THE HEBREW NEW TESTAMENT OF THE BRITISH AND FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY A CONTRIBUTION TO HEBREW PHILOLOGY BY PROF. FRANZ DELITZSCH. BS\8 .D35 SSi i "■ THE &mM^ HEBREW NEW TESTAMENT OF THE BRITISH AND FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY. A CONTRIBUTION TO HEBREW PHHOLOGY BY PROF. FRANZ DEUTZSCH. LEIPZIG. DORFFLING & FRANKE. 1883. ly Printed by Ackermann and Glaser. Leipzig. PREFACE. Some one will ask me, why have you written this in English. In truth, 1 myself do not know. I did so without premeditation, driven instinctively by the gra- titude which I owe to the English publishers and patrons of my HebreAv New Testament. And should one ask, what is the aim of these pages, I answer: firstly, they will atford a glimpse into the work, of which the Hebrew N. T. is the fruit. Secondly, they show what instructive results have proceeded there- from for Hebrew^ grammar, especially syntax. Leipzig, May 188:^. Fr. D. In a forgotten book, entitled Wissenschaft , Kunst, Juden- thum, I issued in the year 1838 St. Paul's hymn on love 1 Cor. Xm, ti'anslated into Hebrew, as a specimen of a new Hebrew \ersion of the New Testament. After laborious and expensive prepa- i-ations. which were aided chiefly by the Bavarian and Norwegian brethren, I published in 1870 as a larger specimen of the work the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans. Many years I sought for a publisher of the whole, who would take upon himself the expense of publishing and provide for its circulation. At last the British and Foreign Bible Society lent me its helpful hand, and having obtained such a powerful and generous protection, the new translation w^ent through the press and forthwith enjoyed God's wonderful blessing. It was completed in the spring of 1877. The text, followed there, is substantially that of the Sinaitic codex, mth the principal varia- tions of the Textus Eeceptus in brackets. But I soon felt, that a text formed by myself alone could not be exempt from individual arbitra- riness, and that it was more natural to base the translation on the Eeceptus and to supplement it with critical remarks. After half a year a second edition became necessary, which I based on these prin- ciples; it bears the date of 1878. Only two years later, in 1880, a third edition appeared, in a larger form. Even the copies of this tliird were quickly exhausted, and already in October of the same year I prepared at Berlin with my never to be forgotten friend, the late Rev. Palmer Da vies, a fourth electi'otyped edition. The text had now to be definitively settled and the work demanded redoul)led care. I revised it a third time and was successfully aided by the — 6 — Eev. S. K. Driver, now Pusey's successor as Professor of Hebrew at Oxford. Each of these editions represents, as I liope, a new degi-eo of approximation to the ideal . wliicli even in the fourth electrotyped edition of 1882 is still not attained. Therefore I was agi'eeably surprised, when Mr. James Watt, the successor of the late Davies, informed me, that the 5000 copies of the fourth edition were sold without any remaining. In truth , God has abundantly blessed our work. Far from i)riding- myself. I acknowledge on the conti*ary the merits of my fellow- labourers, among Avhom are also not a small number of Jewish friends. We have cause to say. that our neA\- translation has contributed someA\hat to bring the New Testament nearer to the Jews as a prominent work of their literature. In a letter to D'^ Eahmer at Magdeburg I declared the Noav Testament to bo the highest Avork that the Jewish genius has ])roduced. He remarKs in his Liter aiurhlatt (1879 Xo 9). that this statement is relatively true, and D^' Immanuel Deutsch in his re^•ipw there OAms. that form and matter, contents and dress, are productions of the HebroAv s]urit and of Hebrew intuition. In the revision of the text for the fifth edition I thought myself at first resti'icted to slight emendations in the plates, but Avlien I was in Berlin and Messrs. Watt and Shaep heard that I should like to make some more material corrections, they proposed it to the Com- mittee and Eev. W"" Weight wrote me. March 6. : ..The Committeo are much pleased to hear of the pains you are taking to make th(^ fifth edition as perfect as possible, and they very cordially sanction any necessary outlay in the completion of the plates". Consequently the fifth edition is revised more than sui)erficially. I pass over in silence all the coiTections concerning unavoidable typographical faults, as disfigurement of letters or defects as to vowels and signs, and I give only an account of the grammatical and stilistic emendations, by which, as I hope, this edition differs advan- tageously from the fonner. Matth. IX. 21 ^?"!p? ^"J^^ ^'^. for she said witJmi herself. Changed to fnaba n^iax "^s. because s->pn ^?3^t is without supi)ort in the bilHical H(>brcAv. I mav hero remark once for all. that in — 7 — every verse of my Hebrew N. T. the accentuation has been care- fully considered: the ^ini or ns'n is ever^iA^here the consequence of the regular accentuation, which requires here nnba, for it ought to be accentuated nsbs nnrx "^2. Other examples: Matth. Yll. 8 for every one that asketh receiveth, and he that seeketh findeth, in our Hebrew text., the accents being added: x^^^-; tny^r^^ bip') bit'^an-^s 1 1.2. Hence deliberately -bs, not -ba is written. Matth. XXVI. 26 "'E^i^ 6<*in nt this is my body, not ^pM^. for it ought to be accentuated n^r: nt, comp. Koh. I. 17. 1 Clu-. XXTI. 1. AYhoever is not acquainted with the laAvs of accentuology . is unable to insert or omit the Dagesh correctly. Such a one will hesitate at xb? ^'■ri<'} 2 Cor. XI. 14, not knoAving, that these two words as the first half of the verse must be accentuated xbs i3pxi. Matth. XI. 5. nn n^'^tJ'^^ -^nirn^ n^^:^^ and the poor have the gospel preached to them. I have corrected ^'y^'^ryq (as in the translation nf Luk. YII. 22). because the biblical Hebrew employs not the Pual l)ut the Hithpa'cl in this passive sense of sua^YS- XtCsaOat. see 2 Sam. XVm. 31. Miitth. XI. 7 "iSinb bnn T\W nr-.b ^Dbn man as they departed Jesus began to say. I thought for some time to prefer Tnii la'ib ^'![t'^ bnn ^iDbn 1^5*3. But the snitactic scheme of tem- poral coincidence like 1 Sam. IX. 11. 