MAY 3 
 
 ionR 
 
 
 
 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 University of California. 
 
 GIF^T OF 
 
 L.,..V.., n .o^Uz-wi 
 
 Class 
 
 
 
 I \ 
 
 
HERE AND THERE IN THE 
 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.... 
 
 With an introduction on 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 
 
 Lemuel Stoughton Potwin, D.D. 
 
 Professor in Adelbert College of Western Reserve University 
 
 Chicago : New York : Toronto 
 
 Fleming H. Revell Company 
 
~?6 
 
 **tf 
 
 Copyright, 1898, by Fleming H. Revell Company 
 
To the Memory 
 
 OF 
 
 My Dear Brother 
 
PREFACE 
 
 This book is not a commentary, but offers itself as a 
 supplement to the commentaries. Every student of the 
 New Testament has general helps that shed an impartial, 
 even if sometimes needless, light on every chapter. But 
 in this age of books, when much of the reader's time is 
 taken up in selecting what to read, it is but fair that the 
 exegetical writer should select beforehand, and offer only 
 what seems to him not found already in the necessarily 
 common material of complete works. If he thinks that 
 he has gained new light on various passages, let him be 
 content to tell what has come to him here and there. Let 
 him resolutely refrain from making a commentary. 
 Otherwise what is really new and good in his work will 
 be overlaid and hidden, or at least crowded and cramped, 
 by what may be good but cannot be new. I have tried, 
 in this little volume, to follow the advice now given. 
 
 A part of the book has been made by revising articles 
 contributed to religious periodicals. Some of these arti- 
 cles have been changed so much as to almost prevent rec- 
 ognition ; and I cannot suppose that my readers care 
 enough for looking up my past work to wish for a full 
 list of material previously published. I may say that 
 No. I. is substantially from the Andover Review, that 
 No. II. is partly from The Journal of Biblical Literature. 
 
 7 
 
8 PREFACE 
 
 Not a few pages are taken, with changes, from the Bib- 
 liotheca Sacra. 
 
 In regard to the Introduction, I anticipate the criticism 
 that it is not properly so called. If, however, it be found 
 to have, as I hope it will, a value of its own, its lack of 
 introductory and explanatory connection with what fol- 
 lows, will pass without much objection. It is not a trea- 
 tise, nor even an essay, but simply a series of somewhat 
 disconnected practical hints. 
 
 L. S. P. 
 
 Cleveland, 0., June i, 1897. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. PAGE . 
 
 Hints on New Testament Exegesis - 1 1 
 DISCUSSIONS. 
 
 I. A Point of Grammar in " Gloria in Excelsis " 49 
 II. 'E-niooffiob. Translated in the Lord's Prayer 
 
 "daily" - - - 58 
 
 III. Does the Lord's Prayer make mention of the 
 
 Devil ? 84 
 
 IV. Does l HXuia in Matthew and Luke Mean Stature 
 
 or Age? - - - 105 
 
 V. To the Sleeping Disciples - - in 
 
 VI. Demons - - - - 113 
 
 VII. The New Testament use of aya-nao) and <pd£<h 115 
 
 VIII. The Historical Present in the Four Gospels 127 
 
 IX. Does the Preface to Luke's Gospel belong 
 
 also to the Acts ? - - - 130 
 
 X. Christ's Descent into Hades - 137 
 
 XL Appointed to Eternal Life - - 145 
 XII. Agrippa to Paul: Acts xxvi., 28 in the Light 
 
 of Latin Idiom - - 147 
 
 XIII. Reconciliation by Self-Revelation - 152 
 
 XIV. The Meaning of " Foreknew " in Romans 
 
 viil, 29 as illustrated by John x., 27 155 
 
 XV. Paul's Anathema - - - 159 
 
 XVI. Words Borrowed from the Latin - 162 
 XVII. Words Borrowed from the Hebrew and 
 
 Aramaic - - - 182 
 
 XVIII. Words not found in Classical Writers 194 
 INDEXES. 
 
 General Index ... 203 
 
 Index of Greek Words - - 213 
 
 Index of New Testament Texts - 216 
 
Here and There in the Greek 
 New Testament 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 
 
 In thinking of the conditions of highest success in the 
 exegesis of the New Testament, we naturally make three 
 divisions: ist, The personal qualifications of the exegete; 
 2nd, The principles of exegesis ; 3rd, The helpful methods. 
 These divisions will often cross each other, and may lead 
 to some repetition, though from different points of view. 
 
 § I. PERSONAL QUALIFICATIONS. 
 
 i. I mention first an open mind. This does not mean 
 that one should be indifferent towards the topics of the 
 New Testament, or without settled Christian opinions. 
 Such a state of religious emptiness is exegetical paralysis. 
 But the open mind implies such a quiet holding in abey- 
 ance and balancing of personal opinions and habits, of 
 traditional and current views, that one may come to the 
 task of interpretation with something of the freshness 
 that belongs to a new investigation. Such questions as, 
 What doctrine does this passage support? What sort of 
 
 11 
 
12 HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 
 
 sermon will grow out of it? Is it in harmony with a 
 certain other text? Is it quite worthy of the writer? 
 must wait till the open-minded soul catches the simple 
 meaning before it. There is also a natural open-minded- 
 ness distinct from the impartiality of set purpose. The 
 successful exegete is different from the successful writer, 
 the latter being intensely executive, while the former is 
 intensely and broadly receptive; open to every form of 
 thinking, and every manifestation of character. There 
 is in him a complete, and minute, even though quiet,atten- 
 tiveness. Every ripple in the stream of thought leaves 
 its mark. This openness extends also to the tone and 
 spirit, as well as to the intellectual contents of a passage. 
 The open mind, in its most active state, is kindled by a 
 passion for the truth. 
 
