted for the purpose mainly of impugning or defending out of Scripture a particular class of doctrines; and, as a natural consequence, the New Testament came to be regarded as an ordinary specimen of Greek, and to be commonly used as a class-book for the acquirement of the language. Nor, by and by, were there wanting persons to contend for the absolute purity of its style—including among others the well-known printer, Robert Stephens persons who sought to prove, that the seeming peculiarities of the New Testament dialect were also to be met with in the contemporaneous and earlier writings of Greece. It was the more common opinion, however, among learned men during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, that there are certain terms and modes of expression frequently employed in the New Testament, and derived from the Hebrew, which characteristically distinguish it from the writings belonging to Greece proper; but yet that the introduction of these—to use the language of Pfeiffer, who speaks the general sentiment of his age (Klausen’s Hermeneutik, p. 260.)—“is to be sought, not in any degeneracy of the Greek language into a distinct Hellenistic dialect, but in an assimilation of the style of the New Testament to that of the Old, through an especial direction of the Holy Spirit. Such Hebraisms are not to be reckoned as solecisms, or barbarisms, but modes of speech, which are peculiar to the Holy Spirit. If the style of the New Testament (he adds) may be designated by any name, it should rather be called after the authors, the sacred Greek style, than either Hellenistic, or half Hebraistic, or Hebrew Greek, or Hebraizing, to say nothing of disfigured Greek.”

We have here, no doubt, in substance, the right view of the matter—though with an error in the formal representation of it, the offspring of a not unnatural, though mistaken dread, lest, in conceding the strict purity of New Testament Greek, a kind of slight should be thrown upon the medium of the Spirit’s communication. The strongest representative of this feeling, perhaps, may be found in Black wall, who, in his Sacred Classics, both denied that many of the alleged peculiarities of New Testament Greek are Hebraistic or Oriental idioms, and claimed for such, as he admitted to be of this description, the character of true and proper ornaments. “He did not consider,” as justly remarked by Dr. Campbell, in the first preliminary dissertation to the gospels, “that when he admitted any Hebraisms in the New Testament, he in effect gave up the cause. That only can be called a Hebraism in a Greek book, which though agreeable to the Hebrew idiom, is not so to the Greek. Nobody would ever call that a Scotticism, which is equally in the manner of both Scotch and English. Now, such foreign idioms as Hebraisms in Greek, Grecisms in Hebrew, or Latinisms in either, come all within the definition of barbarism, and sometimes even of solecism—words which have always something relative in their signification; that term of expression being a barbarism or a solecism in one language, which is strictly proper in another, and, I may add, to one set of hearers, which is not so to another. It is in vain, then, for any one to debate about the application of the names barbarism and solecism. To do so, is at best but to wrangle about words, after admitting all that is meant by them.” So obvious is this view of the matter, and so readily does it commend itself to one’s practical judgment, that it seems strange there should ever have been any unwillingness to admit it. The unwillingness, as we have mentioned, simply arose from a mistaken idea of some necessary connexion subsisting between purity of diction and inspiration of sentiment; certainly a mistaken idea, for the imagined purity is expressly disclaimed by the most learned of all the apostles, who represents himself as naturally appearing to a Greek audience “rude in speech;” and of his method of discourse generally, including doubtless the language in which it was expressed, he declares that it did not aim at excellency of words. A strictly classical diction would not have been natural to him and the other apostles. And as it was the rule of the Spirit in all His supernatural gifts and operations to proceed on the basis of what is natural, it would, in the first instance, have been contrary to the usual method of the Spirit’s working, if they had given utterance to their thoughts in language of fine polish and unexceptionable purity. It would, in fact, have required a kind of second inspiration to secure this, and one so little in accordance with the principle usually acted on in like cases, that it might well have suggested a doubt as to the reality of the first. If the apostles had written with the classical taste, which is sometimes claimed for them, thoughtful minds would have found some difficulty in believing them to be the authors of their own productions. And we, in this remoter age, should have wanted one of the most important evidences of the authenticity and genuineness of New Testament Scripture—its being written in the style natural to the persons by whom, and the age in which, it was produced. The language is precisely what might have been expected from Jews at that particular time expressing themselves in Greek. And this, beyond doubt, is the fundamental reason for the style being precisely what it is. But the apostle Paul connects with it in his own case—connects with its very deficiencies in respect to classical refinement and rhetorical finish—the further and higher reason, that it but served the more strikingly to exhibit the direct agency of God’s Spirit in the success of the gospel. He spake, in delivering the Divine message, and of course also wrote, “not with the wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect;” and “his preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith (the faith of those who listened to his preaching) might not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power ofGod,” (1 Corinthians 2:4-5.) His meaning evidently is, that in himself and the other heralds of the gospel, in their personal attributes and in their whole manner of address, there were obvious defects and imperfections, as judged by the standard of worldly taste and refined culture; and that, not as a matter of accident, but of Divine choice—for the purpose of rendering more palpable and conspicuous the operation of God’s hand in the results that were accomplished through their instrumentality.

Even this is not the whole. Another reason still may be added for the same thing, and one too commonly overlooked by those who contended against the purists. There was a necessity in the case for securing the proper ends of a divine revelation—a necessity for a certain departure from the pure classical style, and calling in the aid of Jewish idioms and forms of speech, in order to exhibit in the most distinct and appropriate manner the peculiar truths of the gospel. As these truths required the preparation of much time and special providences for their proper growth and development, so also did the language, in which they were to be finally presented to the world, require something of a peculiar conformation. The native language of Greece, though in some respects the most perfect medium for the communication of thought which has ever been employed by the tongue of man, yet from being always conversant with worldly things, adapted to express every shade of thought and every variety of relationship with in the human and earthly sphere—but still only these—it was not fully adequate to the requirements and purposes of Christian authorship. For this higher end it needed to borrow something from the sanctuary of God, and be, as it were, baptized in the modes of thought and utterance which were familiar to those who had enjoyed the training of the Spirit. So that the writings of the Old Testament formed a necessary preparation for the language of the New, as did also the history and institutions of the one for the religious ideas of the other. Nor is it too much to say, as indeed has been said, “that a pure Greek gospel, a pure Greek apostolic epistle is inconceivable. The canonical and the Hebrew are most intimately connected.” (Hengstenberg on the Revelation of St. John, ii., p. 442.)

It is perfectly consistent with all this, and no less true, that the writers of the New Testament often show a correct acquaintance with the idioms of the Greek language, and knew how to distinguish between the nicer shades of meaning in many of its expressions. There are numberless passages in their writings which are scarcely less remarkable for the lofty elevation of thought they convey, than for the graceful and felicitous form in which it is embodied. And if we must say, on the one hand, that their language, as a whole, exhibits frequent deviations from the purity of Attic Greek, we must say also, on the other, that it often makes near approaches to this—differing, if not only, yet most distinctly and chiefly, when the higher purposes for which they wrote required them so to do. Their language may thus be said to be of a somewhat irregular and oscillatory character. “In many cases it rises superior to the common dialect of the time, and approaches marvellously near to the vigour and precision of Attic Greek, while in other usages it seems to sink below the average standard, and to present to us the peculiarities of the later Greek, distorted and exaggerated by Aramaic forms of expression. This mixed character of the language is very interesting and suggestive. It shows us how at one time the august nature of the narrative, from the vital force of the truths it revealed, wove round itself a garb of clear and vigorous diction of Attic power, and more than Attic simplicity: and yet how, at other times, in the enunciation of more peculiarly scriptural sentiments and doctrines, the nationality of the writer comes into view, and with it his inaptitude—his providential inaptitude (we may thankfully say)—at presenting definite Christian truths in the smooth, fluent, yet possibly unimpressive [and spiritually defective] turns of language, which the native Greek the Greek of the first century—would have instinctively adopted. Where, however, in a merely literary point of view, the sacred volume may thus seem weakest, it is, considered from a higher point of view, incomparably strongest. It is this investiture of its doctrines with the majesty of Hebraistic imagery [and the peculiar richness and force of Hebraistic modes of expression,] rather than with the diffluent garb of a corrupted and decaded Hellenism that does truly reveal to us the overruling providence and manifold wisdom of God.” (Frazer’s Magazine for December, 1855. Substantially, indeed, the correct view was given by Beza, in the note already referred to on Acts 10:46. After noticing “the fine specimens of powerful and affecting writing to be found, especially in the epistles of Paul, he adds, “As to the intermixture of Hebraisms, it arose, not only from their being Hebrews, but because, in discoursing of those things which had been transmitted through the Hebrew tongue, it was necessary to retain much peculiar to it, lest they should seem to introduce some new doctrine. And certainly I cannot in the least wonder that so many Hebraisms have been retained by them, since most of these are of such a description, that by no other idiom could matters have been so happily expressed, nay, sometimes not expressed at all; so that, had those formulas not been used, new words and novel modes of expression would have needed to be sometimes employed, which no one could properly have understood.”)