1 Kings XIY. 17 al. is here in the right place, for as soon as the messengers of John went away Jesus began to vindicate before the people the honour of the Baptist. Together with the s\Tichronistic constiiiction I retained also the ethic dative nnb as in 1 Sam. XXYI. 1 2. although the biblical Hebrew likes better ib T]bn (in French: il s'en est alle). Instances of the plural of the ethic dative of the 3. pers. are Ps. LXYI. 7. LXXX. 7, but not Job TL. 19 (Mtiller- Kobertson's Hebrew Syntax § 51, 3); there ^•ch is in my opinion dative of the object, referring to D'lbna. Matth. XI. 18 ^T? ^^"1^^ he has a devil. I have prefeiTed la "i\r a devil (demon) is in him, for t;*^ makes the impression of an emphasis, which is foreign to the original. Matth. XVI. 24 TSn^Q^ "^^^ if any man will. The revised text has ^3 ;r^j< like Lev. XXATI. 2. It sounds more biblical. Matth. XVII. 5 "^^i<^^ The reader will refer that to God: and he said like Ezek. II. 1. But the meaning is that the heavenly voice said. Therefore noAv is written ^-ck. At the same time I have remodelled the following verse. Matth. X\Tr. 6 ^^^DD D^I.^'Jibnn ukl r^brpi And when the dis- ciples heard if, they fell . . This constniction follows the pattern of the Chronicler 2 Chr. XY. 8. But the stress lies there upon "inr^i , here upon iTreoov ; I have therefore prefen-ed the more classical construction ^ibs'^i t3"'n'^?3^nn rbirs ■'n'li. Con- sequently the expression of the object by nxT or nxt nx could be dispensed with just as in the original text, i Matth. X\TI. 11 in, rather ^Uri, which more clearly hints that it must be explained: Elias shall first come. Indeed )'n corre- sponds better to the Greek [jlsv, but it is of more impoiiance that by nsn the following xn is better characterised as participle according to the ip/sxat of the original text. Matth. XVn. 20 t:P5l2b5n i^b 12?^ The Elzevirian text has Sta xrjv airtaiiav u|x«)V because of your unbelief The Hebrew of the 4*^ edition, taken from Num. XX. 12, will be understood historically: because you have not believed. Therefore I have substituted fi"'a'i:aK^ 05^2* "^^.^ ^?.5?- Matth. XX. 6 n:?T5 n-}i^3? t^m^ about the eleventh hour. The expression coiTesponds to tliat used in the computation of years Ezek. XXX. 20. XXVI. 1. Jer. XXXIX. 2, and months Deut. I. 3; nw or ;jjnn in this case is accusative of determination, see Miiller- Eobertson's Hebrew Syntax § 100 comj). 44. But in statements of the. hours the construction si^ia?) nriN: ns^iaa Jer. LII. 29. Est. ni. 7 seemed in v. 6 as Avell as in v. I) preferable. After 1) Prof. Driver wrote me: ,,I Hnd ver}- few instances (Josh. XXII. 24. .Jer. IX. 11. Ps. XCn. 7) of n^rnx after ^^^ etc.. indeed none at all in a large part of the liistorical books : where there is not some distinct empha- sis on the tautcz etc., might HK perhaps be omitted? or even sometimes Pi6tt" r&< altogether?" Tlie passage remodelled above is of tliis latter sort. — 9 — the style of the Mishiw must be said ni2)\a n^ito:^ mnxa, for there nisJd "^nba signifies at two o'clock, niria \ribira or simply \2Jib1a3 at three o'clock, Sanhedrin V. 3. Berachoth 4^; Ti3pn-b3 /^e whole fifth hou?% ^^ nVnn the beginning of the sixth, Pesachim I. 4: r^^i'm riiTsm half past eight, Pesachim V. 1. Matth. XX. 10 '^'^T'^ they supposed. I have added d^ssa as more conformable to the narrative. In the speech XXIV. 44 n^a^ ,to imagine' needs no addition. Matth. XX. 34 ^^"^ Di^tiS^ and immediately their eyes received sight. That ^ixn does not express exactly the force of the Greek avEpXe^av : our revised text substitutes nix^b on^i^:^; ^i^nri dxnBi. Matth. XXI. 1 tD'^mn 'in'b^ unto ike mount of Olives. The Elze\irian text shows irpo? (not si?) ; I have now expressed it by b^N, yet without changing Mark. XI. 1. Luk. XIX. 29. where b? stands still unaltered. The preposition b:JX does not exclude the site of the village on the slope of the mountain. Matth. XXIY. 43 5^"!: t'^T'^'^ ^M ^t^. "^^1 ni5T-n&51 hut know this, that if . . had known. The biblical usage exhibits T^b 'S^ Job V. 27., but not tah iSJ^i (comp. above on Matth. XI. 7). For this reason I have chosen to \mte S'Ti-ib ^'m iia^^an n&tf nxi - T • T without the inf. intensivus, for the Greek text has simple £i fjS&i. Matth. XX^TI. 46 '^H'?? ^H^^. Changed into ^"b^ -^h^, because tJXi •qkl of the Receptus is here as well authenticated as IXtoi eXoi'i of the same Mark. XV. 34. Matth. XX\TI. 51 nbl^lQia from the top. The biblical idiom knows only b?53ri above and nbsJ^bia from above. Thus I have coiTected. Mark. VII. 3 ?l"l?^? fvith the fist. I have removed this ti-anslation of the Erasmian and Elzevirian reading TioYfA'fl.^ because it is 1) Erasmus iii his editions has m the Greek text rio-(\i.-q, in the Latin version C7'ebro like the Vulgate (after the reading tt'j/vcz), whence Tyn- dale ofte?i, Luther manchmal. Westcott and Hort acknowledge TCu-j-jj-r] as the origmal reading, which, owing to its obscurity, has been variously altered and translated. — 10 — incompatible witli tlie Jewisli rite of wasliing the liands. I thought for a moment, that TruYfi'^ might correspond to the rabbinical nba isa {ChulUn lOT'^j, which excludes the use of aqueduct-water and requires the application of manly streng-th. But at last it seemed to me more probable, that the CJreek writer of the gospel had in mind p'nQri"'!? as far as the wrist, a phrase common in the statutes of hand-Avashing. If that expresses the true sense, tzm-^^ji indicates the Avhole hand fi'om the fingers" end to the lower end of the fore-arm.^ The text, thus translated, accords with the law. while the former translation ?pi\sn was senseless and offensive. Mark. VII. 4 riico^l and of couches. Statutes, concerning the wash- ing of beds (xXivwv), are unknown. I ha^'e now put this inii:?3i into round brackets, which indicate what the Kevised English Version says in the margin: * ,,Many ancient authorities add and couches''. The addition is wanting in the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Mark. XH. 38 Q^ibT^-njjJ'] and salutations. Here after the Makkeph n'bx^ (comp. nia-isi Eccl. II. 6) or niVxia (comp. the foniis Job VI. 8. Ps. (Nl. 15) in the 4*^^ edition had fallen out, it is now inserted in conformity with Matth. XXIII. 