 2. A mind sensitive to language. This means more 
 than the ability to understand the main drift of language, 
 and analyze its phrases. A sensitive mind appreciates 
 shades of meaning, and takes impressions which it may 
 not be able logically to explain. With photographic con- 
 formity it catches the moods of writers,and feels the power 
 of their style. This delicate language-sense may be illus- 
 trated by the sense of hearing. A dull ear can hear 
 shouts and rumblings and martial music. It is correct so 
 far as it goes; but it cannot hear whispers, and soft, sweet 
 tones, and gliding musical transitions. Sensitiveness to 
 language may be the gift of genius, or the fruit of long 
 reading and literary study, and the exercise of literary 
 taste. This faculty is imperative in conjectural textual 
 
HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 13 
 
 criticism, but is also needed in ordinary exegesis. 
 The absence of it is seen in mechanical explanations, 
 in servile subjection to grammars and to the statistics of 
 word-counting. 
 
 3. Sympathy with the writer. The New Testament 
 was written with a religious intent. To understand it 
 fully we must have a religious spirit. We go with the 
 writer and put ourselves in his place. This is not in 
 conflict with the open mind, for with open mind we get 
 as near as possible to the writer in order to catch his 
 thought and feeling, which together make his meaning. 
 It is plain that an irreligious and unchristian person 
 could never have written a truthful life of Christ. See 
 the account of Christianity in the Annals of Tacitus 
 (XV.,44)and the Letters of Pliny (X.,96). The same cold- 
 ness or antipathy would warp the mind of a reader. In- 
 deed it is a literary axiom that a writer, to be appreciated, 
 must have a large measure of sympathy. " Not to sym- 
 pathize is not to understand." This need of religious 
 sympathy is emphasized by the inspiration of the writers. 
 The reader needs the same Spirit. Further, as the New 
 Testament has several authors, this sympathy must be 
 individualized. The matter-of-fact Mark, the mystical 
 John, the warm-hearted Peter, and the profound enthu- 
 siast, Paul, cannot be read well, all with the same feel- 
 ing. The ideal exegete will enter into the mental states, 
 and even the moods of each one. Here is the dramatic in- 
 terest of New Testament exposition. All this is applica- 
 ble, of course, to the speeches as well as writings in the 
 
14 HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 
 
 New Testament. And when we think of the sayings of 
 Him whose pen wrote not a word of the Bible, we see 
 that close communion with Christ is needed for the best 
 understanding of his words. The interpreter must have 
 spiritual insight. 
 
 4. Genuine interest in ancient and oriental life. The 
 best interpreter will not have to force himself into the 
 environment of earliest Christian writing. He enjoys 
 standing in the midst of the life of Palestine, marking 
 the hills and brooks, the sea and river, the flat-roofed 
 houses, the grass in the ovens, the women at the hand- 
 mill, all the out-door living. He enjoys the reproduction 
 of the in-door life of the family, and the inner life of the 
 soul in thought, opinion, education, worship. He en- 
 joys going beyond the oriental, and taking in the philoso- 
 phy of the West, and the early contact of Christianity 
 with Greek and Roman life and society. By this glad 
 living in the past he can help himself to think the thoughts 
 of the New Testament writers, look with their eyes, and 
 feel with their hearts. 
 
 5. A faculty for history. New Testament truth rests 
 on a historical foundation. Even the book of Revelation 
 has an historical starting-point, and seems like veiled 
 history all the way through. The history found in the 
 other books is fragmentary. The ideal interpreter is a 
 restorer; fitting the fragments to each other, and supply- 
 ing the gaps from outside history, or intrinsic probability, 
 as best he may. And when he cannot do these things, he 
 knows it. 
 
HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 15 
 
 6. A logical power that is flexible and adaptive. If 
 the New Testament were a collection of orations, like 
 those of Demosthenes, or a continuous treatise, there 
 would be full scope for formal logic and rhetoric. As it 
 is, there is, perhaps, equal, but different, need of logic. 
 The book to be expounded is made up largely of familiar 
 conversations, off-hand speeches, and letters. The course 
 of thought is often abruptly broken ; diverse topics are 
 packed together; the feelings press hard on the intellect; 
 the graces of style are unknown or ignored. The well- 
 trained logician finds the logic elusive, but it is there; 
 only it requires mental nimbleness to follow and seize it. 
 Rigidity will fail. There is danger, on the other hand, 
 that different subjects that are brought together simply 
 by rapid speech, or condensed report, be forced into an 
 artificial logical connection. 
 