Whether, therefore, we look to what was in itself natural and proper at the time, to what was in fittest accordance with the purposes for which the gospel revelation was given, or, finally, to what was required by the demands of the revelation itself, on each account there appears ground for concluding, that not the earlier and purer Greek of the classics, but the later Greek of the apostolic age, intermingled with and modified by the Hebraisms, which were natural and familiar to those whose style of thought and expression had been moulded by Old Testament Scripture, was the appropriate diction for the writers of the New Testament. Admitting, however, that such is and ought to have been its general character, we have still to inquire into the special characteristics of this dialect—to notice the more marked peculiarities that belong to it, and which require to be kept in view by those who would succeed in the work of interpretation. (For a short account of the earlier part of the controversy on the style of the New Testament, and a notice of some of the leading authors and works it called forth, see Planck’s Sacred Philology, Bib. Cab. vii., pp. 67-76.)

II. Undoubtedly the basis of the New Testament dialect is Κοινή διάλεκτος, the common, or Hellenic dialect, as it has been called, of the later Greek. This is the name given to the form of the Greek language, which came into general use after the Macedonian conquests. It was called common, and sometimes also Macedonian, because it originated in a sort of fusion of the particular dialects which had prevailed in earlier times; and this again arose, in great measure, from the fusion of the several states of Greece into one great empire under kings of the Macedonian dynasty. Indeed, what are known as the four classical dialects of earlier times—the Ionic, Ǣolic, Doric, and Attic—were not so properly the dialects in common use among the people, circulating in their separate localities, as the forms appropriated to so many departments of literature, which severally took their rise among the tribes that bore the distinctive names referred to. There may have been, and most probably were, other varieties in current use throughout Greece, but none, except one or other of the four specified, were allowed to appear in written productions. The Attic, however, surpassed the others so much, both by its inherent grace, and by the number of distinguished men who employed it in their writings, that it came to be generally regarded as the model form of the Greek language, and was cultivated by nearly all who were ambitious of writing in the purest style. Certain changes began to pass upon this dialect after the period of the Macedonian conquests, arising chiefly from the Doric peculiarities which predominated in Macedonia, and which now obtained a more general currency; while, along with these, occasional peculiarities from the other dialects were also introduced, probably, in the first instance, from colloquial usage;—the whole combining to form the common speech of Greece in later times. Salmasius was among the first to draw the attention of the learned to this subject, and since his day many others have contributed to the same line of investigation. Of these Henry Planck may be named as one of the most careful and accurate, whose treatise on the subject has been translated into English, and forms part of Vol. II. of Clark’s Biblical Cabinet. The characteristics of this common dialect were not quite uniform; but there are some general features which distinguish it pretty broadly from the Greek of the strictly classical times. They fall into two leading classes—lexical and grammatical peculiarities—the one relating to the form and usage of words, the other to their flexion and government. We shall notice under each head the more marked and important distinctions, and in each shall select only such examples as have a place in New Testament Scripture.

1. Under lexical peculiarities, or such as relate to the form and usage of words, there are, (1.) Words that received a new termination: such as μετοικεσία, Matthew 1:11, for which μετοίκησις or μετοικία was employed in earlier times; καύχησις often in St. Paul’s writings for the act or object of glorifying, as previously in the Septuagint, but in Attic writers καύχη or καύχημα; γενέσια, which in the earlier Greek writers was wont to signify the solemnities offered to the dead, on the pe riodical return of their birth-day, was latterly used for the birth-day itself, as in Matthew 14:6, instead of γενέθλια; ἔκπαλαι for πάλαι, various words with terminations in μα, as αἴ τημα for αἴ τησις, ἀνααπόδνμα for ἀναταπόδοσις, ἀσθένημα for ἀσθένεια, ψεῦσμα for ψεῦδος, (though it is found also in Plato.) We have also βασίλισσα, queen, for βασίλεια or βασιλίς, ἀποστασία for ἀπόστασις, and various other alterations of a like nature. (2.) Words, and forms of words, which were but rarely used in classical Greek, or found only with the poets, passed into common use in the later common dialect: such as αὐθεντεῖν, to govern; ἀλέκτωρ, a cock; ἀλεκτροφωία, cock-crowing; ἀλάλητος, that is not, or cannot be spoken, etc. (3.) Certain words formerly in use came latterly to acquire new meanings;—such as παρακαλεῖν, in the sense of admonishing or beseeching; ταιδεύειν, of chastising; εὐχαριστεῖν, of giving thanks, (originally, to be thankful;) ευʼσχήμων; of respectable or noble standing, (originally, graceful, decent, or becoming;) ὀψάριον, diminutive, from ὄψον, (from ἔψω,) strictly, boiled meat, then any thing eaten with bread to give it a relish, seasoning, sauce—in particular, at Athens, fish, which were there reckoned among the chief dainties—whence also the diminutive ὀψάριον acquired the sense of fish, as in John 6:9, in Plutarch too, and Athenæus. Under the same class may be ranked verbs with an active meaning, which, in classical Greek, are used only intransitively; for example, μαθητεύειν, to disciple, instead of being or taking the place of a disciple; θριαμβεύειν, to cause to triumph, instead of leading in triumph. Such transitions, however, from the received intransitive to a transitive sense, should rather perhaps be ascribed to the Hebraistic impress of the New Testament diction, than regarded as a peculiarity of the common dialect of the later Greek the sacred writers very naturally giving, in certain cases, the force of the Hiphil to the simple meaning of the verb. But, undoubtedly, traces of such alterations are also to be found in other writers. (4.) Words and phrases entirely new entered, especially compound words; for example, ἀλλοτριοεπίσκοπος, ἀνθρωπάρεσκος, μονόφθαλμος, εἰδωλολατρεία, σπλαγχνίξεσθαι, with many others—some peculiar to the Septuagint and the writings of the New Testament, others common to these and the productions in later Greek generally. Peculiarities of this class are distributed by Planck, not in aptly, into three kinds:—the first comprehending those which were expressly asserted by the ancient grammarians to have belonged to the common language of later times; the second, such as were not explicitly noted in this way, but are only found in the productions which appeared subsequently to the Macedonian era; and finally, those which nowhere occur but in the Septuagint, the Apocrypha, the writings of the New Testament, and the Greek Fathers. It is quite possible that, in regard to many of the words comprised in each of these divisions, the use made of them in the later Greek writings is not absolutely novel; they may have existed before, most likely did exist, but only as provincialisms, which had not received the sanction of any pure writer, or as expressions so seldom employed, that the earlier writings in which they occurred have not been preserved among the remains of antiquity. (5.) A fifih class consists of words imported into the Greek tongue from the Latin—a natural result of the subjugation of the Greek-speaking countries by the Romans; of these it is enough to notice such expressions as ἀσσάριον, δηνάριον, κῆνσος, λεγεών, σικάριος, etc., λαμβάνειν συμβόλιον, (consilium capere,) ἐργασίαν δοῦςαι, (operam dare,) etc. (For a more complete list, see Klausen, Hermeneutik, pp. 338·343; also Winer’s Idioms, § 2.)