7. Lulr. XI. 43. Mark. XIII. 12 and children shall rise up Dtiili^'b^. I have now preferred dninfct? conformably to the fundamental passage Micah Vn. 6 compare Sota IX. 15. Luk. X, 28 '^V^^. and thou shall live. This form with Segol in pausa is received by Baor Prov. IV. 4. VII. 2.. l)ut most 1) The terminus ad quern wliich is deliued by p"iS!i "IS? of the Mischna Jadajim 11. 3 is already controverted in the Gemara. Mauuonides in Hilchoth Bej^achoth VI. § 4 repeats the fomiiila without explanation. There are interpreters, who imderstand T^n qab ni5'S:i£Kn linn Dipa, that is, the place where the fingers are joined to the middle hand (meta- r-arpus). But after the predomhiant interpretation of Alfasi and others pnsn 13) signifies 3)"i-iTn-D55 fTisian Dipia l^n P]1D that is, the end of the hand (carpus), Avhere it is joined with the ami. A third definition as a comment on Mark's Ttu-cjiTr] is given by Theophylact and Euthjuiius ii.3yf>t Tou aj/swoc, as far the elbow. But in the law of the profane, not priestly hand-washing this terminus remains out of consideration. " 11 — readers would tliiiik it a iiiis])riiit. tliorefore I have written 'Tr'.'} ^vitli Zere like (;en. XX. 7. John VIII. 53 'n''22f?"ni5 i^r? "^^b whom makest Ihou thyselp I have now preferred -?3iJS>-rx nirspi-na as more intelligible. The former rendering followed the constiiietion Is. XIjII. (j. Comp. Jalkut Ezek. XXMII. 2 where it is said to the king of Tji-e: mbx -;«:£» nu:i3> nnx. Act. 11. 15 Di^^ n'lp'^bT^ n:jT? -^3 U is the third hour of the day. I have preferred D-i^a as more according to Ps. XC. 4'' and to the usage of the Mishna e. gr. Tiinna d^3T^ the second of the month, Sanhedrin Y. 3. nairs "I^^< the first day of the week, Taanith 27^. Act. l\. 17 0^5 pS'^.l nn^in nan^-ii'b '^rab that it spread no further among the people. I have h-ansposed ')^Hb']1 nr2. so that no one shonld think of the phrase 3 ^"iB .to break into' or ,to lu'ge". Act. Vn. 58 Dn^^lJa-niJ rj^tJBn Md down their clothes. I have preferred the Kal ^::ds as more exactly the idiom of the; Bible and Mishna 1 Sam. XIX. 24. Ezek. XLW. 19. Joma ni. 4. 6 and throughout; nia'^UJS signifies sti'ipping off oneself; nt5t;Bn in. actionis of the Hiphil) stripping off another. Act. Vm. 18 l^l^ was given, in the Greek 5i5oxai. I have changed the participle into the 3. prefer. ]jn3. Act. IX. 38 On'^bi^ nh5^b to come to them. After b^rn the nega- tive "izi;^? seemed more significant. But the alteration is of questionable merit, and there was no need to depart fi'om the tn)e Judg. xvm. 9. Act. XIV. 2 ta'^Hi^n ^y: against the brethren. After o^r^n without doul)t the preposition b:? is better and quite intelligible. In the postbiblical literature V? &3)3 is frequent for ,to be angry at one', e. gr. Ahoda zara 54^. Act. XXI. 24 (23) "I"!? 0^^ ^"i^J nm which have a vow on them. This dn^ is the worst dati^^is ethicus wliich I had ad- mitted; for everywhere h after ^^3 denotes the person to ^\ilom — 12 — one makes the vow. The correct rendering, which indeed corre- sponds more closely to the Greek text, is ur^'^'b^ ^Ti) *^tvi (Num. XXX. 7. Ps. LA^. 13). Rom. V. 1 ^5j?'ni:n 'I'lrib^ being justified. Instead of the Hophal, which is not biblical,, I have put sisp"!):?? after Dan. Vm. 14. Rom. Vn. 5 nninn ^T'""^^. ^"iT'^^i? "^M n>Mch ivere stirred up through the law. The Nithpael is unnecessary, i*i'nwnn signifies the same (Job XVII. 8). Rom. Vni. 20 ?^f^^ T^!?3 l?''?^ by reason of him who has sub- jected it. I have prefixed the article to the participle, which does not need it, when a determination follows (Ps. LYIE. 3, Am. rX. 12. Cant. VII. 5), but, followed by nnit as well as by dn^ Ezek. XXI. 19 the article can scarcely be omitted and the construct state is in tliis case inadmissible; "ir'x "^ntl^^ J^i'- XXXTTT. 22 is a unique anomaly (Miiller- Robertson, Hebrew Syntax § 73). Rom. XI, 6 f^^^"?? ^'i'^'7'? ^"^l^" •^^?^'^ work is no more work. A similar case is Act. IX. 38. The change m'^ra after 1 Kings XV. 21 was not necessary, but it agrees better with the later style (see the article b^n in Kimchi's Lexicon) and with the aramaic type (■'ina^Ta pDB Trg. Gen. XVm. 11 Targ.). 2 Cor. vn. 11 ^1*^3 in this matter. I have added Ninn. On the contrary I could not decide to change ^^^isi Matth. Vm, 16 into ii^'ns, because the meaning of Xoy(i) is „only by virtue of a word", comp. Is. XXIX. 21. 2 Cor. vn. 12 S^^'^P) might appear. Changed into nban in con- gruity Avith cpav£pa)&-^vai. 2 Cor. VII. 15 DDb ^)2n nni^ l^y n'Ti^ and his inward affection is more abundant toward you. I tliink: nnrn^ 03^ vaT\ Tira is much better. 2 Cor. vm. 3 Dnb'b:? nini'i'l and beyond their power. ^rf^\ Dr's^ says the same more plainly. 2 Cor. Vni. 22 ns-in D-i^rs oftentimes. The biblical Hebrew says always nia^ d'i^sjb. now presented by the revised text. ~ 13 — rtal. I. 14 ''t^'i^i< ^"^^^P^ of the traditions of mij fathers. Ha- ving long disliked the form nibai?, I have now acknowledged it as alone regular, just as ni530 (dangers) 2 Cor. XI. 2G. Gal. V. 1 Ti^j?2nb he entangled. I have now preferred ^ri^irib. as reminding of tpyn snare, although the one fonn is as fi-ee from objection as the other, comp. Deut. XII. 30 with Xll. 25. Eph. I. 20 il^i< ^TCi'^^ D^™n-^13 i'l^S^na when he raised him from the dead and set him . . I reg-ard now -yq in&< 'n^s'na ^•a^iri^i D'ln^n as better and nearer the Greek. Eph. I. 22 iSlnD bbn-b:? tjs^h n©i5 nsi and has given him who is head over all things. I have inserted x^n after "i^it rx\ The English Version (unaltered by the revisers) follows an- other manner of construction : and gave him to be head etc. Eph. m. 10 n^?'