 7. A knowledge of human nature and quick percep- 
 tion of its springs of action. A mere book-worm cannot 
 be a good expositor, because the New Testament is full of 
 human life. Characters must be understood in order to 
 understand their language. The ancients are not statues 
 in a gallery of art. We see them, real and living, in our- 
 selves and our neighbors. Yet our knowledge of human 
 nature must be broad, so that we shall not attribute nine- 
 teenth century manners to the men and women of the 
 Bible. This is about the same as to say that the exegete 
 must have common sense. 
 
 8. Passing from qualities to acquisitions, and assum- 
 ing a liberal training and a working knowledge of Ger- 
 
l6 HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 
 
 man and French, I mention first a wide knowledge of 
 literature. This knowledge must not be confined to one 
 or two languages, or one period. It must include differ- 
 ent kinds of literature, not excepting the dramatic ; also 
 the productions of various types of mind, the less culti- 
 vated as well as the most highly cultivated. The early 
 periods should be familiar, as exhibiting the most origi- 
 nal and racy writing, the later periods as illustrating lit- 
 erary dependence, as well as careful polish and willful 
 affectation. By this wide reach of experience the exegete 
 is kept out of the rut of current expression in his own 
 tongue, and is led to facility of translation and of catching 
 meanings without translation. He is at home in literature 
 in general. I speak now of literary, rather than philo- 
 logical knowledge. 
 
 9. A good knowledge of the Greek classics. The 
 New Testament Greek, be it ever so familiar, is too nar- 
 row a basis for its own study. Its sources are in the 
 earlier literature. Its etymologies go back to this. Al- 
 though there are nearly 900 words, or about one-sixth of 
 all in the New Testament, that may be called late Greek, 
 i. e., later than Aristotle, yet these are nearly all from 
 roots found in the classics. Of words not borrowed from 
 Hebrew (about sixty), and Latin (about thirty), only six 
 or seven are not from classical roots. Now there is needed 
 for a true familiarity with New Testament Greek, a sense 
 of past usage, because the past usage, though modified, 
 still lives. Also in language-exposition so much depends 
 on suggestion and impression, that the student cannot 
 
HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 17 
 
 afford to be without the hints and suggestions that come 
 from the history, the changes, and the possibilities of his 
 principal words. He must be at home in all Greek, espe- 
 cially the Greek that lies back of his New Testament. 
 He must have a Greek feeling and taste, and to this end 
 must know a much larger body of writing than is found 
 in the Testament — and writing of a different character. 
 An early and thorough philological study of select por- 
 tions of the classics is to be taken for granted. We cannot 
 know Greek just as Luke and Paul did, but our classical 
 knowledge helps us to come as near as we may, by a 
 different path, to what was to them native speech. They 
 could not have philology, and did not need it. We can 
 have it, and do need it. There is a green, crude philology 
 that is out of place in Bible study, but the ripe fruits of 
 mature philological habits are invaluable. It is only be- 
 lated philology that is untimely and useless. 
 
 10. Some knowledge of post-classical Greek, outside 
 of the New Testament. While the classical Greek is in- 
 dispensable, the post-classical has this peculiar advantage, 
 that it includes the writers contemporary with the New 
 Testament authors, and thus enlarges the scope of illus- 
 trative usage. Beginning with B.C. 322, the year of the 
 death of Aristotle, we have, before Christ: 
 
 (1) The historian Polybius (B.C. 204-122). Though 
 so much earlier than the New Testament, he uses more 
 than 100 of its late Greek words, including a very few 
 borrowed from the Latin (txtXiov, xevTuptiuv). 
 
l8 HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 
 
 (2) Dionysius of Halicarnassus, historian and critic, 
 who flourished 30 B. C. 
 
 (3) Diodorus Siculus, the historian who wrote 8 B.C. 
 After Christ we have : 
 
 (1) Plutarch, who wrote about A. D. 80. His " Lives" 
 and his "Moralia," on account of their topics, illustrate 
 the language of both the historical and didactic portions 
 of the New Testament, and seem to stand nearer to it than 
 the writings of any other secular writer. He uses about 
 twice as many of the late New Testament words as 
 Polybius. 
 
 (2) The "Thoughts" of the Emperor M. Aurelius 
 Antoninus (A. D. 86-161) by their moral discussions are 
 brought into close relation of verbal usage with the New 
 Testament. 
 
 (3) The same may be said of the discourses of the 
 Stoic philosopher,Epictetus, reported by his pupil Arrian. 
 He taught about A. D. 90, in Nicopolis of Epirus. 
 
 11. Of post-classical, extra-Biblical authors there are 
 two that have special claims. They were both of them 
 Jews by race and religion, and contemporaries of the 
 apostles. One of them, Philo of Alexandria, wrote about 
 A. D. 40. He was the leader of the allegorical interpre- 
 tation of the Old Testament — a method which was carried 
 into the Christian church. Though a poor interpreter, 
 he was a deep thinker, and devoted his life to the attempt 
 to harmonize Jewish religion and Greek philosophy. His 
 language, therefore, is often parallel with that of the New 
 Testament, and sometimes bridges over the space between 
 
HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 19 
 
 the Septuagint and the New Testament. His works may 
 almost be said to have been Christianized by the profound 
 study of Christian scholars, through whose labors a 
 second-hand Philo has become the common property of 
 Christian students. The chief example of Philo's con- 
 tribution to New Testament study is his use of Xoyos. 
 