2. In regard to the other great class of peculiarities belonging to the common dialect—those relating to flexion and syntax—Grammatical peculiarities—they also fall into several divisions. (1.) We have peculiarities in the flexion of verbs, such as δύνῃ as 2d pers. sing, of indic. pass, for the regular δύνασαι, κάθη for κάθησαι; second aorists with the terminations proper to the first, as εἶπα for εῖπον, ἔπεσα for ἔπεσον, even ἡμαρτήσα for ἡμαρτον; various endings also in αν, instead of ασι, such as ἔγνωκαν for ἐγνώκασι, εἴρηκαν for εἰρήκασι. Verbs occur, too, with double augments, as ἤμελλε, ἡβοὐληθην, ἠδυνηθήσαν, as sometimes also with Attic writers; and again occasionally without the augment, according to the best readings, for example, in Luke 13:13; 2 Timothy 1:16. Besides, certain Doric forms came into general use—such as πεινᾷν for τεινῇν, διφᾷν for διφῇν, σημᾷναι for σημῆναι. (2.) Peculiarities also appear in regard to the gender and flexion of nouns; thus ἔλεος, which, with all good Greek authors, is masculine, is neuter in the New Testament and ecclesiastical writers—but occasionally also masculine; πλοῦτος in like manner is used as a neuter; λιμός, which was used by the Greeks generally as a masculine, but was feminine in the Doric dialect, occurs in this gender also in the New Testament twice, (Luke 15:14, λιμὸς ἰσχυρά; Acts 11:28, λιμὸν μεγάλην,) according to the best copies. On the other hand, the sacred writers and the later Greek writers make βάτος, a bramble, feminine, as the Greeks generally were wont to do, while the Attics treated it as a masculine. The peculiarities in flexion are fewer; but χάριστα, the later and rarer form, occurs occasionally for χάριτα and ἐᾶς of the accus. plural is always dropt εῖς. (3.) As further distinctions, there may be added the nearly entire disuse of the dual, and a few peculiarities in respect to syntax. These latter consist chiefly (to take the summary of Winer) “in a negligent use of the moods and particles. In the New Testament the following may be noticed as examples: ὅταν used with the indicative preterite, εἰ with the subjunctive, ἵνα with the indicative present; (He might have added, what is still more peculiar, the occasional use of ἴνα with the future, as at 1 Corinthians 13:3, Revelation 6:11, if these are, as they appear to be, the correct readings.) the dispensing with ἵνα in forms like θέλω ἵνα, ἄξιος ἵνα, etc.; the coupling of verbs like γεύεσθαι with the genitive, and προσκυνεῖν with the dative; the use of the genitive infinitive, such as τοῦ ποιεῖν, beyond the original and natural limit, and of the subjunctive for the optative in the historical style after preterites; and, above all, the rare use of the optative, which became entirely obselete in the late Greek. Also a neglect of the declensions begins to be exhibited, as εἶς καθεῖς, (after ἕν καθέν,) and even καθεῖς; then also ἀνὰ εῖς, εῖς παρʼ εἶς; so also μετὰ τοῦ ἕν, and similar instances.”

These constitute the leading peculiarities of the later Greek, appearing in the writings of the New Testament. But no doubt, as Winer also remarks, this later and more popular dialect had in some districts peculiarities which were unknown elsewhere. And in this category some have been disposed to place the expressions, which Jerome called Cilicisms of the apostle Paul. But of such peculiarities we know too little to enable us to form any correct judgment; and examples have been found in good Greek authors of, at least, some of Jerome’s alleged Cilicisms. Winer, however, is disposed to reckon of the class in question, the occasional use of ἴνα in expressions where the pure Greek writers would have used the infinitive, and would explain it as a sort of free and colloquial usage (§ 45, 9.) It is, certainly, difficult to maintain the strictly telic use of ἵνα throughout the New Testament, as Meyer, for example, endeavours to do; nor can it be done without at times leading to strained and somewhat unnatural explanations. That the telic force should be retained in the great mass of cases, and, in particular, in the formula ἵνα πληρωθῆ, we have no doubt; for when so employed there always is the indication of design. So also is there in various passages, in which it does not at first sight appear, but discovers itself on a closer inspection; as in 1 John 5:3, “This is the love of God, ἵνα τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ τηρῶμεν,”—not that we do keep, as a fact—but in order that we may keep the commandments of God, as a scope or aim; the tendency and striving of Divine love in the heart is ever in the direction of God’s commandments; or again, in Matthew 5:29, συμφέρει γὰρ σοι ἵνα, κ.τ.λ., it is for thy advantage, viz., to cut off the right hand, in order that one (one merely) of thy members may perish, and not thy whole body be cast into hell-fire; this, at least, is a perfectly admissible explanation. But there are others—such as Revelation 6:11; Matthew 18:6; Mark 6:25; Mark 9:30—in which it is, no doubt, possible, by copious supplementings, to bring out a design, yet scarcely to do it in a way that appears consistent with the simplicity of the sacred writers. But of the peculiarities generally, which have been noted as characterizing the dialect of the New Testament, in common with that of the later Greek writers, there is no room for difference of opinion. They distinguish the Greek of the apostolic age from the Greek of classical times. They must, therefore, be understood, and have due allowance made for them by all, who would exhibit the precise import of Scripture, and would even avoid mistakes in interpretation, which have sometimes been committed by persons of high attainments in classical learning, from their too exclusive regard to simply classical authorities.

III. But another, and scarcely less important class of peculiarities, must be taken into account for the correct knowledge and appreciation of the original language of the New Testament those, namely, arising from its Hebraistic impress. The common dialect of later times was, in the case of the sacred writings, intermingled with the free and frequent use of forms derived from the Hebrew, which, as already stated, was to some extent unavoidable in the case of the sacred penmen. Very commonly the Greek of the apostolic age, with the addition of this Hebraistic element, is called Hellenistic Greek, from the name Hellenists, which was usually applied to the Greek- speaking Jews, and who naturally spoke Greek with an admixture of Hebrew idioms.

It is to be borne in mind, however, that while all the writers of the New Testament partook to some extent of the Hebraistic influence, some did so considerably more than others; and they are by no means uniform in the admission of Hebraisms into their style. The Hebraistic element was a very variable one among them. It differed with the same writers in different parts of their writings, as in the Apocalypse of St. John, which is considerably more Hebraistic than either his gospel or epistles—while these again have more of that element than many other parts of the New Testament. The gospel of St. Luke is decidedly less marked with Hebraisms than those of St. Matthew and St. Mark; and in St. Paul’s epistles also there are diversities in this respect. The epistle to the Hebrews approaches more nearly to the classical diction than any other book of the New Testament. Viewing the subject generally, however, and without reference to the peculiarities of individual writers, there are three several respects in which the Hebraistic influence appears in the style of the New Testament.

