========================================================================
  DEISSMANN, A.- BIBLE STUDIES
  by Deissmann a
========================================================================

Deissmann's groundbreaking studies using recently discovered papyri and
inscriptions to illuminate the language, culture, and social world of the New
Testament, showing how everyday Greek documents shed light on biblical
vocabulary.

  Chapters: 31

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  TABLE OF CONTENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. 000 - Content
    2. 0000 - AUTHOR’S PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION
    3. 00000 - FROM THE PREFACE TO THE GERMAN EDITION
    4. 000000 - TRANSLATOR’S NOTE.
    5. 0000000 - THE PRINCIPAL ABBREVIATIONS.
    6. 01 - PROLEGOMENA TO THE BIBLICAL LETTERS AND EPISTLES
    7. 01.01 - PROLEGOMENA TO THE BIBLICAL LETTERS AND EPISTLES.
    8. 01.02 - PROLEGOMENA TO THE BIBLICAL LETTERS AND EPISTLES.
    9. 01.03 - PROLEGOMENA TO THE BIBLICAL LETTERS AND EPISTLES.
   10. 01.04 - PROLEGOMENA TO THE BIBLICAL LETTERS AND EPISTLES.
   11. 02 - CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HISTORY OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE.
   12. 02.01 - CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HISTORY OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE.
   13. 03 - FURTHER CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HISTORY OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE
   14. 03.01 - FURTHER CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HISTORY OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE
   15. 04 - An Epigraphic Memorial of the Septuagint.
   16. 04.01 - An Epigraphic Memorial of the Septuagint.
   17. 05 - NOTES ON SOME BIBLICAL PERSONS AND NAMES
   18. 05.01 - HELIODORUS.
   19. 05.02 -  BARNABAS
   20. 05.03 -  MANAËN.
   21. 05.04 - SAULUS PAULUS
   22. 06 - GREEK TRANSCRIPTIONS OF THE TETRAGRAMMATON.
   23. 07 - SPICILEGIUM
   24. 07.01 - THE CHRONOLOGICAL STATEMENT IN THE PROLOGUE TO JESUS SIRACH
   25. 07.02 - THE SUPPOSED EDICT OF PTOLEMY IV. PHILO-PATOR AGAINST THE EGYPTIAN JEWS.
   26. 07.03 - THE “LARGE LETTERS” AND THE “MARKS OF JESUS” IN GAL. 6.
   27. 07.04 - A NOTE TO THE LITERARY HISTORY OF SECOND PETER.
   28. 07.05 - WHITE ROBES AND PALMS.
   29. 08 - Footnotes
   30. 09 - LXX APOCRYPHA REFERENCES
   31. 10 - Source Materials Referenced in Deissmann's Bible Studies

========================================================================
  CHAPTER 1: 000 - CONTENT
========================================================================

CONTENTS.

PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION EXTRACT FROM THE PREFACE TO Bibelstudien
TRANSLATOR’S NOTE

ABBREVIATIONS I. PROLEGOMENA TO THE BIBLICAL LETTERS AND EPISTLES II.
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HISTORY OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE III. FURTHER
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HISTORY OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE Introductory
Remarks (i.) Notes on the Orthography 1. Variation of Vowels 2. Variation of
Consonants (ii.) Notes on the Morphology

1. Declension

2. Proper Names

3. Verb (iii.) Notes on the Vocabulary and the Syntax 1. So-called Hebraisms 2.
So-called Jewish-Greek “Biblical” or “New Testament” Words and Constructions 3.
Supposed Special “Biblical” or “New Testament” Meanings and Constructions 4.
Technical Terms 5. Phrases and Formulae 6. Rarer Words, Meanings and
Constructions IV. AN EPIGRAPHIC MEMORIAL OF THE SEPTUAGINT V. NOTES ON SOME
BIBLICAL PERSONS AND NAMES

1. Heliodorus

2. Barnabas

3. Manaen 4. Saulus Paulus VI. GREEK TRANSCRIPTIONS OF THE TETRAGRAMMATON VII.
SPICILEGIUM 1. The Chronological Statement in the Prologue to Jesus Sirach 2.
The Supposed Edict of Ptolemy IV. Philopator against the Egyptian Jews 3. The
“Large Letters” and the “Marks of Jesus” in Galatians 6 4. A Note to the
Literary History of Second Peter 5. White Robes and Palms

INDEXES


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 2: 0000 - AUTHOR’S PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION
========================================================================

AUTHOR’S PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH

EDITION.

Having been honoured by a request to sanction an English translation of my
Bibelstudien and Neue Bibelstudien, I have felt it my duty to accede to the
proposal. It seems to me that investigations based upon Papyri and Inscriptions
are specially calculated to be received with interest by English readers. For
one thing, the richest treasures from the domain of Papyri and Inscriptions are
deposited in English museums and libraries; for another, English investigators
take premier rank among the discoverers and editors of Inscriptions, but
particularly of Papyri; while, again, it was English scholarship which took the
lead in utilising the Inscriptions in the sphere of biblical research. Further,
in regard to the Greek Old Testament in particular, for the investigation of
which the Inscriptions and Papyri yield valuable material (of which only the
most inconsiderable part has been utilised in the following pages), English
theologians have of late done exceedingly valuable and memorable work. In
confirmation of all this I need only recall the names of F. Field, B. P.
Grenfell, E. Hatch, E. L. Hicks, A. S. Hunt, F. G. Kenyon, J. P. Mahaffy, W. R.
Paton, W. M. Ramsay, H. A. Redpath, H. B. Swete, and others hardly less notable.
Since the years 1895 and 1897, in which respectively the German Bibelstudien and
Neue Bibelstudien were published, there has been a vast increase of available
material, which, again, has been much more accessible to me as a Professor in
the University of Heidelberg than it was during my residence at Herborn. I have
so far availed myself of portions of the more recent discoveries in this English
edition; but what remains for scholars interested in such investigations is
hardly less than enormous, and is being augmented year by year. I shall be
greatly pleased if yet more students set themselves seriously to labour in this
field of biblical research. In the English edition not a few additional changes
have been made; I must, however, reserve further items for future Studies. With
regard to the entries κυριακός (p. 217 ff.), and especially ἱλατήριον (p. 124
ff.), I should like to make express reference to the articles Lord’s Day and
Mercy Seat to be contributed by me to the Encyclopcedia Biblica. Finally, I must
record my heartiest thanks to my translator, Rev. Alexander Grieve, M.A., D.
Phil., Forfar, for his work. With his name I gratefully associate the words
which once on a time the translator of the Wisdom of Jesus Sirach applied with
ingenuous complacency to himself: πολλὴνἀγρυπνίαν καὶἐπιστήμηνπροσενεγκάμενος.

ADOLF DEISSMANN.

HEIDELBERG, 27th December, 1900.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 3: 00000 - FROM THE PREFACE TO THE GERMAN EDITION
========================================================================

FROM THE PREFACE TO THE GERMAN

EDITION.

Bible Studies is the name I have chosen for the following investigations, since
all of them are more or less concerned with the historical questions which the
Bible, and specially the Greek version, raises forscientific treatment. I am
not, of course, of the opinion that there is a special biblical science. Science
is method: the special sciences are distinguished from each other as methods.
What is designated “Biblical Science” were more fitly named “Biblical Research”.
The science in question here is the same whether it is engaged with Plato, or
with the Seventy Interpreters and the Gospels. Thus much should be self-evident.
A well-disposed friend who understands something of literary matters tells me
that it is hardly fitting that a younger man should publish a volume of
“Studies”: that is rather the part of the experienced scholar in the sunny
autumn of life. To this advice I have given serious consideration, but I am
still of the opinion that the hewing of stones is very properly the work of the
journeyman. And in the department where I have laboured, many a block must yet
be trimmed before the erection of the edifice can be thought of. But how much
still remains to do, before the language of the Septuagint, the relation to it
of the so-called New Testament Greek, the history of the religious and ethical
conceptions of Hellenic Judaism, have become clear even in outline only; or
before it has been made manifest that the religious movement by which we date
our era originated and was developed in history—that is, in connection with, or,
it may be, in opposition to, an already-existent high state of culture! If the
following pages speak much about the Septuagint, let it be remembered that in
general that book is elsewhere much too little spoken of, certainly much less
than was the case a hundred years ago. We inveigh against the Rationalists—often
in a manner that raises the suspicion that we have a mistrust of Reason. Yet
these men, inveighed against as they are, in many respects set wider bounds to
their work than do their critics. During my three years’ work in the
SeminariumPhilippinum at Marburg, I have often enough been forced to think of
the plan of study in accordance with which the bursars used to work about the
middle of last century. Listen to a report of the matter such as the following
:— 1

“With regard to Greek the legislator has laid particular stress upon the
relation in which this language stands to a true understanding of the N.T. How
reasonable, therefore, will those who can judge find the recommendation that the
Septuagint (which on the authority of an Ernesti and a Michaelis, is of the
first importance as a means towards the proper understanding of the N.T.), has
been fixed upon as a manual upon which these lectures must be given! And how
much is it to be wished that the bursars, during the year of their study of this
book, should go through such a considerable part of the same as may be necessary
to realise the purposes of the legislator!” I am not bold enough to specify the
time when academical lectures and exercises upon the Septuawill again be given
in Germany. 2 But the coming century is long, and the mechanical conception of
science is but the humour of a day! . . . I wrote the book, not as a clergyman,
but as a Privatdocent at Marburg, but I rejoice that I am able, as a clergyman,
to publish it.

G. ADOLF DEISSMANN.

HERBORN: DEPARTMENT OF WIESBADEN, 7th March, 1895.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 4: 000000 - TRANSLATOR’S NOTE.
========================================================================

TRANSLATOR’S NOTE. In addition to the supplementary matter specially contributed
to the present edition by the Author, the translation shows considerable
alterations in other respects. Not only has the smaller and later volume, Neue
Bibelstudien, 1897, found a place in the body of the book, but the order of the
Articles has been all but completely changed. It has not been thought necessary
to furnish the translation with an index of Papyri, etc., more especially as the
larger Bibelstudien had none; but there has been added an index of Scripture
texts, which seemed on the whole more likely to be of service to English readers
in general. The translator has inserted a very few notes, mainly concerned with
matters of translation. For the convenience of those who may wish to consult the
original on any point, the paging of the German edition has been given in square
brackets, the page-numbers of the Neue Bibelstudien being distinguished by an N.
In explanation of the fact that some of the works cited are more fully described
towards the end of the book, and more briefly in the earlier pages, it should
perhaps be said that a large portion of the translation was in type, and had
been revised, before the alteration in the order of the Articles had been
decided upon. The translator would take this opportunity of expressing his most
cordial thanks to Professor Deissmann, who has taken the most active interest in
the preparation of the translation, and whose painstaking revision of the proofs
has been of the highest service. A word of thanks is also due to the printers,
The Aberdeen University Press Limited, for the remarkable accuracy and skill
which they have uniformly shown in the manipulation of what was often
complicated and intricate material.

ALEXANDER GRIEVE.

FORFAR, 21st January, 1901.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 5: 0000000 - THE PRINCIPAL ABBREVIATIONS.
========================================================================

THE PRINCIPAL ABBREVIATIONS.

AAB. = Abhandlungen der Koniglichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin.

Benndorf u. Niemann, see p. 157, note 1.

BU. = Aegyptische Urkunden aus den Koeniglichen Museen zu Berlin, Berlin, 1892
ff.

CIA. = Corpus Inscriptionum Attibarum.

CIG. = Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum.

CIL. = Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum.

Clavis3, see p. 88, note 5.

Cremer, see p. 290, note 2.

DAW. = Denkschriften der K. K. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Wien.

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

Dittenberger, see p. 93, note 2.

DLZ. = Deutsche Literaturzeitung.

Fick-Bechtel, see p. 310, note 4.

Field, see p. 284, note 2.

Fleck. Jbb. = Fleckeisen’s Jahrbacher.

Frankel, see p. 84, note 2.

GGA. = Gottingische gelehrte Anzeigen.

HApAT. = Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apocryphen des A.T., 6 Bde.,
Leipzig, 1851-60.

Hamburger, see p. 271, note.

HC. = Hand-Commentar zum N.T.

Hercher, see p. 4, note 1.

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

IGrSI., see p. 200, note 1.

IMAe., see p. 178, note 5.

Kennedy, see p. 213, note 1.

Kenyon, see p. 323, note 1.

Lebas, see Waddington.

Leemans, see p. 322, note 6.

Letronne, Recherches, see p. 98, note 3. Recueil, see p. 101, note 6.

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

Mahaffy, see p. 336, note 1.

Meisterhans, see p. 124, note 1.

Meyer = H. A. W. Meyer, Kritisch exegetischer Kommentar caber das N.T.

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

Parthey, see p. 322, note 5.

Paton and Hicks, see p. 131, note 1.

PER., see p. 179, note 2.

Perg., see p. 178, note 4.

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

R-E2 = Real-Encyclopadie fur protest.

Theologie and Kirche von Herzog, 2. Aufl., Leipzig, 1877 ff.

Schleusner = J. F., Novus Thesaurus philologico-criticus sive lexicon in LXX et
reliquos interpretes graecarum cos ac scriptores apocryphos V. T., 5 voll.,
Lipsiae, 1820-21.

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

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

Scharer, see p. 335, note 2.

Swete = The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint, edited by H. B.
Swete, 3 voll., Cambridge, 1887-94.

Thesaurus =H. Stephanus, Thesaurus Graecae Linguae, edd. Hase, etc., Paris,
1831-65.

Thayer, see p. 176, note 3.

ThLZ. = Theologische Literaturzeitung.

Tromm. = Abrahami Trommii concordantiae graecae versionis vulgo dictae LXX
interpretum . . ., 2 tomi, Amstelodami et Trajecti ad Rhenum, 1718.

TU. = Texte mad Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur.

Waddington, see p. 93, note 1.

Wessely, see p. 322, note 7.

Wetstein, see p. 350, note 1.

Winer7, or Winer-Lunemann = G. B.

Winer, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms, 7 Aufl. von G. Lunemann,
Leipzig, 1867. [9th English edition, by W. F. Moulton, Edinburgh, 1882 = 6th
German edition.] Winer-Schmiedel = the same work, 8th Aufl. neu bearbeitet von
P. W. Schmiedel, Gottingen, 1894 ff.

ZAW. = Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft.

Z KG. = Zeitschrift fur Kirchengesohialite.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 6: 01 - PROLEGOMENA TO THE BIBLICAL LETTERS AND EPISTLES
========================================================================

I.

PROLEGOMENA TO THE BIBLICAL LETTERS AND EPISTLES.

γινεσθεδοκιμοιτραπεζιται


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 7: 01.01 - PROLEGOMENA TO THE BIBLICAL LETTERS AND EPISTLES.
========================================================================

i.

PROLEGOMENA TO THE BIBLICAL LETTERS AND EPISTLES.

1. Men have written letters ever since they could write at all. Who the first
letter-writer was we know not.3 But this is quite as it should be: the writer of
a letter accommodates himself to the need of the moment; his aim is a personal
one and concerns none but himself,—least of all the curiosity of posterity. We
fortunately know quite as little who was the first to experience repentance or
to offer prayer. The writer of a letter does not sit in the marketplace. A
letter is a secret and the writer wishes his secret to be preserved; under cover
and seal he entrusts it to the reticence of the messenger. The letter, in its
essential idea, does not differ in any way from a private conversation; like the
latter, it is a personal and intimate communication, and the more faithfully it
catches the tone of the private conversation, the more of a letter, that is, the
better a letter, it is. The only difference is the means of communication. We
avail ourselves of far-travelling handwriting, because our voice cannot carry to
our friend: the pen is employed because the separation by distance does not
permit a tête-à-tête.4A letter is destined for the receiver only, not for the
public eye, and even when it is intended for more than one, yet with the public
it will have nothing to do: letters to parents and brothers and sisters, to
comrades in joy or sorrow or sentiment—these, too, are private letters, true
letters. As little as the words of the dying father to his children are a
speech—should they be a speech it would be better for the dying to keep
silent—just as little is the letter of a sage to his confidential pupils an
essay, a literary production; and, if the pupils have learned wisdom, they will
not place it among their books, but lay it devoutly beside the picture and the
other treasured relics of their master. The form and external appearance of the
letter are matters of indifference in the determination of its essential
character. Whether it be written on stone or clay, on papyrus or parchment, on
wax or palm-leaf, on rose paper or a foreign postcard, is quite as immaterial5
as whether it clothes itself in the set phrases of the age; whether it be
written skilfully or unskilfully, by a prophet or by a beggar, does not alter
its special characteristics in the least. Nor do the particular contents belong
to the essence of it. What is alone essential is the purpose which it serves:
confidential personal conversation between persons separated by distance. The
one wishes to ask something of the other, wishes to praise or warn or wound the
other, to thank him or assure him of sympathy in joy—it is ever something
personal that forces the pen into the hand of the letter-writer.6 He who writes
a letter under the impression that his lines may be read by strangers, will
either coquet with this possibility, or be frightened by it; in the former case
he will be vain, in the latter, reserved;7 in both cases unnatural—no true
letter-writer. With the personal aim of the letter there must necessarily be
joined the naturalness of the writer’s mood; one owes it not only to himself and
to the other, but still more to the letter as such, that he yield himself freely
to it. So must the letter, even the shortest and the poorest, present a fragment
of human naivete—beautiful or trivial, but, in any case, true.8 2. The letter is
older than literature. As conversation between two persons is older than the
dialogue, the song older than the poem, so also does the history of the letter
reach back to that Golden Age when there was neither author nor publisher, nor
any reviewer. Literature is that species of writing which is designed for
publicity: the maker of literature desires that others will take heed to his
work. He desires to be read. He does not appeal to his friend, nor does he write
to his mother; he entrusts his sheets to the winds, and knows not whither they
will be borne; he only knows that they will be picked up and examined by some
one or other unknown to him and unabashed before him. Literature, in the truest
essence of it, differs in no way from a public speech; equally with the latter
it falls short in the matter of intimacy, and the more it attains to the
character of universality, the more literary, that is to say, the more
interesting it is. All the difference between them is in the mode of delivery.
Should one desire to address, not the assembled clan or congregation, but the
great foolish public, then he takes care that what he has to say may be carried
home in writing by any one who wishes to have it so: the book is substituted for
oral communication. And even if the book be dedicated to a friend or friends,
still its dedication does not divest it of its literary character,—it does not
thereby become a private piece of writing. The form and external appearance of
the book are immaterial for the true understanding of its special character as a
book: even its contents, whatever they be, do not matter. Whether the author
sends forth poems, tragedies or histories, sermons or wearisome scientific
lucubrations, political matter or anything else in the world; whether his book
is multiplied by the slaves of an Alexandrian bookseller, by patient monk or
impatient compositor; whether it is preserved in libraries as sheet, or roll, or
folio: all these are as much matter of indifference as whether it is good or
bad, or whether it finds purchasers or not. Book, literature, in the widest
sense, is every written work designed by its author for the public.9 3. The book
is younger than the letter. Even were the oldest letters that have come down to
us younger than the earliest extant works of literature, that statement would
still be true. For it is one which does not need the confirmation of historical
facts—nay, it would be foolish to attempt to give such. The letter is
perishable—in its very nature necessarily so; it is perishable, like the hand
that wrote it, like the eyes that were to read it. The letter-writer works as
little for posterity as for the public of his own time; 10 just as the true
letter cannot be written over again, it exists in but a single copy. It is only
the book that is multiplied and thus rendered accessible to the public,
accessible, possibly, to posterity. Fortunately we possess letters that are old,
extremely old, but we shall never gain a sight of the oldest of them all; it was
a letter, and was able to guard itself and its secret. Among all nations, before
the age of literature, there were the days when people wrote, indeed, but did
not yet write books. 11 In the same way people prayed, of course, and probably
prayed better, long before there were any service-books; and they had come near
to God before they wrote down the proofs of His existence. The letter, should we
ask about the essential character of it, carries us into the sacred solitude of
simple, unaffected humanity; when we ask about its history, it directs us to the
childhood’s years of the pre-literary man, when there was no book to trouble
him. 4. When the friend has for ever parted from his comrades, the master from
his disciples, then the bereaved bethink themselves, with sorrowful reverence,
of all that the departed one was to them. The old pages, which the beloved one
delivered to them in some blessed hour, speak to them with a more than
persuasive force; they are read and re-read, they are exchanged one for another,
copies are taken of letters in the possession of friends, the precious fragments
are collected: perhaps it is decided that the collection be multiplied—among the
great unknown public there may be some unknown one who is longing for the same
stimulus which the bereaved themselves have received. And thus it happens now
and then that, from motives of reverent love, the letters of the great are
divested of their confidential character: they are formed into literature, the
letters subsequently become a book. When, by the Euphrates or the Nile,
preserved in the ruins of some fallen civilisation, we find letters the age of
which can only be computed by centuries and millenniums, the science of our
fortunate day rejoices; she hands over the venerable relics to a grateful public
in a new garb, and so, in our own books and in our own languages, we read the
reports which the Palestinian vassals had to make to Pharaoh upon their tablets
of clay, long before there was any Old Testament or any People of Israel; we
learn the sufferings and the longings of Egyptian monks from shreds of papyrus
which are as old as the book of the Seventy Interpreters. Thus it is the science
of to-day that has stripped these private communications of a hoary past of
their most peculiar characteristic, and which has at length transformed letters,
true letters, into literature. As little, however, as some unknown man, living
in the times of Imperial Rome, put the toy into the grave of his child in order
that it should sometime be discovered and placed in a museum, just as little are
the private letters which have at length been transformed into literature by
publication, to be, on that account, thought of as literature. Letters remain
letters whether oblivion hides them with its protecting veil, or whether now
reverence, now science, or, again, reverence and science in friendly conspiracy,
think it well to withhold the secret no longer from the reverent or the eager
seeker after truth. What the editor, in publishing such letters, takes from
them, the readers, if they can do anything more than spell, must restore by
recognising, in true historical perspective, their simple and unaffected beauty.
5. When for the first time a book was compiled from letters,—it would be
reverential love, rather than science, that made the beginning here—the age of
literature had, of course, dawned long ago, and had long ago constructed the
various literary forms with which it worked. That book, the first to be compiled
from real letters, added another to the already existent forms. One would, of
course, hardly venture to say that it forthwith added the literary letter, the
epistle,12 to the forms of published literature; the said book only gave,
against its will, so to speak, the impetus to the development of this new
literary eidos.13 The present writer cannot imagine that the composition and
publication of literary treatises in the form of letters was anterior to the
compilation of a book from actual letters. So soon, however, as such a book
existed, the charming novelty of it invited to imitation. Had the invitation
been rightly understood, the only inducement that should have been felt was to
publish the letters of other venerable men, and, in point of fact, the
invitation was not seldom understood in this its true sense. From almost every
age we have received such collections of “genuine,” “real” letters—priceless
jewels for the historian of the human spirit. But the literary man is frequently
more of a literary machine than a true man, and thus, when the first collection
of letters appeared, it was the literary, rather than the human, interest of it
which impressed him; the accidental and external, rather than the inscrutably
strange inmost essence of it. Instead of rejoicing that his purblind eye might
here catch a glimpse of a great human soul, he resolved to write a volume of
letters on his own part. He knew not what he did, and had no feeling that he was
attempting anything unusual; 14 he did not see that, by his literary purpose, he
was himself destroying the very possibility of its realisation; for letters are
experiences, and experiences cannot be manufactured. The father of the epistle
was no great pioneer spirit, but a mere paragraphist, a mere mechanic. But
perhaps he had once heard a pastoral song among the hills, and afterwards at
home set himself down to make another of the same: the wondering applause of his
crowd of admirers confirmed him in the idea that he had succeeded. If then he
had achieved his aim in the matter of a song, why should he not do the same with
letters? And so he set himself down and made them. But the prototype, thus
degraded to a mere pattern, mistrustfully refused to show its true face, not to
speak of its heart, to this pale and suspicious-looking companion, and the
result was that the epistle could learn no more from the letter than a little of
its external form. If the true letter might be compared to a prayer, the epistle
which mimicked it was only a babbling; if there beamed forth in the letter the
wondrous face of a child, the epistle grinned stiffly and stupidly, like a
puppet. But the puppet pleased; its makers knew how to bring it to perfection,
and to give it more of a human appearance. Indeed, it happened now and then that
a real artist occupied an idle hour in the fashioning of such an object. This,
of course, turned out better than most others of a similar kind, and was more
pleasant to look at than an ugly child for instance; in any case it could not
disturb one by its noise. A good epistle, in fact, gives one more pleasure than
a worthless letter, and in no literature is there any lack ofgood epistles. They
often resemble letters so much that a reader permits himself for the moment to
be willingly deceived as to their actual character. But letters they are not,
and the more strenuously they try to be letters, the more vividlydo they reveal
that they are not.15 Even the grapes of Zeuxis could deceive only the sparrows;
one even suspects that they were no true sparrows, but cage-birds rather, which
had lost their real nature along with their freedom and pertness; our Rhine-land
sparrows would not have left their vineyards for anything of the kind. Those of
the epistle-writers who were artists were themselves most fully aware that in
their epistles they worked at best artificially, and, in fact, had to do so.
“The editor requests that the readers of this book will not forget the title of
it: it is only a book of letters, letters merely relating to the study of
theology. In letters one does not look for treatises, still less for treatises
in rigid uniformity and proportion of parts. As material offers itself and
varies, as conversation comesand goes, often as personal inclinations or
incidental occurrences determine and direct, so do the letters wind about and
flow on; and I am greatly in error if it be not this a thread of living
continuity, this capriciousness of origin and circumstances, that realises the
result which we desiderate on the written page, but which, of course,
subsequently disappears in the printing. Nor can I conceal the fact that these
letters, as now printed, are wanting just in what is perhaps most instructive,
viz., the more exact criticism of particular works. There was, however, no other
way of doing it, and I am still uncertain whether the following letters, in
which the materials grow always the more special, the more important, the more
personal, are fit for printing at all. The public voice of the market-place and
the confidential one of private correspondence are, and always continue to be,
very different.” Herder,16 in these words, which are a classical description of
the true idea of a letter, claims that his book has, in fact, the character of
actual letters, but is nevertheless quite well aware that a printed (that is,
according to the context, a literary) letter is essentially different from a
letter that is actually such. It is easy to understand how the epistle became a
favourite form of published literature in almost all literary nations. There
could hardly be a more convenient form. The extraordinary convenience of it lay
in the fact that it was, properly speaking, so altogether “unliterary,” that, in
fact, it did not deserve to be called a “form” at all. One needed but to label
an address on any piece of tittle-tattle, and lo! one had achieved what else
could have been accomplished only by a conscientious adherence to the strict
rules of artistic form. Neither as to expression nor contents does the epistle
make any higher pretensions. The writer could, in the matter of style, write as
he pleased, and the address on the letter became a protective mark for thoughts
that would have been too silly for a poem, and too paltry for an essay. The
epistle, if we disregard the affixed address, need be no more than, say a
feuilleton or a causerie. The zenith of epistolography may always be looked upon
as assuredly indicating the decline of literature; literature becomes
decadent—Alexandrian, so to speak—and although epistles may have been composed
and published by great creative spirits, still the derivative character of the
movement cannot be questioned: even the great will want to gossip, to lounge, to
take it easy for once. Their epistles may be good, but the epistle in general,
as a literary phenomenon, is light ware indeed. 6. Of collections of letters,
bearing the name of well-known poets and philosophers, we have, indeed, a great
profusion. Many of them are not “genuine”; they were composed and given to the
world by others under the protection of a great name.17 A timid ignorance,
having no true notion of literary usages, inconsiderately stigmatises one and
all of these with the ethical term forgery; it fondly imagines that everything
in the world can be brought between the two poles moral and immoral, and
overlooks the fact that the endless being and becoming of things is generally
realised according to non-ethical laws, and needs to be judged as an ethical
adiaphoron. He who tremulously supposes that questions of genuineness in the
history of literature are, as such, problems of the struggle between truth and
falsehood, ought also to have the brutal courage to describe all literature as
forgery. The literary man, as compared with the non-literary, is always a person
under constraint; he does not draw from the sphere of prosaic circumstance about
him, but places himself under the dominion of the ideal, about which no one
knows better than himself that it never was, and never will be, real. The
literary man, with every stroke of his pen, removes himself farther from trivial
actuality, just because he wishes to alter it, to ennoble or annihilate it, just
because he can never acknowledge it as it is. As a man he feels indeed that he
is sold under the domain of the wretched “object”. He knows that when he writes
upon the laws of the cosmos, he is naught but a foolish boy gathering shells by
the shore of the ocean; he enriches the literature of his nation by a Faust,
meanwhile sighing for a revelation; or he is driven about by the thought that
something must be done for his unbelief—yet he writes Discourses upon Religion.
And thus he realises that he is entangled in the contradiction between the
Infinite and the Finite,18 while the small prosperous folks, whose sleepy souls
reek not of his pain, are lulled by him into the delightful dream that we only
need to build altars to truth, beauty, and eternity in order to possess these
things; when they have awaked, they can but reproach him for having deceived
them. They discover that he is one of themselves; they whisper to each other
that the sage, the poet, the prophet, is but a man after all —wiser, it may be,
but not more clever, or better, than others. He who might have been their
guide—not indeed to his own poor hovel but to the city upon the hill, not built
by human hands—is compensated with some polite-sounding phrase. The foolish
ingrates! Literature presents us with the unreal, just because it subserves the
truth; the literary man abandons himself, just because he strives for the ends
of humanity; he is unnatural, just because he would give to others something
better than himself. What holds good of literature in general must also be taken
into account in regard to each of its characteristic phenomena. Just as little
as Plato’s Socrates and Schiller’s Wallenstein are “forgeries,” so little dare
we so name the whole “pseudonymous”19 literature. We may grant at once, indeed,
that some, at least, of the writings which go under false names were
intentionally forged by the writers of them; pseudonymity in political or
ecclesiastical works is in every case suspicious, for no one knows better how to
use sacred and sanctifying ends than does the undisciplined instinct of monarchs
and hierarchs, and the followers of them. But there is also a pseudonymity which
is innocent, sincere, and honest,20 and if a literary product permits of any
inferences being drawn from it respecting the character of the writer, then, in
such a case of pseudonymity, one may not think of malice or cowardice, but
rather of modesty and natural timidity. Between the genuine21 and the
pseudonymous epistle there does not exist the same profound and essential
difference as between the epistle and the letter. The epistle is never genuine
in the sense in which the letter is; it never can be so, because it can adopt
the form of the letter only by surrendering the essence. An epistle of Herder,
however like a letter it may look, is yet not a letter of Herder: it was not
Herder the man, but Herder the theological thinker and author, that wrote it: it
is genuine in an ungenuine sense—like an apple-tree which, flourishing in
September, certainly has genuine apple blossoms, but which must surely be
altogether ashamed of such in the presence of its own ripening fruits. Literary
“genuineness” is not to be confounded with genuine naturalness. Questions of
genuineness in literature may cause us to rack our brains: but what is humanly
genuine is never a problem to the genuine man. From the epistle that was genuine
in a mere literary sense there was but a step to the fictitious epistle; while
the genuine letter could at best be mimicked, the genuine epistle was bound to
be imitated, and, indeed, invited to imitation. The collections of genuine
Letters indirectly occasioned the writing of epistles: the collections of
genuine epistles were immediately followed by the literature of the fictitious
epistle.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 8: 01.02 - PROLEGOMENA TO THE BIBLICAL LETTERS AND EPISTLES.
========================================================================

ii.

PROLEGOMENA TO THE BIBLICAL LETTERS AND EPISTLES.

7. In the foregoing remarks on questions of principle, the author has in general
tacitly presupposed the literary conditions into which we are carried by the
Graeco-Roman civilisation, and by the modern, of which that is the basis.22
These inquiries seem to him to demand that we should not summarily include all
that has been handed down to us bearing the wide, indefinite name of letter,
under the equally indefinite term Literature of letters (Brieflitteratur), but
that each separate fragment of these interesting but neglected compositions be
set in its proper place in the line of development, which is as follows—real
letter, letter that has subsequently become literature, epistle, fictitious
epistle. Should it be demanded that the author fill up the various stages of
this development with historical references, he would be at a loss. It has been
already indicated that the first member of the series, viz., the letter, belongs
to pre-literary times: it is not only impossible to give an example of this, but
also unreasonable to demand one. With more plausibility one might expect that
something certain ought to be procured in connection with the other stages,
which belong in a manner to literary times, and, as such, can be historically
checked. But even if the broad field of ancient “letters” were more extensively
cultivated than has hitherto been the case, still we could establish at best no
more than the first known instance of a subsequent collection of real letters,
of an epistle or of a fictitious epistle, but would not reach the beginnings of
the literary movement itself. The line in question can only be drawn on the
ground of general considerations, nor does the author see how else it could be
drawn. No one will question that the real letter was the first, the fictitious
epistle the last, link in the development; as little will any one doubt that the
epistle must have been one of the intervening links between the two.23 The only
uncertainty is as to the origin of the epistle itself; it, of course,
presupposes the real letter, being an imitation of it; but that it presupposes
as well the collection of real letters, as we think probable in regard to Greek
literature, cannot be established with certainty for the history of literature
in general. As a matter of fact, the epistle, as a form of literature, is found
among the Egyptians at a very early period, and the author does not know how it
originated there. The Archduke Rainer’s collection of Papyri at Vienna contains
a poetical description of the town of Pi-Ramses, dating from the 12th century
B.C., which is written in the form of a letter, and is in part identical with
Papyrus Anastasi III. in the British Museum. This MS. “shows that in such
letters we have, not private correspondence, but literary compositions, which
must have enjoyed a wide circulation in ancient Egypt; it thus affords us
valuable materials towards the characterisation of the literature of ancient
Egypt”.24 If, therefore, we can hardly say that the epistle first originated
among the Greeks, yet, notwithstanding the above facts, we may assume that it
might arise quite independently under the special conditions of Greek
Literature, and that, in fact, it did so arise.

8. Now whatever theory one may have about the origin of the epistle among the
Greeks, that question is of no great importance for the problem of the historian
of literary phenomena in general, viz., the analysis into their constituent
parts of the writings which have been transmitted to us as a whole under the
ambiguous name of “letters”. What is important in this respect are the various
categories to which those constituent parts must be assigned in order that they
may be clearly distinguished from each other. We may, therefore, ignore the
question as to the origin of these categories—like all questions about the
origin of such products of the mind, it is to a large extent incapable of any
final solution; let it suffice that all these categories are represented among
the “letters” that have been transmitted from the past. The usage of scientific
language is, indeed, not so uniform as to render a definition of terms
superfluous. The following preliminary remarks may therefore be made; they may
serve at the same time to justify the terms hitherto used in this book.

Above all, it is misleading merely to talk of letters, without having defined
the term more particularly. The perception of this fact has influenced many to
speak of the private letter in contradistinction to the literary letter, and
this distinction may express the actual observed fact that the true letter is
something private, a personal and confidential matter. But the expression is
none the less inadequate, for it may mislead. Thus B. Weiss,25 for instance,
uses it as the antithesis of the pastoral letter (Gemeindebrief); a terminology
which does not issue from the essence of the letter, but from the fact of a
possible distinction among those to whom it may be addressed. We might in the
same way distinguish between the private letter and the family letter, i.e., the
letter which a son, for instance, might send from abroad to those at home. But
it is plain that, in the circumstances, such a distinction would be meaningless,
for that letter also is a private one. Or, take the case of a clergyman, acting
as army chaplain in the enemy’s country, who writes a letter26 to his distant
congregation at home; such would be a congregational letter—perhaps it is even
read in church by the locum tenens; but it would manifestly not differ in the
slightest from a private letter, provided, that is, that the writer’s heart was
in the right place. The more private, the more personal, the more special it is,
all the better a congregational letter will it be; a right sort of congregation
would not welcome paragraphs of pastoral theology—they get such things from the
locum tenens, for he is not long from college. The mere fact that the receivers
of a letter are a plurality, does not constitute a public in the literary sense,
and, again, an epistle directed to a single private individual is not on that
account a private letter—it is literature. It is absurd, then, to define the
specific character of a piece of writing which looks like a letter merely
according to whether the writer addresses the receivers in the second person
singular or plural;27 the distinguishing feature cannot be anything merely
formal (formal, moreover, in a superficial sense of that word), but can only be
the inner special purpose of the writer. It is thus advisable, if we are to
speak scientifically, to avoid the use of such merely external categories as
congregational letter, and also to substitute for private letter a more accurate
expression. As such we are at once confronted by the simple designation letter,
but this homely term, in consideration of the indefiniteness which it has
acquired in the course of centuries, will hardly suffice by itself; we must find
an adjunct for it. The term true letter is therefore used here, after the
example of writers28 who are well able to teach us what a letter is. When a true
letter becomes literature by means of its publication, we manifestly obtain no
new species thereby. To the historian of literature, it still remains what it
was to the original receiver of it—a true letter: even when given to the public,
it makes a continual protest against its being deemed a thing of publicity. We
must so far favour it as to respect its protest; were we to separate it in any
way from other true letters which were fortunate enough never to have their
obscurity disturbed, we should but add to the injustice already done to it by
its being published. A new species is reached only when we come to the letter
published professedly as literature, which as such is altogether different from
the first class. Here also we meet with various designations in scientific
language. But the adoption of a uniform terminology is not nearly so important
in regard to this class as in regard to the true letter. One may call it
literary letter,29 or, as has been done above for the sake of simplicity,
epistle—no importance need be attached to the designation, provided the thing
itself be clear. The subdivisions, again, which may be inferred from the
conditions of origin of the epistle, are of course unessential; they are not the
logical divisions of the concept epistle, but simply classifications of extant
epistles according to their historical character, i.e., we distinguish between
authentic and unauthentic epistles, and again, in regard to the latter, between
innocent fabrications and forgeries with a “tendency”. Furnished with these
definitions, we approach the immense quantity of written material which has been
bequeathed to us by Graeco-Roman antiquity under the ambiguous term ἐπιστολαί,
epistulae. The sheets which we have inherited from the bountiful past, and which
have been brought into confusion by legacy-hunters and legal advisers, so to
speak, perhaps even by the palsied but venerable hand of their aged proprietrix
herself, must first of all be duly arranged before we can congratulate ourselves
on their possession. In point of fact, the work of arrangement is by no means so
far advanced as the value of the inheritance deserves to have it.30 But what has
already been done affords, even to the outsider, at least the superficial
impression that we possess characteristic representatives, from ancient times,
of all the categories of ἐποιστολαί, which have been established in the
foregoing pages.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 9: 01.03 - PROLEGOMENA TO THE BIBLICAL LETTERS AND EPISTLES.
========================================================================

iii.

PROLEGOMENA TO THE BIBLICAL LETTERS AND EPISTLES.

9. We can be said to possess true letters from ancient times—in the full sense
of the word possess—only when we have the originals. And, in fact, the Papyrus
discoveries of the last decade have placed us in the favourable position of
being able to think of as our very own an enormous number of true letters in the
original, extending from the Ptolemaic period till far on in mediaeval times.
The author is forced to confess that, previous to his acquaintance with ancient
Papyrus letters (such as it was—only in facsimiles), he had never rightly known,
or, at least, never rightly realised within his own mind, what a letter was.
Comparing a Papyrus letter of the Ptolemaic period with a fragment from a
tragedy, written also on Papyrus, and of about the same age, no one perceives
any external difference; the same written characters, the same writing material,
the same place of discovery. And yet the two are as different in their essential
character as are reality and art: the one, a leaf with writing on it, which has
served some perfectly definite and never-to-be-repeated purpose in human
intercourse; the other, the derelict leaf of a book, a fragment of literature.
These letters will of themselves reveal what they are, better than the author
could, and in evidence of this, there follows a brief selection of letters from
the Egyptian town of Oxyrhynchus, the English translation of which (from Greek)
all but verbally corresponds to that given by Messrs. Grenfell and Hunt in their
edition of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri.31 The author has selected such letters as
date from the century in which our Saviour walked about in the Holy Land, in
which Paul wrote his letters, and the beginnings of the New Testament collection
were made.32

I.

Letter from Chaireas to Tyrannos.33

A.D. 25-26.

“Chaireas to his dearest Tyrannos, many greetings. Write out immediately the
list of arrears both of corn and money for the twelfth year of Tiberius Caesar
Augustus, as Severus has given me instructions for demanding their payment. I
have already written to you to be firm and demand payment until I come in peace.
Do not therefore neglect this, but prepare the statements of corn and money from
the . . . year to the eleventh for the presentation of the demands. Good-bye.”
Address : “ To Tyrannos, dioiketes “.

II.

Letter of Recommendation from Theon to Tyrannos.34

About A.D. 25.

“Theon to his esteemed Tyrannos, many greetings. Herakleides, the bearer of this
letter, is my brother. I therefore entreat you with all my power to treat him as
your protege. I have also written to your brother Hermias, asking him to
communicate with you about him. You will confer upon me a very great favour if
Herakleides gains your notice. Before all else you have my good wishes for
unbroken health and prosperity. Good-bye.” Address: “To Tyrannos, dioiketes”.

III.

Letter from Dionysios to his Sister Didyme.35

A.D. 27.

“Dionysios to his sister Didyme, many greetings, and good wishes for continued
health. You have sent me no word about the clothes either by letter or by
message, and they are still waiting until you send me word. Provide the bearer
of this letter, Theonas, with any assistance that he wishes for. . .. Take care
of yourself and all your household. Good-bye. The 14th year of Tiberius Caesar
Augustus, Athyr 18.” Address : “ Deliver from Dionysios to his sister Didyme “.

IV.

Letter from Thaeisus to her mother Syras.36

About A.D. 35.

“Thaeisus to her mother Syras. I must tell you that Seleukos came here and has
fled. Don’t trouble to explain (?). Let Lucia wait until the year. Let me know
the day. Salute Ammonas my brother and . . . and my sister . . . and my father
Theonas.”

V.

Letter from Ammonios to his father Ammonios.37

A.D. 54.

“Ammonios to his father Ammonios, greeting. Kindly write me in a note the record
of the sheep, how many more you have by the lambing beyond those included in the
first return. . . . Good-bye. The 14th year of Tiberius Claudius Caesar
Augustus, Epeiph 29.”

Address: “To my father Ammonios”.

VI.

Letter from Indike to Thaeisus.38 Late First Century.

“Indike to Thaeisus, greeting. I sent you the bread-basket by Taurinus the
camel-man; please send me an answer that you have received it. Salute my friend
Theon and Nikobulos and Dioskoros and Theon and Hermokles, who have my best
wishes. Longinus salutes you. Good-bye. Month Germanikos 2.” Address: “To
Theon,39 son of Nikobulos, elaiochristes at the Gymnasion “.

VII.

Letter of Consolation from Eirene to Taonnophris and Philon.40

Second Century.

“Eirene to Taonnophris and Philon, good cheer. I was as much grieved and shed as
many tears over Eumoiros as I shed for Didymas, and I did everything that was
fitting, and so did my whole family,41 Epaphrodeitos and Thermuthion and Philion
and Apollonios and Plantas. But still there is nothing one can do in the face of
such trouble. So I leave you to comfort yourselves. Good-bye. Athyr 1.”

Address: “To Taonnophris and Philon”.

VIII.

Letter from Korbolon to Herakleides.42

Second Century.

“Korbolon to Herakleides, greeting. I send you the key by Horion, and the piece
of the lock by Onnophris, the camel-driver of Apollonios. I enclosed in the
former packet a pattern of white-violet colour. I beg you to be good enough to
match it, and buy me two drachmas’ weight, and send it to me at once by any
messenger you can find, for the tunic is to be woven immediately. I received
everything you told me to expect by Onnophris safely. I send you by the same
Onnophris six quarts of good apples. I thank all the gods to think that I came
upon Plution in the Oxyrhynchite nome. Do not think that I took no trouble about
the key. The reason is that the smith is a long way from us. I wonder that you
did not see your way to let me have what I asked you to send by Korbolon,
especially when I wanted it for a festival. I beg you to buy me a silver seal,
and to send it me with all speed. Take care that Onnophris buys me what Eirene’s
mother told him. I told him that Syntrophos said that nothing more should be
given to Amarantos on my account. Let me know what you have given him that I may
settle accounts with him. Otherwise I and my son will come for this purpose. [On
the verso] I had the large cheeses from Korbolon. I did not, however, want large
ones, but small. Let me know of anything that you want, and I will gladly do it.
Farewell. Payni 1st. (P.S.) Send me an obol’s worth of cake for my nephew.”

Address: “To Herakleides, son of Ammonios.”

10. But we must not think that the heritage of true letters which we have
received from the past is wholly comprised in the Papyrus letters which have
been thus finely preserved as autographs. In books and booklets which have been
transmitted to us as consisting of ἐπιστολαί, and in others as well, there is
contained a goodly number of true letters, for the preservation of which we are
indebted to the circumstance that some one, at some time subsequent to their
being written, treated them as literature. Just as at some future time posterity
will be grateful to our learned men of to-day for their having published the
Papyrus letters, i.e., treated them as literature, so we ourselves have every
cause for gratitude to those individuals, for the most part unknown, who long
ago committed the indiscretion of making books out of letters. The great men
whose letters, fortunately for us, were overtaken by this fate, were not on that
account epistolographers; they were letter-writers —like, the strange saints of
the Serapeum and the obscure men and women of the Fayyûm. No doubt, by reason of
their letters having been preserved as literature, they have often been
considered as epistolographers, and the misunderstanding may have been abetted
by the vulgar notion that those celebrated men had the consciousness of their
celebrity even when they laughed and yawned, and that they could not speak or
write a single word without imagining that amazed mankind was standing by to
hear and read. We have not as yet, in every case, identified those whom we have
to thank for real letters. But it will be sufficient for our purpose if we
restrict ourselves to a few likely instances. The letters of Aristotle († 322
B.C.) were published at a very early period: their publication gave the lie, in
a very effective manner, to a fictitious collection which came out shortly after
his death.43 These letters were “true letters, occasioned by the requirements of
private correspondence, not products of art, i.e., treatises in the form of
letters”.44 This collection is usually considered to be the first instance of
private letters being subsequently published.45 It is therefore necessary to
mention them here, though, indeed, it is uncertain whether anything really
authentic has been preserved among the fragments which have come down to us;46
by far the greater number of these were certainly products of the fictitious
literary composition of the Alexandrian period.47—The case stands more
favourably with regard to the nine letters transmitted to us under the name of
Isocrates († 338 B.C.).48 The most recent editor49 of them comes to the
following conclusions. The first letter, to Dionysios, is authentic. The two
letters of introduction, Nos. 7 and 8, to Timotheos of Heracleia and the
inhabitants of Mitylene respectively, bear the same mark of authenticity: “so
much detail, which, wherever we can test it, we recognise to be historically
accurate, and which, to a much greater extent, we are not at all in a position
to judge, is not found in forgeries, unless they are meant to serve other than
their ostensible purposes. There can be no talk of that in the case before us.
In these letters some forms of expression occur more than once (7, 11 = 8, 10),
but there is nothing extraordinary in that. If Isocrates wrote these we must
credit him with having issued many such compositions.”50 These genuine letters
of Isocrates are of interest also in regard to their form, as they show “that
Isocrates applied his rhetorical style also to his letters. . . . Considered
from the point of view of style, they are not letters at all.”51 The author
considers this fact to be very instructive in regard to method; it confirms the
thesis expressed above, viz., that in answering the question as to what
constitutes a true letter, it is never the form which is decisive, but
ultimately only the intention of the writer; there ought not to be, but as a
matter of fact there are, letters which read like pamphlets; there are epistles,
again, which chatter so insinuatingly that we forget that their daintiness is
nothing but a suspicious mask. Nor need one doubt, again, the genuineness of the
second letter—to King Philip: “its contents are most undoubtedly personal”.52
Letter 5, to Alexander, is likewise genuine, “truly a fine piece of Isocratic
finesse: it is genuine —just because it is more profound than it seems, and
because it covertly refers to circumstances notoriously true”.53 The evidence
for and against the genuineness of letter 6 is evenly balanced.54 On the other
hand, letters 3, 4 and 9 are not genuine; are partly, in fact, forgeries with a
purpose.55 This general result of the criticism is likewise of great value in
regard to method: we must abandon the mechanical idea of a collection of
letters, which would lead us to inquire as to the genuineness of the collection
as a whole, instead of inquiring as to the genuineness of its component parts.
Undiscerning tradition may quite well have joined together one or two
unauthentic letters with a dozen of genuine ones; and, again, a whole book of
forged “letters” may be, so to speak, the chaff in which good grains of wheat
may hide themselves from the eyes of the servants: when the son of the house
comes to the threshing-floor, he will discover them, for he cannot suffer that
anything be lost.—The letters of the much-misunderstood Epicurus († 270 B.C.)
were collected with great care by the Epicureans, and joined together with those
of his most distinguished pupils, Metrodorus, Polyaenus, and Hermarchus, with
additions from among the letters which these had received from other friends,56
and have in part come down to us. The author cannot refrain from giving here57
the fragment of a letter of the philosopher to his child (made known to us by
the rolls of Herculaneum), not, indeed, as being a monument of his philosophy,
but because it is part of a letter which is as simple and affectionate, as much
a true letter, as that of Luther to his little son Hans:—

. . . [ἀ] φεύγμεθαεἰςΛάμψακον
ὑγιαίνοντεςἐγὼκαὶΠυθοκλῆςκα[ὶἝρμ]αρχοςκαὶΚ[τή]σιππος,καὶἐκεῖκατειλήφαμεν
ὑγ[ι]αίνονταςθεμίστανκαὶτοὺςλοιποὺς [φί]λο[υ]ς.εὖδὲποιε[ι]ςκαὶσὺε[ἰ
ὑ]γιαίνειςκαὶἡμ[ά]μμη [σ]ουκαὶπάπᾳ καὶΜάτρω[ν]ιπάνταπε[ί]θη[ι,ὥσπ]ερκαὶ
ἔ[μ]προσθεν.εὖ γὰρἴσθι,ἡαἰτία,ὅτικαὶἐγὼκαὶο[ί] λοιποὶπάντεςσεμέγα
φιλοῦμεν,ὅτιτούτοιςπείθῃπάντα . . . .

Again in Latin literature we find a considerable number of real letters.
“Letters, official58 as well as private, make their appearance in the
literature59 of Rome at an early period, both by themselves and in historical
works,60 and, soon thereafter, those of distinguished men in collections.” 61 We
may refer to a single example—certainly a very instructive one. Of Cicero († 43
B.C.) we possess four collections of letters; in all 864, if we include the 90
addressed to him. The earliest belongs to the year 68, the latest is of the date
28th July, 43.62 “Their contents are both personal and political, and they form
an inexhaustible source for a knowledge of the period,63 though partly, indeed,
of such a kind that the publication of them was not to Cicero’s advantage. For
the correspondence of such a man as Cicero, who was accustomed to think so
quickly and feel so strongly, to whom it was a necessity that he should express
his thoughts and feelings as they came, either in words or in letters to some
confidential friend like Atticus, often affords a too searching, frequently even
an illusory,64 glance into his inmost soul. Hence the accusers of Cicero
gathered the greatest part of their material from these letters.”65 The letters
show a noteworthy variation of language: “in the letters to Atticus or other
well known friends Cicero abandons restraint, while those to less intimate
persons show marks of care and elaboration”.66 The history of the gathering
together of Cicero’s letters is of great importance for a right understanding of
similar literary transactions. “Cicero did not himself collect the letters he
had written, still less publish them, but even during his lifetime his intimate
friends were already harbouring such intentions.”67 “After Cicero’s death the
collecting and publishing of his letters was zealously promoted; in the first
place, undoubtedly, by Tiro, who, while Cicero was still living, had resolved to
collect his letters.”68 Cornelius Nepos, according to a note in that part of his
biography of Atticus which was written before 34 B.C., had, even by that date, a
knowledge, from private sources, of the letters to Atticus;69 “they were not as
yet published, indeed, as he expressly says, but, it would appear, already
collected with a view to publication. The first known mention of a letter from
Cicero’s correspondence being published is found at the earliest” in Seneca.70
The following details of the work of collection may be taken as established.71
Atticus negotiated the issue of the letters addressed to him, while the others
appear to have been published gradually by Tiro; both editors suppressed their
own letters to Cicero. Tiro arranged the letters according to the individuals
who had received them, and published the special correspondence of each in one
or more volumes, according to the material he had. Such special materials,
again, as did not suffice for a complete volume, as also isolated letters, were
bound up in miscellanea (embracing letters to two or more individuals), while
previously published collections were supplemented in later issues by letters
which had only been written subsequently, or subsequently rendered accessible.
The majority of these letters of Cicero are “truly confidential outpourings of
the feelings of the moment,”72 particularly those addressed to
Atticus—“confidential letters, in which the writer expresses himself without a
particle of constraint, and which often contain allusions intelligible to the
receiver alone. In some parts they read like soliloquies.”73 The authenticity of
the letters to Brutus, for instance, has been disputed by many, but these
assailants “have been worsted on all points, and the authenticity is now more
certain than ever. The objections that have been urged against this collection,
and those, in particular, which relate to the contradictions between Cicero’s
confidential judgments upon individuals and those he made publicly or in
utterances of other times, are of but little weight.”74

11. The fact that we know of a relatively large number of literary letters,
i.e., epistles, of ancient times, and that, further, we possess many such, is a
simple consequence of their being literary productions. Literature is designed
not merely for the public of the time being; it is also for the future. It has
not been ascertained with certainty which was the first instance of the literary
letter in Greek literature. Susemihl75 is inclined to think that the epidictic
triflings of Lysias († 379 B.C.) occupy this position—that is, if they be
authentic—but he certainly considers it possible that they originated in the
later Attic period. Aristotle employed the “imaginary letter” (fictiver Brief)
for his Protreptikos.76 We have “didactic epistles” of Epicurus, as also of
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and we may add to these such writings of Plutarch as
De Conjugalibus Praeceptis, De Tranquillitate Animi, De Animae
Procreatione77—literary productions to which one may well apply the words of an
ancient expert in such
things,78οὐμὰτὴνἀλήθειανἐπιστολαὶλέγοιντοἄν,ἀλλὰσυγγράμματατὸχαίρειν ἔχοντα
προσγεγραμμένον, and
εἰγάρτιςἐνἐπιστολῇσοφίσματαγράφεικαὶυσιολογίας,γραφειμέν,οὐμὴνἐπιστολὴνγράφει.79
Among the Romans, M. Porcius Cato († 149 B.C.) should probably be named as one
of the first writers of epistles;80 the best known, doubtless, are Seneca and
Pliny. L. Annaeus Seneca81 († 165 A.D.) began about the year 57—at a time when
Paul was writing his “great” letters—to write the Epistulae Morales to his
friend Lucilius, intending from the first that they should be published; most
probably the first three books were issued by himself. Then in the time of
Trajan, C. Plinius Caecilius Secundus82 († ca. 113 A.D.) wrote and published
nine books of “letters”; the issue of the collection was already complete by the
time Pliny went to Bithynia. Then came his correspondence with Trajan, belonging
chiefly to the period of his governorship in Bithynia (ca. September 111 to
January 113). The letters of Pliny were likewise intended from the first for
publication, “and hence are far from giving the same impression of freshness and
directness as those of Cicero”;83 “with studied variety they enlarge upon a
multitude of topics, but are mainly designed to exhibit their author in the most
favourable light”;84 “they exhibit him as an affectionate husband, a faithful
friend, a generous slaveholder, a noble-minded citizen, a liberal promoter of
all good causes, an honoured orator and author”;85 “on the other hand, the
correspondence with Trajan incidentally raises a sharp contrast between the
patience and quiet prudence of the emperor and the struggling perplexity and
self-importance of his vicegerent”.86 “All possible care has likewise been
bestowed upon the form of these letters.”87

There are several other facts illustrative of the extremely wide dissemination
of the practice of epistle-writing among the Greeks and Romans. The epistle,
having once gained a position as a literary eidos, became differentiated into a
whole series of almost independent forms of composition. We should, in the first
place, recall the poetical epistle88 (especially of Lucilius, Horace, Ovid); but
there were also juristic epistles—a literary form which probably originated in
the written responsa to questions on legal subjects;89 further, there were
epistulae medicinales,90 gastronomic “letters,”91 etc. In this connection it
were well to direct particular attention to the great popularity of the epistle
as the special form of magical and religious literature. “All the Magic Papyri
are of this letter-form, and in all the ceremonial and mystic literature—to say
nothing of other kinds—it was the customary form. At that time the pioneers of
new religions clothed their message in this form, and even when they furnish
their writings with a stereotype title of such a kind, and with particularly
sacred names, it would yet be doing them an injustice simply to call them
forgers.”92

12. A very brief reference to the pseudonymous epistolography of antiquity is
all that is required here. It will be sufficient for us to realise the great
vogue it enjoyed, after the Alexandrian period, among the Greeks and
subsequently among the Romans. It is decidedly one of the most characteristic
features of post-classical literature. We already find a number of the
last-mentioned epistles bearing the names of pretended authors; it is, indeed,
difficult to draw a line between the “genuine” and the fictitious epistles when
the two are set in contrast to letters really such.93 As may be easily
understood, pseudonymous epistolography specially affected the celebrated names
of the past, and not least the names of those great men the real letters of whom
were extant in collections. The literary practice of using assumed or protective
names was found highly convenient by such obscure people as felt that they must
make a contribution to literature of a page or two; they did not place their own
names upon their books, for they had the true enough pre-sentiment that these
would be a matter of indifference to their contemporaries and to posterity, nor
did they substitute for them some unknown Gaius or Timon: what they did was to
write “letters” of Plato or Demosthenes, of Aristotle or his royal pupil, of
Cicero, Brutus or Horace. It would be superfluous in the meantime to go into
particulars about any specially characteristic examples, the more so as the
present position of the investigation still makes it difficult for us to assign
to each its special historical place, but at all events the pseudonymous
epistolography of antiquity stands out quite clearly as a distinct aggregate of
literary phenomena. Suffice it only to refer further to what may be very well
gleaned from a recent work,94 viz., that the early imperial period was the
classical age of this most unclassical manufacturing of books.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 10: 01.04 - PROLEGOMENA TO THE BIBLICAL LETTERS AND EPISTLES.
========================================================================

iv.

PROLEGOMENA TO THE BIBLICAL LETTERS AND EPISTLES.

13. The author’s purpose was to write Prolegomena to the biblical letters and
epistles: it may seem now to be high time that he came to the subject. But he
feels that he might now break off, and still confidently believe that he has not
neglected his task. What remains to be said is really implied in the foregoing
pages. It was a problem in the method of literary history which urged itself
upon him; he has solved it, for himself at least, in laying bare the roots by
which it adheres to the soil on which flourished aforetime the spacious garden
of God—Holy Scripture. To the investigator the Bible offers a large number of
writings bearing a name which appears to be simple, but which nevertheless
conceals within itself that same problem —a name which every child seems to
understand, but upon which, nevertheless, the learned man must ponder deeply if
ever he will see into the heart of the things called by it. “Letters”! How long
did the author work with this term without having ever once reflected on what it
meant; how long did it accompany him through his daily task in science without
his observing the enigma that was inscribed on its work-a-day face! Others may
have been more knowing: the author’s experiences were like those of a man who
plants a vineyard without being able to distinguish the true vine-shoots from
the suckers of the wild grape. That was, of course, a sorry plight—as bad as if
one were to labour upon Attic tragedies without knowing what an Attic tragedy
is. One may, indeed, write a letter without necessarily knowing what a letter
is. The best letter-writers have certainly not cherished any doctrinaire
opinions on the subject. The ancient Greek and Latin “guides to
letter-writing”95 appeared long after Cicero: neither did the Apostles, for that
matter, know anything of Halieutics. But if one is to understand those literary
memorials in the Bible which have come to us under the name of “letters,” and to
make them intelligible to others, the first condition is, of course, that one
must have an historical comprehension of his purpose, must have previously
divested the problematic term of its problematic character:
οὐγὰρἐπειδὴἐπιστολὴπροσαγορεύεταιἑνικῷὀνόματι,ἤδηκαὶπασῶντῶν
κατὰτὸνβίονφερομένωνἐπιστολῶνεἷςτιςἐστιχαρακτὴρκαὶμίαπροσηγορία,ἀλλὰδιάφοροι,καθὼς
ἔφην.96 If we rightly infer, from an investigation of ancient literature, that
the familiar term “letter” must be broken up—above all, into the two chief
categories real letter and epistle, then the biblical “letters” likewise must be
investigated from this point of view. Just as the language of the Bible ought to
be studied in its actual historical context of contemporary language;97 just as
its religious and ethical contents must be studied in their actual historical
context of contemporary religion and civilisation98—so the biblical writings,
too, in the literary investigation of them, ought not to be placed in an
isolated position. The author speaks of the biblical writings, not of the
biblical literature. To apply the designation literature to certain portions of
the biblical writings would be an illegitimate procedure. Not all that we find
printed in books at the present day was literature from the first. A comparison
of the biblical writings, in their own proper character, with the other writings
of antiquity, will show us that in each case there is a sharp distinction
between works which were literature from the first and writings which only
acquired that character later on, or will show, at least, that we must so
distinguish them from each other. This is nowhere more evident than in the case
under discussion. When we make the demand that the biblical “letters” are to be
set in their proper relation to ancient letter-writing as a whole, we do not
thereby imply that they are products of ancient epistolography; but rather that
they shall be investigated simply with regard to the question, how far the
categories implied in the problematic term letter are to be employed in the
criticism of them. We may designate our question regarding the biblical letters
and epistles as a question regarding the literary character of the writings
transmitted by the Bible under the name letters,99 but the question regarding
their literary character must be so framed that the answer will affirm the
preliterary character, probably of some, possibly of all. The latter has been
maintained by F. Overbeck,100—at least in regard to the “letters” in the New
Testament. He thinks that the Apostolic letters belong to a class of writings
which we ought not to place in the province of literature at all;101 the writer
of a letter has, as such, no concern with literature whatever,—“because for
every product of literature it is essential that its contents have an
appropriate literary form”.102 The written words of a letter are nothing but the
wholly inartificial and incidental substitute for spoken words. As the letter
has a quite distinct and transitory motive, so has it also a quite distinct and
restricted public—not necessarily merely one individual, but sometimes,
according to circumstances, a smaller or larger company of persons: in any case,
a circle of readers which can be readily brought before the writer’s mind and
distinctly located in the field of inward vision. A work of literature, on the
other hand, has the widest possible publicity in view: the literary man’s public
is, so to speak, an imaginary one, which it is the part of the literary work to
find.103 Though Overbeck thus indicates with proper precision the fundamental
difference between the letter and literature, yet he has overlooked the
necessary task of investigating whether the Apostolic letters—either as a whole
or in part —may not be epistles, and this oversight on his part is the more
extraordinary, since he quite clearly recognises the distinction between the
letter and the epistle. He speaks, at least, of “artificial letters,” and
contrasts them with “true letters”;104 in point of fact, he has the right
feeling,105 that there are some of the New Testament letters, the form of which
is quite obviously not that of a letter at all, viz., the so-called Catholic
Epistles: in some of these the form of address, being so indefinite and general,
does not correspond to what we expect in a letter, and, in fact, constitutes a
hitherto unsolved problem. Hence he is inclined to class them along with those
New Testament writings “which, in their own proper and original form, certainly
belong to literature,106 but which, in consideration of the paucity of their
different forms, must not be thought of as qualifying the New Testament to be
ranked historically as the beginning of that literature”. Easy as it would have
been to characterise the “letters,” thus so aptly described, as epistles,
Overbeck has yet refrained from doing this, and though he seems, at least, to
have characterised them as literature, yet he pointedly disputes107 the
contention that Christian literature begins with “the New Testament,”—that is,
in possible case, with these letters,—and he expressly says that the “artificial
letter” remains wholly outside of the sphere of this discussion.108

14. The present writer would assert, as against this, that “in the New
Testament,” and not only there but also in the literature of the Jews as well as
of the Christians of post-New-Testament times, the transmitted “letters” permit
of quite as marked a division into real letters and epistles, as is the case in
ancient literature generally.