 The other Jew whose Greek illustrates the faith that 
 he did not himself adopt, is the historian Josephus. He 
 was born at Jerusalem A. D. 37 and died in Rome, where 
 he lived and wrote after the destruction of his native city. 
 Both Philo and Josephus made great use of the Septua- 
 gint, and thus are brought near to the evangelists and 
 apostles, besides being their contemporaries. 
 
 12. It is too much to assume that all the body of Greek 
 writing now referred to, from Homer to Plutarch, is so 
 familiar as to be easy reading at sight. It must, how- 
 ever, be assumed as a condition of highest exegetical suc- 
 cess that the Greek Testament itself is read with some- 
 thing of the ease with which we read a book in English. 
 Does this suppose the work of exegesis to be already 
 complete? By no means. It is ready to begin. When 
 we hear a public speaker, we first understand what he 
 says, and then, if necessary, ask him to explain what he 
 means. Bishop Butler, and John Stuart Mill, Shake- 
 speare, Milton and Lowell, and a host of other English 
 writers require a reading knowledge of their language as 
 a preparation for understanding even their difficult ies. So 
 a fr ee reading knowledge of New Testament Gree k is 
 pre liminary to e *<?<rf**** We must remove, as fully as 
 
20 HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 
 
 possible, the embarrassment of a foreign tongue. For 
 example, it is no exegesis of Phil. ii. 6-8 to translate the 
 passage in the ordinary meanings of the words. This is 
 merely preliminary ; and if one has to dig out half the 
 words from the Lexicon, instead of recognizing them as 
 already familiar, and being open at once to their sugges- 
 tions, it is hardly preliminary — it is elementary. There 
 can be a good exegesis from a good translation, for the 
 right intellectual and spiritual force can work at second 
 hand, but if the exegesis is to be worth anything as com- 
 ing from Greek, it must come from a Greek that is familiar. 
 13. A good knowledge of the Septuagint. In itself 
 this Old Testament version has points of interest. It is 
 unique in ancient Greek literature as being a translation. 
 It abounds in new words, about one-seventh of its entire 
 vocabulary being not found earlier. It abounds in Hebrew 
 idioms, yet it is genuine Greek. There are marked in- 
 stances of deviation from Hebrew idiom, and evidences 
 of the moulding power of the Greek sense of beauty. Its 
 relation to the New Testament gives it a value belonging 
 to no other Greek book. (1) It greatly enlarges verbal 
 usage for New Testament work. E. g. dvdptZw, i-Kiaxono^ 
 ixxXrjffta, Xurpoa), and even ZtjAcdttj?. (2) It, in fact, cre- 
 ated important parts of the New Testament vocabulary. 
 E. g. dydiri), ayyeAos, dtd{3oXo$, and xbpto$ for Jehovah. (3) 
 It expanded and deepened the meaning of many old 
 words, and prepared them for New Testament service. 
 E. g. etpijvT), X^P t<s i 7r{<7rt ?> £ wr ji tywSi dfiaprwXo^ loyo^. 
 One-quarter of the New Testament vocabulary is absent 
 
HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 21 
 
 from the Septuagint, and yet all the most important ethi- 
 cal and religious words are found in both. 
 
 14. A knowledge of Hebrew. The value of this re- 
 quires no argument. It helps the New Testament student 
 both directly and indirectly — directly by explaining the 
 Hebraisms, e. g. 6 xpnr}$ zr^ ddixias (Luke xviii. 6), rponijs 
 dnzoGxla<j[ia (Jas. i. 17), rixva <pior6s (Eph. v. 9) ; indirectly 
 by fixing the meaning of the words of the Septu- 
 agint. The New Testament is, at various points, an- 
 chored to the Septuagint, and the Septuagint to the He- 
 brew, by its being a translation. Still further, that more 
 indefinite but decisive influence of the Old Testament on 
 the New which lies in the spirit and tone of the former, 
 is made more clear and helpful by reading the Old Testa- 
 ment in its own tongue. 
 
 15. Some knowledge of Syriac. The peculiar value 
 of this comes from the fact that the common speech of 
 Palestine in the time of Christ was Aramaic, or ancient 
 Jewish Syriac, akin to the Hebrew, but not Hebrew, 
 though sometimes so called. Greek and Aramaic were 
 used side by side, both in speaking and writing. There 
 is some reason to think that there was once an Aramaic 
 Gospel, now lost. The Old Syriac version of the Gospels, 
 a manuscript of which was discovered in the convent of 
 St. Katharine, Mt. Sinai, in 1892, was made not far from 
 A.D. 150, and if earlier than the Old Latin, as is probable, 
 is the earliest known version. It was made while Greek 
 and Aramaic were both spoken in Palestine, and would 
 naturally embody some Aramaic traditional meanings and 
 
22 HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 
 
 verbal suggestions of peculiar force. A half-century 
 later we find a version of the whole New Testament, called 
 the Peshitto, the authorized version of the early Syrian 
 churches. Still further, about the same time, i. e., in the 
 third century A. D., was made a version of the entire Old 
 Testament, and made from the Hebrew. We have there- 
 fore a fruitful field of collateral study, recommended by 
 its early place, its close connection with the vernacular of 
 Palestine, and its extent over both Testaments. 
 