1. The first is of a somewhat general kind, and consists of a sensible approximation to the Hebrew in the usual cast and complexion of the style, namely, in those things in which the Hebrew characteristically differed from the Greek. As (1.) in the more frequent use of the prepositions for marking relations, which were wont to be indicated in classical Greek by means of cases. This characteristic pervades so much the style of the New Testament, that particular examples are almost unnecessary. But take one or two:—In Hebrews 1:2, ὃν ἔθηκεν κληρονόμον πάντων, “whom he appointed heir of all,” is classical Greek; but Acts 13:22, ἤγειρεν τὸν Δαυὶδ αὐτοῖς εἰς βασιλέα, literally “raised up David for king,” is Hebraistic. Again, Τίνι γὰρ εἶπέν ποτε τῶν ἀγγέλων, “for to which of the angels said he at any time,” is pure Greek, but the use of the preposition in the following expressions is Hebraistic, τίς ἐγκαλέσει κατὰ ἐκλεκτῶν θεοῦ, Romans 8:33; ἀγανακτοῦντες πρὸς ἑαυτούς, Mark 14:4; ἀθῷός ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος Matthew 27:24, (so Sept. transl. נָקי מָו in 2 Samuel 3:28;) ὁμολογεῖν ἐν αὐτῷ, Matthew 10:32, etc. (2.) It formed another marked difference between the two languages—the paucity of conjunctions which existed in the Hebrew, and their great abundance, one might almost say, their superfluity, in the Greek. But the New Testament writers constantly show an inclination to adhere to the simplicity of the Hebrew in this respect, rather than to avail themselves of the greater wealth of the Greek. How often in their productions do we meet with a καὶ, where we would rather have expected an ἀλλά, a καίπερ, or a καίτοι? and a γὰρ or an οὖν where we would have looked for an ἐπεί, a ὥστε, or a ὅτι, if judging from the usage of classical writers? In the narrative portions, more especially, of the New Testament, it is the remarkable nakedness and simplicity of the Hebrew language, as to conjunctions and other particles, which presents itself to our notice, rather than the copiousness of the Greek. (3.) A further Hebraistic turn appears in the frequent use of the genitive pronouns, instead of the possessives—σοῦ, μοῦ, αὐτοῦ, ἡμῶν, ὑμῶν, αὐτῶν. This naturally arose from the inspired writers being used to the He brew suffixes, and was also encouraged by a growing tendency in the Greek language itself to substitute the genitives of the personal pronouns for the possessives. The practice, however, is greatly more frequent in the New Testament and the Septuagint, than in other productions of the same period. Indeed, we often meet with the personal pronouns generally in the Greek Scriptures, where simply Greek writers would have altogether omitted them; as in Genesis 30:1, δός μοι τέκνα, εἰ δὲ μὴ, τελευτὴσω ἐγώ; Exodus 2:14, μὴ ἀνελεῖν με σὺ θέλεις, ὃν τρόπον ἀνεῖλες χθὲς τὸν Αιγὺπτον, (in both cases imitating the Hebrew;) so in John 3:2; ταῦτα τὰ σημεῖα ποιεῖν ἃ σὺ ποιεῖς; Revelation 5:4, καὶ ἐγὼ ἔκλαιον πολύ; 2 John 1:1, οὓς ἐγὼ ἀγαπῶ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, etc. (4.) Another pronominal peculiarity, arising from assimilation to the Hebrew, is occasionally found in the New Testament, and abounds in the Septuagint. In Hebrew there is only one relative pronoun,אֲשְׁר (sometimes abbreviated into שְׁ;) and this without any distinction as to number, gender, or case:—on which account the suffixes of the personal pronouns, or these pronouns themselves with a preposition, required to be added, in order to give the necessary point and explicitness to the reference. Hence such expressions as the following: “the land in which ye dwell upon it,” “the place in which ye sojourn in it,” and so on. As the Greek language possessed a declinable relative ὅς, and adverbs derived from it, οὑ ὅθεν, ὅπου, there was no need, when employing it, to resort to this kind of awkward circumlocution. But those who had been accustomed to the force and emphasis of the Hebrew usage, appear still occasionally to have felt as if they could not give adequate expression to their mind without availing themselves of the Hebrew form. Hence such passages in the Septuagint as the following: ἡ γῆ, ἐφ̓ ἧς σὺ καθεύδεις ἐπ̓ αὐτῆς, Genesis 28:13; πᾶς σοφὸς τῇ διανοίᾳ, ὧ ἐδόθη σοφία καὶ ἐπιστήμη ἐν αὐτοῖς, Exodus 36:1; also Deuteronomy 9:28; Exodus 30:6; Deuteronomy 4:5; Deuteronomy 4:14, etc. In the New Testament the peculiarity occurs more rarely; but still it is found, as in Mark 6:55, “They carried about the sick on couches,” ὅπου ἤκουον ὅτι ἐκεῖ ἐστίν; Mark 7:25, ἧς εἶχεν τὸ θυγάτριον αὐτῆς πνεῦμα ἀκάθαρτον; Revelation 7:2, οἷς ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς; Revelation 12:6, ὅπου ἔχει ἐκεῖ τόπον ἡτοιμασμένον, ver. Revelation 12:14, ὅπου τρέφεται ἐκεῖ καιρὸν. The usage is found also in some quotations from the Old Testament, (Acts 15:17; 1 Peter 2:24,) but it is certainly of rare occurrence in the New Testament writings themselves. (5.) A further distinctive impress arose from a marked difference between the Hebrew and the Greek in respect to the tenses of the verb, giving rise to a peculiarity in the general character of the New Testament style, and imparting to it something of a Hebraistic air. Here again the Hebrew was as remarkable for the fewness, as the Greek for the multiplicity of its forms—the one having its simple past and future tenses, while the other had its present, imperfect, perfect, pluperfect, first and second aorists, first and second futures, and paulo-post future—certainly a plentiful variety, if not, in some respects, a needless redundancy; and all these, again, subject to variations of mood—indicatives, subjunctives, optatives which are unknown in Hebrew. There can bε no doubt that the New Testament writers were well acquainted with the principal tenses of the Greek verb, and some of its more peculiar modes of construction, such as those with neuter plurals, with ἵνα and ἄν; at the same time, there are occasional anomalies, with a manifest preference for the simple past and future of the Hebrew, and, as in the latter, a tendency to use the future, as expressive of necessity and continued action, (must and is wont,) somewhat more frequently than is usual in ordinary Greek. (6.) Once more, there are some peculiar case-usages, though rare in the New Testament, as compared with the Septuagint. The most noticeable of these is the employment, though in the New Testament occurring only in the Apocalypse, of a kind of nominative absolute not such as is to be found in Acts 7:40, ὁ γὰρ Μωϋσῆς οὗτος ὁ ἅνθρωπος, in which, merely for the purpose of giving prominence to the leading noun, the sentence begins with it in the nominative, and of which examples are to be met with in ordinary Greek—but one in which the nominative comes after, and stands in apposition with, other nouns in the oblique cases. This arose from a close imitation of the Hebrew, prefixing the indication of case, or the preposition, to the first noun in a sentence, and dropping it in those that followed. Thus at Numbers 20:5, εἰς τὸν τόπον τὸν πονηρὸν τοῦτον; τόπος, οὗ οὐ σπείρεται; Deuteronomy 4:11, καὶ τὸ ὄρος ἐκαίετο πυρὶ ἕως τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, σκότος, γνόφος, θύελλα; also Deuteronomy 4:22; Deuteronomy 8:8; Deuteronomy 10:7. Though an anomalous construction, it had the effect, as Tiersch justly remarks, (Pent. Versione Alexandrina, p. 133,) of giving force and emphasis to the terms placed thus absolutely in the nominative—which were thereby isolated. This also is very decidedly the effect of the employment of the nominative in Revelation 1:4, where grace and peace are sent ἀπὸ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, retaining in the nominative the words, which express the Lord’s eternal Being, and so taking them, as it were, out of the common category of declinable nouns, and placing them in an in dependent position. Other examples occur in Revelation 2:20; Revelation 3:12. In the same connexion may be mentioned a kind of Hebraistic extension of the accusative of place, this accusative being sometimes coupled with a following genitive, in a way not usual with the Greeks; of which we have such examples in the Old Testament as Deuteronomy 11:30, οὐκ ἰδοὺ ταῦτα πέραν τοῦ ̓Ιορδάνου, ὀπίσω ὁδὸν δυσμῶν ἡλίου; Deuteronomy 1:19; Exodus 13:17. And in the New Testament, the peculiar expression in Matthew 4:14, γῆ Νεφθαλίμ, ὁδὸν θαλάσσης, which has its parallel in the passages of the Old Testament referred to, and should not have been regarded in so exceptional a light as it is by Winer, (Gr. § 32, 6.) But such peculiarities exercise comparatively little influence on the Greek of the New Testament.