^^ t^^^ti12n D^Jibijl n^Dn the manifold (ttoXu- iroixiXo?) wisdom of God. The fomi rxbs^ is analogous to nx^B? Deut. XXX. 11, but less doubtful , as to the Hiphil , is the form nx^ibs^an. Eph. m. 17 D'^tJlTiJ^ rooted. The biblical Hebrew uses in the sense of taking root the Poel Is. XL. 24 and in the sense of being rooted the Poal Jer. XII. 2., I have therefore substituted Eph. V. 33 ^'I'^b "in-7n let her see that she fear . . The infini- tive of itt}7is hH"] Josh. XXn. 25, mostly nK"]"], with h once x^b 1 Sam. XVm. 29., elsewhere always n5t"i^b, but exclusivelv in reference to God. Consequently nxi'^b was inapplicable, N'nb would be too affected, xHib is without precedent, I escaped all difficulty by Aviiting i<'^pT}^ "injr. Phil. n. 15 T»)?? "li'^n tjiris in the midst of a crooked . . nation, li'nn instead of li'^ (without article) was a misprint. Phil. n. 21 l^to'1^'^ they seek. I have given up the emphatic form Is. LVIII. 2 and reestablished the regular form of the pause Jiizin^'i (jidrosu), which needs no sti-engthening. 1 Tliess. n. 2 '12''32? we had suffered. The 1. pers. sing, is in^ssJ Ps. CXIX. 71. Hence ^s'^ss? seemed to be preferable, perhaps — 14 — Avitliout sufficient gruiind. because the Cliirek is protected bj ^rs2> Is. LVIII. 3., see Bottcher.. Lehrhuch der Hehr. Spra- che n pag. 410. 1 Tim. VI. 20 ipJl 5?'n/2ri ini'^SSn oppositions of science falsely so called. I have now ^^Titten wsBn adj. relat. fi'om "Bn inversion. The old S\Tiac version has here ji^asoi, the plural of l^ascn. 2 Tim. I. 3 ^IliJD ''^'^''3 auo irpoYovcDV. Changed into "^niax of my forefathers , for irpoYovoi means ancestors in the spe- cial sense of kindred. Hebr. IV. 13 ^3^")n'7 b?n-^D^5?b. The meaning of the words Trpo? ov T^jxtv 6 XoYo;, which I have rendered by la'^^n'i b:>a, is questionable'; my interpretation agi'ees with the English ver- sion, Avhich runs here thus: unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. d^nn"i bs)^ Ex. XXIV. 1 3 is the name of him who has a judicial matter to do with another. I suppose that the author had this phrase in mind. But I have supidied it with the sufhx in an unjustifiable manner. The D"i"iai are not ours, but of our counterpart. He is our di"im ^3)2, the suffix belongs to the whole notion, therefore ^3^'im brs needed correction. The 5*^^ edition offers ^5^^ D^^n^ b?5, just as in the Talmud Mezia 14*: ^n^n o^^nn^ b^^n; Kethuboth 81^': nx ^"n^n d^i^n^i nb3>3, comp. Kamma W\ Hebr. IX. 28 Jnifi<\u is onlv in n«bb the usual form; without h we read n&<\y, n^^\a^, rmro. 1) The Hebrew N. T. of the London Society has "i^^^n ^3> T^Vx na.s. Tliat is literal, but suggests a false idea, as appears by comparison ol' 1 Kmgs H. 14. 2 Kings IX. 5. Judg. IH. 20. The best interpretation. Avliich is as much justified by the context as by the Greek use of hmg-uage (see Cremer's WOrterhuch der neutest. Griicitdt pag. 502), is Cahin's: qui nohiscum agit vel cutn quo nobis est ncgotium, accepted by Joseph B. M'Caul (ui his Commentary 1871): „with whom Ave have to do". XoYo; in this plirase signifies a judicial relation, having two sides: the meaning is that God is our judge and that Ave are responsible to him. Therefore I have rendered it by a forensic phi-ase of classical Hebrew. — 15 — 1 Petr. I. 1 3 ^^)5 Kipl and hope perfectly ( xeXstu)?). I am now informed, that the in/in. intensivus, when combined with an imperative, always follows it, therefore n>p si^ipi, differently from Ps. XL. 2. see Geseniiis-Kautzsch § 131, 3^. 1 Petr. lY. 15 "rfSTO D|tt t^^ ri35?^-b« ^S ^w^ let none of you suffer as a murderer. The particles bit ^'2 arc scarcely to be found together, I have written -bi^ p^ like Ex. VTH. 25. Eevel. IX. 17 D?i''rii5*'i^Tp'l ^Tlj^ having breastplates. The ^ must be blotted out. Revel. XI. 18 ^S5ip ^;??/ wrath. I have preferred t^b^j^ according- to Ps. XXXVIII. 2. The Chirek arises in the pause by dissi- milation: r|Q^pi Ps. OIL 11. I liave already said that the correct use of tJ-a^ and nsi A\as not possible without thinking of the Hebrew text as throughout accented. Constant care has been bestowed also upon sba and ion. that is, plena or defectiva scriptio. The orthography of the text has been settled in such a manner that it may present an appear- ance similar to the text of the 0. T., wliich e. g. exhibits Q^i^n, D'i'asr, but always d'=;ib and Avith only one exception D^i-i. Instead of "i^x^ only tlu-ee times is written ^laxb. The active participle is more often written without l than Avith it e. g. always "i^^ . l^sb, nbi?, nnH and at least more fi'equently nnx, n^N, ba&t, ^x?:?; some- times howeA'er the wTiting varies indifferently as xs^, fitssii; n'^ain, n^ais; ^'^'sH^, u'^'S'iS^. The infinitive of Kal follows the same ortho- graphy: ^ibfit]? is never found, ^'i^ir scarcely, almost always ^jyq. Double 1 in the same word as niisina occurs sometimes, but predo- minantly the writing seeks to avoid it. so that e. g. nibi's? is found only twice. It is a rule to write nis», nixn (comp. 2 Cor. VIII. 1 4 niian^), and to writ^ either nibha or n'^na or even n'?4a, not r^ibi^ij. A serious error in the London ti-anslation was fi'^<7'^ip^\, fn'^s^nb, but 5l3'5'^^^1, sirsHxV. — 16 — xVs to the Ibnii insnTa his gift Koni. Y. 15. 1 Cor. YII. 7., I lia\"o queried till now, whether it has need of being altered into •inpn^ or not. At last, I have resolved to retain insFia. Certainly the analogy of i'rh^-q f^ri^i^p requires iPSFi'o, but along with the form fijnp a more aramaic foiiu nst^ip can be supposed, whence insn^. like T]n3t^p thy gifts Dan. V. 17. There were in the fourth edition ])ut few misprints in punc- tuation, these are now corrected. \iz. hSDni< Matth. IV. 9 instead of niariN; ^o'lj^b ib. XXn. 21 instead of "iG-^i^b: '^snV Luk. Tl. 45 instead of "^a^b; d^'^^i^pi Act. X. 46 instead of d'lb^:^!!; D^^n^n 1 Cor. XV. 12 instead of d^tn^an; ^^an^an 1 John IV. 3 instead of *i.