 1 6. Familiarity with the Latin versions. Foremost 
 is the Old Latin, or the collection of Old Latin versions, 
 dated in the second century A. D., which were revised 
 by Jerome in the fourth century into the present Vulgate 
 of the Roman Catholic church. The value of all very 
 early versions is twofold, (i) in being made while the 
 original language was vernacular, (2) in being open to 
 the influence of tradition. 
 
 17. Some acquaintance with extra-canonical Chris 
 tian and Jewish writings near New Testament times. 
 These throw a side-light on both the language and thought 
 of the earliest Christian writers. One of the latest-dis- 
 covered examples is the " Book of the Secrets of Enoch" 
 (Oxford, 1896). In the same class are the various " Apoc- 
 alypses" and the " Didache" and the long known Epistle 
 of Barnabas. 
 
 18. Some acquaintance with the early Greek Fathers. 
 Their writings are not authoritative ; Greek usage had 
 changed somewhat when they wrote; their opinions 
 colored their interpretations; but Greek was their native 
 
HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 23 
 
 tongue, and, as we who speak the. English of to-day ought 
 to understand older English better than foreigners, so 
 ought the Greek Fathers to know older Greek better than 
 we. We may learn something even from the changes in 
 their Greek. It is well to look down, as well as up, the 
 stream of usage and idiom. Of the Greek Fathers the 
 most helpful, no doubt, is Origen, of the third century, 
 but we need not despise those earlier, as Clement of Rome 
 and Clement of Alexandria, and even the anonymous Cle- 
 mentine Homilies, falsely ascribed to the former. 
 
 19. A knowledge of the principles of textual criti- 
 cism. It is not necessary that the exegete should be an 
 expert in questions of text. The Text of Tischendorf, 
 or of Westcott and Hort, may be taken as correct, and in 
 case of difference an ordinary scholar can hardly hope to 
 remove the doubt, and may safely follow either author- 
 ity, but neither blindly. Clear-sightedness is needed in 
 every direction. An intelligent following of the textual 
 critic's discussions may lead to the true interpretation ; for 
 questions of interpretation are used by him in determining 
 the text. See, for example, Westcott and Hort's discus- 
 sion of Luke ii. 14 (N.T. II. App. p. 32 f.) It is not 
 the exegesis of the critic alone that comes in, but that of 
 the early readers, quoters and transcribers. In purely 
 conjectural emendation, if a reverent prejudice ever sees 
 fit to allow it, the exegete will have at least equal rights 
 and responsibilities with the textual critic. 
 
 20. Familiarity with the Higher, or analytic, Criti 
 cism. The value of this Criticism to the interpreter does 
 
24 HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 
 
 not depend on the acceptance of its provisional resuks, 
 so far as composite authorship is concerned, but on the 
 minuteness and thoroughness of its investigations ; his- 
 torical, literary, philological and theological. When 
 Matthew Arnold says that the Gospel of John contains 
 partly the words of Jesus, and partly the words of an 
 unknown "theological lecturer," we may welcome his 
 discrimination and insight, — and draw our own con- 
 clusions. The same may be said of a much more careful 
 and profound thinker, Dr. Wendt, author of " The Teach- 
 ing of Jesus." The Old Testament has been the greatest 
 field, thus far, for this Criticism, but the Acts has at- 
 tracted the genius of Spitta (" Apostelgeschichte, ihre 
 Quellen"), and Revelation Vischer and others. The dif- 
 ferences and disconnections that may seem to one critic 
 the proof of different authors, may seem to another the 
 work of one author at different periods of life or develop- 
 ment, or in different circumstances, or under different in- 
 spiration, or in different moods, or in possession of new 
 material ; but the differences themselves, whatever be their 
 value to the literary dissector, are greatly important to 
 the interpreter. In every real difference he finds a new 
 point of light. 
 
 21. Must, then, one be a Meyer, or a Lightfoot, be- 
 fore he attempt to explain a book that, without explana- 
 tion, is already plain enough to bring joy and salvation 
 to the humblest mind? I hope that this Introduction will 
 not be thought to answer in the affirmative. Great genius, 
 or deep spiritual insight, or the acuteness of common 
 
HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 25 
 
 sense may be a substitute for many scholarly qualifica- 
 tions. But it is well to have an ideal. All that has now 
 been mentioned is contributory to the best exegesis. The 
 best exegete will cultivate these qualifications, not to men- 
 tion others, if he has them, and the best students of the 
 New Testament, in seeking help, will follow such an ex- 
 egete if they can find him. 
 
 § 2. PRINCIPLES. 
 
 1. The New Testament is literature, in the widest 
 sense ; is bound by its laws, and entitled to all its liberties. 
 It is not literature in the narrower sense of being written 
 for the ends of literary art. It is not a law-book, nor col- 
 lection of technical rules. It is not an ecclesiastical book, 
 for ceremonial use. It is a book for general reading, and 
 written for a practical religious purpose. It is, therefore, 
 to be interpreted on common-sense literary principles. 
 While it is above other books, it is yet one among books — 
 above them in scope, but like them in structure. The fact 
 that it is a special organ of Divine revelation does not 
 prevent its being a thoroughly human book. Questions 
 of logic, style, origin of expressions, authorities for facts, 
 stimulus to composition, evidence of revision, and all 
 other literary, critical, and philological questions are as 
 legitimate as in a book not illuminated by Divine light. 
 