14. Most investigators of the New Testament letters seem to overlook the fact
that this same profound difference already manifests itself clearly in the
“letters” found among the writings of pre-Christian Judaism. Looking at the
writings of early Christianity from the standpoint of literary history, we
perceive that Jewish literature109 was precisely the literary sphere from which
the first Christians could most readily borrow and adopt something in the way of
forms, εἴδη, of composition.110 If, therefore, the existence of the εἶδος of the
epistle can be demonstrated in this possibly archetypal sphere, our inquiry
regarding the early Christian “letters” manifestly gains a more definite
justification. Should the doubt be raised as to whether it is conceivable that a
line of demarcation, quite unmistakably present in “profane” literature, should
have also touched the outlying province of the New Testament, that doubt will be
stilled when it is shown that this line had actually long intersected the sphere
of Jewish literature, which may have been the model for the writers of the New
Testament. Between the ancient epistles and what are (possibly) the epistles of
early Christianity, there subsists a literary, a morphological connection; if it
be thought necessary to establish a transition-link, this may quite well be
found in the Jewish epistles. The way by which the epistle entered the sphere of
Jewish authorship is manifest: Alexandria, the classical soil of the epistle and
the pseudo-epistle, exercised its Hellenising influence upon Judaism in this
matter as in others. We know not who the first Jewish epistolographer may have
been, but it is, at least, highly probable that he was an Alexandrian. The
taking over of the epistolary form was facilitated for him by the circumstance
that already in the ancient and revered writings of his nation there was
frequent mention of “letters,” and that, as a matter of fact, he found a number
of “letters” actually given verbatim in the sacred text. Any one who read the
Book of the Prophet Jeremiah with the eyes of an Alexandrian Hellenist, found,
in Jeremiah 29:1-32 (the prophet’s message to the captives in Babylon),111
something which to his morbid literary taste seemed like an epistle. As a matter
of fact, this message is a real letter, perhaps indeed the only genuine one we
have from Old Testament times; a real letter, which only became literature by
its subsequent admission into the book of the Prophet. As it now stands in the
book, it is to be put in exactly the same class as all other real letters which
were subsequently published. In its origin, in its purpose, LXX Jeremiah 29:1-32
[MT Jeremiah 47:1-7], being a real letter, is non-literary, and hence, of
course, we must not ask after a literary prototype for it. The wish to discover
the first Israelitic or first Christian letter-writer would be as foolish as the
inquiry regarding the beginnings of Jewish and, later, of Christian,
epistolography is profitable and necessary; besides, the doctrinaire inquirer
would be cruelly undeceived when the sublime simplicity of the historical
reality smiled at him from the rediscovered first Christian letter—its pages
perhaps infinitely paltry in their contents: some forgotten cloak may have been
the occasion of it—who will say? LXX Jeremiah 29:1-32 [MT Jeremiah 47:1-7] is
not, of course, a letter such as anybody might dash off in an idle moment; nay,
lightnings quiver between the lines, Jahweh speaks in wrath or in
blessing,—still, although a Jeremiah wrote it, although it be a documentary
fragment of the history of the people and the religion of Israel, it is still a
letter, neither less nor more. The antithesis of it in that respect is not
wanting. There has been transmitted to us, among the Old Testament Apocryphal
writings, a little book bearing the name ἐπιστολὴ Ἱερεμίου. If LXX Jeremiah
29:1-32 [MT Jeremiah 47:1-7] is a letter of the prophet Jeremiah, this is an
Epistle of “Jeremiah”. Than the latter, we could know no more instructive
instance for the elucidation of the distinction between letter and epistle, or
for the proper appreciation of the idea of pseudonymity in ancient literature.
The Greek epistolography of the Alexandrian period constituted the general
literary impulse of the writer of the Epistle of “Jeremiah,” while the actual
existence of a real letter of Jeremiah constituted the particular impulse. He
wrote an epistle,—as did the other great men of the day: he wrote an epistle of
“Jeremiah,” just as the others may have fabricated, say, epistles of “Plato”. We
can distinctly see, in yet another passage, how the motive to epistolography
could be found in the then extant sacred writings of Judaism. The canonical Book
of Esther speaks, in two places, of royal letters, without giving their
contents: a sufficient reason for the Greek reviser to sit down and manufacture
them, just as the two prayers, only mentioned in the original, are given by him
in full!112

Having once gained a footing, epistolography must have become very popular in
Greek Judaism; we have still a whole series of Graeco-Jewish “letters,” which
are unquestionably epistles. The author is not now thinking of the multitude of
letters, ascribed to historical personages, which are inserted in historical
works113; in so far as these are unauthentic, they are undoubtedly of an
epistolary character, but they belong less to the investigation of
epistolography than to the development of historical style. We should rather
call to mind books and booklets like the Epistle of Aristeas, the two114
epistles at the beginning of the 2nd Book of Maccabees, the Epistle of “Baruch”
to the nine and a half tribes in captivity, attached to the Apocalypse of
Baruch,115 perhaps the twenty-eighth “Letter of Diogenes,”116 and certain
portions of the collection of “letters” which bears the name of Heraclitus.117

15. Coming, then, to the early Christian “letters” with our question, letter or
epistle? it will be our first task to determine the character of the “letters”
transmitted to us under the name of Paul. Was Paul a letter-writer or an
epistolographer? The question is a sufficiently pressing one, in view of the
exceedingly great popularity of epistolography in the Apostle’s time. Nor can we
forthwith answer it, even leaving the Pastoral epistles out of consideration,
and attending in the first place only to those whose genuineness is more or less
established. The difficulty is seen in its most pronounced form when we compare
the letter to Philemon with that to the Romans; here we seem to have two such
heterogeneous compositions that it would appear questionable whether we should
persist in asking the above disjunctive question. May not Paul have written both
letters and epistles? It would certainly be preposterous to assume, a priori,
that the “letters” of Paul must be either all letters or all epistles. The
inquiry must rather be directed upon each particular “letter”—a task the
fulfilment of which lies outside the scope of the present methodological
essay.118 But, as it is, the author may here at least indicate his opinion.

It appears to him quite certain that the authentic writings of the Apostle are
true letters, and that to think of them as epistles119 is to take away what is
best in them. They were, of course, collected, and treated as literature—in
point of fact, as literature in the highest sense, as canonical—at an early
period. But that was nothing more than an after-experience of the letters, for
which there were many precedents in the literary development sketched above. But
this after-experience cannot change their original character, and our first task
must be to ascertain what this character actually is. Paul had no thought of
adding a few fresh compositions to the already extant Jewish epistles, still
less of enriching the sacred literature of his nation; no, every time he wrote,
he had some perfectly definite impulse in the diversified experiences of the
young Christian churches. He had no presentiment of the place his words would
occupy in universal history; not so much as that they would still be in
existence in the next generation, far less that one day the people would look
upon them as Holy Scripture. We now know them as coming down from the centuries
with the literary patina and the nimbus of canonicity upon them; should we
desire to attain a historical estimate of their proper character, we must
disregard both. Just as we should not allow the dogmatic idea of the mass to
influence our historical consideration of the last Supper of Jesus with His
disciples, nor the liturgical notions of a prayerbook-commission to influence
our historical consideration of the Lord’s Prayer, so little dare we approach
the letters of Paul with ideas about literature and notions about the canon.
Paul had better work to do than the writing of books, and he did not flatter
himself that he could write Scripture; he wrote letters, real letters, as did
Aristotle and Cicero, as did the men and women of the Fayyûm. They differ from
the messages of the homely Papyrus leaves from Egypt not as letters, but only as
the letters of Paul. No one will hesitate to grant that the Letter to Philemon
has the character of a letter. It must be to a large extent a mere doctrinaire
want of taste that could make any one describe this gem, the preservation of
which we owe to some fortunate accident, as an essay, say, “on the attitude of
Christianity to slavery”. It is rather a letter, full of a charming, unconscious
naivete, full of kindly human nature. It is thus that Epicurus writes to his
child, and Moltke to his wife: no doubt Paul talks of other matters than they
do—no one letter, deserving the name, has ever looked like another—but the
Apostle does exactly what is done by the Greek philosopher and the German
officer.

It is also quite clear that the note of introduction contained in Romans 16:1-27
is of the nature of a true letter. No one, it is to be hoped, will make the
objection that it is directed to a number of persons—most likely the Church at
Ephesus; the author thinks that he has made it probable that the number of
receivers is of no account in the determination of the nature of a letter.120
But the Letter to the Philippians is also as real a letter as any that was ever
written. Here a quite definite situation of affairs forced the Apostle to take
up his pen, and the letter reflects a quite definite frame of mind, or, at
least, enables us to imagine it. The danger of introducing into our
investigation considerations which, so far as concerns method,121 are
irrelevant, is, of course, greater in this case. Some reader will again be found
to contend that, in contrast to the private letter to Philemon, we have here a
congregational letter: some one, again, who is convinced of the valuelessness of
this distinction, will bring forward the peculiarity of the contents the letter
is of a “doctrinal” character, and should thus be designated a doctrinal letter.
This peculiarity must not be denied—though, indeed, the author has misgivings
about applying the term doctrine to the Apostle’s messages; the “doctrinal”
sections of the letters impress him more as being of the nature of confessions
and attestations. But what is added towards the answering of our question letter
or epistle? by the expression “doctrinal” letter—however pertinent a term? If a
letter is intended to instruct the receiver, or a group of receivers, does it
thereby cease to be a letter? A worthy pastor, let us say, writes some stirring
words to his nephew at the university, to the effect that he should not let the
“faith” be shaken by professorial wisdom; and he refutes point by point the
inventions of men. Perhaps, when he himself was a student, he received some such
sincere letters from his father against the new orthodoxy which was then, in its
turn, beginning to be taught. Do such letters forthwith become tractates simply
because they are “doctrinal”?122We must carefully guard against an amalgamation
of the two categories doctrinal letter and epistle. If any one be so inclined,
he may break up the letter into a multitude of subdivisions: the twenty-one or
forty-one τύποι of the old theorists123 may be increased to whatever extent one
wishes. The author has no objection to any one similarly breaking up the Pauline
letters into several subdivisions, and subsuming some of them under the species
doctrinal letter; only one should not fondly imagine that by means of the
doctrinal letter he has bridged over the great gulf between letter and epistle.
The pre-literary character even of the doctrinal letter must be maintained. This
also holds good of the other Letters of Paul, even of the “great Epistles”.
They, too, are partly doctrinal; they contain, in fact, theological discussions:
but even in these, the Apostle had no desire to make literature. The Letter to
the Galatians is not a pamphlet “upon the relation of Christianity to Judaism,”
but a message sent in order to bring back the foolish Galatians to their senses.
The letter can only be understood in the light of its special purpose as
such.124 How much more distinctly do the Letters to the Corinthians bear the
stamp of the true letter! The second of them, in particular, reveals its true
character in every line; in the author’s opinion, it is the most letter-like of
all the letters of Paul, though that to Philemon may appear on the surface to
have a better claim to that position. The great difficulty in the understanding
of it is due to the very fact that it is so truly a letter, so full of allusions
and familiar references, so pervaded with irony and with a depression which
struggles against itself—matters of which only the writer and the readers of it
understood the purport, but which we, for the most part, can ascertain only
approximately. What is doctrinal in it is not there for its own sake, but is
altogether subservient to the purpose of the letter. The nature of the letters
which were brought to the Corinthians by the fellow-workers of Paul, was
thoroughly well understood by thereceivers themselves, else surely they would
hardly haveallowed one or two of them to be lost. They agreed, in fact, with
Paul, in thinking that the letters had served their purpose when once they had
been read. We may most deeply lament that they took no trouble to preserve
theletters, but it only shows lack of judgment to reproach them on this account.
A letter is something ephemeral, and must be so by its very nature;125 it has as
little desire to be immortal as a tete-et-tete has to be minuted, or an alms to
be entered in a ledger. In particular, the temper of mind in which Paul and his
Churches passed their days was not such as to awaken in them an interest for the
centuries to come. The Lord was at hand; His advent was within the horizon of
the times, and such an anticipation has nothing in common with the enjoyment of
the contemplative book-collector. The one-sided religious temper of mind has
never yet had any affection for such things as interest the learned. Modern
Christians have become more prosaic. We institute collections of archives, and
found libraries, and, when a prominent man dies, we begin to speculate upon the
destination of his literary remains: all this needs a hope less bold and a faith
less simple than belonged to the times of Paul. From the point of view of
literature, the preservation even of two letters to the Corinthians is a
secondary and accidental circumstance, perhaps owing, in part, to their
comparative lengthiness, which saved them from immediate destruction. The Letter
to the Romans is also a real letter. No doubt there are sections in it which
might also stand in an epistle; the whole tone of it, generally speaking, stamps
it as different from the other Pauline letters. But nevertheless it is not a
book, and the favourite saying that it is a compendium of Paulinism, that the
Apostle has, in it, laid down his Dogmatics and his Ethics, certainly manifests
an extreme lack of taste. No doubt Paul wanted to give instruction, and he did
it, in part, with the help of contemporary theology, but he does not think of
the literary public of his time, or of Christians in general, as his readers; he
appeals to a little company of men, whose very existence, one may say, was
unknown to the public at large, and who occupied a special position within
Christianity. It is unlikely that the Apostle would send copies of the letter to
the brethren in Ephesus, Antioch or Jerusalem; it was to Rome that he despatched
it: nor did the bearer of it go to the publishers in the Imperial City,126 but
rather to some otherwise unknown brother in the Lord—just like many another
passenger by the same ship of Corinth, hastening one to that house, another to
this, there to deliver a message by word of mouth, here to leave a letter or
something else. The fact that the Letter to the Romans is not so enlivened by
personal references as the other letters of Paul is explained by the conditions
under which it was written: he was addressing a Church which he did not yet
personally know. Considered in the light of this fact, the infrequence of
personal references in the letter lends no support to its being taken as a
literary epistle; it is but the natural result of its non-literary purpose.
Moreover, Paul wrote even the “doctrinal” portions in his heart’s blood. The
words ταλαίπωροςἐγὼἄνθρωπος are no cool rhetorical expression of an objective
ethical condition, but the impressive indication of a personal ethical
experience: it is not theological paragraphs which Paul is writing here, but his
confessions.

Certain as it seems to the author that the authentic messages of Paul are
letters, he is equally sure that we have also a number of epistles from New
Testament times. They belong, as such, to the beginnings of “Christian
literature”. The author considers the Letter to the Hebrews as most unmistakably
of all an epistle. It professes, in chap. Hebrews 13:22, to be a
λόγοςτῆςπαρακλήσεως, and one would have no occasion whatever to consider it
anything but a literary oration—hence not as an epistle127 at all—if the
ἐπέστειλα and the greetings at the close did not permit of the supposition that
it had at one time opened with something of the nature of an address as well.
The address has been lost; it might all the more easily fall out as it was only
a later insertion. The address is, indeed, of decisive importance for the
understanding of a letter, but in an epistle it is an unessential element. In
the letter, the address occupies, so to speak, the all-controlling middle-ground
of the picture; in the epistle it is only ornamental detail. Any given λόγος can
be made an epistle by any kind of an address. The Epistle to the Hebrews stands
on the same literary plane as the Fourth Book of Maccabees, which describes
itself as a φιλοσοφώτατοςλόγος; the fact that the latter seems to avoid the
appearance of being an epistle constitutes a purely external difference between
them, and one which is immaterial for the question regarding their literary
character.—The author is chiefly concerned about the recognition of the
“Catholic” Epistles, or, to begin with, of some of them at least, as literary
epistles. With a true instinct, the ancient Church placed these Catholic
Epistles as a special group over against the Pauline. It seems to the author
that the idea of their catholicity, thus assumed, is to be understood from the
form of address in the “letters,” and not primarily from the special character
of their contents.128 They are compositions addressed to Christians—one might
perhaps say the Church—in general. The catholicity of the address implies, of
course, a catholicity in the contents. What the Church calls catholic, we
require only to call epistle, and the unsolved enigma with which, according to
Overbeck,129 they present us, is brought nearer to a solution. The special
position of these “letters,” which is indicated by their having the attribute
catholic instinctively applied to them, is due precisely to their literary
character; catholic means in this connection literary. The impossibility of
recognising the “letters” of Peter, James and Jude as real letters follows
directly from the peculiarity in the form of their address. Any one who writes
to the elect who are sojourners of the Diaspora in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia,
Asia and Bithynia, or to the twelve tribes which are of the Diaspora, or even to
them which have obtained a like precious faith with us, or to them that are
called, beloved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ, must surely have
reflected on the question as to what means he must employ in order to convey his
message to those so addressed. Quite similarly does that other early Christian
epistle still bear the address to the Hebrews; quite similarly does the author
of the epistle at the close of the Apocalypse of Baruch write to the
nine-and-a-half tribes of the Captivity, and Pseudo-Diogenes, ep. 28,130to the
so-called Hellenes. The only way by which the letters could reach such ideal
addresses was to have them reproduced in numbers from the first. But that means
that they were literature. Had the First Epistle of Peter,131 for instance, been
intended as a real letter, then the writer of it, or a substitute, would have
had to spend many a year of his life ere he could deliver the letter throughout
the enormous circuit of the countries mentioned. The epistle, in fact, could
only reach its public as a booklet; at the present day it would not be sent as a
circular letter in sealed envelope, but as printed matter by book-post. It is
true, indeed, that these Catholic Epistles are Christian literature: their
authors had no desire to enrich universal literature; they wrote their books for
a definite circle of people with the same views as themselves, that is, for
Christians; but books they wrote. Very few books, indeed, are so arrogant as to
aspire to become universal literature; most address themselves to a section only
of the immeasurable public—they are special literature, or party literature, or
national literature. It is quite admissible to speak of a literary public, even
if the public in question be but a limited one—even if its boundaries be very
sharply drawn. Hence the early Christian epistles were, in the first instance,
special literature; to the public at large in the imperial period they were
altogether unknown, and, doubtless, many a Christian of the time thought of them
as esoteric, and handed them on only to those who were brethren; but, in spite
of all, the epistles were designed for some kind of publicity in a literary
sense: they were destined for the brethren. The ideal indefiniteness of this
destination has the result that the contents have an ecumenical cast. Compare
the Epistle of James, for instance, with the Letters of Paul, in regard to this
point. From the latter we construct the history of the apostolic age; the
former, so long as it is looked upon as a letter, is the enigma of the New
Testament. Those to whom the “letter” was addressed have been variously imagined
to be Jews, Gentile Christians, Jewish Christians, or Jewish Christians and
Gentile Christians together; the map has been scrutinised in every part without
any one having yet ascertained where we are to seek—not to say find—the readers.
But if Diaspora be not a definite geographical term, no more is the Epistle of
“James” a letter. Its pages are inspired by no special motive; there is nothing
whatever to be read between the lines; its words are of such general interest
that they might, for the most part, stand in the Book of Wisdom, or the
Imitation of Christ. It is true, indeed, that the epistle reveals that it is of
early Christian times, but nothing more. There is nothing uniquely distinctive
in its motive, and hence no animating element in its contents. “James” sketches
from models, not from nature. Unfortunately there has always been occasion,
among Christians, to censure contentions and sins of the tongue, greed and
calumny; indignation at the unmercifulness of the rich and sympathy with the
poor are common moods of the prophetic or apostolic mind; the scenes from the
synagogue and the harvest-field are familiar types —the epistle, in fact, is
pervaded by the expressions and topics of the aphoristic “wisdom” of the Old
Testament and of Jesus. Even if it could be demonstrated that the writer was
alluding to cases which had actually occurred, yet we cannot perceive how these
cases concern him in any special way; there is no particular personal relation
between him and those whom he “addresses”. The picture of the readers and the
figure of the writer are equally colourless and indistinct. In the letters of
Paul, there speaks to us a commanding personality—though, indeed, he had no wish
to speak to us at all; every sentence is the pulse-throb of a human heart, and,
whether charmed or surprised, we feel at least the “touch of nature”. But what
meets us in the Epistle of James is a great subject rather than a great man,
Christianity itself rather than a Christian personality. It has lately become
the custom, in some quarters, to designate the book as a homily. We doubt
whether much is gained by so doing, for the term homily, as applied to any of
the writings of early Christianity, is itself ambiguous and in need of
elucidation; it probably needs to be broken up in the same way as “letter”. But
that designation, at least, gives expression to the conviction that the book in
question is wholly different in character from a letter. In the same Way, the
recognition of the fact that the Catholic Epistles in general are not real
letters, is evinced by the instinctive judgment passed on them by the
Bible-reading community. The Epistle of James and particularly the First Epistle
of Peter, one may say, are examples of those New Testament “letters” which play
a most important part in popular religion, while the Second Letter to the
Corinthians, for instance, must certainly be counted among the least-known parts
of the Bible. And naturally so; the latter, properly speaking, was adapted only
to the needs of the Corinthians, while later readers know not what to make of
it. They seek out a few detached sayings, but the connection is not perceived;
in it, truly, they find some things hard to be understood. But those epistles
were adapted to Christians in general; they are ecumenical, and, as such, have a
force the persistence of which is not affected by any vicissitude of time.
Moreover, it also follows from their character as epistles that the question of
authenticity is not nearly so important for them as for the Pauline letters. It
is allowable that in the epistle the personality of the writer should be less
prominent; whether it is completely veiled, as, for instance, in the Epistle to
the Hebrews, or whether it modestly hides itself behind some great name of the
past, as in other cases, does not matter; considered in the light of ancient
literary practices, this is not only not strange, but in reality quite
natural.—Finally, we may consider the Pastoral Epistles and the Seven Messages
in the Apocalypse in regard to the question whether they are epistles. Though it
seems to the author not impossible that the former have had worked into them
genuine elements of a letter or letters of Paul, he would answer the question in
the affirmative. The Seven Epistles of the Book of Revelation, again, differ
from the rest in the fact that they do not form books by them-selves, nor
constitute one book together, but only a portion of a book. It is still true,
however, that they are not letters. All seven are constructed on a single
definite plan,—while, taken separately, they are not intelligible, or, at least,
not completely so; their chief interest lies in their mutual correspondence,
which only becomes clear by a comprehensive comparison of their separate
clauses: the censure of one church is only seen in its full severity when
contrasted with the praise of another.

16. There is now no need, let us hope, of demon strating that the distinction
between letters and epistles does not end in mere judgments as to their
respective values. We would be the last to ignore the great value of, say, the
Epistle of James or the Epistles of Peter; a comparison of these writings with
the Epistle of Jeremiah, for example, and many of the Graeco-Roman epistles,
would be sufficient to guard us against that. In regard to the latter, one must
frequently marvel at the patience of a public which could put up with the sorry
stuff occasionally given to it as epistles. The more definitely we assign to the
New Testament epistles a place in ancient epistolography, the more clearly will
they themselves convince us of their own special excellence. But our distinction
proves itself, as a principle of method, to be of some importance in other
respects, and we may, in conclusion, gather up our methodological inferences in
brief form as follows (some of these have already been indicated here and
there).

(1) The historical criticism of early Christian writings must guard against
conceiving of the New Testament as a collection of homogeneous compositions, and
must give due weight to the pre-literary character of certain parts of it. The
literary portions must be investigated in regard to their formal similarity with
Graeco-Latin and Jewish literature; further, this line of connection must be
prolonged well into the Patristic literature. The much-discussed question,
whether we should view the whole subject as the History of Early Christian
Literature or as the Introduction to the New Testament, is a misleading one; the
alternatives contain a similar error, the former implying that some, the latter
that all, of the constituent parts of the New Testament should be considered
from a point of view under which they did not originally stand: the former, in
regarding even the real letters as literature; the latter, in seeking its facts
in a historical connection in which they did not take their rise. The history of
the collection and publication of the nonliterary writings of primitive
Christianity, and the history of the canonisation of the writings which
subsequently became literature, or were literary from the first, constitute,
each of them, a distinct field of study.

(2) The letters of Paul afford a fixed starting-point for the history of the
origin of the early Christian “letters”. We must ask ourselves whether it is
conceivable that the literary temperament and the epistles which were its
outcome can be older than the letters of Paul.

(3) The collection and publication132 of the letters of Paul was indirectly
influenced by the analogy of other collections of letters133 made in ancient
times.134 The only possible motive of such collecting and publishing was
reverential love. Once the letters of Paul had been collected and treated as
literature, they in turn, thus misconceived, produced a literary impulse. We
must, then, carefully weigh the possibility that their collection and
publication may form a terminus post quem for the composition of the early
Christian epistles.

(4) The sources by means of which we are enabled to judge of the knowledge of
the New Testament letters which was possessed by Christians of the
post-apostolic period, the so-called testimonia, and specially the testimonia e
silentio, have an altogether different historiacl value according as they relate
to letters or epistles.135 The silentium regarding the letters (most striking of
all, externally considered, in the Book of Acts), is really explained by the
nature of the letter as such, and cannot be employed as an evidence of
spuriousness. A. silentium, on the other hand, regarding epistles is, on account
of their public character, to say the least, suspicious. The distinction between
letters and epistles has also perhaps a certain importance for the criticism of
the traditional texts.

(5) The criticism of the Letters of Paul must always leave room for the
probability that their alleged contradictions and impossibilities, from which
reasons against their authenticity and integrity have been deduced, are really
evidences to the contrary, being but the natural concomitants of letter-writing.
The history of the criticism of Cicero’s letters,136 for instance, yields an
instructive analogy. The criticism of the early Christian epistles must not
leave out of account the considerations which are to be deduced from the history
of ancient epistolography.

(6) The exegesis of the letters of Paul must take its special standpoint from
the nature of the letter. Its task is to reproduce in detail the Apostle’s
sayings as they have been investigated in regard to the particular historical
occasions of their origin, as phenomena of religious psychology. It must proceed
by insight and intuition, and hence it has an unavoidable subjective cast. The
exegesis of the early Christian epistles must assume a proper historical
attitude with regard to their literary character. Its task is not to penetrate
into the knowledge of creative personalities in the religious sphere, but to
interpret great texts. As the element of personality is wanting in its object,
so must that of subjectivity disappear from its procedure.

(7) The value of the New Testament “letters,” as sources for the investigation
of the Apostolic age, varies according to their individual character. The
classic value of the letters of Paul lies in their being actual letters, that is
to say, in their being artless and unpremeditated; in this respect also, they
resemble those of Cicero.137 The value of the epistles as sources is not to be
rated so highly, and, in particular, not for the special questions regarding the
“constitution” and the external circumstances of Christianity; many details are
only of typical value, while others, again, are but literary exercises, or
anticipations of conditions not yet fully realised.

(8) In particular, the New Testament letters and epistles, considered as sources
for the history of the Christian religion in its early period, are of different
respective values. The letters of Paul are not so much sources for the theology,
or even for the religion, of the period, as simply for the personal religion of
Paul as an individual; it is only by a literary misconception that they are
looked upon as the documents of “Paulinism”. The result of their criticism from
the standpoint of the history of religion can be nothing more than a sketch of
the character of Paul the letter-writer, and not the system of Paul the
epistolographer; what speaks to us in the letters is his faith, not his
dogmatics; his morality, not his ethics; his hopes, not his eschatology—here and
there, no doubt, in the faltering speech of theology. The early Christian
epistles are the monuments of a religion which was gradually accommodating
itself to external conditions, which had established itself in the world, which
received its stimulus less in the closet than in the church, and which was on
the way to express itself in liturgy and as doctrine.—

“The Hero who is the centre of all this did not himself . . . become an author;
the only recorded occasion of his having written at all was when he wrote upon
the ground with his finger, and the learning of eighteen centuries has not yet
divined what he then wrote.”138 If Jesus is the gospel, then it must hold good
that the gospel is non-literary. Jesus had no wish to make a religion; whoever
has such a wish will but make a Koran. It was only lack of understanding on the
part of those who came after (die Epigonen) which could credit the Son of Man
with the writing of epistles—and to a king to boot! The saints are the epistles
of Christ.139 Nor did the Apostle of Jesus Christ advocate the gospel by
literature; in point of fact, the followers of Christ learned first to pray and
then to write—like children. The beginnings of Christian literature are really
the beginnings of the secularisation of Christianity: the gospel becomes a
book-religion. The church, as a factor in history—which the gospel made no claim
to be—required literature, and hence it made literature, and made books out of
letters; hence also at length the New Testament came into existence. The New
Testament is an offspring of the Church. The Church is not founded upon the New
Testament; other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus
Christ. The gain which accrued to the world by the New Testament carried with it
a danger which Christianity—to the detriment of the spirit of it—has not always
been able to avoid, viz., the losing of itself as a literary religion in a
religion of the letter.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 11: 02 - CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HISTORY OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE.
========================================================================

II.

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

ἀνοίγωτὰμνήματα ὑμῶνκαὶἀνάξω ὑμᾶςἐκτῶνμνηματων ὑμῶν καὶεἰσάξω
ὑμᾶςεἰςτὴνγῆντοῦἸσραήλ.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 12: 02.01 - CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HISTORY OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE.
========================================================================

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

Ever since the language of the Greek Bible became a subject of consideration,
the most astonishing opinions have been held with regard to the sacred text.

There was a time when the Greek of the New Testament was looked upon as the
genuinely classical; it was supposed that the Holy Spirit, using the Apostles
merely as a pen, could not but clothe His thoughts in the most worthy garb. That
time is past: the doctrine of verbal Inspiration, petrified almost into a dogma,
crumbles more and more to pieces from day to day; and among the rubbish of the
venerable ruins it is the human labours of the more pious past that are waiting,
all intact, upon the overjoyed spectator. Whoever surrenders himself frankly to
the impression which is made by the language of the early Christians, is fully
assured that the historical connecting-points of New Testament Greek are not
found in the period of the Epos and the Attic classical literature. Paul did not
speak the language of the Homeric poems or of the tragedians and Demosthenes,
any more than Luther that of the Nibelungen-Lied. But much still remains to be
done before the influence of the idea of Inspiration upon the investigation of
early Christian Greek is got rid of. Though, indeed, the former exaggerated
estimate of its value no longer holds good, it yet reveals itself in the
unobtrusive though widely-spread opinion that the phrase “the New Testament”
represents, in the matter of language, a unity and a distinct entity; it is
thought that the canonical writings should form a subject of linguistic
investigation by themselves, and that it is possible within such a sphere to
trace out the laws of a special “genius of language”. Thus, in theological
commentaries, even with regard to expressions which have no special religious
significance, we may find the observation that so and so are “New Testament”
ἅπαξλεγόμενα,140 and in a philological discussion of the linguistic relations of
the Atticists we are told, with reference to some peculiar construction, that
the like does not occur “in the New Testament”—a remark liable to
misconception.141 Or again the meaning of a word in Acts is to be determined:
the word occurs also elsewhere in the New Testament, but with a meaning that
does not suit the passage in question nearly so well as one that is vouched for
say in Galen. Would not the attempt to enrich the “New Testament” lexicon from
Galen stir up the most vigorous opposition in those who hold that the “New
Testament” language is materially and formally of a uniform and self-contained
character? They would object—with the assertion that in the “New Testament” that
word was used in such and such a sense, and, therefore, also in the Acts of the
Apostles. In hundreds of similar short observations found in the literature, the
methodological presupposition that “the NewTestament” is a philological
department by itself, somewhat like Herodotus or Polybius, reveals itself in the
same manner. The notion of the Canon is transferred to the language, and so
there is fabricated a “sacred Greek” of Primitive Christianity.142

It is only an extension of this presupposition when the “New Testament” Greek is
placed in the larger connection of a “Biblical” Greek. “The New Testament” is
written in the language of the Septuagint. In this likewise much-favoured dictum
lies the double theory that the Seventy used an idiom peculiar to themselves and
that the writers of the New Testament appropriated it. Were the theory limited
to the vocabulary, it would be to some extent justifiable. But it is extended
also to the syntax, and such peculiarities as the prepositional usage of Paul
are unhesitatingly explained by what is alleged to be similar usage in the LXX.
The theory indicated is a great power in exegesis, and that it possesses a
certain plausibility is not to be denied. It is edifying and, what is more, it
is convenient. But it is absurd. It mechanises the marvellous variety of the
linguistic elements of the Greek Bible and cannot be established either by the
psychology of language or by history. It increases the difficulty of
understanding the language of biblical texts in the same degree as the doctrine
of verbal Inspiration proved obstructive to the historic and religious estimate
of Holy Scripture. It takes the literary products which have been gathered into
the Canon, or into the two divisions of the Canon, and which arose in the most
various circumstances, times and places, as forming one homogeneous magnitude,
and pays no heed to the footprints which bear their silent testimony to the
solemn march of the centuries. The author will illustrate the capabilities of
this method by an analogy. If any one were to combine the Canon of Muratori, a
fragment or two of the Itala, the chief works of Tertullian, the Confessions of
Augustine, the Latin Inscriptions of the Roman Christians in the Catacombs and
an old Latin translation of Josephus, into one great volume, and assert that
here one had monuments of “the” Latin of the early Church, he would make the
same error as the wanderers who follow the phantom of “the” biblical Greek. It
cannot be disputed that there would be a certain linguistic unity in such a
volume, but this unity would depend, not upon the fact that these writings were,
each and all, “ecclesiastical,” but upon the valueless truism that they were,
each and all, written in late-Latin. Similarly we cannot attribute all the
appearances of linguistic unity in the Greek Bible to the accidental
circumstance that the texts to which they belong stand side by side between the
same two boards of the Canon. The unity rests solely on the historical
circumstance that all these texts are late-Greek. The linguistic unity of the
Greek Bible appears only against the background of classical, not of
contemporary “profane,” Greek.

It is important, therefore, in the investigation of the Greek Bible, to free
oneself first of all from such a methodological notion as the sacred
exclusiveness of its texts. And in breaking through the principle, now become a
dogma, of its linguistic seclusion and isolation, we must aspire towards a
knowledge of its separate and heterogeneous elements, and investigate these upon
their own historical bases.

We have to begin with the Greek Old Testament. The Seventy translated a Semitic
text into their own language. This language was the Egypto-Alexandrian dialect.
Our method of investigation is deduced from these two facts.

If we ignore the fact that the work in question is a translation, we thereby
relinquish an important factor for the understanding of its inguistic character.
The translation is in method very different from what we nowadays call such. We
see the difference at once when we compare the Alexandrian theologians’ way of
working with, say, the method which Weizsacker applied in his translation of the
Epistles of Paul. Was it mere clumsiness, or was it reverence, which caused them
to write as they often did? Who shall say? One thing is certain; in proportion
as the idea of making the sacred book accessible in another language was at that
time unheard-of, so helpless must the translators have felt had they been
required to give some account of the correct method of turning Semitic into
Greek. They worked in happy and ingenuous ignorance of the laws of
Hermeneutics,143 and what they accomplished in spite of all is amazing. Their
chief difficulty lay, not in the lexical, but in the syntactical, conditions of
the subject-matter. They frequently stumbled at the syntax of the Hebrew text;
over the Hebrew, with its grave and stately step, they have, so to speak, thrown
their light native garb, without being able to conceal the alien’s peculiar gait
beneath its folds. So arose a written Semitic-Greek144 which no one ever spoke,
far less used for literary purposes, either before or after.145 The supposition,
that they had an easy task because the problem of the syntax was largely solved
for them through a “Judaeo-Greek” already long in existence,146 is hardly
tenable. We have a whole series of other Jewish texts from Alexandria,147 but do
their idioms bear comparison even in the slightest with the peculiarities of the
LXX, which arose quite incidentally?148 So long as no one can point to the
existence of actual products of an original Judaeo-Greek, we must be permitted
to go on advocating the hypothesis, probable enough in itself, that it was never
an actual living language at all. Thus the fact that the Alexandrian Old
Testament is a translation is of fundamental importance for an all-round
criticism of its syntax. Its “Hebraisms” permit of no conclusions being drawn
from them in respect to the language actually spoken by the Hellenistic Jews of
the period: they are no more than evidences of the complete disparity between
Semitic and Greek syntax. It is another question, whether they may not have
exercised an influence upon the speech of the readers of the next period: it is,
of course, possible that the continually repeated reading of the written
Judaeo-Greek may have operated upon and transformed the “feeling for language”
of the later Jews and of the early Christians. In respect of certain lexical
phenomena, this supposition may of course be made good without further trouble;
the parts of the O.T. Apocrypha which were in Greek from the beginning, Philo,
Josephus, Paul, the early Christian Epistle-writers, move all of them more or
less in the range of the ethical and religious terms furnished by the LXX. It is
also quite conceivable that some of the familiar formula and formulaic turns of
expression found in the Psalms or the Law were borrowed from the one or the
other, or again, that the occasional literary impressiveness is an intentional
imitation of the austere and unfamiliar solemnity of that mode of speech which
was deemed to be biblical. But any fundamental influence of the LXX upon the
syntactic, that is to say, the logical, sense of a native of Asia Minor, or of
the West, is improbable, and it is in the highest degree precarious to connect
certain grammatical. phenomena in, say, Paul’s Epistles straightway with casual
similarities in the translation of the O.T. A more exact investigation of
Alexandrian Greek will, as has been already signified, yield the result that far
more of the alleged Hebraisms of the LXX than one usually supposes are really
phenomena of Egyptian, or of popular, Greek.149 This brings us to the second
point: the real language, spoken and written, of the Seventy Interpreters was
the Egyptian Greek of the period of the Ptolemies. If, as translators, they had
often, in the matter of syntax, to conceal or disguise this fact, the more
spontaneously, in regard to their lexical work, could they do justice to the
profuse variety of the Bible by drawing from the rich store of terms furnished
by their highly-cultured environment. Their work is thus one of the most
important documents of Egyptian Greek.150 Conversely, its specifically Egyptian
character can be rendered intelligible only by means of a comparison with all
that we possess of the literary memorials of Hellenic Egypt from the time of the
Ptolemies till about the time of Origen.151 Since F. W. Sturz152 began his
studies in this subject there has passed nearly a century, which has disclosed
an infinite number of new sources. Why, if the Inscriptions in Egyptian Greek,
when systematically turned to account, could put new life into Septuagint
research even then, the Papyrus discoveries have now put us in the position of
being able to check the Egyptian dialect by document—so to speak—through
hundreds of years. A large part of the Papyri, for us certainly the most
valuable, comes from the Ptolemaic period itself; these venerable sheets are in
the original of exactly the same age as the work of the Jewish translators153
which has come down to us in late copies. When we contemplate these sheets, we
are seized with a peculiar sense of their most delightful nearness to us—one
might almost say, of historical reality raised from the dead. In this very way
wrote the Seventy—the renowned, the unapproachable—on the same material, in the
same characters, and in the same language! Over their work the history of twenty
crowded centuries has passed: originating in the self-consciousness of Judaism
at a time of such activity as has never been repeated, it was made to help
Christianity to become a universal religion; it engaged the acuteness and the
solicitude of early Christian Theology, and was to be found in libraries in
which Homer and Cicero might have been sought for in vain; then, apparently, it
was forgotten, but it continued still to control the many-tongued Christianity
by means of its daughter-versions: mutilated, and no longer possessed of its
original true form, it has come to us out of the past, and now proffers us so
many enigmas and problems as to deter the approach not only of overweening
ignorance but often of the diffidence of the ablest as well. Meanwhile the
Papyrus documents of the same age remained in their tombs and beneath the
rubbish ever being heaped upon them; but Our inquiring age has raised them up,
and the information concerning the past which they give in return, is also
helpful towards the understanding of the Greek Old Testament. They preserve for
us glimpses into the highly-developed civilization of the Ptolemaic period: we
come to know the stilted speech of the court, the technical terms of its
industries, its agriculture and its jurisprudence; we see into the interior of
the convent of Serapis, and into the family affairs which shrink from the gaze
of history. We hear the talk of the people and the officials—unaffected because
they had no thought of making literature. Petitions and rescripts, letters,
accounts and receipts—of such things do the old documents actually consist; the
historian of national deeds will disappointedly put them aside; to the
investigator of the literature only do they present some fragments of authors of
greater importance. But in spite of the apparent triviality of their contents at
first sight, the Papyri are of the highest importance for the understanding of
the language of the LXX,154 simply because they are direct sources, because they
show the same conditions of life which are recorded in the Bible and which, so
to speak, have been translated into Egyptian Greek. Naturally, the obscure texts
of the Papyri will often, in turn, receive illumination from the LXX; hence
editors of intelligence have already begun to employ the LXX in this way, and
the author is of opinion that good results may yet be obtained thereby. In some
of the following entries he hopes, conversely, to have demonstrated the value of
the Egyptian Papyri and Inscriptions for Septuagint research. It is really the
pre-Christian sources which have been used;155 but those of the early impenal
period also will yet yield rich results. One fact observation appears to put
beyond question, viz., the preference of the translators for the technical
expressions of their surroundings. They, too, understood how to spoil the
Egyptians. They were very ready to represent the technical (frequently also the
general) terms of the Hebrew original by the technical terms in use in the
Ptolemaic period.156 In this way they sometimes not only Egyptianised the Bible,
but, to speak from their own standpoint, modernised it. Many peculiarities from
which it might even be inferred that a text different from our own lay before
them, are explained, as the author thinks, by this striving to make themselves
intelligible to the Egyptians. Such a striving is not of course justifiable from
the modern translator’s point of view; the ancient scholars, who did not know
the concept “historic,” worked altogether naïvely, and if, on that account, we
cannot but pardon their obliteration of many historical and geographical
particulars in their Bible, we may, as counterbalancing this, admire the skill
which they brought to bear upon their wrongly-conceived task.157 From such
considerations arises the demand that no future lexicon to the LXX158 shall
content itself with the bringing forward of mere equations; in certain cases the
Greek word chosen does not represent the Hebrew original at all, and it would be
a serious mistake to suppose that the LXX everywhere used each particular word
in the sense of its corresponding Hebrew. Very frequently the LXX did not
translate the original at all, but made a substitution for it, and the actual
meaning of the word substituted is, of course, to be ascertained only from
Egyptian Greek. A lexicon to the LXX will thus be able to assert a claim to
utility only if it informs us of what can be learned, with regard to each word,
from Egyptian sources. In some places the original was no longer intelligible to
the translators; we need only remember the instances in which they merely
transcribed the Hebrew words—even when these were not proper names. But, in
general, they knew Hebrew well, or had been well instructed in it. If then, by
comparison of their translation with the original, there should be found a
difference in meaning between any Hebrew word and its corresponding Greek, it
should not be forthwith concluded that they did not understand it: it is exactly
such cases that not seldom reveal to us the thoughtful diligence of these
learned men.

What holds good of the investigation of the LXX in the narrower sense must also
be taken into consideration in dealing with the other translations of Semitic
originals into Greek. Peculiarities of syntax and of style should not in the
first instance be referred to an alleged Judaeo-Greek of the translators, but
rather to the character of the original. We must, in our linguistic criticism,
apply this principle not only to many of the Old Testament Apocryphal writings,
but also to the Synoptic Gospels, in so far, at least, as these contain elements
which originally were thought and spoken in Aramaic.159 So far as regards these
Apocryphal books, the non-existence of the original renders the problem more
difficult, but the investigator who approaches it by way of the LXX will be able
to reconstruct the original of many passages with considerable certainty, and to
provide himself, at least in some degree, with the accessories most required.
The case is less favourable in regard to the Synoptic sayings of Jesus, as also
those of His friends and His opponents, which belong to the very earliest
instalment of the pre-Hellenistic Gospel-tradition. We know no particulars about
the translation into Greek of those portions which were originally spoken and
spread abroad in the Palestinian vernacular; we only know, as can be perceived
from the threefold text itself, that “they interpreted as best they could”.160
The author is unable to judge how far retranslation into Aramaic would enable us
to understand the Semitisms which are more or less clearly perceived in the
three texts, and suspects that the solution of the problem, precisely in the
important small details of it, is rendered difficult by the present state of the
text, in the same way as the confusion of the traditional text of many portions
of the LXX hinders the knowledge of its Greek. But the work must be done: the
veil, which for the Greek scholar rests over the Gospel sayings, can be, if not
fully drawn aside, yet at least gently lifted, by the consecrated hand of the
specialist.161 Till that is done we must guard against the illusion162 that an
Antiochian or Ephesian Christian (even if, like Paul, he were a product of
Judaism) ever really spoke as he may have translated the Logia-collection,
blessed—and cramped—as he was by the timid consciousness of being permitted to
convey the sacred words of the Son of God to the Greeks. Perhaps the same
peculiarities which, so far as the LXX were concerned, arose naturally and
unintentionally, may, in the translators of the Lord’s words, rest upon a
conscious or unconscious liturgical feeling: their reading of the Bible had made
them acquainted with the sound, solemn as of the days of old, of the language of
prophet and psalmist; they made the Saviour speak as Jahweh spoke to the
fathers, especially when the original invited to such a procedure. Doubtless
they themselves spoke differently163 and Paul also spoke differently,164 but
then the Saviour also was different from those that were His.

Among the biblical writings a clear distinction can be traced between those that
are translations, or those portions that can be referred to a translation, and
the other genus, viz., those in Greek from the first. The authors of these
belonged to Alexandria, to Palestine, or to Asia Minor. Who will assert that
those of them who were Jews (leaving out of account those who belonged to
Palestine) each and all spoke Aramaic—to say nothing of Hebrew—as their native
tongue? We may assume that a Semitic dialect was known among the Jews of
Alexandria and Asia Minor, but this cannot be exalted into the principle of a
full historical criticism of their language. It seems to the writer that their
national connection with Judaism is made, too hastily, and with more imagination
than judgment, to support the inference of a (so to speak) innate Semitic
“feeling for language”. But the majority of the Hellenistic Jews of the
Dispersion probably spoke Greek as their native tongue: those who spoke the
sacred language of the fathers had only learned it later.165 It is more probable
that their Hebrew would be Graecised than that their Greek would be Hebraised.
For why was the Greek Old Testament devised at all? Why, after the Alexandrian
translation was looked upon as suspicious, were new Greek translations prepared?
Why do we find Jewish Inscriptions in the Greek language,166 even where the Jews
lived quite by themselves, viz., in the Roman catacombs? The fact is, the
Hellenistic Jews spoke Greek, prayed in Greek, sang psalms in Greek, wrote in
Greek, and produced Greek literature; further, their best minds thought in
Greek.167 While we may then continue, in critically examining the Greek of a
Palestinian writer, to give due weight to the influence of his Semitic “feeling
for language,”—an influence, unfortunately, very difficult to test—the same
procedure is not justified with regard to the others. How should the Semitic
“spirit of language” have exercised influence over them? And how, first of all
indeed, over those early Christian authors who may originally have been pagans?
This “spirit” must be kept within its own sphere; the investigator of the Greek
of Paul and of the New Testament epistle-writers must first of all exorcise it,
if he would see his subject face to face. We must start from the philological
environment in which, as a fact of history, we find these authors to be, and not
from an improbable and, at best, indefinable, linguistic Traducianism. The
materials from which we can draw the knowledge of that philological environment
have been preserved in sufficient quantity. In regard to the vocabulary, the
Alexandrian Bible stands in the first rank: it formed part of the environment of
the people, irrespective of whether they wrote in Alexandria, Asia Minor or
Europe, since it was the international book of edification for Hellenistic
Judaism and for primitive Christianity. We must, of course, keep always before
us the question whether the terms of the LXX, in so far as they were employed by
those who came after, had not already undergone some change of meaning in their
minds. Little as the lexicon of the LXX can be built up by merely giving the
Greek words with their corresponding Hebrew originals, just as little can Jewish
or early Christian expressions be looked upon as the equivalents of the same
expressions as previously used by the LXX. Even in express quotations one must
constantly reckon with the possibility that a new content has been poured into
the old forms. The history of religious terms—and not of religious ones
only—shows that they have always the tendency to become richer or poorer; in any
case, to be constantly altering.168 Take the term Spirit (Geist). Paul,
Augustine, Luther, Servetus, the modern popular Rationalism: all of these
apprehend it differently, and even the exegete who is well schooled in history,
when he comes to describe the biblical thoughts about Spirit, finds it difficult
to free himself from the philosophical ideas of his century. How differently
must the Colossians, for example, have conceived of Angels, as compared with the
travelling artisan who has grown up under the powerful influences of
ecclesiastical artistic tradition, and who prays to his guardian angel! What
changes has the idea of God undergone in the history of Christianity—from the
grossest anthropomorphism to the most refined spiritualisation! One might write
the history of religion as the history of religious terms, or, more correctly,
one must apprehend the history of religious terms as being a chapter in the
history of religion. In comparison with the powerful religious development
recorded in the Hebrew Old Testament, the work of the Seventy presents quite a
different phase: it does not close the religious history of Israel, but it
stands at the beginning of that of Judaism, and the saying that the New
Testament has its source in the Old is correct only if by the Old Testament one
means the book as it was read and understood in the time of Jesus. The Greek Old
Testament itself was no longer understood in the imperial period as it was in
the Ptolemaic period, and, again, a pagan Christian in Rome naturally read it
otherwise than a man like Paul. What the author means may be illustrated by
reference to the Pauline idea of Faith. Whether Paul discovered it or not does
not in the meantime concern us. At all events he imagined that it was contained
in his Bible, and, considered outwardly, he was right. In reality, however, his
idea of faith is altogether new: no one would think of identifying the πίστις of
the LXX with the πίστις of Paul. Now the same alteration can be clearly
perceived in other conceptions also; it must be considered as possible in all,
at least in principle; and this possibility demands precise examination.
Observe, for example, the terms Spirit, Flesh, Life, Death, Law, Works, Angel,
Hell, Judgment, Sacrifice, Righteousness, Love. The lexicon of the Bible must
also discuss the same problem in respect of expressions which are more
colourless in a religious and ethical sense. The men of the New Testament
resembled the Alexandrian translators in bringing with them, from their
“profane” surroundings, the most varied extra-biblical elements of thought and
speech.

When, then, we undertake to expound the early Christian writings, it is not
sufficient to appeal to the LXX, or to the terms which the LXX may use in a
sense peculiar to themselves: we must seek to become acquainted with the actual
surroundings of the New Testament authors. In What other way would one undertake
an exhaustive examination of these possible peculiar meanings? Should we confine
ourselves to the LXX, or even to artificially petrified ideas of the LXX,—what
were that but a concession to the myth of a “biblical” Greek? The early
Christian writings, in fact, must be taken out of the narrow and not
easily-illuminated cells of the Canon, and placed in the sunshine and under the
blue sky of their native land and of their own time. There they will find
companions in speech, perhaps also companions in thought. There they take their
place in the vast phenomenon of the κοινή. But even this fact, in several
aspects of it, must not be conceived of mechanically. One must neither imagine
the κοινή to be a uniform whole, nor look upon the early Christian authors, all
and sundry, as co-ordinate with a definite particular phenomenon like Polybius.
In spite of all the consanguinity between those early Christian Greeks and the
literary representatives of universal Greek, yet the former are not without
their distinguishing characteristics, Certain elements in them of the popular
dialect reveal the fact of their derivation from those healthy circles bf
society to which the Gospel appealed: the victorious future of those obscure
brotherhoods impressively announces itself in new technical terms, and the
Apostles of the second and third generation employ the turns of expression,
understood or not understood, used by Paul, that “great sculptor of
language”.169

It is thus likewise insufficient to appeal to the vocabulary and the grammar of
the contemporary “profane” literature. This literature will doubtless afford the
most instructive discoveries, but, when we compare it with the direct sources
which are open to us, it is, so far as regards the language of the early
Christian authors, only of secondary importance. These direct sources are the
Inscriptions170 of the imperial period. Just as we must set our printed
Septuagint side by side with the Ptolemaic Papyri, so must we read the New
Testament in the light of the opened folios of the Inscriptions. The classical
authors reach us only in the traditional texts of an untrustworthy later period;
their late codices cannot give us certain testimony with regard to any so-called
matters of form, any more than the most venerable uncials of the New Testament
can let us know how, say, the Letter to the Romans may have looked in its
original form. If we are ever in this matter to reach certainty at all, then it
is the Inscriptions and the Papyri which will give us the nearest approximation
to the truth. Of course even they do not present us with unity in matters of
form; but it would be something gained if the variety which they manifest
throughout were at least to overthrow the orthodox confidence in the
trustworthiness of the printed text of the New Testament, and place it among the
“externals”. Here, too, must we do battle with a certain ingenuous acceptation
of the idea of Inspiration. Just as formerly there were logically-minded
individuals who held that the vowel-points in the Hebrew text were inspired, so
even to-day there are those here and there who force the New Testament into the
alleged rules of a uniform orthography. But by what authority—unless by the
dictate of the Holy Spirit—will anyone support the notion that Paul, for
instance, must have written the Greek form of the name David in exactly the same
way as Mark or John the Divine? But the help which the Inscriptions afford in
the correction of our printed texts, is not so important as the service they
render towards the understanding of the language itself, It may be that their
contents are often scanty; it may be that hundreds of stones, tiresomely
repeating the same monotonous formula, have only the value of a single
authority, yet, in their totality, these epigraphic remains furnish us with
plenty of material—only, one should not expect too much of them, or too little.
The author is not now thinking of the general historical contributions which
they afford for the delineation of the period—such as we must make for Egypt,
Syria, Asia Minor, Europe, if we would understand the biblical writings (though
for that purpose nothing can be substituted for them); but rather of their value
for the history of the language of the Greek Bible, and particularly of the New
Testament, Those witnesses in stone come before us with exactly the same variety
as to time and place as we have to take into account when dealing with these
writings: the period of most of them, and the original locality of nearly all,
can be determined with certainty. They afford us wholly trustworthy glimpses
into certain sections of the sphere of ideas and of the store of words which
belonged to certain definite regions, at a time when Christian (churches were
taking their rise, and Christian books being written. Further, that the
religious conceptions of the time may receive similar elucidation is a fact that
we owe to the numerous sacred Inscriptions. In these, it may be observed that
there existed, here and there, a terminology which was fixed, and which to some
extent consisted of liturgical formulae. When, then, particular examples of this
terminology are found not only in the early Christian authors, but in the LXX as
well, the question must be asked: Do the Christian writers employ such and such
an expression because they ark familiar with the Greek Bible, or because they
are unaffectedly speaking the language of their neighbourhood? If we are
dealing, e.g., with the Inscriptions of Asia Minor and the Christians of Asia
Minor, the natural answer will be: Such expressions were known to any such
Christian from his environment, before ever he read the LXX, and, when he met
them again in that book, he had no feeling of having his store of words
enlarged, but believed himself to be walking, so to speak, on known ground:
since, happily for him, there was no Schleusner at his disposal, when he found
those expressions in the LXX—where, in their connection, they were perhaps more
pregnant in meaning, perhaps less so,—he read them with the eyes of an
inhabitant of Asia Minor, and possibly emasculated them. For him they were
moulds into which he poured, according to his own natural endowment, now good,
now less valuable, metal. The mere use of LXX-words on the part of an inhabitant
of Asia Minor is no guarantee that he is using the corresponding
LXX-conceptions. Take as examples words like
ἁγνός,ἱερός,δίκαιος,γνήσιος,ἀγαθός,εὐσέβεια,θρησκεία,ἀρχιερεύς,προφήτης,κύριος,θεός,ἄγγελος,
κτίστης,σωτηρία,διαθήκη, ἔργον,αἰών. With regard to all these words, and many
others, common to both the LXX and the Inscriptions of Asia Minor of the
imperial period, it will be necessary to investigate how far the Christians of
Asia Minor introduced definite local shades of meaning into their reading of the
Septuagint, and, further, how far they unconsciously took these shades of
meaning into account either in their own use of them or when they heard them
uttered by the Apostles. The same holds good of such expressions as embody the
specifically favourite conceptions of primitive Christianity, e.g., the titles
of Christ, υἱὸςθεοῦ,ὁκύριοςἡμῶν and σωτήρ. The author has, with regard to the
first of these, set forth in the following pages in more detail the reasons why
we should not ignore the extra-biblical technical use of the expression,—a use
which, in particular, is authenticated by the Inscriptions. A similar
investigation with regard to the others could be easily carried out. Even if it
could be established that “the” New Testament always employs these expressions
in their original, pregnant, distinctively Christian sense, yet who will
guarantee that hundreds of those who heard the apostolic preaching, or of the
readersof the Epistles, did not understand the expressions in the faded
formulaic sense, in regard to which they reflected as little or as much as when
they read a votive Inscription in honour of the υἱὸςθεοῦ Augustus, or of another
emperor who was described as ὁκύριοςἡμῶν, or of Apollo σωτήρ? By the time of the
New Testament there had set in a process of mutual assimilation171 between the
religious conceptions already current in Asia Minor on the one hand, and
“biblical” and “Christian” elements on the other. Biblical expressions became
secularised; heathen expressions gained ecclesiastical colouring, and the
Inscriptions, as being the most impartial witnesses to the linguistic usage
previous to New Testament times, are the sources which most readily permit us a
tentative investigation of the process.

Other elements, too, of the language of certain portions of the New Testament
cannot seldom be elucidated by parallels from the Inscriptions; likewise much of
the so-called syntax. M. Frankel172 has indicated what an “extraordinary
agreement in vocabulary and style” obtains between the Pergamenian Inscriptions
of pre-Roman times and Polybiusit is proved, he thinks, that the latter, “almost
entirely wanting in a distinctive style of his own,” has “assumed the richly but
pedantically developed speech of the public offices of his time”. The
Inscriptions of Asia Minor have, as the author thinks, a similar significance
for the history of the language of the New Testament. It may be readily granted
to the outsider that many of the observations which it is possible to take in
this connection have, of, course, “only” a philological value; he who undertakes
them knows that he is obeying not only the voice of science but also the behests
of reverence towards the Book of Humanity.173 The author has, here and there
throughout the following pages, endeavoured to carry out in practice the ideas
of method thus indicated. He would request that to these should be added the
observations that lie scattered throughout the other parts of this book. If he
makes a further request for indulgence, he would not omit to emphasise that he
is not thereby accommodating himself to the well-worn literary habit the real
purpose of which is only the captatiobenevolentiae. The peculiar nature of the
subject-matter, which first attracted the author, is certainly calculated to
engender the feeling of modesty, unless, indeed, the investigator has been
possessed of that quality from the outset.

ἀγγαρεύω.

Herodotus and Xenophon speak of the Persian ἄγγαροι. The word is of Persian
origin and denotes the royal couriers. From ἄγγαρος is formed the verb ἀγγαρεύω,
which is used, Mark 15:21 = Matthew 27:32 and Matthew 5:41 (a saying of, the
Lord), in the sense of to compel one to something. E. Hatch174 finds the
earliest application of the verb in a letter of Demetrius I. Soter to the
high-priest Jonathan and the Jewish people: κελεύωδὲμηδὲἀγγαρεύεσθαιτὰἸουδαίων
ὑποζύγια, Joseph. Antt. xiii. 2 3. The letter was ostensibly written shortly
before the death of the king, and, if this were so, we should have to date the
passage shortly before the year 150 B.C. But against this assumption is to be
placed the consideration that 1Ma 10:25-45, which was the source for the
statement of Josephus, and which also quotes the said letter verbally, knows
nothing of the passage in question. Indeed it rather appears that Josephus
altered the passage, in which the remission of taxes upon the animals is spoken
of (ver. 33 καὶ πάντεςἀφιέτωσαντοὺςφόρουςκαὶτῶνκτηνῶναὐτῶν), so as to make it
mean that they should not be forced into public work. Even if, following
Grimm,175 we consider it possible that the passage in Maccabees has the same
purport as the paraphrase of Josephus, yet the word—and it is only the word
which comes into consideration here—must be assigned to Josephus, and,
therefore, can be made to establish nothing in regard to the second century
B.C., but only in regard to the first A.D. But we find the verb in use at a time
much earlier than Hatch admitted. The Comedian Menander († 290 B.C.) uses it in
Sicyon. iv. (Meineke, p. 952). It is twice employed in Pap. Flind. Petr. xx.176
(252 B.C.), both times in reference to a boat used for postal service: τοῦ
ὑπάρχοντοςλέμβουἀγγαρευθέντος ὑπόσου and ἀγγαρεύσαςτὸνἈντικλέουςλέμβον. This
application of the word is established for the Egyptian dialect177 of Greek by
the Inscription from the Temple of the Great Oasis (49 A.D.),178 in which there
is other linguistic material bearing on the Greek Bible, and to which Hatch has
already called attention μηδὲνλαμβάνεινμηδὲἀγγαρεύεινεἰμήτινεςἐμὰδιπλώματα
ἔχωσι. In view of these facts the usage of the verb in the Synoptists179 and
Josephus falls into a more distinct historical connection: the word, originally
applied only to a Persian institution, had gained a more general sense as early
as the third century B.C.180 This sense, of course, was itself a technical one
at first, as can be seen from the Papyrus and the Inscription as well as from
Josephus, but the word must have become so familiar that the Evangelists could
use it quite generally for to compel.

ἀδελφός. The employment of the name brother to designate the members of
Christian communities is illustrated by the similar use, made known to us by the
Papyri, of ἀδελφος, in the technical language of the Serapeum at Memphis. See
the detailed treatment of it in A. Peyron,181 Leemans,182 Brunet de Presle,183
and Kenyon.184—ἀδελφός also occurs in the usage of religious associations of the
imperial period as applied to the members, cf. Schurer, in the Sitzungsberichte
der Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1897, p. 207 ff., and Cumont,
Hypsistos, Brussels, 1897, p. 13.

ἀναστρέφομαι. The moral signification se gerere in 2 Corinthians 1:12, Ephesians
2:3, 1 Peter 1:17, 2 Peter 2:18, Hebrews 10:33, Hebrews 13:18, 1 Timothy 3:15,
is illustrated by Grimm,185needlessly, by the analogy of the Hebrew . It is
found in the Inscription of Pergamus No. 224 A.186 (middle of the second century
B.C.), where it is said of some high official of the king
ἐνπᾶσινκα[ιροῖςἀμέμπτωςκαὶἀδ]εῶςἀναστρεφόμενος.—Further examples in III. iii. 1.
[↓] ἀναφάλαντος.

LXX Leviticus 13:41 = גִּבֵּחַforehead-bald, frequent in personal descriptions
in the Papyri of 237, 230 and 225 B.C.;187 cf. ἀναφαλάντωμα = גִּבֵּחַת, LXX
oLeviticus 13:42-43 [MT Leviticus 13:42-43].

ἀναφέρω. In 1 Peter 2:14 it is said of Christ:
ὃςτὰςἁμαρτίαςἡμῶναὐτὸςἀνήνεγκενἐντῷσώματιαὐτοῦἐπὶτὸξύον,ἵναταῖς
ἁμαρτίαιςἀπογενόμενοιτῇδικαιοσυνῃζήσωμεν. Many commentators consider the
expression ἀναφέρειντὰςἁμαρτίας to be a quotation of LXX Isaiah 53:12 [MT Isaiah
53:12] καὶαὐτὸςἁμαρτίαςπολλῶν ἀνήνεγκε and demand that it be understood in the
same sense as in Isaiah:188to bear sins, i.e., to suffer punishment for sins.
But even granting that the whole section is pervaded by reminiscences of Isaiah
53:1-12, yet it is not scientifically justifiable to assert that the writer must
have used ἀναφέρειν in the very sense of the original which he followed. The
cases are not few in which phrases from the LXX, given word for word, and
introduced by the solemn formulae of quotation, have acquired another sense from
the particular new context into which they are brought. The early Christian
authors do not quote with that precision as to form and substance which must
needs be shown in our own scientific investigations; these “practical” exegetes,
in their simple devoutness, have an ethical and religious purpose in their
quotations, not a scientific one. Thus their references cannot properly be
called quotations at all: sayings, in our pregnant use of that term, would be
the preferable expression. The “practical” exegetes of every age have considered
the same absolute freedom with regard to the letter as their natural privilege.
In regard to our passage, the addition of ἐπὶ τὸξύλον makes it certain that,
even if the allusion is to Isaiah, ἀναφέρειν cannot be explained by its
possible189 meaning in the Greek translation of the book. If to bear be made to
mean to sufferpunishment, then the verb would require to be followed190 by ἐπὶ
τῷ ξύλῳ : ἐπὶcum acc. at once introduces the meaning to carry up to.

What then is meant by Christ bearing our sins in His body upto the tree?
Attention is commonly called to the frequently occurring collocation
ἀναφέρειντιἐπὶτὸθυσιαστήριον, and from this is deduced the idea that the death
of Christ is an expiatory sacrifice. But this attempt at explanation breaks
down191 when it is observed that it is certainly not said that Christ laid
Himself upon the tree (as the altar); it is rather the ἁμαρτίαιἡμῶν that form
the object of ἀναφέρειν, and it cannot be said of these that they were offered
up. That would be at least a strange and unprecedented mode of expression. The
simplest explanation will be this: when Christ bears up to the cross the sins of
men, then men have their sins no more; the bearing up to is a taking away. The
expression thus signifies quite generally that Christ took away our sins by His
death: there is no suggestion whatever of the special ideas of substitution or
sacrifice. This explanation, quite satisfactory in itself, appears to the author
to admit of still further confirmation. In the contract Pap. Flind. Petr. xvi.
2192 (230 B.C.), the followingpassage occurs: περὶδὲὧνἀντιλέγωἀναφερομεν [ . . .
. ] ὀφειλημάτων κριθήσομαι ἐπ’ Ἀσκληπιάδου. The editor restores the omission by
ων εἰςἐμέ and so reads ἀναφερομένων εἰς ἐμέ. In this he is, in our opinion,
certainly correct as to the main matter. No other completion of the participle
is possible, and the connection with the following clauses requires that the
ἀναφερόμεναὀφειλήματα should stand in relation to the “I” of ἀντιλέγω. It can
hardly be determined whether precisely the preposition εἰς193 be the proper
restoration, but not much depends on that matter. In any case the sense of the
passage is this: as to theὀφειλήματαἀναφερόμεναupon (or against) me, against
which I protest, I shall let myself be judged by Asklepiades.194 It is a priori
probable that ἀναφέρειντὰὀφειλήματα is a forensic technical expression: he who
imposes195 the debts of another upon a third desires to free the former from the
payment of the same. The Attic Orators196 employ ἀναφέρεινἐπί, in exactly the
same way: AEsch. 3, 215, τὰςἀπὸ τούτωναἰτίαςἀνοίσεινἐπ’ἐμέ ; Isocr. 5, 32,
ἢνἀνενέγκῃςαὐτῶν τὰςπράξειςἐπὶτοὺςσοὺςπρογόνους. That the technical expression
was known to the writer of the Epistle cannot of course be proved, but it is not
improbable.197 In that case his ἀναφέρειν would take on its local colour. The
sins of men are laid upon the cross, as, in a court of law, a debt in money198
is removed from one and laid upon another. Of course the expression must not be
pressed: the writer intends merely to establish the fact that Christ in His
death has removed the sins of men. The nerve of the striking image which he
employs lies in the correlative idea that the sins of men lie no more upon them.
The forensic metaphor in Colossians 2:14 is at least quite as bold, but is in
perfect harmony with the above: Christ has taken the χειρόγραφον, drawn up
against mankind, out of the way, nailing it to His cross.

ἀντιλήμπτωρ.199

Frequent in the LXX, especially in the Psalms; also in Sirach 13:22, Judith
9:11; nearly always used of God as the Helper of the oppressed. Not hitherto
authenticated in extra-biblical literature.200 The word is found in Pap. Lond.
xxiii.201 (158-157 B.C.), in a petition to the king and queen, in which the
petitioner says that he finds his καταφυγή in them, and that they are his
ἀντιλήμπτορες; cf. the similar conjunction of καταφυγή and ἀντιλήμπτωρ in LXX2
Kings 22:3 [MT 2 Samuel 22:3].

ἀντίλημψις.202

Frequent, in the LXX and the Apocryphal books, for Help. This meaning is not203
peculiar to “biblical” Greek, but occurs frequently in petitions to the
Ptolemies: Pap. Par. 26204 (163-162 B.c.), Pap. Lond. xxiii.205 (158-157 B.C.),
Pap. Par. 8206(131 B.C.), Pap. Lugd. A207 Ptolemaic period); always synonymous
with βοήθεια. The last two passages yield the combination τυχεῖνἀντιλήμψεως208
which also occurs in 2Ma 15:7 and 3Ma. 2:33.—See further III. iii. 3 below. [↓]
This meaning of the word (known also to Paul, 1 Corinthians 12:28), like that of
ἀντιλήμπτωρ, was found by the LXX, as it appears, in the obsequious official
language of the Ptolemaic period. One understands how they could, without the
slightest difficulty, transfer such terms of the canting and covetous court
speech to religious matters when one reads of the royal pair being addressed as
ὑμᾶςτοὺςθεοὺςμεγίστους καὶἀντιλήμπτορας, Pap. Lond. xxiii.209 (158-157 B.C.);
the worship of the monarch had emasculated the conception θεός, and thus
ἀντιλήμπτωρ and ἀντίλημψις had already acquired a kind of religious nimbus.