2. Secondly, the Hebraistic cast of the New Testament style appears in the use of words and phrases, which have their correspondence only in the Hebrew, but are not found in profane Greek writers, whether of the earlier or of the later periods. Among these, certain words might be included, which are transferred from the Hebrew and other Oriental languages into the text of the New Testament:—such as ἄββα, ἀβαδδών, ἀμὴν, παράδεισος, ψεέννα, σατῶν, etc. Terms of this sort are merely Oriental words in Greek letters, or with a Greek termination; and it is by a reference to their Oriental usage that their meaning is to be determined. It is not these, however, so much that we have in view under the present division, as words and phrases which are strictly Greek expressions, but expressions thrown into a Hebraistic form, and conveying a sense somewhat different from what would naturally be put upon them by a simply Greek reader. There is a considerable number of this description,—among which are εἴς in the sense of τις or πρῶτος, according to the Septuagint rendering of אֶחָר (εἴς γραμματεύς, Matthew 8:19, εἰς μίαν (ἡμέραν) τῶν σαββάτων—μίαν for πρώτην,) ζητεῖν τὴν ψυχήν τινός, θανάτου γεύεσθαι, θάνατον ἵδεις, περιπατεῖν ἐνωπίον τίνος, ποιεῖν ἒλεος, πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον, λαμβάνειν πρόσωπον τινός, σάρξ καὶ αἷμα, etc. To refer more particularly to one or two examples, the phrase πᾶσα σάρξ, for all men, mankind at large, is quite a Hebraism, being a literal translation of the Hebrew בָּשָר-כָּל by two terms, which in the one language, as well as the other, signify all flesh while still native Greek writers never used σάρξ in the sense of men, and such an expression, if employed by them, would have meant, not all mankind, but the whole flesh, (of a man or an animal, as it might happen.) Some times the Hebraism is further strengthened by the addition of a negative, in a manner different from the practice of good Greek writers. In Hebrew בָּשָר-לא כָּל not all flesh, is equivalent to no flesh, and in this same meaning οὐ πᾶσα σάπξ is used in New Testament Scripture; as when our Lord says, Matthew 24:22, “If the days should not be shortened, οὐκ ἂν ἐσώθη πᾶσα σάρξ,” no flesh should be saved; or St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 1:29, ὅπως μὴ καυχήσηται πᾶσα σὰρξ, so that no flesh might glory. Such phrases are to be explained by coupling the negative with the verb, and regarding the two together as predicating the negation or want of something—the all comprehending the entire circle or genus to which such predicate extends. Thus, in the sentence last quoted, the not being in a condition to glory is the thing predicated, and the πᾶσα σάρξ, the all flesh, which follows, denotes the sphere of being to which the predicate applies—the entire compass of humanity. So that, when rightly viewed, the expression presents no material difficulty, though it is a form of speech not native to the Greek, but imported into it from the Hebrew. The Vulgate has not been sufficiently observant of this peculiar idiom; hence it renders the passage in Matt, non salva ficret omnis caro, and that in 1 Cor. ut non glorietur omnis caro. Our translators, however, in the authorized version have commonly attended to it, and given the correct rendering—though still in one case they appear to have missed it. The passage we refer to is 1 John 2:19, where the apostle is speaking of those who had once belonged to the true church, but had since fallen into Gnostic errors, and assumed an antichristian position:—“They went out from among us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but that (the sentence here is plainly elliptical, and we must again supply they went out that) they might be made manifest, ὅτι οὐκ εἰσὶν πάντες ἐξ ἡμῶν”—that they were not all of us, our version has it but the apostle had already said of them, wholly and absolutely, that they were not of us; and it would be strange, if now, at the close, he should have introduced a limitation, and, when speaking of the evidence of their having assumed an antichristian position, or being in deadly heresy, should have used terms that were applicable only to a portion of them. The terms, however, become quite plain, if understood in conformity with the idiom now under consideration; i.e., if the negative and the verb (οὐκ εἰσι) are taken together, as constituting the predicate, and the πάντες following as indicating the extent of its application—embracing the totality of the parties spoken of. Their going out from the company of the faithful, the apostle then affirms, shows that they are not—all of them—of us; i.e., that none of them are of us; the whole went out, that they might be seen—one and all—not to be of the true church of Christ. Such, substantially, is the view adopted, not only by several foreign commentators, but also in the English Annotations of 1645, by Hammond, Guyse, Whitby, Peile, and others.

This, however, is rather a digression, and we return to our proper subject—simply remarking further, in respect to the second class of Hebraisms, that a considerable portion of the words and phrases comprised in it, are still to be taken in their ordinary sense, but, at the same time, with such reference to the Hebrew use and application of them, that in the sense necessary to be put upon them they must be regarded as Hebraisms. For example, in the common expression αἱμα ἐκχεῖν, pour out, or shed blood, what is really meant, is not the simple shedding of blood, but the pouring out of this unto death the words being those used in rendering the Hebrewשָׁפָךְ דָם —the usual sacrificial formula for taking the life of an animal victim, when presenting it to God. It hence passed into a common phrase for taking the life of any one; and in the lips of a Jew, the phrase naturally became more peculiarly and distinctly indicative of death, than it should have done when uttered by a Greek. In like mariner, in the use of the word ὄνομα,, in a great variety of expressions, such as “calling upon the name,” or doing anything in the name of another, “hallowing God’s name,” “believing on the name of Christ,” “trusting in the name of the Lord,” and such like—while the worm precisely corresponds to the שֶׁם in Hebrew, and name in English to both, it is still only through the He brew usage that we can get at the proper import of the expressions. The Hebrews were wont to regard the name of an individual, as, what it doubtless originally was, the index to the nature; and when the primary name failed properly to do this, they very commonly superseded it by another, which yielded a more significant or fitting expression of the individual properties. Hence, with them, the name was very much identified with the person, as, on the other side, the person was very often contemplated in the light of the name. Among the Greeks the significance of names never assumed the same place that it did among the Hebrews; they were regarded more as arbitrary signs, having their chief use in distinguishing one person or one object from another; and consequently the same identification did not prevail in the ordinary Greek usage, as in the Hebrew, between the name, and the person or properties of the individual. In dealing with such expressions, therefore, as those specified above, we must have recourse to the Hebrew, in order to arrive at the proper import.

3. There is still a third respect, in which the Hebraistic cast of the New Testament dialect appears; viz., in the formation of derivatives from words belonging, in the sense employed, to the Hebrew, and not to the Greek. For example, the word σκάνδαλον, the rendering of the Septuagint for מִכְשׁוֹל a stumbling-block, or offence, is the root of a verb found only in the New Testament, σκανδαλίξω, to stumble, or cause to stumble, (corresponding to נִכְ‍שַׁל הִכְשָׁילנח;) σπλαγχνίζεσθαι from σπλάγχνα (as in Hebrew רָחַם and רַחֲמִים;)—ἀναθεματίζεσθαι from ἀνάθεμα, and so on. In such cases one is thrown entirely upon Hebrew ideas and usages; and from these it is necessary to ascertain and determine the precise meaning to be attached, if not to the original noun, at least to the verb derived from it.

IV. It is plain, therefore, from the occurrence of such Hebrew or Aramaic peculiarities as we have referred to, that the Greek of the New Testament adds to the later Greek—the common Hellenic dialect—elements derived from the vernacular language of the sacred writers, on account of which it may justly be denominated a peculiar idiom. It exhibits single Greek words, which are nowhere found in Greek writers out of Palestine; it exhibits also Hebrew and Chaldaic phrases, expressed in Greek terms, but conveying a sense different from what a simply Greek reader would naturally have put upon them; and, finally, it exhibits in the grammatical construction various features of a Hebraistic kind;—all necessarily requiring, in order to attain to a correct interpretation of New Testament Scripture, an acquaintance with the Hebrew as well as with the Greek languages, and, in particular, with the usages established by the Septuagint Version of Old Testament Scripture. But there are two important considerations, which ought to be borne in mind in connexion with those Hebraisms—the one having respect to their number, and the other to the proper mode of dealing with them.