*an^r|. Two oversights in the consonants are noted above, Phil. II. 15 and Revel. IX. 17. A gi-eat difficulty is occcasioned to the translator by the notion of doubting and its Greek expressions. The language of the Mishna offers pBD and pspp (Targ. pQpp) not of doubting persons i, but of dubious things. This adjective was applicable in rendering jjlyjSsv BiaxptvofjLsvo? James I. 6 by psd "^^^a, that is, indubitabig, yet the following 6 Yap Staxptvofxsvo? requires a verb which signifies the action of doubting, because pBppti would signify a man of dubious character, not a doubter. I have written psb ^^a a man who enter- tains doubts. In Matth. XXI. 21 ifge have faith and doubt not the ti'anslation fna pBO-'i'i&ii r\v\-i2^ DDb rr^nn-nit would mean: if T ' •• T ' •• : T •••: V T V : • nothing dubious is in it, that is, if your faith is genuine. Also !i5!iBn t<'bi is useless, because the opinion that the biblical oltzoX YSYpajAjilvov na^iBij Ps. LXXX"\TII. 16 signifies / am doubtful starts from the false supposition, that "pB is derived from the particle ']B. Therefore I have ventured to use here the Reflexive pBPipn as an equiA-alent of Biaxptveodai to doubt after the manner 1) The only passage of the old Hterature, where pBD has the sense of personal action, is Job XXXIV. 37 Trg. : ^JJ"^? P?9^' which seems to signify: he excites doubts, he shakes the faith by doubts. — 17 — of the later Hebrew*, the same verb, which Phil. IV. 11 renders after the Talmudic use the Greek auiapxTj? elvai to he satisfied. In two passages pSD was applicable, see Mark. XI. 23. Eom. XIV. 23; in four others, Eom. JY. 20. James 11. 4. Matth. XH^ 31. XXVIII. 17 I have applied Hosea's =3b phr\ their heart is divided (X. 2) and in two others the translation Avas easy, because there ^without doubt' is the same as tvithout tarrying Act. X. 20. XI. 12. By this it appears that it is mipracticable to ti'anslate a Greek word everywhere l)y the same Hebrew word. The one ;(api? tor example comprehends the significations of "ion (John I. 17), in (Luk. I. 30) and nS-'n thanks (Eom. VI. 17). • The equivalent of XstxoupYia in the sense of worship is rrihr e. g. Luk. I. 23 (different from r^i^tn??, the word for BouXeia); yet there are passages e. g. Hebr. VIII. 6 where it could not be used. There only nsi^izj was in place, the word that elsewhere e. g. 2 Cor. IX. 12 'expresses the Greek oiaxovia. Also this Btaxovia cannot be always translated by the same Avord. The Hebrew name of the deacon is ir^ad (Phil. I. 1 and 1 Tim.) , of the deaconess n^J^sir^ (Eom. X\T;. 1), the n. actionis t'r&t is employed Act. XII. 25 and even Yl. 4 Avhere nnu; seemed not so suitable. So although the word ^V'S is employed for xoo[jlo? in 1 John 11. 15, in 1 John II. 1 6. 1 7 it seemed liable to misinterpretation. The principle, that, when the context and meaning is similar, unifonnity ought to be carried tlu'ough, has been fi-om the first my standard. I fear however, that even in the fifth edition there still occurs some fluctuation in the rendering of certain words. Yet on the other 1) E. g. in § 2 of the iirst chapter of Jore Deah {Tur and Schulchan aruch): ^Jtl^l psntJ-a ini'^n nt nn"i h^ ,,in tliis case being uncertain I will ask", and in the code Mordechai where the recapitulation of Chiillin begins: ^nis'^ntti niDbn^ &inbi53 n^: inb ^^psrD^ D^a^n .,the learned men were in doubt about man}- things in the statutes of cattle slaughtering", comp. Samuel Hanagid in his T^^abrn x'^n-a on ''pT (the Tahnudic non liquet): r^':^^^ -m c^m ii-cbrn pSrD^'r pson '■^31. Maimonides is wont to say 'b psnD3 {HUchoth Schema H. 18) he was doubtful. The Hebrew of the middle age says not only of things, but also of persons: ^<^^ P^P^ he is doubting. 2 — 18 — side the critic must beware of rashness and pedantry. Sometimes where no reason for the varying- expression can be discovered, the translator may be guided by his exegetical or stylistic feeling, whicli asserts a claim to the acknowledgement of its relative right. In closing I may refer to several passages, the translation of wJiich has suggested weighty questions about Hebrew syntax. An opportunity is thereby afforded to make public some interesting l)ort-ions of Professor Driver's correspondence, containing the results of his critical examination of the earlier editions. Matth. n. 1 n^'iblOlli^ n-iT^S yim U^W^.y-Q 1i!>i ought to be AATitten. But Prof. S. R. Driver in our correspondence on the Hebrew^ N. T. has rightly observed : ..The schemes ti"; 'inx • • "^rrii and • • "^rr^i ^•cx 1111 (e. g. Gen. XXII. 1) occur frequently in the Old Testa- — 21 — nient, no less than nin *iax^i • • irjii, might they not be employed, especially tlie first, more often than is the case, for the sake of variety?^' I have made use of them in such passages, where the perfect after 'iMii, followed by consecutive imperfect, denotes a preparatory fact, ou which the following rests. But not too often, because this classical construction makes a strange appear- ance to Jewish readers. Luk. X. 33 1\yi^ ^^51 ''rintlb' tl-^Vi^ But a certain Samaritan as he Journeyed . . The first edition had rendered this r^i< 'iai ^nx ^sn-ar. This -x as equivalent of the Greek SI was awkward; I had not yet freed myself from the imidiomatic manner of the London version, which is sadly marred by the abundant use of the -x in place of 6s. ,,I much doubt — S. E. Driver wrote me — if -|x is in place here ? At least the earlier liistorical style would not have had recourse to it. Take all tlie passages in two or thi'ee books, given by Noldius. e. g. in the books of Genesis. Judges and Samuel: it is prefixed to single words as n3?sn -jx. pws ix, and it inti-oduces a limita- tion upon some preceding clause. It also occurs more frequently in speeches than in the nan-ative. but hardly any — not even 1 Sam. XXIX. 9. 2 Sam. II. 10 — seem quite parallel to its use here-. This is the fact. In the later editions these offensive -X are, I hope, all dropped out. — 22 Besides these passages of tlie synoptic Gospels the following' passages also have occasioned grammatical queries and researches, the result of which seems to be not unimportant. Indeed, if I should give all the passages and words which have been matter of inquiry and discussion, it would be difficult to come to an end. Many questions are not even yet quite satisfactorily solved. Matth. YH. 21. VHI. 2. 