ἀξίωμα. The LXX translate the words בַּקָשָׁה (Esther 5:3-8, Esther 7:22 f.),
תּחׅנָּו (LXX Psalms 119:170 [MT Psalms 119:170]) and the Aramaic בּעוּ (Daniel
6:7), which all mean request, desire, by ἀξίωμα. The word occurs in [3]1Es 8:4
in the same sense. It is “very infrequent in this signification; the lexica cite
it, in prose, only from Plutarch, Conviv. disput. 1 9 (p. 632 C)”210. The
Inscriptions confirm the accuracy of its usage in the LXX: fragment of a royal
decree to the inhabitants of Hierocome (date?) from Tralles;211 a decree of the
Abderites (before 146 B.C.) from Teos;212 Inscription of Pergamus No. 13 (soon
after 263 B. C.).213 “In all these examples the word signifies a request
preferred before a higher tribunal, thus acquiring the sense of ‘petition’ or
‘memorial’”214.

ἀπό. Of the construction 2Ma 14:30ἀπότοῦβελτίστουin the most honourable way, in
which one might suspect an un-Greek turn of expression, many examples can be
found in the Inscriptions, as also in Dionysius of Halicarnassus and
Plutarch.215 ἀρεταλογία.216

O. F. Fritzsche217 still writes Sir 36:19 (14 or 16 in other editions) as
follows: πλῆσονΣιὼνἆραιτὰλόγιάσουκαὶἀπὸτῆςδόξηςσουτὸνλαόνσου. M. W. L. de Wette
implies the same text by his rendering: Fill Zion with the praise of Thy
promises, and Thy people with Thy glory; he takes218ἆραι in the sense of
laudibus extollers, celebrare, and thus the verbal translation would run: Fill
Zion, in order to extol Thy declarations, and Thy people with Thy glory. But
against this Fritzsche219 makes the objection that ἆραι must stand here in the
sense of נָשׂא, and this, again, should be taken as receive, obtain, although,
indeed, such a meaning cannot be vouched for by any quite analogous example. But
leaving aside the fact that it is not good procedure to illustrate an obscure
transl ation by referring to a meaning of the possible original which cannot be
authenticated, the confusion of the parallelismus membrorum which, with their
reading, disfigures the verse, must be urged against de Wette and Fritzsche.220
What then is the authority for this reading? The beginning of the verse has been
handed down in the three principal Codices in the following forms:—

אΑ πλησονσιωναρεταλογιασου,

B πλησονσιωναρεταλογιασσου, Bbπλησιονσιωναραιταλογιασου. The last reading, that
of the second reviser of B, has thus become the standard, except that the πλῆσον
of the others has been retained instead of the πλησίον which it gives. H. B.
Swete221 considers it probable that also the αρε of אA. is to be taken as
equivalent to αραι ; in such case the current text would be supported by אA as
well. But in reality the matter stands quite otherwise; it is B which gives the
original text: πλῆσονΣιὼνἀρεταλογίαςσου,222אA is deduced from this by the
hemigraphy of the σσ in αρεταλογιασσου, and Bb is a correction by the
misunderstood אA. The unwillingness to recognise this true state of the case
(Fritzsche says of B’s reading: sed hoc quidem hic nullo modo locum habere
potest) and indeed, to go further back, the alteration223 which was made by the
reviser of B, who misunderstood the text, are due to a misconception of what
ἀρεταλογία meant. If we consult, e.g., Pape,224 under ἀρεταλογία, we find that
its meaning is given as buffoonery (Possenreisserei). Now it is clear that God
cannot be invited to fill Zion with “aretalogy” in this sense; then comes the
too precipitate deduction that the text must read differently, instead of the
question whether the lexicon may not perhaps be in need of a correction. Even
Symmachus, LXX Psalms 29:6 [MT Psalms 30:6], could have answered the question:
in that passage he renders the word רׅנָה (shouting for joy) of the original by
ἀρεταλογία,225 while he always translates it elsewhere by εὐφημία. The equation
of Symmachus, ἀρεταλογία = εὐφημία, which can be inferred from this, and the
parallelism of the passage in Sirach, ἀρεταλογία || δόξα mutually explain and
support each other, and force us to the assumption that both translators used
ἀρεταλογίαsensu bono, i.e., of the glorifying of God. The assumption is so
obvious as to require no further support; for, to argue from the analogies, it
is indisputable that the word, the etymology of which is certainly clear enough,
at first simply meant, as a matter of course, the speaking of the ἀρεταί, and
only then received the bad secondary signification. As to the meaning of ἀρετή
which is the basis of this usage, cf. the next article.

ἀρετή.226 The observations of Hatch227 upon this word have added nothing new to
the article ἀρετή in Cremer, and have ignored what is there (as it seems to the
author) established beyond doubt, viz., that the LXX, in rendering חוֹד,
magnificence, splendour (Habakkuk 3:3 and Zechariah 6:13) and תְּהִלּה, glory,
praise, by ἀρετή, are availing themselves of an already-existent linguistic
usage.228 The meaning of ἀρεταλογία is readily deduced from this usage: the word
signifies the same as is elsewhere expressed by means of the verbal
constructions, LXX Isaiah 42:12τὰςἀρετὰςαὐτοῦ [θεοῦ] ἀναγγέλλειν, LXX Isaiah
43:21τὰςἀρετάςμου [θεοῦ] διηγεῖσθαι, 1 Peter 2:9τὰςἀρετὰς [θεοῦ] ἐξαγγέλειν. It
seems to the author the most probable interpretation that the ἀρεταί of the last
passage stands, as in the LXX, for laudes, seeing that the phrase looks like an
allusion to LXX Isaiah 42:12, more clearly still to Isaiah 43:20 f.. One must
nevertheless reckon with the possibility that the word is used here in a
different sense, to which reference has recently been made by Sal. Reinach,229
and which no doubt many a reader of the above-cited passages from the LXX, not
knowing the original, found in these phrases. Reinach, arguing from an
Inscription from Asia Minor belonging to the imperial period, advocates the
thesis230 that ἀρετή, even in pre-Christian usage, could mean miracle, effet
surnaturel. He thinks that this is confirmed by a hitherto unobserved
signification of the word ἀρεταλόγος, which, in several places, should not be
interpreted in the usual bad sense of one who babbles about virtues, buffoon,
etc., but rather as a technical designation of the interprete de miracles,
exegete who occupied an official position in the personnel of certain
sanctuaries.231The author is unable to speak more particularly about the latter
point, although it does perhaps cast a clearer light upon our ἀρεταλογία. He
believes however that he can point to other passages in which the ἀρετή of God
signifies, not the righteousness, nor yet the praise of God, but the
manifestationof His power. Guided by the context, we must Iltranslate Joseph.
Antt. xvii. 5.6, αὖθιςἐνεπαρῴνειτῇ ἀρετῇτοῦθείου: he sinned, as if intoxicated,
against God’s manifestation of His power.232 Still clearer is a passage from a
hymn to Hermes, Pap. Lond. xlvi. 418 ff.233:—

ὄφρα τε μαντοσύνας ταῖς σαῖς ἀρεταῖσι λάβοιμι. The original has μαντοσυναις; the
emendation μαντοσύνας (better than the alternative μαντοσύνης also given by
Kenyon) seems to be established.234 It can only mean: that I may obtain the art
of clairvoyance by the manifestations of Thy power, and this meaning allows the
text to remain otherwise unaltered (after A. Dieterich). This sense of ἀρεταί
seems to have been unknown to other two editors; but they, too, have indicated,
by their conjectures, that the word cannot signify virtues. Wessely235 emends
thus:—

ὄφρατεμαντοσύνηςτῆςσῆςμέροςἀντιλάβοιμι, and Herwerden236 writes :—

ὄφρατεμαντοσύνηνταῖςσαῖςἀρεταῖσι (? χαρίτεσσι) λάβοιμι.

We must in any case, in 2 Peter 1:3, reckon with this meaning of ἀρετή, still
further examples of which could doubtless be found. A comparison of this passage
with the Inscription which Reinach calls to his aid should exclude further
doubt. This is the Inscription of Stratonicea in Caria, belonging to the
earliest years of the imperial period,237 which will subsequently often engage
our attention; the beginning of it is given in full further on, in the remarks
on the Second Epistle of Peter, and the author has there expressed the
supposition that the beginning of the Epistle is in part marked by the same
solemn phrases of sacred emotion as are used in the epigraphic decree. Be it
only remarked here that the θείαδύναμις is spoken of in both passages, and that
ἀρετή, in the context of both, means marvel, or, if one prefers it,
manifestation of power.238 ἀρχισωματοφύλαξ. This occurs in the LXX as the
translation of keeper of the threshold (Esther 2:21) and body-guard (literally,
keeper of the head, LXX 1 Samuel 28:2 [MT 1 Samuel 28:2]). The translation in
the latter, passage is correct, although σωματοφύλαξ (Jdt 12:7, [3] 1Es 3:4)
would have been sufficient. The title is Egyptianised in the rendering given in
Esther:239 the ἀρχισωματοφύλαξ was originally an officer of high rank in the
court of the Ptolemies—the head of the royal body-guard. But the title seems to
have lost its primary meaning; it came to be applied to the occupants of various
higher offices.240 Hence even the translation given in Esther is not incorrect.
The title is known not only from Egyptian Inscriptions,241 but also from Pap.
Taur. i.242 (third century B.C.), ii.243 (of the same period), xi.244 (of the
same period), Pap. Loud. xvii.245 (162 B.C.), xxiii.246 (158-157 B.C.), Ep.
Arist. (ed. M. Schmidt), p. 15 4f.; cf. Joseph. Antt. xii. 22.

ἄφεσις.

1. The LXX translate water-brooks, Joel 1:20, and rivers of water, Lamentations
3:47, by ἀφέσεις ὑδάτων, and channels of the sea, LXX 2 Kings 22:16 [MT 2 Samuel
22:16], by ἀφέσειςθαλάσσης. The last rendering is explained by the fact that the
original presents the same word as Joel 1:20, אֲפִיקִים, which can mean either
brooks or channels. But how are we to understand the strange247rendering of the
word by ἀφέσεις ? 248 One might be tempted to think that the rendering has been
influenced by aph,249 the initial syllable of the original, but this does not
explain ἀφέσεις = פְּלָגִיםLamentations 3:47, and why is it that such influence
is not perceived in any other passage? The explanation is given by the Egyptian
idiom. We have in Pap. Flind. Petr. xxxvii.250 official reports from the
Ptolemaic period concerning the irrigation. In these the technical expression
for the releasing of the waters by opening the sluices is ἀφίημιτὸ ὑδωρ; the
corresponding substantival phrase ἄφεσιςτοῦὕδατος is found in Pap. Flind. Petr.
xiii. 2251 258 B.C.), but—and in this the technical meaning reveals itself most
clearly—the genitive may also be omitted. ἄφεσις standing alone is intelligible
to all, and we find it so used in several passages in the first mentioned
Papyrus. When one thinks of the great importance to Egypt of the irrigation, it
will be found readily conceivable that the particular incidents of it and their
technical designations must have been matter of common knowledge. Canals252 were
to the Egyptian what brooks were to the Palestinian; the bursting forth of the
Nile waters from the opened sluices made upon the former the same deep
impression as did the roar of the first winter-brook upon the Canaanite peasants
and shepherds. Thus the Egyptian translators of Lamentations 3:47 have rendered,
by ἀφέσεις ὑδάτων, the streams of water breaking forth before the eyes of the
people—not indeed verbally, but, on behalf of their own readers, by transferring
into the Egyptian dialect, with most effective distinctness, the image that was
so expressive for the Palestinians. Similarly the distress of the land in Joel
1:20 is made more vivid for the Egyptians by the picture of the
carefully-collected water of the canals becoming dried up shortly after the
opening of the sluices (ἐξηράνθησανἀφέσεις ὑδάτων), than it would be by speaking
of dried-up brooks.253

2. The LXX translate יוֹבֵלLeviticus 25:15, used, elliptically for
Jobel-year,254 by the substantive σημασίαsign, signal, a rendering altogether
verbal, and one which does, not fail to mark the peculiarity of the original.
But they translate Jobel-year in Leviticus 25:10-13 (apart from the fact that
they do not supply the ellipsis that occurs here and there in the Hebrew
passages) by ἐνιαυτὸς or ἔτοςἀφέσεωςσημασίας, signal-year of emancipation.255
The technical expression signal-year was made intelligible to non-Hebrew readers
by the addition of ἀφέσεως, which comes from Leviticus 25:10:
διαβοησετεἄφεσινἐπὶτῆςγῆς, where ἄφεσις = דְּרוֹר. From this, again, it is
explained how Jobel-year in the parts of Leviticus 25:1-55 which follow the
verse quoted, and in Leviticus 27:1-34, is rendered by ἔτος or
ἐνιαυτὸςτῆςἀφέσεως, which is not a translation,256 but an “explicative
paraphrase”.257 Similarly in these passages the elliptical Jobel (standing in
connection with what goes before) is imitated in a manner not liable to be
mistaken by an elliptical ἄφεσις.

Now this usage of the LXX is not to be explained as a mere mechanical imitation:
it found a point of local connection in the legal conditions of the Ptolemaic
period. Pap. Par. 63258 (165 B.C.) mentions, among various kinds of landed
property, τὰτῶνἐνἀφέσεικαὶτὴνἱερὰν γῆν.259 Lumbroso260 explains the lands thus
said to be ἐνἀφέσει as those which were exempted from the payment of taxes, and
points to several passages on the Rosetta Stone 261 (196 B.C.), in which the
king is extolled as having expressly remitted certain taxes (εἰςτέλοςἀφῆκεν).262
With this seems to be connected also Pap. Flind. Petr. ii. 1 (260-259 B.C.) :
263ὅτανἡἄφεσιςδοθῇ; cf. previously τὰἐκφόρια. The LXX might have translated
דְּרוֹרLeviticus 25:10 (the rendering of which was determinative for the whole
of their subsequent usage) by a different word, but their imitation of the
technical Jobel was facilitated just by their choice of ἄφεσις, a technical word
and one which was current in their locality.

βαστάζω. In Matthew 8:17 there is quoted, as the word of “the prophet Isaiah,”
aims αὐτὸςτὰςἀσθενείαςἡμῶν ἔλαβενκαὶτὰςνόσους ἐβάστασεν. “The passage Isaiah
53:4 is cited according to the original, but not in the historical sense thereof
, . . . . nor according to the special typical reference which any one looking
back from the Saviour’s healing of diseases to that prophetic saying, might have
perceived to be the intention of the latter (Meyer); but with a free
interpretation of the language. The Evangelist, that is to say, clearly takes
λαμβάνειν in the sense of take away, as the נָשָׂא of the original may also
signify—though not in this passage. On the other hand, it is doubtful whether he
also understood βαστάζειν (סָבַל) in the sense of bear hence (John 20:15), an
impossible meaning for the Hebrew . . . , or whether he is not thinking rather
of the trouble and pains which the Saviour’s acts of healing, continued till far
on in the evening, cost Him.”264 H. Holtzmann,265 like Weiss, similarly
identifies λαμβάνειν with נָשָׂא, and βαστάζειν with סָבַל. But, if the author’s
judgment is correct, the case is just the opposite: Matthew has not only
discarded the translation given by the LXX, but has also, in his rendering,
transposed the two clauses of the Hebrew sentence;266 he does not translate He
bore our diseases and took upon Himself our pains, but He took upon Himself our
pains, and bore our diseases.267 In that case it will not be סָבַל but נָשָׂא,
which is represented by βαστάζειν.268 The LXX also translate נָשָׂא, in 2 Kings
18:14 and Job 21:3, Cod. A, by βαστάζειν; similarly Aquila in the four extant
passages where he uses βαστάζειν: Isaiah 40:11269Isaiah 53:11270Isaiah 66:12271
and Jeremiah 10:5272 Of these last passages, Isa. 53 deserves special attention,
as it approximates in meaning to the quotation in Matthew:
καὶτὰςἁμαρτίαςαὐτῶναὐτὸς βαστάσει. If we should not assume, with E. Bohl,273
that the quotation is taken from an already-existent version, then it must be
said that Matthew, or his authority, in their independent rendering of the
נָשָׂא of the original by βαστάζειν, were acting in the same way as do the LXX
and the Jewish translator of the second century A.D. in other passages. It does
not of course necessarily follow from the fact that the LXX, Matthew, and Aquila
all use βαστάζειν as the analogue of נָשָׂא, thatthe βαστάζειν of Matthew 8:17
must have the same meaning as the נָשָׂא of the Hebrew original. One must
rather, in regard to this passage, as indeed in regard to all translations
whatever, consider the question whether the translator does not give a new shade
of meaning to his text by the expression he chooses. It will be more correct
procedure to ascertain the meaning of βαστάζειν in this verse of Matthew from
the context in which the quotation occurs, than from the original meaning of
נָשָׂא —however evident the correspondence βαστάζειν = נָשָׂא superficially
regarded, may seem. And all the better, if the meaning bear away, required here
by the context for βαστάζειν,274 is not absolutely foreign to נָשָׂא —in the
sense, at least, which it has in other passages. The same favourable
circumstance does not occur in connection with ἔλαβεν, for the signification
take away, which the context demands, does not give the sense of סָבַל. In the
religious language of early Christianity the terms bear and take away, differing
from each other more or less distinctly, and often having sin as their object,
play a great part; the Synonymic275 of this usage must raise for itself the
problem of investigating words like
αἴρω,ἐξαίρω,βαστάζω,λαμβάνω,ἀναλαμβάνω,φέρω,ἀναφέρω, ὑποφέρω in theirvarious
shades of meaning.

βεβαίωσις.

“The seller was required, in general, i.e., unless the opposite was stipulated,
to deliver to the buyer the thing sold ἀναμφισβήτητον, without dispute, and had
to accept of the responsibility if claims should be raised to the thing by
others. . . . If he [the buyer], however, had obtained from the seller the
promise of guarantee” . . . he could, if claims to the thing were subsequently
raised by others, “go back upon the seller (this was called ἀνάγεινεἰςπράτην)
and summon him to confirm—as against the person now raising the claim—that he
himself had bought from him the thing now claimed, i.e., he could summon him
βεβαιῶσαι. If the seller refused to do this, then the buyer could bring against
him an action βεβαιώσεως.”276 In the language of the Attic Process, βεβαίωσις
confirmation had thus received the technical meaning of a definite obligation of
the seller, which among the Romans was termed auctoritas or eviction :277 the
seller did not only make over the thing to the buyer, but assumed the guarantee
to defend the validity of the sale against any possible claims of a third party.
Among the historians of the ancient Civil Process there exist differences of
opinion278 regarding the details of the δίκηβεβαιώσεως that might possibly be
raised by the buyer, but these are immaterial for the determination of the idea
corresponding to the word βεβαίωσις. This technical expression found admission
into Egypt in the Ptolemaic period. The Papyrus documents speak not only of the
βεβαιωτής,279 the sale-surety, the auctor secundus of Roman law, but also of the
βεβαίωσις itself: Pap. Taur. i.280 (2nd cent. B.C.), Pap. Par. 62281 (2nd cent.
B.C.)—twice in the latter passage, once in the combination as εἰςτὴνβεβαίωσιν
ὑποθῆκαι.282 How thoroughly the expression had become naturalised in Egypt is
shown by the fact that we still find the βεβαίωσις in Papyrus documents
belonging to a time which is separated from the Lagides by seven hundred years.
It is, indeed, possible that in these, as well as already in the Ptolemaic
documents, βεβαίωσις has no longer exactly the same specific meaning as it has
in the more accurate terminology of the highly-polished juristic Greek of
Attica:283 but the word is certainly used there also in the sense of guarantee,
safe-guarding of a bargain: Pap. Par. 21 bis284 (592 A.D.), Pap. Jomard285 (592
A.D.), Pap. Par. 21286 (616 A.D.). In these the formula κατὰπᾶσανβεβαίωσιν
occurs several times, and even the formula εἰςβεβαίωσιν comes before us again in
Pap. Par. 20288 (600 A.D.), having thus289 maintained itself through more than
seven hundred years. Reference has already been made by Lumbroso289 to the
striking similarity of a passage in the LXX with this idiom of Egyptian Civil
law. βεβαίωσις is found only once in the Alexandrian translation, Leviticus
25:23, but there in the characteristic formula εἰςβεβαίωσιν:
καὶἡγῆοὐπραθήσεταιεἰςβεβαίωσιν,ἐμὴγάρἐστινἡγῆ. The translation is not a literal
one, but one of great fineness and accuracy. The Israelites are but strangers
and sojourners in the land; the ground, the soil, belongs to Jahweh—therefore it
may not be sold absolutely : such is the bearing of the original לצְמִתֻת
(properly unto annihilation, i.e.,completely, for ever). Looked at
superficially, the εἰςβεβαίωσιν of the LXX is the exact opposite of the unto
annihilation of the original;290 considered properly, it testifies to an
excellent understanding of the text.291 A sale εἰςβεβαίωσιν is a definitive,
legally guaranteed sale: mere sojourners could not, of course, sell the land
which they held only in tenure,—least of all εἰς βεβαίωσιν. The reading
εἰςβεβαίωσιν292 of Codices xi., 19, 29, and others, also of the Aldine, is a
clumsy mistake of later copyists (occasioned in part by LXX Leviticus 21:4), who
only spoiled the delicately-chosen expression of the LXX by schoolboy
literalness; on the other hand, the in confirmtionem of the Vetus Latina293 is
quite correct, while the renderings of Aquila,294εἰςπαγκτησίαν, and
Symmachus,295εἰςἀλύτρωτον, though they miss the point proper, yet render the
thought fairly well. The LXX have shown the same skill in the only other passage
where this Hebrew word occurs, viz., Leviticus 25:30:
κυρωθήσεταιἡοἰκίαἡοὖσαἐνπόλειτῇἐχούσῃτεῖχος βεβαίωςτῷκτησαμένῳαὐτήν. That they
did not here make choice of the formula εἰςβεβαίωσιν, in spite of the similarity
of the original, reveals a true understanding of the matter, for, as the phrase
was primarily used only of the giving of a guarantee in concluding a bargain, it
would not have answered in this passage. The Alexandrian Christian to whom we
owe the λόγοςτῆςπαρακλήσεως in the New Testament, writes, in Hebrews 6:16,
ἄνθρωποιγὰρκατὰτοῦμείζονοςὀμνύουσινκαὶπάσηςαὐτοῖς
ἀντιλογίαςπέραςεἰςβεβαίωσινὁὅρκος. The context of the passage is permeated by
juristic expressions—as is the Epistle to the Hebrews as a whole. That this
Egyptian legal formula, persistent through hundreds of years, occurs here also,
deserves our notice. We do not need to give it the same sharply-defined sense
which it had in Attic jurisprudence (guarantee in regard to a sale):296 it must
be interpreted more generally; at all events it is still a technical expression
for a legal guarantee.297 The use of βεβαίωσις elsewhere in biblical literature
likewise appears to the author to be influenced by the technical meaning of the
word. In Wis 6:19, in the magnificent hymn298 upon wisdom, occurs the gnomic
saying προσοχὴ δὲνόμωνβεβαίωσιςἀφθαρσίας ; here νόμων suggests very plainly the
juristic conception of the word: he who keeps the laws of wisdom has the legal
guarantee of incorruption; he need have no fear that his ἀφθαρσία will be
disputed by another.

βεβαίωσις has been spoken of more definitely still by the man upon whose
juristic terminology the jurist Johannes Ortwin Westenberg was able to write an
important treatise299 a hundred and seventy years ago. Paul, in Php 1:7, says
καθώςἐστινδίκαιονἐμοὶτοῦτοφρονεῖν ὑπὲρπάντων ὑμῶνδιὰ τὸ ἔχεινμεἐντῇκαρδίᾳ ὑμᾶς
ἔντετοῖςδεσμοῖςμουκαὶἐντῇἀπολογίᾳκαὶβεβαιώσειτοῦεὐαγγελίου: he is indeed in
bonds, but he is standing on his defence, and this defence before the court will
be at the same time an evictio or convictio of the Gospel. To the forensic
expressions ἐντοῖςδεσμοῖς, and ἐντῇἀπολογίᾳ, which, of course,300 are not to be
understood as metaphorical, ἐνβεβαιώσειτοῦεὐαγγελίου corresponds very well, and
forms at the same time the final step of a very effective climax. That the
Apostle was not ignorant of the older Attic signification of βεβαίωσις is
rendered probable by a striking correspondence between the mode of expression he
uses in other passages and the terms applied to the legal ideas which are
demonstrably connoted by βεβαίωσις. Observe how Paul brackets together the
conceptions ἀρραβών and βεβαιοῦν. Harpocration, the lexicographer of the Attic
Orators, who lived in the Imperial period, writes in his lexicon,
subβεβαίωσις:301ἐνίοτεκαὶἀρραβῶνοςμονοςδοθέντοςεἶτα
ἀμφισβητήσαντοςτοῦπεπρακότοςἐλάγχανιτὴντῆςβεβαιώσεωςδίκηνὁτὸνἀρραβῶναδοὺςτῷλαβόντι.
Similarly in the ancient Λέξειςῥητορικαί, one of the Lexica Segueriana, edited
by Imm. Bekker,302subβεβαιώσεως:
δίκηςὄνομάἐστιν,ἣνἐδικάζοντοοἱὠνησάμενοικατὰτῶνἀποδομένων,ὅτεἕτερος
ἀμφισβητοῖτοῦπραθέντος,ἀξιοῦντεςβεβαιοῦναὐτοῖςτὸπραθέν˙ἐνίοτεδὲκαὶἀρραβῶνοςμόνουδοθέντος.
ἐπὶτούτο οὖνἐλάγχανοντὴντῆςβεβαιώσεωςδίκηνοἱδόντεςτὸν
ἀρραβῶνατοῖςλαβοῦσιν,ἵναβεβαιωθῇ ὑπὲροὗὁἀρραβὼνἐδόθη. Now, although doubts do
exist 303 about the possibility of basing a δίκηβεβαιώσεως upon the seller’s
acceptance of the earnest-money, still thus much is clear, viz., that, in
technical usage, ἀρραβών and βεβαιοῦν stand in an essential relation to each
other.304 It is exactly in this way that Paul speaks—his indestructible faith
representing the relation of God to believers under the image of a legally
indisputable relation, 2 Corinthians 1:21 f. :
ὁδὲβεβαιῶνἡμᾶςσὺνὑμῖνεἰςΧριστὸνκαὶχρίσαςἡμᾶςθεός,ὁκαὶσφραγισάμενος
ἡμᾶςκαὶδοὺςτὸνἀρραβῶνατοῦπνεύματοςἐνταῖςκαρδίαιςἡμῶν. Apt as is the metaphor
itself, intelligible as it would be in this verse and in 2 Corinthians 5:5,
particularly to the Christians of that great commercial centre, it is in form
equally apt. The Apostle, of course, could have chosen another verb305 equally
well, without rendering the image unintelligible, but the technical word makes
the image still more effective. A patristic remark upon the passage in
question306 shows us, further, how a Greek reader could fully appreciate the
specific nature of the metaphor: ὁγὰρἀρραβὼνεἴωθεβεβαιοῦντὸπᾶνσύνταγμα.

Hence we shall not err in construing βεβαιόω307 and βέβαιος,308 even where they
occur elsewhere in the writings of Paul and his circle, from this standpoint,
and especially as these words sometimes occur among other juristic expressions.
By our taking confirm and sure in the sense of legally guaranteed security, the
statements in which they occur gain in decisiveness and force. Symmachus 309
uses βεβαίωσις once: LXXPsalms 89:25 [MT Psalms 89:25] for אֱמוּנָה (LXX
ἀλήθεια).

γένημα.310

Very common in the LXX for the produce of the land; so also in the Synoptists:
its first occurrence not in Polybius;311 it is already found in connection with
Egypt in Pap. Flind. Petr. i. xvi. 2312 (230 B.C.): τὰγενήματατῶν ὑπαρχόντωνμοι
παραδείσων, and in several other passages of the same age.313 γογγύζω.

Very familiar in the LXX, also in Paul,314 Synopt., John; authenticated in the
subsequent extra-biblical literature only by Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus;4 but
already used in the sense of murmur in Pap. Flind. Petr. ii. ix. 3315 (241-239
B.C.);

καὶτὸπλήρωμα (men) γογγύζειφάμενοιἀδικεῖσθαι.

γραμματεύς. In the O.T. the person designated scribe ( סֹפֵרand שׂטֵר) is
generally the official. The LXX translate verbally—γραμματεύς—even in those
passages where scribe seems to be used in the military sense, i.e., of officers.
One might conjecture that in this they were slavishly subjecting themselves to
the original, the employment of γραμματεύς in the military sense being foreign
to ordinary Greek usage. But their, rendering is altogether correct from their
own point of view: in Egyptian Greek γραμματεύς is used as the designation of an
officer. In Pap. Par. 63316 (165 B.c.) we find the γραμματεὺςτῶνμαχίμων, and in
Pap. Lond. xxiii.317 (158-157 B.c,) the γραμματεὺςτῶνδυνάμεων. This technical
meaning318 of the word was familiar to the Alexandrian translators. So, e.g., 2
Chronicles 26:11, where the γραμματεύς stands with the διάδοχος ;319cf. also LXX
Jer. 44꞉15 [MT Jeremiah 37:15]320—if Jonathan the scribe, in this passage, is an
officer. Similarly Judges 5:14321 The following passages, again, are of great
interest as showing indubitably that the translators employed the technical term
as they had learned its use in their locality. The Hebrew of 2 Kings 25:19 is
almost verbally repeated in Jeremiah 52:25, as is 2 Kings 24:18, 2 Kings 25:30
as a whole in Jeremiah 52:1-34. The Book of Kings speaks here of the scribe, the
captain of the host.322 But in our text of Jeremiah we read (the article is
wanting before סֹפֵר) the scribe of the captain of the host. The LXX translate
the first passage by τὸνγραμματέα323τοῦἄρχοντοςτῆςδυνάμεως, as if they had had
our text of Jeremiah before them; Jeremiah 52:25, on the other hand, they render
by τὸνγραμματέατῶνδυνάμεων, which agrees in sense with the traditional text of 2
Kings 25:19. Now, without having the least desire to decide the question as to
the meaning of סֹפֵר in the Hebrew O.T., or as to the original text of the above
two passages, the author yet thinks it plain that the LXX believed that they had
before them, in Jeremiah 52:25,324 the γραμματεὺςτῶνδυνάμεων now known to us
from the London Papyrus, not some sort of scribe of the commander-in-chief
(Generalcommando).325 The choice of the plural δυνάμεων, which was not forced
upon them by the singular of the original, is to be explained only by the fact
that they were adopting a long-established and fixed connection.

Isaiah 36:22 is a most instructive case. Our Hebrew text has simply a סֹפֵר,
there, without any addition; the LXX however, transfer him to the army with the
rank of the γραμματεὺςτῆςδυνάμεως: they understood scribe to denote a military
rank.326 The military meaning of γραμματεύς has been preserved in 1Ma 5:42; 327
probably also in Symmachus Judges 5:14,328 LXX Jer. 44꞉15 [MT Jeremiah 37:15]329
γράφω.

“In the sphere of Divine Revelation the documents belonging to it assume this330
regulative position, and the γέγραπται always implies an appeal to the
incontestable regulative authority of the dictum quoted.”331 “The New Testament
usage of ἡγραφή . . . implies the same idea as is stamped upon the usage of the
γέγραπται, viz., a reference to the regulative character of the particular
document as a whole, which character gives it a unique position, in virtue of
which ἡγραφή is always spoken of as an authority.”332 In this explanation of
terms Cremer has, without doubt, accurately defined the bases not only of “New
Testament” usage but of the general idea that regulative authority belongs to
scripture. Should the question be asked, whence it comes that the conception of
Holy Scripture has been bound up with the idea of its absolute authority, the
answer can only be a reference to the juristic idea of scripture, which was
found ready to hand and was applied to the sacred documents. A religion of
documents—considered even historically—is a religion of law. It is a
particularly instructive, though commonly overlooked, fact in connection with
this juristic conception of the biblical documents that the LXX translate
תּוֹרָה by νόμος in the great majority of passages, although the two ideas are
not by any means identical; and that they have thus made a law out of a
teaching.333 It is indeed probable that in this they had been already influenced
by the mechanical conception of Scripture of early Rabbinism, but, in regard to
form, they certainly came under the sway of the Greek juristic language. Cremer
has given a series of examples from older Greek of this use of γράφειν in
legislative work,334 and uses these to explain the frequently-occurring
“biblical” γέγραπται. This formula of quotation is, however, not “biblical”
only, but is found also in juristic Papyrus documents of the Ptolemaic period
and in Inscriptions: Pap. Rind. Petr. xxx. a;335 further—and this is most
instructive for the frequent καθὼςγέγραπται of the biblical authors336—in the
formula καθότιγέγραπται: Pap. Par. 13337 (probably 157 B.C.); Pap. Lugd. 0338(89
B.C.); Inscription of Mylasa in Caria, Waddington, iii. 2, No. 416 = CIG. ii.,
No. 2693 e (beginning of the imperial period);339 Inscription from the
neighbourhood of Mylasa, Waddington, iii. 2, No. 483 (imperial period?): in
spite of mutilation the formula is still legible in four passages here;—and in
the formula καθὰγέγραπται, Pap. Par. 7 340 (2nd or 1st cent. B.C.), cf.
κατ(τ)τάπερ . . .γέγραπ[τοι] in line 50 f. of the architectural Inscription of
Tegea (ca. 3rd cent. B.C.)341—in all of which reference is made to a definite
obligatory clause of the document quoted.342 Further examples in III. iii. 5
below. That the juristic conception of sacred writings was familiar to the
Alexandrian translators is directly shown by Ep. Arist. (ed. M. Schmidt), p.
681ff. : when the translation of the Bible into Greek was finished, then, καθὼς
ἔθοςαὐτοῖς
ἐστινεἴτιςδιασκευάσειπροστιθεὶςἢμεταφέρωντιτὸσύνολοντῶνγεγραμμένωνἢποιούμενοςἀφαίρεσιν,343
he was threatened with a curse. According to this the Greek Bible was placed
under the legal point of view which forbade the altering of a document; this
principle is not universal in Greek law,344 but the Apostle Paul gives evidence
for it, when, in Galatians 3:15, arguing e concessis, he says that a
διαθήκηκεκυρωμένη can neither be made void345 nor have anything added to it.
Speaking from the same point of view, the advocate Tertullian—to give another
very clear example of the further development of the juristic conception of
biblical authority—describes, adv.Mark 4:2 and elsewhere, the individual
portions of the New Testament as instruments, i.e., as legally valid
documents.346

διάδοχος and διαδεχόμενος.

διάδοχος occurs in the LXX only in 1 Chronicles 18:17, as the equivalent of
לְיַד, 2 Chronicles 26:11 as the translation of מִשְׁנֶה, and 2 Chronicles 28:7
as the translation of שַׂר. In none of these three passages is διάδοχος, in its
ordinary sense of successor, an accurate rendering of the original. It has
therefore been asserted by Schleusner347 that διάδοχος corresponds to the Hebrew
words, and thus means something like proximus a rege; he refers to Philo, de
Josepho, M. pp. 58 and 64. Similarly Grimm,348 in reference to 2Ma 4:29, has, on
account of the context, rejected the meaning successor for that passage and 2Ma
14:26; cf. also 2Ma 4:31ιαδεχόμενος. This supposition is confirmed by Pap. Taur.
(1. 15 and 6)349 (2nd cent. B.C.), in which οἱπερὶαὐλὴνδιάδοχοι and οἱδιάδοχοι
are higher officials at the court of the Ptolemies;350διάδοχος is thus an
Egyptian court-title.351 The Alexandrian translators of the Book of Chronicles
and the Alexandrian Philo used the word in this technical sense, and the second
Book of Maccabees (compiled from Jason of Cyrene) also manifests a knowledge of
the usage.

Allied to the technical meaning of διάδοχος is that of the participle
διάδοχος,3522 Chronicles 31:12 and Esther 10:3, as the translation of the
מִשְׁנֶה of the original: so 2Ma 4:31.

δίκαιος. The LXX render צַדִּיק or the genitival צֶדֶק by δίκαιος in almost
every case, and their translation is accurate even for those passages in which
the conception normal353 (which lies at the basis of the Hebrew words) has been
preserved most purely, i.e., where correct measures are described as just.354
That they did not translate mechanically in these cases appears from Proverbs
11:1, where they likewise render the weight there described as שׁלֵםfull, by
σταθμίονδίκαιον.355 There can be established also for Greek a usage similar to
the Semitic,356 but it will be better in this matter to refer to Egyptian usage
than to Xenophon and others,357 who apply the attribute δίκαιος to ἵππος,βοῦς,
etc., when these animals correspond to what is expected of them. Thus in the
decree of the inhabitants of Busiris,358 drawn up in honour of the emperor Nero,
the rise of the Nile is called a δικαίαἀνάβασις ; but more significant—because
the reference is to a measure —is the observation of Clemens Alexandrinus,
Strom. vi. 4 (p. 758, Potter), that, in Egyptian ceremonies, the πῆχυς
τῆςδικαιοσύνης was carried around—i.e., a correct cubit.359 That is the same
idiom as the LXX apply in the ζυγὰδίκαιακαὶσταθμίαδίκαιακαὶχοῦςδίκαιος,
Leviticus 19:36, in the μέτρον ἀληθινὸνκαὶδίκαιον, Deuteronomy 25:15, and in the
χοῖνιξδικαία, Ezekiel 45:10.

διῶρυξ. The LXX translate floodIsaiah 27:12, streamIsaiah 33:21, and river LXX
Jer. 38꞉9 [MT Jeremiah 31:9], by διῶρυξcanal. They have thus Egyptianised the
original. Such a course was perhaps quite natural in the first passage, where
the reference is to the “flood of Egypt”: noticing that stream and river were
metaphorically used in the other two passages, they made the metaphors more
intelligible to the Alexandrians by giving them a local colouring—just as was
shown above in the case of ἄφεσις.

εἰς.

“The prepositional construction came easily to the N.T. writers probably because
of the more forcible and more expressive diction of their native tongue, and we
therefore find εἰς in places where the Dat. commodi or incommodi would have
sufficed for the Greeks, e.g., Acts 24:17 : ἐλεημοσύναςποιήσωνεἰςτὸ ἔθνοςμου . .
.” 360 In answer to this it must, to begin with, be remarked that “the” New
Testament writers were not the first to find the usage a natural one, for it is
already found in the Greek Old Testament. The author is not now examining the
use of εἰς in that book, but he can point to the following passages, in which
εἰς represents the “dative of advantage”: LXX Bel361, ὅσαεἰςαὐτὸν [Bel]
δαπανᾶται, Acts 24:22, τὴν δαπάνηντὴνεἰςαὐτόν [Bel], with which is to be
compared Acts 24:2, ἀνηλίσκετοαὐτῷ362 [Bel]; Ep. Jeremiah 9:1-26 (ἀργύριον) εἰς
ἑαυτοὺςκαταναλοῦσι; Sir 37:7, συμβουλεύωνεἰςἑαυτόν ( = Sir 37:8,
ἑαυτῷβουλεύσεται). In all these passages the original is wanting, but it seems
certain to the author that what we find here is not one of the LXX’s many363
Hebraisms in the use of prepositions, but that this employment of eic is an
Alexandrian idiom. In Pap. Flind. Petr. xxv. a-i364 (ca. 226 B.C.) and
elsewhere, we have a number of receipts, from the standing formulm of which it
appears that els was used to specify the various purposes of the items of an
account. Thus the receipt α365 runs: ὁμολογεῖΚεφάλωνἡνίοχος ἔχεινπαρὰΧάρμου. . .
. εἰς αὐτὸνκαὶἡνιόχους ζʹ . . . ἄρτωνκαθαρῶνβʹχοίνικας . . . .
καὶεἰςἱπποκόμουςιγʹἄρτωναὐτοπύρων . . . κςʹ i.e., Kephalon the charioteer
certifies that he has received from Charmos for himself and 7 other charioteers,
2 choenices of pure bread, and for 13 grooms, 26 measures of bran bread.
Further, εἰς stands before non-personal words in the same way:
καὶεἰςἵππονἐνοχλούμενον. εἰςχρῖσινἐλαίουκˋγʹ και . . . εἰςλύχνους κίκεωςκˋβʹ,
i.e., and for a, sick horse 3 cotylas of oil for rubbing in, and for the lantern
2 cotylas of Kiki-oil. Still more clear is the passage from the contract Pap.
Par.5 366 (114 B.C.) καὶτὸνεἰςΤάγηνοἶκονᾠκοδομημένον. Further examples in III.
iii. 1, below. The same usage of εἰς, the examples of which may be increased
from the Papyri, is found specially clearly in Paul: 1 Corinthians
16:1τῆςλογείαςτῆςεἰςτοὺςἁγίους, similarly 2 Corinthians 8:4, 2 Corinthians 9:1,
2 Corinthians 9:13 , Romans 15:26; cf. Acts 24:17; Mark 8:19 f. should probably
be explained in the same way.

ἐκτὸς εἰμὴ. The commonly cited examples, from Lucian, etc., of this jumbled
phrase,367 long since recognised as late-Greek, in the Cilician Paul (1
Corinthians 14:5, 1 Corinthians 15:2, cf.1 Timothy 5:19) are not so instructive
for its use as is the passage of an Inscription of Mopsuestia in Cilicia,
Waddington, iii. 2, No. 1499 (the author cannot fix the date ; certainly the
imperial period): ἐκτὸςεἰμὴ [ἐ]ὰνΜάγναμόνηθε[λή]σῃ.

ἐν. The ignoring of the difference between translations of Semitic originals and
works which were in Greek from the first—a difference of fundamental importance
for the grammar (and the lexicon) of the “biblical” writers—has nowhere such
disastrous consequences as in connection with the preposition. The author
considers that he has previously shown, by a not unimportant example, what a
difference there is between a peculiarity of syntax in the originally-Greek
Epistles of Paul and the apparently similar phenomenon in Greek translations. A
similar fact may be observed with regard to the question of ἐν with the dativus
instrumenti. Winer-Lunemann368 still maintains that ἐν is used “of the
instrument and means (chiefly in the Apocalypse)—not only (as in the better
Greek prose-writers. . . .) where in (or on) would be proper enough . . . , but
also, rrespectiveof this, where in Greek the dative alone, as casus
instrumentalis, would be used—as an after-effect of the Hebrew בְּ ”. Similarly
A. Buttmann.369 In their enumeration of the examples—in so far as these can come
into consideration at all —both writers, in neglecting this difference, commit
the error of uncritically placing passages from the Gospels and the Apocalypse,
in regard to which one may speak of a Semitic influence, i.e., of a possible
Semitic original, alongside of, say, Pauline passages, without, however, giving
any indication of how they imagine the “after-effect” of the בְּ to have
influenced Paul. Thus Winer-Lunemann quotes Romans 15:6ἐνἑνὶστόματιδοξάζητε, and
Buttmann,3701 Corinthians 4:21ἐνῥάβδῳ ἔλθωπρὸς ὑμᾶς, as Pauline examples of ἐν
with the instrumental dative. The author believes that both passages are capable
of another explanation, and that, as they are the only ones that can be cited
with even an appearance of reason, this use of ἐν by Paul cannot be made out.
For, to begin with, the passage in Romans is one of those “where in would be
proper enough,” i.e., where the reference to its primary sense of location is
fully adequate to explain it, and it is thus quite superfluous to make for such
instances a new compartment in the dust-covered repository; the Romans are to
glorify God in one mouth—because, of course, words are formed in the mouth, just
as, according to popular psychology, thoughts dwell in the heart. In 1
Corinthians 4:21, again, the case seems to be more favourable for the view of
Buttmann, for the LXX frequently use the very construction ἐντῇῥάβδῳ; what more
easy than to maintain that “the” biblical Greek uses this construction
instrumentally throughout? But here also we perceive very clearly the difference
between the diction of the translators as cramped by their original, and, the
un-constrained language of Paul. In all the passages of the LXX Genesis 32:10,
Exodus 17:5, Exodus 21:20, LXX 1Ki. 17꞉43 [MT 1 Samuel 17:43], LXX 2 Kings 23:21
[MT 2 Samuel 7:14, 2 Samuel 23:21], 1 Chronicles 11:23, Psalms 2:9 LXX Psa.
88꞉33 [MT Psalms 89:33], Isaiah 10:24, Micah 5:1, Micah 7:14; cf. Ezekiel 39:9,
also Hosea 4:12, where ἐνῥάβδοις is conformed to the previous ἐν [= בְּ]
συμβόλοις) the ἐν, of the phrase ἐν τῇῥάβδῳ is a mechanical imitation of a בְּ
in the original: it cannot therefore be maintained in any way that that
construction is peculiar to the indigenous Alexandrian Greek. With Paul, on the
contrary, ἐνῥάβδῳ is anticipatively conformed to the following locative
ἢἐνἀγάπῃπνεύματίτε πραΰτητος ; it is but a loose formation of the moment, and
cannot be deduced from any law of syntax. It is, of course, not impossible that
this anticipative conformation came the more easily to the Apostle, who knew his
Greek Bible, because one or other of those passages of the LXX may have
hovered371 before his mind, but it is certainly preposterous to speak of the
“after-effect” of a בְּ. Where in Paul’s psychology of language may this
powerful particle have had its dwelling-place?

ἐνταφιαστής. The LXX correctly translate רֹפֵא physician by ἰατρός ; only in
Genesis 50:2 f. by ἐνταφιαστής. The original speaks in that passage of the
Egyptian physicians who embalmed the body of Jacob. The translation is not
affected by the verb ἐνταφιάζειν simply, but is explained by the endeavour to
introduce a term better suited to Egyptian conditions: it was, of course, an
embalming in Egypt. But the professional designation of the person372 entrusted
with this work was ἐνταφιαστής, Pap. Par. 7 373 (99 B.C.). Those sections of the
Old Testament the scene of which was laid in Egypt, or which had regard to
Egyptian conditions, naturally gave the translators most occasion to use
Egyptianised expressions.

ἐντυγχάνω, ἔντευξις,ἐντυχία. In the New Testament writings ἔντευξις is used only
in 1 Timothy 2:1 and 1 Timothy 4:5, having in both passages the sense of
petitionary prayer. This usage is commonly explained374 by the employment of the
word in the sense of petition which is found in extra-biblical literature from
the time of Diodorus and Josephus. The Papyri375 show that in Egypt it had been
long familiar in technical language: “ ἔντευξιςest ipsa petitio seu voce
significata, seu in scripto libello expressa, quam supplex subditus offert ; . .
. vocem Alexandrini potissimum usurpant ad designandas petitiones vel Regi, vel
iis, qui regis nomine rempublicam moderantur, exhibitas”.376 This explanation
has been fully confirmed by the newly-discovered Papyri of the Ptolemaic
period.377 The technical meaning also occurs in Ep. Arist. (ed. M. Schmidt), p.
583; A. Peyron, who has previously drawn attention to this passage, finds it
also in 2Ma 4:8—probably without justification.

ἐντυχία is found in the same sense in Pap. Lond. xliv.3 378(161 B.C.) and 3Ma.
6:40—in both passages in the idiomatic phrase ἐντυχίανποιεῖσθαι. The verb
ἐντυγχάνω379a has the corresponding technical meaning; the correlative term for
the king’s giving an answer is χρηματίζειν.379b Both the verb and the
substantive are frequently combined with κατά and ὑπέρ, according to whether the
memorial expresses itself against or for some one; cf. the Pauline
ὑπερεντυγχάνω, Rom. 8:26.

ἐργοδιώκτης. This word, common in the LXX, but hitherto not authenticated
elsewhere, is vouched for by Pap. Flind. Petr. ii. iv. i.380 (255-254 B.C.) as a
technical term for overseer of work, foreman. Philo, who uses it later, de Vit.
Mos. i. 7 (M., p. 86), can hardly have found it in the LXX first of all, but
rather in the current vocabulary of his time. It is in use centuries later in
Alexandria: Origen381 jestingly calls his friend Ambrosius his ἐργοδιώκτης. Even
he would not originally get the expression from the LXX.382 εὐΐλατος.

Occurring only in LXX Psalms 98:8 [MT Psalms 99:8] (representing נֵשֹׁא) and
[3]1Es 8:53383 = very favourable: already exemplified in Pap. Flind. Petr. xiii.
19384 (ca. 255 B.C.); observe that it is the same phrase τυχεῖντινοςεὐϊλάτου
which is found here and in the passage in Esd. See la furtherexample, iii. 6,
subβιάζομαι, below.

εὐχαριστέω. In regard to the passive,3852 Corinthians 1:11, Pap. Flind. Petr.
ii. ii. 4 386 (260-259 B.C.) is instructive; it is difficult, however, to settle
what the εὐχαριστηθείς in this passage refers to, owing to mutilation of the
leaf.

τὸθεμέλιον. In deciding the question whether θεμέλιον is to be construed as
masculine or neuter in passages where the gender of the word is not clearly
determined, attention is usually called to the fact that the neuter form is
first found in Pausanius (2nd cent. A.D.). But it occurs previously in Pap.
Flind. Petr. ii. xiv. 3 387 (Ptolemaic period). Cf. also τὸθεμέλιον of an
unknown translator of Leviticus 4:18388 From this, the possibility, at least, of
taking it as neuter, in the nondecisive passages389Sir 1:15, Romans 15:20,
Ephesians 2:20, Luke 6:48 f., Luke 14:29 , 1 Timothy 6:19, Hebrews 6:1, may be
inferred.

ἴδιος. The LXX not seldom (Genesis 47:18, Deuteronomy 15:2, Job 2:11, Job 7:10,
Job 7:13, Proverbs 6:2, Proverbs 13:8, Proverbs 16:23, Proverbs 27:8, Daniel
1:10) translate the possessive pronoun (as a suffix) by ἴδιος, though the
connection does not require the giving of such an emphasis to the particular
possessive relation. Such passages as Job 24:12, Proverbs 9:12, Proverbs 22:7,
Proverbs 27:15, might be considered stranger still, where the translator adds
ἴδιος, though the Hebrew text does not indicate a possessive relation at all,
nor the context require the emphasising of any. This special prominence is,
however, only apparent, and the translation (or addition) is correct. We have
here probably the earliest examples of the late-Greek use of ἴδιος for the
genitives ἑαυτοῦ, and ἑαυτῶν employed as possessives, a usage which can be
pointed to in Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Philo, Josephus and Plutarch,390 and
in the Attic Inscriptions391 subsequent to 69 B.C. This usage is also confirmed
by the Apocryphal books of the O.T., specially by those in Greek from the first,
and it influences the New Testament writers,392 and especially Paul, much more
strongly than is implied by Winer-Luemann.393 Exegetes have, in many places,
laid a stress upon the ἴδιος which, in the text, does not belong to it at all.
In consideration of the very widely-extended use of the exhausted ἴδιος in the
post-classical age, it will, in point of fact, be the most proper course in
exegesis always to assume it primarily as most probable, and to take ἴδιος in
the old sense only when the context absolutely requires it. A specially
instructive example is 1 Corinthians 7:2, διὰδὲτὰςπορνείαςἕκαστοςτὴν
ἑαυτοῦγυναῖκαἐχέτωκαὶἑκάστητὸνἴδιονἄνδραἐχέτω : ἴδιος is here used only for the
sake of variety and is exactly equivalent to the ἑαυτοῦ.

ἱλαστήριος and ἱλαστήριον. Of all the errors to be found in exegetical and
lexical literature, that of imagining that ἱλαστήριον in the LXX is identical in
meaning with כַּפֹּרֶת, cover (of the ark of the covenant), and that therefore
the word with them means propitiatory cover (Luther Gnadenstuhl), is one of the
most popular, most pregnant with results, and most baneful. Its source lies in
the fact that the LXX’s frequent external verbal equation, viz., ἱλαστήριον =
kappōreth, has been inconsiderately taken as an equation of ideas. But the
investigation cannot proceed upon the assumption of this identification of
ideas. We must rather, as in all cases where the Greek expression is not
congruent with the Hebrew original, begin here by establishing the difference,
and then proceed with an attempt to explain it. In the present case our position
is happily such that we can give the explanation with some certainty, and that
the wider philologico-historical conditions can be ascertained quite as clearly.
To begin with, it is altogether inaccurate to assert that the LXX
translatekappōreth by ἱλαστήριον. They first encountered the word in Exodus
25:16 [17]: and thou shalt make a kappōreth of pure gold. The Greek translator
rendered thus: καὶποιήσειςἱλαστήριονἐπίθεμα394χρυσίουκαθαροῦ. His rendering of
kappōreth is therefore not ἱλαστήριον, but ἱλαστήριονἐπίθεμα; he understood
kappōreth quite well, and translates it properly by cover,395 but he has
elucidated the word, used technically in this place, by a theological adjunct
which is not incorrect in substance.396ἐπίθεμα is doubtless a translation of
kappōreth the word; ἱλαστήριονἐπίθεμα is a rendering of kappōreth the religious
concept. How then are we to understand this theological gloss upon the Hebrew
word? ἱλαστήριον is not a substantive,397 but, as in 4Ma. 17:22 (if
τοῦἱλαστηρίουθανάτου is to be read here with the Alexandrinus), an adjective,
and signifies of use for propitiation. The same theological gloss upon the
ceremonial kappōreth is observed when, in the Greek translation of the
Pentateuch 398 —first in the passages immediately following upon Exodus 25:16
[17]and also later—it is rendered, breviloquently,399 by the simple ἱλαστήριον
instead of ἱλαστήριονεπίθεμα. The word is now a substantive and signifies
something like propitiatory article. It does not mean cover, nor even
propitiatory cover, but for the concept cover it substitutes another, which only
expresses the ceremonial purpose of the article. The kappōreth was for the
translators a σύμβολοντῆςἵλεωτοῦθεοῦδυνάμεως, as Philo, de vit. Mos. iii. 8 (M.,
p. 150), speaking from the same theological stand-point, explains it, and
therefore they named this symbol ἱλαστήριον. Any other sacred article having
some connection with propitiation might in the very same way be brought under
the general conception ἱλαστήριον, and have the latter substituted for it, i.e.,
if what was required was not a translation but a theological paraphrase. And
thus it is of the greatest possible significance that the LXX actually do make a
generalising gloss400 upon another quite different religious conception by
ἱλαστήριον, viz., עֲזָרָה, the ledge of the altar, Ezekiel 43:14, Ezekiel 43:17,
Ezekiel 43:20; it also, according to Ezekiel 43:20, had to be sprinkled with the
blood of the sin-offering, and was therefore a kind of propitiatory
article—hence the theologising rendering of the Greek translators. ἱλαστήριον
here also means neither ledge nor ledge of propitiation, but
propitiatoryarticle. The proof of the fact that the LXX did not identify the
conceptἱλαστήριον with kappōreth and ‘azarah can be supplemented by the
following observed facts. The two words paraphrased by ἱλαστήριον have other
renderings as well. In Exodus 26:34 the original runs, and thou shalt put the
kappōreth upon the ark of the testimony in the most holy place; LXX
καὶκατακαλύψειςτῷκαταπετάσματιτὴνκιβωτὸν τοῦμαρτυρίουἐντῷἁγίῳτῶνἁγίων. According
to Cremer, the LXX have not translated the Hebrew word here at all—let alone by
καταπέτασμα. But it is without doubt a more correct conjecture that they read
not כַּפֹּרֶת but פָּרֹכֶת curtain, and thus did translate the Hebrew word.401
This conjecture is, however, in no way absolutely necessary; the author thinks
it not at all impossible that the LXX read kappōreth, and translated it by
καταπέτασμα, just as they did, at its first occurrence, by ἐπίθεμα. More
significant is 1 Chronicles 28:11, where house of the kappōreth is rendered by
ὁοἶκοςτοῦἐξιλασμοῦ: this also is a theological gloss, not a verbal translation
of the original.402 It may be regarded as specially significant that the
ceremonial word should thus be glossed in two different ways. Similarly, ’azārah
in Ezekiel 45:19 is paraphrased403 by τὸἱερόν, and, in 2 Chronicles 4:9 and 2
Chronicles 6:13, translated by αὐλή.

It thus seems clear to the author that it is not correct to take the LXX’s
equation of words as being an equation of ideas. ἱλαστήριον, for the
translators, signified propitiatory article, even where they used it for
kappōreth. Philo still had a clear conception of the state of the matter. It is
not correct to assert404 that, following the example of the LXX, he describes
kappōreth as ἱλαστήριον: he describes it correctly as ἐπίθεματῆςκιβωτοῦ, and
remarks further that it is called ἱλαστήριον in the Bible: De Vit. Mos. iii. 8
(M. p. 150) ἡδὲκιβωτὸς . . . , ἧςἐπίθεμαὡσανεὶπῶματὸ
λεγόμεονονἐνἱεραῖςβίβλιοςἱλαστήριον, and, further on in the same work,
τὸδὲἀπίθεματὸπροσαγορευόμενονἱλαστήριονDe Profug. 19 (M. p. 561) . .
.τὸἀπίθεματῆςκιβωτοῦ,καλεῖ δὲαὐτὸἱλαστήριον. Philo manifestly perceived that the
ἱλαστήριον of the Greek Bible was an altogether peculiar designation, and
therefore expressly distinguishes it as such: he puts the word, so to speak, in
quotation-marks. Thus also, in De Cherub. 8 (M. p. 143), καὶγὰρἀντιπρόσωπάφασιν
εἶναινεύονταπρὸςτὸἱλαστήριονἑτέροις is clearly an allusion to LXX Exodus 25:20
[21], and, instead of saying that Philo here describes the kappōreth as
ἱλαστήριον,405 we should rather say that he, following the LXX, asserts that the
cherubim over-shadow the ἱλαστήριον.406 How little one is entitled to speak of a
“Sprachgebrauch” 407 (usage, or, habit of speech), viz., ἱλαστήριον = kappōreth,
is shown by the fact that Symmachus in Genesis 6:16 [15] twice renders the Ark
of Noah by ἱλαστήριον and that Josephus, Ant. xvi. 71, speaks of a monument of
white stone as a ἱλαστήριον : περίφοβοςδ’αὐτὸςἐξῄεικαὶτοῦ
δέουςἱλαστήριονμνῆμαλευκῆςπέτραςἐπὶτῷστομίῳκατεσκευάσατο, which must certainly
be translated: he set up a monument of white stone as aἱλαστήριον.408

What, then, is the meaning of ἱλαστήριον in the important “Christological”
statement Romans 3:25 ? Paul says there of Jesus Christ,
ὃνπορέθετοὁθεὸςἱλαστήριονδιὰπίστεωςἐν τῷαὐτοῦαἵματιεἰς
ἔνδειξιντῆςδικαιοσύνηςαὐτοῦ. It has been said that the Roman readers could
hardly have known the expression from any other source than the Greek Bible.409
But, even if this assumption were correct, it still requires to be proved that
they could have learned from the Greek Bible that ἱλαστήριον means the
kappōreth; besides, the primary question must be: what did the term signify to
Paul himself? The author believes that even the context requires us to reject
the opinion that the Apostle is describing the crucified Christ as “a”
410kappōreth. Had the Cross been so named, then the metaphor might possibly be
understood; as used of a person, it is infelicitous and unintelligible; further,
Christ, the end of the law, Christ, of whom Paul has just said that He is the
revealer of the δικαιοσύνηθεοῦχωρὶςνόμου, would hardly be named by the same
Paul, in the same breath, as the cover of the ark of testimony: the metaphor
were as unlike Paul as possible. But the whole assumption of the explanation in
question is without support: no “Sprachgebrauch,” according to which one had to
understand ἱλαστήριον as the kappōreth, ever existed either in the LXX or later.
Hence this explanation of the passage in Romans has long encountered opposition.
Again, it is a popular interpretation to take ἱλαστήριον as equivalent to
propitiatory sacrifice, after the analogy of σωτήριον, χαριστήριον, καθάρσιον,
etc., in connection with which θῦμα is to be supplied. However difficult it
would be to find examples of the word being used in this sense,411 there is no
objection to it linguistically. But it is opposed by the context; it can hardly
be said of a sacrifice that God πορέθετο it. The more general explanation
therefore, which of late has been advocated again, specially by B.
Weiss,412viz., means of propitiation, is to be preferred: linguistically it is
the most obvious; it is also presupposed in the “usage” of the LXX, and
admirably suits the connection—particularly in the more special sense of
propitiatory gift which is to be referred to just below. Hitherto the word in
this sense had been noted only in Dion Chrysostom (1-2 cent. A.D.), Or. xi. p.
355 (Reinke), καταλείψεινγὰραὐτοὺςἀνάθημακάλλιστονκαὶμέγιστοντῇ
Ἀθηνᾷκαὶἐπιγράψειν˙ἱλαστήριονἈχαιοὶτῇἸλιάδι—and in later authors. The word here
means a votive gift, which was brought to the deities in order to induce them to
be favourable413—a propitiatory gift. Even one such example would be sufficient
to confirm the view of the passage in Romans advocated above. Its evidential
value is not decreased, but rather increased, by the fact that it is taken from
a “late” author. It would surely be a mechanical notion of statistical facts to
demand that only such concepts in “profane” literature as can be authenticated
before, e.g., the time of Paul, should be available for the explanation of the
Pauline Epistles. For this would be to uphold the fantastic idea that the first
occurrence of a word in the slender remains of the ancient literature must be
identical with the earliest use of it in the history of the Greek language, and
to overlook the fact that the annoying caprice of statistics may, in most cases,
rather tend to delude the pedants who entertain such an idea. In the case before
us, however, a means has been found of removing the objection to the “lateness”
of the quotation: ἱλαστήριον in the assigned meaning is found also before the
time of Paul—occurring as it does in a place at which the Apostle certainly
touched in his travels (Acts 21:1): the Inscription of Cos No. 81414 reads
thus:—

ὁδᾶμος ὑπὲρτᾶςἀτοκράτορος

Καίσαρος

θεοῦυἱοῦ414bΣεβαστοῦσωτηρίας

θεοῖςἱλατήριον. This Inscription is found on a statue or on the base of a
statue,415—at all events on a votive-gift which the “people” of Cos erected to
the gods as a ἱλαστήριον for the welfare of the “son of God,” Augustus. That is
exactly the same use of the word as we find later in Dion Chrysostom, and the
similarity of the respective formulae is evident. The word is used in the same
way in the Inscription of Cos No. 347,416 which the author cannot date exactly,
but which certainly falls within the imperial period: it occurs upon the
fragment of a pillar:—

[ὁδᾶμοςὁἉλεντίων] . . . . . Σε]βα-

σ[τ]ῷΔιΐΣ[τ]ρατίῳἱλασ- τήριονδαμαρχεῦν- τοςΓαΐουΝωρ- βανοῦΜοσχίω-
νο[σφι]λοκαίσα- ρος

Thus much, then, can be derived from these three passages, as also from
Josephus, viz., that, early in the imperial period, it was a not uncommon custom
to dedicate propitiatory gifts to the Gods, which were called ἱλαστήρια. The
author considers it quite impossible that Paul should not have known the word in
this sense: if he had not already become familiar with it by living in Cilicia,
he had certainly read it here and there in his wanderings through the empire,
when he stood before the monuments of paganism and pensively contemplated what
the piety of a dying civilisation had to offer to its known or unknown Gods.
Similarly, the Christians of the capital, whether one sees in them, as the
misleading distinction goes, Jewish Christians or Heathen Christians, would know
what a ἱλαστήριον was in their time. To suppose that, in consequence of their
“magnificent knowledge of the Old Testament,” 417 they would immediately think
of the kappōreth, is to overlook two facts. First, that the out-of-the-way418
passages referring to the ἱλαστήριον may very well have remained unknown even to
a Christian who was conversant with the LXX: how many Bible readers of to-day,
nay, how many theologians of to-day—who, at least, should be Bible readers,—if
their readings have been unforced, and not desecrated by sideglances towards
“Ritschlianism” or towards possible examination questions, are acquainted with
the kappōreth? The second fact overlooked is, that such Christians of the
imperial period as were conversant with those passages, naturally understood the
ἱλαστήριον in the sense familiar to them, not in the alleged sense of
propitiatory cover—just as a Bible reader of to-day, unspoiled by theology,
finding the word Gnadenstuhl (mercy-seat) in Luther, would certainly never think
of a cover. That the verb προέθετο admirably suits the ἱλαστήριον taken as
propitiatory gift, in the sense given to it in the Greek usage of the imperial
period, requires no proof. God has publicly set forth the crucified Christ in
His blood in view of the Cosmos—to the Jews a stumbling block, to the Gentiles
foolishness, to Faith a ἱλαστήριον. The crucified Christ is the votive-gift of
the Divine Love for the salvation of men. Elsewhere it is human hands which
dedicate to the Deity a dead image of stone in order to gain His favour; here
the God of grace Himself erects the consoling image,—for the skill and power of
men are not sufficient. In the thought that God Himself has erected the
ἱλαστήριον, lies the same wonderful μωρία of apostolic piety which has so
inimitably diffused the unction of artless genius over other religious ideas of
Paul. God’s favour must be obtained—He Himself fulfils the preliminary
conditions; Men can do nothing at all, they cannot so much as believe—God does
all in Christ: that is the religion of Paul, and our passage in Romans is but
another expression of this same mystery of salvation. A. Ritschl,419 one of the
most energetic upholders of the theory that the ἱλαστήριον of the passage in
Romans signifies the kappōreth, has, in his investigation of this question, laid
down the following canon of method “. . . for ἱλαστήριον the meaning
propitiatory sacrifice is authenticated in heathen usage, as being a gift by
which the anger of the gods is appeased, and they themselves induced to be
gracious. . . . But . . . the heathen meaning of the disputed word should be
tried as a means of explaining the statement in question only when the biblical
meaning has proved to be wholly inapplicable to the passage.” It would hardly be
possible to find the sacred conception of a “biblical” Greek more plainly upheld
by an opponent of the theory of inspiration than is the case in these sentences.
What has been already said will show the error, as the author thinks it, of the
actual assertions they contain concerning the meaning of ἱλαστήριον in
“biblical” 420 and in “heathen” usage; his own reflections about method are
contained in the introduction to these investigations. But the case under
consideration, on account of its importance, may be tested, once more by an
analogy which has already been indicated above. In the hymn O Konig, dessen
Majestdt, by Valentin Ernst Loscher († 1749), there occurs the following
couplet421:— Mein Abba, schaue Jesum an, Den Gnadenthron der Sunder.422

Whoever undertakes to explain this couplet has, without doubt, a task similar to
that of the exegete of Romans 3:25. Just as in the passage from Paul there is
applied to Christ a word which occurs in the Bible of Paul, so there is in this
hymn a word, similarly used, which stands in the Bible of its author. The
Apostle calls Christ a ἱλαστήριον ; ἱλαστήριον is occasionally found in the
Greek Bible, where the Hebrew has kappōreth: ergo—Paul describes Christ as the
kappōreth! The Saxon Poet calls Christ the Throne of Grace (Gnadenthron); the
Mercy-seat (Gnadenstuhl—not indeed Throne of Grace, but an expression equivalent
to it) is found in the German Bible, where the Greek has ἱλαστήριον, the Hebrew
kappōreth: ergo—the poet describes Christ as ἱλαστήριον, as kappōreth, i.e., as
the lid of the Ark of the Covenant! These would be parallel inferences—according
to that mechanical method of exegesis. The historical way of looking at the
matter, however, gives us the following picture. Kappōreth in the Hebrew Bible
signifies the cover (of the Ark); the Greek translators have given a theological
paraphrase of this conception, just as they have occasionally done in other
similar cases, in so far as they named the sacred article ἱλαστήριονἐπίθεμα,
propitiatory cover, according to the purpose of it, and then, quite generally,
ἱλαστήριον, propitiatory article; the readers of the Greek Bible understood this
ἱλαστήριον in its own proper sense (a sense presupposed also in the LXX) as
propitiatory article—the more so as it was otherwise known to them in this
sense; the German translator, by reason of his knowledge of the Hebrew text,
again specialised the propitiatory article into a vehicle or instrument of
propitiation—again imparting to it, however, a theological shading,—in so far as
he wrote, not propitiatorycover or cover of mercy, but mercy-seat ;423 the
readers of the German Bible, of course, apprehend this word in its own proper
sense, and when we read it in Bible or hymn-book, or hear it in preaching, we
figure to ourselves some Throne in Heaven, to which we draw near that we may
receive mercy and may find grace to keep us in time of need, and nobody thinks
of anything else. The LXX and Luther have supplied the place of the original
kappōreth by words which imply a deflection of the idea. The links—kappōreth,
ἱλαστήριον, Gnadenstuhl—cannot be connected by the sign of equality, not even,
indeed, by a straight line, but at best by a curve.