(1.) In the first place, they are not nearly so numerous as they were at one time represented to be; nor much more numerous than was rendered necessary by the circumstances of the writers. By far the greater part of them are so essentially connected with the position of the writers, as not only trained under the economy of the Jewish dispensation, but called also to unfold truths and principles, which were but the proper growth and development of such as belonged to it, that they could not justly have been dispensed with. They entered, by a kind of moral necessity, into the cast of thought and expression adopted by the apostles of the New Testament. And hence also they occur less frequently in grammatical constructions than in other respects, and only so as to impart to the style, in that particular respect, an occasional Aramaic colouring. The Greek syntax differs in many things from the Hebrew; the one has its own marked and peculiar characteristics, as well as the other; yet in most of these we find the New Testament writers regularly accommodating themselves to the foreign idiom—as in the distinctive use of imperfects and aorists, in the coupling of neuter plurals with a verb in the singular, in the construction of verbs with ἄν, in the attraction of the relative, etc. It may not be improper to point to an example or two, in a single line, of this conformity to the foreign idiom:—in the discriminating use of the aorist and perfect tenses—the aorist as denoting the historic past, and the perfect as denoting the past in its relation to the present, the past-continuing with its -effects and consequences to the present. Even St. John, who has often been treated as ignorant of the commonest Greek idioms, we find, at the very beginning of his Gospel, carefully observing this distinction, when he says of the work of the Logos, ἐγἐνετο οὐδὲ ἔν ὅγεγονεν, nothing whatever that has come to be, and still is in being, was made without Him. So also in Colossians 1:16, pointing to the act of creation by Christ in the indefinite past, ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα; but when Christ’s continued relation to, and interest in, what was created, is in view, then the apostle changes from the aorist to the perfect, τὰ πάςτα δἰ αὐτοῦ καὶ εὶς αὐτον ἔκτισται. Another striking example of a similar change may be seen in ch. 3:3 of the same epistle, in the ἀπεθάνετε used of the old life once and for ever put away, and the κέκπυπται of the new begun at conversion, but continuing still on. In connexion with such discriminating employments of the aorist and perfect tenses, it is justly remarked by the late Professor Scholefield, that the English translation is often obscured by failing to mark the distinction as observed in the original, and consequently inserting or omitting at the wrong place the auxiliary have.—(Hints for Improvements in the Authorized Version, Preface X.) In respect, however, to the excessive multiplication of Hebraisms, Titmann very justly says, in his Synonyms, ii. p. 163, “Many expressions in the New Testament have been stamped with the name of Hebraisms, for no other reason whatever than because it was taken for granted that the writers of the New Testament have imitated the Hebrew mode of speaking; just as if they could not have derived those forms from the like usage of the Greek language, which they were writing. Many Hebraisms have thus been pointed out by Vorstius, Leusden, and others, which might with equal justice be called Hellenisms. Because, forsooth, they appear in the New Testament, in writers ̔Εβραῖζοντες, they are Hebraisms; while the same things, when found in Demosthenes, Thucydides, Xenophon, or Polybius, are pronounced to be good and elegant Greek. Thus, in the New Testament, the use of the demonstrative pronoun without apparent necessity after a noun or relative pronoun, has been regarded as a Hebraism, inasmuch as the Hebrews do indeed use this construction, as also the Arabs, Syrians, Greeks, and Romans, (we might add the Germans and English.) Still that cannot surely be reckoned as a Hebrew idiom, which is also employed by the best writers of other nations.” He proceeds to give various examples of the usage, among which are, from Cicero, Illud quod supra scripsi, id tibi confirmo; from Sallust, Sed urbana plebes, ea vero prsæceps ierat; from Thucydides, “the most Attic of all Greek writers,” τῷ δὲ ̔Ιπποκράτει ὄντι περὶ το Δήλιον, ὡς αὐτῷ ἡγγέλθη; and concludes by saying, “The construction in all these usages is evidently the same as in Matthew 4:16; Matthew 8:5; John 15:2; John 18:11.”

Michaelis remarked sharply, but not without cause, on this tendency to discover Hebraisms in New Testament Scripture, “It is extraordinary, that those very persons who are least acquainted with the Hebrew are the most inclined to discover Hebraisms; and it has been as fashionable, as it is convenient, to ascribe the difficulty of every passage to an Oriental idiom.” (Intro, iv. 6.) Yet he has not himself altogether escaped the contagion; for we find him, in the same chapter, ranking some things as Hebraisms, and giving them on that ground a false rendering, which ought to be taken in their strictly Greek meaning; for example, εἰς νῖκος, in 1 Corinthians 15:54, which he designates “a harsh Hebraism” signifying “for ever,” while really the proper import is best given by the literal rendering, “into victory,” i.e., towards this as the end aimed at—death being viewed as the great enemy, with whose swallowing up the final victory comes. Gerard, (Bib. Criticism, p. 54,) as usual, follows Michaelis in this; and, along with many others then and since, he also gives ῥῆμα, in the sense of thing, as a Hebraism, in such passages as Luke 1:37; Luke 2:15; Acts 5:32. But it always bears the sense of word or saying, or of things only in so far as they have become matters of discourse. Thus, at Luke 1:37, the exact rendering undoubtedly is, “No word shall be impossible with God;” and hence the verb is in the future, ἀδυνατήει, pointing to the futurity of the accomplishment, as compared with the period when the word was spoken.

(2.) Then, while we should thus beware of multiplying Hebraisms in the New Testament beyond what really exist, we should, in the second place, also beware, in handling what really are such, and the peculiarities generally of the New Testament dialect, of setting them down as mere extravagancies, or barbarous departures from a proper diction. On the contrary, we should endeavour to ascertain the idea in which they originated, and get at the precise shade of meaning, or aspect of a subject, which they set before us. This is the course, as Winer remarks, which has latterly been taken by grammarians in their investigations concerning the Greek language: “The idea which gave rise to each particular form has been accurately apprehended, and its various uses reduced to the primary signification. The language thus becomes a directly reflected image of the Greek thought, as a living idiom. One does not stop at the mere externals, but there is a reference of each form and inflexion of the language to the thinking soul, and an effort to apprehend it in its existence in the mind itself. For a long time Biblical philologists took no notice of these elucidations of Greek grammar and lexicography. They followed Viger and Storr, and separated themselves entirely from the profane philologists, under the impression that the New Testament Greek, being Hebraistic, could not be an object of such philological investigations. No one believed that the Hebrew, like every other language, admitted and required a rational mode of treatment. The rational view is now gaining ground. It is believed that the ultimate reasons of the phenomena of the Hebrew must be sought out in the nation’s modes of thought; and, above all, that a plain, simple people could not contravene the laws of all human language. It is no longer, therefore, considered proper to give a preposition diverse meanings, according to one’s own plea sure, in a context superficially examined. Nor must it be supposed that a Hebrew, instead of ‘this is my brother,’ could say pleonastically, ‘this is of my brother,’ or ‘this is in the wise man,’ instead of ‘this is a wise man;’ but the origin of changes so contrary to rule must be sought for in the speaker’s mode of thought, as with every rational being each deviation has its reason.”—(Idioms, pp. 19, 20.)

This, it will be understood, is said simply of the manner in which deviations of the kind here referred to should be considered and explained; and determines nothing as to what may be called the comparative pureness and elegance of the diction, or the reverse. In some of them, possibly, the thought expressed may be cast into a form, which is not justified by the usage of the most correct writers, nor accordant with the native idioms of the language; but possibly also there may be no real departure from these;—and the apparent deviation, or peculiarity, may lie in the thought expressed being somewhat different from what a superficial consideration, or a common point of view, might be apt to suggest. Such, no doubt, will be found sometimes to be the case. But the question at present has respect, not simply, nor indeed so much to the purity of the diction, as to the proper and rational mode of explaining its real or apparent peculiarities. These should, in every case, be considered with reference to the specific circumstances and mental habits of the writer. And had they been so—had due regard been paid to the considerations which have just been advanced not only would many senseless and improper laxities have been spared from our grammars, lexicons, and commentaries, but the received text also of the New Testament and our authorized version would have been in a better state than they at present are. Schleusner’s Lexicon of the New Testament, and Macknight’s Commentary on the Epistles, may be referred to as specimens, out of the more learned class, which egregiously err in the respect now mentioned, more especially in the laxity with which they render the prepositions and the particles of the New Testament Greek. For example, in Schleusner, the prepositions εἰς and ἐν have ascribed to them, the one 24, the other no fewer than 30, distinct uses and meanings; and, though Macknight does not carry it quite so far, yet, from the diverse and disconnected senses he puts upon them in his Preliminary Essays, it seems as if, when handled by a Hellenistic Jew, these prepositions might express almost any relation whatever. Εἰς, as it happens, may be into or in, concerning or with, against, before, by, in order to, among, at, towards, or it may stand without any definite meaning—as a mere expletive—and had better been wanted. So also with ἐν. (This looseness has also been countenanced to some extent by Ernesti, and still more by his foreign and English annotators. See Bib. Cabinet, vol. iv. 153, 154.) Of course, in the writings of the New Testament, as in all popular productions, there is a considerable freedom in the use of such parts of speech—especially in what are called pregnant constructions and current phrases—yet never without a respect to the fundamental meaning of the word never with a total abnegation and disregard of this. Thus, in the New Testament, as with Greek writers generally, the preposition εἰς is not unfrequently coupled with verbs of rest, and hence comes to be rendered as if it were ἐν: as Matthew 2:23, κατῴκησεν εἰς πόλιν λεγομένην Ναζαρέτ; Acts 8:40, Φίλιππος εὑρέθη εἰς Ἄζωτον, John 1:18, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς. But in all such cases there is an implied reference to the preceding motion towards the place indicated, or some sort of terminal relation to it. Thus, in the examples noticed, we must explain, in the first, having gone so far as to the city called Nazareth, having entered into it, he dwelt there; in the second, Philip was found as far as Azotus, carried thither, and so at it; in the third, He that is (viz. set, who has His proper place of being) into the bosom of the Father, so close, so deep into the personal indwelling, and union with, the Father. In none of the cases is there properly an interchange of one preposition for another; but a complex thought is uttered in an abbreviated and elliptical form. In many cases of this description, however, it is only by a comment that the full and proper meaning can be brought out, and in a simple translation it is scarcely possible to keep up the peculiarity of the original. But there are others, in which that was perfectly possible, and in which our authorized version has suffered from the too prevalent notion of Hebraistic laxity—nor has even the received text of the original escaped occasional corruptions. Under those of the latter description we may point to Revelation 2:14, where the undoubtedly correct reading of what is said of Balaam is, ὃς ἐδίδασκεν τῷ Βαλὰκ βαλεῖν σκάνδαλον ἐνώπιον τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραὴλ, but which, from the apparent anomaly of the verb διδάσκω being coupled with a noun in the dative, for its direct object, (as was supposed,) the resort was made by grammarians and commentators to Hebrew usage, according to which it was alleged the dative was put for the accusative; and certain copyists went a step further, and, taking the dative for an error, substituted the accusative in its place, which is the reading of the received text—τὸν βαλὰκ. It is not a Hebraism, however, to couple such a verb with the dative; the Greek and Hebrew usage here entirely correspond; and that John was perfectly cognisant of the Greek usage is manifest from his coupling the same verb with an accusative in Revelation 2:20, as in every other instance, in which he has placed a noun in regimen with it, except the one before us, (John 7:35; John 8:2; John 8:28; John 9:34; John 14:26; 1 John 2:27, thrice.) This sufficiently shows, that the dative in Revelation 2:14 is put, not by oversight or from the usage of a foreign idiom merely, but on purpose; that it is what grammarians call the dativus commodi, indicating that what was done, was done, not upon the individual concerned, but in his interest—not that Balaam taught Balak, (as in the English version,) but that he taught for Balak, on his account and in his behalf, to cast a stumbling-block before the children of Israel. We are not, in short, told whom he taught, though we know from the history it was the people of Balak, but for whose advantage he did so; he taught in the service of the king of Moab, not of the God of Israel.