6 etc. xupie Lord! In the later Hebrew of liturgical prayer and poetry often "pnij without article or suffix is employed as vocative e. g. Nir? "p^x irb55 -^5S '^ix, but in the biblical Hebrew neither "(inst nor "ii^jt occurs in direct address, for )Tii< Jer. XXn. 18 is exclamation, not address. Therefore I was constrained to substitute either "^px or ^riSx (not 513 pN w^hich is to be found only once 1 Sam. XYL. 16). The later postexilic language says also without article )n^ "^^^iK bi^a Mylord liigh priest! Joma I. 3. D'^sns. D*>ib, b^niai 0 priests, o Levites, o Israelites! Megilla o^ Q-iTriiB. D-^pnii 0 Pharisees, o Sadducees! Jadajim IV. 7. Matth. XV. 9 (= Is. XXIX. 13^0 ''^^ O^ST- ^^^1 *"^ «^ ^««"^* do they worship me. The LXX read ^^^^^ instead of ^^T\\ And Avhat follows &'>"]^ba 6'itt33fi< T\^^,'q joins closely to the Targum which has y^tk-Q "p-nsa nn'^p^&ns like ordinances of teaching men. LXX and Targimi together bear here witness to a text different from the masoretic. I felt obliged to render the Hebrew text just as it lay before these ancient authorities. A similar case is Hebr. X. 5. In other places Avliere the Greek — 23 — version does not necessarily presuppose a different text, e. g. Kom. IX. 28 = Is. X. 23 and Hebr. X. 30 = Deut. XXXn. 35 I have retained our received Hebrew text. Of course, the decision could sometimes but be precarious. Luk. YI. 1 ["i^i^n t^T^ob milT]] r\^m. in the following editions I have removed these brackets, wliich indicated in the first, that the Sinaiticus (like the Vaticanus) has only sv oappaitt) without oei)T£poT:pa)X(|). The remark of the late Tischendorf: ut ah additamentl ratione allenum est, iia cur omiserint in promptu est seemes to me comincing. In the interpretation of this osoxspoTrptoito I agree with John Ligtlifoot, understanding the first sabbath after the second Easter-day, or, as can also be said, the second sabbath after the day of offering the l)ar]ey sheaf, which is the terminus a quo of the seven sabbaths (weeks) till Pentecost (Lev. XXIII. 15). consequently the second sabbath within "oysr\ nn^SG (the com- ])utation commencing from the Omer - offering). Instead ni^rn r^iirn the later editions have ^D%"n rn'trn. just as Luk. XXin. 54 nn^5tn nnu5m afterwards is changed into rian raurm. The name of the Sabbath is originally feminine, wlierefore liturgi- cally it is represented as the royal bride of Israel (comp. however Is. LVIII. 13). We have used it in the passages above mentioned as masculine conformably to Is. LVI. 2. 6 and bi"jan nnw. the name of the Sabbath before Easter. Concerning the Pentecost, the expression Act. II. 1 sv lo) oojxTrXTjpoua&at TTjV rj[jL£pav TTJ? TTEvxe/ooTYjc is very concise and not easily translatable. I believe, the translation ni2)s^^n anb d">tt^n ^xba^,i (ed. IV. V) shall be satisfactory. The revisers of the English version ha\o blotted out the word fully of the received text. But fully points back to complete Lev. XXni. 15. John IV. 31 ^^T'^^t) ini^ ^bii5ir the disciples prayed him. The verb bKUJ r»ccurs sometimes construed with the accusative of the thing begged for, but never Avith the accusative of the person, fi'om whom one prays something. b5£t tyJv xscpaXyjv TOO ocpeto; or only tov ocpiv. In otlier passages the expression. 1) The second means, as many think, attack by blo-wing. Indeed rn^ in the Palestinian dialect of the Aramaic language signifies ,to blow' e. g. Bereschith rabba c. II: i^t appears similarly concenti-ated on sith imit the one seed wlio shall arise from another place (Esth. IV. 14), that is, the king- Messiah, in the Midrasch Ruth sect. VII extr. and often. Gal. IV. 22 (hy the free woman) 26 (Jerusalem that is above is free). I have rendered sXsD&spa in both verses by fi^irsn. But it is tnie, as may fiiend at Wilna has objected, that n^yJsn denotes a woman which is set free (in Aramaic r'n^ntt:^. in Latin liherta), and that it is unsuitable so to name Sarah. For that reason "ii^-in-na (comp. Gal. III. 28. Hebr.) might be deemed preferable in Gal. IV. 22 sqq. 1 Thess. IV. 14 n^DTiJ^n-ni< D5 T^t-^, '^1';"^? D'^n'bi^n i^'^n; i? ini^ even so them also that are fallen asleep will God hy Jesus bring with him. Prof. John J. Given (Londonderry) thinks this passage mistranslated and sadly marred through wrong connexion. The English version, the authorized as well as the revised, translates: which sleep in Jesus. But the Greek text says 5ia xo5 'Irjoou, wliich belongs to ,he will brings, because sleep through Jesus is an unexampled ex- pression, 1 Tim. n, 5 one mediator between God and men. Here and Hebr. VEQ. 6 the employment of the rabbinical ^b^D = jxeat- XTj? could be dispensed with by imitating the circimilocution of Deut. V. 5. Ex. XVin. 19. The modern Hebrew ventures to say ra^TS and even T^|ina, but these copies of the occidental — 26 — mediator are as repudiable as fi'^.i'^ari f^a^ said of Goliath, who proceeds between the Pliilistiiies and Israel to decide the war by single combat 1 Sam. XVII. 4. 23. As to nb'np, it is a noble word. The Talmud itself (jer. Megilla JN, IJ says : n^bid ^Ti b3) nsn-'i mirn (the law is given by the hand of a mediator). I subjoin here a list of forms, which occur in the first edition, l)ut have disappeared in the following as gTammatically incorrect or objectionable. John XIX. 35 "^T^n ^^^ ^^s borne witness, changed into n'l'^rn (in. rV: T^^nj, comp. in'^uirj 1 Kings XIII. 20 and on the other liaud in^rnb C4en. XXXVII. 22 which is the pronunciation of the infinitive. — Acts XY. 14 (oinbs) r\is^, ^l'^?13 and only with grave suffix on'^a'ns — Act XXII. 9 ^:fy2^ (at the end of the verse) thetj heard. The pausal form is always ii5>iad — Eom. XHI. 1 sis^h? (last word of the verse) they are ordained. I have changed the Kamets into Pathach ; the fonn sianj Ez. XXVII. 19 (Kal with Dagesh affectuosum) is imconformable — 1 Cor. VI. 13 ons belhj. I have after- wards preferred i::^3 (with Sin after Jer. LI. 34) as wan-anted by the S}Tiac ^ajls — 1 Cor. XI. 28 fnn'^ let a man prove, better )ryy^_ Ps. XI. 5 like ^ins"^ — 2 Cor. XI. 21 r:?^ rrx he is bold, I am bold, wrong instead of t?;<, t2)fi< Hiphil of '?t^ — Eph. VI. 15 B'^bs^sp 133'^^?'^!' (^^d having shod your feet, erroneously for nibi^?^; the names of such organs as are double belong to the feminine nouns — 1 Tim. II. 9 nisVnaa with braided hair , altered into ttJxiri niB^rnaa after Judg. XVI. 13. 