ἱστός. The Greek usage of this word is also found in the LXX’s correct
renderings of the corresponding Hebrew words, viz., mast (of a ship), Isaiah
30:17, Isaiah 33:23, Ezekiel 27:5, and web (through the connecting-link
weaver’s-beam), Isa. 59:5, 6 (likewise Isaiah 38:12, but without any
corresponding word in our text); cf. Tob 2:12 Cod. א. In reference to this, the
author would again call attention to a little-known emendation in the text of
the Epistle of Aristeas proposed by Lumbroso.424 M. Schmidt writes, p. 69 16,
(ἔπεμψεδὲκαὶτῷ Ἐλεαζάρῳ . . . . . ) βυσσίνωνὀθονίωνεἰς † τοὺςἑκατόν, which is
altogether meaningless. We must of course read, in accordance with Joseph. Antt.
xii. 2 14 (βυσσίνηςὀθόνης ἱστοὺςἑκατόν), βυσσίνωνὀθονίωνἱστοὺςἑκατόν.

καρπόω, etc. In Leviticus 2:11 we find the command: ye shall not burn incense
(תַּקְטִירוּ) of any leaven or honey as an offering made by fire (אִשֶּׁה) to
Jahweh. The LXX translate: πᾶσαν γὰρζύμηνκαὶπᾶνμέλιοὐπροσοίσετεἀπ’αὐτοῦ (a
mechanical imitation of מִמֶּנּוּ) καρπῶσαικυρίῳ. This looks like an inadequate
rendering of the original: in the equation, προσφέρειν καρπῶσαι = burn incense
as an offering made with fire, there seems to be retained only the idea of
sacrifice; the special nuance of the commandment seems to be lost, and to be
supplanted by a different one: for καρποῦν of course means “to make or offer as
fruit”. 425 The idea of the Seventy, that that which was leavened, or honey,
might be named a fruit-offering, is certainly more striking than the fact that
the offering made by fire is here upplanted by the offering of fruit. But the
vagary cannot have been peculiar to these venerable ancients, for we meet with
the same, strange notion also in passages which are not reckoned as their work
in the narrower sense. According to [3] 1Es 4:52 King Darius permits to the
returning Jews, among other things,
καὶἐπὶτὸθυσιαστήριονὁλοκαυτώματακαρποῦσθαικαθ’ ἡμέραν, and, in the Song of the
Three Children 14, Azariaslaments καὶοὐκ ἔστινἐντῷκαιρῷτούτῳἄρχωνκαὶπροφήτης
καὶἡγούμενοςοὐδὲὁλοκαύτωσιςοὐδὲθυσίαοὐδὲπροσφορὰοὐδὲ
θυμίαμαοὐδὲτόποςτοῦκαρπῶσαιἐναντίονσουκαὶεὑρεῖν ἔλεος. If then a whole
burnt-offering could be spoken of as a fruit-offering, wherefore should the same
not be done as regards things leavened and honey? But the LXX can be vindicated
in a more honourable way. Even their own usage of καρπόω elsewhere might give
the hint: it is elsewhere found 426 only in Deuteronomy 26:14, οὐκ
ἐκάρπωσαἀπ’αὐτῶνεἰςἀκάθαρτον, which is meant to represent I have put away
nothing thereof (i.e., of the tithes), beingunclean. In this the LXX take
בְּטָמֵא, to mean for an unclean use, as did also De Wette, while καρπόω for
בִּעֵר is apparently intended to signify put away, a meaning of the word which
is found nowhere else,427 implying, as it does, almost the opposite of the
primary meaning to bring forth fruit. It is not the LXX, however, who have taken
καρπόω and put away as equivalent, but rather the unscientific procedure which
looks upon verbal equations between translation and original without further
ceremony as equations of ideas. The true intention of the Greek ranslators is
shown by a comparison of Leviticus 2:11 and Deuteronomy 26:14. In the first
passage, one may doubt as to whether καρπόω is meant to represent הִקְטִיר or
אִשֶּׁה, but whichever of the two be decided upon does not matter: in either
case it represents some idea like to offer a sacrifice made with fire. In the
other passage, καρπόω certainly stands for בִּעֵר, and if, indeed, the Greek
word cannot mean put away, yet the Hebrew one can mean to burn. It is quite
plain that the LXX thought that they found this familiar meaning in this passage
also: the two passages, in fact, support one another, and ward off any suspicion
of “the LXX’s” having used καρπόω in the sense of put away and bring forth fruit
at the same time. However strange the result may appear, the issue of our
critical comparison is this: the LXX used καρπόω for to burn both in a
ceremonial and in a non-ceremonial sense. This strange usage, however, has
received a brilliant confirmation. P. Stengel 428 has shown, from four
Inscriptions and from the old lexicographers,429 that καρπόω must have been
quite commonly used for to burn in the ceremonial sense.430 Stengel explains as
follows how this meaning arose: καρποῦν, properly signifies to cut into pieces;
the holocausts of the Greeks were cut into pieces, and thus, in ceremonial
language, καρπόω must have come to mean absumere, consumere, ὁλοκαυτεῖν. The
ceremonial sense of καρπόω grows more distinct when we notice the compound form
ὁλοκαρπόω,431Sir 45:14, 4Ma. 18:11, Sibyll. Orac. 3565, as also by the identity
in meaning of the substantives ὀλακάρπωμα = ὁλοκαύτωμα, and ὁλοκάρπωσις =
ὁλοκαύτωσις, all of which can be fully established in the LXX and the Apocrypha
as meaning, in most cases, burnt-offering, just like κάρπωμα = κάρπωσις. These
substantives are all to be derived, not from καρπόςfruit, but from the
ceremonial καρπόω, to burn.432 κατά.

1. In 3Ma. 5:34 and Romans 12:5 is found ὁκαθ’εἷς433for εἷςἕκαστος, and in Mark
14:19 and John 8:9434 the formula εἷς καθ’εἷς for unusquisque. In these
constructions, unknown in classical Greek, we must, it is said, either treat eh
as an indeclinable numeral, or treat the preposition as an adverb.435 Only in
the Byzantine writers have such constructions been authenticated. But
εἷςκαθ’ἕκαστος436 already stands in LXX Leviticus 25:10
(καὶἀπελεύσεταιεἷςἕκαστοςεἰςτὴνκτῆσιναὐτοῦ), according to Cod. A. This
represents אִישׁ, and cannot, therefore, be explained as a mechanical imitation
of the original. What we have here (assuming that A has preserved the original
reading) will rather be the first example of a special usage of κατά, and thus,
since it is ἕκαστος which is now in question, the first, at least, of Buttmann’s
proposed explanations would fall to the ground. It is, of course, quite possible
that the εἷςκαθ’ἕκαστος should be assigned only to the late writer of Cod. A.
But the hypothesis of its being the original derives, as the author thinks,
further support from the following facts. The LXX translate the absolute אִישׁ
by ἕκαστος in innumerable passages. But in not a single passage except the
present (according to the ordinary text), is it rendered by εἷςἕκαστος. This
combination, already found in Thucydides,437 frequent also in the “fourth” Book
of Maccabees,438 in Paul and in Luke, is used nowhere else in the LXX, a fact
which, in consideration of the great frequency of ἕκαστος = אִישׁ is certainly
worthy of note. It is in harmony with this that, so far as the author has seen,
no example occurs in the contemporary Papyri.439 The phrase seems to be absent
from the Alexandrian dialect in the Ptolemaic period.440 Hence it is a priori
probable that any other reading which is given by a trustworthy source should
have the preference. Although indeed our εἷςκαθ’ἕκαστος seems strange and
unique, yet this fact speaks not against, but in favour of, its being the
original. It can hardly be imagined that the copyist would have formed the harsh
εἷςκαθ’ἕκαστος out of the every-day εἷςἕκαστος. But it is quite plain, on the
other hand, that the latter reading could arise from the former—nay, even had to
be made from it by a fairly “educated” copyist.441 Our reading is further
confirmed not only by the analogies cited, but also by Revelation 21:21,
ἀνὰεἷςἕκαστοςτῶνπυλώνωνἦν ἐξἑνὸςμαργαρίτου: here also we have evidently an
adverbial use of a preposition,442 which should hardly be explained as one of
the Hebraisms of Revelation, since in Revelation 4:8 the distributive ἀνα is
made, quite correctly, to govern the accusative, and since, further, it would be
difficult to say what the original really was which, as it is thought, is thus
imitated in Hebraising fashion.

2. “Even more diffuse and more or less Hebraising periphrases of simple
prepositions are effected by means of the substantives
πρόσωπον,χείρ,στόμα,ὀφθαλμός.”443 The author considers that this general
assertion fails to stand the test. One of the phrases used by Buttmann as an
example, viz., κατὰπρόσωπόντινος = κατά is already found in Pap. Flind. Petr. i.
xxi.,444 the will of a Libyan, of the year 237 B.C., in which the text of line 8
can hardly be restored otherwise than τὰμὲ[νκα]τὰπρόσωποντοῦἱεροῦ.

λειτουργέω, λειτουργία, λειτουργικός.

“The LXX took over the word [λειτουργέὠ in order to designate the duties of the
Priests and Levites in the sanctuary, for which its usage in profane Greek
yielded no direct support, as it is only in late and in very isolated cases
[according to p. 562, in Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Plutarch] that even one
word of this family, λειτουργός, occurs as applied to priests.”445 The Papyri
show, however, that λειτουργέω and λειτουργία were commonly used in Egypt in the
ceremonial sense. In particular, the services in the Serapeum446 were so
designated. As examples of the verb there should be noted here: Pap. Par. 23447
(165 B.C.), 27448 (same date), Pap. Lugd. B449 (164 B.C.), E450 (same date),
Pap. Lond. xxxiii.451 (161 B.c.), xli.452 (161 B.C.), Pap. Par. 29453 (161-160
B.C.); of the substantive, Pap. Lugd. B454 (164 B.C.), Pap. Lond. xxii.455
(164-163 B.C.), xli.456 (161 B.C.), Pap. Dresd. ii.457 (162 B.C.), Pap. Par.
33458 (ca. 160 B.C.). But also of other ceremonial services elsewhere there were
used λειτουργέω, Pap. Par. 5459 (113 B.c.) twice; λειτουργία in the Papp. Lugd.
G460, H461 and J,462 written 99 B.C.463

λειτουργικός is found not “only in biblical and ecclesiastical Greek,”464 but
occurs in a non-religious sense six times in a taxation-roll of the Ptolemaic
Period, Pap. Flind. Petr. xxxix. e.465 Its use is confined, so far as “biblical”
literature is concerned, to the following Alexandrian compositions: LXX Exodus
31:10, Exodus 39:1466Numbers 4:12, Numbers 4:26, Numbers 7:5 , 2 Chronicles
24:14; Hebrews 1:14.

λίψ. In the three passages, 2 Chronicles 32:30, 2 Chronicles 33:14, and Daniel
8:5, the LXX render the direction West by λίψ. Elsewhere they use λίψ, quite
accurately for South. But even in the passages cited they have not been guilty
of any negligence, but have availed themselves of a special Egyptian usage,
which might have been noticed long ago in one of the earliest-known Papyrus
documents. In a Papyrus of date 104 B.C., which was elucidated by Boeckh,467
there occurs the phrase λιβὸςοἰκίαΤέφιτος. As the South (νότος) has been
expressly mentioned just before, this can mean only in the West the house of
Tephis. To this Boeckh468 observes: “λίψ means South-West in Hellas, Africus,
because Libya lies South-West from the Hellenes—whence its name: Libya lies
directly West from the Egyptians; hence λίψ is for them the West itself, as we
learn here”. The word had been already used in the will of a Libyan, Pap. Flind.
Petr. xxi.469 (237 B.C.), where similarly the connection yields the meaning
West.

λογεία. In 1 Corinthians 16:1 Paul calls the collection for “the saints”
(according to the ordinary text) λογία, and in 1 Corinthians 16:2 says that the
λογίαι must begin at once. The word is supposed to occur for the first time
here,470 and to occur elsewhere only in the Fathers. Grimm471 derives it from
λέγω. Both views are wrong.

λογεία can be demonstrated to have been used in Egypt from the 2nd cent. B.C. at
the latest: it is found in Papyrus documents belonging to the Χοαχύται or
Χολχύται (the orthography and etymology of the word are uncertain), a society
which had to perform a part of the ceremonies required in the embalming of
bodies: they are named in one place
ἀδελφοὶοἱτὰςλειτουργίαςἐνταῖςνεκρίαιςπαρεχόμενοι.472 They had the right, as
members of the guild, to institute collections, and they could sell this right.
Such a collection is called λογεία: Pap. Lond. iii.473 (ca. 140 B.C.), Pap. Par.
5474 (114 B.C.) twice; Pap. Lugd. M475 (114 B.C.). We find the word, further, in
the taxation-roll Pap. Kind. Petr. xxxix. c.476 of the Ptolemaic period,477 in
which it is used six times—probably in the sense of tax. The derivation of the
word from λέγω is impossible; λογεία belongs to the class478 of substantives in
–εία formed from verbs in –εύω. Now the verb λογεύωto collect, which has not
been noticed in literary compositions, is found in the following Papyri and
Inscriptions: Pap. Lond. xxiv.479 (163 B. C.), iii.480 (ca. 140 B.c.), a Papyrus
of date 134 B.C.,481Pap. Taur. 8482(end of 2nd cent. B.C.), an Egyptian
Inscription, CIG. iii., No. 495637 (49 A.D.); cf. also the Papyrus-fragment
which proves the presence of Jews in the Fayyûm.483 The Papyri yield also the
pair παραλογεύω, Pap. Flind. Petr. xxxviii. b484 (242 B.C.) and παραλογεία, Pap.
Par. 61485 (145 B.C.). In regard to the orthography of the word, it is to be
observed that the spelling λογεία corresponds to the laws of word-formation. Its
consistent employment in the relatively well-written pre-Christian Papyri urges
us to assume that it would also be used by Paul: the Vaticanus still has it, in
1 Corinthians 16:2486 at least. In speaking of the collection for487 the poor in
Jerusalem, Paul has other synonyms besides λογεία, among them λειτουργία, 2
Corinthians 9:12. This more general term is similarly associated with λογεία in
Pap. Lond. iii. 9.488 In 1 Corinthians 16:1 Donnaeus and H. Grotius proposed to
alter “λογία” to εὐλογία,489 as the collection is named in 2 Corinthians 9:5.
This is of course unnecessary: but it does not seem to the author to be quite
impossible that, conversely, the first εὐλογίαν in the latter passage should be
altered to λογείαν. If λογείαν were the original, the sentence would be much
more forcible; the temptation to substitute the known word for the strange one
could come as easily to a copyist as to the scholars of a later period.

μειζότερος. With this double comparative in 3 John 1:4490 cf. the double
superlative μεγιστότατος, Pap. Lond. cxxx.491 (1st or 2nd cent. A.D.).

ὁμικρός. In Mark 15:40 there is mentioned a Ἰάκωβοςὁμικρός. It is a question
whether the attribute refers to his age or his stature,492 and the deciding
between these alternatives is not without importance for the identification of
this James and of Mary his mother. In reference to this the author would call
attention to the following passages. In Pap. Lugd. N493 (103 B.C.) a
Νεχούτηςμικρός is named twice. Upon this Leemans494 observes: “quominus
vocemμικρόςde corporis altitudine intelligamus prohibent tum ipse verborum ordo
quo ante patris nomen et hic et infra in Trapezitae subscriptione vs. 4 ponitur;
tum quae sequitur voxμέσος, qua staturae certe non parvae plisse Nechyten
docemur. Itaque ad aetatem referendum videtur, et additum fortasse ut
distingueretur ab altero Nechyte, frater majore;” it is, in point of fact, shown
by Pap. Taur. i. that this Nechytes had a brother of the same name. In a similar
manner a Μάνρηςμέγας is named in Pap. Flind. Petr. ii. xxv. i495 (Ptolemaic
period). Mahaffy,496 it is true, prefers to interpret the attribute here as
applying to the stature. The LXX also are acquainted with (not to speak of the
idiom ἀπὸμικροῦἕωςμεγάλου) a usage of μικρός to signify age, e.g., 2 Chronicles
22:1.

νομός.

L. van Ess’s edition of the LXX (1887)497 still reads Isaiah 19:2 thus:
καὶἐπεγερθήσονταιΑἰγύπτιοιἐπ’Αἰγυπτίουςκαὶ
πολεμήσειἄνθρωποςτὸνἀδελφὸναὐτοῦκαὶἄνθρωποςτὸν
πλησίοναὐτοῦ,πόλιςἐπὶπόλινκαὶνόμοςἐπὶνόμον. In the original the concluding words
of the verse are kingdom against kingdom. The Concordance of Tromm therefore
says νομόςlex stands for מַמְלָכָהregnum, and the editor of Van Ess’s LXX
appears to be of the same opinion. The correct view has long been known;498 the
phrase should be accented thus: νομόςἐπὶνομόν.499

νομός is a terminus technicus for a political department of the country, and was
used as such in Egypt especially, as was already known from Herodotus and
Strabo. The Papyri throw fresh light upon this division into departments, though
indeed the great majority of these Papyri come from the “Archives” of the Nomos
of Arsinoe. This small matter is noted here because the translation of Isaiah
19:1-25, the “ὅρασιςΑἰγύπτου,” has, as a whole, been furnished by the LXX, for
reasons easily perceived, with very many instances of specifically Egyptian—in
comparison with the original, we might indeed say
modern-Egyptian-local-colouring. This may also be observed in other passages of
the O.T. which refer to Egyptian conditions.

ὄνομα. In connection with the characteristic “biblical” construction
εἰςτὸὄνομάτινος,500 and, indeed, with the general usage of ὄνομα, in the LXX,
etc., the expression ἔντευξιςεἰς τὸτοῦβασιλέωςὄνομα, which occurs several times
in the Papyri, deserves very great attention: Pap. Flind. Petr, ii. ii. 1501
(260-259 B.C.), Pap. Flind. Petr. ii. xx. ee502 (241 B.C.);cf., possibly, Pap.
Flind. Petr. xlvii.503 (191 B.C.)! Mahaffy504 speaks of the phrase as a hitherto
unknown “formula”. Its repeated occurrence in indictments certainly suggests the
conjecture that it must have had a technical meaning. This is, doubtless, true
of ἔντευξις.505 An ἔντευξιςεἰςτὸτοῦβασιλέωςὄνομα would be a direct petition —a
memorial to the King’s Majesty;506 the name of the King is the essence of what
he is as ruler. We see how nearly this idea of the ὄνομα approaches to that of
the Old Testament שֵׁם, and how convenient it was for the Egyptian translators
to be able to render quite literally the expressive word of the sacred text. The
special colouring which ὄνομα often has in early Christian writings was
doubtless strongly influenced by the LXX, but the latter did not borrow that
colouring first from the Hebrew; it was rather a portion of what they took from
the adulatory official vocabulary of their environment. But current usage in
Asia Minor also provided a connecting link for the solemn formula of the early
Christians, viz. εἰςτὸὄνομα with genitive of God, of Christ, etc., after it. In
the Inscription of Mylasa in Caria, addington, iii. 2, No. 416 CIG ii. No. 2693
e, belonging to the beginning of the imperial period,507 we find
γενομένηςδὲτῆςὠνῆςτῶνπρογεγραμμένωντοῖςκτηματώναιςεἰςτὸτοῦθεοῦὄνομα.508 This
means: “after the sale of the afore-mentioned objects had been concluded with
theκτηματῶναιεἰςτὸτοῦθεοῦ [Zeus] ὄνομα”. In reference to the κτηματώνης, which
is to be found in Inscriptions only, Waddington509 observes that the word means
the purchaser of an article, but the person in question, in this connection, is
only the nominal purchaser, who represents the real purchaser, i.e., the Deity;
the κτηματώνηςεἰςτὸτοῦ θεοῦὄνομα is the fideicommissaire du domaine sacre. The
passage appears to the author to be the more important in that it presupposes
exactly the same conception of the word ὄνομα as we find in the solemn forms of
expression used in religion. Just as, in the Inscription, to buy into the name
of God means to buy so that the article bought belongs to God, so also the idea
underlying, e.g., the expressions to baptise into the name of the Lord, or to
believe into the name of the Son of God, is that baptism or faith constitutes
the belonging to God or to the Son of God. The author would therefore take
exception to the statement that the non-occurrence of the expression
ποιεῖντιἐνὀνόματίτινος in profane Greek is due to the absence of this usage of
the Name.510 What we have to deal with here is most likely but a matter of
chance; since the use of ὄνομα has been established for the impressive language
of the court and of worship, it is quite possible that the phrase ἐντῷὀνόματι
τοῦβασιλέως or τοῦθεοῦ may also come to light some day in Egypt or Asia Minor.
The present example throws much light upon the development of the meaning of the
religious terms of primitive Christianity. It shows us that, when we find, e.g.,
a Christian of Asia Minor employing peculiar expressions, which occur also in
his Bible, we must be very strictly on our guard against summarily asserting a
“dependence” upon the Greek Old Testament, or, in fact, the presence of any
Semitic influence whatever.—Further in III. iii. 1 below [¯], and Theol.
Literaturzeitung, xxv. (1900), p. 735.

ὀψώνιον. The first occurrence of τὰὀψώνια is not in Polybius;511 it is
previously found in Pap. Flind. Petr. xiii. 7512 and 17513 (258-253 B.C.);
τὰὀψώνια is found in Pap. Flind. Petr. ii. xxxiii. a514 (Ptolemaic period). In
all three places, not pay of soldiers, but quite generally wages; similarly Pap.
Lond. xlv.515 (160-159 B.C.), xv.516 (131-130 B.Cc.), Pap. Par. 62517 (Ptolemaic
period). The word is to be found in Inscriptions onwards from 278 B.C.518
Further remarks below, III. iii. 6.

παράδεισος. This word resembles ἀγγαρεύω in its having been divested of its
original technical meaning, and in its having become current in a more general
sense. It stands for garden in general already in Pap. Flind. Petr. xlvi. b519
(200 B.C.), cf. xxii.,520 xxx. c,521 xxxix. i522 (all of the Ptolemaic
period);523 similarly in the Inscription of Pergamus, Waddington, iii. 2, No.
1720 b (undated). It is frequent in the LXX, always for garden (in three of the
passages, viz., Nehemiah 2:8, Ecclesiastes 2:15, Song of Solomon 4:13, as
representing פַּרְדֵּס524 ); So in Sir., Sus., Josephus, etc., frequently. Of
course, παράδεισος in LXX Genesis 2:8 ff. is also garden, not Paradise. “he
first witness to this new technical meaning525 is, doubtless, Paul, 2
Corinthians 12:4, then Luke 23:43 and Revelation 2:7; 4 Esd. 7:53, 8:52.

παρεπίδημος. In LXX Genesis 23:4 and LXX Psalms 38:13 [MT Psalms 39:13], this is
the translation of תּוֹשָׁב used, most probably in consequence thereof in 1
Peter 1:1, 1 Peter 2:11, Hebrews 11:13; authenticated only526 in Polybius and
Athenaeus. But it had been already used in the will of a certain Aphrodisios of
Heraklea, Pap. Flind. Petr. i. xix.527 (225 B.C.), who calls himself, with other
designations, a παρεπίδημος. Mahaffy528 remarks upon this: “in the description
of the testator we find another new class, παρεπίδημος, a sojourner, so that
even such persons had a right to bequeath their property”. Of still greater
interest is the passage of a will of date 238-237 B.C.529 which gives the name
of a Jewish παρεπίδημος in the Fayyûm:530Ἀπολλώνιον
παρεπ]ιδημονὃςκαὶσυριστὶἸωνάθας531 [καλεῖται]. The verb παρεπιδημέω, e.g., Pap.
Flind. Petr. xiii. 19532(258-253 B. C.).

παστοφόριον. The LXX use this word in almost all the relatively numerous
passages where it occurs, the Apocrypha and Josephus533 in every case, for the
chambers of the Temple. Sturz534 had assigned it to the Egyptian dialect. His
conjecture is confirmed by the Papyri. In the numerous documents relating to the
Serapeum535 at Memphis, παστοφόριον is used, in a technical sense, of the
Serapeum itself, or of cells in the Serapeum:536Pap. Par. 11537 (157 B.C.),
40538 (156 B.C.); similarly in the contemporary documents Pap. Par. 41539 and
37540—in the last passage used of the Ἀσταρτιεῖον which is described as being
contained ἐντῷμεγάλῳααρπιείῳ.541 The LXX have thus very happily rendered the
general term לִשְׁכָּה, wherever it denotes a chamber of the Temple, by a
technical name with which they were familiar. παστοφόριον is also retained by
several Codices in 1 Chronicles 9:33, and 2Es 8:29 [Hebr. Ezra 8:29].542
περιδέξιον. In LXX Numbers 31:50, Exodus 35:22 and Isaiah 3:20 (in the two
latter passages without any corresponding original) for bracelet. To be found in
Pap. Flind. Petr. i. xii.543 (238-237 B.C.). The enumeration given there of
articles of finery resembles Exodus 35:22, and particularly Isaiah 3:20; in the
latter passage the ἐνώτια544 (mentioned also in the former) come immediately
after the περιδέξια—so in the Papyrus. As the original has no corresponding word
in either of the LXX passages, we may perhaps attribute the addition to the fact
that the two ornaments were usually named together.

περίστασις. In 2Ma 4:16, Symmachus LXX Psalms 33:5 [MT Psalms 34:5]545 (here the
LXX has θλῖψις, or παροικία), in the evil sense, for distress; it is not found
first of all in Polybius, but already in Pap. Lond. xlii.546 (172 B.C.); cf. the
Inscription of Pergamus No. 245 A547 (before 133 B.C.) and the Inscription of
Sestos (ca. 120 B.C.), line 25.548 περιτέμνω. The LXX use περιτέμνω always in
the technical sense of the ceremonial act of circumcision; this technical
meaning also underlies the passages in which circumcision is metaphorically
spoken of, e.g., Deuteronomy 10:16 and Jeremiah 4:4. The word is never employed
by the LXX in any other sense. The usual Hebrew word מוּל occurs frequently, it
is true, in a non-technical signification, but in such cases the translators
always choose another word: LXX Psalms 57:8[MT Psalms 58:8] ἀσθενέω for to be
cut off,549 LXX Psalms 17:10-12 [MT Psalms 118:10-12], ἀμύνομαι, for the cutting
in pieces (?) of enemies, LXX Psalms 89:6 [MT Psalms 90:6] ἀποπίπτω (of grass)
for to be cut down.550 Even in a passage, Deuteronomy 30:6, where מוּל,
circumcise, is used metaphorically, they reject περιτέμνω and translate by
περικαθαρίζω.551 The textual history of Ezekiel 16:4 affords a specially good
illustration of their severely restrained use of language. To the original
(according to our Hebrew text) thy navel-string was not cut, corresponds, in the
LXX (according to the current text), οὐκ ἔδησαςτοὺς μαστούςσου, “quite an absurd
translation, which, however, just because of its absolute meaninglessness, is,
without doubt, ancient tradition”.552 But the “translation” is not so absurd
after all, if we read ἔδησαν553 with the Alexandrinus and the Marchalianus,554 a
reading which is supported by the remark of Origen:555 the LXX had translated
non alligaverunt ubera tua, “sensum magis eloquii exponentes quam verbum de
verbo exprirnentes”. That is to say, among the services mentioned here as
requiring to be rendered to the helpless new-born girl, the Greek translators
set down something different from the procedure described by the Hebrew author;
what they did set down corresponds in some degree with the
ἐνσπαργάνοιςσπαργανωθῆναι, which comes later.556But perhaps they had a different
text before them. In any case the translation given by some Codices,557viz.,
οὐκἐτμήθηὁὀμφαλόςσου, is a late correction of the LXX text by our present Hebrew
text; other Codices read οὐκ ἔδησαντοὺςμαστούςσου, and add the emendation
οὐκἐτμήθηὁὀμφαλός σου; others do the same, but substitute περιετμήθη, a form
utterly at variance with LXX usage (and one against which Jerome’s non
ligaverunt mamillas teas et umbilicus tuus non est praecisus558 still guards),
for the ἐτμήθη. It is this late emendation which has occasioned the idea559 that
the LXX in one case also used τὸνὀμφαλόν as the object of περιτέμνειν. This is
not correct. One may truly speak here, for once, about a “usage” of the LXX:
περιτέμνω, with them, has always a ceremonial meaning.560 In comparison with the
verbs הֵסִיר, כָּרַת and מוּל, which are rendered by περιτέμνω, the Greek word
undoubtedly introduces an additional nuance to the meaning; not one of the three
words contains what the περί, implies. The choice of this particular compound is
explained by the fact that it was familiar to the LXX, being in common use as a
technical term for an Egyptian custom similar to the Old Testament circumcision.
“The Egyptians certainly practised circumcision in the 16th century B.C.,
probably much earlier.” 561 Now even if it cannot be made out with certainty
that the Israelites copied the practice from the Egyptians, yet it is in the
highest degree probable that the Greek Jews are indebted to the Egyptians562 for
the word. Herodotus already verifies its use in ii. 36 and 104: he reports that
the Egyptians περιτάμνονταιτὰαἰδοῖα. But the expression is also authenticated by
direct Egyptian testimony: Pap. Lond. xxiv.563 (163 B.C.), ὡς
ἔθοςἐστὶτοῖΑἰγυπτίοιςπεριτέμνεσθαι and Pap. Berol. 7820564 (14th January, 171
A.D., Fayyûm) still speaks several times of the περιτμηθῆναι of a boy κατὰτὸ
ἔθος. If περιτέμνω is thus one of the words which were taken over by the LXX,
yet the supposition565 that their frequent ἀπερίτμητοςuncircumcised = עָרֵל was
first coined by the Jews of Alexandria may have some degree of probability. In
the last-cited Berlin Papyrus, at least, the as yet uncircumcised boy is twice
described as ἄσημος.566 The document appears to be employing fixed expressions.
ἄσημος was perhaps the technical term for uncircumcised among the Greek
Egyptians;567 the more definite and, at the same time, harsher ἀπερίτμητος
corresponded to the contempt with which the Greek Jews thought of the
uncircumcised.

πῆχυς.

We need have no doubt at all about the contracted genitive πηχῶν,568 LXX 1 Kings
7:38-39 (Cod. A) [MT 1 Samuel 7:2; 1 Samuel 7:6], Esther 5:14, Esther 7:9,
Ezekiel 40:7, Ezekiel 41:22; John 21:8, Revelation 21:17. It is already found in
Pap. Flind. Petr. ii. xli.569 (Ptolemaic period) twice; Josephus agrees with the
LXX in using πήχεων and πηχῶν promiscuously.570 ποτισμός. In Aquila Proverbs 3:8
[MT Pro. 3:8]571watering, irrigation; to be found in Pap. Flind. Petr. ii. ix.
4572 (240 B.C.) .

πράκτωρ. In LXX Isaiah 3:12 for נֹגֵשׁ despot. In the Papyri frequently as the
designation of an official; the πράκτωρ573 seems to have been the public
accountant:574Pap. Flind. Petr. ii. xiii. 17575 (258-253 B.C.), and several
other undated Papyri of the Ptolemaic period given in Mahaffy, ii.576 In Luke
12:58 also the word has most probably a technical meaning; it does not however
denote a finance-official, but a lower officer of the court. Symmachus Psalms
108:11 [MT Psalms 109:11]577 uses it for נשֶׁהcreditor.

πρεσβύτερος. The LXX translate זָקֵןold man by both πρεσβύτης and πρεσβύτερος.
The most natural rendering was πρεσβύτης,and the employment of the comparative
πρεσβύτερος must have had some special reason. We usually find πρεσβύτερος in
places where the translators appear to have taken the זָקֵן of the original as
implying an official position. That they in such cases speak of the elders and
not of the old men is explained by the fact that they found πρεσβύτερος already
used technically in Egypt for the holder of a communal office. Thus, in Pap.
Lugd. A 35 f.578 (Ptolemaic period), mention is made of
ὁπρεσβύτεροςτῆςκώμης—without doubt an official designation,—although, indeed,
owing to the mutilation of another passage in the same Papyrus (lines 17-23), no
further particulars as to the nature of this office can be ascertained from
it.579 The author thinks that οἱπρεσβύτεροι in Pap. Flind. Petr. ii. iv. 613 580
(255-254 B.C.) is also an official designation; cf. also Pap. Flind. Petr. ii.
xxxix. a, 3 and 14.581 Similarly, in the decree of the priests at Diospolis in
honour of Callimachus,582 (ca. 40 B.C.), the πρεσβύτεροι are still mentioned
along with the ἱερεῖςτοῦμεγίστουθεοῦ Ἀμονρασωνθήρ. We have a periphrasis of the
title πρεσβύτερος in Pap. Taur. 860f. 583 (end of the 2nd cent B.C.), in which
the attribute τὸπρεσβεῖον ἔχωνπαρὰτοὺςἄλλους τοὺςἐντῇκώμῃκατοικοῦντας is applied
to a certain Erieus. We still find οἱπρεσβύτεροι in the 2nd century A.D. as
Egyptian village-magistrates, of whom a certain council of three men, οἱτρεῖς,
appears to have occupied a special position.584 Here also then the Alexandrian
translators have appropriated a technical expression which was current in the
land. Hence we must not summarily attribute the “New Testament,” i.e., the early
Christian, passages, in which πρεσβύτεροι occurs as an official designation, to
the “Septuagint idiom,” since this is in reality an Alexandrian one. In those
cases, indeed, where the expression is used to designate Jewish municipal
authorities585 and the Sanhedrin,586 it is allowable to suppose that it had been
adopted by the Greek Jews from the Greek Bible,587 and that the Christians who
had to translate the term the old men found it convenient to render it by the
familiar expression οἱπρεσβύτεροι. But that is no reason for deeming this
technical term a peculiarity of the Jewish idiom. Just as the Jewish usage is
traceable to Egypt, so is it possible that also the Christian communities of
Asia Minor, which named their superintendents πρεσβύτεροι, may have borrowed the
word from their surroundings, and may not have received it through the medium of
Judaism at all.588 The Inscriptions of Asia Minor prove beyond doubt that
πρεσβύτεροι was the technical term, in the most diverse localities, for the
members of a corporation: 589 in Chios, CIG. ii. Nos. 2220 and 2221 (1st cent.
B.C.590), —in both passages the council of the πρεσβύτεροι is also named
τὸπρεσβύτεροι; in Cos, CIG. ii. No. 2508 = Paton and Hicks, No. 119 (imperial
period591); in Philadelphia in Lydia, CIG. ii. No. 3417 (imperial period), in
which the συνέδριοντῶνπρεσβυτέρων,592 mentioned here, is previously named
γερουσία. “It can be demonstrated that in some islands and in many towns of Asia
Minor there was, besides the Boule, also a Gerousia, which possessed the
privileges of corporation, and, as it appears, usually consisted of Boueutes who
were delegated to it. Its members were called γέροντες, γερουσιασταὶ,
πρεσβύτεροι, γεραιοί. They had a president (ἄρχων, προστάτης, προηγούμενος), a
secretary, a special treasury, a special place of assembly (γεροντικὸν,
γερουσία), and a palaestra.”593—See also III. iii. 4, below [¯].

πρόθεσις. The LXX translate the technical expression bread of the countenance
(also called row-bread [Schichtbrot ] and continualbread), which Luther rendered
Schaubrot (show-bread), in 1 Samuel 21:6 and Nehemiah 10:33 by of
οἱἄρτοιτοῦπροσώπου, and in Exodus 25:30 by οἱἄρτοιοἱἐνώπιοι, but their usual
rendering is οἱἄρτοιτῆςπροθέσεως. The usual explanation of this πρόθεσις is
setting forth, i.e., of the bread before God. The author leaves it undecided
whether this explanation is correct; but, in any case, it is to be asked how the
LXX came to use this free translation, while they rendered the original verbally
in the other three passages. The author thinks it not unlikely that they were
influenced by the reminiscence of a ceremonial custom of their time: “Au culte
se rattachaient des institutions philantropiques telle que la suivante: Le
medecin Diodes cite par Athenle (3, 110), nous apprend qu’il y avait
uneπρόθησιςsicde pains periodique a Alexandrie, dans le temple de Saturne
(ἈλεξανδρεῖςτῷΚρόνῳἀφιεροῦντεςπροτιθέασινἐστίειντῷβουλομένῳἐντῷτοῦΚρόνουἱερῷ)
Cetteπρόθεσιςτῶνἄρτωνse retrouve dans un papyrus du Louvre (60 bis).”594 The
expression πρόθεσιςἄρτων is also found in LXX 2 Chronicles 13:11; cf. 2Ma 10:3.

πυρράκης.

Hitherto known only from LXX Genesis 25:25 [MT Genesis 25:25], LXX 1 Kings
16:12,17:42 [MT 1 Samuel 16:12, 1 Samuel 17:42], for ruddy. To be found in Pap.
Flind. Petr. i. xvi. 1 595 (237 B.C.), xxi.596 (237 B.C.), possibly also in
xiv.597 (237 B.C.).

σιτομέτριον. In Luke 12:42 for portio frumenti; referred to in this passage
only: to be verified by Pap. Flind. Petr. xxxiii. a598 (Ptolemaic period). Cf.
σιτομετρέω in Genesis 47:12 (said of Joseph in Egypt).

σκευοφύλαξ.

Earliest occurrence in the Recension of Lucianus,5991 Samuel 17:22, as the
literal translation of שׁוֹמֵרהכֵּלִיםkeeper of the baggage.600 The supposition
that the word was not first applied as a mere momentary creation of the
recensionist, but came to him on good authority, is supported by its occurrence
in Pap. Flind. Petr. xiii. 10601 (258-253 B.C.): σκεοφυλακα there is to be read
σκευοφύλακα, in accordancewith σκευοφυλάκιον in Pap. Flind. Petr. ii v. a602
(before 250 B.C.).

σπυρίς, σφυρίς. With the σφυρίς (vernacular aspiration603) handed down on good
authority in Mark 8:8, Mark 8:20, Matthew 15:37, Matthew 16:10, Acts 9:25, cf.
σφυφίδα in Pap. Flind. Petr. xviii. 2 a604 (246 B.C.), though we should observe
the reading σπυριδίου in Pap. Flind. Petr. Z d605 (Ptolemaic period). Further
remarks in III. i. 2, below [¯].

στάσις.

Among other words, the translation of which by στάσις is more or less
intelligible, מָעוֹזstrongholdNahum 3:11, and הֲדֹםfootstool1 Chronicles 28:2,
are rendered in the same way by the LXX, and Symmachus606 uses στάσις in Isaiah
6:13 for מַצֶבֶּתroot-stock (truncus) or young tree, cutting;607 certainly a
very remarkable use of the word, and one hardly explained by the extraordinary
note which Schleusner608 makes to the passage in Nahum: “στάσιςest firmitas,
consistentia, modus et via subsistendi ac resistendi ”. What is common to the
above three words translated by στάσις is the idea of secure elevation above the
ground, of upright position, and this fact seems to warrant the conjecture that
the translators were acquainted with a quite general usage of στάσις for any
upright object.609 This conjecture is confirmed by Pap. Flind. Petr. ii. xiv.
3610 (Ptolemaic period ?), i.e., if the στάσεις which is found in this certainly
very difficult passage be rightly interpreted as erections, buildings.611 This
use of the word seems to the author to be more certain in an Inscription from
Mylasa in Caria, CIG. ii. No. 2694 a (imperial period), in which Boeckh
interprets the word στάσεις (so restored by him) as stabula.

συγγενής. In the Old Testament Apocryphal books there is found not infrequently
the expression kinsman of a king. Like friend,612 etc., it is a court-title,
which was transferred from the Persian usage to the language of Alexander the
Great’s court, and thence became very common among the Diadochi. Compare, in
regard to Egypt, the exhaustive references in Lumbroso;613 in regard to
Pergamus, the Inscription No. 248, line 28f. (135-134 B.C.).614 συνέχω.

Used in Luke 22:63 of the officers who held Jesus in charge; in the same sense
Pap. Flind. Petr. ii. xx.615 (252 B.C.).

σῶμα. In Revelation 18:13σώματα stands for slaves. σῶμα was used for person in
very early times, and already in classical Greek the slaves were called
σώματαοἰκετικά or δοῦλα.616σῶμα alone—without any such addition—is not found
used for slave earlier than in LXX Genesis 34:29 [MT Genesis 36:6],617Tob 10:10,
Daniel 14:32, 2Ma 8:11, Ep. Arist. (ed. M. Schmidt), p. 1629, in Polybius and
later writers. The Greek translators of the O.T. found the usage in Egypt: the
Papyri of the Ptolemaic period yield a large number of examples, cf. especially
Pap. Flind. Petr. xxxix.618 ὑποζύγιον. The LXX translate חֲמוֹרass in very many
places by ὑποζύγιον (cf. also Theodotion Judges 5:10619Judges 19:10620 also the
Alexandrinus and the recension of Lucianus read ὑποζυγίων in both passages],
Symmachus Genesis 36:24621). Similarly, ὑποζύγιον stands for ass in Matthew 21:5
(cf. Zechariah 9:9) and 2 Peter 2:16.622 This specialising of the original
general term draughtanimal, beast of burden, is described by Grimm623 as a usage
peculiar to Holy Scripture, which is explained by the importance of the ass as
the beast of burden κατ’ἐξοχήν in the East. A statistical examination of the
word, however, might teach us that what we have to deal with here is no
“biblical” peculiarity, but, at most, a special usage of the LXX which may
possibly have influenced other writings. But even the LXX do not occupy an
isolated position in regard to it; the truth is rather that they avail
themselves of an already-current Egyptian idiom. It seems to the author, at
least, that the “biblical” usage of ὑποζύγιον is already shown in the following
passages: Pap. Flind. Petr. xxii.624 (Ptolemaic period), where βοῦς625ἢ
ὑποζύγιονἢπρόβατον are mentioned after one another; Pap. Flind. Petr. xxv. d626
(2nd half of 3rd cent. B.C.), where the donkey-driver Horos gives a receipt for
money due to him by a certain Charmos in respect of ὑποζύγια:
ὁμολογεῖὯροςὀνηλάτης ἔχεινπαρὰΧάρμουδέονταὑποζυγίωνκατὰσύμβολον ; similarly in
the same Papyrus i.627 Grimm’s remark may, of course, be turned to account in
the explanation of this idiom.

υἱός (τέκνον).

Those circumlocutions by which certain adjectival conceptions are represented by
υἱός or τέκνον followed by a genitive, and which are very frequent in the early
Christian writings, are traced back by A. Buttmann628 to an “influence of the
oriental spirit of language”; they are explained by Winer-Lunemann629 as
“Hebrew-like circumlocution,” which however is no mere idle circumlocution, but
is due to the more vivid imagination of the oriental, who looked upon any very
intimate relationship—whether of connection, origin or dependence—as a relation
of sonship, even in the spiritual sphere. According to Grimm,630 these
periphrases spring “ex ingenio linguae hebraeae,” and Cremer631 describes them
as “Hebrew-like turns of expression in which υἱός . . . is used analogously to
the Hebr. בֵּן ”. In order to understand this “New Testament” idiom, it is also
necessary to distinguish here between the cases in which this “periphrastic”
υἱός or τέκνον632 occurs in translations of Semitic originals, and the instances
found in texts which were in Greek from the first. This distinction gives us at
once the statistical result that the circumlocution is more frequent in the
former class than in the latter. One should not, therefore, uniformly trace the
“New Testament” passages back to the influence of an un-Greek “spirit of
language,” but, in the majority of cases, should rather speak merely of a
translation from the Semitic. What occasioned the frequent υἱός or τέκνον was no
“spirit of language” which the translators may have brought to their task, but
rather the hermeneutic method into which they were unconsciously drawn by the
original. First as regards υἱός: such translations occur in the following
passages,—Mark 2:19 = Matthew 9:15 = Luke 5:34, οἱυἱοὶ τοῦνυμφῶνος, a saying of
Jesus.—Mark 3:17, υἱοὶβροντῆς, where the original, βοανεργες or βοανηργες, is
also given, and the equation βοανε or βοανη = בְּנֵי is certainly evident.
—Matthew 8:12 = Matthew 13:38, of οἱυἱοὶτῆςβασιλείας, sayings of Jesus. —Matthew
13:38, οἱυἱοὶτῆςβασιλείας, a saying of Jesus. —Matthew 23:15, υἱὸνγεέννης, a
saying of Jesus.—Matthew 21:5, υἱὸνὑποζυγίου, translation633 of the Hebrew
בֶּן־אֲתֹנוֹת, Zechariah 9:9. —Luke 10:6, υἱὸςεἰρήνης, a saying of Jesus.—Luke
16:3 and Luke 2:34, οἱυἱοὶτοῦαἰῶνοςτούτου, sayings of Jesus.—Luke 16:8,
τοὺςυἱοὺςτοῦφωτός, a saying of Jesus.—Luke 20:36, τῆς ἀναστάσεωςυἱοί, a saying
of Jesus.—Acts 4:36, υἱὸςπαρακλήσεως, where the ostensible original,
Βαρναβας,634 is also given.—The υἱὲδιαβόλου, Acts 13:10, should also be
mentioned here, as the expression clearly forms a sarcastic antithesis to
Βαριησοῦ, son of Jesus (Acts 13:6). As regards τέκνον, we have the same
phenomenon in (Matthew 11:19 =) Luke 7:35, τῶντένωναὐτῇς [σοφίας], a saying of
Jesus. Similarly quotations and manifest analogical formations should not be
taken into consideration in a critical examination of the original idiom; e.g.,
υἱοὶφωτός in 1 Thessalonians 5:5 (here also the analogical formation υἱοίἡμέρας
and John 12:36 (cf. τέκναφωτός, Ephesians 5:8) should probably be taken as a
quotation from Luke 16:8, or of the saying of Jesus preserved there, but in any
case as an already familiar phrase; οἱυἱοὶτῶνπροφητῶν, Acts 3:25, is a quotation
of a combination which had become familiar from LXX 1 Kings 20:35,2 Kings 2:3,2
Kings 2:5,2 Kings 2:7 [MT 1 Samuel 20:35, 2 Samuel 2:3, 2 Samuel 2:5, 2 Samuel
2:7]—the following καὶ [υἱοὶ] τῆςδιαθήκης is an analogical formation;
ὁυἱὸςτῆςἀπωλείας, 2 Thessalonians 2:3 and John 17:12 is an echo of LXX Isaiah
57:4τέκναἀπωλειας ; τὰ τένατοῦδιαβόλου1 John 3:10 is perhaps an analogical
formation from οἱυἱοὶτοῦπονηροῦ, Matthew 13:38. There remain, then, the
combination υἱοὶτῆςἀπειθείας (Colossians 3:6), Ephesians 2:2, Ephesians 5:6, and
its antithesis τέκνα ὑπακοῆς, 1 Peter 1:14; τὰτέκνατῆςἐπαγγελίας, Galatians
4:28, Romans 9:8, and its antitheses κατάρας, 2 Peter 2:14, τέκναὀργῆς,
Ephesians 2:3. But it is not at all necessary, even for the explanation of these
expressions, to go back to the Hebrew spirit or to the oriental genius of
language. The system followed by the Alexandrian translators of the Old
Testament may furnish us here with an instructive hint. In innumerable cases
their task was to render into Greek an exceedingly large number of those
characteristic Semitic turns of expression formed with בֵּן. True, they rendered
not a few of those cases by the corresponding constructions with υἱός; but very
frequently, too, translating freely (as we might say), they found substitutes
for them in Greek expressions of a different character. But such a procedure, in
view of the comparative scrupulosity with which in general they follow the
original, must surely surprise us, if we are to pre-suppose in them, as in the
early Christian writers, a certain Semitic “genius of language” lying in
reserve, as it were, and behind their “feeling” for the Greek tongue. Had they
always imitated that characteristic בֵּן by using υἱοί, then it might have been
maintained with some plausibility that they had seized the welcome opportunity
of translating literally and, at the same time, of giving scope to the
non-Hellenic tendencies of their nature in the matter of language; as they,
however, did not do this, we may be permitted to say that they had no such
tendency at all. We give the following cases,635 from which this fact may be
deduced with certainty: “Son”of Man, Isaiah 56:2, Proverbs 15:11 = ἄνθρωπος; son
of the uncle, Numbers 36:11 = ἀνεψίος; son of the she-asses,Zechariah 9:9 =
πῶλοςνέος ;636 “son”of the month, often, = μηνιαῖος; “son”of the dawn, Isaiah
14:12 = πρωΐἀνατέλλων; “son” of strangers, often, = ἀλλογενής or ἀλλόφυλος;
“son”of the people,Genesis 23:11 = πολίτης; “son”of the quiver, Lamentations
3:13 = ἰοὶ637φαρέτρας; “son”of strength, 2 Chronicles 28:6 = δυνατὸςἰσχύϊ ;
“son”of misery, Proverbs 31:5 = ἀσθενής ; “son”of strokes, Deuteronomy 25:2 =
ἄξιοςπληγῶν. And if, on the other hand, cases can be pointed out in which the
LXX imitate638 the characteristic בֵּן, then the υἱός of the Greek text is not
to be forthwith explained as caused by the translators’ oriental way of
thinking, but rather as due to the original. At the very most we might speak of
a “Hebraism of translation,” but not of a Hebraism simply.639 But we are of
opinion that it is not at all necessary, in this matter, to have recourse to a
Hebraism in every case; we cannot, at least, perceive why such constructions640
as LXX Judges 19:22υἱοὶπαρανόμων, 1 Samuel 20:31υἱὸςθανάτου,6412 Samuel
13:28υἱοὶδυνάμεως, 2Es 4:1, 2Es 10:7, 2Es 10:16 [MT Ezra 4:1, Ezra 10:7, Ezra
10:16 - not Ezra 6:19] υἱοὶ ἀποικίας, Hosea 2:4 [not Eze.] τέκναπορνείας, Isaiah
57:4τέκνα ἀπωλείας, should be looked upon as un-Greek.642 It is true, of course,
that a Corinthian baggage-carrier or an Alexandrian donkey-driver would not so
speak—the expressions are meant to be in elevated style and to have an
impressive sound; but for that very reason they might have been used by a Greek
poet. Plato uses the word ἔκγονος643 in exactly the same way: Phaedr., p. 275 D,
ἔκγονατῆςζωγραφίας and Rep., pp. 506 E and 507 A, ἔκγονοςτοῦἀγαθοῦ (genitive of
τὸἀγαθόν). In the impressive style of speech on inscriptions and coins we find
υἱός in a number of formal titles of honour644 such as
υἱὸςτῆςγερουσίας,υἱὸςτῆςπόλεως,υἱὸςτοῦδήμου,645υἱὸςἈφροδισιέων, etc. And thus,
though the υἱός of the biblical passages above may have been occasioned, in the
first instance, by the original, yet no one can call it un-Greek. —W. Schulze
has also directed the author’s attention to the υἱὸςτύχης in the Tragedians, and
filius fortunae in Horace. Our judgment, then, in regard to the philological
history of the above-cited expressions (Greek from the first) in Paul and the
Epistles of Peter, may be formulated somewhat in this way. In no case whatever
are they un-Greek; they might quite well have been coined by a Greek who wished
to use impressive language. Since, however, similar turns of expression are
found in the Greek Bible, and are in part cited by Paul and others, the theory
of analogical formations will be found a sufficient explanation.

ὁυἱὸςτοῦθεοῦ.

It is very highly probable that the “New Testament” designation of Christ as the
Son of God goes back to an “Old Testament” form of expression. But when the
question is raised as to the manner in which the “Heathen-Christians” of Asia
Minor, of Rome, or of Alexandria, understood this designation, it seems equally
probable that such “Old Testament presuppositions” were not extant among them.
We are therefore brought face to face with the problem whether they could in any
way understand the Saviour’s title of dignity in the light of the ideas of their
locality. If this solemn form of expression was already current among them in
any sense whatever, that would be the very sense in which they understood it
when they heard it in the discourses of the missionary strangers: how much more
so, then, seeing that among the “heathen” the expression Son of God was a
technical term, and one which therefore stamped itself all the more firmly upon
the mind. When the author came upon the expression for the first time in a
non-Christian document (Pap. Berol. 7006646 (Fayyûm, 22nd August, 7 A.D.): ἔτους
ἔ[κ]τουκαὶτριακοστοῦ [τῆς] Καίσαροςκρατήσεωςθεοῦυἱοῦ, where without doubt the
Emperor Augustus is described as θεοῦυἱός), he had no idea how very frequently
the title is used for Augustus in the Inscriptions. Since that time he has
become convinced that the matter stands thus: υἱὸςθεοῦ is a translation of the
divi filius which is equally frequent in Latin Inscriptions. Since, then, it is
established that the expression υἱόςθεοῦ was a familiar one in the Graeco-Roman
world from the beginning of the first century,647 we can no longer ignore the
fact; it is indirectly of great importance for the history of the
early-Christian title of Christ. The fact does not of course explain its origin
or its primary signification, but it yields a contribution to the question as to
how it might be understood in the empire.648 It must be placed in due connection
with what is said by Harnack649 about the term θεός as used in the imperial
period.

φίλος.

Friend was the title of honour given at the court of the Ptolemies to the
highest royal officials. “Greek writers, it is true, already used this name for
the officials of the Persian king; from the Persian kings the practice was
adopted by Alexander, and from him again by all the Diadochi; but we meet it
particularly often as an Egyptian title.”650 The LXX were, herefore, quite
correct (from their standpoint) in translating שַׂרprince by φίλος, Esther 1:3,
Esther 2:18, Esther 6:9,—a fact not taken into consideration in the Concordance
of Hatch and Redpath—and the same usage is exceedingly frequent in the Books of
Maccabees.651 We think it probable that the Alexandrian writer of the Book of
Wisdom was following this idiom when he spoke of the pious as φίλουςθεοῦ (Wis
7:27, cf. Wis 7:14); similarly the Alexandrian Philo, Fragm. (M.) ii., p. 652,
πᾶςσοφὸςθεοῦφίλος, and De Sobr. (M.) i., p. 401, where he quotes the saying in
LXX Gen. 18:17 (in our text οὐμὴκρύψωἐγὼἀπὸἈβραὰμτοῦπαιδόςμου) thus: μὴ
ἐπικαλύψωἐγὼἀπὸἈβραὰμτοῦφίλου652μου. In explaining this, reference is usually
made to Plato Legg. iv., p. 716, 8 μὲνσώφρωνθεῷφίλος,ὅμοιοςγάρ ; but, although
it is not to be denied that this passage may perhaps have exercised an influence
in regard to the choice of the expression, yet the Alexandrians would, in the
first instance, understand it653 in the sense to which they had been predisposed
by the above-mentioned familiar technical usage of φίλος : φίλοςθεοῦ denotes
high honour in the sight of God654—nothing more nor less. The question whether
friend of God is to be interpreted as one who loved God or as one whom God
loved, is not only insoluble655 but superfluous. Philo and the others would
hardly be thinking of a “relation of the will . . . . , such, however, that the
benevolence and love of God towards men are to be emphasised as its main
element”.656 In John 15:15οὐκέτιλέγω ὑμᾶςδούλους . . . ὑμᾶςδὲ εἴρηκαφίλους, as
can be seen by the contrast, φίλος has, of course, its simple sense of friend.
In Corinth the Gospel was understood otherwise than in Jerusalem, in Egypt
otherwise than in Ephesus. The history of our Religion, in its further course,
manifestly shows distinct phases of Christianity: we see, in succession or side
by side, a Jewish Christianity and an International—a Roman, a Greek, a German
and a Modern. The historical conditions of this vigorous development are to be
found to a large extent in the profusion of the individual forms which were
available for the ideas of the Evangelists and the Apostles. The variation in
the meaning of religious terms has not always been to the disadvantage of
religion itself: the Kingdom of God is not in words.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 13: 03 - FURTHER CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HISTORY OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE
========================================================================

III.

FURTHER CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HISTORY OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE BEING
NEUE BIBELSTUDIEN, MARBURG, 1897.

ὁδὲἀγρόςἐστινὁκόσμος


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 14: 03.01 - FURTHER CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HISTORY OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE
========================================================================

FURTHER CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HISTORY OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE In the
third article657 of Bibelstudien we endeavoured to correct the widespread notion
that the New Testament presents us with a uniform and isolated linguistic
phenomenon. Most of the lexical articles in that section were intended to make
good the thesis that a philological understanding of the history of New
Testament (and also of Septuagint) texts could be attained to only when these
were set in their proper historical connection, that is to say, when they were
considered as products of later Greek. Friedrich Blass in his critique658 of
Bibelstudien has expressed himself with regard to this inquiry in the following
manner:— The third treatise again659 begins with general reflections, the
purport of which is that it is erroneous to regard New Testament, or even
biblical, Greek as something distinct and isolated, seeing that the Papyrus
documents and the Inscriptions are essentially of the same character, and belong
similarly to that “Book of Humanity” to which “reverence “ (Pietat ) is
due.660This appears to us to be the language of naturalism rather than of
theology but, this apart, it remains an incontestable fact that, in the sphere
of Greek literature, the New Testament books form a special group—one to be
primarily explained by itself; first, because they manifest a peculiar genius,
and, secondly, because they alone, or almost alone, represent the popular—in
contrast to the literary—speech of their time in a form not indeed wholly, but
yet comparatively, unadulterated, and in fragments of large extent. All the
Papyri in the world cannot alter this—even were there never so many more of
them: they lack the peculiar genius, and with it the intrinsic value; further,
they are to a considerable extent composed in the language of the office or in
that of books. True, no one would maintain that the N.T. occupies an absolutely
isolated position, or would be other than grateful661 if some peculiar
expression therein were to derive illumination and clearness from cognate
instances in a Papyrus. But it would be well not to expect too much. The author
must confess that he did not expect this opposition from the philological
side.662 The objections of such a renowned Graecist—renowned also in theological
circles—certainly did not fail to make an impression upon him. They prompted him
to investigate his thesis again, and more thoroughly, and to test its soundness
by minute and detailed research. But the more opportunity he had of examining
non-literary Greek texts of the imperial Roman period, the more clearly did he
see himself compelled to stand out against the objections of the Halle Scholar.
Blass has meanwhile published his Grammar of New Testament Greek.663 In the
Introduction, as was to be expected, he expresses his view of the whole
question. The astonishment with which the present writer read the following, p.
2, may be conceived:— . . . The spoken tongue in its various gradations (which,
according to the rank and education of those who spoke it, were, of course, not
absent from it) comes to us quite pure—in fact even purer than in the New
Testament itself—in the private records, the number and importance of which are
constantly being increased by the ever-growing discoveries in Egypt. Thus the
New Testament language may be quite justly placed in this connection, and
whoever would write a grammar of the popular language of that period on the
basis of all these various witnesses and remains, would be, from the
grammarian’s point of view, taking perhaps a more correct course than one who
should limit himself to the language of the N.T.664 If the present writer judges
rightly, Blass has, in these sentences, abandoned his opposition to the thesis
above mentioned. For his own part, at least, he does not perceive what objection
he could take to these words, or in what respect they differ from the statements
the accuracy of which had previously been impugned by Blass. When in the Grammar
we read further:— Nevertheless those practical considerations from which we
started will more and more impose such a limitation, for that which some
Egyptian or other may write in a letter or in a deed of sale is not of equal
value with that which the New Testament authors have written:— it can hardly
need any asseveration on the author’s part that with such words in themselves he
again finds no fault. For practical reasons, on account of the necessities of
biblical study, the linguistic relations of the New Testament, and of the Greek
Bible as a whole, may continue to be treated by themselves, but certainly not as
the phenomena of a special idiom requiring to be judged according to its own
laws.

Moreover, that view of the inherent value of the ideas of the New Testament
which Blass again emphasises in the words quoted from his Grammar, does not
enter into the present connection. It must remain a matter of indifference to
the grammarian whether he finds ἐάν used for ἄν in the New Testament or in a
bill of sale from the Fayyûm, and the lexicographer must register the κυριακός
found in the pagan Papyri and Inscriptions with the same care as when it occurs
in the writings of the Apostle Paul. The following investigations have been, in
part, arranged on a plan which is polemical. For although the author is now
exempted, on account of Blass’s present attitude, from any need of controversy
with him as regards principles, still the historical method of biblical
philology has very many opponents even yet. In this matter, one thinks first of
all of the unconscious opponents, viz., those who in the particular questions of
exegesis and also of textual criticism stand under the charm of the “New
Testament” Greek without ever feeling any necessity to probe the whole matter to
the bottom. Among these the author reckons Willibald Grimm (not without the
highest esteem for his lasting services towards the reinvigoration of exegetical
studies), the late reviser of Wilke’s Clavis Novi Testamenti Philologica. A
comparison of the second,665 and the little-changed third,666 edition of his
work with the English revision of Joseph Henry Thayer667—the best, because the
most reliable of all dictionaries to the N.T. known to us—reveals many errors,
not only in its materials, but also in its method. His book reflects the
condition of philological research in, say, the fifties and sixties. At least,
the notion of the specifically peculiar character of New Testament Greek could
be upheld with more plausibility then than now; the New Testament texts were
decidedly the most characteristic of all the products of non-literary and of
later Greek which were then known. But materials have now been discovered in
face of which the linguistic isolation of the New Testament—even that more
modest variety of it which diffuses an atmosphere of venerable romanticism
around so many of our commentaries—must lose its last shadow of justification.
Among the conscious opponents, i.e., those who oppose in matters of principle,
we reckon Hermann Cremer. His Biblisch-theologisches Worterbuch der
neutestamentlichen Graciteit668 has for its fundamental principle the idea of
the formative power of Christianity in the sphere of language. This idea, as a
canon of historical philology, becomes a fetter upon investigation. Further, it
breaks down at once in the department of morphology. But the most conspicuous
peculiarity of “New Testament” Greek—let us allow the phrase for once—is just
the morphology. The canon breaks down very often in the syntax also. There are
many very striking phenomena in this department which we cannot isolate, however
much we may wish. The few Hebraising expressions in those parts of the New
Testament which were in Greek from the first669 are but an accidens which does
not essentially alter the fundamental character of its language. The case in
regard to these is similar to that of the Hebraisms in the German Bible, which,
in spite of the many Semitic constructions underlying it, is yet a German book.
There remains, then, only the lexical element in the narrower sense, with which
Cremer’s book is, indeed, almost exclusively occupied. In many (not in all, nor
in all the more important) of its articles, there appears, more or less clearly,
the tendency to establish new “biblical” or “New Testament” words, or new
“biblical” or “New Testament” meanings of old Greek words. That there are
“biblical” and “New Testament” words—or, more correctly, words formed for the
first time by Greek Jews and Christians—and alterations of meaning, cannot be
denied. Every movement of civilisation which makes its mark in history enriches
language with new terms and fills the old speech with new meanings. Cremer’s
fundamental idea is, therefore, quite admissible if it be intended as nothing
more than a means for investigating the history of religion. But it not
infrequently becomes a philologico-historical principle: it is not the ideas of
the early Christians which are presented to us, but their “Greek”. The correct
attitude of a lexicon, so far as concerns the history of language, is only
attained when its primary and persistent endeavour is to answer the question: To
what extent do the single words and conceptions have links of connection with
contemporary usage? Cremer, on the other hand, prefers to ask: To what extent
does Christian usage differ from heathen? In cases of doubt, as we think, the
natural course is to betake oneself placidly to the hypothesis of ordinary
usage; Cremer prefers in such cases to demonstrate something which is
distinctively Christian or, at least, distinctively biblical. In spite of the
partially polemical plan of the following investigations, polemics are not their
chief aim. Their purpose is to offer,670 towards the understanding of the New
Testament, positive materials671 from the approximately contemporary products of
later Greek, and to assist, in what degree they can, in the liberation of
biblical study from the bonds of tradition, in the secularising of it—in the
good sense of that term. They take up again, one might say, the work of the
industrious collectors of “observations” in last century. The reasons why the
new spheres of observation disclosed since that time are of special importance
for the linguistic investigation of the Greek Bible in particular, have been
already set forth and corroborated by examples.672 In these pages the following
works have been laid under contribution:— 1. Collections of Inscriptions: the
Inscriptions of Pergamus673 and those of the Islands of the AEgean Sea, fast.
1.674 2. Issues of Papyri: the Berlin Egyptian Documents, vol. i. and vol. ii.,
parts 1-9;675 also the Papyri of the Archduke Rainer, vol. i.676 In reading
these the author had in view chiefly the lexical element, but he would expressly
state that a reperusal having regard to the orthographical and morphological
features would assuredly repay itself. He desiderates, in general, a very strict
scrutiny of his own selections. It is only the most important lexical features
that are given here. The author, not having in Herborn the necessary materials
for the investigation of the LXX at his disposal, had, very reluctantly, to
leave it almost entirely out of consideration. But he has reason for believing
that the Berlin and Vienna Papyri in particular, in spite of their comparative
lateness, will yet yield considerable contributions towards the lexicon of the
LXX, and that the same holds good especially of the Inscriptions of Pergamus in
connection with the Books of Maccabees. It may be said that the two groups of
authorities have been arbitrarily associated together here. But that is not
altogether the case. They represent linguistic remains from Asia Minor677 and
Egypt, that is to say, from the regions which, above all others, come into
consideration in connection with Greek Christianity. And, doubtless, the greater
part of the materials they yield will not be merely local, or confined only to
the districts in question. The gains from the Papyri are of much wider extent
than those from the Inscriptions. The reason is obvious. We might almost say
that this difference is determined by the disparity of the respective materials
on which the writing was made. Papyrus is accommodating and is available for
private purposes; stone is unyielding, and stands open to every eye in the
market-place, in the temple, or beside the tomb. The Inscriptions, particularly
the more lengthy and the official ones, often approximate in style to the
literary language, and are thus readily liable to affectation and mannerism;
what the papyrus leaves contain is much less affected, proceeding, as it does,
from the thousand requirements and circumstances of the daily life of
unimportant people. If the legal documents among the Papyri show a certain fixed
mode of speech, marked by the formalism of the office, yet the many
letter-writers, male and female, express themselves all the more
unconstrainedly. This holds good, in particular, in regard to all that is,
relatively speaking, matter of form. But also in regard to the vocabulary, the
Inscriptions afford materials which well repay the labour spent on them. What
will yet be yielded by the comprehensive collections of Inscriptions, which have
not yet been read by the author in their continuity, may be surmised from the
incidental discoveries to which he has been guided by the citations given by
Frankel. What might we not learn, e.g., from the one inscription of Xanthus the
Lycian!678 Would that the numerous memorials of antiquity which our age has
restored to us, and which have been already so successfully turned to account in
other branches of science, were also explored, in ever-increasing degree, in the
interest of the philologico-historical investigation of the Greek Bible! Here is
a great opportunity for the ascertainment of facts!