We must refer to a few other passages, in which, though the received text remains correct, the authorized version has missed the precise shade of meaning by giving way to the idea of laxity on the part of the original writers. Thus, in the prayer of the converted malefactor, Luke 23:42, Remember me when Thou comest ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ σου—not into Thy kingdom, which might seem to point to the glory into which the Lord was presently going to enter—but—Thy kingdom, viz., when the time comes for Thee to take to Thyself Thy great power and to reign among men; for this future manifestation of glory was undoubtedly what the faith of the penitent man anticipated and sought to share in, not the glory which lay within the vail, which only the answer of Christ brought within the ken of his spiritual vision. The same preposition has also been unhappily translated in another important passage—Php 2:10, ἵνα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ—not at, but in the name of Jesus, every knee should bow; in it as the ground and principle of the act, not at its mere enunciation. Again in Ephesians 3:19, “That ye may be filled εἰς πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ θεοῦ,” not strictly with, which would imply an infinite recipiency, but into all the fulness of God—lifted, like empty vessels, into the boundless pleroma of Godhead, that ye may take to the full satisfaction of your desires, and the measure of your capacity. So, again, in 2 Peter 1:3, where God is said to have given to us all things pertaining to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him καλέσαντος ἡμᾶς ἰδίᾳ δόξῃ καὶ ἀρετῇ, who called us—not, as in our version, to glory and virtue, which puts a most arbitrary and unauthorized sense upon the διὰ, and converts, besides, the means into the end—but by or through glory and virtue—namely, the glory and virtue, the divine energy exhibited in the way and manner, in which we are called of God, in consequence of which, as is presently added, there have also been given to us exceeding great and precious promises; the promises are so great and precious, because the call conducting to them was so distinguished by divine power and glory. The very next verse but one of the same epistle, ver. 5, furnishes another example of unfortunate laxity in the translation, which in consequence misses the precise shade of thought expressed in the original: the words, καὶ αὐτο τοῦτο δὲ, rendered, “And besides this,”—altogether sinking the adversative particle δὲ, and mistaking also the force of the adverbial accusative αὺτο τοῦτο. The object of the clause, is partly to suggest a difference, and partly to mention an agreement, between what precedes and what follows: “And on this very account indeed,” or “but for this same reason, give all diligence,” etc.

These are only a few specimens out of many, that might be adduced, of the evil that too long and generally prevailed, of supposing that the sacred writers of the New Testament were so Hebraistic, or otherwise so peculiar in their use of words and phrases, that any sort of license might at times be taken with their language. It is but rarely that the evil discovers itself in the authorized version, and within narrow limits, compared with what has appeared often in later versions and commentaries. But it is still occasionally found there; and special notice has been taken of it, not for the purpose of disparaging that version, which, as a whole, is so admirable, but in order to show, how even there, when the proper line has been deviated from, and with the best intentions, the effect has only been to substitute one shade of meaning for another—a meaning that could only at first view have seemed the natural and proper one, for another more accordant both with the idioms of the language and with the truth of things.

V. To pass now, however, from the real or alleged Hebraisms of the New Testament, we may mention as another characteristic feature of its diction, that which it occasionally derives from the new ideas and relations introduced by the gospel. These of necessity called into existence a class of expressions, not in themselves absolutely new, but still fraught with an import which could not attach to them as used by any heathen writer, nor even in the production of any Greek-speaking Jew prior to the birth of Christ. With the marvellous events of the gospel age, a fresh spring-time opened for the world; old things passed away, all things became new; and the change which took place in the affairs of the Divine kingdom could not fail to impress itself on those words and forms of expression, which bore respect to what had then for the first time come properly into being. In so far as the terms employed might embody the distinctive facts or principles of Christianity, their former and common usage could only in part exhibit the sense now acquired by them; for the full depth and compass of meaning belonging to them in their new application, we must look to the New Testament itself, comparing one passage with another, and viewing the language used in the light of the great things which it brings to our apprehension. When handling such terms as those now referred to, it is peculiarly necessary to understand and apply aright the fundamental principles of language, as to the relation in which the spoken word stands to the internal thought, of which it serves as the expression. “Language,” it has been justly said, (William Von Hurnboldt, quoted in Donaldson’s Cratylus, p. 56.) “is the outward appearance of the intellect of nations: their language is their intellect, and their intellect their language; we cannot sufficiently identify the two. . . . Understanding and speaking are only two different effects of the same power of speech.” In confirmation of this statement, we may point to the twofold meaning of the Greek word λόγος, which denotes alike the internal and the external reason—either reason as exercising itself and forming conceptions in the mind itself, (λόγος ἐνδιάθετος,) or reason coming forth into formal proposition, and embodying itself in the utterance of human speech, (λόγος προφορίκος)—comprising, therefore, in one term, what the Latins, with their more objective and realistic tendencies, took two words to express—ratio and oratio. Now, as the external reason, or reason embodied in the form of spoken or written words, ought to be the exact image of the internal, a correct representation of the thoughts and conceptions of the mind, so, in proportion as these thoughts and conceptions vary, the language employed to express them must present a corresponding variation; and if the same terms are retained, which may have been previously in use, there must be infused into them a somewhat new and more specific import. To some extent this is done, even in comparatively common circumstances, and as the result of individual thought and feeling; for speech, as has also been well said by the writer just referred to, “acquires its last definiteness only from the individual. No one assigns precisely the same meaning to a word that another does, and a shade of meaning, be it ever so slight, ripples on, like a circle in the water, through the entirety of language.” That is—for the sentiment must be understood with such a limitation—it will so perpetuate and diffuse itself, if circumstances favour it, and the particular shade of meaning introduced is one not confined to too narrow a sphere of thought, not merely local or temporary, but requiring, by the exigencies of human thought, to have an abiding place in its medium of communication. Whenever that is the case, it will certainly “ripple on like a wave, widening and enlarging its range, till it has embraced the whole field.