19; niB^n^ looks like a plural of p)bn?3 knife Ezr. I. 9 — 1 Pet. m. 22 ni^ianriT and authorities, bett4?r ri'T^>';'i from — 27 — n^idn with stable Dagesli, see Brief an die Romer (1870) pag. 94 sq. — 2 Pet. I. 4 DDaVana having escaped, misprint for Dsub^ans — Apoc. XIV. 15 r^yq thy sickle from baia like i\ipi3, ibp^ from b;?^. In spite of tliat. though uncertain, I have afterwards written ^bs^. The name of Tiberias John VI. 1. 23. XXI. 1 is written n^^"j (n^-iaii)), because n^^na is tlie Babylonian form, n^i'i^^ia the Palesti- nian; the final letter is sometimes &t sometimes n, but more often n (see Levy's Dictionaries) — The name of the town 'E(ppat{j, John XI. 54 could be transcribed fti':iS3? like Menachoth 83^. 85 ^ but •pns? according to 2 Chron. XIII. 1 9 seemed better as less exposed to misunderstanding ~ In place of "psinDBX sitiipoTroi Gal. IV. 2 I have AVTitten in the second and later editions ')'>dBi^DB&t , the one form is as unobjectionable as the other, both are used in the talmudic Language — I have left unaltered -ps-iy appapajva 2 Cor. I. 22 and in other passages; the fomi is the same as 'jifit'n^ Constr. "px"!^. ■■ii-m Constr. "ji^m — The plural nip'^na o)(to(xaxa 1 Cor. I. 10 did not need correction; mp^n^o signifies classes and m'p'bn^ (from tlie same singiilar np'bna) signifies litigations (schisms), see Tosefta (ed. Zuckennandel) pag. 321 lin. 1. I was not siisprised, when my sharp-sighted critic in Oxford after the perusal of the first edition imposed upon a translator higher 0I3- ligations than he found there fulfilled. ..Hebrew as we have it in 0. T. — thus he A\Tote me — being in certain points a more limited language than Greek, and only able sometimes to express with difficulty what Greek can do with ease and lightness, does it not seem to you, that to translate a phrase word for word results at times in a sentence, which sounds slightly heavy and unnatural? In a piece of historical narrative, or a speech, it seems to me that in such cases we should endeavour to translate the phrase as a whole, to frame a sentence idiomatically, which, though it may not in every detail correspond to the Greek, shall still , taken altogether, express accurately the w^hole idea Avhich the wTiter intends to convey. To translate S. Luke into Hebrew does not appear to me to be quite the same thing as to translate him into English or German; it is more like making an idiomatic translation of a piece of Plato or Thucydides. I notice you liave allowed yourself the l)ractice sometimes: might it be a little extended? I should of course not suggest it in the case of any technical or dogmatic term, where verbal exactness is evidently of ])rimary consequence. But would it not also often secure as a collateral advantage — not unimpoi-tant, even in the Acts — a style more resembling that of 0. T. . in being at once more compressed and more antique?" Briefly, my friend demands more liberty from the letter, more compliance towards the genius of Hebrew. I acknowledge the right ol" this plus ultra, but appeal at once to the ultra posse nemo — 29 - ohiigatur. Two instances may show what I mean. The sentence Matth. X. 10 Ihe workman is worthxj of his food is translated "in^n^ ^-1 bi;5n nit". Tliereto my reviser remarked: ,J do not criticize the exactness of the rendering, but would only ask whether Ibr such a ,^spruchartiger Satz" some equivalent more in the pointed style of the old b;a-a inight not he found without the use of such a word as rriia of the hook of Esther? The stress appears to lie in the general i)rinciple of human conduct appealed to by our Lord, rather than in the special word a$to?." Indeed that niir as not classical displeases me, but I do not know how to avoid it, for in^rp d;) brb-bsV would signify that each labourer receives his food, but not that ho is worthy to receive it. Similarly the rendering of the synoptic therefore ye shall receive the greater condem- nation (Matth. XXIII. 14. Mark. Xn. 40. Luk. XX. 47) by pb ^rv^T\ ^r.'^-'by ::3'i;i3 does not satisfy me, and revising the text of the fourth edition I ha^e pondered, whether that rendering might be improved in any way, yet having exhausted all possibilities I saw myself thrown back upon the translation hitherto given. If I had the choice between a classical, but too fi-ee version, and a less classi- cal, but more faithful one, I would give the preference to the latter, because it is much more important, to preserve the originality of the divine word than to level it in favour of a more genuine Hel)reAv shape. The spirit of the N. T. has created for itself its oA\n i)eculiar foriu of thinking and speaking, and the N. T. writers, especially St. Paul and St. John, have their o\vn style. I Avas anxious not to withhold from the Jewish readers the impression of these peculiarities, even where the form is stiff, monotonous and unpleasing, for in the Holy scripture as the earthly vessel of heavenly thoughts and directions all is as much human as divine. AVe are not permitted to make the human form of the N. T. more beautiful than it is. I know, in this point my friend agrees with me. And I willingly grant him that I may have sacrificed regula- rity or elegance to fidelity in several places where both could be united. I am tar fi-om presuming that I have realized the ideal. A true and satisfactory version of the N. T. is a thing of the — 30 — future, mid (Hil}' ^^i]l be produced, when the new Thorn of the Gospel has been received into its heart of hearts l)y tlie regenerated remnant of Israel, A friend of mine does not cease to entreat me to translate the New Testament into the Aramaic idiom whicli was spoken in Palestine in the days of Christ and his apostles, that is. into the language of the Palestinian Talmud and the Palestinian Targums. But his desire rests on an illusion. The Hebrew remained even after the exile the language of JeAvish literature. The Ecclesiasticus of Jesus Sirach was witten in Hebrew, as its fragments in the Talmud show. The original of the first book of Maccabees and ot the so called Psalter of Solomon was Hebrew. The inscriptions on coins, the epitaphs, the liturgic