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 15: 04 - AN EPIGRAPHIC MEMORIAL OF THE SEPTUAGINT.
========================================================================

IV. AN EPIGRAPHIC MEMORIAL OF THE

SEPTUAGINT.

. . . εἰ ἄραγεψηλαφήσειαναὐτὸνκαὶευροιεν.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 16: 04.01 - AN EPIGRAPHIC MEMORIAL OF THE SEPTUAGINT.
========================================================================

An Epigraphic Memorial of the Septuagint. The Alexandrian translation of the Old
Testament passed from the sphere of Jewish learning after Hellenistic Judaism
had ceased to exist. Later on, the very existence of a Greek translation was
completely forgotten.932 It is therefore all the more interesting to follow the
traces which reveal any direct or indirect effects which the Septuagint had upon
the common people—their thoughts and their illusions. The materials for a
knowledge of the popular religious and ethical ideas of the Jews and Christians
in the imperial period are more meagre than those which yield us the thoughts of
the cultured and learned. But those materials, scanty though they be, have not
as yet been fully worked. Scholars are usually more interested in the
theologians of Tiberias, Alexandria, Antioch and Rome, than in such people as
found their edification in the “Apocryphal” Legends, Gospels and Acts. But
surely it is erroneous to suppose that we have a satisfactory knowledge of the
history of religion when we have gained but a notion of the origin and
development of dogma. The history of religion is the history of the religious
feeling (Religiositat) not that of theology, and as truly as religion is older
than theology,—as truly as religion has existed in every age outside of theology
and in opposition to dogma, so imperious must grow the demand that we shall
assign a place in the gallery of history to the monuments of popular piety.
These are necessarily few. For while theology, and the religion of theologians,
have always been capable of asserting themselves, the religion of the people at
large has not been concerned to raise memorials of itself. Thus it is not to be
wondered at that the copious literature of theology should, so far as appearance
goes, stifle the insignificant remains of the people’s spontaneous expression of
their religion,933—not to speak of the fact that much that was of value in the
latter was intentionally destroyed. That which was extra-theological and
extra-ecclesiastical was looked upon by the official theology as a priori
questionable. Why, even at the present day, most of those productions of ancient
popular religion come to us bearing the same stigma: we are accustomed to think
of them as Apocryphal, Heretical, Gnostic, and as such to ignore them. But those
ideas, further, which we commonly designate as Superstition934 seem to the
author to deserve a place in the history of popular religion. The ordinary
members of the community, townsman and peasant, soldier and slave, went on
living a religious life of their own,935 unaffected by the theological
tendencies around them. We may very well doubt, indeed, whether that which moved
their hearts was religion in the same sense as Prophecy or the Gospel, but their
faith had received from the illustrious past the religious temper, at least, of
ingenuous and unquestioning childhood. Their faith was not the faith of Isaiah
or of the Son of Man; still, their “superstition” was not wholly forsaken of
God. A devout soul will not be provoked by their follies, for throughout all
their “heathenish” myth-forming and the natural hedonism of their religion there
throbbed a yearning anticipation of the Divine. The superstitions of the
imperial period do not permitof being divided into the three classes: Heathen,
Jewish, Christian. There is frequently no such clear distinction between the
faith of the Heathen and the Jew and that of the Christian. Superstition is
syncretic in character: this fact has been anew confirmed by the extensive
recently-discovered remains of the Literature of Magic. And yet it is possible,
with more or less precision, to assign certain fragments of these to one of the
three departments named. The literary memorial which is to be discussed below
has been influenced in the most marked degree by the ideas of Greek Judaism, or,
what is practically the same, of the Alexandrian Old Testament. After a few
remarks about the circumstances of its discovery,936 the text itself is given.
The tablet of lead upon which the Inscription is scratched comes from the large
Necropolis of ancient Adrumetum, the capital of the region of Byzacium in the
Roman province of Africa. The town lies on the coast to the south-east of
Carthage. In connection with the French excavations which have been successfully
carried on there for some time, the rolled-up tablet was incidentally found by a
workman in the

June of 1890;937 he noticed it only when a prong of his mattock had pierced the
roll. This damaged the tablet in three places.938 There were also other three
holes in the lead—probably caused by a nail with which the roll had been
perforated. The tablet is thus damaged in six places, but the few letters which
are in each case destroyed permit, with one exception, of being easily supplied.

We read the text thus939 :—

Ὁρκίζωσε,δαιμόνιονπνεῦματὸἐνθάδεκείμενον,τῷὀνό- ματιτῷἁγίῳΑωθ

Αβ[αὠθτὸνθεὸντοῦΑβραανκαὶτὸνΙαωτὸντοῦ

Ιακου,Ιαω

Αω[θΑβ]αωθθεὸντοῦΙσραμα˙ἄκουσοντοῦὀνόματος

ἐντίμου

4 & 5 καὶ [φοβ]εροῦκαὶμεγάλουκαὶἄπελθεπρὸςτὸνΟ(ὐ) ρ-

βανόν,ὃν ἔτεκ(ε)νΟὑρβανὰ,καὶἄξοναὐτὸνπρὸςτὴν

6 Δομιτιανὴν,ἣν ἔτεκενΚ[αν]δίδα,ἐρῶνταμαινόμενον

ἀγρυπνο[ῦν]-

ταἐπὶτῇφιλίᾳαὐτῆςκαὶἐπιθυμίᾳκαὶδεόμενοναὐτῆς

ἐπανελθεῖν

εἰςτὴνοἰκίαναὐτοῦσύμβιο[ν] γενέσθαι. Ὁρκίζωσετὸν

μέγανθεὸν

τὸναἰώνιονκαὶἐπαιώνιονκιὰπαντοκράτορατὸν ὑπερ- άνωτῶν

10 ὑπεράνωθεῶν. Ὁρκίζωσετὸνκτίσαντατὸνοὐρανὸν

καὶτὴνθά-

λασσαν. Ὁρκιζωσετὸνδιαχωρίσαντατοὺςεὐσεβεῖς.

Ὁρκίζωσε

τὸνδιαστήσαντατὴνῥάβδονἐντῇθαλάσσῃἀγαγεῖνκαὶ

ζεῦξαι

[τὸ]νΟὐρβανὸν,ὅν ἔτεκενΟὐρβανὰ,πρὸςτὴν

Δομιταιανὰν,ἣν ἔτεκεν

[Καν]δίδα,ἐρῶνταβασανιζόμενονἀργυπνοῦνταἐπὶτῇ

ἐπιθυμίᾳαὐ-

15 τῆςκαὶ ἔρωτι,ἵνααὐτὴνσύμβιονἀπάγῃεἰςτὸνοἰκίαν

ἑαυτοῦ. Ὁρκί-

ζωσετὸνποιήσαντατὴνἡμίονονμὴτεκεῖν. Ὁρκίζωσε

τὸνδιορίσαν-

τατὸ [φῶς] ἀπὸτοῦσκότους. Ὁρκίζωσετὸνσυντρίβοντα

τὰςπέτρας.

Ορκίζω[ωσ]ετὸνἀπο(ρ)ρήξαντατὰὄρη. Ὁρκίζωσετὸν

συνστρέφοντατὴν

γῆνἐ[πὶτ]ῶνθεμελίωναὐτῆς. Ὁρκίζωσετὸἅγιονὄνομα

ὃοὐλέγεται˙ἐν

20 τῷ [. . .] ῳ [ὀ]νομάσωαὐτὸκαὶοἱδαίμονεςἐξεγερθῶσιν

ἔκθαμβοικαὶπερί-

φοβ[οιγεν]όμενοι,ἀγαγεῖνκαὶζεῦξαισύμβιοντὸνΟὐρ- βανὸν,ὃν ἔτεκεν,

Οὐρβανὰ,πρὸςτὴνΔομιτιανὰν,ἣν ἔτεκενΚανδίδα,ἐρῶντα

καὶδεόμε-

νοναὐτῆς,ἤδηταχύ. Ὁρκίζωσετὸνφωστῆρακαὶἄστρα

ἐνοὐρανῷποιή-

σανταδιὰφωνῆςπροστάγ[μ]ατοςὥστεφαίνεινπᾶσιν

ἀνθρώποις.

25 Ὁρκίζωσετὸνσυνσείσαν[τ]απᾶσαντὴνοἰκουμένηνκαι

τὰὄρη

ἐκτραχηλίζοντακαὶἐκβρά[ζ]οντατὸνποιοῦντα ἔκτρομον

τὴν [γ]ῆ-

νἅπασ(ανκαὶ) καινίζονταπάνταςτοὺςκατοικοῦντας. Ὁρ- κίζωσετὸνποιή-

σαντασημεῖαἐνοὐρανῷκ[αὶ] ἐπιὶγῆςκαὶθαλάσσης, ἀγαγεῖνκαὶζεῦξαι

σύμβιοντὸνΟὐρβανὸν,ὃν ἔ[τ]εκενΟὐρβανὰ,πρὸςτὴν

Δομιτιανὰν,ἣν

30 ἔτεκενΚανδίδα,ἐρῶντααὐτῆςκαὶἀγρυπνοῦνταἐπὶτῇ

ἐπιθυμίᾳαὐ-

τῆςδεόμενοναὐτῆςκαὶἐρωτῶντααὐτὴν,ἵναἐπανέλθῃ

εἰςτὴνοἰκίαν

[α]ὐτοσύμβιοςγενομένη. Ὁρκίζωσετὸνθεὸντὸνμέγαν

τὸναἰώ-

[νι]ονκαὶπαντοκράτορα,ὃνφοβεῖταιὄρηκαὶνάπαικαθ’

ὅλην [τ]ὴνοἰ-

κο[υ]μέ[ν]ην,δι’ὃνὁλέωνἀφίησιντὸἅρπαγμακαὶτὰ

ὄρητρέμει

35 κα[ὶἡγῆ] καὶἡθάλασσα,ἕκαστοςἰδάλλεταιὃν ἔχει

φόβοςτοῦΚυρίου

α[ἰωνίου] ἀθανάτουπαντεφόπτουμισοπονήρουἐπιστα- μένουτὰ

[γενόμεν]αἀγαθὰκαὶκακὰκαὶκατὰθάλασσανκαὶπο- ταμοὺςκαὶτὰὄρη

κα[ὶτὴνγ]ῆν,ΑωθΑβαωθτὸνθεὸντοῦΑβραανκαὶ

τὸν [Ι] αωτὸντοῦΙακου,

Ια[ὠΑωθΑβαωθΘεὸντοῦΙσραμα˙ἄξονζεῦξοντὸν

Οὐρβανὸν,ὃν

40 ἔτεκενΟὐρβα(νὰ),πρὸςτὴνΔομιτιανὰν,ἣν ἔτεκενΚαν- δίδα,ἐρῶντα

μαι[ν]όμενονβασανιζόμενονἐπὶτῇφιλίᾳκαὶ ἔρωτικαὶ

ἐπιθυμίᾳ

τηΔομιτιανῆς,ἣν ἔτεκενκανδίδα. ζεῦξοναὐτοὺςγάμῳ

καὶ

ἔρωτισυμβιοῦνταςὅλῳτῷτῆςζωῆςαὐτῶνχρόνῳ˙ποίη- σοναὐ-

τὸνὡςδοῦλοναὐτῇἐρῶντα ὑποτεταχθέναι,μηδεμίαν

ἄλλη[ν]

45 γυναῖκαμήτεπαρθένονἐπιθυμοῦντα,μόνηνδὲτὴνΔο- μιτια[νὰν],

ἣν ἔτεκενΚανδίδα,σύμβ[ι]ον ἔχεινὃλῳτ[ῷ] τῆς [ζωῆς

αὐτῶνχρόνῳ], ἤδηἤδηταχὺταχύ.

Line 2, Ιακου: M. corr. Ἰ(σ)άκου.

Line 3 and line 39, Ισραμα: M. corr. Ἰσραήλ.

Line 4, line 5 had to be commenced after μεγάλου.

Line 20, τῷ[. . . ] ῳ : M τῷ (ἀδύτ)ῳ.

Line 27, και before καινίζοντα had fallen out by hemigraphy.

Line 33, ὅν: M. οὗ.

Line 35, ἓκαστος (in place of the ἓκαστον of the original) ἰδάλλετα. M. (ὃν)
ἕκαστος (ε)ἰδάλλεται.

Line 44, ἄλλη[ν]: M. μήτε.

Keeping up the formal peculiarities of the text, we may, perhaps, translate it
as follows:—

“I adjure thee, demonic spirit, who dost rest here, with the sacred names Aoth
Abaoth, by the God of Abraan and the Jao of Jaku, the Jao Aoth Abaoth, the God
of Israma: hearken to the glorious and fearful 4 & 5 and great name, and hasten
to Urbanus, whom Urbana bore, and bring him to Domitiana, whom Candida bore, so
that he, loving, frantic, sleepless with love of her and desire, may beg her to
return to his house and become his wife. I adjure thee by the great God, the 10
eternal and more than eternal and almighty, who is exalted above the exalted
Gods. I adjure thee by Him who created the heaven and the sea. I adjure thee by
him who separates the devout ones. I adjure thee by him who divided his staff in
the seasic, that thou bring Urbanus, whom Urbana bore, and unite him with Domit-
iana, whom Candida bore, so that he, loving, tormented, sleepless with desire of
her and with love, may take her 15 home to his house as his wife. I adjure thee
by him who caused the mule not to bear. I adjure thee by him who divided the
light from the darkness. I adjure thee by him who crusheth the rocks. I adjure
thee by him who parted the mountains. I adjure thee by him who holdeth the earth
upon her foundations. I adjure 20 thee by the sacred Name which is not uttered;
in the [— —] I will mention it and the demons will be startled, terrified and
full of horror, that thou bring Urbanus, whom Urbana bore, and unite him as
husband with Domitiana, whom Candida bore, and that he loving may beseech her;
at once! quick! I adjure thee by him who set a lamp and stars in the heavens by
the command of his voice so that they might lighten all 25 men. I adjure thee by
him who shook the whole world, and causeth the mountains to fall and rise, who
causeth the whole earth to quake, and all her inhabitants to return. I adjure
thee by him who made signs in the heaven and upon the earth and upon the sea,
that thou bring Urbanus, whom Urbana bore, and unite him as 30 husband with
Domitiana, whom Candida bore, so that he, loving her, and sleepless with desire
of her, beg her and beseech her to return to his house as his wife. I adjure
thee by the great God, the eternal and almighty, whom the mountains fear and the
valleys in 35 all the world, through whom the lion parts with the spoil, and the
mountains tremble and the earth and the sea, (through whom) every one becomes
wise who is possessed with the fear of the Lord, the eternal, the immortal, the
all-seeing, who hateth evil, who knoweth what good and what evil happeneth in
the sea and the rivers and the mountains and the earth, Aoth Abaoth; by the God
of Abraan and the Jao of Jaku, the Jao Aoth Abaoth, the God of Israma, bring and
unite 40 Urbanus, whom Urbana bore, with Domitiana, whom Candida bore,—loving,
frantic, tormented with love and affection and desire for Domitiana, whom
Candida bore; unite them in marriage and as spouses in love for the whole time
of their life. So make it that he, loving, 45 shall obey her like a slave, and
desire no other wife or maiden, but have Domitiana alone, whom Candida bore, as
his spouse for the whole time of their life, at once, at once! quick, quick!”

EXPLANATION. The tablet, as is shown not only by its place of origin (the
Necropolis of Adrumetum belongs to the second and third centuries, A.D.; the
part in which the tablet was found is fixed in the third), but also by the
character of the lettering, is to be assigned to the third century,940 that
is—to determine it by a date in the history of the Greek Bible—about the time of
Origen. Maspero includes it among the Imprecation-tablets (Devotions-oder
Defixionstafeln) not infrequently found in ancient tombs.941 A leaden tablet,
rolled up like a letter, was placed in the tomb with the dead, in order, as it
were, to let it reach the residence of the deities of the underworld; to their
vengeance was delivered the enemy whose destruction was desired.942 This tablet,
however, contains no execrations against an enemy, but is a love-spell943
dressed in the form of an energetic adjuration of a demon, by means of which a
certain Domitiana desires to make sure of the possession of her Urbanus. The
technical details of the spell have no direct significance for our subject; we
are interested only in the formulae by which the demon is adjured. It is upon
these, therefore, that the greatest stress will be laid in the following
detailed explanation. We may at once take for granted that these formulae were
not composed by Domitiana herself. She copied them, or had them copied, from one
of the many current books of Magic, and in doing so had her own name and that of
the person loved inserted at the respective places. To conclude from the
biblical nature of the formulae she used, that she must have been a Jewess, or
even a Christian,944 would be a precarious inference; it seems to the author
more probable that she and Urbanus, to judge from their names perhaps slaves or
emancipated945 persons, were “heathens”.946 Quite ingenuously the love-sick girl
applied the spell, which her adviser asserted to be of use in love-troubles—just
because it so stood, black on white, in the “Books”. On this assumption the
historical value of the formulae is increased, for the formulae thus employed in
the third century must have been extracted by the writer of the book in question
at a certainly much earlier date947 from the Alexandrian Old Testament. In the
Magic books now in Paris, Leiden and London, which were in the main composed
before the third century, we find quite a multitude of similar adjurations
compiled from biblical materials, and the task of subjecting these to a critical
survey is well worth while.948 It would thus, for the reasons indicated, be a
mistake, as the author thinks, to add this tablet to the proofs of the presence
of Jews westwards of Cyrenaica, a collection of which has been made by
Schurer949 so far as regards the imperial period. In detail, the following
observations must be made:— Line 1 f. It is the δαιμόνιονπνεῦμα of the tomb in
which or upon which the spell was laid that is addressed. That the δαιμόνια stay
beside the grave is an idea of post-biblical Judaism: these demons of the tomb
help men in the practice of Magic.950 It is in the Papyri a frequently given
direction, to make sure of the assistance of a spirit who resides in the grave
of a murdered person or of one who has in any other way perished
unfortunately.951—ὁρκίζωτῷὀνόματιτῷἁγίῳ: cf. (3) 1Es 1:48,
ὁρκισθεὶςτῷὀνόματικυρίου ; for τὸ ὄνοματὸἅγιον, exceedingly frequent in
“biblical” Greek, specially in Lev., Pss. and Ezek., particular references are
unnecessary.— Α ω θ: a Divine name in Magic, not infrequent in the Papyri; in
the Clavis Melitonis952 it is “explained” as gloriosus. As in Pap. Lond. xlvi.
134,953 so also here it stands in connection with Αβαωθ, likewise a Magical
Divine name. —τὸνθεὸντοῦΑβρααν : ὁρκίζειντινά = to adjure by any one, as in Mark
5:7, Acts 19:13. The God of Abraham, etc., is the solemn biblical designation of
God. We thought it well to leave the form Αβρααν in the text, as it is
significant for the nationality of the writer of the tablet: a Jew would hardly
have written it so. Domitiana—or the obliging magician—did not know the word.
The writer of Pap. Lugd. J 384, ix. 7 954 has made a similar corruption where
he, in the midst of a long series of Magical Divine names, writes
Αβρααν,τὸνΙσακ,τὸνΙακκωβι ; so also Codex B (Birch) has Αβρααν in Luke 3:34. The
interchanging of μ and ν at the end of Semitic words is to be frequently seen
elsewhere; see below, p. 310 f. [↓]— τὸνΙαωτὸντοῦΙακου : on Ιαω see below, p.
324; observe the article here. Ιακου was likewise left as it was; probably it is
a corruption of Ισακου ;955 even Josephus Graecises the simple transcription, as
with most proper names; Ισακ or Ισαακ he gives as Ἲσακος. Line 3 f. τοῦΙσραμα :
clearly a corruption of Ισραηλ, arising from a copyist’s error; the Λ might
easily become A. The use of the solemn designation the God of Abraham, of Isaac
and of Jacob is exceedingly common in the Magical formulm.956 These names,
according to Origen, had to be left untranslated in the adjurations if the power
of the incantation was not to be lost:957— ἄκουσοντοῦὀνόματοςἐντίμου
καὶφοβεροῦκαὶμεγάλου : LXX Deuteronomy 28:58, φοβεῖσθαι τὸὄνοματὸ
ἔντιμοντὸθαυμαστὸντοῦτο (Cf. also LXX Psalms 71:14 [MT Psalms 72:14], ὄνομα
ἔντιμον said of a human name); LXX Psa. 110꞉9 [MT Psalms 111:9],
φοβερὸντὸὄνομααὐτοῦ, similarly LXX Psalms 98:3 [MT Psalms 99:3]; τὸὄνοματὸμέγα
of the name of God, LXX Psalms 98:3 [MT Psalms 99:3], Ezekiel 36:23, cf. LXX
Psalms 75:2 [MT Psalms 76:2] and Isaiah 33:21; the combination μέγαςκαὶφοβερός
is very frequently applied to God in the LXX: Deuteronomy 10:17, 1 Chronicles
16:25, Nehemiah 1:5, Nehemiah 4:14, LXX Psalms 46:3 [MT Psalms 47:3], LXX Psalms
88:8 [MT Psalms 89:8], LXX Psalms 95:4 [MT Psalms 96:4], Sir 43:29. Lines 4-8.
The persons named, as has been said, were probably slaves or had been
emancipated. An Οὐρβανός is found also in Romans 16:9; he was a Christian of
Ephesus,958 and is distinguished by Paul with the title of honour συνεργός.—The
consistent annexation of the name of the person’s mother is stereotyped in the
Magic formulae, and manifests itself up to a late period.959 The directions
found in the Magic Papyri exhibit this pattern in innumerable examples; the
construction is such that the particular person’s name requires only to be
inserted instead of the provisional ὁ δεῖνα,ὃν ἔτεκενἡδεῖνα. — ἀγρυπνέωἐπί : cf.
LXX Proverbs 8:34, Job 21:32.— σύμβιος: as to the usage of this word, especially
in Egyptian Greek, attention should be paid to the collection of W. Brunet de
Presle,960 which may be extended by many passages in the Berlin Papyrus
documents now in course of publication. The word is common among the Christians
later on. Line 8 f. τὸνμέγανθεὸντὸναἰώνιον : LXX Isaiah 26:4,
ὁθεὸςὁμέγαςὁαἰώνιος ; cf. Isaiah 40:28, Sus. 42.—ἐπαιώνιον LXX Exodus 15:18,
κύριοςβασιλεύωντὸναἰῶνακαὶἐπ’αἰῶνακαὶ ἔτι.—παντοκράτορα, very frequent in LXX.—
τὸν ὑπεράνωτῶν ὑπεράνωθεῶν : cf. LXX Ezekiel 10:19, καὶ δόξαθεοῦἸσραὴλἦνἐπ’αὐτῶν
(the cherubim) ὑπεράνω, similarly Ezekiel 11:22; and with the idea,
φοβερόςἐστινἐπὶπάνταςτοὺςθεούς, LXX Psalms 95:4 [MT Psalms 96:4] 961 Line 10 f.
τὸνκτίσαντατὸνοὐρανὸνκαὶτὴν θάλασσαν ; an echo of Genesis 1:1, not in
expression,962 but in sense, like LXX Genesis 14:19, Genesis 14:22, [3] 1Es
6:13, Bel 5, cf.Revelation 10:6, and with this LXX Psalms 145:6 [MT Psalms
146:6] . The collocation Heaven and sea instead of Heaven and earth is
surprising in this connection, but it is not foreign to the O.T. An exhaustive
collection of the many variants—echoes of Genesis 11:1-32.— for Creator of the
heavens and the earth in Judaeo-Hellenistic and early Christian literature which
have become formulaic, would be an important contribution to the history of the
text of the “Apostolic” Symbol. Line 11. τὸνδιαχωρίσαντατοὺςεὐσεβεῖς can only
mean, he who separates the devout ones, i.e., from the godless; διαχωρίζω = to
separate from is common in the LXX. The passage is an allusion to Sir 36:1-26
[33] ff.ἐν πλήθειἐπιστήμηςκύριοςδιεχώρισεναὐτοὺς (men): so we have the contrast
ἀπέναντιεὐσεβοῦςἁμαρτωλός (in Sir 36:14). Line 12.
τὸνδιαστήσαντατὴνῥάβδονἐντῇθαλάσσῃ, literally, he who divides his staff in the
sea. This is, of course, meaningless; the first writer of the incantation,
without doubt, wrote inversely: τὸνδιαστήσαντατὴνθάλασσανἐντῇῥάβδῳ or τῇῥάβδῳ,
who divided the sea with his staff, an allusion in sense to LXX Exodus 14:15 f.:
εἶπεδὲκύριοςπρὸςΜωϋσῆν . . . καὶσὺ ἔπαροντῇῥάβῳσουκαὶ ἔκτεινοντὴνχεῖρά
σουἐπὶτὴνθάλασσανκαὶῥῆξοναὐτήν, with the difference that in the Bible it is
Moses who lifts the staff—though of course at God’s command. In regard to form
its similarity with Theodotion LXX Psalms 73:13 [MT Psalms 74:13]963σὺ (God)
διέστησαςἐντῇδυνάμεισουτὴνθάλασσαν, with which should be compared LXX Exodus
15:8: καὶδιὰπνεύματοςτοῦθυμοῦσουδιέστητὸ ὕδωρ. . .ἐπάγητὰκύματατῆςθαλάσσης. The
miracle at the Red Sea, so frequently celebrated in the Psalms and elsewhere, is
also alluded to in other Magical formulae.964 See under ἐν, above [↑], Art. ii.,
upon the possible ἐντῇῥάβδῳ. Line 16. τὸνποιήσαντατὴνἡμίονονμὴτεκεῖν a peculiar
designation of God. It does not occur, as such, in the Old Testament, but the
underlying idea of God’s providentia specialissima for the animals is very
similarly expressed in the sublime address of Jahweh to the doubting Job (Job
38:1-41 ff.); cf., in particular, Job 39:1-3: Knowest thou the time when the
wild goats of the rock bring forth? Or canst thou mark when the hinds do calve?
Canst thou number the months that they fulfil, or knowest thou the time when
they bring forth? They bow themselves, they bring forth their young, they cast
out their sorrows. It is God who directs all this. Just as He gives young to the
wild goats and the hinds, so, the present passage would say, He has made the
mule to be barren. The barrenness of the mule is often mentioned in the
Mishna;965 it was manifestly a fact of great interest in the Jewish Philosophy
of Nature, as also in Greek and Latin authors:966 Plin. Nat. Hist. viii. 173:
observatum ex duobus diversis generibus nata tertii generis fieri et neutri
parentium esse similia, eaque ipsa quae sunt ita nata non gignere in omni
animalium genere, idcirco mulas non parere. When Zopyrus was besieging Babylon
he received, according to Herod. iii. 153, the oracle
ἐπεάνπερἡμίονοιτέκωσιν,τότετὸτεῖχοςἁλώσεσθαι. The partus of a mule was reckoned
a prodigium Cic. de Div. ii. 22 49 , 28 61 , Liv. xxxvii. 3 3 , JUV. xiii. 64,
Sueton. Galba, 4, and this explains the Roman proverb” cum mula peperit, i.e.,
never. Then the fact played a great part in incantations. Gargilius Martialis
(third cent. A.D.) in de cura bourn § 19 (ed. Schuch)967 hands down the
following healing charm: nec lapis lanam fert, nec lumbricus oculos habet, nec
mula parit utriculum; similarly Marcellus (fifth cent. A.D.), De Medicam. viii.
191 (ed. Helmreich):968nec mula parit nec lapis lanam fert nec huic morbo caput
crescat aut si creverit tabescat, and a Codex Vossianus ed. Piechotta Anecd.
lat. clxx.:969 “quod mula non parit” et exspues, “nec cantharus aquam bibit” et
exspues, “nec palumba dentes habet” et exspues, “sic mihi dentes non doleant” et
expues. Finally, reference must be made to a passage in the Leiden copy of the
Codex Corbeiensis of Vegetius,970 which gives the formula: focus alget, aqua
sitit, cibaria esurit, mula parit, tasca masca venas omnes. But what comes
nearest to our passage is a sentence preserved in a poem of the Codex
Vindobonensis, 93:971herbula Proserpinacia, Horci regis filia, quomodo clausisti
mulae partum, sic claudas et undam sanguinis huius, and in a still more
instructive form in the Codex Bonnensis, 218 (66 a):972herbula Proserpinacia,
Horci regis filia, adiuro te per tuas virtutes, ut quomodo clausisti partum
mulae, claudas undas sanguinis huinus. Strange as at first sight the affirmation
thus made of God may appear in connection with the others, we now see that in an
incantation it is least of all strange. The Jewish compiler of our text borrowed
it from pagan sources, probably unconsciously but perhaps intentionally using a
biblical phrase—and, indeed, the intention did not directly oppose the biblical
range of thought. Line 16 f. τὸνδιορίσαντατὸφῶςἀπὸτοῦσκότους : cf. LXX Genesis
1:4, καὶδιεχώρισενὁθεὸςἀνὰμέσοντοῦφωτὸςκαὶἀνὰμέσοντοῦσκότους—similarly Genesis
1:18. The compiler quotes freely: διορίζειν, frequent elsewhere in the LXX, also
with ἀπό, does not stand in any of the Greek translations of this passage. It is
significant that he has avoided the repeated “between,” a Hebraism taken over by
the LXX. Line 17. τὸνσυντρίβοντατὰςπέτρας : an echo in form of LXX 3Ki. 19꞉11
[MT 1 Kings 19:11], πνεῦμαμέγα . . . συντρῖβον πέτραςἐνώπιονκυρίου : cf. LXX
Nahum 1:6, καὶαἱπέτραιδιεθρύβησανἀπ’αὐτοῦ. Line 18. τὸνἀπορρήξαντατὰὄρη : cf.
LXX Psalms 77:15 [MT Psalms 78:15] διέρρηξεπέτρανἐνἐρήμῳ, similarly LXX Psa.
104꞉41 [MT Psalms 105:41]; parallels to the thought are easily found. Line 18 f.
τὸνσυνστρέφοντατὴνγῆνἐπὶτῶνθεμελίωναὐτῆς : συστρέφω, current in the LXX, though
not in this connection; τὰθεμέλιατῆςγῆς is likewise frequent. With regard to the
sense, cf. LXX Proverbs 8:29ἰσχυρὰ ἐποίει τὰ θεμέλια τῆς γῆς, and the common
phrase ἐθεμελίωσετὴνγῆν. Line 19 ff. ὁρκίζωσετὸἅγιονὄνομαὃοὐλέγεται : It is
possible to doubt this punctuation. Maspero writes ὃοὐλέγεταιἐντῷἀδύτῳ, but if
the reading ἀδύτῳ is correct, then, with his punctuation, the thought would be
in direct opposition to the Jewish view, for the Temple was just the one place
in which the name of God could be pronounced; Philo, De Vit. Mos. iii. 11 (M.,
p. 152), says . . ὀνόματοςὃ
μόνοιςτοῖςὦτακαὶγλῶττανσοφίᾳκεκαθαρμένοιςθέμιςἀκούειν
καὶλέγεινἐνἁγίοις,ἄλλῳδὲοὐδενὶτὸπαράπανοὐδαμοῦ. The Mischna, Tamid, vii. 2,973
has “In the Temple the name of God is pronounced as it is written; in the land
[elsewhere] another title is substituted”. We consider it absolutely impossible
that any one having any kind of sympathy with Judaism whatever could assert that
the holy name was not pronounced in the Temple. If the word read by Maspero as
ἀδύτῳ can be made out at all—which to us, judging at least from the fac-simile,
appears impossible—then, if it is to be read after ὃοὐλέγεται, it must be a
general term of place such as κόσμῳ or λαῷ; if, again, it is to be connected
with the following ὀνομάσωαὐτό, then ἐντῷἀδύτῳ were meaningless, or at least
very singular. Of which Temple could the Jewish compiler be thinking? Can it be
that he wrote before the destruction of the Temple?974 We would therefore
propose to consider ὃοὐλέγεται as a clause by itself: it expresses the
well-known Jewish idea that the name of God is an ὄνομαἄρρητον,—see LXX
Leviticus 24:16ὀνομάζωνδὲτὸὄνομακυρίουθανάτῳθανατούσθω; Josephus, Antt. ii. 12
4: καὶὁθεὸςαὐτῳσημαίνειτὴνἑαυτοῦπροσηγορίαν
οὐπρότερονεἰςἀνθρώπουςπαρελθοῦσαν,περὶἧςοὔμοιθεμιτὸν εἰπεῖν.975—ἐντῷ [ . . .
]ῳὀνομάσωαὐτὸκαὶοἱδαίμονες ἐξεγερθῶσιν ἔκθαμβοικαὶπερίφοβοιγενόμενοι. How the
lacuna after ἐντῷ is to be filled up the present writer does not know, and he
will make no conjectures; thus much only is probable, viz., that what stood
there was a designation of place or time. The magician utters the severest
possible threat against the demon; he will, in order to win him over, pronounce
the unutterable Name of God, the very sound of which fills the demons with
shuddering and dread. That demons and spirits are controlled by the mention of
sacred names has remained to the present day one of the most important ideas in
magic.976 We have no direct example of this in the LXX, but we can point to
James 2:19 as being valid for biblical times, καὶτὰδαιμόνια
πιστεύουσινκαὶφρίσσουσιν, which presupposes the same fearful impression upon the
demons of the thought of God. With this is to be compared Pap. Lond. xlvi. 80
f.977 (fourth cent. A.D.), where the Demon is adjured κατὰτῶνφρικτῶνὀνομάτων,
just as Josephus, Bell. Jud. v. 10 3, speaks of the φρικτὸν ὄνοματοῦθεοῦ. The
overwhelming effect of the Divine name upon the Demons was a very familiar idea
in post-biblical Judaism.978 not altogether un-Greek. —ὥστεφαίνεινπᾶσινἀνθρώποις
: LXX Genesis
1:17καὶἔθετοαὐτοὺςὁθεὸςἐντῷστερεώματιτοῦοὐρανοῦὥστεφαίνεινἐπὶτῆςγῆς.

Line 25 f. τὸνσυνσείσανταπᾶσαντὴνοἰκουμένην: LXX Psalms 59:4 [MT Psalms 60:4],
συνέσεισαςτὴνγῆν. For πᾶσαν τὴνοἰκουμένην, cf. LXX Isaiah 13:5.—
καὶτὰὄρηἐκτραχηλίζοντακαὶἐκβράζοντα:984 a repetition of the thought; in line 18,
but verbally independent. Line 26 f. τὸνποιοῦντα ἔκτρομοντὴνγῆνἅπασ(αν): cf. LXX
Psa. 103꞉32 [MT Psalms 104:32] ὁἐπιβλέπωνἐπὶτὴνγῆνκαὶποιῶν αὐτὴντρέμειν ;
ἔκτρομος does not seem to have been retained anywhere else, the LXX using
ἔντρομος in the same sense, LXX Psalms 17:8 [MT Psalms 18:8] and LXX Psa. 76꞉19
[MT Psalms 77:19].

Line 27. (καὶ) καινίζονταπάνταςτοὺςκατοικοῦντας : the author follows Maspero in
adding the καί. We may reject the idea that καινίζοντα has an ethical reference
in the sense of the πνεῦμακαινόν of Ezekiel 11:19, cf. Psalms 50:12 [MT Psalms
51:12], or of the καρδίακαινή of Ezekiel 36:26; we must rather take it as
expressing the idea of the preservation of the race by the ceaseless upspringing
of new generations. The compiler may have had a confused recollection of phrases
like ἐπέβλεψενἐπὶπάνταςτοὺςκατοικοῦνταςτὴν γῆν, LXX Psa. 32꞉14 [MT Psalms
33:14], and κύριοςὁθεὸς . . . καινιεῖσεἐν τῇἀγαπήσειαὐτοῦ, Zephaniah 3:17; cf.
LXX Psalms 102:5 [MT Psalms 103:5], ἀνακαινισθήσεταιὡςἀετοῦἡνεότηςσου. In Wis
7:27, τὰπάντακαινίζει, is predicated of the divine σοφία.

Line 27 f. τὸνποιήσαντασημεῖαἐνοὐρανῷκαὶ ἐπὶγῆςκαὶθαλάσσης : see Daniel
6:27καὶποιεῖσημεῖακαὶ τέραταἐντῷοὐρανῷκαὶἐπὶτῆςγῆς, cf. LXX Joel 2:30. Line 31.
ἐρωτῶντα : here, as often in Paul, Synopt., Acts, John, in the sense of beg,
beseech; not “an application of the word which was manifestly first made through
the influence of the Hebrew שׁאל,” 985 (which in that case must surely have
appeared first of all in the LXX), but popular Greek.986 Line 33.
ὃνφοβεῖταιὄρηκαὶνάπαι : instead of the unmistakable ὅν Maspero writes οὗ. A
specialising of the idea that the earth also has a “fear of God”: cf. LXX Psalms
32:8 [MT Psalms 33:8], φοβηθήτωτὸνκύριονπᾶσαἡγῆ, and LXXPsalms 66:8 [MT Psalms
67:7], φοβηθήτωσαναὐτὸνπάντατὰπέρατατῆςγῆς. For the combination of ὄρη and
νάπαιcf. LXX Isaiah 40:12, Ezekiel 6:3, Ezekiel 36:6. Line 34.
δι’ὃνὁλέωνἀφίησιντὸἅρπαγμα : the fact stated in this connection vividly recalls
τὸνποιήσαντα τὴνἡμίονονμὴτεκεῖν in line 16. It is surprising that it should be
said that God causes the lion to abandon his prey,987 whereas the biblical idea
is just that God supplies the lion’s food, Job 38:39. One might suppose an
allusion to Daniel 6:27, ὅστιςἐξείλατοτὸνΔαυιὴλἐκχειρὸςτῶνλεόντων, and similar
passages, the more so as a little before, in line 27 f., there was a strong
resemblance to the first half of the same verse; but this may be considered as
negatived by ἅρπαγμα. We shall not err in considering the statement to be an
expression of God’s omnipotence, of His complete dominion over nature: God is
even able to make possible that which is against nature, viz., that the lion
shall relinquish his prey. We may be reminded by this of the prophetic pictures
of theMessianic future in Isaiah 11:6,
καὶμοσχάριονκαὶταῦροςκαὶλέωνἅμαβοσκηθήσονταικαὶπαιδίονμικρὸνἄξειαὐτούς, and
Isaiah 65:25 = Isaiah 11:7,καὶλέωνὡςβοῦςφάγεταιἄχυρα, in which it is likewise
affirmed that the lion may change his nature, if God so wills it. The clause has
been freely compiled from biblical materials.— καὶτὰὄρητρέμει: LXX Jeremiah
4:24εἶδοντὰὄρηκαὶἦντρέμοντα. Line 35. ἕκαστοςἰδάλλεταιὃν ἔχειφόβοςτοῦ Κυρίου:
perhaps this is the most difficult passage in the Inscription. ἰδάλλομαι,
(εἰδάλλομαι) or ἰνδάλλομαι means to seem, appear, become visible, show oneself,
also to resemble. The word does not occur in the LXX, but ἴνδαλμα, the noun, is
found in LXX Jer. 27꞉39 [MT Jeremiah 50:39], probably in the sense of ghost, in
Wis 17:3 for image, which meanings are easily obtained from, the verb. The first
appearance of the verb in biblico-ecclesiastical literature, so far as the
author knows, is in Clement of Rome, 1Co. 23:2,
διὸμὴδιψυχῶμενμηδὲἰνδαλλέσθωἡψυχὴἡμῶνἐπὶταῖς ὑπερβαλλούσαιςκαὶἐνδόξοις
δωρεαῖςαὐτοῦ) (God), where either it has the meaning to seem imagine oneself,
somewhat like φυσιοῦσθαι, or it is, as Bryennios, following others, has recently
again proposed, a synonym of the verbs ἰλιγγιᾶν, to be confused, and ἐνδοιάζειν,
to waver.989 Now ἕκαστονἰδάλλεται, as the passage runs in the original, does not
give sense: Maspero conjectures ὅνἕκαστοςεἰδάλλεται and translates a qui chacun
devient semblable, which appears to us to be grammatically impossible. In regard
to the reading which we propose, which may recommend itself by the
insignificance of the textual change, we would refer to the explanation of the
verb which is given by Hesychius: ἰνδάλλεται˙ὁμοιοῦται, φαίνεται, δοκεῖ,
στοχάζεται, ἰσοῦται, σοφίζεται,990 with which is to be compared the note of
Suidas εἰδαλίμας˙συνετάς. Taking then ἰδάλλεται = σοφίζεται,991 we get the
familiar biblical thought that the Fear of God gives men Wisdom, as in LXX Psa.
110꞉10 [MT Psalms 111:10] = Proverbs 1:7, Proverbs 9:10ἀρχὴσοφίαςφόβος κυρίου,
Proverbs 22:4γενεὰσοφίαςφόβοςκυρίου; cf. LXX Psalms 18:8, Psalms 18:10 [MT
Psalms 19:8, Psalms 19:10] ἡμαρτυρίακυρίουπιστὴσοφίζουσανήπια . . . ὁ φόβος
κυρίουἁγνὸςδιαμένωνεἰςαἰῶνααἰῶνος. The only possible objection to this
explanation is that the clause has no connection with the previous one; and
certainly a καὶ, or the repetition of the δι’ὃν, were desirable—only it would be
equally required with any other reading. The writer of the tablet seems not to
have understood the statement.—With regard to ὃν ἔχειφόβοςτοῦκυρίου (cf. LXX Job
31:23φόβοςγὰρκυρίουσυνέσχεμε), reference should be made to the equivalent (in
profane Greek likewise common) use of ἔχειν, LXX Job 21:6, Isaiah 13:8, Mark
16:8. Examples of φόβοςτοῦκυρίου would be superfluous. Line 36. ἀθανάτου : Sir
51:9 [13] Cod. A has καὶἀπὸ ἀθανάτουῥύσεωςἐδεήθην, which probably means and to
the Immortal One did I pray for deliverance; cf. 1 Timothy 6:16,
ὁμόνοςἔχωνἀθανασίαν. The thought is a Greek one; this attribute of God, in the
present connection (cf. line 35), recalls the sublime Hellenistic-Jewish thought
that the knowledge of God, the possession of the divine σοφία and δικαιοσύνη,
impart immortality: Wis 15:3εἰδέναισουτὸκράτοςῥίζαἀθανασίας, Wis
8:17ἔστινἀθανασίαἐνσυγγενείᾳσοφίας, cf. Wis 8:13ἔξωδι’αὐτὴνἀθανασίαν, Wis
1:15δικαιοσύνηγὰρἀθανασίαἐστίν.992 – παντεφόπτου:993Esther
5:1τὸνπάντωνἐπόπτηνθεόν; 3Ma. 2:21ὁπάντωνἐπόπτηςθεός; 2Ma 7:35 (cf. 2Ma 3:39)
τοῦπαντοκράτοροςἐπόπτουθεοῦ; cf. LXX Job 34:24ὁγὰρκύριος πάντας (Cod. A,
τὰπάντα) ἐφορᾷ, similarly 2Ma 12:22 and 2Ma 15:2.—μισοπονήρου: the idea is
common in the O.T.;994 in regard to the word cf. μισοπονηρέω,2Ma 4:49 and 2Ma
8:4; μισοπονηρία, 2Ma 3:1. Line 36 ff. ἐπισταμένου κτλ. : a well-known biblical
idea, here developed independently with the assistance of biblical expressions.
Line 43. συμβιοῦντας: Sir 13:5 has the word. Line 45. ἐπιθυμοῦντα with the
Accusative as not infrequently in LXX; cf., e.g., Exodus 20:17, οὐκἐπιθυμήσεις
τὴνγυναῖκατοῦπλησίονσου. Looking again at the Inscription, we find, in the first
place, confirmation of the supposition that the writer of the tablet, whether
male or female, and the original author of the text cannot have been the same
individual. No One apparently so familiar with even the deeper thoughts of the
Greek Bible could fall into such childish errors in the most everyday matters,
such as the names of the patriarchs and other things. It is in all probability
most correct to suppose that the tablet (with the exception of such parts as
referred to the particular case) was copied from a book of Magic, and that even
there the original text was already corrupt. If the tablet was itself written in
the third century, and if between it and the compiler of the original text there
was already a considerable period, in which corrupt copies were produced and
circulated, then the second century A.D. will probably form a terminus ad quem
for the date of its composition; nevertheless there is nothing to prevent our
assigning to the original text a still earlier date. As the locality of the
original composition we may assume Egypt, perhaps Alexandria, not only from the
general character of the text, but also by reason of the Egyptian origin of
texts which are cognate with it. The author was a Greek Jew:995 this follows
incontrovertibly, as it seems to us, from the formal character of the text. If
we had in the incantation a succession of verbal citations from the Septuagint,
the hypothesis of a Jewish author were certainly the most natural, but we should
then have to reckon also with the presumption that some “heathen,” convinced of
the magic power of the alien God, may have taken the sayings from the mysterious
pages of the holy and not always intelligible Book of this same God, very much
in the same way as passages at large from Homer996 were written down for magical
purposes, and as to this day amulets are made from biblical sayings.997 Really
verbal quotations, however, such as could be copied mechanically, are almost
entirely absent from our text, in spite of its extreme dependence in substance
and form upon the Greek Old Testament. We have here an instructive example of
the reproduction of biblical passages from memory which played such a great part
in quotations and allusions in the early Christian writings. The compiler of our
text certainly did not consult his Greek Bible as he set down one biblical
attribute of God after another; the words flowed from his pen without any
consideration on his part of what might be their particular origin, or any
thought of checking the letters in a scrupulous bibliolatry. Only a man who
lived and moved in the Bible, and, indeed, in the Greek Bible, could write as he
wrote. And if here and there something got mixed with his writing which has no
authority in the Septuagint, then even that speaks not against, but in favour
of, our view. For the theological conception of the Canon has never been a
favourite with popular religion,—we might almost say, indeed, with religion in
general. In every age the religious instinct has shown an indifference in
respect to the Canon,—unconscious, unexpressed, but none the less
effective—which has violated it both by narrowing it and extending it. How many
words of the canonical Bible have never yet been able to effect what Holy
Scripture should! How much that is extra-canonical has filled whole generations
with solace and gladness and religious enthusiasm! Just as the Christians of New
Testament times not infrequently quoted as scripture words for which one should
have vainly sought in the Canon (assuming that even then an exact demarcation
had been made, or was known), so also does this text from Adrumetum, with all
its obligations to the Bible, manifest an ingenuous independence with regard to
the Canon. In respect of form, the following facts also merit attention. The
text is almost wholly free from those grammatical peculiarities of the
Septuagint which are usually spoken of as Hebraisms — a term easily
misunderstood. This is a proof of the fact, for which there is other evidence as
well,998 that the syntactic “influence” of the Alexandrian translation was less
powerful by far than the lexical. The spirit of the Greek language was, in the
imperial period, sufficiently accommodating where the enlarging of its stock of
terms was concerned; the good old words were becoming worn out, and gropings
were being made towards new ones and towards the stores of the popular
language—as if internal deterioration could be again made good by means of
external enlargement. But notwithstanding all this it had a sense of reserve
quite sufficient to ward off the claims of a logic which was repugnant to its
nature. The alleged “Jewish-Greek,” of which the Alexandrian translation of the
Old Testament is supposed to be the most prominent memorial, never existed as a
living dialect at all. Surely no one would seriously affirm that the clumsy
barbarisms of the Aramaean who tried to make himself understood in the Greek
tongue were prescribed by the rules of a “Jewish-Greek” grammar. It may be,
indeed, that certain peculiarities, particularly with regard to the order of
words, are frequently repeated, but one has no right to search after the rules
of syntax of a “Semitic Greek” on the basis of these eculiarities, any more than
one should have in trying to put together a syntax of “English High-German” from
the similar idioms of a German-speaking Englishman. We need not be led astray by
the observed fact that Greek translations of Semitic originals manifest a more
or less definite persistence of Semitisms; for this persistence is not the
product of a dialect which arose and developed in the Ghettos of Alexandria and
Rome, but the disguised conformity to rule of the Semitic original, which was
often plastered over rather than translated. How comes it that the syntax of the
Jew Philo and the Benjamite Paul stands so distinctly apart from that of such
Greek translations? Just because, though they had grown up in the Law, and
meditated upon it day and night, they were yet Alexandrian and Tarsian
respectively, and as such fitted their words naturally together, just as people
spoke in Egypt and Asia Minor, and not in the manner of the clumsy pedantry999
of the study, submitting line after line to the power of an alien spirit. The
translators of the Old Testament were Hellenists as well as were Philo and Paul,
but they clothed themselves in a strait-jacket—in the idea perhaps that such
holy labour demanded the putting on of a priestly garment. Their work gained a
success such as has fallen to the lot of but few books: it became one of the
“great powers” of history. But although Greek Judaism and Christianity entered
into, and lived in, the sphere of its ideas, yet their faith and their language
remained so uninjured that no one thought of the disguised Hebrew as being
sacred, least of all as worthy of imitation,1000—though, of course, there was
but little reflection on the matter.

Then the Tablet from Adrumetum manifests a peculiarity, well known in the
literature of Hellenistic Judaism, which, we think, ought also to be considered
as one of form. This is the heaping up of attributes of God, which appears to
have been a favourite custom, especially in prayers.1001 It is a characteristic
of certain heathen prayers; it was believed that the gods were honoured, and
that the bestowal of their favours was influenced,1002 by the enumeration of
their attributes. We think it probable that this notion also influenced the form
of Judo-Greek prayers.1003 At all events we hear in them the expression of the
same naïve tendency which Grimm unjustifiably reproaches as “a misunderstanding
of and lack of the true spirit of prayer”. Good words were given to
God—something must be given: His divine self-importance, as it were, was
appealed to. It is children that flatter thus. With regard to this
characteristic in prayer, unmistakably present also in our text, compare the
prayer of the Three Men, then 3Macc. 2:2 ff. and 6:2 ff.,but specially the
following passages:—

2Ma 1:24 f. κύριε κύριε ὁ θεὸς ὁ πάντων κτίστης ὁ φοβερὸς καὶ ἰσχυρὸς καὶ
δίκαιος καὶ ἐλεήμων, ὁ μόνος βασιλεὺς καὶ χρηστὸς ὁ μόνος χορηγὸς ὁ μόνος
δίκαιος καὶ παντοκράτωρ καὶ αἰώνιος, ὁ διασώζων τὸ Ἰσραὴλ ἐκ παντὸς κακοῦ, ὁ
ποιήσας τοὺς πατέρας ἐκλεκτοὺς καὶ ἁγιάσας αὐτούς.

Man 1:1-15 (in 0. F. Fritzsche, Libri apocr. V. T. graece, p. 92) 1-4: κύριε
παντοκράτωρ ὁ θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ καὶ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ Ἰακὼβ καὶ τοῦ
σπέρματος αὐτῶν τοῦ δικαίου, ὁ ποήσας τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν σὺν παντὶ τῷ κόσμῳ
αὐτῶν, ὁ πεδήσας τὴν θάλασσαν τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ προστάγματός σου, ὁ κλείσας τὴν
ἄβυσσον καὶ σφραγισάμενος αὐτὴν τῷ φοβερῷ καὶ ἐνδόξῳ ὀνόματί σου, ὃν πάντα
φρίσσει καὶ τρέμει ἀπὸ προσώπου δυνάμεώς σου. The agreement, especially of the
latter passage, with the tablet of Adrumetum is so striking that we should have
to suppose that our compiler used the Prayer of Manasses, unless the case was
that both were working with the same materials in the same framework of a
customary form. That this form came in course of time to be of great influence
liturgically, and that it can still be perceived in the monotony of many a
service-book prayer, can only be indicated here. It is doubtless a partial cause
of the fact that the word Litanei, in our customary speech, has gained an
unpleasant secondary signification. [Litanei = litany + jeremiad.] The
peculiarity just treated of was described as a formal one. For even if its
origin points, psychologically, to a temper of mind not entirely alien to
religion, yet the employment of it, where the religious motive has given place
to the liturgical, the unconstrained feeling of the true worshipper to the
literary interest of the prayer-book writer, is in general purely ritualistic,
that is, formal. But the attributes of God which are found in the text from
Adrumetum are of deep interest even in substance, when considered in reference
to the choice which the compiler has made. It is true that they are here used as
the vehicle of an incantation, but how different is their simplicity and
intelligibility from the meaningless chaos of most other incantamenta! The
context in which they stand must not cause us to ignore their religious value.
If we put aside the adjuration of the demon for the trivial ends of a sickly
affection, we are enabled to gain a notion of how the unknown author thought
about God. The suspicion that he was an impostor and that he intentionally
employed the biblical expressions as hocus-pocus is perhaps not to be flatly
denied; but there is nothing to justify it, and to assert, without further
consideration, that the literary representatives of magic were swindlers, would
be to misapprehend the tremendous force with which the popular mind in all ages
has been ruled by the “superstitious” notion that the possession of supernatural
powers may be secured through religion. Our compiler, just because of the
relative simplicity of his formulae, has the right to be taken in earnest. What
strikes us most of all in these are the thoughts which establish the omnipotence
of God. The God, through Whom he adjures the demon, is for him the creator, the
preserver and the governor of nature in its widest sense: He has, of course, the
power to crush the miserable spirit of the tomb. But besides this conception of
God, which impresses the senses more strongly than the conscience, and upon
which the poetry of biblical and post-biblical Judaism long continued to nourish
itself,1004 this unknown man has also extracted the best of what was best in the
Jewish faith, viz., the ethical idea of the God of prophecy, Who separates the
pious from the transgressors because He hates evil, and the “fear” of Whom is
the beginning of wisdom. Thus the tablet of Adrumetum is a memorial of the
Alexandrian Old Testament. Not only does it reveal what a potent formal
influence the Greek Bible, and especially the praise-book thereof, exercised
upon the classes who lived outside of the official protection of the Synagogue
and the Church, and who thus elude the gaze of history, but it lets us also
surmise that the eternal thoughts of the Old Testament had not wholly lost their
germinative power even where, long after and in an obscure place, they had
seemingly fallen among thorns.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 17: 05 - NOTES ON SOME BIBLICAL PERSONS AND NAMES
========================================================================

V.

NOTES ON SOME BIBLICAL PERSONS AND NAMES

τὸνἥλιοναὐτοῦἀνατέλλειἐπὶπονηροὺςκαὶἀγαθοὺςκαὶβρέχει

ἐπὶδικαίουςκαὶἀδίκους.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 18: 05.01 - HELIODORUS.
========================================================================

1. HELIODORUS. The Second Book of Maccabees has a wonderful story to tell of how
King Seleucus IV. Philopator made an unsuccessful attempt to plunder the
temple-treasury in Jerusalem. A certain Simon, who had occasion to revenge
himself upon Onias the high-priest, had gone hurriedly to Apollonius, the Syrian
governor of Coelesyria and Phoenicia, and had contrived to impress him with the
most marvellous ideas of the temple property in Jerusalem. The king, having been
informed of the sacred store, thought it well to send his minister Heliodorus to
Jerusalem, with orders to bring back the gold with him. Heliodorus was the very
man for such a mission. Having reached Jerusalem, neither the expostulations of
the high priest nor the lamentations of the people were able to dissuade him. In
the extremity of their distress recourse was had to prayer. And just as the
heartless official and his minions were actually preparing to pillage the
treasury, “there appeared unto them a horse with a terrible rider upon him, and
adorned with a very fair covering, and he ran fiercely, and smote at Heliodorus
with his fore-feet; and it seemed that he that sat upon the horse had complete
harness of gold. Moreover, two other young men appeared before him, notable in
strength, excellent in beauty, and comely in apparel; who stood by him on either
side, and scourged him continually, and gave him many sore stripes. And
Heliodorus fell suddenly to the ground and was compassed with great darkness;
but they that were with him took him up, and put him into a litter and carried
him forth.” A sacrifice offered by the high-piest saved the half-dead man, and
then the two young men, apparelled as before, appeared to him again, and told
him that he owed his life to Onias. Then Heliodorus, being asked by the king
after his return, who might be the proper person to send on the same errand to
Jerusalem, replied: “If thou hast any enemy or adversary to thy government, send
him thither, and thou shalt receive him well scourged, if he escape with his
life: for in that place without doubt there is an especial power of God”. The
historical foundations of this tale in 2Ma 3:1-40, which is certainly better
known to-day through Raphael’s picture than through its original narrator, are
not so obvious as its pious aim. Grimm1005 is inclined to allow it a kernel of
history; up to 2Ma 3:23 the story does not contain a single feature which might
not have been literally true. Owing to the financial difficulties occasioned by
the conclusion of peace with Rome, temple-robbings seem to have become, to some
extent, the order of the day with the Seleucidae. Grimm therefore accepts the
historicity of the attempt to plunder the temple, but leaves undecided the
actual nature of the event, thus ornamented by tradition, by which the project
of Heliodorus was baffled. The author is not in a position to decide this
question, though, indeed, the answer given by Grimm seems to him to be in the
main correct.1006 But in any case the observation of Schurer,1007viz., that the
book as a whole (or its source, Jason of Cyrene) is not seldom very
well-informed in the matter of details, is confirmed in the present passage. The
book undoubtedly says what is correct of the hero of the story, Heliodorus,1008
in describing him as first minister of the Syrian king. It is indeed true that
this assertion is not vouched for in ancient literature; for Appian, Syr., p. 45
(Mendelssohn, i., p. 416) makes mention of only one Heliodorus as
τινὸςτῶνπερὶτὴναὐλήν of Seleucus. But even if this note makes it more than
“probable”1009 that it refers to the same man as is alluded to in the Second
Book of Maccabees, yet, if there were no further proof of the identity, it would
be necessary to reckon seriously with the possibility that the author of that
book, in accordance with his general purpose, transformed some mere
court-official into the first minister of the king of Syria, in order to make
still more impressive the miracle of his punishment and his repentance. But this
very detail, suspicious in itself, can be corroborated by two Inscriptions from
Delos, made known by Th. Homolle, which may be given here:—
I.1010ἩλιόδωρονΑἰσχύλουἈντ[ιοχέα]

τὸνσύντροφον1011τοῦβασιλεύωςΣ[ελεύκου]

Φιλοπάτοροςκαὶἐπὶτῶνπρα[γμάτων]

τεταγμένονοἱἐνΛα[οκικείᾳ ?]

τῇἐνΦοινίκῃἐγδοχεῖςκαὶνα[ύκληροι?]

ἐυνοίαςἕνεκενκαὶφιλοστρο[ργίας]

[τ]ῆςεἰςτὸνβασιλέακαὶεὐεργ[εσίας] τῆςεἰςαὑτοὺς

Ἀπόλλωνι The Inscription stands upon the base of a statue no longer extant: its
purport is that some Phoenician ship-masters dedicated the statue of Heliodorus,
out of gratitude for his kindness, and on account of his being well-affected
towards the king, to the Delian Apollo.
II.1012ἩλιόδωρονΑἰσχύλουτὸνσ[ύντροφονβασιλέως]

Σελεύκουτεταγμένονδὲκ[αὶἐπὶτῶνπραγμάτων]

καὶτὴνσυγγένειαναὐτο[ῦ] . . . . . .

Ἀρτεμίδωορς Ἡρακλείδουτῶν . . . . . .

ἀρετῆςἕνεκενκαὶδικα[ιοσύνης. . . .ἧς ἔχων]

διατελεῖεἴςτετὸνβασιλέακ[αὶ] . . . . .