Such peculiarly has been the case in respect to those terms, which the great events of gospel history served to bring into general use, and through which expression is given to some of the more distinctive ideas and relations of gospel times. Among the foremost of these is the phrase, βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ, or τῶν οὐρανῶν—a phrase composed of words perfectly familiar to all accustomed to the Greek tongue, but, as applied to the state of things introduced by Christ, and growing out of the events of His earthly career, expressive of ideas essentially novel to heathen minds, and but partially possessed even by Jewish. We can have no doubt about its origin, and the reason of its employment in this connexion. It points back to those prophecies of the Old Testament, in which promise was made of a king and kingdom, that should unite heaven and earth, God and man, in another way than could be done by a merely human administration; and especially to the prophecies of Daniel 2:1-49 and Daniel 7:1-28, where, after a succession of kingdoms, all earthly in their origin, and ungodly in their spirit and aims, the Divine purpose was announced, of a kingdom that should be set up by the God of heaven, and that should never be destroyed—a kingdom imaged by one like a Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, and destined to be possessed by the saints of the Most High. Some notion might, therefore, be obtained of the import of the expression, by those who were acquainted with Old Testament Scripture; yet only a vague and imperfect one, as the precise nature of the kingdom, and its distinctive characteristics could only be correctly understood, when they were brought clearly to light by the facts and revelations of the gospel. The general unbelief and apostacy of the Jewish people, after Christ came, showed how little previous intimations had served to bring them properly acquainted with the nature of the kingdom; and both that, and the palpable errors and mistakes regarding it, which frequently discovered themselves even among the followers of Christ, but too clearly proved how difficult it was for the minds of men to rise to a just apprehension of the subject. The difficulty, no doubt, chiefly arose from the imperfect earthly forms under which the prophetic Spirit had presented it to their view, and from the not unnatural tendency in their minds to shape their idea of it too much after the monarchies and governments of this world, which kept them from realizing the change in spirit, aim, and administration, involved in the divine character of its Head. But as soon as the true idea came to be realized, and the kingdom in its real properties began to take root in the world, as a natural result, the phrase βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ, which gave expression to the idea, became informed, we might say, with a new meaning, and bore a sense which it were vain to look for any where but in the writings of the New Testament. Even there the sense which it bears is not quite uniform; for in a subject so complex, and branching out into so many interests and relations, the expression could not fail to be used some times with more immediate reference to one aspect of the matter, and sometimes to another. This is clearly the case in the parables, where a manifold variety is found in the images employed to represent the kingdom of God, with the view of presenting under diverse, though perfectly consistent and harmonious representations, a comprehensive exhibition of the truth respecting it:—some (as in the parable of the mustard-seed) pointing more to its growth from small beginnings; others, (as in the parables of the ten virgins and the husband man,) to its final issues in evil and good, according to the part taken on earth by its members; others, again, to its internal principles of administration, (as the parable of the talents, or of the labourers in the vineyard;) to its external means and agencies, with the diversified results springing from them (as the parables of the sower, the tares and wheat, the fishing-net;) or to the relation of the members of the kingdom to its Divine Head, and to each other, (as the parable of the unforgiving servant.) But with all this variety in the use of the expression, two ideas are never lost sight of, which in truth form the two most prominent things connected with it, viz., those of a Divine king on the one hand, and of human subjects on the other—the one ordering, providing, directing, and controlling all; the other, according to the line of conduct they pursue, receiving at His hand blessing or cursing, life or death.

If these remarks are kept in view, there will appear no need for dividing (as Dr. Campbell, for example, does, in his preliminary Dissertations and Translation of the Gospels) and rendering βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν sometimes the reign of heaven, and sometimes the kingdom of heaven. This is not only unnecessary, but fitted also to mislead; since it gives, whenever the word reign is used instead of kingdom, only a partial and imperfect representation of the proper idea. It was one of the prevailing tendencies of Campbell’s mind—a mind certainly of great penetration, of remarkable clearness of perception, of much philosophical acumen, and singular perspicacity in thought and diction—partly in consequence of these very excellencies, it was a tendency in his mind to make precision, rather than fulness of meaning his aim; and for the sake of that precision, both in his preliminary Dissertations and his Notes, he often seizes only a part of the meaning, couched under a particular phrase or expression, and exhibits that as the whole. This is, indeed, the most characteristic and general defect of his work on the Gospels, which, notwithstanding that defect, however, and a few others that might be named, is well entitled to a perusal. It was the tendency now referred to which led Dr. Campbell to substitute so often the word reign for that of the kingdom of heaven, on the ground, that the expression most commonly relates to that “sort of dominion,” as he terms it, which is understood by the dispensation of grace, brought in by the Gospel; while the phrase, “kingdom of heaven,” he thinks, properly indicates “the state of perfect felicity to be enjoyed in the world to come.” Now, this is to divide what Scripture seeks to preserve entire, and fixes the mind too exclusively on a part merely of the idea, which it ought to associate with the expression. It was never intended that we should think of the Messiah’s kingdom as having to do merely with the inner man, and, for the present, laying claim only to a sway over the thoughts and affections of the mind. His kingdom, according to its scriptural idea, is no more a divided empire, than He is Himself a divided person. It comprehends the external as well as the internal—although, from having its seat in the latter, it is most frequently depicted with special relation to this; but still it comprehends both, and embraces eternity as well as time—though its condition, now on this side, now on that, may at times be brought most prominently into view. But even in those pas sages, in which it points to the present mixed state, and imperfect administration of the affairs of the kingdom, we should take nothing from the full import of the expression, but retain it in its completeness; as it serves to keep before the Church the idea of a kingdom in the proper sense, and to prompt her to long for, and aim at, its realization.

We have dwelt at the greater length on this particular example, as it is one of considerable moment, and it affords an intelligible and ready explanation of the peculiarity with which it has been here associated. But it is only one of a class belonging to the same category: such ἀὶων μέλλον, δικαιοῦσθαι, δικαιοσύνη, εὐαγγελίζω, ζωή, and θάνατος; (understood spiritually,) κλῆσις, μυστήριος, νόμος, παράκλητος, πίστις, πλήρωμα, χάρις, χάρισμα, πνευατικός, ψυχικός. All these, and, perhaps, several others that might be named, are used in New Testament Scripture with the same radical meaning, indeed, as elsewhere; but, at the same time, with so much of a specific character derived from the great truths and principles of the Gospel, that their New Testament import must be designated as peculiar.

VI. Once more, it may be given as a still further note of distinction characteristic of the New Testament Greek, that, while there are peculiarities of the several kinds already described, distinguishing the language as a whole, there are also peculiarities distinguishing the Greek of one writer from that of another—words and phrases used by one and not used by the others, or used in a manner peculiar to himself. There is an individual, as well as a general, impress on the language. And if, as in the class last mentioned, a special regard must be had to the revelations and writings of the New Testament as a whole, there should, in the class now under consideration, be a like regard had to the writings of the particular person by whom the expressions are more peculiarly employed. The terms belonging to this class are not of so extensive a range as some of the preceding ones; and they are to be found chiefly in two writers of the New Testament—the Apostles Paul and John. In the writings of John we meet with various expressions, which, as used by him, are almost peculiar to himself: such as ἀλήθεια, in the specific sense of denoting what is emphatically the truth—the truth of the Gospel; ποιεῖν τὴν αλήθειαν, in the sense of giving practical exhibition of that truth; γεννηθῆναι ἀνωθεν, or ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ; ὁ λόγος, as a personal designation of the Saviour in respect to his divine nature and relationship; ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς, ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ παράκλητος, ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου, ἔρχεσθαι εἰς τὸν κόσμον, etc. In like manner, there is a set of phrases nearly as peculiar to the Apostle Paul: such as γράμμα put in contrast to πνεῦμα, ἀποθνήσκειν τινί, δικαιοῦσθαι, ἔργα σαρκός, καινὴ, κτίσις, πλήρωμα τοῦ Θεοῦ, νόμος ἐν τοῖς μέλεσι, σταυροῦσθαι τινὶ, στοιχεῖα (taken in a figurative sense of rudimental principles,) τύπος, etc.

We refrain at present from entering on the examination of any of these peculiar forms of expression—the greater part of which, viewed simply in themselves, properly belong to some of the preceding classes, and are now mentioned only as connected with a further peculiarity—their exclusive or prevailing use by particular writers. And as they undoubtedly acquired this further peculiarity from some mental idiosyncrasy on the part of the person using them, or from some determinative influences connected with the circumstance of his position, these ought, as far as possible, to be ascertained, that the several expressions may be considered from that point of view, which was held by the writer, and may be interpreted in accordance with the laws of thought under which he wrote.

Writings of Patrick Fairbairn

A collection of theological writings, sermons, and essays by Patrick Fairbairn, compiled for study and devotional reading.

View table of contents →

‹ Previous Chapter Next Chapter ›