 2. It is a book of the times and for the times. The 
 times leave their mark on the mental habits, knowledge, 
 tastes, and language of the writer, and on his views of 
 life. Not only his single words, but his phrases and 
 
20 HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 
 
 whole conceptions are to be interpreted in the light 
 of his training and surroundings. This does not mean 
 that he cannot be in advance of his times, but that his 
 writing must grow out of the times, however far they 
 may reach above and beyond them. 
 
 3. Every New Testament writer, in every sentence 
 that he wrote, had a meaning. We may not be able to 
 find the meaning of every passage, but, if the text be 
 genuine, the meaning is certainly there. This principle 
 works in two opposite ways. It leads to the correction 
 of the text, if correction is needed, for the text is not 
 genuine if it has no meaning. On the other hand, it leads 
 to earnest and manifold efforts to discover the meaning of 
 the text as it stands. 
 
 4. The meaning is not always clear in details, even to 
 the writer, not logically sharply defined. E. g. the ex- 
 pression, to be "in Christ," was probably as incapable of 
 explicit definition to the writer as to many subsequent 
 readers. So where feeling is chiefly concerned, the in- 
 tellectual framework of the passage may be very indefi- 
 nite. It requires exegetical wisdom to stop where the 
 writer stops, and suppress the inclination to define and 
 develop his thought. 
 
 5. We must not suppose that the writer is absorbed in 
 words, and that if he changes his words he necessarily 
 means something different. The adoption of certain 
 words in earnest thought and rapid writing or speech, de- 
 pends on causes too subtle to allow of mechanical classi- 
 fication long after the writing is done. A glance of the 
 
HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 2*] 
 
 eye on some word already written, the recollection of 
 some word used in similar connection, the flow of the 
 sentence, or ease of pronunciation, and innumerable other 
 slight influences may bring a word to the tongue or pen. 
 This is true of all times and grades of literary production, 
 but is especially true of New Testament language, which 
 is characterized by simplicity, and lacks the intense word- 
 consciousness of modern literature, and of the most culti- 
 vated ancient literature. 
 
 6. The Holy Spirit inspired and guided the writers, 
 but did not destroy nor veil their personal peculiarities; 
 nor was it necessary that He should remove their personal 
 ignorance, especially if it was shared by their immediate 
 readers. 
 
 7. Exegesis is not philological analysis, or develop- 
 ment. Greek etymology is a fascinating study, and is 
 sometimes directly, perhaps always indirectly, helpful to 
 exegesis. It may, also, be harmful by leading the mind 
 away from simple usage and practical first impressions. 
 E. g. <7uveidr](Tis can be understood to mean "conscience" 
 without answering the several questions about how its 
 etymology leads to that meaning; xo<j/j.o$ in its prevailing 
 use in the New Testament has slight dependence on the 
 use in Homer. 
 
 8. Exegesis is not philosophical development. It may 
 lead to the deepest problems of philosophy, as in the doc- 
 trines of Creation, Providence, and Regeneration, and in 
 the narratives of miracles and Christian experience; it 
 may be philosophical where the writing which it inter- 
 
28 HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 
 
 prets is such; it is greatly assisted by sound philosophy, 
 but in itself it is quite distinct from the philosophical de- 
 velopment of the text. 
 
 9. Exegesis is not even the same as the logical devel- 
 opment of its text. We may infer much and well from a 
 particular truth, e. g. from the certainty of death, but such 
 inferences, however true and useful, are not exegesis. 
 
 10. Exegesis, or the bringing out of the meaning, is 
 the re-statement of a writer's meaning in language that 
 may be clearer than his own, especially to readers of our 
 time. It is a sort of translation; not a revision ; above 
 all, not an eradication of that all-pervading element which 
 we call, by a name unknown to the New Testament, the 
 supernatural. 
 
 11. Exegesis is either primary or secondary. The 
 former asks : What does the author mean in the exact 
 form of his thought, as conditioned by his knowledge, 
 mental state, language, times and circumstances? The 
 latter asks : What does he mean as translated into modern 
 forms of thought, and what is the foundation-meaning, 
 more general and lying deeper than the primary meaning? 
 The primary is exegesis proper; the secondary is often 
 of more present practical value. The latter must wholly 
 conform to the former, though it goes deeper. It is not 
 a mere inference from the former, but is the essence of 
 it. The primary is not simply the literal as distinguished 
 from the figurative; it is the immediate and obvious, as 
 distinguished from the reflective and remote. Primarv 
 exegesis emphasizes the historical, temporary and local ; 
 
MINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 29 
 
 secondary the general, permanent and universal. E. g., 
 when Paul writes, "Let the women keep silence in the 
 churches" (1 Cor. xiv. 34), primary exegesis has little 
 to do except to show the meaning of the word " churches," 
 but the secondary looks for the foundation-meaning in 
 the modest deportment of Christian women in every age 
 and every land. The distinction must be guarded from 
 abuse, lest the secondary subvert the primary. 
 
 12. The meaning of a passage is not to be limited to 
 the understanding of those immediately addressed. The 
 meaning may be intentionally veiled, as when Jesus said, 
 " Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up," 
 or it may be beyond the capacity of the hearers, as when 
 Jesus foretold to his disciples his death and resurrection. 
 