φιλίαςδὲκαὶεὐεργεσίαςτ[ῆςεἰςἑαυτὸνἀνέθηκεν]

ἈπόλλωνιἈ[ρτέμιδιΛητοῖ]. This Inscription also is found on the base of a statue;
its contents quite resemble those of No. 1; in line 3 συγγένειαν, with some
supplementary participle, will signify the same title which is already known to
us as συγγενής.1013 Homolle’s conjecture that this Heliodorus is identical with
the one mentioned in 2 Maccabees, and by Appian, seems to us to be fully
established;1014 note how accurately 2Ma 3:7 also introduces him as Ἡλιόδωρον
τὸνἐπὶτῶνπραγμάτων. This title, which is current elsewhere in the Books of
Maccabees (c_3 32-">1Ma 3:32, _10 11-">2Ma 10:11, 2Ma 13:2, 2Ma 13:23_13 23-">,
3Ma. 7:1) is proved by other writings to have belonged to Syria, 1015 as also to
Pergamus. 1016 In Polybius and Josephus it is applied to the viceroy, the
representative of the absent king, similarly in c_3 32-">1Ma 3:32, _13 23-">2Ma
13:23; in 3Ma. 7:1 it has the further meaning of chancellor of the kingdom,
first minister, 1017 similarly 2Ma 10:11, 2Ma 13:2, 3Ma. 7:1. The first
Inscription, moreover, confirms the reading πραγμάτων which is given by most
MSS. in 2Ma 3:7. Codices 19, 44, 71, etc., which substitute χρημάτων for
πραγμάτων in this passage,1017 have obviously been so influenced by the contents
of the narrative as to turn the chancellor into a chancellor of the exchequer;
for such must have been the sense of the title given by them, viz.,
τὸνἐπὶτῶνχρημάτων. As for Syncellus (8th cent. A.D.), Chronogr., p. 529 7 (Bonn
edition), who likewise describes Heliodorus as ὁἐπὶτῶνχρημάτων, he is probably
dependent on these codices.1018 Evidence from the Inscriptions has extended our
knowledge thus far: Heliodorus came originally from Antioch,1019 and was the son
of a certain Aischylos. In the lofty position of first minister of King Seleucus
IV. Philopator, to whose familiar circle (σύντροφοι) he had certainly belonged
previously, he earned good repute in connection with the shipping trade, and was
in consequence the recipient of frequent honours. The marble statue of
Heliodorus was prepared for Phoenician merchants by the ancient sculptors, and
the pious gift was dedicated to the Delian Apollo; some narrator of late
pre-Christian times, full of faith in the written word, made him the central
figure of a richly-coloured picture, and the fate of the temple-robber became a
theme for edification, not unmixed with pious horror; fifteen hundred years
afterwards Raphael’s Stanza d’Eliodoro transformed this naive exultation in the
penalty paid by the godless man into the lofty though unhistorical idea that the
Church of the Vatican is ever triumphant.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 19: 05.02 -  BARNABAS
========================================================================

2. BARNABAS.1020 The writer of the Acts of the Apostles reports, Acts 4:36, that
there was given to the Cyprian Ἰωσήφ the surname Βαρναβας
ἀπὸτῶνἀποστόλων,ὅἐστινμεθερμηνευόμενονυἱὸςπαρακλήσεως. Now even if it be true
that “the Apostles” so named him, yet it is improbable that they were the first
to coin the name, which rather appears to be an ancient one. The derivation
given by the writer of the early history of Christianity is clear only as
regards its first part: βαρ is of course the Aramaic בַּר, son, so frequently
found in Semitic names. In regard to ναβας, however, the second element in the
name, it is not evident which Semitic word has been translated παράκλησις in the
Apostolic text. The usual conjecture is נְבוּאָה. But this signifies a prophecy,
and is accordingly rendered quite accurately in LXX 2Es 6:14 [MT Ezra 6:14],
Nehemiah 6:12, 2 Chronicles 15:8 by προφητεία, and in 2 Chronicles 9:29 by
λόγοι. A. Klostermann1021 therefore proposes the Aramaic נְוָחָא, pacification,
consolation; but we doubt whether this will explain the transcription ναβας. It
would seem better, even were the etymology given in Acts more intelligible than
it is, to leave it out of account as a basis of explanation,1022 since we are at
once assailed by the suspicion that we have here, as in many other passages, a
folk-etymology ex post facto. We must rather try to understand the name from
itself; and, as we believe, two possible explanations of the -ναβας, which is
alone in question, lie open to us. In the Greek Bible, Nun, the father of
Joshua, is called Ναυη. Whatever be the explanation of this form, whether or not
it is actually to be understood, as has been supposed, as a corruptions1023 of
ΝΑΥΝ into ΝΑΥΗ, does not signify. The only important matter is that, for Ναυη,
there also occur the variants Ναβη or Ναβι. Whether this Ναυη—Ναβη—Ναβι was
already in use as a personal name (= prophet) in the time of the LXX cannot be
ascertained; certainly, however, it had later on become known as such to the
Jews through the Greek Bible. We might, then, possibly find this name in the
-ναβας: Βαρναβας would be a Βαρναβη or Βαρναβι with a Greek termination—son of a
prophet. But the author thinks it a more promising theory to connect Βαρναβας
with the recently-discovered Semitic name βαρνεβοῦς. An Inscription1024 found in
Islahie, the ancient Nicopolis, in Northern Syria, which is assigned, probably
on account of the written character, to the 3rd or 4th century A.D., runs as
follows:—

Βαρνεβοῦντὸνκαὶ,1025ἈπολλινάριονΣαμμανᾶαὐτθαίρετονδημιουργὸνκαὶγυμνασίαρχονφίλ[οι].
The editors explain the name quite correctly as son of Nebo.1026 Their
conjecture can be further confirmed, particularly by Symmachus, who in Isaiah
46:1 renders נְבוֹ, Nebo, by Νεβοῦς, while the LXX, Aquila and Theodotion
transcribe it by Ναβώ.1027Βαρνεβοῦς is one of the many personal names which have
Nebo as a constituent part, and), as a theophoric name, will be relatively old.
The hypothesis of the affinity, or of the original identity, of Βαρναβας and
Βαρνεβοῦς is further borne out by the well-known fact that in the transcription
of other names compounded with Nebo the E-sound of the word is sometimes
replaced by a,1028e.g., Nebuchadnezzar = (LXX) Ναβουχοδονοσορ = (Berosus and
Josephus) Ναβουχοδονόσορος = (Strabo) Ναβοκοδρόσορος ; and Nebuzaradan2 Kings
25:8 = (LXX 4Ki. 25꞉8) Ναβουζαρδαν. It is therefore highly probable that the
form Βαρναβοῦς might occur instead of Βαρνεβοῦς. The former appears to us to be
the original form of the name Βαρναβᾶς.1029 The termination –οῦς must, in that
case, have developed into –ᾶς, but this is no extraordinary phenomenon in view
of the arbitrariness with which Semitic names were Graecised; perhaps the Jews
intentionally substituted the very common Greek name-ending –ας for –ους in
order to remove from the name its suspiciously pagan appearance: the mutilation
of Gentile theophoric names was looked upon by the Jews as an actual religious
duty,1030 on the authority of Deuteronomy 7:26 and Deuteronomy 12:3. We indeed
see this duty discharged in another personal name formed with Nebo: the name
Abed Nego1031 in the Book of Daniel is most probably an intentional defacement
of Abed Nebo, servant of Nebo. Thus did the later Graeco-Jewish Βαρναβᾶς arise
from the ancient Semitic βαρνεβοῦς or Βαρναβοῦς. It then became the part of
popular etymology to give a religious interpretation to the name thus defaced
from motives of piety. The very difficulty of establishing which Semitic word
was believed to correspond to –ναβας bears out the hypothesis enunciated above.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 20: 05.03 -  MANAËN.
========================================================================

3. MANAËN. In 1Ma 1:6, according to the common reading, mention is made of
παῖδεςσύντροφοίἀπὸνεότητος of Alexander the Great, and, in 2Ma 9:29, of a
certain Philippos as σύντροφος of King Antiochus IV. Epiphanes; similarly, in
Acts 13:1, the esteemed Antiochian Christian Manaen1032is distinguished by the
attribute Ἡρώδουτοῦτετραάρχου σύντροφος. In the first passage, however, we have
good authority Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus, etc., for συνέκτροφοι, a word not found
elsewhere, “but which, precisely on that account, may have been displaced by
συντρ.”;1033 the addition of ἀπὸνεότητος seems to us to give additional support
to the assumption that συνέκτροφοι was the original form.1034 Accordingly 0. F.
Fritzsche, in his edition, has also decided for συνέκτροφοι. The meaning of the
word is unquestionably one reared along with another in the proper sense.1035
The case is different with the σύντροφος of the other two passages. The
commentaries give, in connection with Acts 13:1, the alternative meanings
foster-brother and companion in education;1036 but the former explanation is
forthwith rendered void by the frequent occurrence (to be established presently)
of the expression in connection with a king’s name, if we but think what strange
inferences would follow from it! We should have to assume, for instance, that in
the most diverse localities, and at times most widely apart, the newly-born
crown-princes had very frequently to be entrusted to the care of healthy
citizens, and, further, that the son of the plebeian nurse was still alive when
his conlactaneus ascended the throne of his father. The interpretation companion
in education is better: one might in this connection compare the play-mates of
the Dauphin, who were, as a matter of course, taken from the best families, and
of whom, later on, one or another continued, so far as consistent with the
reverence that “cloth hedge a king,” to be the intimate friend of the prince,
now come to man’s estate. But this hypothesis is likewise too special; σύντροφος
τοῦβασιλέως is a court title, which is of course to be explained by the
fundamental meaning of the word, but in the usage of which this fundamental
meaning had disappeared, having given place to the general meaning of intimate
friend. The case is on all fours with that of the title of king’s
relative.1037σύντροφοςτοῦβασιλέως is established as regards Pergamus by
Polybius, xxxii. 25 10; further by the Pergamenian Inscriptions, Nos. 179 3, 224
2, 248 6 and 28,1038 all of pre-Roman times (before 133 B.C.). “It appears to
have been in general use throughout the Hellenistic kingdoms.”1039 In regard to
Macedonia, Frankel cites Polyb. v. 9 4; for Pontus, he refers to the
Inscription, Bulletin de correspondance hellenique, vii. (1883), p. 355; for
Egypt, to the observations of Lumbroso.1040 But the Inscription of Delos (first
half of 2nd cent. B.C.) given above,1041 in which the title is established for
Syria also, is the most instructive of all in connection with the passage in
Acts; Heliodorus, probably an Antiochian likewise, is there invested with the
honorary title σύντροφος τοῦβασιλέωςΣελεῦκουΦιλοπάτορος. And in the same way it
was allowable to speak of Manaen as the intimate friend of Herod Antipas;
nothing further is implied by the technical term, and any inference drawn from
it regarding the antecedents of the man, or regarding any tender relationship
between his mother and the infant Herod, would be very precarious. In the
context of the narrative the attribute, when understood in this sense, is of
course still more honourable for Manaen and the church at Antioch than would be
the case according to the traditional interpretation.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 21: 05.04 - SAULUS PAULUS
========================================================================

4. SAULUS PAULUS. In Acts 13:9 the words ΣαῦλοςὁκαὶΠαῦλος, are quite abruptly
introduced to designate the Apostle who has always hitherto been spoken of as
Σαῦλος, and from this place onwards in the book the name Παῦλος is always used.
The passage has given rise to the most extraordinary conjectures; it has even
been asserted that the narrator meant the ὁκαὶΠαῦλος to indicate that the change
of name had some sort of connection with the conversion of the Proconsul Sergius
Paulus described immediately before. It must not be forgotten, in investigating
the point, that it is not said that the Apostle made the change; it is the
narrator who does so: by means of the ὁκαί he makes the transition from the
previously-used Σαῦλος to the Παῦλος to which he henceforth keeps. We have never
yet seen the fact recorded in connection with this passage1042 that the
elliptically-usedκαίwith double names is an exceedingly common usage in N.T.
times. W. Schmid,1043 in his studies on Atticism (of great importance for the
history of the language of the Greek Bible), has recently shown from the Papyri
and Inscriptions how widespread this usage was in all quarters; he names an
Inscription of Antiochus Epiphanes as his first authority. “As qui et is
similarly used in Latin in the case of familiar designations . . . , we might
suspect a Latinism, had the Antiochus Inscription not made it more likely that
the Latin usage is really a Graecism.”1044 W. Schmid seems to think that certain
passages from AElianus and Achilles Tatius are the earliest instances of this
construction in the literature. But even in the literature the usage, most
likely derived from the popular speech, can be shown to go much farther back. We
find the reading ἌλκιμοςὁκαὶἸάκιμος, in 1Ma 7:5, 1Ma 7:12, 1Ma 7:20 ff., 1Ma
9:54 ff., 2Ma 14:3, at least in Codd. 64, 93, 19 (also 62 in the last passage).
But even should this reading not be the original, yet we need not be at a loss
for literary authorities; a relatively large number are supplied by
Josephus.1045 The Jewish historian, in giving double names, employs not only the
fuller forms of expression, such as Σίμωνὁκαὶδίκαιοςἐπικληθείς (Antt. xii. 2 4),
ἌλκιμοςὁκαὶἸάκιμοςκληθείς (Antt. xii. 9 7), ἸωάννηντὸνκαὶΓαδδὶνλεγόμενον (Antt.
xiii. 1 2), ΔιόδοτοςὁκαὶΤρύφωνἐπικληθείς (Antt. xiii. 51),
ΣελήνηἡκαὶΚλεοπάτρακαλουμένη (Antt. xiii. 16 4), ἈντίοχοςὁκαὶΔιόνυσοςἐπικληθείς
(Bell. Jud. 47), but he often simply connects the two names by ὁκαὶ :
ἸανναῖοντὸνκαὶἈλέξανδρον (Antt. xiii. 12 1),1046ἸώσηποςὁκαὶΚαϊάφας (Antt. xviii.
2 2)1047Κλεόδημοςὁ καὶΜάλχος (Antt. i. 15), ἌρκηἡκαὶἘκδείπους (Antt. v. 1 22),
ἸούδαςὁκαὶΜακκαβαῖος (Antt. xii. 6 4), Πακόρῳτῷκαὶπρεσβυτέρῳ (Antt. xx. 3 3).
When Acts 13:9 is placed in this philological context, we see that it cannot
mean “Saul who was henceforth also called Paul”; an ancient reader could only
have taken it to mean “Saul who was also called Paul”.1048 Had the writer of
Acts intended to say that Paul had adopted the Graecised Roman name in honour of
the Proconsul, or even that he now adopted it for the first time, he would have
selected a different expression. The ὁκαί admits of no other supposition than
that he was called Saulos Paulos before he came to Cyprus; he had, like many
natives of Asia Minor, many Jews and Egyptians of his age, a double name. We
know not when he received the non-Semitic name in addition to the Semitic one.
It will hardly be demanded that we should specify the particular circumstance
which formed the occasion of his receiving the surname Paulos. The regulations
of Roman Law about the bearing of names cannot in this question be taken into
consideration. If in Asia Minor or on the Nile any obscure individual felt that,
in adopting a non-barbaric surname, he was simply adapting himself to the times,
it is unlikely that the authorities would trouble themselves about the matter.
The choice of such Graaco-Roman second names was usually determined by the
innocent freedom of popular taste. But we can sometimes see that such names as
were more or less similar in sound to the native name must have been specially
preferred.1049 In regard to Jewish names this is the case with, e.g.,
Ἰάκιμ—Ἄλκιμος (Joseph. Antt. xii. 9 7), ἸησοῦςὁλεγόμενοςἸοῦστος (Colossians
4:11), Ἰωσὴφ. . .ὃςἐπεκλήθηἸοῦστος (Act. 1:23);1050 of Egyptian names, we have
noticed ΣαταβοὺςὁκαὶΣάτυρος (Pap. Berol. 7080, Col. 2, Fayyum, 2nd cent.
A.D.).1051 Thus, too, in the case of the Tarsian Σαούλ,1052 when he received a
non-Semitic second name (we do not know the exact time, butit must have been
before Acts 13:9) the choice of Παῦλος may have been determined by nothing more
than the fact that Παῦλος had a sound somewhat similar to the name made
venerable by association with his fellow-tribesman of old.1053 So far as we
know, there has hitherto been no evidence to show that the name Παῦλος was
adopted by any other Jew; it is therefore of interest that the
recently-published Papyrus fragments relating to the Jewish war of Trajan1054
several times mention an Alexandrian Jew called Παῦλος,1055 who seems to have
been the leader of a deputation which negotiated with the emperor. The question
why the narrator calls the Apostle Σαῦλος previous to Acts 13:9, and Παῦλος
afterwards, has nothing to do with the science of names, or with the history of
Paul; it is altogether a question of literary history. The most satisfactory
solution so far (unless we are willing to go back to a difference in the
sources) is the supposition1056 that the historian uses the one or the other
name according to the field of his hero’s labours; from Acts 13:1 the Jewish
disciple Σαῦλος is an apostle to the whole world: it is high time, then, that he
should be presented to the Greeks under a name about which there was nothing
barbaric, and which, even before this, was really his own.

ΣαῦλοςὁκαὶΠαῦλος only as such perhaps did many of his brethren of the same race
understand him; from his own confessions we know that he was rather a Παῦλοςὁ
καὶΣαῦλος—a man who laboured for the future and for humanity, though as a son of
Benjamin and a contemporary of the Caesars. Christians in later times would
often have fain called him Saul only; but on this account it is the name Paul
alone which in history is graven above the narrow gate at which Augustine and
Luther entered in.1057


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 22: 06 - GREEK TRANSCRIPTIONS OF THE TETRAGRAMMATON.
========================================================================

VI.

GREEK TRANSCRIPTIONS OF THE TETRAGRAMMATON.

καὶφοβηθήσονταιτὰ ἔθνητὸὄνομάσουκύριε. IN a notice of Professor W. Dindorf’s
edition of Clement, Professor P. de Lagarde1058 reproaches the editor, in
reference to the passage Strom. v. 6 34 (Dindorf, p. 27 25), with having “no
idea whatever of the deep significance of his author’s words, or of the great
attention which he must pay to them in this very passage”. Dindorf reads there
the form Ἰαού as τὸτετράγραμμονὄνοματὸμυστικόν. But in various manuscripts and
in the Turin Catena to the Pentateuch1059 we find the variants Ἰὰοὐαί or
Ἰὰοὐέ.1060 Lagarde holds that the latter reading “might have been unhesitatingly
set in the text; in theological books nowadays nothing is a matter of course”.
The reading Ἰαουέ certainly appears to be the original; the ε was subsequently
left out because, naturally enough, the name designated as the Tetragrammaton
must have no more than four letters.1061 The form Ἰαουέ is one of the most
important Greek transcriptions of the Tetragrammaton usually referred to in
seeking to ascertain the original pronunciation. F. Dietrich in a letter of
February, 1866,1062 to Franz Delitzsch, makes the following collection of these
transcriptions:—

יַהְוֶה

יָהוּ

יָהּ

Cent. 2. Irenaeus —

—

Ιαοθ (?)1064

—

” 2-3. Clement

(Ιαουε)1063

Ιαου

—

” 3. Origen —

—

Ιαω (ΙαωΙα)

Ια-ΙΑΗ

” 4. Jerome

—

Jaho

—

” — Epiphanius

Ιαβε

—

Ια

” 5. Theodoret (Sam.)

Ιαβε

Ιαω

Αϊα (cod. Aug. Ια)

” 7. Isidore

—

—

Ja. Ja.

It is an important fact that nearly all the transcriptions which have thus come
down from the Christian Fathers are likewise substantiated by “heathen” sources.
In the recently-discovered Egyptian Magic Papyri there is a whole series of
passages which—even if in part they are not to be conceived of as transcriptions
of the Tetragrammaton—merit our attention in this connection. As early as 1876
W. W. Graf Baudissin,1065 in his investigation of the form Ἰάω, had referred to
passages relating to it in the Magic Papyri in Leiden1066 and Berlin.1067 Since
that time the edition of the Leiden Papyri by C. Leemans,1068 and that of the
Paris and London Papyri by C. Wessely,1069 the new edition of the Leiden Papyri
by A. Dieterich,1070 the latest publications of the British Museum,1071 and
other works, have rendered still more possible the knowledge of this strange
literature, and an investigation of these would be worth the trouble, both for
the historian of Christianity1072 and for the Semitic philologist.1073 The
Papyri in their extant form were written about the end of the third and
beginning of the fourth century A.D.; their composition may be dated some
hundred years before —in the time of Tertullian.1074 But there would be no risk
of error in supposing that many elements in this literature belong to a still
earlier period. It is even probable, in view of the obstinate persistence of the
forms of popular belief and superstition, that, e.g., the books of the Jewish
exorcists at Ephesus, which, according to Acts 19:19, were committed to the
flames in consequence of the appearance of the Apostle Paul, had essentially the
same contents as the Magic Papyri from Egypt which we now possess.1075 In the
formulae of incantation and adjuration found in this literature an important
part is played by the Divine names. Every possible and impossible designation of
deities, Greek, Egyptian and Semitic, is found in profuse variety, just as, in
general, this whole class of literature is characterised by a peculiar
syncretism of Greek, Egyptian and Semitic ideas. But what interests us at
present are the forms which can in any way be considered to be transcriptions of
the Tetragrammaton. For the forms which are handed down by the Fathers, in part
still questioned, are all verified by the Papyri, with the sole possible
exception of Clement’s Iaove.

Ιαω. To the examples given by Baudissin there is to be added such a arge number
from the Papyri since deciphered, that a detailed enumeration is
unnecessary.1076 The palindromic form ιαωαι1077 is also frequently found, and,
still more frequently, forms that seem to the author to be combinations of it,
such as αρβαθιαω.1078 The divine name Ιαω became so familiar that it even
underwent declension: εἰμὶθεὸςθεῶνἁπαντωνιαων σαβαωθαδωναια[βραξ]ας (Pap. Lugd.
J 384, iii. 1).1079

Ια.

Likewise not infrequent. Without claiming exhaustiveness we cite the following:—

ὁἐπὶτῆςἀνάγκηςτεταγμένοςιακουβιαιαωσαβαωθ αδωναι [α]βρασαξ (Pap. Lond. cxxi.
648, 640),1080 with which compare the gem-inscription ιαιαιαωαδωναισαβαωθ,1081
the combinations ιαηλ (Pap. Lond. xlvi. 56 6 Pap. Paris. Bibl. nat. 961 and
30331082), and ιαωλ (Pap. Paris. Louvre 2391 151),1083 as also a whole mass of
other combinations.

Ιαωια.1084

(read) ἐπὶτοῦμετώπουϊαωϊα (Pap. Paris. Bibl. nat. 3257).1085 Ιαη occurs more
frequently; in particular, in the significant passage:—

ὁρκίζωσεκατὰτοῦθεοῦτῶνἙβραιωνἸησου˙ιαβα˙ιαη˙αβραωθ˙αϊα˙θωθ˙ελε˙ελω˙αηω˙εου˙ιιιβαεχ˙αβαρμας˙ϊαβαραου˙αβελβελ˙λωνα˙αβρα˙μαροια˙βρακιων
(Pap. Paris. Bibl. nat. 3019;1086 again, in the same Papyrus, 1222 ff.1087κύριε
ιαωαιηιωηωιηωιηιηαιωαιαιουωαηωηαιιεωηυωαηιαωαωα αεηιυωαευιαηει˙. One might
surmise that the form ιαη in the latter passage should be assigned to the other
meaningless permutations of the vowels.1088 But against this is to be set the
fact that the form is authenticated as a Divine name by Origen, that in this
passage it stands at the end of the series (the ει of the Papyrus should likely
be accented εἶ), and thus seems to correspond to the well-known form ιαω at the
beginning. Nevertheless, too great stress should not be laid upon the
occurrence, in similar vowel-series, of purely vocalic transcriptions of the
Tetragrammaton.

Further, in the same Papyrus, 15641089 and 19861090; also in Pap. Lond. xlvi.
23.1091 This form is also found in W. Frohner’s1092 issue of the bronze tablet
in the Museum at Avignon: the last two lines should not be read
καὶσύσυνέργειἈβρασάξιληἸαώ, as Frohner reads them, but
καὶσὺσυνέργειαβρασαξιαη1093ιαω. The reverse combination ιαωιαη is found in a
leaden tablet from Carthage, CIL. viii. Suppl. i., No. 12509. We may, finally,
at least refer to the passage ὅτιδισύλλαβοςεἶαη (Pap. Paris. Bibl. nat.
944).1094 According to Dieterich,1095αη is “simply a mystical Divine name,” and
“it is possible that it should be read αω”. We consider this alteration quite
unnecessary. Either αη is an indistinct reminiscence of our ιαη, or else we must
definitely conclude that the ι of ιαη coining after et has fallen out by
hemigraphy.1096 Αϊα.

Theodoret’s form Αϊα, for which the Augsburg Codex and the ed. print. of Picus
read Ια,1097 is found not only in the above-cited passage, Pap. Par. Bibl. nat.
3019 ff., but also in Pap. Lugd. J 395, xvii. 31,1098 as—a fact of special
interest—the correction of the αιρα which originally stood in the MS.

Jaoth. The Latin codices of Iremeus yield the form Jaoth.1099 Irenus
distinguishes one pronunciation with a long, and another with a short, o (ii. 35
3, Massuet: Jawth, extensa cum aspiratione novissima syllaba, mensuram
praefinitam manifestat; cum autem per o graecam corripitur ut puta Jaoth, eum
qui dat fugam malorum significat). F. Dietrich has erroneously questioned this
form.1100 The following should be added to the citations given by Baudissin:—
Pap. Lond. xlvi. 142 (ιαωτ),1101 " " xlvi. 479 (ιαωθ),1102 Pap. Par. Bibl. nat.
3263 (ιαωθ),1103 Pap. Lugd. J 395, xxi. 14 (αβρατιαωθ),1104 Pap. Lond. xlvi. 56
(αρβαθιαωθ),1105 Pap. Berol. 2 125 (αμβριθιαωθ).1106 With reference to the
agglutination of a T-sound to ιαω, cf. the literature cited by Baudissin.1107
The Papyri yield a large number of examples of similar forms in -ωθ. Similar
forms with Greek terminations (e.g., Φαραώθης), in Josephus and others.1108
Ιαουε.

Regarding Clement’s form Ιαουε, the author calls attention to the following
passages:—

θεὸςθεῶν,ὁκύριοςτῶνπνευμάτων1109ὁἀπλάνητοςαἰὼν
ιαωουηι,εἰσάκουσόνμουτῆςφωνῆς˙ἐπικαλοῦμαίσετὸνδυνάστηντῶνθεῶν,
ὑψιβρεμέταΖεῦ,Ζεῦτύραννε,αδαιναιsicκύριειαωουηε˙ἐγώεἰμὁἐπικαλούμενόςσεσυριστὶθεὸν
μέγανζααλαηριφφουκαὶσὺμὴπαρακούσῃςτῆςφωνῆςἑβραϊστὶ
αβλαναθαναλβααβρασιλωα˙ἐγὼγάρεἰμισιλθαχωουχλαιλαμ
βαασαλωθιαωιεωνεβουθσαβιοθαρβωθαρβαθιαωιαωθσαβαωθπατουρηζαγουρηβαρουχαδωναιελωαιιαβρααμβαρβαραυωναυσιφ
ὑψηλόφρονε . . . (Pap. Lond. xlvi. 466-482).1110

ἀκουσάτωμοιsicπᾶσαγλῶσσακαὶπᾶσαφωνή,ὅτιἐγώ εἰμιπερταω [μηχχαχ]
μνηχσακμηφιαωουεηωηωωηωιεουωηι ηιαηα [corrupt] ιηωυοει1111. . . (Pap. Lugd. J
384, vi. 12-14).1112

σὺεἶὁἀγαθοδαίμωνὁγεννῶνἀγαθὰκαὶτροφῶντὴν
οἰκουμένην,σοῦδὲτὸἀένναουκομαστήριον,ἐνᾧκαθίδρυταί
σουτὸἑπταγράμματονὄνομαπρὸςτὴνἁρμονίαντῶνζ’φθόγαραφαιαβρααρμαραφααβρααχπερταωμηχακμηχιαωουεη
ιαωουεειουαηωεηουιαω. . . (Pap. Lugd. J 395, xvii. 25-32).1113

ὅτιπροσείλημμαιτὴνδύναμιντοῦἈβραὰμἸσὰκκαὶτοῦ
Ἰακὼβκαὶτοῦμεγάλουθεοῦδαίμονοςιαωαβλαναθαναλβα
σιαβραθιλαωλαμψτηριηιωω.θεέ,ποίησον,κύριε,περταωμηχ
χαχμηχιαωουηειαωουηειεουαηωεηουιαω (Pap. Lugd., J 395, xviii., 21-26).1114

It might appear at first sight very natural to assume that these forms are
related to Clement’s Ιαουε. In consideration of the great freedom with which the
Hebrew vowels were transcribed in Greek, it need not seem strange that the
E-sound at the end of words is rendered by ηι, ηε and εη in the Papyri; in point
of fact the strengthening or lengthening of the ε by the addition of η would
give a more distinct rendering of the ה,- than the bare ε of Clement. The coming
of ω before ου is the only strange feature. Still, even this peculiarity might
be explained by the preference for law, the most popular transcription, which it
was desired should have a place also here. For these reasons Kenyon maintains
that the form Ιαωουηε is actually the Divine name, and, indeed, that it is an
expansion of the form Ιαω.1115 Notwithstanding, we must not trust entirely to
plausibility. We must first of all investigate whether the said forms do not
belong to the manifold permutations of the seven vowels,1116 which are all but
universally considered to be capricious and meaningless, mocking every possible
attempt at explanation, and which can therefore, now less than ever, yield a
basis for etymological conjectures. An instructive collection of these
permutations and combinations of the seven vowels for magical purposes is found
in Wessely’s treatise, Ephesia Grammata.1117 That writer elsewhere1118 passes
judgment upon them as follows: “other [names] again appear to have no special
meaning, for, just as magical formulae are formed from the seven vowels αεηιουω
and their permutations and combinations . . . , so in all probability there were
magic formulae formed from the consonants also, now Hebraising, now
Egyptianising, now Graecising, and without any definite meaning”. We are unable
to decide whether this assertion concerning the consonantal formulae is correct.
But certainly when the chaos of the vocalic formations is surveyed, the
possibility of accounting for the great majority of the cases may be
doubted.1119 If, then, it were established that the forms cited above should
also be assigned to this class, they could, of course, no longer be mentioned in
the present discussion. We should otherwise repeat the mistake of old J. M.
Gesner,1120 who believed that he had discovered the Divine name Jehovah in the
vowel series ΙΕΗΩΟΥΑ. But in the present instance the matter is somewhat
different, and the conjecture of Kenyon cannot be summarily rejected. To begin
with, the form twooune or mammy, in the first passage quoted, does not stand
among other vowel-series; on the contrary, it is enclosed on both sides by a
number of indubitable Divine names. Further, the same form with insignificant
modifications is found in various passages of various Papyri; from this we may
conclude that it is at least no merely hap-hazard, accidental form. Finally, its
similarity with Clement’s Ιαουε is to be noted. At the same time, wider
conclusions should not be drawn from these forms—none, in particular, as to the
true pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton: for the fact that in three of the
quoted passages the form in question is followed by vocalic combinations in part
meaningless, constitutes an objection that is at all events possible. The value
of the vocalic transcriptions of the Tetragrammaton for the determination of its
true pronunciation appears to us, by reason of the diffuse and capricious usage
of the vowels which we find throughout the Magic Literature, to be at most very
small. The very great uncertainty of the traditional texts must also be urged as
an objection to its being so employed. Nowhere could copyists’ errors1121 be
more easily made, nowhere are errors in reading by editors more possible, than
in these texts. Let any one but attempt to copy half a page of such magic
formulae for himself: the eye will be continually losing its way because there
is no fixed point amidst the confusion of meaningless vowels by which it can
right itself.

Ιαβε.

It is thus all the more valuable a fact that the important consonantal
transcription of the Tetragram, Ιαβε, given by Epiphanius and Theodoret, is
attested likewise by the Magic Literature, both directly and indirectly. The
author has found it four times in the collocation ιαβεζεβυθ:—

ἐξορκίζω ὑμᾶςτὸἅγιονὄνομ[α

ερηκισθαρηαραραραραχαραραηφθισ . . . .

ιαωιαβεζεβυθλαναβισαφλαν . . .

εκτιπατμμουποφδηντιναξο

ὁτῶνὅλωνβασιλεὺςἐξεγέρθητι

(leaden tablet of cent. 2 or 3 from a Cumean tomb, CIG. iii., No. 5858 b). J.
Franz1122 has correctly explained this form: habes in ea formulaΙΑΩJudaicum
satis no turn illud ex monumentis Abraxeis, deinde IABE, quo nomine Samaritanos
summum numen invocasse refert Theodoretus Quaest. in Exo. xv. On ζεβυθ see below
[↓]. Wessely1123 conjectures that law ΣΑΒΑωΘ appears in the third line. But
ζεβυθ is vouched for by the two following passages which give the same magic
precept as a precept, which is actually put in practice in the Cumman tablet:—
On a tablet of tin shall be written before sunrise among other words the
λόγοςει. . .σιφθήιαβεζεβυθ (Pap. Lond. cxxi. 410),1124 On a chalice one shall
write besides other words ερηκισιθφηλόγονιαβεζεβυθ (Pap. Par. Bibl. nat.
2000),1125 Similarly ἐπικαλοῦμαίσου . . . τῷ μεγάλῳ σου ὀνόματι . . .
ερηκισιθφηαραραχαραραηφθισκηρειαβεζεβυθ ιωβυθιε (Pap. Par. Bibl. nat. 1784
ff.).1126

How are we to explain the form ζεβυθ1127 which thus occurs four times in union
with ιαβε? F. Lenormant1128 maintains that it is the names Beelzebuth and Jao
which are found on the tablet. He reads ἰαὼἰᾶβεζεβὺθθλαναβὶ σαφλαν . . .1129
Leaving aside the fact that the form Beelzebuth can be nowhere
authenticated,1130 it is very precarious to see it in the βεζεβυθ of the
Inscription. The mere absence of the λ, indeed, would not be decisive1131
against Lenormant’s idea, but certainly the φ, which cannot be read as u,1132 is
decisive, and above all the great improbability of the assumption that the names
of God and the Devil stand thus closely together. We consider it to be much less
objectionable to explain1133ζεβυθ as a corruption of צְבָאוֹת, and to see in
ιαβεζεβυθ the familiar צְבָאוֹתיְהוָֹה. With reference to this identification,
the author’s colleague, Herr P. Behnke, Pastor and Repetent at Marburg, has
kindly given him the following additional information:—1134 “υ = Heb. o is
frequently found. The examples, however, in which this vowel-correspondence
appears before ρ should not be taken into account (מֹר = μύῤῥα, צֹר = Τύρος,
תּבוֹר = ἸταβύριονἈταβύριον, כּוֹרֶשׁ = Κῦρος,כִּנּוֹר = κινύρα. In מֹר, צֹר,
כּוֹרֶשׁ, תּבוֹר [?] the ō is a lengthened ŭ and the ordinary transcription of
Sem. u, is υ. But a difference appears in כִּנּוֹר, which goes back to an
original kannār; here therefore the υ corresponds to an ō which has been derived
from ā as would be the case with -υθ = ־וֹת). But it seems to me to be of
greater consequence that the Phoenician pronunciation of Heb. ō (and ô ) is y.
Thus we have in the Poenulus of Plautus (ed. Ritschl) [chyl = כֹּל = kull],
מוֹצָאִי (= ma͡uṣāi ) given as mysehi ; אוֹת (sign, original form ath) as yth,
זֹאת as syth. Moreover, overs (Phöniz., ii., 1, p. 110) has identified Berytos
with בְּאֵרוֹת, and Lagarde (Mitteil., i., p. 226) has acknowledged the
identification. It is thus quite possible that צבאות could have become ζεβυθ in
the mouth of a Phoenician juggler. Still, the omission of the ā before oth in
the pronunciation remains a difficulty.” Perhaps Ιαβε is also contained in the
word σεριαβεβωθ (Pap. Lond, xlvi. 8)1135; but the text is uncertain and the
composition of the word doubtful. Reference must finally be made to a number of
forms, in respect of which the author is again unable to allow himself a certain
conclusion, but which appear to him to be corruptions of the formιαβε, and
therefore in any case to merit our attention:—

ιαβοε, Pap. Lond. xlvi. 63;1136ιαβα1137 is frequently found:
ὁρκίζωσεκατὰτοῦθεοῦτῶν ἙβραίωνἸησοῦ˙ιαβα˙ιαη˙. . . .αβαρμας˙ϊαβαραου.αβελβελ . .
. (Pap. Par. Bibl. nat. 3019 ff.),1138ἐπικαλοῦμαίσετὸν μέγανἐνοὐρανῷ . . . .
βαθαβαθι˙ιατμων˙αλει ˙ιαβα θαβαωθ1139σαβαωθ ˙αδωναιὁθεὸςὁμέγαςορσενοφρη (Pap.
Par. Bibl. nat. 1621 ff.),1140ὑμᾶςἐξορκίζωκατὰτοῦϊαωκαὶτοῦσαβαωθ καὶαδωναι. .
.βαλιαβα (Pap. Par. Bibl. nat. 1484 ff.),1141ιαβαεδδιαω (a gem-inscription)1142;
ιαβαωθ1143: ιαωθιαβαωθ (Pap. Par. Bibl. nat. 3263),1144διὰ τὸμέγα
ἔνδοξονὄνομααβρααμἐμεινααεουβαωθβαιθωβεσια ιαβαωθ (Pap. Lond. cxxi. 314 f.);1145

ιαβας : σὺεἶιαβαςσὺεἶιαπως (Pap. Lond. xlvi. 104).1146 A. Dieterich1147 thinks
it superfluous “to seek a Ἰάβης or similar name” in this; it is but “mystical
play-work set down at random”. But the supposition that ιαβας and ιαπως are not
mere capricious forms, but rather corrupt Graecisings of Ιαβε, is supported by
the context of the whole passage, which belongs to those that are most strongly
permeated by Jewish conceptions.

There may also be mentioned another series of forms, chiefly verbal
combinations, in which this transcription appears, in part at least, to be
contained. We mention only the examples: ιαβω (Geoponica, ed. Niclas, ii., 42
5);1149ιαβουνη (Pap. Lond. xlvi. 340);1149 the names of angels βαθιαβηλ and
αβραθιαβρι (Pap. Lond. cxxi. 906 f.);1150 further, ιαβουχ and ιαβωχ (Pap. Par.
Bibl. nat. 2204).1151 Even putting aside the last-quoted series of forms, we
consider it to have nevertheless been made plain that Ιαβε must have enjoyed an
extraordinary popularity in the Magic Literature. Now this may appear strange if
we remember the observation given by the Fathers that it was the Samaritan
pronunciation of the Tetragram: how did it get to Egypt and the land of the
Cumaean Sybil? The question, however, does not appear to the writer to be
unanswerable. We must not of course so conceive of the dissemination of the form
as if it had been consciously employed, in such various localities, as the true
name of the Mighty God of the Jews; the writer of the Cumaean tablet simply
copied it along with other enigmatic and, of course, unintelligible magic
formula from one of the numerous books of Magic, all of which, very probably—to
judge from those still extant—point to Egypt as their native region. But Egypt
was just the country which, because of the ethnological conditions, was most
ready to transfer Jewish conceptions into its Magic. One may therefore not
unjustifiably suppose that here especially the Tetragrammaton was used by the
magicians as a particularly efficacious Name in its correct pronunciation, which
was, of course, still known to the Jews, though they shrank from using it, up to
and into the Christian era. Thus we have been using the Ιαβε not necessarily for
the purpose of indicating the specifically Samaritan pronunciation as such, but
rather as an evidence for the correct pronunciation. But we consider it quite
possible to account for the occurrence of Ιαβε in Egyptian Papyri by “Samaritan”
influence. Besides the Jews proper1152 there were also Samaritans in Egypt.
“Ptolemy I. Lagi in his conquest of Palestine had taken with him many
prisoners-of-war not only from Judaea and Jerusalem but also ‘from Samaria and
those who dwelt in Mount Gerizim,’ and settled them in Egypt [Joseph. Antt. xii.
1]. In the time of Ptolemy VI. Philometor, the Jews and Samaritans are reported
to have taken their dispute concerning the true centre of worship (Jerusalem or
Gerizim) to the judgment-seat of the king [Joseph. Antt. xiii. 34].”1153 Some
Papyri of the Ptolemaic period confirm the relatively early residence of
Samaritans in Egypt. As early as the time of the second Ptolemy we find (Pap.
Flind Petr. ii. iv. 11)1154 mention of a place Samaria in the Fayyûm, and two
inhabitants of this Samaria, θεόφιλος and Πυῤῥίας,1155 are named in Pap. Flind.
Petr. xxviii.1156 Even more important, in this connection, than such general
information, is a passage in the supposed letter of Hadrian to Servianus, in
which it is said that the Samaritans in Egypt, together with the Jews and
Christians dwelling in that country, are all Astrologers, Aruspices and
Quacksalvers.1157 This is of course an exaggeration; but still the remark, even
if the letter is spurious, is direct evidence of the fact that magic and its
allied arts were common among the Egyptian Samaritans. We may also refer here to
Acts viii.: Simon the magian was altogether successful among the Samaritans: “to
him they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is that
power of God which is called Great”.1158 As the Divine name played a great part
in the adjurations, we may conclude that the Samaritan magicians used it
too—naturally in the form familiar to them. From them it was transferred, along
with other Palestinian matter, to the Magic Literature, and thus it is explained
why we should find it in a remote region, scratched by some one unknown, full of
superstitious dread, upon the lead of the minatory magical tablet.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 23: 07 - SPICILEGIUM
========================================================================

VII.

SPICILEGIUM ἵναμὴτιἀπόληται


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 24: 07.01 - THE CHRONOLOGICAL STATEMENT IN THE PROLOGUE TO JESUS SIRACH
========================================================================

1. THE CHRONOLOGICAL STATEMENT IN THE PROLOGUE TO JESUS SIRACH.

Ἐνγὰρτῷὀγδόῳκαὶτριακοστῷ ἔτειἐπὶτοῦ Ἐυεργέτου
βασιλέωςπαραγενηθεὶςεἰςΑἴγυπτονκαὶσυγχρονίσαςεὗρονοὐ μικρᾶςπαιδείαςἀφόμοιον: of
this chronological statement of the grandson of the son of Sirach, which is of
the highest importance not only as regards the date of the book itself, but
also, on account of the other contents of the prologue, for the history of the
Old Testament canon, various interpretations are given.1159 If it be “a matter
of course” that the writer of the Prologue wishes to indicate, not the year of
his own life, but the thirty-eighth year of King Euergetes,1160 no doubt can
exist as to the year in which the writer came to Egypt; of the two Ptolemies who
bore the surname of Euergetes, the reign of the second only, Ptolemy VII.
Physcon, extended to thirty-eight years, and hence the date given in the
Prologue would signify the year 132 B.C. But when we find a writer like L. Hug
preferring the other interpretation,1161 we cannot but feel that there must be a
difficulty somewhere. The chief support of those who interpret the date as the
year of the prologue-writer’s age, and, at the same time, the chief difficulty
of the other interpretation, lie in the ἐπί which stands between the number and
the name of the king. «La prepositionἐπίparatit ici tout a fait superflue,
puisque toujours le motἔτουςest suivi d’un genitif direct. On ne dit
jamaisἔτουςπρώτου,δευτέρου . . .ἐπὶτινός, en parlant d’un roi, mais bienἔτους .
. . τινόςουτῆςβασιλείαςτινός. Cette locution serait donc sans exemple:» the
difficulty in question may be formulated in these words of Letronne,1162 written
in reference to a passage in the Inscription of Rosetta to be noticed presently.
The difficulty, nevertheless, can be removed. But certainly not by simply
referring, as does 0. F. Fritzsche,1163 to the passages LXX Haggai 1:1, Haggai
2:1, Zechariah 1:7, Zechariah 7:1, 1Ma 13:42, 1Ma 14:27, to which may be added
LXX Zechariah 1:1, for, all these passages being translations of Semitic
originals, the ἐπί, might be a mere imitation of לִ, and would thus yield
nothing decisive for the idiom of the Prologue to Sirach, which was in Greek
from the first. The following passages seem to the present writer to be of much
greater force. In an Inscription from the Acropolis,1164 as old as the 3rd cent.
B.C., we find in line 24f. the words
ἱερεὺςγενόμενοςἐντῷἐπὶΛυσιάδουἄρχοντοςἐνιαυτῷ. Still more significant for the
passage in Sirach are the following parallels of Egyptian origin. The
Inscription of the Rosetta Stone (27th March, 196 B.C.), line 16,1165 runs thus:
προσέταξεν [Ptolemy V. Epiphanes]
δὲκαὶπερὶτῶνἱερέων,ὅπωςμηθὲνπλεῖονδιδῶσινεἰςτὸτελεστικὸν οὗἐτάσσοντοἕωςτοῦπρώτου
ἔτουςἐπὶτοῦπατρὸςαὐτοῦ [Ptolemy IV. Philopator]. Though Letronne, in view of the
alleged want of precedent for this usage of ἐπὶ1166 tries a different
interpretation, he is yet forced to acknowledge that, if we translate the
concluding words by until the first year [of the reign] of his father, the whole
sentence is made to fit most appropriately into the context;1167the priests, who
are hardly inclined to speak of the merits of Epiphanes for nothing, would be
again but manifesting their ability to do obeisance to him, and, at the same
time, to extol the memory of his father. Had Letronne known the example from the
Prologue to Sirach, perhaps he would have decided for this way of taking ἐπί,
which so admirably suits the context. The two passages mutually support one
another. But the usage of ἐπί is further confirmed by other passages of Egyptian
origin. In Pap. Par. 151168 (120 B.C.) two αἰγύπτιαισυγγραφαί are mentioned,
which are dated as follows: μιᾶςμὲνγεγονυίας [τοῦΙΗ’
ἔτουςπαχ]ὼνἐπὶτοῦΦιλομήτορος, the one of Pachon (Egyptian month) of the 18th
year (of the reign) of Philometor;
ἑτέραςδὲγεγονυίαςτοῦΛΕ’μεσορὴἐπὶτοῦαὐτοῦβασιλέως, the other of Mesore [Egyptian
month] (of the year) 35 (of the reign) of the same king. Finally, Pap. Par.
51169 begins thus: βασιλευόντωνΚλεοπάτραςκαὶΠτολεμαίουθεῶνΦιλομητόρωνΣωτήρων
ἔτουςΔ’ἐφ’ἱερέως βασιλεύωςΠτολεμαίουθεοῦΦιλμήτοροςΣωτῆροςἈλεξάνδρου
καὶθεῶνΣωτήρων,κτλ. If the interpretation advocated by Brunet against
Brugsch,1170viz., under King Ptolemy . . . . , the priest of Alexander [the
Great] and of the gods be correct, then this passage also must be taken into
consideration. The pleonastic ἐπί of the Prologue to Sirach is thus supported by
several authorities of about the same date and place. Hence also, in the light
of this result, the passages from the Greek Bible, cited above, acquire a new
significance. The pleonastic girl found in these is not to be explained by that
excessive scrupulosity of the translators which manifests itself elsewhere; in
point of fact, their desire to translate literally was assisted by a peculiar
idiom of their locality, and hence we have a translation which is at once
literal and accurate.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 25: 07.02 - THE SUPPOSED EDICT OF PTOLEMY IV. PHILO-PATOR AGAINST THE EGYPTIAN JEWS.
========================================================================

2. THE SUPPOSED EDICT OF PTOLEMY IV. PHILO-PATOR AGAINST THE EGYPTIAN JEWS. In
c_3 11-">3Ma. 3:11 ff. is quoted a decree of Ptolemy IV. Philopator against the
Egyptian Jews, according to which a reward is promised to every one who informs
against a Jew. In our editions the Greek text of verse 28 runs thus:
μηνύεινδὲτὸνβουλόμενονἐφ’ᾧτὴνοὐσίαντοῦἐμπίπτοντος ὑπὸτὴν
εὔθυνανλήψεταικαὶἐκτοῦβασιλικοῦἀργυρίουδραχμὰς
δισχιλίαςκαὶτῆςἐλευθερίαςτεύξεταικαὶστεφανωθήσεται. Grimm1171 explains the
ungrammatical (constructionslos) accusative at the beginning of the verse as an
anacoluthon,—as if the writer had in his mind some such construction as
εἰςτὴνἐλευθερίανἀφαιρησόμεθα. In that case we translate as follows: him,
however, who is willing to inform against a Jew—he shall receive, in addition to
the property of him upon whom the punishment falls, two thousand silver drachmae
from the royal treasury, shall obtain his freedom, and shall be crowned with a
garland. A most extraordinary proclamation,—extraordinary even for the third
Book of Maccabees, which is by no means wanting in extraordinary things. “It
cannot but seem strange that slaves only are invited to become informers, and
that this fact is announced quite indirectly, and, what is more, only at the end
of the statement.”1172 But even this invitation, which, in the circumstances
related in the book, is by no means impossible, does not appear so strange to
the present writer as the proffered reward, which, in consideration of the great
ease with which an information might be lodged against any individual Jew among
so many,1173 is hardly less than horrifying: not so much, indeed, the monetary
reward, as the declaration that the slave who acted as informer was to receive
not only his freedom, but also the honour which was the special prerogative of
distinguished men, viz., the being crowned with a garland. The passage thus
awakes suspicion of its being corrupt, and, as a matter of fact, the
Alexandrinus, as well as other manuscripts, omits τεύξεταικαὶ, and reads thus:
καὶτὴςἐλευθερίαςστεφανωθήσεται. But nothing is really gained thereby, for this
reading, as such, gives no sense—though, indeed, its very unintelligibility
makes it probable that it represents the older, though already corrupt, form of
the text, by which the received reading can be explained as being an attempt to
make the statement more plausible. Hence Grimm gives it the preference, and
“cannot hesitate for a moment” to accept the emendation of Grotius, viz.,
καὶτοῖςἘλευθερίοιςστεφανωθήσεται, i.e., and he shall be crowned at the feast of
the Eleutheria. The alteration is certainly not extensive, and the conjecture
has at all events the advantage of explaining away the invitation to the slaves,
which seems so offensive to its proposer. Nevertheless, 0. F. Fritzsche1174
hesitates to accept it, and, as we think, not without good reason. We know
nothing of any feast of the Eleutheria as a custom in Egypt under the Ptolemies,
and it is extremely precarious to take refuge in a conjecture which, by
introducing an entirely new historical consideration, would give the text such a
very special meaning. The author believes that the following facts from Egyptian
sources contribute something towards the elucidation of the verse. In the first
place, for the supposed “construction-less” accusative μηνύεινδὲτὸνβουλόμενον,
reference might have been made to the similar, apparently absolute, infinitive
at the end of the edict of Ptolemy II. Philadelphus which is given in the
Epistle of Aristeas (ed. M. Schmidt), p. 17 f., viz.,
τὸνδὲβουλόμενονπροσαγγέλλεινπερὶτῶνἀπειθησάντων
ἐπὶτοῦφανέντοςἐνόχουτὴνκυρίανἕξειν (p. 18 7f.); as a matter of fact, ἕξειν
depends upon the technical διειλήφαμεν of the previous sentence. Similarly we
might construe the μηνύεινδὲτὸνβουλόμενον with the διειλήφαμεν of verse 26. We
cannot but perceive that there is on the whole a certain similarity between the
official formulae of the two edicts, and it seems very natural to suppose that,
even if both are spurious, yet in form they fully represent the official style
of the Ptolemaic period. In fact, a comparison of this Maccabean passage with
Pap. Par. 101175 (145 B.C.)—a warrant for the apprehension of two runaway
slaves—raises the supposition to a certainty. The warrant first gives an exact
description of each fugitive, and then sets forth a reward for their recapture,
or for information concerning their whereabouts. When we place the two passages
in parallel columns as below, we see at once the remarkable similarity between
the formula employed in each ; be it noted that the Maccabean passage has been
correctly punctuated.

3Macc. 3:28

Pap. Par. 10.

μηνύεινδὲτὸνβου-

λόμενον,ἐφ’ᾧτὴνοὐσίαν

τοῦἐμπίπτοντος ὑπὸτὴνεὔ-

θυνανλήψεταικαὶἐκτοῦ

βασιλικοῦἀργυρίουδραχμὰς

δισχιλίας [Codd. 19, 64, 93, Syr.: τρισχιλίας].

τοῦτονὃςἄνἀναγάγῃ

λήψεταιχαλκοῦτάλαντα

δύοτρισχιλίας (δραχμάς) . . . .μηνύεινδὲτὸνβου-

λόμενοντοῖςπαρὰτοῦστρα- τηγοῦ.

In reference to the absolute μηνύεινδὲτὸνβουλόμενον of the Papyrus, the French
editor1176 remarks that the infinitive does duty for the imperative, as in
similar formula generally. It would perhaps be more accurate, especially as the
imperative infinitive is itself to be explained as a breviloquence, to make the
infinitive depend upon a verb of command which the edict tacitly
presupposes.1177 We must, in any case, reject the hypothesis of an anacoluthon
in the Maccabean passage; it would destroy the impression given bythe peculiarly
official style of the edict. The words μηνύειν δὲτὸνβουλόμενον are a complete
sentence in themselves: he shall inform, who so desires. Hence the comparison
instituted above is not without interest for the criticism of the third Book of
Maccabees; while, conversely, it may be maintained that the Ptolemaic edicts in
Jewish-Alexandrian literature, even if they were each and all spurious, and were
without value as sources for the facts, are yet of great historical importance,
in so far, that is,1178 as they faithfully represent the forms of official
intercourse. What, then, shall we say of the “extraordinary” proclamation at the
end of v. 28? There is no necessity whatever that we should connect the passage
itself (according to the ordinary reading) with slaves; the present writer is
surprised that Grimm did not perceive the much more obvious explanation, viz.,
that the invitation is really directed to the Jews. The edict threatened their
freedom and their lives, as may not only be inferred from the circumstances of
the case, but as is also confirmed by the expression of their feelings once the
danger had been happily averted: they felt that they were ἀσινεῖς,ἐλεύθεροι,
ὑπερχαρεῖς.1179 Hence when those who appeared as king’s evidence against their
proscribed brethren were thereby promised the freedom which was otherwise in
danger, the bargain was an exceedingly tempting one. It is, finally, quite
unnecessary to speak of a crowning of the informer. Assuming that the reading of
the Alexandrinus, καὶτῆςἐλευθερίαςστεφανωθήσεται, is the older—though itself a
corrupt—form of the text, the author would propose to make a trivial alteration,
and read καὶτῇἐλευθερίᾳστεφανωθήσεται.1180 The verb στεφανόω has not
infrequently the general meaning reward,1181 and this is what it means here.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 26: 07.03 - THE “LARGE LETTERS” AND THE “MARKS OF JESUS” IN GAL. 6.
========================================================================

3. THE “LARGE LETTERS” AND THE “MARKS OF JESUS” IN GAL. 6.

Paul began his preaching of the gospel to the Galatians in most promising
circumstances; they received the invalid traveller as a messenger of God, yea,
as if it had been the Saviour himself who sank down upon their threshold under
the burden of the cross. Whereas others might have turned from Paul with
loathing, they came to him, aye, and would have given away their eyes if by so
doing they could have helped him. And then with childlike piety they gazed upon
the majestic Form which the stranger pictured to them. Ever afterwards they were
his children; and like a father’s, indeed, are the thoughts which, across land
and sea, bind him to the far-off churches of Galatia. True, he knows that they
had forsaken their native idols with the zeal of the newly-awakened, but he also
knows that they had not followed up this advance by full realisation of the
sacred fellowship in which the majesty of the living Christ ever anew assumes
human form. The confession regarding his own life in Christ, which Paul, on the
very eve of his martyrdom, made to his dearest friends, had been confirmed in
his own mind by the painful yet joyful experience of his long apostolic labours
among the churches; Not as though I had already attained! So then, as he left
theseinfant churches in Asia Minor, his heart, full of love and gratitude, would
yet have some foreboding of the dangers which their isolation might bring about;
we cannot imagine that he was one to think, with the blind affection of a
father, that the newly-awakened had no further need of tutors and governors.
Nay, but rather that, as he prayed to the Father on their behalf, his
remembrance of them would be all the more fervent. With their good-natured
Gallic flightiness of disposition, these young Christians, left to themselves,
succumbed to the wiles of their tempters. Paul was compelled to recognise that
here too, the wicked enemy, who was always sowing tares among his wheat, did not
labour in vain. In their simple-hearted ignorance the Galatians had allowed
themselves to be bewitched by the word of the Law, and, in course of time, their
idea of the man whom they had once honoured as their father in Christ became
somewhat distorted in the light which streamed from national and theological
animosity. How shall we figure to ourselves the feelings of the Apostle as the
news of this reached his ears? If we would understand not only the words, but,
so to speak, also the spirit, of the Letter to the Galatians, we must, above
all, endeavour to bring home to our minds the movements of this marvellous human
soul. The keen biting polemic of the missive gives us to know exactly how Paul
judged of the legal particularism of his opponents; it was the salutary
indignation of the reformer that guided his pen here. But we dare not assume
that he meted out the same measure to the tempted as to their tempters. The
bitter incisiveness with which he speaks of these churches does not proceed from
the self-willed sullenness of the misinterpreted benefactor who is pleased to
pose as a martyr: it is rather the lament of the father who, in the unfilial
conduct of his son, sees but the evil which the wrong-doer brings upon himself.
The harsh and formal speech of the first page or two of the letter is that of
the παιδαγωγὸςεἰς Χριστόν. But he speaks thus only incidentally; once he has
risen above the warfare of embittering words to the praise of the faith in
Christ which may again be theirs, the warm feelings of the old intimacy will no
longer be subdued, and the man who a moment before had feared that his labour
among these foolish ones had been in vain, changes his tone and speaks as if he
were addressing the Philippians or his friend Philemon. As in his other letters,
so in this does Paul add to the words he had dictated to his amanuensis a
postscript in his own handwriting. More attention ought to be paid to the
concluding words of the letters generally; they are of the highest importance if
we are ever to understand the Apostle. The conclusion of the Letter to the
Galatians is certainly a very remarkable one. Once again, in short and clear
antitheses, the Law and Christ are set over against each other; and, moreover,
the fact that it is only his opponents whom he now treats severely, fully
consorts with the mood of reconciliation with the church, to which, in course of
writing, he had been brought. The letter does not close with complaints against
the Galatians; and in view of the occasion of the letter, this must be taken as
signifying very much the same as what can be observed in the conclusion of other
letters called forth by opposition, viz., the express indication of the
cordiality that subsisted between the writer and the readers. Paul has again
attained to perfect peace—so far, at least, as concerns his Galatian brethren;
and we are of opinion that in this placid frame of mind lies the explanation of
the much-discussed words at the beginning of the autograph conclusion: See with
how large letters I write unto you with mine own hand. The true mode of
interpreting these words is to take them as a piece of amiable irony, from which
the readers might clearly realise that it was no rigorous pedagogue that was
addressing them. The amanuensis, whose swift pen was scarcely able to record the
eloquent flow of Paul’s dictation upon the coarse papyrus leaves, had a minute
commonplace handwriting. Between his fluent hand and that of Paul there was a
pronounced difference1182—not only in the Letter to the Galatians. Surely it is
hardly quite accurate to say that Paul used large letters in the present
isolated instance for the purpose of marking the importance of the words to
follow. The large letters naturally suggest that the explanation rather lies in
the formal and external matter of caligraphy, and the fact that Paul calls
special attention to them can only be explained, as we think, on the theory
indicated above. Large letters are calculated to make an impression on children;
and it is as his own dear foolish children that he treats the Galatians,
playfully trusting that surely the large letters will touch their hearts. When
Paul condescended to speak in such a way, the Galatians knew that the last
shadows of castigatory sternness had died from his countenance. The real
sternness of the letter was by no means obliterated thereby; but the feeling of
coolness that might have remained behind was now happily wiped away by Paul’s
thrice-welcome good-natured irony, and the readers were now all the more ready
to receive the final message that still lay on his heart. The closing words
present no difficulty in themselves. It is only the last sentence but
one1183—one of the strangest utterances of Paul—which is somewhat enigmatical.
Τοῦ λοιποῦ1184κόπουςμοιμηδεὶςπαρεχέτω˙ἐγὼγὰρτὰστίγματα
τοῦἸησοῦἐντῷσώματίμουβαστάζω,henceforth let no man trouble me, for I bear in my
body (R.V. branded on my body) the marks of Jesus. Two questions arise here:
first, what does Paul mean by the marks of Jesus? and, secondly, to what extent
does he base the warning, that no one shall trouble him, upon his bearing of
these marks? “στίγματα . . . are signs, usually letters of the alphabet
(Leviticus 19:28), which were made upon the body (especially on the forehead and
the hands) by branding or puncturing,—on slaves as a symbol of their masters, on
soldiers as a symbol of their leaders, on criminals as a symbol of their crime,
and also, among some oriental peoples, as a symbol of the deity they served
(3Ma. 2:29, . . ).”1185 Hence an ancient reader would know perfectly well what
these stigmata were, but the very variety of their possible application renders
less evident the special reference in the case before us. In any case, it seems
to us quite evident that Paul is speaking metaphorically; is alluding, in fact,
to the scars of the wounds he had received in his apostolic labours,1186 and not
to actual, artificially-produced στίγματα. Sieffert1187decides in favour of the
hypothesis that Paul’s intention was to describe himself as the slave of Christ;
but in that case, how can the γάρ possibly be explained? We feel, in fact, that
the γάρ is of itself sufficient to invalidate the hypothesis. Had Paul said the
exact contrary; had he said, for instance, Henceforth go on troubling me as you
will,1188—then the γάρ would have admirably fitted the context; that is, Paul
might have gone on to say, with proud resignation, I am accustomed to that, for
I am naught but a despised slave of Jesus Christ. No one will seriously contend
that Paul wished to compare himself with a branded criminal; and the reference
to the tattooing of soldiers would seem equally far-fetched. The γάρ sneaks
against the latter explanation quite as forcibly as against the hypothesis of
slave-marks; for the miles christianus does not quench the fiery darts of the
Evil One by striking a treaty, but by going forth to active warfare, armed with
the shield of faith. The explanation of Wetstein1189 still seems to us to be the
best; according to this, Paul means sacred signs, in virtue of which he is
declared to be one consecrated to Christ, one therefore whom no Christian dare
molest. But Wetstein, too, fails adequately to show the causal relation between
the two clauses, and as little does he justify the unquestionably strange
periphrasis here used to express metaphorically the idea of belonging to
Christ.1190 Provisionally accepting, however, this theory of the στίγματα, we
might represent the causal relation somewhat as follows: Anyone who bears the
marks of Jesus is His disciple, and, as such, is under His protection; hence
anyone who offends against Paul lays himself open to the punishment of a
stronger Power. We should thus be led to look upon the στίγματα as sacred
protective-marks, and to interpret our passage in connection with certain lines
of thought to which B. Stade has recently called attention.1191 Already in the
Old Testament, according to him, we find not a few indications of such
protective-marks. He explains the mark of Cain as such, but, even apart from
this, reference may be made to Isaiah 44:51192 and Ezekiel 9:1-11; 1193 in the
latter passage we read that, before the angels bring ruin upon Jerusalem and
destroy its inhabitants, one of them sets a mark upon the forehead of all those
who mourn for the abominations practised in the city; these are spared by the
destroying angels.1194 In Leviticus 19:27 f., 1195Leviticus 21:5 f. Deuteronomy
14:1 f., there is likewise implied an acquaintance with sacred signs by which
the bearer indicates that he belongs to a certain deity: were the Israelites to
permit of the sign of another god among them, they would thereby rupture their
special relation to Jahweh as being His people. Circumcision, too, may be looked
upon as a mark of Jahweh.1196 The following passages, belonging to a later time,
may be mentioned:1197Psa. Sol. 15:8ὅτιτὸσημεῖοντοῦθεοῦἐπὶδικαίουςεἰςσωτηρίαν,
cf.v. 10, where it is said of the ποιοῦντεςἀνομίαν that they have
τὸσημεῖοντῆςἀπωλείαςἐπὶτοῦμετώπου αὐτῶν; according to 3Ma. 2:29 the Alexandrian
Jews were compelled by Ptolemy IV. Philopator to have branded upon them an ivy
leaf, the sign of Dionysos, the king himself being similarly marked;1198 Philo,
de Monarchia (M.), p. 220 f., reproaches the Jewish apostates for allowing
themselves to be branded with the signs of idols made with hands (ἔνιοι δὲ
τοσαύτῃ κέχρηνται μανίας ὑπερβολῇ, ὥστ’ . . . ἵενται πρὸς δουλείαν τῶν
χειροκμήτων γράμμασιν αὐτὴν ὁμολογοῦντες . . . . ἐν τοῖς σώμασι καταστίζοντες
αὐτὴν σιδήρῳ πεπυρωμένῳ πρὸς ἀνεξάλειπτον διαμονήν˙οὐδὲ γὰρ χρόνῳ ταῦτα
ἀμαυροῦνται); and similarly the worshippers of the beast in Revelation bear the
name or the number of the beast as a χάραγμα on the forehead or on the right
hand,1199 while the faithful are marked with the name of the Lamb and of the
living God.1200 Finally—a fact which is specially instructive in regard to the
significance of protective-marks in Greek Judaism—the Thephillin,
prayer-fillets, were regarded as protective-marks, and were designated
φυλακτήρια, the technical term for amulets. These various data are sufficient,
in our opinion, to justify us in supposing that the Apostle might quite easily
characterise his scars metaphorically as protective-marks.1201 In confirmation
of this supposition we feel that we must draw attention to a certain Papyrus
passage, which seems to grow in significance the longer we contemplate it, and
which, moreover, may even merit the attention of those who cannot at once accept
the conclusions here drawn from it, as we think, with some degree of
justification. It is found in the bilingual (Demotic and Greek) Papyrus J. 383
(Papyrus Anastasy 65) of the Leiden Museum. C. J. C. Reuvens1202 was the first
to call attention to it, assigning it to the first half of the 3rd cent.
A.D.1203Then it was published in fac-simile1204 and discussed1205 by C. Leemans,
the director of the museum, who has lately again1206 indicated his agreement
with Reuvens’ date. H. Brugsch1207 has expressly emphasised the great importance
of the Papyrus for the study of the Demotic, and has made most exhaustive use of
it in his Demotic Grammar.1208 He follows Reu-vens and Leemans in describing it
as Gnostic—a term that may either mean much or little. The passage in question
has been recently discussed more or less elaborately by E. Revillout,1209 G.
Maspero1210 and C. Wessely.1211 It is found in the Demotic text of this
“Gnostic” Papyrus,1212 which belongs to that literature of magic which has been
handed down to us in extensive fragments, and recently brought to light. To
judge from the fac-similes, its decipherment is quite easy—so far, at least, as
it affects us here. First of all, the text, as we read it, is given, the various
readings of Reuvens (Rs), Leemans (L), Brugsch (B), Maspero (M), Revillout (Rt)
and Wessely (W) being also indicated. It is introduced by a sentence in the
Demotic which Revillout translates as follows: “Pour parvenir a e’tre aime de
quelqu’un qui lutte contre toi et ne veut pas to parler (dire):” In the original
the spell occupies three and a half lines. A rent runs down the Papyrus column,
nearly in the middle; the number of the missing letters is indicated in the
transcript by dots, the ends of the original lines by |.