prayers Avere Hebrew. The form of the laAvs AA^as HebreAv, as appears from their codification in tlie Mishna. Also the book, in Avhich, as Papias says, MattheAv had collected the sermons of the Lord, Avas Avritten k^paih StaXlxitp. It is true, that in that time Ippal'oxi and ^^aXBaioit were not accurately distinguished. NeA^ertheless it is quite unlikely that MattheAA^ Avrote in Aramaic; for the Aramaic dialect of Palestine — AAhich in the Talmud is called "^b^ilb, and there and in the Targums can be better learned than from the so called EvangeUarium Uierosolymitanum and the fragments of a Palestinian version of Psalms, published by J. P. N. Land (Lugduni Bat. 1875) — Avas the language of daily life, the A'ulgar language, in which the people and also the learned were AA'ont to con\'erse and to hold controversies, but y] 'Eppai? BtotXsxxo?, in AAdiich St. Paul aa^is accosted by the exalted SaA'iour Act. XXVI. 14 and in Avhich he himself addressed the people of Jerusalem Act. XXI. 40. XXU. 2. Avas the holy language, the language* of the temple Avorship, ol S}Tiagogical and domestic prayer, of all formulas of benediction, of the traditional laAv: further the parables, the animal ftibles, the lamentations for the dead in the Talmuds and Midrashim are — 31 — mostly Hebrew; the holy language continued to bo the lang-iinge <)(■ the h idler Ibrni of speech, even the popular proverbs were only partly Aramaic. Josephus. stating in the Preface of his work on the Jewish war, that his narrative Avas originally drawni up for his conipati'iots of inner Asia in the connnon mother -tongue, certainly means the Hebrew, not the Aramaic language. Knowledge of Hebrew was then as now universal among the educated of the nation. Aramaic, on the contrary, was understood only by a small }»art of the Diaspora. Even now knowledge of Hebrew is much the more general, whereas acquaintance with the idiom of the so called Talmud Jerushalmi is a prerogative of very few Jewish scholars. Therefore it A\-ould be a useless attempt to translate the Xew Testament into the Palestinian Sursi. The Shemitic woof of the Xew Testament Hellenism is Hebrew, not Aramaic. Our Lord and his apostles thought and spoke for the most part in Hebrew. And the Xew Testament, as the new Thora, the completive half of God's revelation, must be translated into Hebrew, if we intend to make it a reading book for the Jcavs of all countries and a constituent part of the worship of the future Israel, who shall be saved after the entering in of the fulness of the Gentiles. The translation into Aramaic would be an artificial Avork, not without relative adAan- tage — for it would exhibit in the XeAV Testament language some features of the vernacular dialect of Palestine — but Avithout j>ractical aim. A proof of its restricted utility is the little help, \\liich the Peschito affords to the HebreAv translator.^ The project of a version of the K T. in the Targumic idiom is in some degree favoured by John I. 1. Prof. Driver remarks regarding my ti-anslation of this overture to the fourth Gospel: ..The rendering of X070? has doubtless been aa'cII Aveighed. I Avish that it Avere possible to employ the "^'^t xia^a in some Avay or other. "Would not that term have the advantage of suggesting to the 1) I mean help in finding the intended or equiA-alent shemitic phrases; for as regards the Palestinian form of proper names, the Aramaic versions of the NeAv Testament are entirely useless: they transcribe slavishly the Greek forms. — 32 — Jewish render associations analog'OLis to., if not identical A\itli. those sugg'ested by Xoyo; to the Greek? j<-i'a^:3, unlike "^.n"! (if I mistake not), but like Xo'yo;, would be a significant Avord, having a previous history to Avhich to attach itself and Avhich gives it its meaning." Nevertheless after careful deliberation I have rendered Xo'yo? h\ ■nai. because the Word not only as mediator of the world's creation and conservation is called ^an Ps. XXXIII. 6. CXLVII. 18. l)ut also as mediator of salvation Ps. CVII. 20. Is. LY. 10 sq. For some time I thought of ^^i^^ri as an equivalent of 6«'^^"^, but I rejected it. because the HebreA\' of the Mishna and its age know^s "n^x^ only as denoting the word of command, by which the world arose e. g. Abolh V. 1. Even *iia^n I did not like, for it is a post- biblical AN'ord. and yet it Avas of great impoi*tance to obA'iate the opinion, that the Logos was an im^ention of Stoic and Alexandrian philosophy, and not, as it is really the case, rooting and alread}' germinant in the 0. T. Certainly the Logos, more and more acknowledged as a divine h}^)ostasis, AAliich partakes of God's personality, is ordinarily called iin^ e. g. in the Midrash to Cant. II. 13*: n^T3 D5> ^zi^ ^iznn the Word spoke AA'ith Moses. And in the Palestinian Targum the word as revealer of God and as God himself in his revelation bears besides the name x^a'^ia also the name 52i< also was a new and peculiar expression in the mouth of our Lord. Speaking the dialect of the people he began his solemn speeches with i^i'^m ")^x ■jibb, in Hebrew dDb 15 1^ ^px )-qi^, not n^h ^sx ^ax ",»&<, because tliis order of the words obliterates the significant alliteration, which St. Jolin intends to imitate by doubling the pK.^ I am persuaded, that the name 6 'Ajiyjv, which is given to Christ Revel, m. 14 alludes to the oft repeated djiT^v of the incomparable master. Charles Dickens wrote to his son, as he was about to under- take a journey: ,,I have put a New Testament among youi* books, because it is the best book, which the world has known and will ever know". 3 In truth, it is the best in every respect. What a full- ness and depth of contents this small volume encloses, its like is not to be found among the literatures of mankind. And every dispassionate inquirer must allow, that Jesus Christ, who is the centre of this book, has created a new era of human history. The root of Jesse has become the root of a new world. Even those, who deny His Messiahship, are not without a share in some fmits of his redemption. But it shall come to pass in the last days, that 1) In Sursi the speaker says fi<^aa S