ΜΗΜΕΔΙΩΚΕΟΔΕΑΝΟΧ

ΠΑΠΙΠΕΤ. . ΜΕΤΟΥΒΑΝΕΣ

ΒΑΣΤΑΖΩΤΗΝΤΑΦΗΝ

ΤΟΥΟΣΙΡΕΩΣΚΑΙΥΠΑΓΩ

5 ΚΑΤΑ . . ΗΣΑΙΑΥΤΗΝΕΣ

ΑΒΙΔΟΣ|ΚΑΤΑΣΤΗΣΑΙΕΙΣ

ΤΑΣΤΑΣΚΑΙΚΑΤΑΘΕΣΘΑΙ

ΕΙΣ. . . ΧΑΣΕΑΝΜΟΙΟΔ

ΚΟΠΟΥΣ|ΣΠΑΡΑΣΧΗΠΡΟΣ

ΡΕΥΩΑΥΤΗΝΑΥΤΩ|

2 παπιπε . . . : Rs. παπιπε . . . ., L. παπιπετ., B. παπιπετ(ου), M. Papipetu,
Rt. Παπεπιτου, W. παπιπετου| 4 οσιρεως: W. οσιροις [!] 5 κατα . . . ησαι: Rs.
πατα(στη)σαι, L. κατα. . . ησαι, B. M. Rt. καταστησαι, W. κατα(στη)σαιες: Rs. B.
M. Rt. εις, L. ε. ς | 7 ταστας: Rs. ταςτας, B. ταςταφας, W. ταςταςsic | 8 ...
χας: Rs. (μ)αχας, L. αχας, M. αλχας, W. . . αχας | Δ: B. M. Rt. interpret as
δεινα, W. δ(ε) ι(να)| 9 ρεψω: B. M. Rt. τρεψω, W. φερω | The editors differ from
one another principally in their reproduction (or restoration) of the non-Greek
words in the text. As these are irrelevant to our present purpose, we shall not
further pursue the subject, feeling constrained to follow Maspero in reading
thus:—

Μήμεδίωκεὅδε˙ανοχ

παπιπετ[ου] μετουβανες˙

βαστάζωτὴνταφὴν

τοῦ Ὀσίρεωςκαὶ ὑπάγω

5 κατα[στ]ῆσαιαὐτὴνε(ἰ) ς

Ἄβιδος,καταστῆσαιεἰς

τασταςκαὶκαταθέσθαι

εἰς [αλ]χας˙ἐάνμοιὁδεῖνα

κόπουςπαράσχῃ,προσ- 10 (τ)ρέψωαὐτὴναὐτῷ. In the Papyrus a Demotic rendering of
the incantation follows the Greek text,—not literal, indeed, but showing, few
variations. This Demotic version is thus rendered by Revillout:1213 “Ne me
persecute pas, une telle!—Je suis Papipetou Metoubanes, je porte le sepulcre d’
Osiris, je vais le transporter a Abydos; je le ferai reposer dans les Alkah. Si
une telle me resiste aujourd’hui, je le renverserai.—Dire sept fois.” We
perceive at once that we have here a formula of adjuration. The following notes
will help towards an understanding of the Greek text. Line 1. The commentators
take ανοχ to be the Coptic anok (cf. אָנֹכִי) I am. In the Greek books of magic
we very frequently find similar instances of the ἐγώεἰμι followed by the divine
name, by which the adjurer identifies himself with the particular deity in order
to invest his spell with special efficacy, and to strike the demon with terror.
L. 2. We have not as yet discovered any satisfactory etymological explanation of
the words παπιπετουμετουβανες ; Reuvens and Leemans give nothing more than
conjectures. It is sufficient for our purpose to remember that such foreign
words play a very great part in adjurations. Even if they had originally any
meaning at all, it is yet unlikely that those who used the formula ever knew it;
the more mysterious the words of their spell sounded, the more efficacious did
they deem it. L. 3. The editors translate τὴνταφὴντοῦὈσίρεως as the coffin, or
the mummy, of Osiris. ταφή in this sense is of frequent occurrence in the Papyri
and elsewhere.1214 By this ταφὴτοῦὈσίρεως we must understand a model of the
coffin or of the mummy of Osiris used as an amulet. The efficacy of this amulet
is explained by the Osiris myth.1215 The Osiris of Graeco-Roman times was the
god of the dead. His corpse, dismembered by Typhon, was again put together with
the greatest difficulty by Isis; and it was ever afterwards the most cherished
task of Isis, Nephthys, Horus, Anubis and Hermes, deities friendly to Osiris, to
guard his tomb, and to prevent the wicked Typhon from repeating his mutilation
of the divine body. The magicians took advantage of this conflict among the gods
in order to make sure of the assistance of those who were friendly to Osiris.
They strove to get possession of the sacred coffin; they carried it about with
them—at least in effigie, as an amulet—and they threatened to demolish it if
their desires were not fulfilled. Thus, according to Jamblichus,1216 the threats
to destroy the heavens, to reveal the mysteries of Isis, to divulge the
ineffable secret hidden in the depths, to stay the sacred sun-barge, to gratify
Typhon by scattering the limbs of Osiris belong to the βιαστικαὶἀπειλαί, of the
Egyptian magicians. The adjuration under notice is an efficacious minatory
formula of this kind. It is directed to a demon, who is believed to be the cause
of the difficulties which, it is hoped, will be eluded by its means;1217 the
possession of the ταφὴτοῦὈσίρεως cannot but impress him, being a guarantee for
the support of the most powerful deities, seeing that it was to their own best
interests to be favourable to the possessor of the imperilled mummy. A quite
similar menace, made by some “obscure gentleman,” is found in a
recently-published tabula devotionis1218 from Adrumetum: if not, I shall go down
to the holy places of Osiris, and break his corpse in pieces, and throw it into
the river to be borne away.1219 L. 6. Ἄβιδος is the Egyptian Abydos. The town is
of great importance in the history of Osiris. It was looked upon as the
burial-place of the god, and its mysteries are spoken of by several ancient
writers.1220 The assertion of the bearer of the amulet, viz., that he is about
to convey the mummy of Osiris to Abydos, seems to us to signify that he wishes,
by means of an act which exercises a secret influence upon the friends of
Osiris, to be all the more assured of their favour, and all the more dangerous
to the demon. L. 7 and 8. ταστας and αλχας are the Greek transcriptions of two
Egyptian words which are rendered by Maspero1221as les retraites and les
demeures eternelles respectively. They help us to obtain a clearer understanding
of the preceding lines: the user of the spell, in thus reverently entombing the
body which Typhon had abused, lays the most powerful deities under the highest
obligation to himself. L. 8. ὁδεῖνα is represented in the original by the
abbreviation Δ, which is frequently used in the Papyri in the same way; when the
formula prescribed in the book of magic was actually used against some
troublesome person, this person’s name was substituted for the ὁδεῖνα, just as
the name of the demon who was the cause of the κόποι took the place of the ὅδε
in line 1. (U. von Wilamowitz-Moellen-dorff informs the author by letter that he
reads ὁδε(ῖνα) also in line 1 (not ὅδε), for which there is much to be said). L.
9. προσ(τ)ρέψω: the Papyrus distinctly shows προσρέψω, i.e., the future of
προσρέπω, to incline towards, intransitive: here it would be transitive, for
which usage there is no authority.1222 Hence προστρέψω1223 would seem the
preferable reading. But the question is of no importance for the sense of the
concluding sentence; in either case, the adjurer threatens to use his
efficacious amulet against the troubler. The spell may accordingly be translated
as follows:—

Persecute me not, thou there am PAPIPETOU METUBANES; I carry the corpse of
Osiris and I go to convey it to Abydos, to convey it to its resting-place, and
to place it in the everlasting chambers. Should any one trouble me, I shall use
it against him.

Now, differ as we may as to the meaning of the individual details of this spell,
and, in particular, as to the allusions to Egyptian mythology, it is, after all,
only the essential meaning which concerns us here, and this meaning the author
holds to be established: the βαστάζειν of a particular amulet associated with a
god acts as a charm against the κόπουςπαρέχειν on the part of an adversary.
Starting from this point, let us now seek to understand the enigmatical words of
the Apostle. One can hardly resist the impression that the obscure metaphor all
at once becomes more intelligible: Let no man ventureκόπουςπαρέχειν for me, for
in theβαστάζεινof the marks of Jesus I possess a talisman against all such
things. In this way the sense of the γάρ, in particular, becomes perfectly
clear. The words are not directed against the Judaisers, but to the Galatians,
and, moreover, it seems probable that we must explain the threat by the same
temper of mind1224 to which we attributed the sportive phrase about the large
letters. Just as the Apostle, with kindly menace, could ask the Corinthians,
Shall I come unto you with the rod?1225 so here, too, he smilingly holds up his
finger and says to his naughty but well-beloved children: Do be sensible, do not
imagine that you can hurt me—I am protected by a charm. We must confess that we
do not feel that Paul, by this mixture of earnest and amiable jest, lays himself
open to the charge of trifling. Only by a total misapprehension of the actual
letter-like character of his writings as they have come down to us, could we
expect that he should in themassume the severe manner of the doctor gentium,
who, caught up into the third heaven, proclaims to mankind and to the ages what
eye hath never seen. Paul is no bloodless and shadowy figure of a saint, but a
man, a man of the olden time. One in whose letters utterance is found for the
raptured glow of faith and for a sensitive and circumspect love, for bitter
feelings of scorn and relentless irony—why should the winning kindliness of the
jest be deemed alien to him? He wishes to bring back the Galatians to the true
way, but perhaps feels that he, in treating as τέλειοι those who are but νήπιοι,
has overshot the mark. So he withdraws, though as regards the manner rather than
the matter of his charges; and who that has ever loved the Apostle could find
fault? Paul has taken care, in this passage, that his words shall have no
hackneyed ring; he does not use general terms about the purposelessness of the
attacks made on him, but intimates that what preserves him are the
protective-marks of Jesus. Jesus guards him; Jesus restrains the troublers;
Jesus will say to them: τίαὐτῷκόπουςπαρέχετε; καλὸνἔργονἠργάσατοἐνἐμοί. We
cannot, of course, go so far as to maintain that Paul makes conscious allusion
to the incantation of the Papyrus; but it is not improbable that it, or one
similar to it, was known to him, even were it not the case that he composed the
Letter to the Galatians in the city of magicians and sorcerers. The Papyrus
dates from the time of Tertullian; the incantation itself may be much older.1226
The same Papyrus furnishes us with another incantation,1227 manifestly pervaded
by Jewish ideas,—another proof of the supposition that the Apostle may have been
acquainted with such forms of expression. Moreover, we learn even from Christian
sources that Paul on more than one occasion came into contact with
magicians,1228 while he himself warns the Galatians against φαρμακεία,1229 and
reproaches them for having suffered themselves to be bewitched:1230 all these
things but serve as evidence for the fact that the sphere, from which, haply,
some light has been thrown upon the obscure phrase about the marks of Jesus, was
in no wise outwith the circle of ideas in which the writer moved.1231 Be it at
least conceded that our contention should not be met by aesthetic or religious
objections. We would not maintain, of course, that the figure used by Paul can
be fitted into the formulas of dogmatic Christology; but in its context it forms
a perfectly definite and forcible metaphor. And as for the possible religious
objection, that Paul was not the man to apply terms originating in the darkest
“heathenism” to facts distinctively Christian, it is a fair counter-plea to ask
whether it is an unchristian mode of speech, at the present day, to use the verb
charm (feien) in a similar connection, or to extol the Cross as one’s Talisman.
In the same manner does Paul speak of the wounds which he had received in his
apostolic work—and which in 2 Corinthians 4:10 he escribes as the
νέκρωσιςτοῦἸησοῦ—as the marks of Jesus, which protected him as by a charm.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 27: 07.04 - A NOTE TO THE LITERARY HISTORY OF SECOND PETER.
========================================================================

4. A NOTE TO THE LITERARY HISTORY OF SECOND PETER.

Graven upon the stones of a locality where we should not expect it, we find a
piece of evidence which, in any treatment of the Second Epistle of Peter,
deserves the highest consideration. The beginning of this early Christian
booklet has many points in common with a decree of the inhabitants of
Stratonicea in Caria in honour of Zeus Panhemerios and of Hekate, which, dating
from the early imperial period, has been preserved in an Inscription. This
Inscription has already, in our investigation of the word ἀρετή, been laid under
contribution,1232 and it will once again engage our attention.1233 We begin here
by giving the two texts in parallel columns, duly marking the cognate elements
in each; be it observed that it is not only the unquestion-able similarities in
expression and meaning which are thus emphasised, but also certain—for the
present let us call them mechnanical—assonances between the two texts, the
calling of attention to which will be justified as we proceed. in order to
understand the Inscription, which, omitting the introductory formula, we give in
the original orthography, let it be borne in mind that the infinitive σεσῶσθαι
depends upon an antecedent εἰπόντος.

Decree of Stratonicea.[En.Tr.]

2 Peter 1:3ff.

. . . . τὴνπόλινἄνωθεντῇτῶν

προεστώτωναὐτῆςμεγίστων

θεῶν [προνοίᾳΔιὸςΠ]ανημε-

[ρίουκαὶἙ]κάτηςἐκπολλῶν

καὶμεγάλωνκαὶσυνεχῶνκιν-

δύνωνσεσῶσθαι,ὧνκαὶτὰ

ἱερὰἄσυλακαὶἱκέταικαὶἡ

ἱερὰσύνκλητοςδόγματιΣε-

[βαστοῦΚαίσαροςἐπὶ] τῆςτῶν

κυρίωνῬωμαίωναἰωνίουἀρ-

χῆςἐποιήσαντοπροφανεῖςἐν-

αργείας˙καλῶςδὲ ἔχιπᾶσαν

σπουδὴνἰσφέρεσθαιἰςτὴν

πρὸς [αὐτοὺςεὐσέβ]ειανκαὶ

μηδένακαιρὸνπαραλιπῖντοῦ

εὐσεβεῖνκαὶλιτανεύιναὐ-

τούς˙καθίδρυταιδὲἀγάλματα

ἐντῷσεβαστῷβουλευτηρίῳ

τῶνπροειρημένω[νθεῶνἐπι-

φαν]εστάταςπαρέχοντατῆς

θείαςδυνάμεωςἀρετάς,δι’ἃς

καὶτὸσύνπανπλῆθοςθύειτε

καὶἐπιθυμιᾷκαὶεὔχεταικαὶ

εὐχαριστεῖἀ[εὶτοῖσ]δετοῖς

οὕτωςἐπιφανεστάτοιςθεοῖς

κἀκτῆςδι’ ὑμνῳδίαςπροσόδου

τοὺς [εἴθισται] ˙ἔδοξετῇβουλῇ

κτλ.

ὡςτὰπάνταἡμῖντῆς

θείαςδυνάμεωςαὐτοῦτὰπρὸς

ζωὴνκαὶεὐσέβειανδεδωρη-

μένηςδιὰτῆςἐπιγνώσεωςτοῦ

καλέσαντοςἡμᾶςἰδίᾳδόξῃκαὶ

ἀρετῇδι’ὧντὰτίμιαἡμῖνκαὶ

μέγισταἐπαγγέλματαδεδώ-

ρηται,ἵναδιὰτούτωνγένησθε

θείαςκοινωνοὶφύσεωςἀπο-

φυγόντεςτῆςἐντῷκόσμῳἐν

ἐπιθυμίᾳφθορᾶς,καὶαὐτὸ

τοῦτοδὲσπουδὴνπᾶσανπαρ-

εισενέγκαντεςἐπιχορηγήσατε

ἐντῇπίστειὑμῶντὴνἀρετὴν

ἐνδὲτῇἀρετῇτὴνγνῶσινἐν

δὲτῇγνώσειτὴνἐγκράτειαν

ἐνδὲτῇἐγκρατείᾳτήνὑπο-

μονὴνἐνδὲτῇ ὑπομονῇτὴν

εὐσέβειανἐνδὲτῇεὐσε-

βείᾳτὴνφιλαδελφίανἐνδὲ

τῇφιλαδελφίᾳτὴνἀγάπην.

. . . (2 Peter 1:11): οὕτωςγὰρ

πλουσίωςἐπιχορηγηθήσεται

ὑμῖνἡεἴσοδοςεἰςτὴναἰώνιον

βασιλείαντοῦκυρίουἡμῶνκαὶ

σωτῆροςἸησοῦΧριστοῦ.

Let us allow these parallels to speak for themselves, wholly ignoring the
feelings of unpleasantness or, it may be, of wonder which they may wake in the
breasts of some. The most important feature is manifestly this: that both texts
contain the expression ἡθείαδύναμις,1234 and in the same case to boot. Now this
is no trite expression; its occurrence in the Inscription could not be ignored,
even if there were no further point of similarity with the Epistle. But the fact
that this solemn periphrasis of the term God is in both passages connected with
the word ἀρετή, and further, that it occurs in an altogether peculiar and
unfamiliar sense, lends a peculiar intrinsic importance to the external
similarity. Suppose for a moment that the τῆςθείαςδυνάμεωςἀρετάς of the decree
occurred somewhere in the LXX; there would not, in that case, be the shadow of a
doubt that the Epistle had quoted it—dismembered, it might be—or at all events
had alluded to it. Nor can this analogy be set aside by the objection that the
use, by the author of the Epistle, of an out-of-the-way Inscription, in a manner
corresponding to that of biblical quotation, is inconceivable—for we have as yet
said nothing as to our idea of the relation between the two texts; the
objection, in any case, would be a pure petitio prineipii But further: it is an
especially significant, though apparently trivial, circumstance, that in both
texts a relative sentence beginning with διά, follows the ἀρετάς (or ἀρετῇ); if
on other grounds it seems probable that the Inscription and the Epistle are so
related that either presupposes a knowledge of the other, then we should have
here the recurrence of a phenomenon often observed in parallel or
internally-dependent texts, viz., that consciously or unconsciously the
dependent text has been so framed, by means of a slight alteration,1235 as to
obliterate the traces of its origin. We are of opinion that the parallels
already indicated are sufficiently evident. Should further instances be made
out, these will naturally gain a much stronger evidential value from their
connection with what has been already pointed out. There is nothing remarkable
in the mere fact that the Inscription contains this or that word which occurs in
the Epistle. But what is significant, is that the same definite number of what
are, in part, very characteristic expressions, is found in each of the two
texts; and it is this which renders improbable the hypothesis of mere accident.
Little value as we would place upon individual cases of similarity, yet in their
totality these strike us as very forcible. Hence the connection also brings out
the full importance of the parallels ἡαἰώνιοςβασιλείατοῦκυρίου and ἡτῶνκυρίων
αἰώνιοςἀρχή, an importance which appears still more decided, when we compare
these parallels with, e.g., those (by no means so striking) given by H. von
Soden1236 in connection with the Epistle ad loc., viz., Hebrews
12:28βασιλείαἀσάλευτος, and 2 Timothy 4:18βασιλείαἐπουράνιος. In both of these
passages the only real parallel is the word βασιλεία; but it was surely
unnecessary to seek references for that.1237 The outstanding feature of the
phrase in the Epistle is the term αἰώνιος, applied to kingdom;1238 hence, even
if the Inscription joins this term with what is only a synonym of βασιλεία, the
force of our parallel is in no way lessened. Observe, moreover, κυρίων ||
κυρίου. Then, again, the likeness of πᾶσανσπουδὴν εἰσφέρεσθαι in the Inscription
to σπουδὴνπᾶσανπαρεισενέγκαντες in the Epistle, cannot fail to strike the eye.
Even at some risk of repetition, we cannot help remarking that this expression
would not of itself prove anything, for it is common in later Greek. It is only
by a false method of procedure that M. Krenkel1239 reckons it among the
assonances which are thought to prove an alleged indebtedness to Josephus on the
part of the author of the Second Epistle of Peter. But in the present case the
phrase, connected as it is with the other parallels, has a force at least
equivalent to that ascribed to the shorter σπουδὴνπᾶσαν1240 in connection with
our Epistle’s numerous unquestionable plagiarisms from the Epistle of Jude.1241
The same will hold good, with more or less force, of the εὐσέβεια. The
statistics of the word in the biblical writings—if we may, for once, isolate the
concept “biblical Greek”—are very remarkable. Relatively seldom,1242 on the
whole, as it occurs there, it is yet quite frequently found in the Pastoral
Epistles and the Second Epistle of Peter; while the Acts of the Apostles also
uses εὐσέβεια, εὐσεβεῖν, and εὐσεβής.1243 Now these words occur frequently in
the Inscriptions of Asia Minor: they appear to have been familiar terms in the
religious language of the imperial period. The more external resemblances
between the two texts have also been indicated; for, if the hypothesis of
relationship be valid, they cannot but prove to be of interest. In connection
with this very Epistle of Peter it has been demonstrated that the writer of it
not seldom depends upon his assiduously-used model, the Epistle of Jude, in
quite an external way. “Some peculiar expression, the purpose of which is made
plain only by the context in Jude, is retained, or an expression is fabricated
from reminiscences of the purely local connection in that book. In 2 Peter 2:13,
theleading word συνευωχούμενοι is taken from Jude 1:12, and yet its concrete
relationship to the love-feasts has been allowed to fall out, so that it is only
the sound of the words which influences the choice of the essentially different
expressions (ἀπάταις1244 instead of ἀγάπαις, σπίλοι instead of σπιλάδες).”1245
Now, precisely as in regard to the formal assonances in the very instructive
example just given, viz.: —

Jude 1:12

2 Peter 2:13

οὗτοίεἰσινοἱἐνταῖςἀγά-

παιςὑμῶνσπιλάδες,συνευω- χούμενοιἀφόβως

σπίλοι1246καὶμῶμοιἐντρυ-

φῶντεςἐνταῖςἀπάταιςαὐ-

τῶνσυνευωχούμενοι ὑμῖν

so might we perhaps judge of the instance ἀγάλματα ἐπαγγέλματα in the Decree and
the Epistle respectively—although the author would advance the point with all
due reserve. Shall we count it more probable that the επιθυμια of the one text
has exercised an outward influence on the syntactically and lexically different
επιθυμια of the other? Once more, the use of the superlative μέγιστος in both
passages cannot be ignored,—though, at first sight, such a statement may seem
strange; but its cogency will be more readily perceived when it is remembered
that the superlative of μέγας occurs nowhere else in “the” New Testament.1247 Is
it possible to hold that the similarities in the two texts are merely
accidental? We have again and again pondered this question, but have always come
to the conclusion that it must be answered in the negative. Doubtless, the
deciding of such questions always implies a certain inner susceptibility, and is
thus subjective. But here, as we judge, there are objective grounds to proceed
upon. We would endeavour, therefore, to define more precisely the very general
impression made by the two texts, by saying that they must be inter-related in
some way. Now the Decree of Stratonicea is undoubtedly older than the Second
Epistle of Peter. From its contents, we might infer its date to be previous to
22 A.D.; from its form, somewhat later. But even if the Inscription were of
later date than the Epistle, it would be an improbable hypothesis that the
former was in its contents dependent upon the latter. The dependence must rather
be, if the relationship is granted, on the side of the Epistle. Hence the
general statement made above may be specialised thus far: the beginning of the
Second Epistle of Peter must be in some way dependent upon forms of expression
occurring in the Decree of Stratonicea. We speak of the forms of expression of
the Decree. For it is not urgently necessary to assert a dependence upon the
Decree itself. Of course, it is certainly possible that the writer of the
Epistle may have read the Inscription. Assuredly Paul is not the only Christian
of the century of the New Testament who read “heathen” inscriptions, and
reflected thereon. The inscriptions, official and private, found in the streets
and market-places, in temples and upon tombs, would be the only reading of the
great majority of people who could read. Of what we call classical literature,
the greater number would hardly ever read anything at all. The heads of the
Christian brotherhoods who were versed in literature were influenced, in respect
of their range both of words and thoughts, by their sacred books, but manifestly
also by the forms of expression common in their locality. The present writer
would count the expressions before us, found in the Inscription of Stratonicea,
as belonging to the solemn forms of the official liturgical language of Asia
Minor. From the nature of the case it seems certain that they were not used for
the first time in this Decree in honour of Zeus Panhemerios and Hekate.
Conceivable though it be that the author of the Second Epistle of Peter had
adopted them directly from the Carian Inscription,1248 yet we would confine
ourselves to the more cautious conjecture that the author of the Epistle, like
the author of the Decree before him, simply availed himself of the familiar
forms and formulm of religious emotion.1249 The mosaic-like character of the
writer’s work, specially evident in his relation to the Epistle of Jude, is
illustrated once more by the facts just adduced. Should our conjecture hold
good—particularly, of course, if a direct dependence upon the Decree of
Stratonicea could be made probable—we should have a new factor for the solution
of the problem as to the origin of the Epistle. Certainly the hypothesis of an
Egyptian origin, which has gained great favour in recent years, is not confirmed
by the local colouring, which belongs to Asia Minor; we would, however, refrain
meanwhile from categorically asserting that it originated in Asia Minor,1250 as
we have not yet mastered the lexical relations of the Epistle. It would at least
be necessary to inquire how far its peculiar vocabulary has points of contact
with that of literary sources (of the imperial period) from Egypt,1251 or Asia
Minor,1252 including those of the Papyri and the Inscriptions.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 28: 07.05 - WHITE ROBES AND PALMS.
========================================================================

5. WHITE ROBES AND PALMS.

“After these things I saw, and behold, a great multitude, which no man could
number, out of every nation, and of all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing
before the throne and before the Lamb, arrayed in white robes, and palms in
their hands; and they cry with a great voice, saying, Salvation unto our God
which sitteth on the throne, and unto the Lamb.” So does the early Christian
seer depict those who have been made perfect, who have come out of the great
tribulation, and now serve God day and night in His temple. Few Bible passages
have taken such hold of the everyday Christian consciousness, few have been
inscribed so hopefully on the impassive tombstone, as these chaste verses from
the mysterious final pages of the Holy Book. So deeply have they entered into
the sphere of religious ideas, that, generally speaking, we are not struck by
the thought, how eloquent of ancient days is the colouring of the artist who
created the picture. The inner beauty of the thought keeps in abeyance any
impression which its form might suggest; the captivated spirit even of the
modern man readily and unconstrainedly accepts the unaccustomed scenery, which
yet has its proper place only under the eternal blue of the eastern sky, or in
the serene halls of an ancient temple. The pious Christian of the times of
decadence did not depict things to come in the forms of the pitiful present; he
saw them rather in the crystal mirror of the authoritative past. The exegetes of
Revelation 7:9 ff. have striven, in widely divergent ways, to explain the
peculiar colouring of this celestial scenery. How does it come about that the
adornment of the blessed choir of the saints before the throne of God should be
portrayed exactly as it is? The explanation of the individual elements provides
no difficulty.1253 The white robes, of course, according to the bold symbolism
of the text itself, are connected with the cleansing power of the blood of the
Lamb (Revelation 7:14); and, even without this special reference, they have
already a distinct and well-known sense (see Revelation 6:11). Again, the
expression palms in their hands is familiar to the reader of the Bible as a sign
of festive joy. Attempts have been made to supply a more definite background for
this latter feature, now from Jewish, now from Hellenic, ideas. On the one hand,
the palms have been looked upon as suggesting a comparison of the heavenly glory
with the Feast of Tabernacles; on the other, they have been taken as an allusion
to the palm-twigs bestowed upon the victor in the Greek games. We would not deny
that such explanations, so far as concerns the details of a picture which is not
after all so difficult to grasp, are quite adequate. But they do not elucidate
the scene in its entirety. How did the writer come to bring together precisely
these two features? And how comes it that both are assigned to the choir of the
blessed, which, in alternate song with the angels, raises a hallelujah to the
Most High? If we knew of no historical circumstance which might suggest an
answer to these questions, we might naturally enough infer that the writer of
the Apocalypse had himself composed his picture from diverse elements. But we
are of opinion that there are good grounds for the supposition that the
portrayer of the πανήγυριςἐπουράνοις had availed himself of the scenery of a
religious ceremony with which he was familiar. In the Inscription of Stratonicea
in Caria (already mentioned several times), belonging to the beginning of the
imperial period,1254 the inhabitants of the city, out of gratitude to Zeus
Panhemerios and Hekate, resolve that, in honour of these deities, thirty boys of
noble parentage, under the leadership of the παιδονόμος and the παιδοφύλακες,
shall daily sing a prescribed hymnus in the bouleuterion—clothed in white and
crowned with a twig, likewise holding a twig in their hands. This custom would
hardly be inaugurated by the piety of the people of Stratonicea; such choirs of
sacred singers, similarly accoutred, were, without doubt, also to be seen
elsewhere in the Greek districts of Asia Minor.Here, then, in all probability,
we have the model by which the writer of the Apocalypse was consciously or
unconsciously guided; and those belonging to Asia Minor who read his book—a book
full of the local colour of that region —would grasp his imagery with special
facility. What they beheld in heaven was something that had, by association with
their native soil, become familiar and dear to them—a choir of pious singers in
festive attire; and if they had an ear to hear what the Spirit said to the
churches, they could also, of course, surmise that in this instance what came
from holy lips was a new song. THE END.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 29: 08 - FOOTNOTES
========================================================================

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.

46 Hercher, pp. 172-174.

47 Susemihl, ii., 580 f.

48 Hercher, pp. 319-336.

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.

50 P. 391 f.

51 P. 392.

52 P. 397.

53 P. 399.

54 P. 395.

55 Pp. 393-397.

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.

68 Teuffel-Schwabe, p. 357.

69 Teuffel-Schwabe, p. 357.

70 Teuffel-Schwabe, p. 357.

71 Teuffel-Schwabe, p. 358.

72 Teuffel-Schwabe, p. 83.

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.

75 ii., p. 600.

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.

89 Teuffel-Schwabe, p. 84.

90Teuffel-Schwabe, p. 85.

91 Susemihl, ii., p. 601.

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.

97 Cf. p. 63 ff. [↑]

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.

104 P. 429 at the top.

105 P. 431 f.

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

107 P. 426 IL

108 P. 429.

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.

129 P. 431.

130 Hercher, p. 241 ff.

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.

136 See p. 81. [↑]

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.

1392 Corinthians 3:3.

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.

145 See below, p. 295 ff. [↓]

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.

176 Mahaffy, ii. [64].

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.

178CIG. iii. No. 4956, A 21.

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.

182 I., pp. 53 and 64.

183Notices, xviii. 2, p. 308.

184 P. 31.

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.

191Cf. Kahl, p. 166 f.

192 Mahaffy, i. [47].

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).

201 Kenyon, p. 38.

202 For the orthography cf. p. 91, note 4.

203 Contra Cremer 7, p. 554 (= 8 587); Clavis3, p. 84.

204Notices, xviii. 2, p. 276.

205 Kenyon, p. 38.

206Notices, xviii. 2, p. 175.

207 Leemans, i., p. 3.

208 Upon this cf. Leemans, p. 5.

209 Kenyon, p. 88.

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.

213 Frankel, p. 12.

214 Frankel, p. 14.

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).

227Essays, p. 40 f.

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.

230 P. 264.

231 P. 264 f.

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.

242 A. Peyron, p. 24.

243 A. Peyron, i., p. 175.

244 A. Peyron, ii., p. 65.

245 Kenyon, p. 11.

246 Kenyon, p. 41.

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.

250 Mahaffy, ii. [119] f.

251 Mahaffy, ii. [38].

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).

258Notices, xviii. 2, p. 368.

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.

262 Line 12 and elsewhere.

263 Mahaffy, ii. [2].

264 B. Weiss, Meyer, i. 18 (1890), p. 169.

265HC. 2 (1892), p. 76.

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.

269 Field, ii., p. 510.

270 Field, ii.,p. 535.

271 Field, ii., p. 505.

272 Field, II., Auct., p. 39.

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.

279 Hermann-Thalheim, p. 78.

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.

281Notices, xviii. 2, p. 355.

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.

284Notices, xviii. 2, p. 250.

285Notices, xviii. 2, pp. 25 S, 259.

286Notices, xviii. 2, p. 244.

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.

292 Field, i., p. 212.

293 Field, i., p. 212.

294 Field, i., p. 212.

295 Field, i., p. 212.

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.

309 Field, ii., p. 243.

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.

312 Mahaffy, i. [47].

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.

316 Mahaffy, ii. [23].

317Notices, xviii. 2, p. 367.

318 Kenyon, p. 41.

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.

328 Grimm, ii., p. 682.

329 Field, i., p. 413.

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.

335 Mahaffy, ii. [102].

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]).

337Notices, xviii. 2, p. 210.

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.

348HApA.T. iv. (1857), p. 90.

349 A. Peyron, i. p. 24.

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).

361 Mahaffy, iii., [72].

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.

368 § 48, d (p. 363).

369Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachgebrauchs, p. 157.

370 P. 284.

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.

373Notices, xviii. 2, p. 172.

374 Clavis3, p. 151.

375 The word does not occur in the LXX. In 2Ma 4:8, ἔντευξις signifies
conference.

376 A. Peyron, i., p. 101.

377Cf. the indexes of Leemans, of the Notices, xviii. 2, of Mahaffy and Kenyon.

378 Kenyon, p. 34.

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.

388 Field, i., p. 174.

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.

432 Stengel, p. 161.

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.

437 A. Buttmann, p. 105.

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).

443 A. Buttmann, p. 274.

444 Mahaffy, i. [59].

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.

447Notices, xviii. 2, p. 268.

448Notices, xviii. 2, p. 277.

449 Leemans, i., p. 9.

450 Leemans, i., p. 30.

451 Kenyon, p. 19.

452 Kenyon, p. 28.

453Notices, xviii. 2, p. 279.

454 Leemans, i., p. 11.

455 Kenyon, p. 7.

456 Kenyon, p. 28.

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.

458Notices, xviii. 2, p. 289.

459Notices, xviii. 2, pp. 137 and 143.

460 Leemans, p. 43.

461 Leemans, p. 49.

462 Leemans, p. 52.

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).

465 Mahaffy, ii. [130].

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.

468 P. 30.

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.

471Clavis3, p. 263.

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.

473 Kenyon, p. 46.

474Notices, xviii. 2, pp. 143, 147.

475 Leemans, p. 60.

476Mahaffy, ii. [127].

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).

479 Kenyon, p. 32.

480 Kenyon, p. 47.

481 Ph. Buttmann, AAB., 1824, hist.-phil. Kl., p. 92, and, on this, p. 99.

482 A. Peyron, p. 45.

483 Issued by Mahaffy, p. 43, undated.

484 Mahaffy, ii. [122].

485Notices, xviii. 2, p. 351.

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).

489 Wetstein, ad loc.

490 Winer-Schmiedel, § 11, 4 (p. 97).

491 Kenyon, p. 134.

492 B. Weiss, Meyer i. 27 (1885), p. 231.

493 Leemans, i., p. 69.

494 Leemans, p. 74.

495 Mahaffy, ii. [79].

496 Mahaffy, ii., p. 32.

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).

501 Mahaffy, ii. [2].

502 Mahaffy, [32].

503 Mahaffy, [154].

504 Mahaffy, [32].

505Cf. above, p. 121 f. [↑]

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).

511Clavis3, p. 328.

512 Mahaffy, ii. [38].

513 Mahaffy, ii. [42].

514 Mahaffy, ii. [113].

515 Kenyon, p. 36.

516 Kenyon, pp. 55, 56.

517 Notices, xviii. p. 357.

518 Examples in Guil. Schmidt, De Flav. Ios. eloc. Fleck. Job. Suppl. xx.
(1894), pp. 511, 531.

519 Mahaffy, ii. [150].

520 Mahaffy, ii. [68].

521 Mahaffy, ii. [104].

522 Mahaffy, ii. [134].

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.

526Clavis3, p. 339.

527 Mahaffy, i. [54].

528 Mahaffy, i. [55].

529 Mahaffy, ii., p. 23.

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.

538Notices, xviii. 2, p. 305.

539Notices, xviii. 2, p. 306.

540Notices, xviii. 2, p. 297.

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.

545 Field, ii., p. 139.

546 Kenyon, p. 30.

547 Frankel, p. 140.

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.

555 Field, ii., p. 803.

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?

563 Kenyon, p. 32, cf. p. 33.

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).

569 Mahaffy, ii. [137].

570 Guil. Schmidt, De Flav. Ios. eloc., Fleck. Jbb. Suppl. xx. (1894), p. 498.

571 Field, ii., p. 315.

572 Mahaffy, ii. [24].

573 On the πράκτορες in Athens, cf. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Aristoteles and
Athen, i., Berlin, 1893, p. 196.

574 Mahaffy, ii. [42].

575 Mahaffy, ii. [42].

576 Further details in E. Revillout, Le Papyrus grec 13 de Turin in the Revue
egyptologique, ii. (1881-1882), p. 140 f.

577 Field, ii., p. 265.

578 Leemans, i., p. 3.

579 Leemans, i., foot of p. 3.

580 Mahaffy, ii. [10].

581 Mahaffy, ii. [125].

582CIG. iii., No. 4717: on this, as on the title πρεσβύτεροι in general, cf.
Lumbroso, Recherches, p. 259.

583 A. Peyron, ii., p. 46.

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.

595 Mahaffy, i. [47].

596 Mahaffy, i. [59].

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.

601 Mahaffy, ii. [39].

602 Mahaffy, ii. [16]. On σκευοφυλάκιονcf. Suidas.

603Winer-Schmiedel, § 5, 27 e (p. 60).

604 Mahaffy, ii. [59].

605 Mahaffy, ii. p. 33.

606 Field, ii., p. 442.

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].

611 Mahaffy, ii. p. 30.

612Cf. subφίλος below. [↓]

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.

614 Frankel, pp. 166 and 505.

615 Mahaffy, [61].

616 Ch. A. Lobeck ad Phryn. (Leipzig, 1820), p. 378.

617Cf. the old scholium to the passage, σώματατοὺςδούλουςἴσωςλέγει (Field, i.,
p. 52).

618 Mahaffy, ii. [125] ff.

619 Field, i., p. 412.

620 Field, i., p. 464.

621 Field, i., p. 52 f.

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.

623Clavis3, p. 447.

624 Mahaffy, [68].

625 It should be stated that Mahaffy sets a? to βους.

626 Mahaffy, ii. [75].

627 Mahaffy, ii. [79].

628Gramm. des mutest. Sprachgebrauchs, p. 141.

629 § 34, 3b, note 2 (p. 223 f.).

630Clavis3, p. 441.

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.

646BU. vi., p. 180, No. 174.

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.

658ThLZ. xx. (1895), p. 487.

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.

668 8th Edition, Gotha, 1895.

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.

735 Frankel, p. 353.

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.

793HApAT. iv. (1857), p. 35.

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.

797 Italics from Cremer.

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.

807 HC. iv 2 (1893), p. 318.

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.

810Cf. p. 142 ff. above. [↑]

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.

814 Above, p. 143. [↑]

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.

821 Winer-Lunemann, p. 391.

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.

836HC. i.2 (1892), p. 239 f.

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.

843 Above, p. 108 f. [↑]

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.

865HC. ii. 2 (1891), p. 184.

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.

871 Meyer, xvi. 5, p. 431.

872 Meyer, xvi. 5, p. 432.

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”.

874Der Antichrist, p. 132 ff.

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.

891ὁμολογία = contract.

892 See p. 107 f. [↑]

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.

901Cf. Frankel, p. 55.

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.).

909 Italics from Cremer.

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.

944 Maspero, p. 107 f.

945 Maspero, p. 107.

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.

947Cf. p. 323. [↓]

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.

953 Kenyon, p. 69.

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).

963 Field, ii., p. 217.

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.

967 Heim, 493 f.

968 Heim, 493.

969 Heim, 493.

970 In M. Ihm, Incantamenta magica, Rh. Mus. f. Phil., N. F., xlviii. (1893), p.
635.

971 Heim, pp. 488, 547.

972 Heim, p. 554.

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.

976 And not in magic only!

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 (?)”.

982 Field, ii., p. 218.

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].

988 Not used.

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.

1005HApAT. iv. (1857), p. 77.

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).

1009 Grimm, p. 69.

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.

1027 Field, ii., p. 522.

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.

1039 Frankel, p. 111 f.

1040Recherches, p. 207 ff.

1041 P. 305.

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.

1061 Hengstenberg, p. 227.

1062ZAW. iii. (1883), p. 298.

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.

1083 Wessely, i., p. 144.

1084 Combined from Ιαω and Ια (cf. Baudissin, p. 183 f., and F. Dietrich, p.
294).

1085 Wessely, i., 126.

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.

1087 Wessely, i., p. 75.

1088Cf. upon these, p. 329 below. [↓] 1089 Wessely, p. 84.

1090 Wessely, p. 94.

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.

1094 Wessely, p. 68.

1095 Abraxas, p. 97.

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.

1100 P. 294.

1101 Kenyon, p. 69; Wessely, p. 130.

1102 Kenyon, p. 80; Wessely, p. 139.

1103 Wessely, p. 126.

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.

1107 P. 195.

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.

1122 CIG. p. 757.

1123Wiener Studien, viii. (1886), p. 182.

1124 Kenyon, p. 98 ; Wessely, ii., p. 34.

1125 Wessely, i., p. 95.

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.

1138 Wessely, i., p. 120.

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).

1140 Wessely, i., p. 85.

1141 Wessely, p. 82.

1142 Kopp, iv., p. 159 f.

1143Cf. above on ιαωθ. [↑] 1144 Wessely, i., p. 126.

1145 Kenyon, p. 94; Wessely, ii., p. 31.

1146Kenyon, p. 68; Wessely, p. 120.

1147 Abr., p. 68.

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.

1151 Wessely, i., p. 100.

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.

1156 Mahaffy, ii. [87] ff.

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.

1163 P. xiii.

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.

11862 Corinthians 11:1-33.

1187 P. 376.

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.

1193 Stade, p. 301.

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.

1217 Reuvens, i., p. 41.

1218 See p. 279. [↓]

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.

1221Coll. Al., p. 67.

1222 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).

1233 P. 370.

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.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 30: 09 - LXX APOCRYPHA REFERENCES
========================================================================

1 Maccabees

25 καὶ ἀπέστειλεν αὐτοῖς κατὰτοὺς λόγους τούτους·“Βασιλεὺς Δημήτριος τῷ ἔθνει
τῶν᾿Ιουδαίων χαίρειν. 26 ἐπεὶσυνετηρήσατε τὰς πρὸςἡμᾶς συνθήκας καὶ ἐνεμείνατε
τῇφιλίᾳ ἡμῶν καὶοὐπροσεχωρήσατε τοῖςἐχθροῖςἡμῶν,ἠκούσαμεν καὶ ἐχάρημεν. 27
καὶνῦνἐμμείνατεἔτι τοῦσυντηρῆσαι πρὸςἡμᾶς πίστιν, καὶ ἀνταποδώσομενὑμῖνἀγαθὰ
ἀνθ᾿ ὧν ποιεῖτε μεθ᾿ ἡμῶν. 28 καὶ ἀφήσομενὑμῖνἀφέματα πολλὰκαὶδώσομενὑμῖν
δόματα. 29 καὶνῦνἀπολύωὑμᾶς καὶ ἀφίημι πάντας τοὺς᾿Ιουδαίουςἀπὸτῶν φόρων καὶτῆς
τιμῆς τοῦ ἁλὸς καὶ ἀπὸτῶν στεφάνων, 30 καὶ ἀντὶτοῦτρίτου τῆς σπορᾶς καὶ ἀντὶτοῦ
ἡμίσους τοῦκαρποῦτοῦξυλίνου τοῦ ἐπιβάλλοντός μοι λαβεῖν,ἀφίημιἀπὸτῆς σήμερον καὶ
ἐπέκεινα τοῦλαβεῖνἀπὸτῆς γῆς᾿Ιούδα καὶ ἀπὸτῶν τριῶν νομῶν τῶν προστιθεμένων αὐτῇ
ἀπὸτῆς Σαμαρείτιδος καὶΓαλιλαίας, καὶ ἀπὸτῆς σήμερονἡμέρας καὶεἰς τὸν αἰῶνα
χρόνον. 31 καὶ ῾Ιερουσαλὴμἤτωἁγία καὶ ἀφειμένη καὶτὰ ὅρια αὐτῆς, αἱδεκάται
καὶτὰτέλη. 32 ἀφίημι καὶτὴνἐξουσίαν τῆςἄκρας τῆςἐν῾Ιερουσαλὴμ καὶδίδωμι τῷ
ἀρχιερεῖ, ὅπωςἂν καταστήσῃ ἐν αὐτῇ ἄνδρας, οὓςἂνἐκλέξηται αὐτὸς τοῦφυλάσσειν
αὐτήν. 33 καὶπᾶσαν ψυχὴν᾿Ιουδαίων τὴν αἰχμαλωτισθεῖσανἀπὸγῆς᾿Ιούδα εἰς πᾶσαν
βασιλείαν μουἀφίημιἐλευθέραν δωρεάν· καὶπάντεςἀφιέτωσαν τοὺς φόρους καὶτῶν
κτηνῶν αὐτῶν. 34 καὶπᾶσαι αἱ ἑορταὶκαὶτὰσάββατα καὶνουμηνίαι καὶ
ἡμέραιἀποδεδειγμέναι καὶτρεῖςἡμέραι πρὸ ἑορτῆς καὶτρεῖςἡμέραι μετὰ ἑορτὴνἔστωσαν
πᾶσαι αἱ ἡμέραιἀτελείας καὶ ἀφέσεως πᾶσι τοῖς᾿Ιουδαίοις τοῖς οὖσινἐν
τῇβασιλείᾳμου. 35 καὶοὐχἕξειἐξουσίαν οὐδεὶς πράσσειν καὶπαρενοχλεῖν τινα αὐτῶν
περὶπαντὸς πράγματος. 36 καὶπρογραφήτωσαν τῶν᾿Ιουδαίων εἰς τὰς δυνάμεις
τοῦβασιλέως εἰς τριάκοντα χιλιάδαςἀνδρῶν, καὶδοθήσεται αὐτοῖς ξένιαὡς καθήκει
πάσαις ταῖς δυνάμεσι τοῦβασιλέως. 37 καὶκατασταθήσεταιἐξ αὐτῶνἐν τοῖςὀχυρώμασι
τοῦβασιλέως τοῖς μεγάλοις, καὶ ἐκ τούτων κατασταθήσεταιἐπὶχρειῶν τῆς βασιλείας
τῶν οὐσῶν εἰς πίστιν· καὶοἱ ἐπ᾿αὐτῶν καὶοἱ ἄρχοντεςἔστωσανἐξ αὐτῶν
καὶπορευέσθωσαν τοῖς νόμοις αὐτῶν. καθὰκαὶπροσέταξενὁβασιλεὺςἐν γῇ ᾿Ιούδα. 38
καὶτοὺς τρεῖς νομοὺς τοὺς προστεθέντας τῇ ᾿Ιουδαίᾳ ἀπὸτῆς χώρας Σαμαρείας
προστεθήτω τῇ ᾿Ιουδαίᾳπρὸς τὸλογισθῆναι τοῦγενέσθαιὑφ᾿ ἕνα, τοῦμὴ
ὑπακοῦσαιἄλληςἐξουσίαςἀλλ᾿ ἢτοῦ ἀρχιερέως. 39 Πτολεμαΐδα καὶτὴν προσκυροῦσαν
αὐτῇδέδωκα δόμα τοῖςἁγίοις τοῖςἐν῾Ιερουσαλὴμ εἰς τὴν προσήκουσαν δαπάνην
τοῖςἁγίοις. 40 κἀγὼδίδωμι κατ᾿ ἐνιαυτὸν δεκαπέντε χιλιάδας σίκλωνἀργυρίουἀπὸτῶν
λόγων τοῦβασιλέωςἀπὸτῶν τόπων τῶνἀνηκόντων. 41 καὶπᾶν τὸπλεονάζον,ὃοὐκἀπεδίδοσαν
οἱ ἀπὸτῶν χρειῶν,ὡςἐν τοῖς πρώτοιςἔτεσιν,ἀπὸτοῦνῦν δώσουσιν εἰς τὰ ἔργα
τοῦοἴκου. 42 καὶ ἐπὶτούτοις πεντακισχιλίους σίκλουςἀργυρίου, οὓςἐλάμβανονἀπὸτῶν
χρειῶν τοῦ ἁγίουἀπὸτοῦλόγου κατ᾿ ἐνιαυτόν, καὶταῦταἀφίεται διὰτὸ ἀνήκειν
αὐτὰτοῖςἱερεῦσι τοῖς λειτουργοῦσι. 43 καὶ ὅσοιἐὰν φύγωσιν εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν τὸ
ἐν῾Ιεροσολύμοις καὶ ἐν πᾶσι τοῖςὁρίοις αὐτοῦ ὀφείλοντες βασιλικὰκαὶπᾶν
πρᾶγμα,ἀπολελύσθωσαν καὶπάντα,ὅσαἐστὶν αὐτοῖςἐν τῇβασιλείᾳμου. 44
καὶτοῦοἰκοδομηθῆναι καὶτοῦ ἐπικαινισθῆναι τὰ ἔργα τῶνἁγίων, καὶ ἡδαπάνη
δοθήσεταιἐκ τοῦλόγου τοῦβασιλέως. 45 καὶτοῦοἰκοδομηθῆναι τὰτείχη῾Ιερουσαλὴμ καὶ
ὀχυρῶσαι κυκλόθεν, καὶ ἡδαπάνη δοθήσεταιἐκ τοῦλόγου τοῦβασιλέως,
καὶτοῦοἰκοδομηθῆναι τὰτείχη τὰ ἐν τῇ ᾿Ιουδαίᾳ”.

25 So he sent a message to them in the following words: "King Demetrius to the
nation of the Jews, greetings. 26 Since you have kept your agreement with us and
have continued your friendship with us, and have not sided with our enemies, we
have heard of it and rejoiced. 27 Now continue still to keep faith with us, and
we will repay you with good for what you do for us. 28 We will grant you many
immunities and give you gifts. 29 "I now free you and exempt all the Jews from
payment of tribute and salt tax and crown levies, 30 and instead of collecting
the third of the grain and the half of the fruit of the trees that I should
receive, I release them from this day and henceforth. I will not collect them
from the land of Judah or from the three districts added to it from Samaria and
Galilee, from this day and for all time. 31 Jerusalem and its environs, its
tithes and its revenues, shall be holy and free from tax. 32 I release also my
control of the citadel in Jerusalem and give it to the high priest, so that he
may station in it men of his own choice to guard it. 33 And everyone of the Jews
taken as a captive from the land of Judah into any part of my kingdom, I set
free without payment; and let all officials cancel also the taxes on their
livestock. 34 "All the festivals and sabbaths and new moons and appointed days,
and the three days before a festival and the three after a festival—let them all
be days of immunity and release for all the Jews who are in my kingdom. 35 No
one shall have authority to exact anything from them or annoy any of them about
any matter. 36 "Let Jews be enrolled in the king’s forces to the number of
thirty thousand men, and let the maintenance be given them that is due to all
the forces of the king. 37 Let some of them be stationed in the great
strongholds of the king, and let some of them be put in positions of trust in
the kingdom. Let their officers and leaders be of their own number, and let them
live by their own laws, just as the king has commanded in the land of Judah. 38
"As for the three districts that have been added to Judea from the country of
Samaria, let them be annexed to Judea so that they may be considered to be under
one ruler and obey no other authority than the high priest.39 Ptolemais and the
land adjoining it I have given as a gift to the sanctuary in Jerusalem, to meet
the necessary expenses of the sanctuary. 40 I also grant fifteen thousand
shekels of silver yearly out of the king’s revenues from appropriate places. 41
And all the additional funds that the government officials have not paid as they
did in the first years, they shall give from now on for the service of the
temple. 42 Moreover, the five thousand shekels of silver that my officials have
received every year from the income of the services of the temple, this too is
canceled, because it belongs to the priests who minister there. 43 And all who
take refuge at the temple in Jerusalem, or in any of its precincts, because they
owe money to the king or are in debt, let them be released and receive back all
their property in my kingdom. 44 "Let the cost of rebuilding and restoring the
structures of the sanctuary be paid from the revenues of the king. 45 And let
the cost of rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem and fortifying it all around, and
the cost of rebuilding the walls in Judea, also be paid from the revenues of the
king." (NRSV)

Wisdom of Sirach

13:12 ἀνελεήμων ὁ μὴ συντηρῶν λόγους καὶ οὐ μὴ φείσηται περὶ κακώσεως καὶ
δεσμῶν.

13:12 Cruel are those who do not keep your secrets; they will not spare you harm
or imprisonment. (NRSV)

Judith 9

11 οὐ γὰρ ἐν πλήθει τὸ κράτος σου, οὐδὲ ἡ δυναστεία σου ἐν ἰσχύουσιν, ἀλλὰ
ταπεινῶν εἶ Θεός, ἐλαττόνων εἶ βοηθός, ἀντιλήπτωρ ἀσθενούντων, ἀπεγνωσμένων
σκεπαστής, ἀπηλπισμένων σωτήρ.

11 "For your strength does not depend on numbers, nor your might on the
powerful. But you are the God of the lowly, helper of the oppressed, upholder of
the weak, protector of the forsaken, savior of those without hope. (NRSV)

2 Maccabees 15

7 ὁδὲΜακκαβαῖοςἦνἀδιαλείπτως πεποιθὼς μετὰπάσηςἐλπίδοςἀντιλήψεως τεύξασθαι
παρὰτοῦΚυρίου

7 But Maccabeus did not cease to trust with all confidence that he would get
help from the Lord.

3 Maccabees 2

33 εὐέλπιδες δὲκαθειστήκεισανἀντιλήψεως τεύξεσθαι· καὶτοὺςἀποχωροῦνταςἐξ
αὐτῶνἐβδελύσσοντο καὶ ὡς πολεμίους τοῦ ἔθνουςἔκρινον καὶτῆς κοινῆς συναναστροφῆς
καὶεὐχρηστίαςἐστέρουν.

33 They remained resolutely hopeful of obtaining help, and they abhorred those
who separated themselves from them, considering them to be enemies of the Jewish
nation, and depriving them of companionship and mutual help.

Psa 118_170" id="Psa 118_170">

Psalms 118

170 εἰσέλθοι τὸ ἀξίωμάμουἐνώπιόν σου, Κύριε· κατὰτὸλόγιόν σουῥῦσαίμε.

170 Let my supplication come before you; deliver me according to your promise.

1 [3] Esdras 8

4 καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁβασιλεὺς δόξαν, εὑρόντος χάρινἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ ἐπὶπάντα τὰ
ἀξιώματα αὐτοῦ.

4 And the king did him honour: for he found grace in his sight in all his
requests.

2 Maccabees 14

30 ὁδὲΜακκαβαῖος αὐστηρότερον διεξάγοντα συνιδὼν τὸν Νικάνορα πρὸς αὐτὸν καὶτὴν
εἰθισμένηνἀπάντησινἀγροικότερονἐσχηκότα, νοήσας οὐκἀπὸτοῦβελτίστου τὴν αὐστηρίαν
εἶναι, συστρέψας οὐκὀλίγους τῶν περὶ ἑαυτόν, συνεκρύπτετο τὸν Νικάνορα.

30 Notwithstanding, when Maccabeus saw that Nicanor began to be churlish unto
him, and that he entreated him more roughly than he was wont, perceiving that
such sour behaviour came not of good, he gathered together not a few of his men,
and withdrew himself from Nicanor.

Wisdom of Sirach 36

19 πλῆσον Σιὼνἀρεταλογίας σου, καὶ ἀπὸτῆς δόξης σου τὸν λαόν σου.

19 Fill Sion with thine unspeakable oracles, and thy people with thy glory:

Judith 12

7 καὶ προσέταξεν ᾿Ολοφέρνης τοῖς σωματοφύλαξι μὴ διακωλύειν αὐτήν. καὶ
παρέμεινεν ἐν τῇ παρεμβολῇ ἡμέρας τρεῖς, καὶ ἐξεπορεύετο κατὰ νύκτα εἰς τὴν
φάραγγα Βαιτυλούα καὶ ἐβαπτίζετο ἐν τῇ παρεμβολῇ ἐπὶ τῆς πηγῆς τοῦ ὕδατος·

7 Then Holofernes commanded his guard that they should not stay her: thus she
abode in the camp three days, and went out in the night into the valley of
Bethulia, and washed herself in a fountain of water by the camp.

1 [3] Esdras 3

4 τότε οἱ τρεῖς νεανίσκοι οἱ σωματοφύλακες οἱ φυλάσσοντες τὸ σῶμα τοῦ βασιλέως
εἶπαν ἕτερος πρὸς τὸν ἕτερον·

4 Then three young men, that were of the guard that kept the king’s body, spake
one to another;

Wisdom of Solomon 6

9 πρὸς ὑμᾶς οὖν, ὦ τύραννοι, οἱ λόγοι μου, ἵνα μάθητε σοφίαν καὶ μὴ παραπέσητε·

9 Unto you therefore, O kings, do I speak, that ye may learn wisdom, and not
fall away.

1 Maccabees 2

47 καὶ ἐδίωξαν τοὺς υἱοὺς τῆς ὑπερηφανίας, καὶ κατευωδώθη τὸ ἔργον ἐν χειρὶ
αὐτῶν.

47 They pursued also after the proud men, and the work prospered in their hand.

1 Maccabees 5

42 ὡς δὲ ἤγγισεν ᾿Ιούδας ἐπὶ τὸν χειμάρρουν τοῦ ὕδατος, ἔστησε τοὺς γραμματεῖς
τοῦ λαοῦ ἐπὶ τοῦ χειμάρρου καὶ ἐνετείλατο αὐτοῖς λέγων· μὴ ἀφῆτε πάντα ἄνθρωπον
παρεμβαλεῖν, ἀλλ᾿ ἐρχέσθωσαν πάντες εἰς τὸν πόλεμον.

42 Now when Judas came near the brook, he caused the scribes of the people to
remain by the brook: unto whom he gave commandment, saying, Suffer no man to
remain in the camp, but let all come to the battle.

2 Maccabees 4

29 καὶ ὁ μὲν Μενέλαος ἀπέλιπε τῆς ἀρχιερωσύνης διάδοχον Λυσίμαχον τὸν ἑαυτοῦ
ἀδελφόν, Σώστρατος δὲ Κράτητα τὸν ἐπὶ τῶν Κυπρίων.

29 Now Menelaus left his brother Lysimachus in his stead in the priesthood; and
Sostratus left Crates, who was governor of the Cyprians.

2 Maccabees 4

31 συγγνοὺς δὲ ὁ ἕτερος ὅτι γενναίως ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς ἐστρατήγηται, παραγενόμενος
ἐπὶ τὸ μέγιστον καὶ ἅγιον ἱερόν, τῶν ἱερέων τὰς καθηκούσας θυσίας προσαγόντων,
ἐκέλευσε παραδιδόναι τὸν ἄνδρα.

31 But the other, knowing that he was notably prevented by Judas’ policy, came
into the great and holy temple, and commanded the priests, that were offering
their usual sacrifices, to deliver him the man.

2 Maccabees 14

26 ῾Ο δὲ ῎Αλκιμος συνιδὼν τὴν πρὸς ἀλλήλους εὔνοιαν καὶ τὰς γενομένας συνθήκας,
ἀναλαβὼν ἧκε πρὸς τὸν Δημήτριον καὶ ἔλεγε τὸν Νικάνορα ἀλλότρια φρονεῖν τῶν
πραγμάτων· τὸν γὰρ ἐπίβουλον τῆς βασιλείας ᾿Ιούδαν διάδοχον ἀναδέδειχεν ἑαυτοῦ.

26 But Alcimus, perceiving the love that was betwixt them, and considering the
covenants that were made, came to Demetrius, and told him that Nicanor was not
well affected toward the state; for that he had ordained Judas, a traitor to his
realm, to be the king’s successor.

Bel and the Dragon

22 καὶ ἐξήγαγεν αὐτοὺς ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐκ τοῦ Βηλίου καὶ παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς τῷ Δανιηλ
καὶ τὴν δαπάνην τὴν εἰς αὐτὸν ἔδωκε τῷ Δανιηλ τὸν δὲ Βηλ κατέστρεψε

22 Therefore the king put them to death, and gave Bel over to Daniel, who
destroyed it and its temple. (RSV)

Bel and the Dragon (Theodotion)

2 καὶ ἦν εἴδωλον Βηλ ὃ ἐσέβοντο οἱ Βαβυλώνιοι ἀνηλίσκετο δὲ αὐτῷ καθ’ ἑκάστην
ἡμέραν σεμιδάλεως ἀρτάβαι δέκα δύο καὶ πρόβατα τέσσαρα καὶ ἐλαίου μετρηταὶ ἕξ

2 The Babylonians had an idol called Bel, and every day they provided for it six
bushels of fine flour, forty sheep, and six measures of wine.

Wisdom of Sirach 37

7 Πᾶς σύμβουλος ἐξαίρει βουλήν, ἀλλ᾿ ἔστι συμβουλεύων εἰς ἑαυτόν.

7 Every counsellor extolleth counsel; but there is some that counselleth for
himself.

Wisdom of Sirach 37

8 ἀπὸ συμβούλου φύλαξον τὴν ψυχήν σου καὶ γνῶθι πρότερον τίς αὐτοῦ χρεία —καὶ
γὰρ αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ βουλεύσεται—, μήποτε βάλῃ ἐπὶ σοὶ κλῆρον

8 Beware of a counsellor, and know before what need he hath; for he will counsel
for himself; lest he cast the lot upon thee,

Epistle of Jeremiah

9 ἔστι δὲ καὶ ὅτε ὑφαιρούμενοι οἱ ἱερεῖς ἀπὸ τῶν θεῶν αὐτῶν χρυσίον καὶ ἀργύριον
εἰς ἑαυτοὺς καταναλώσουσι, δώσουσι δὲ ἀπ’ αὐτῶν καὶ ταῖς ἐπὶ τοῦ στέγους
πόρναις.

9 And taking gold, as it were for a virgin that loveth to go gay, they make
crowns for the heads of their gods.

2 Maccabees 4

8 ἐπαγγειλάμενος τῷ βασιλεῖ δι᾿ ἐντεύξεως ἀργυρίου τάλαντα ἑξήκοντα πρὸς τοῖς
τριακοσίοις καὶ προσόδου τινὸς ἄλλης τάλαντα ὀγδοήκοντα.

8 Promising unto the king by intercession three hundred and threescore talents
of silver, and of another revenue eighty talents:

3 Maccabees 6

40 εὐωχοῦντο δὲ πάνθ᾿ ὑπὸ τοῦ βασιλέως χορηγούμενοι μέχρι τῆς
τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτης, ἐν ᾗ καὶ τὴν ἐντυχίαν ἐποιήσαντο περὶ τῆς ἀπολύσεως αὐτῶν.

40 They feasted upon the king’s provision up to the fourteenth day, and then
asked to be sent away.

1 [3] Esdras 8

53 καὶ πάλιν ἐδεήθημεν τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν πάντα ταῦτα καὶ ἐτύχομεν εὐϊλάτου.

53 And again we besought our Lord as touching these things, and found him
favourable unto us.

Wisdom of Sirach 1

15 μετὰ ἀνθρώπων θεμέλιον αἰῶνος ἐνόσσευσε καὶ μετὰ τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτῶν
ἐμπιστευθήσεται.

15 She hath built an everlasting foundation with men, and she shall continue
with their seed.

4 Maccabees 17

22 καὶ διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τῶν εὐσεβῶν ἐκείνων καὶ τοῦ ἱλαστηρίου τοῦ θανάτου αὐτῶν
ἡ θεία πρόνοια τὸν Ισραηλ προκακωθέντα διέσωσεν.

22 For they became the atnipoised to the sin of the nation; and the Divine
Providence saved Israel, aforetime afflicted, by the blood of those pious ones,
and the propitiatory death.

Tobit 2 (Text of Codex Vaticanus and Alexandrinus)

12 καὶ ἀπέστελλε τοῖς κυρίοις, καὶ ἀπέδωκαν αὐτῇ καὶ αὐτοὶ τὸν μισθὸν προσδόντες
καὶ ἔριφον.

12 And when she had sent them home to the owners, they paid her wages, and gave
her also besides a kid.

(Text of Codex Sinaiticus)

12 καὶ ἀπέστελλε τοῖς κυρίοις αὐτῶν καὶ ἀπεδίδουν αὐτῇ τὸν μισθόν καὶ ἐν τῇ
ἑβδόμῃ τοῦ Δύστρου ἐξέτεμε τὸν ἱστὸν καὶ ἀπέστειλεν αὐτὸν τοῖς κυρίοις καὶ
ἔδωκαν αὐτῇ τὸν μισθὸν πάντα καὶ ἔδωκαν αὐτῇ ἐφ’ ἑστίᾳ ἔριφον ἐξ αἰγῶν

12 When she sent back the goods to their owners, they would pay her. Late in
winter she finished the cloth and sent it back to the owners. They paid her the
full salary, and also gave her a young goat for the table.

Song of the Three Children (a.k.a. Daniel 14)

14 καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τούτῳ ἄρχων καὶ προφήτης καὶ ἡγούμενος, οὐδὲ
ὁλοκαύτωσις οὐδὲ θυσία οὐδὲ προσφορὰ οὐδὲ θυμίαμα, οὐ τόπος τοῦ καρπῶσαι ἐνώπιόν
σου καὶ εὑρεῖν ἔλεος·

14 Neither is there at this time prince, or prophet, or leader, or burnt
offering, or sacrifice, or oblation, or incense, or place to sacrifice before
thee, and to find mercy.

1 [3] Esdras 4

52 καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον ὁλοκαυτώματα καρποῦσθαι καθ᾿ ἡμέραν, καθὰ ἔχουσιν
ἐντολὴν ἑπτακαίδεκα προσφέρειν, ἄλλα τάλαντα, δέκα κατ᾿ ἐνιαυτόν

52 And other ten talents yearly, to maintain the burnt offerings upon the altar
every day, as they had a commandment to offer seventeen

Wisdom of Sirach 45

14 θυσίαι αὐτοῦ ὁλοκαρπωθήσονται καθημέραν ἐνδελεχῶς δίς.

14 Their sacrifices shall be wholly consumed every day twice continually.

4 Maccabees 18

11 τὸν ἀναιρεθέντα ῎Αβελ ὑπὸ Κάϊν, ἀνεγίνωσκε τε ὑμῖν καὶ τὸν ὁλοκαρπούμενον
᾿Ισαὰκ καὶ τὸν ἐν φυλακῇ ᾿Ιωσήφ.

11 He used to read to you the slaying of Abel by Cain, and the offering up of
Isaac, and the imprisonment of Joseph.

3 Maccabees 5

34 ὁ καθεὶς δὲ τῶν φίλων σκυθρωπῶς ὑπεκρέων, τοὺς συνηθροισμένους ἀπέλυσαν
ἕκαστον ἐπὶ τὴν ἰδίαν ἀσχολίαν.

34 The friends, too, stole out one by one, and dismissed the assembled
multitudes to their respective occupations.

4 Esdras 7

53

53 And that there should be shewed a paradise, whose fruit endureth for ever,
wherein is security and medicine, since we shall not enter into it?

4 Esdras 8

52

52 Heaven will be open to all of you. In fact, the tree that brings life has
been planted, and the future world is ready. I have built the holy city, where
you will have everything you need, including perfect rest. All things that are
good and wise are waiting for you.

2 Esdras 8

29 ἀγρυπνεῖτε καὶ τηρεῖτε ἕως στῆτε ἐνώπιον ἀρχόντων τῶν ἱερέων καὶ τῶν Λευιτῶν
καὶ τῶν ἀρχόντων τῶν πατριῶν ἐν ῾Ιερουσαλὴμ εἰς σκηνὰς οἴκου Κυρίου.

29 Be watchful and keep them, until ye weigh [them] before the chief priests and
the Levites, and the chiefs of families in Jerusalem, at the chambers of the
house of the Lord.

2 Maccabees 4

6 ἑώρα γὰρ ἄνευ βασιλικῆς προνοίας ἀδύνατον εἶναι τυχεῖν εἰρήνης ἔτι τὰ πράγματα
καὶ τὸν Σίμωνα παῦλαν οὐ ληψόμενον τῆς ἀνοίας.

6 For he saw that it was impossible that the state should continue quiet, and
Simon leave his folly, unless the king did look thereunto.

1 Kings 7 (Cedex Alexandrianus)

2 αὶ ἐγενήθη ἀφ’ ἧς ἡμέρας ἦν ἡ κιβωτὸς ἐν καρειαθιαρείμ ἐπλήθυναν αἱ ἡμέραι,
καὶ ἐγένοντο εἴκοσι ἔτη καὶ ἐπέβλεψεν πᾶς οἶκος ισραηλ ὀπίσω κυρίου

2 Maccabees 10

3 καὶ τὸν νεὼν καθαρίσαντες ἕτερον θυσιαστήριον ἐποίησαν καὶ πυρώσαντες λίθους
καὶ πῦρ ἐκ τούτων λαβόντες, ἀνήνεγκαν θυσίαν μετὰ διετῆ χρόνον καὶ θυμίαμα καὶ
λύχνους καὶ τῶν ἄρτων τὴν πρόθεσιν ἐποιήσαντο.

3 And having cleansed the temple they made another altar, and striking stones
they took fire out of them, and offered a sacrifice after two years, and set
forth incense, and lights, and shewbread.

Tobit 10

10 ἀναστὰς δὲ Ραγουηλ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ Σαρραν τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰ ἥμισυ τῶν
ὑπαρχόντων σώματα καὶ κτήνη καὶ ἀργύριον

10 Then Raguel arose, and gave him Sara his wife, and half his goods, servants,
and cattle, and money.

Bel and the Dragon

32 Ἦσαν δὲ ἐν τῷ λάκκῳ ἑπτὰ λέοντες, καὶ ἐδίδετο αὐτοῖς τὴν ἡμέραν δύο σώματα
καὶ δύο πρόβατα· τότε δὲ οὐκ ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς, ἵνα καταφάγωσιν τὸν Δανιηλ.

32 There were seven lions in the pit. Usually they were fed two bodies and two
sheep daily, but now they were fed nothing so that they would devour Daniel.

2 Maccabees 8

11 εὐθέως δὲ εἰς τὰς παραθαλασσίους πόλεις ἀπέστειλε προσκαλούμενος ἐπ᾿
ἀγορασμὸν ᾿Ιουδαϊκῶν σωμάτων, ὑπισχνούμενος ἐνενήκοντα σώματα ταλάντου
παραχωρήσειν, οὐ προσδεχόμενος τὴν παρὰ τοῦ Παντοκράτορος μέλλουσαν
παρακολουθήσειν ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ δίκην.

11 Wherefore immediately he sent to the cities upon the sea coast, proclaiming a
sale of the captive Jews, and promising that they should have fourscore and ten
bodies for one talent, not expecting the vengeance that was to follow upon him
from the Almighty God.

Wisdon of Solomon 7

27 μία δὲ οὖσα πάντα δύναται καὶ μένουσα ἐν αὐτῇ τὰ πάντα καινίζει καὶ κατὰ
γενεὰς εἰς ψυχὰς ὁσίας μεταβαίνουσα φίλους Θεοῦ καὶ προφήτας κατασκευάζει·

27 And being but one, she can do all things: and remaining in herself, she
maketh all things new: and in all ages entering into holy souls, she maketh them
friends of God, and prophets.

Wisdon of Solomon 7

14 ἀνεκλιπὴς γὰρ θησαυρός ἐστιν ἀνθρώποις, ὃν οἱ χρησάμενοι πρὸς Θεὸν ἐστείλαντο
φιλίαν διὰ τὰς ἐκ παιδείας δωρεὰς συσταθέντες.

14 For she is a treasure unto men that never faileth: which they that use become
the friends of God, being commended for the gifts that come from learning.

2 Maccabees 4

47 καὶ τὸν μὲν τῆς ὅλης κακίας Μενέλαον ἀπέλυσε τῶν κατηγορημάτων, τοῖς δὲ
ταλαιπώροις, οἵτινες, εἰ καὶ ἐπὶ Σκυθῶν ἔλεγον, ἀπελύθησαν ἂν ἀκατάγνωστοι,
τούτοις θάνατον ἐπέκρινε.

47 Insomuch that he discharged Menelaus from the accusations, who
notwithstanding was cause of all the mischief: and those poor men, who, if they
had told their cause, yea, before the Scythians, should have been judged
innocent, them he condemned to death.

Judith 1

12 καὶ ἐθυμώθη Ναβουχοδονόσορ ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν ταύτην σφόδρα καὶ ὤμοσε κατὰ τοῦ
θρόνου καὶ τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ, εἰ μὴν ἐκδικήσειν πάντα τὰ ὅρια τῆς Κιλικίας καὶ
Δαμασκηνῆς καὶ Συρίας, ἀνελεῖν τῇ ρομφαίᾳ αὐτοῦ καὶ πάντας τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ἐν
γῇ Μωὰβ καὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς ᾿Αμμὼν καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν ᾿Ιουδαίαν καὶ πάντας τοὺς ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ
ἕως τοῦ ἐλθεῖν ἐπὶ τὰ ὅρια τῶν δύο θαλασσῶν.

12 Therefore Nabuchodonosor was very angry with all this country, and sware by
his throne and kingdom, that he would surely be avenged upon all those coasts of
Cilicia, and Damascus, and Syria, and that he would slay with the sword all the
inhabitants of the land of Moab, and the children of Ammon, and all Judea, and
all that were in Egypt, till ye come to the borders of the two seas.

Baruch 2

29 ἐὰν μὴ ἀκούσητε τῆς φωνῆς μου, εἰ μὴν ἡ βόμβησις ἡ μεγάλη ἡ πολλὴ αὕτη
ἀποστρέψει εἰς μικρὰν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, οὗ διασπερῶ αὐτοὺς ἐκεῖ·

29 If ye will not hear my voice, surely this very great multitude shall be
turned into a small number among the nations, where I will scatter them.

2 Maccabees 1

8 καὶ ἐνεπύρισαν τὸν πυλῶνα καὶ ἐξέχεαν αἷμα ἀθῷον· καὶ ἐδεήθημεν τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ
εἰσηκούσθημεν καὶ προσηνέγκαμεν θυσίαν καὶ σεμίδαλιν καὶ ἐξήψαμεν τοὺς λύχνους
καὶ προεθήκαμεν τοὺς ἄρτους.

8 And burned the porch, and shed innocent blood: then we prayed unto the Lord,
and were heard; we offered also sacrifices and fine flour, and lighted the
lamps, and set forth the loaves.

2 Maccabees 1

12 αὐτὸς γὰρ ἐξέβρασε τοὺς παραταξαμένους ἐν τῇ ἁγίᾳ πόλει.

12 For he cast them out that fought within the holy city.

2 Maccabees 5

8 πέρας οὖν κακῆς ἀναστροφῆς ἔτυχεν ἐγκλεισθεὶς πρὸς ᾿Αρέταν τὸν τῶν ᾿Αράβων
τύρρανον, πόλιν ἐκ πόλεως φεύγων, διωκόμενος ὑπὸ πάντων καὶ στυγούμενος ὡς τῶν
νόμων ἀποστάτης καὶ βδελυσσόμενος ὡς πατρίδος καὶ πολιτῶν δήμιος, εἰς Αἴγυπτον
ἐξεβράσθη.

8 In the end therefore he had an unhappy return, being accused before Aretas the
king of the Arabians, fleeing from city to city, pursued of all men, hated as a
forsaker of the laws, and being had in abomination as an open enemy of his
country and countrymen, he was cast out into Egypt.

2 Maccabees 12

43 ποιησάμενός τε κατ᾿ ἀνδραλογίαν κατασκευάσματα εἰς ἀργυρίου δραχμὰς
δισχιλίας, ἀπέστειλεν εἰς ῾Ιεροσόλυμα προσαγαγεῖν περὶ ἁμαρτίας θυσίαν, πάνυ
καλῶς καὶ ἀστείως πράττων ὑπὲρ ἀναστάσεως διαλογιζόμενος·

43 And when he had made a gathering throughout the company to the sum of two
thousand drachms of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering,
doing therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the
resurrection:

1 Maccabees 8

20 ᾿Ιούδας ὁ Μακκαβαῖος καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων
ἀπέστειλαν ἡμᾶς πρὸς ὑμᾶς στῆσαι μεθ᾿ ὑμῶν συμμαχίαν καὶ εἰρήνην καὶ γραφῆναι
ἡμᾶς συμμάχους καὶ φίλους ὑμῶν.

20 Judas Maccabeus with his brethren, and the people of the Jews, have sent us
unto you, to make a confederacy and peace with you, and that we might be
registered your confederates and friends.

2 Maccabees 11

16 ἦσαν γὰρ αἱ γεγραμμέναι τοῖς ᾿Ιουδαίοις ἐπιστολαί, παρὰ μὲν Λυσίου
περιέχουσαι τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον· Λυσίας τῷ πλήθει τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων χαίρειν.

16 For there were letters written unto the Jews from Lysias to this effect:
Lysias unto the people of the Jews sendeth greeting:

2 Maccabees 11

34 ῎Επεμψαν δὲ καὶ οἱ Ρωμαῖοι πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἐπιστολὴν ἔχουσαν οὕτως· Κόϊντος
Μέμμιος, Τίτος Μάνλιος, πρεσβῦται Ρωμαίων, τῷ δήμῳ τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων χαίρειν.

34 The Romans also sent unto them a letter containing these words: Quintus
Memmius and Titus Manlius, ambassadors of the Romans, send greeting unto the
people of the Jews.

Wisdom of Solomon 3

5 καὶ ὀλίγα παιδευθέντες μεγάλα εὐεργετηθήσονται, ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς ἐπείρασεν αὐτοὺς
καὶ εὗρεν αὐτοὺς ἀξίους ἑαυτοῦ·

5 And having been a little chastised, they shall be greatly rewarded: for God
proved them, and found them worthy for himself.

1 Maccabees 6

58 νῦν οὖν δῶμεν δεξιὰν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τούτοις καὶ ποιήσωμεν μετ᾿ αὐτῶν εἰρήνην
καὶ μετὰ παντὸς ἔθνους αὐτῶν

58 Now therefore let us be friends with these men, and make peace with them, and
with all their nation;

1 Maccabees 11

50 δὸς ἡμῖν δεξιὰς καὶ παυσάσθωσαν οἱ ᾿Ιουδαῖοι πολεμοῦντες ἡμᾶς καὶ τὴν πόλιν.

50 Grant us peace, and let the Jews cease from assaulting us and the city.

1 Maccabees 11

62 καὶ ἠξίωσαν οἱ ἀπὸ Γάζης τὸν ᾿Ιωνάθαν, καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς δεξιὰς καὶ ἔλαβε
τοὺς υἱοὺς ἀρχόντων αὐτῶν εἰς ὅμηρα καὶ ἐξαπέστειλεν αὐτοὺς εἰς ῾Ιερουσαλήμ· καὶ
διῆλθε τὴν χώραν ἕως Δαμασκοῦ.

62 Afterward, when they of Gaza made supplication unto Jonathan, he made peace
with them, and took the sons of their chief men for hostages, and sent them to
Jerusalem, and passed through the country unto Damascus.

1 Maccabees 13

50 καὶ ἐβόησαν πρὸς Σίμωνα δεξιὰς λαβεῖν, καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς· καὶ ἐξέβαλεν αὐτοὺς
ἐκεῖθεν καὶ ἐκαθάρισε τὴν ἄκραν ἀπὸ τῶν μιασμάτων.

50 Then cried they to Simon, beseeching him to be at one with them: which thing
he granted them; and when he had put them out from thence, he cleansed the tower
from pollutions:

2 Maccabees 11

26 εὖ οὖν ποιήσεις διαπεμψάμενος πρὸς αὐτοὺς καὶ δοὺς δεξιάς, ὅπως εἰδότες τὴν
ἡμετέραν προαίρεσιν εὔθυμοί τε ὦσι καὶ ἡδέως διαγίνωνται πρὸς τὴν τῶν ἰδίων
ἀντίληψιν

26 Thou shalt do well therefore to send unto them, and grant them peace, that
when they are certified of our mind, they may be of good comfort, and ever go
cheerfully about their own affairs.

2 Maccabees 12

11 γενομένης δὲ καρτερᾶς μάχης καὶ τῶν περὶ τὸν ᾿Ιούδαν διὰ τὴν παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ
βοήθειαν εὐημερησάντων, ἐλαττωθέντες οἱ νομάδες ῎Αραβες ἠξίουν δοῦναι τὸν
᾿Ιούδαν δεξιὰν αὐτοῖς, ὑπισχνούμενοι καὶ βοσκήματα δώσειν καὶ ἐν τοῖς λοιποῖς
ὠφελήσειν αὐτούς.

11 Whereupon there was a very sore battle; but Judas’ side by the help of God
got the victory; so that the Nomades of Arabia, being overcome, besought Judas
for peace, promising both to give him cattle, and to pleasure him otherwise.

2 Maccabees 13

22 ἐδευτερολόγησεν ὁ βασιλεὺς τοῖς ἐν Βαιθσούρᾳ δεξιὰν ἔδωκεν, ἔλαβεν, ἀπῄει
προσέβαλε τοῖς περὶ τὸν ᾿Ιούδαν, ἥττων ἐγένετο,

22 The king treated with them in Bethsura the second time, gave his hand, took
their’s, departed, fought with Judas, was overcome;

1 Maccabees 11

58 καὶ ἀπέστειλεν αὐτῷ χρυσώματα καὶ διακονίαν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ἐξουσίαν πίνειν
ἐν χρυσώμασι καὶ εἶναι ἐν πορφύρᾳ καὶ ἔχειν πόρπην χρυσῆν·

58 Upon this he sent him golden vessels to be served in, and gave him leave to
drink in gold, and to be clothed in purple, and to wear a golden buckle.

2 Maccabees 12

12 ᾿Ιούδας δὲ ὑπολαβὼν ὡς ἀληθῶς ἐν πολλοῖς αὐτοὺς χρησίμους, ἐπεχώρησεν εἰρήνην
ἄξειν πρὸς αὐτούς· καὶ λαβόντες δεξιὰς εἰς τὰς σκηνὰς αὐτῶν ἐχωρίσθησαν.

12 Then Judas, thinking indeed that they would be profitable in many things,
granted them peace: whereupon they shook hands, and so they departed to their
tents.

2 Maccabees 14

19 διόπερ ἔπεμψε Ποσιδώνιον καὶ Θεόδοτον καὶ Ματταθίαν δοῦναι καὶ λαβεῖν δεξιάς.

19 Wherefore he sent Posidonius, and Theodotus, and Mattathias, to make peace.

2 Maccabees 11

19 ἐὰν μὲν οὖν συντηρήσητε τὴν εἰς τὰ πράγματα εὔνοιαν, καὶ εἰς τὸ λοιπὸν
πειράσομαι παραίτιος ὑμῖν ἀγαθῶν γενέσθαι.

19 And if then ye will keep yourselves loyal to the state, hereafter also will I
endeavour to be a means of your good.

3 Maccabees 3

7 τὴν δὲ περὶ τῶν προσκυνήσεων καὶ τροφῶν διάστασιν ἐθρύλουν, φάσκοντες μήτε τῷ
βασιλεῖ μήτε ταῖς δυνάμεσιν ὁμοσπόνδους τοὺς ἀνθρώπους γενέσθαι, δυσμενεῖς δὲ
εἶναι καὶ μέγα τι τοῖς πράγμασιν ἐναντιουμένους· καὶ οὐ τῷ τυχόντι περιῆψαν
ψόγῳ.

7 who said much of the exclusiveness of the Jews with regard to their worship
and meats; they alleged that they were men unsociable, hostile to the king’s
interests, refusing to associate with him or his troops. By this way of
speaking, they brought much odium upon them.

2 Maccabees 3

11 τινὰ δὲ καὶ ῾Υρκανοῦ τοῦ Τωβίου σφόδρα ἀνδρὸς ἐν ὑπεροχῇ κειμένου —οὐχ ὥσπερ
ἦν διαβάλλων ὁ δυσεβὴς Σίμων— τὰ δὲ πάντα ἀργυρίου τετρακόσια τάλαντα, χρυσίου
δὲ διακόσια·

11 And that some of it belonged to Hircanus son of Tobias, a man of great
dignity, and not as that wicked Simon had misinformed: the sum whereof in all
was four hundred talents of silver, and two hundred of gold:

2 Maccabees 14

38 ἦν γὰρ ἐν τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν χρόνοις τῆς ἀμειξίας κρίσιν εἰσενηνεγμένος
᾿Ιουδαϊσμοῦ, καὶ σῶμα καὶ ψυχὴν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ᾿Ιουδαϊσμοῦ παραβεβλημένος μετὰ πάσης
ἐκτενίας.

38 For in the former times, when they mingled not themselves with the Gentiles,
he had been accused of Judaism, and did boldly jeopard his body and life with
all vehemency for the religion of the Jews.

3 Maccabees 6

41 συναινέσας τε αὐτοῖς ὁ βασιλεὺς ἔγραψεν αὐτοῖς τὴν ὑπογεγραμμένην ἐπιστολὴν
πρὸς τοὺς κατὰ πόλιν στρατηγοὺς μεγαλοψύχως τὴν ἐκτενίαν ἔχουσαν.

41 The king commended them, and wrote the subjoined letter, of magnanimous
import for them, to the commanders of every city.

Judith 4

9 καὶ ἀνεβόησαν πᾶς ἀνὴρ ᾿Ισραὴλ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ἐν ἐκτενίᾳ μεγάλῃ καὶ
ἐταπεινοῦσαν τὰς ψυχὰς αὐτῶν ἐν ἐκτενίᾳ μεγάλῃ.

9 Then every man of Israel cried to God with great fervency, and with great
vehemency did they humble their souls:

4 Maccabees 9

8 ἡμεῖς μὲν γὰρ διὰ τῆσδε τῆς κακοπαθείας καὶ ὑπομονῆς τὰ τῆς ἀρετῆς ἆθλα ἕξομεν
καὶ ἐσόμεθα παρά Θεῷ, δι’ ὃν καὶ πάσχομεν·

8 For we through this ill-treatment and endurance shall bear off the rewards of
virtue.

Wisdom of Sirach 12

12 μὴ στήσῃς αὐτὸν παρὰ σεαυτῷ, μὴ ἀνατρέψας σε στῇ ἐπὶ τὸν τόπον σου· μὴ
καθίσῃς αὐτὸν ἐκ δεξιῶν σου, μήποτε ζητήσῃ τὴν καθέδραν σου καὶ ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτων
ἐπιγνώσῃ τοὺς λόγους μου καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ρημάτων μου κατανυγήσῃ.

12 Set him not by thee, lest, when he hath overthrown thee, he stand up in thy
place; neither let him sit at thy right hand, lest he seek to take thy seat, and
thou at the last remember my words, and be pricked therewith.

1 (3) Esd. 1

48 καὶ ἀπέστειλεν ὁ Θεὸς τῶν πατέρων αὐτῶν διὰ τοῦ ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ μετακαλέσαι
αὐτούς, καθότι ἐφείδετο αὐτῶν καὶ τοῦ σκηνώματος αὐτοῦ.

48 And after that king Nabuchodonosor had made him to swear by the name of the
Lord, he forswore himself, and rebelled; and hardening his neck, his heart, he
transgressed the laws of the Lord God of Israel.

Wisdom of Sirach 43

29 φοβερὸς Κύριος καὶ σφόδρα μέγας, καὶ θαυμαστὴ ἡ δυναστεία αὐτοῦ.

29 The Lord is terrible and very great, and marvellous is his power.

Susanna

42 ἀνεβόησε δὲ φωνῇ μεγάλῃ Σωσάννα καὶ εἶπεν· ὁ Θεὸς ὁ αἰώνιος ὁ τῶν κρυπτῶν
γνώστης, ὁ εἰδὼς τὰ πάντα πρὶν γενέσεως αὐτῶν,

42 Then Susanna cried out with a loud voice, and said, O everlasting God, that
knowest the secrets, and knowest all things before they be:

1 [3] Esd. 6

13 καὶ ᾠκοδόμητο οἶκος ἔμπροσθεν ἐτῶν πλειόνων διὰ βασιλέως τοῦ ᾿Ισραὴλ μεγάλου
καὶ ἰσχυροῦ καὶ ἐπετελέσθη.

13 So they gave us this answer, We are the servants of the Lord which made
heaven and earth.

Bel and the Dragon

5 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ βασιλεὺς τῷ Δανιηλ διὰ τί οὐ προσκυνεῖς τῷ Βηλ καὶ εἶπε Δανιηλ
πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα οὐδένα σέβομαι ἐγὼ εἰ μὴ κύριον τὸν θεὸν τὸν κτίσαντα τὸν
οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν καὶ ἔχοντα πάσης σαρκὸς κυριείαν

5 Who answered and said, Because I may not worship idols made with hands, but
the living God, who hath created the heaven and the earth, and hath sovereignty
over all flesh.

Wisdom of Sirach 36 [33]

11 ἐν πλήθει ἐπιστήμης κύριος διεχώρισεν αὐτοὺς καὶ ἠλλοίωσεν τὰς ὁδοὺς αὐτῶν

11 In much knowledge the Lord hath divided them, and made their ways diverse.

12 ἐξ αὐτῶν εὐλόγησεν καὶ ἀνύψωσεν καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν ἡγίασεν καὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἤγγισεν
ἀπ’ αὐτῶν κατηράσατο καὶ ἐταπείνωσεν καὶ ἀνέστρεψεν αὐτοὺς ἀπὸ στάσεως αὐτῶν

12 Some of them hath he blessed and exalted and some of them he sanctified, and
set near himself: but some of them hath he cursed and brought low, and turned
out of their places.

13 ὡς πηλὸς κεραμέως ἐν χειρὶ αὐτοῦ πᾶσαι αἱ ὁδοὶ αὐτοῦ κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν αὐτοῦ
οὕτως ἄνθρωποι ἐν χειρὶ τοῦ ποιήσαντος αὐτοὺς ἀποδοῦναι αὐτοῖς κατὰ τὴν κρίσιν
αὐτοῦ

13 As the clay is in the potter’s hand, to fashion it at his pleasure: so man is
in the hand of him that made him, to render to them as liketh him best.

14 ἀπέναντι τοῦ κακοῦ τὸ ἀγαθόν καὶ ἀπέναντι τοῦ θανάτου ἡ ζωή οὕτως ἀπέναντι
εὐσεβοῦς ἁμαρτωλός

14 Good is set against evil, and life against death: so is the godly against the
sinner, and the sinner against the godly.

Wisdom of Solomon 17

3 λανθάνειν γὰρ νομίζοντες ἐπὶ κρυφαίοις ἁμαρτήμασιν, ἀφεγγεῖ λήθης
παρακαλύμματι ἐσκορπίσθησαν, θαμβούμενοι δεινῶς καὶ ἰνδάλμασιν ἐκταρασσόμενοι·

3 For while they supposed to lie hid in their secret sins, they were scattered
under a dark veil of forgetfulness, being horribly astonished, and troubled with
strange apparitions.

Wisdom of Sirach 51

9 καὶ ἀνύψωσα ἀπὸ γῆς ἱκετείαν μου καὶ ὑπὲρ θανάτου ρύσεως ἐδεήθην.

9 Then lifted I up my supplications from the earth, and prayed for deliverance
from death.

Wisdom of Solomon 15

3 τὸ γὰρ ἐπίστασθαί σε ὁλόκληρος δικαιοσύνη, καὶ εἰδέναι τὸ κράτος σου ρίζα
ἀθανασίας.

3 For to know thee is perfect righteousness: yea, to know thy power is the root
of immortality.

Wisdom of Solomon 8

17 ταῦτα λογισάμενος ἐν ἐμαυτῷ καὶ φροντίσας ἐν καρδίᾳ μου ὅτι ἐστιν ἀθανασία ἐν
συγγενείᾳ σοφίας

17 Now when I considered these things in myself, and pondered them in my heart,
how that to be allied unto wisdom is immortality;

Wisdom of Solomon 8

13 ἕξω δι᾿ αὐτὴν ἀθανασίαν καὶ μνήμην αἰώνιον τοῖς μετ᾿ ἐμὲ ἀπολείψω.

13 Moreover by the means of her I shall obtain immortality, and leave behind me
an everlasting memorial to them that come after me.

Wisdom of Solomon 1

15 δικαιοσύνη γὰρ ἀθάνατός ἐστιν.

15 For righteousness is immortal:

3 Maccabees 2

21 ᾿Ενταῦθα ὁ πάντων ἐπόπτης Θεὸς καὶ πρὸ πάντων ἅγιος ἐν ἁγίοις εἰσακούσας τῆς
ἐνθέσμου λιτανείας, τὸν ὕβρει καὶ θράσει μεγάλως ἐπῃρμένον ἐμάστιξεν αὐτόν

21 At that time God, who seeth all things, who is beyond all Holy among the
holy, heard that prayer, so suitable; and scourged the man greatly uplifted with
scorn and insolence.

2 Maccabees 7

35 οὕπω γὰρ τὴν τοῦ Παντοκράτορος ἐπόπτου Θεοῦ, κρίσιν ἐκπέφευγας.

35 For thou hast not yet escaped the judgment of Almighty God, who seeth all
things.

2 Maccabees 3

39 αὐτὸς γὰρ ὁ τὴν κατοικίαν ἐπουράνιον ἔχων, ἐπόπτης ἐστὶ καὶ βοηθὸς ἐκείνου
τοῦ τόπου καὶ τοὺς παραγινομένους ἐπὶ κακώσει τύπτων ἀπόλλυσι

39 For he that dwelleth in heaven hath his eye on that place, and defendeth it;
and he beateth and destroyeth them that come to hurt it.

2 Maccabees 12

22 ἐπιφανείσης δὲ τῆς ᾿Ιούδα σπείρας πρώτης καὶ γενομένου δέους ἐπὶ τοὺς
πολεμίους, φόβου τε ἐκ τῆς τοῦ πάντα ἐφορῶντος ἐπιφανείας γενομένου ἐπ᾿ αὐτούς,
εἰς φυγὴν ὥρμησαν ἄλλος ἀλλαχῇ φερόμενος, ὥστε πολλάκις ὑπὸ τῶν ἰδίων βλάπτεσθαι
καὶ ταῖς τῶν ξιφῶν ἀκμαῖς ἀναπείρεσθαι.

22 But when Judas his first band came in sight, the enemies, being smitten with
fear and terror through the appearing of him who seeth all things, fled amain,
one running into this way, another that way, so as that they were often hurt of
their own men, and wounded with the points of their own swords.

2 Maccabees 15

2 τῶν δὲ κατ᾿ ἀνάγκην συνεπομένων αὐτῷ ᾿Ιουδαίων λεγόντων· μηδαμῶς οὕτως ἀγρίως
καὶ βαρβάρως ἀπολέσῃς, δόξαν δὲ ἀπομέρισον τῇ προτετιμημένῃ ὑπὸ τοῦ πάντα
ἐφορῶντος μεθ᾿ ἁγιότητος ἡμέρᾳ.

2 Nevertheless the Jews that were compelled to go with him said, O destroy not
so cruelly and barbarously, but give honour to that day, which he, that seeth
all things, hath honoured with holiness above all other days.

2 Maccabees 4

49 δι᾿ ἣν αἰτίαν καὶ Τύριοι μισοπονηρήσαντες τὰ πρὸς τὴν κηδείαν αὐτῶν
μεγαλοπρεπῶς ἐχορήγησαν.

49 Wherefore even they of Tyrus, moved with hatred of that wicked deed, caused
them to be honourably buried.

2 Maccabees 8

4 μνησθῆναι δὲ καὶ τῆς τῶν ἀναμαρτήτων νηπίων παρανόμου ἀπωλείας καὶ περὶ τῶν
γενομένων εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ βλασφημιῶν καὶ μισοπονηρῆσαι.

4 And remember the wicked slaughter of harmless infants, and the blasphemies
committed against his name; and that he would shew his hatred against the
wicked.

2 Maccabees 3

1 τῆς ἁγίας τοίνυν πόλεως κατοικουμένης μετὰ πάσης εἰρήνης καὶ τῶν νόμων ἔτι
κάλλιστα συντηρουμένων διὰ τὴν ᾿Ονίου τοῦ ἀρχιερέως εὐσέβειάν τε καὶ
μισοπονηρίαν,

1 Now when the holy city was inhabited with all peace, and the laws were kept
very well, because of the godliness of Onias the high priest, and his hatred of
wickedness,

Wisdom of Sirach 13

5 ἐὰν ἔχῃς, συμβιώσεταί σοι καὶ ἀποκενώσει σε, καὶ αὐτὸς οὐ πονέσει.

5 If thou have any thing, he will live with thee: yea, he will make thee bare,
and will not be sorry for it.

2 Maccabees 1

24 Κύριε Κύριε ὁ Θεὸς ὁ πάντων κτίστης, ὁ φοβερὸς καὶ ἰσχυρὸς καὶ δίκαιος καὶ
ἐλεήμων, ὁ μόνος βασιλεὺς καὶ χρηστός,

24 O Lord, Lord God, Creator of all things, who art fearful and strong, and
righteous, and merciful, and the only and gracious King,

25 ὁ μόνος χορηγός, ὁ μόνος δίκαιος καὶ παντοκράτωρ καὶ αἰώνιος, ὁ διασώζων τὸν
᾿Ισραὴλ ἐκ παντὸς κακοῦ, ὁ ποιήσας τοὺς πατέρας ἐκλεκτοὺς καὶ ἁγιάσας αὐτούς

25 The only giver of all things, the only just, almighty, and everlasting, thou
that deliverest Israel from all trouble, and didst choose the fathers, and
sanctify them

Prayer of Manasseh

1 κύριε παντοκράτωρ ὁ θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ καὶ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ Ἰακὼβ καὶ
τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτῶν τοῦ δικαίου, 1 Lord Almighty, the God of the fathers of us
of the Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and of the seed of them the righteous.

2 ὁ ποήσας τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν σὺν παντὶ τῷ κόσμῳ αὐτῶν, 2 The having made
the heaven and the earth with all the order of them.

3 The having bound the sea with the word of the command of you, the having
closed the abyss and having sealed with the fearful and glorious name of you;

3 ὁ πεδήσας τὴν θάλασσαν τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ προστάγματός σου, ὁ κλείσας τὴν ἄβυσσον καὶ
σφραγισάμενος αὐτὴν τῷ φοβερῷ καὶ ἐνδόξῳ ὀνόματί σου,

4 ὃν πάντα φρίσσει καὶ τρέμει ἀπὸ προσώπου δυνάμεώς σου.

4 whom all things shudder and tremble from of face of power of you.

2 Maccabees 3

7 συμμείξας δὲ ὁ ᾿Απολλώνιος τῷ βασιλεῖ περὶ τῶν μηνυθέντων αὐτῷ χρημάτων
ἐνεφάνισεν· ὁ δὲ προχειρισάμενος ῾Ηλιόδωρον τὸν ἐπὶ τῶν πραγμάτων ἀπέστειλε δοὺς
ἐντολὰς τὴν τῶν προειρημένων χρημάτων ἐκκομιδὴν ποιήσασθαι.

7 Now when Apollonius came to the king, and had shewed him of the money whereof
he was told, the king chose out Heliodorus his treasurer, and sent him with a
commandment to bring him the foresaid money.

1Maccabees 3

32 καὶ κατέλιπε Λυσίαν ἄνθρωπον ἔνδοξον καὶ ἀπὸ γένους τῆς βασιλείας ἐπὶ τῶν
πραγμάτων τοῦ βασιλέως ἀπὸ τοῦ ποταμοῦ Εὐφράτου ἕως τῶν ὁρίων Αἰγύπτου.

32 So he left Lysias, a nobleman, and one of the blood royal, to oversee the
affairs of the king from the river Euphrates unto the borders of Egypt:

2 Maccabees 10

11 αὐτὸς γὰρ παραλαβὼν βασιλείαν ἀνέδειξεν ἐπὶ τῶν πραγμάτων Λυσίαν τινά, Κοίλης
δὲ Συρίας καὶ Φοινίκης στρατηγὸν πρώταρχον.

11 So when he was come to the crown, he set one Lysias over the affairs of his
realm, and appointed him his chief governor of Celosyria and Phenice.

2 Maccabees 13

2 καὶ σὺ αὐτῷ Λυσίαν τὸν ἐπίτροπον καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν πραγμάτων, ἕκαστον ἔχοντα δύναμιν
῾Ελληνικὴν πεζῶν μυριάδας ἕνδεκα καὶ ἱππεῖς πεντακισχιλίους τριακοσίους καὶ
ἐλέφαντας εἰκοσιδύο, ἅρματα δὲ δρεπανηφόρα τριακόσια.

2 And with him Lysias his protector, and ruler of his affairs, having either of
them a Grecian power of footmen, an hundred and ten thousand, and horsemen five
thousand and three hundred, and elephants two and twenty, and three hundred
chariots armed with hooks.

2 Maccabees 13

23 μετέλαβεν ἀπονενοῆσθαι τὸν Φίλιππον ἐν ᾿Αντιοχείᾳ τὸν ἀπολελειμμένον ἐπὶ τῶν
πραγμάτων, συνεχύθη, τοὺς ᾿Ιουδαίους παρεκάλεσεν, ὑπετάγη καὶ ὤμοσεν ἐπὶ πᾶσι
τοῖς δικαίοις, συνελύθη καὶ θυσίαν προσήγαγεν, ἐτίμησε τὸν νεὼ καὶ τὸν τόπον
ἐφιλανθρώπησε

23 Heard that Philip, who was left over the affairs in Antioch, was desperately
bent, confounded, intreated the Jews, submitted himself, and sware to all equal
conditions, agreed with them, and offered sacrifice, honoured the temple, and
dealt kindly with the place,

3 Maccabees 7

1 βασιλεὺς Πτολεμαῖος ὁ Φιλοπάτωρ τοῖς κατ᾿ Αἴγυπτον στρατηγοῖς καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς
τεταγμένοις ἐπὶ πραγμάτων χαίρειν καὶ ἐρρῶσθαι· 2 ἐρρώμεθα δὲ καὶ αὐτοὶ καὶ τὰ
τέκνα ἡμῶν, κατευθύναντος ἡμῖν τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ τὰ πράγματα καθὼς προαιρούμεθα.

1 King Ptolemy Philopator to the commanders throughout Egypt, and to all who are
set over affairs, joy and strength.

2 Esdras 6

14 καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων ᾠκοδομοῦσαν καὶ οἱ Λευῖται ἐν προφητείᾳ
᾿Αγγαίου τοῦ προφήτου καὶ Ζαχαρίου υἱοῦ ᾿Αδδὼ καὶ ἀνῳκοδόμησαν καὶ κατηρτίσαντο
ἀπὸ γνώμης Θεοῦ ᾿Ισραὴλ καὶ ἀπὸ γνώμης Κύρου καὶ Δαρείου καὶ ᾿Αρθασασθὰ βασιλέων
Περσῶν.

14 And the elders of the Jews and the Levites built, at the prophecy of Aegis
the prophet, and Zacharias the son of Addo: and they built up, and finished
[it], by the decree of the God of Israel, and by the decree of Cyrus, and
Darius, and Arthasastha, kings of the Persians.

1 Maccabees 1

6 καὶ ἐκάλεσε τοὺς παῖδας αὐτοῦ τοὺς ἐνδόξους τοὺς συντρόφους αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ νεότητος
καὶ διεῖλεν αὐτοῖς τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ ἔτι ζῶντος αὐτοῦ.

6 Wherefore he called his servants, such as were honourable, and had been
brought up with him from his youth, and parted his kingdom among them, while he
was yet alive.

2 Maccabees 9

29 παρεκομίζετο δὲ τὸ σῶμα Φίλιππος ὁ σύντροφος αὐτοῦ, ὃς καὶ διευλαβηθεὶς τὸν
υἱὸν ᾿Αντιόχου, πρὸς Πτολεμαῖον τὸν Φιλομήτορα εἰς Αἴγυπτον διεκομίσθη.

29 And Philip, that was brought up with him, carried away his body, who also
fearing the son of Antiochus went into Egypt to Ptolemeus Philometor.

1 Maccabees 7

5 καὶ ἦλθον πρὸς αὐτὸν πάντες ἄνδρες ἄνομοι καὶ ἀσεβεῖς ἐξ ᾿Ισραήλ, καὶ ῎Αλκιμος
ἡγεῖτο αὐτῶν, βουλόμενος ἱερατεύειν.

5 There came unto him all the wicked and ungodly men of Israel, having Alcimus,
who was desirous to be high priest, for their captain:

1 Maccabees 7

12 καὶ ἐπισυνήχθησαν πρὸς ῎Αλκιμον καὶ Βακχίδην συναγωγὴ γραμματέων ἐκζητῆσαι
δίκαια, 12 Then did there assemble unto Alcimus and Bacchides a company of
scribes, to require justice.

1 Maccabees 7

20 καὶ κατέστησε τὴν χώραν τῷ ᾿Αλκίμῳ καὶ ἀφῆκε μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ δύναμιν τοῦ βοηθεῖν
αὐτῷ· καὶ ἀπῆλθε Βακχίδης πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα.

20 Then committed he the country to Alcimus, and left with him a power to aid
him: so Bacchides went to the king.

21 καὶ ἠγωνίσατο ῎Αλκιμος περὶ τῆς ἀρχιερωσύνης, 21 But Alcimus contended for
the high priesthood.

22 καὶ συνήχθησαν πρὸς αὐτὸν πάντες οἱ ταράσσοντες τὸν λαὸν αὐτῶν καὶ
κατεκράτησαν γῆν ᾿Ιούδα καὶ ἐποίησαν πληγὴν μεγάλην ἐν ᾿Ισραήλ.

22 And unto him resorted all such as troubled the people, who, after they had
gotten the land of Juda into their power, did much hurt in Israel.

23 καὶ εἶδεν ᾿Ιούδας πᾶσαν τὴν κακίαν, ἣν ἐποίησεν ῎Αλκιμος καὶ οἱ μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐν
υἱοῖς ᾿Ισραὴλ ὑπὲρ τὰ ἔθνη,

23 Now when Judas saw all the mischief that Alcimus and his company had done
among the Israelites, even above the heathen,

24 καὶ ἐξῆλθεν εἰς πάντα τὰ ὅρια τῆς ᾿Ιουδαίας κυκλόθεν καὶ ἐποίησεν ἐκδίκησιν
ἐν τοῖς ἀνδράσι τοῖς αὐτομολήσασι, καὶ ἀνεστάλησαν τοῦ πορεύεσθαι εἰς τὴν χώραν.

24 He went out into all the coasts of Judea round about, and took vengeance of
them that had revolted from him, so that they durst no more go forth into the
country.

25 ὡς δὲ εἶδεν ῎Αλκιμος ὅτι ἐνίσχυσεν ᾿Ιούδας καὶ οἱ μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἔγνω ὅτι οὐ
δύναται ὑποστῆναι αὐτούς, καὶ ἐπέστρεψε πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα καὶ κατηγόρησεν αὐτῶν
πονηρά.

25 On the other side, when Alcimus saw that Judas and his company had gotten the
upper hand, and knew that he was not able to abide their force, he went again to
the king, and said all the worst of them that he could.

1 Maccabees 9

54 Καὶ ἐν ἔτει τρίτῳ καὶ πεντηκοστῷ καὶ ἑκατοστῷ μηνὶ τῷ δευτέρῳ ἐπέταξεν
῎Αλκιμος καθαιρεῖν τὸ τεῖχος τῆς αὐλῆς τῶν ἁγίων τῆς ἐσωτέρας· καὶ καθεῖλε τὰ
ἔργα τῶν προφητῶν καὶ ἐνήρξατο τοῦ καθαιρεῖν.

Moreover in the hundred fifty and third year, in the second month, Alcimus
commanded that the wall of the inner court of the sanctuary should be pulled
down; he pulled down also the works of the prophets

55 ἐν τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ ἐπλήγη ῎Αλκιμος καὶ ἐνεποδίσθη τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἀπεφράγη
τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ, καὶ παρελύθη καὶ οὐκ ἐδύνατο ἔτι λαλῆσαι λόγον καὶ ἐντείλασθαι
περὶ τοῦ οἴκου αὐτοῦ.

55 And as he began to pull down, even at that time was Alcimus plagued, and his
enterprises hindered: for his mouth was stopped, and he was taken with a palsy,
so that he could no more speak any thing, nor give order concerning his house.

2 Maccabees 14

3 ῎Αλκιμος δέ τις προγενόμενος ἀρχιερεύς, ἑκουσίως δὲ μεμολυμμένος ἐν τοῖς τῆς
ἐπιμειξίας χρόνοις, συννοήσας ὅτι καθ᾿ ὁντιναοῦν τρόπον οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτῷ σωτηρία,
οὐδὲ πρὸς ἅγιον θυσιαστήριον ἔτι πρόσοδος,

3 Now one Alcimus, who had been high priest, and had defiled himself wilfully in
the times of their mingling with the Gentiles, seeing that by no means he could
save himself, nor have any more access to the holy altar

1 Maccabees 13

42 καὶ ἤρξατο ὁ λαὸς ᾿Ισραὴλ γράφειν ἐν ταῖς συγγραφαῖς καὶ συναλλάγμασιν ἔτους
πρώτου ἐπὶ Σίμωνος ἀρχιερέως μεγάλου καὶ στρατηγοῦ καὶ ἡγουμένου ᾿Ιουδαίων.

42 Then the people of Israel began to write in their instruments and contracts,
In the first year of Simon the high priest, the governor and leader of the Jews.

1 Maccabees 14

27 καὶ τοῦτο τὸ ἀντίγραφον τῆς γραφῆς· «᾿Οκτωκαιδεκάτῃ ᾿Ελούλ, ἔτους δευτέρου
καὶ ἑβδομηκοστοῦ καὶ ἑκατοστοῦ - καὶ τοῦτο τρίτον ἔτος ἐπὶ Σίμωνος ἀρχιερέως

27 So then they wrote it in tables of brass, which they set upon pillars in
mount Sion: and this is the copy of the writing; The eighteenth day of the month
Elul, in the hundred threescore and twelfth year, being the third year of Simon
the high priest

3 Maccabees 3

11 ᾿Εκεῖνος μὲν οὖν τῇ κατὰ τὸ παρὸν εὐημερίᾳ γεγαυρωμένος καὶ οὐ καθορῶν τὸ τοῦ
μεγίστου Θεοῦ κράτος, ὑπολαμβάνων δὲ διηνεκῶς ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ διαμένειν βουλῇ, ἔγραψε
κατ’ αὐτῶν ἐπιστολὴν τήνδε·

11 Now the king, elated with his prosperous fortune, and not regarding the
superior power of God, but thinking to persevere in his present purpose, wrote
the following letter to the prejudice of the Jews.

3 Maccabees 2

29 τούς τε ἀπογραφομένους χαράσσεσθαι καὶ διὰ πυρὸς εἰς τὸ σῶμα παρασήμῳ
Διονύσου κισσοφύλλῳ, οὓς καὶ καταχωρίσαι εἰς τὴν προσυνεσταλμένην αὐθεντίαν.

29 that those who were thus registered, were to be marked on their persons by
the ivy-leaf symbol of Dionysus, and to be set apart with these limited rights.

Psalms of Solomon 15

8 ὅτι τὸ σημεῖον τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπὶ δικαίους εἰς σωτηρίαν·

8 For the mark of God is upon the righteous that they may be saved.

Psalms of Solomon 15

10 τὸ γὰρ σημεῖον τῆς ἀπωλείας ἐπὶ τοῦ μετώπου αὐτῶν

10 For the mark of destruction is upon their forehead.

3 Maccabees 4

20 λεγόντων μετὰ ἀποδείξεως καὶ τὴν χαρτηρίαν ἤδη καὶ τοὺς γραφικοὺς καλάμους,
ἐν οἷς ἐχρῶντο, ἐκλελοιπέναι.

20 They said, and proved, that paper and pens had failed them for the carrying
out of their purpose.

3 Maccabees 7

20 ἃς καὶ ἀνιερώσαντες ἐν στήλῃ κατὰ τὸν συμποσίας τόπον προσευχῆς
καθιδρύσαντες, ἀνέλυσαν ἀσινεῖς, ἐλεύθεροι, ὑπερχαρεῖς, διά τε γῆς καὶ θαλάσσης
καὶ ποταμοῦ ἀνασωζόμενοι τῇ τοῦ βασιλέως ἐπιταγῇ, ἕκαστος εἰς τὴν ἰδίαν

20 These they registered as sacred upon a pillar, when they had dedicated the
place of their festivity to be one of prayer. They departed unharmed, free,
abundant in joy, preserved by the king’s command, by land, by sea, and by river,
each to his own home.

Job 42:18 (= 17α - 17ε)

17α γέγραπται δὲ αὐτὸν πάλιν ἀναστήσεσθαι μεθ᾿ ὧν ὁ Κύριος ἀνίστησιν.

17a and it is written that he will rise again with those whom the Lord raises
up.

17β Οὗτος ἑρμηνεύεται ἐκ τῆς Συριακῆς βίβλου ἐν μὲν γῇ κατοικῶν τῇ Αὐσίτιδι, ἐπὶ
τοῖς ὁρίοις τῆς ᾿Ιδουμαίας καὶ ᾿Αραβίας, προϋπῆρχε δὲ αὐτῷ ὄνομα ᾿Ιωβάβ.

17b This man is described in the Syriac book as living in the land of Ausis, on
the borders of Idumea and Arabia: and his name before was Jobab;

17γ λαβὼν δὲ γυναῖκα ᾿Αράβισσαν γεννᾷ υἱόν, ᾧ ὄνομα ᾿Εννών· ἦν δὲ αὐτὸς πατρὸς
μὲν Ζαρὲ ἐκ τῶν ῾Ησαῦ υἱῶν υἱός, μητρός δὲ Βοσόρρας, ὥστε εἶναι αὐτὸν πέμπτον
ἀπὸ ῾Αβραάμ.

17c and having taken an Arabian wife, he begot a son whose name was Ennon. And
he himself was the son of his father Zare, one of the sons of Esau, and of his
mother Bosorrha, so that he was the fifth from Abraam.

17δ καὶ οὗτοι οἱ βασιλεῖς οἱ βασιλεύσαντες ἐν ᾿Εδώμ, ἧς καὶ αὐτὸς ἦρξε χώρας·
πρῶτος Βαλὰκ ὁ τοῦ Βεώρ, καὶ ὄνομα τῇ πόλει αὐτοῦ Δενναβά· μετὰ δὲ Βαλὰκ ᾿Ιωβὰβ
ὁ καλούμενος ᾿Ιώβ· μετὰ δὲ τοῦτον ᾿Ασὼμ ὁ ὑπάρχων ἡγεμὼν ἐκ τῆς Θαιμανίτιδος
χώρας· μετὰ δὲ τοῦτον ᾿Αδὰδ υἱὸς Βαράδ, ὁ ἐκκόψας Μαδιὰμ ἐν τῷ πεδίῳ Μωάβ, καὶ
ὄνομα τῇ πόλει αὐτοῦ Γεθθαίμ.

17d And these were the kings who reigned in Edom, which country he also ruled
over: first, Balac, the son of Beor, and the name of his city was Dennaba: but
after Balac, Jobab, who is called Job, and after him Asom, who was governor out
of the country of Thaeman: and after him Adad, the son of Barad, who destroyed
Madiam in the plain of Moab; and the name of his city was Gethaim.

17ε οἱ δὲ ἐλθόντες πρὸς αὐτὸν φίλοι, ᾿Ελιφὰζ τῶν ῾Ησαῦ υἱῶν, Θαιμανῶν βασιλεύς,
Βαλδὰδ ὁ Σαυχαίων τύραννος, Σωφὰρ ὁ Μιναίων βασιλεύς.

17e And his friends who came to him were Eliphaz, of the children of Esau, king
of the Thaemanites, Baldad sovof the Sauchaeans, Sophar king of the Minaeans.

2 Maccabees 4

8 ἐπαγγειλάμενος τῷ βασιλεῖ δι᾿ ἐντεύξεως ἀργυρίου τάλαντα ἑξήκοντα πρὸς τοῖς
τριακοσίοις καὶ προσόδου τινὸς ἄλλης τάλαντα ὀγδοήκοντα.

8 Promising unto the king by intercession three hundred and threescore talents
of silver, and of another revenue eighty talents:

Baruch 4

35 πῦρ γὰρ ἐπελεύσεται αὐτῇ παρὰ τοῦ αἰωνίου εἰς ἡμέρας μακράς, καὶ
κατοικηθήσεται ὑπὸ δαιμονίων τὸν πλείονα χρόνον.

35 For fire shall come upon her from the Everlasting, long to endure; and she
shall be inhabited of devils for a great time.

4 Maccabees 4

26 ἐπεὶ οὖν τὰ δόγματα αὐτοῦ κατεφρονεῖτο ὑπὸ τοῦ λαοῦ, αὐτὸς διά βασάνων ἕνα
ἕκαστον τοῦ ἔθνους ἠνάγκαζε μιαρῶν ἀπογευομένους τροφῶν ἐξόμνυσθαι τὸν
᾿Ιουδαϊσμόν.

26 When, therefore, his decrees were disregarded by the people, he himself
compelled by means of tortures every one of this race, by tasting forbidden
meats, to abjure the Jewish religion.

4 Maccabees 5

2 ἕνα ἕκαστον τῶν ῾Εβραίων ἐπισπᾶσθαι, καὶ κρεῶν ὑείων καὶ εἰδωλοθύτων
ἀναγκάζειν ἀπογεύεσθαι·

2 ordered the guards to seize each and every Hebrew and to compel them to eat
pork and food sacrificed to idols.

4 Maccabees 8

5 ὦ νεανίαι, φιλοφρόνως ἐγὼ καθ’ ἑνὸς ἑκάστου ὑμῶν θαυμάζω, τὸ κάλλος καὶ τὸ
πλῆθος τοσούτων ἀδελφῶν ὑπερτιμῶν, οὐ μόνον συμβουλεύω μὴ μανῆναι τὴν αὐτὴν τῷ
προβασανισθέντι γέροντι μανίαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ παρακαλῶ συνείξαντάς μου τῇ συμβουλίᾳ
τῆς ἐμῆς ἀπολαῦσαι φιλίας·

5 O youths, with favourable feelings, I admire the beauty of each of you; and
greatly honouring so numerous a band of brethren, I not only counsel you not to
share the madness of the old man who has been tortured before, but I do beg you
to yield, and to enjoy my friendship;

4 Maccabees 8

8 καὶ μεταλαβόντες ἑλληνικοῦ βίου καὶ μεταδιαιτηθέντες ἐντρυφήσατε ταῖς νεότησιν
ὑμῶν·

8 and, conforming to the Greek mode of life, alter your rule, and revel in
youth’s delights.

4 Maccabees 13

13 εἷς δὲ ἕκαστος καὶ ἀλλήλους ὁμοῦ πάντες ἐφορῶντες φαιδροὶ καὶ μάλα θαρραλέοι,
ἑαυτούς, ἔλεγον, τῷ Θεῷ ἀφιερώσωμεν ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας τῷ δόντι τὰς ψυχὰς καὶ
χρήσωμεν τῇ περὶ τὸν νόμον φυλακῇ τὰ σώματα.

13 And one and all, looking on each other serene and confident, said, Let us
sacrifice with all our heart our souls to God who gave them, and employ our
bodies for the keeping of the law.

4 Maccabees 13

17 οὕτως γὰρ θανόντας ἡμᾶς ῾Αβραὰμ καὶ ᾿Ισαὰκ καὶ ᾿Ιακὼβ ὑποδέξονται εἰς τοὺς
κόλπους αὐτῶν καὶ πάντες οἱ πατέρες ἐπαινέσουσι.

17 If we suffer thus, Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob will receive us, and all the
fathers will commend us.

4 Maccabees 14

12 ἡ μήτηρ γὰρ τῶν ἑπτὰ νεανίσκων ἐκείνων ὑπήνεγκε τὰς ἐφ’ ἑνὶ ἑκάστῳ τῶν τέκνων
στρέβλας.

12 For the mother of those seven youths endured the rackings of each of her
children.

4 Maccabees 15

5 ὅσῳ γὰρ καὶ ἀσθενόψυχοι καὶ πολυγονώτεραι ὑπάρχουσιν αἱ μητέρες, τοσοῦτον
μᾶλλόν εἰσι φιλοτεκνότεραι.

5 for by how much mothers are by nature weak in disposition and prolific in
offspring, by so much the fonder they are of children.

4 Maccabees 15

16 ὦ πικροτέρων μὲν νῦν μήτηρ πόνων πειρασθεῖσα ἤπερ τῶν ἐπ’ αὐτοῖς ὠδίνων.

16 O thou mother, who wast tried at this time with bitterer pangs than those of
parturition!

4 Maccabees 16

24 Διὰ τούτων τῶν λόγων ἡ ἑπταμήτωρ ἕνα ἕκαστον τῶν υἱῶν παρακαλοῦσα, ἀποθανεῖν
ἔπεισε μᾶλλον ἢ παραβῆναι τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ.

24 With these arguments, the mother of seven, exhorting each of her sons,
over-persuaded them from transgressing the commandment of God.

Daniel 3

33 καὶ νῦν οὐκ ἔστιν ἡμῖν ἀνοῖξαι τὸ στόμα αἰσχύνη καὶ ὄνειδος ἐγενήθη τοῖς
δούλοις σου καὶ τοῖς σεβομένοις σε.

33 And now we cannot open our mouths; we have become a shame and a reproach to
your servants and to those who worship you.

4 Maccabees 10

10 ἡμεῖς μέν, ὦ μιαρώτατε τύραννε, διὰ παιδείαν καὶ ἀρετὴν Θεοῦ ταῦτα πάσχομεν·

10 We, O accursed tyrant, suffer this for the sake of Divine education and
virtue.

Exoduc 37:6 LXX

6 καὶ τοὺς στύλους αὐτοῦ πέντε καὶ τοὺς κρίκους καὶ τὰς κεφαλίδας αὐτῶν καὶ τὰς
ψαλίδας αὐτῶν κατεχρύσωσαν χρυσίῳ καὶ αἱ βάσεις αὐτῶν πέντε χαλκαῖ

6 and the five pillars of it with their hooks. He overlaid their capitals and
their fillets with gold, and their five sockets were of brass.

Judith 2

27 καὶ κατέβη εἰς πεδίον Δαμασκοῦ ἐν ἡμέραις θερισμοῦ πυρῶν καὶ ἐνέπρησεν πάντας
τοὺς ἀγροὺς αὐτῶν καὶ τὰ ποίμνια καὶ τὰ βουκόλια ἔδωκεν εἰς ἀφανισμὸν καὶ τὰς
πόλεις αὐτῶν ἐσκύλευσεν καὶ τὰ πεδία αὐτῶν ἐξελίκμησεν καὶ ἐπάταξεν πάντας τοὺς
νεανίσκους αὐτῶν ἐν στόματι ῥομφαίας

27 Then he went down into the plain of Damascus, at the time of the wheat
harvest, and burnt up all their fields, and destroyed their flocks and herds; he
also pillaged their cities, and utterly laid waste to their countries, and
struck down all their young men with the edge of the sword.

3 Kings 4 LXX

27 καὶ ἐχορήγουν οἱ καθεσταμένοι οὕτως τῷ βασιλεῖ Σαλωμων καὶ πάντα τὰ
διαγγέλματα ἐπὶ τὴν τράπεζαν τοῦ βασιλέως ἕκαστος μῆνα αὐτοῦ οὐ παραλλάσσουσιν
λόγον

27 And those officers supplied provisions for King Solomon, and for all who came
to King Solomon’s table, each one in his month; they let nothing be lacking.

3 Kings 4 LXX

31 καὶ ἐσοφίσατο ὑπὲρ πάντας τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ ἐσοφίσατο ὑπὲρ Γαιθαν τὸν
Εζρατην καὶ τὸν Αιμαν καὶ τὸν Χαλκαλ καὶ Δαρδα υἱοὺς Μαλ

31 For he was wiser than all other men, wiser than Ethan the Ez’rahite, and
Heman, Calcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol; and his fame was in all the nations
round about. (RSV)


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 31: 10 - SOURCE MATERIALS REFERENCED IN DEISSMANN'S BIBLE STUDIES
========================================================================

Source Materials Referenced in Deissmann’sBible Studies

Acts 14:27 (Codex Bezae, D)

27 Παραγενόμενοι δὲ καὶ συνάξαντες τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἀνήγγειλαν
ὅσαὁΘεὸςἐποίησεναὐτοῖς μετὰ τῶν ψυχῶν αὐτῶνκαὶ ὅτι ἤνυξεν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν θύραν
πίστεως.

27 27 And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they
rehearsed all things that God had done for them with their souls, and that he
had opened a door of faith unto the Gentiles.

Luke 5:11 (Codex Bezae, D)

11 οἱ δὲ ἀκούσαντες πάντα κατέλειψαν ἐπὶ τῆςγῆςκαὶἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ.

11 When they heard they let everything on the land and they followed him Clement
of Romt, 2Cor. 5:1

1 Ὅθεν, ἀδελφοί, καταλείψαντες τὴν παροικίαν τοῦ κόσμου τούτου ποιησωμεν τὸ
θέλημα τοῦ καλέσαντος ἡμᾶς, καὶ μὴ φοβηθῶμεν ἐξελθεῖν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου.

1 Wherefore, brethren, let us forsake our sojourn in this world and do the will
of Him that called us, and let us not be afraid to depart out of this world.

Clement of Rome, 2 Corinthians 10:1

1 Ὥστε, ἀδελφοί μου, ποιήσωμεν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ καλέσαντος ἡμᾶς, ἵνα
ζήσωμεν, καὶ διώξωμεν μᾶλλον τὴν ἀρετήν, τὴν δὲ κακίαν καταλείψωμεν ὡς
προοδοιπόρον τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν, καὶ φύγωμεν τὴν ἀσέβειαν, μὴ ἡμᾶς καταλάβῃ κακά.

1 Wherefore, my brethren, let us do the will of the Father which called us, that
we may live; and let us the rather pursue virtue, but forsake vice as the
forerunner of our sins, and let us flee from ungodliness, lest evils overtake
us.

Shepherd of Hermas, Similtudes 8

3:5 λέγω αὐτῷ· Κύριε, διατί οὓς μὲν ἀπέλυσεν εἰς τὸν πύργον, οὓς δὲ σοὶ
κατέλειψεν; Ὅσοι, φησί, παρέβησαν τὸν νόμον, ὃν ἔλαβον παρ’ αὐτοῦ, εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν
ἐξουσίαν κατέλιπεν αὐτοὺς εἰς μετάνοιαν· ὅσοι δὲ ἤδη εὐηρέστησαν τῷ νόμῳ καὶ
τετηρήκασιν αὐτόν, ὑπὸ τὴν ἰδίαν ἐξουσίαν ἔχει αὐτούς.

3:5 I say unto him; "Sir, wherefore did he send away some into the tower, and
leave others for thee?" "As many," saith he, "as transgressed the law which they
received from him, these he left under my authority for repentance; but as many
as already satisfied the law and have observed it, these he has under his own
authority.”

Didache 13

3 πᾶσαν οὖν ἀπαρχὴν γεννημάτων ληνοῦ καὶ ἅλωνος, βοῶν τε καὶ προβάτων λαβὼν
δώσεις τὴν ἀπαρχὴν τοῖς προφήταις· αὐτοὶ γάρ εἰσιν οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς ὑμῶν.

3 Therefore thou shalt take the firstfruit of the produce of the winepress and
of the threshing-floor and of oxen and sheep, and shalt give them as the
firstfruits to the prophets, for they are your high priests.

Clement of Rome, 1 Corinthians

65:1 Τοὺς δὲ ἀπεσταλμένους ἀφ’ ἡμῶν Κλαύδιον Ἔφηβον καὶ Οὐαλέριον Βίτωνα σὺν καὶ
Φορτουνάτῳ ἐν εἰρήνῃ μετὰ χαρᾶς ἐν τάχει ἀναπέμψατε πρὸς ἡμᾶς, ὅπως θᾶττον τὴν
εὐκταίαν καὶ ἐπιποθητην ἡμῖν εἰρήνην καὶ ὁμόνοιαν ἀπαγγέλωσιν, εἰς τὸ τάχιον καὶ
ἡμᾶς χαρῆναι περὶ τῆς εὐσταθείας ὑμῶν.

65:1 Now send ye back speedily unto us our messengers Claudius Ephebus and
Valerius Bito, together with Fortunatus also, in peace and with joy, to the end
that they may the more quickly report the peace and concord which is prayed for
and earnestly desired by us, that we also may the more speedily rejoice over
your good order.

Clement of Rome, 1 Corinthians

23:2 διὸ μὴ διψυχῶμεν, μηδὲ ἰνδαλλέσθω ἡ ψυχὴ ἡμῶν ἐπί ταῖς ὑπερβαλλούσαις καὶ
ἐνδόξοις δωρεαῖς αὐτοῦ.

23:2 Therefore let us not be double-minded, neither let our soul indulge in idle
humors respecting His exceeding and glorious gifts.

Clement of Rome, 1 Corinthians

56:1 Καὶ ἡμεῖς οὖν ἐντύχωμεν περὶ τῶν ἔν τινι παραπτώματι ὑπαρχόντων, ὅπως δοθῇ
αὐτοῖς ἐπιείκεια καὶ ταπεινοφροσύνη εἰς τὸ εἶξαι αὐτοὺς μὴ ἡμῖν ἀλλὰ τῷ θελήματι
τοῦ θεοῦ· οὕτως γὰρ ἔσται αὐτοῖς ἔγκαρπος καὶ τελεία ἡ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν καὶ τοὺς
ἁγίους μετ’ οἰκτιρμῶν μνεία.

56:1 Therefore let us also make intercession for them that are in any
transgression, that forbearance and humility may be given them, to the end that
they may yield not unto us, but unto the will of God. For so shall the
compassionate remembrance of them with God and the saints be fruitful unto them,
and perfect.

Clement of Rome, 1 Corinthians

34:1 Ὁ ἀγαθὸς ἐργάτης μετὰ παρρησίας λαμβάνει τὸν ἄρτον τοῦ ἔργου αὐτοῦ, ὁ
νωθρὸς καὶ παρειμένος οὐκ ἀντοφθαλμεῖ τῷ ἐργοπαρέκτῃ αὐτοῦ.

34:1 The good workman receiveth the bread of his work with boldness, but the
slothful and careless dareth not look his employer in the face.

Clement of Rome, 1 Corinthians

10:1 Ἀβραάμ, ὁ φίλος προσαγορευθείς, πιστὸς εὑρέθη ἐν τῷ αὐτὸν ὑπήκοον γενέσθαι
τοῖς ῥήμασιν τοῦ θεοῦ.

10:1 Abraham, called "the friend," was found faithful, inasmuch as he obeyed the
words of God.

Clement of Rome, 1 Corinthians

17:2 ἐμαρτυρήθη μεγάλως Ἀβραὰμ καί φίλος προσηγορεύθη τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ λέγει
ἀτενίζων εἰς τὴν δόξαν τοῦ θεοῦ ταπεινοφρονῶν· Ἐγὼ δέ εἰμι γῆ καὶ σποδός.

17:2 Abraham was specially honoured, and was called the friend of God; yet he,
earnestly regarding the glory of God, humbly declared, "I am but dust and
ashes."

Clement of Rome, 1 Corinthians

23:2 διὸ μὴ διψυχῶμεν, μηδὲ ἰνδαλλέσθω ἡ ψυχὴ ἡμῶν ἐπί ταῖς ὑπερβαλλούσαις καὶ
ἐνδόξοις δωρεαῖς αὐτοῦ.

23:2 So let us not be double-minded; neither let our soul be lifted up on
account of His exceedingly great and glorious gifts.

Decree of Stratonicea (English Translation)

. . . Whereas Tabae joined in the war against the generals and the forces of
King Mithradates and opposed them most courageously on behalf of Asia and of
Greece, it is the pleasure of the Senate and the Roman people that all the
highest privileges shall be accorded them now and for the future; that now and
for the future they shall keep in memory their alliance with the Senate and the
Roman people; that whatever privileges thw dictator Lucius Cornelius Sulla with
the advice of his advisory council, granted to them because of their valor and
honor shall be confirmed, namely, that they shall enjoy these privileges on the
same footing as their own laws and institutions and that, if they are so minded,
they shall fortify the stronghold Thyessus, which lies within their own
boundaries; that the Senate and the Roman people shall accord these privileges
to them in a manner that is honorable, fitting, and worthy of them; that
extraordinary audience shall be granted by the magistrates to envoys from Tabae
who hereafter come to Rome . . .

Blass Blass, Grammar, p. 127, note. “1. ἔναντι occurs in inscriptions in
translations of Roman senatus consulta, Viereck Sermo graecus Senat. Rom. (Gtg.
1888) p. 16, 66.”

Blass Blass, Grammar, p. 68. “In the older language it frequently happens that
in compound words of this kind the verb is given the first place (φερέοικος,
δηξίθυθυμος), in the later language this does not often occur ; on compounds in
ἀρχι- vide supra 3: ἐθελοθρησκία (-εια B, cp. 5) Colossians 2:23 based on
ἐθελόθρησκος (from θρησκός) which is not found, cp. ἐθελοδιδάσκαλος Hernias,
ἐθελοδουλ(ε)ία Plato, ἐθέλεθρος; Demosth., ἐθελοκακεῖν Hdt., (ἐθελο- expressing
spontaneity) : φιλόθεος, φιλάγαθος and φίλαυτος (Aristot.), (φιλόπρωτος late
language, and) (φιλοπρωτεύω 3 Jo. 9 (no forms with μισο- appear in N.T.).”

Blass Blass, Grammar, p. 68. φρεναπάτης “2. I.e. one who deceives his own mind =
‘conceited’; the word also occurs on a papyrus of the 2nd cent. B.c. (in
rhetorical and artificial prose, Grenfell ‘An Alexandrian erotic fragment,’ Oxf.
1896, p. 3). ”


========================================================================
Source: https://sermonindex.net/books/deissmann-a-bible-studies/
========================================================================