 13. Language admits of an expansion of meaning to 
 correspond to the progress of events. Thus the expres- 
 sion United States of America in 1789 meant the thirteen 
 States on the Atlantic seaboard, but in 1897 the same ex- 
 pression means the forty-five States stretching across the 
 continent. So in the New Testament " all the world" 
 when the enrollment was described meant the Roman 
 Empire, but in the command " Go ye into all the world" 
 the phrase looks into the future and covers the world that 
 is there found. 
 
 14. Meaning is made up of both thought and feeling. 
 A man means not only what he says, but what he feels, 
 and tries almost in vain to say. If a passage culminates 
 in feeling, it cannot be understood by a cold analysis of 
 its logic. E. g. Rom. ix. 3, " I could wish that I myself 
 
3<D HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 
 
 were accursed from Christ," is to be taken literally, but 
 not coolly. Its literal thought is almost consumed by the 
 fire of its feeling. 
 
 15. The general drift of a passage is the supreme 
 authority for meaning. Words, phrases, and clauses are 
 organized under leading thoughts and words. Words 
 are not inflexible and independent, like blocks of wood 
 or stone. They are more like the buds and leaves and 
 blossoms of a tree. A word standing by itself is but a 
 fragment of meaning. It needs its phrase and sentence 
 that it may enter into the general aim of the writing, and 
 thus be more truly itself, in being part of one whole. A 
 very simple illustration of this principle is found in the 
 words of our Savior, "The good man out of his good 
 treasure bringeth forth good things; and the evil man 
 out of his evil treasure bringeth forth evil things" (Matt. 
 xii. 35), where the context demands that by " good things" 
 and "evil things" we understand good and evil words. 
 The principle applies closely to 7ra? and 7ravre?. 
 
 16. Parallel usage is either (a) imperative or permis- 
 sive and alternative, according as it is uniform or vary- 
 ing, fixed or growing, (b) It applies to single words or 
 to phrases, as " Son of man," " Son of God," or to whole 
 sentences, as, "He that hath ears to hear let him hear." 
 
 (c) It is traditional or original, according as its material 
 has come down from the past, or is coined by the writer. 
 
 (d) It is topical or universal, i. e., confined to certain 
 lines of thought, or unlimited, (e) It is literal or figura- 
 tive, and in comparison of passages careful discrimina- 
 
V' 
 
 HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 31 
 
 tion should be made between them, (f) It covers differ- 
 ent parts of speech. A verb or adjective may be parallel 
 with a noun. Thus Xoyo/ia^ia) is to be compared with 
 Xoyofiaxta, both words being probably coined by Paul, 
 (g) Usage admits of various shades of meaning without 
 destroying the helpfulness of the parallel, (h) It may 
 be confined to one author, or be common to the majority 
 of writers on the same, or kindred, subject. 
 
 17. Usage varies in value according to time. Other 
 things being equal, first in value, outside of the writer's 
 own pages, is contemporary usage. Second is anterior 
 usage, as being the cause of current use. Third is subse- 
 quent usage, as being the outgrowth of earlier use. First 
 of all is, of course, the writer's own usage, if it is suf- 
 ficiently extensive. But this may vary according to his 
 topic, his state of mind, his various surroundings. 
 
 18. Words used but once by an author, and not found 
 in contemporary or anterior use, must have their meaning 
 settled either by etymology, or by probable origin apart 
 from etymology, or by the demands of the immediate 
 context, or by comparisons with similar general thoughts, 
 or by the probable origin of the general thought, or by 
 the subsequent development of the word, or by the earli- 
 est versions, or by all these combined. The word 
 kTiLouaios in the Lord's Prayer is a striking example of 
 the difficulty that may attend such a word. 
 
 19. Exegesis must not confine itself to the details and 
 minutiae pi expression. It must go beyond words, 
 phrases, sentences, and paragraphs, and consider the 
 
32 HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 
 
 whole work, discovering, if possible, the bearing of each 
 part on the design of the whole. It must respect the 
 unity of the work. 
 
 20. It must not be forgotten that the one aim of in- 
 terpretation is to exhibit the power of a writing. It is 
 significant that the meaning of a word is often called its 
 force, according to the Latin phrase vis verborum. To 
 say in other language what an author has said in his own 
 is vain, or worse, unless by removing doubt or giving a 
 new point of view, we reveal the power of what is writ- 
 ten. 
 
 21. Microscopic exactness does not always discover 
 the power of a passage. E. g., it has been pointed out 
 with great care that the word x6a\io<$ in John i. 10 is 
 used in three different senses. So saith the exegetical 
 microscope; but we must forget this, and turn away from 
 it, in order to see the power of the passage, for the one 
 word for " world" is identified throughout. 
 
 22. First impressions are of great value, because 
 they represent the natural effect of the language on .the 
 original hearer ; and much of the New Testament is either 
 the record of words spoken, or epistles \lesigned to be 
 read aloud to the assembled Christians. Of course a 
 modern interpreter, familiar with the Bible from child- 
 hood, cannot hope for absolutely first impressions. He 
 can, however, get fresh impressions,as travelers can gain 
 new views of old landscapes, and can mark the first im- 
 pressions that he receives on taking up a passage after an 
 interval, and after unconscious preparatory experience. 
 
HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 33 
 
 For these impressions, to be worth the most, must be on a 
 mind prepared for them. If they are sought from the 
 Greek, the reader must beforehand know Greek well 
 enough to get first impressions intelligently from a cur- 
 sory reading. 
 
 23. When a writer does not measure his words, his 
 reader should not. There is such a thing as an overflow 
 of passionate utterance that ought not to be termed exag- 
 geration. It is the natural way of expressing intense 
 feeling. E. g. Rom. ix. 3, already quoted. We may 
 compare the exclamation of our Savior on the cross in 
 citing Ps. xxii. 1. 
 
 24. The principle of consistency must have a liberal ap- 
 plication in exegesis. As between different writers, the 
 unity of the New Testament does not require that all 
 should write alike. James and Paul need not write 
 alike about works and faith. Also, in different parts 
 of the same writer's work, there may be great diversi- 
 ties without inconsistency. Every New Testament 
 writer is consistent with himself, but it is his whole 
 self, from first to last, from early all the way to late, 
 that we are to estimate. 
 
 25. Rhetorical figures are,in general,tobe interpreted 
 as in any other book, except that we cannot hold the New 
 Testament to the high rhetorical standard of the classics. 
 One of the greatest errors in exegesis is confounding lit- 
 eral and figurative language; nor is it always easy to 
 avoid this. The deeper the subject, the harder it is to 
 draw the line between literal and figurative expressions. 
 
34 HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 
 
 When Jesus says, " I go that I may awake him out of 
 sleep" (John xi. 1 1), no one doubts his beautiful figurative 
 meaning ; but when he says (xiv. 2), " I go to prepare a 
 place for you," we are put upon reflection as to whether 
 his language is literal or not. So the language applied 
 to Christian experience, to communion with God, to the 
 nature of God, to the unity of Christ and the church, and 
 to the second coming, suffers such a strain of expansion 
 that we hardly know what literary designation it deserves. 
 Indeed it is not always necessary to determine this. We 
 may catch the truth and power of a passage without rais- 
 ing any literary question whatever. 
 
 26. There is a sort of figurative force in certain com- 
 mands that represent ideal attainments rather than ex- 
 plicit and universal directions. Dr. Maudsley, in speak- 
 ing of the failure of Christian morality, says : " Could 
 there be a more unhappy spectacle than that of the poor 
 wretch who should take its moral maxims in literal 
 earnest, and make them the strict rules of his life? The 
 plain effects of them are to make beggars and impostors 
 by profusion of charity ; to invite affronts by easy for- 
 giveness of injuries ; to render it the interest of no one 
 either to befriend or to forbear injuring another, because 
 of its rigid inculcation of the same loving attitude towards 
 friend and enemy," etc.* This failure of Christian 
 morality should rather be called the failure of unchristian 
 exegesis. "Whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, 
 turn to him the other also." Matt. v. 39. This means 
 
 ■ *"Body and Will," pp. 167, 168. 
 
HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 35 
 
 more than face and cheeks and non-resistance ; it means 
 the heroism and self-sacrifice of love. Cheek-turning is 
 but a symbol of heart-yearning. 
 
 27. Similes in the New Testament are either formal 
 or informal, i. e., expanded metaphor. Example of the 
 former: " As the lightning cometh forth from the east, 
 and is seen even unto the west, so shall be the coming of 
 the Son of Man." Matt. xxiv. 27. Of the latter: "What 
 is your life? For ye are a vapor that appeareth for a 
 little time, and then vanisheth away." Jas. iv. 14. Sim- 
 iles are either argumentative, or purely illustrative. Paul 
 in 1 Cor. xv. 35-38 makes the seed sown not merely illus- 
 trative, but suggestive of the analogy between God's 
 work in vegetable nature and in man's body. Similes 
 of pure illustration must not be mistaken for those of 
 argument; and similes of either kind must be interpreted 
 according to their main point, and not pressed for minute 
 resemblances. 
 
 28. Parables may be regarded as extended similes, 
 and require the same caution against overpressing the 
 particulars of the comparison. There is special danger 
 of this, because the parable has a certain narrative or 
 pictorial interest of its own, and therefore demands cer- 
 tain details independent of the lesson taught. Parables 
 include narratives wholly, or partly, fictitious. It is not 
 very important to determine whether a parabolic story is 
 imaginary or not. What difference would it make, if 
 the Prodigal Son, or the Good Samaritan, should be proved, 
 to a certainty, to be authentic narratives of fact in every 
 
36 HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 
 
 detail? The association of either with exact names and 
 dates might interest some readers more, but the truths 
 taught would be the same, and the imagination of the 
 reader might impress the truths better than the details of 
 the biographer. 
 
 29. "Inerrancy" is a term sometimes used for a use- 
 less accuracy, or an accuracy in unimportant particulars. 
 This accuracy, as applied to the original, but unknown, 
 and forever unattainable, autographs, has been maintained 
 on the ground that if the least variation from fact exists, 
 then there may be the greatest variations and the gravest 
 errors; for "we cannot draw the line." This reasoning 
 is logically fallacious, and contrary to common sense — the 
 embodiment of exegetical pettiness. As well say that if 
 a man misspells a word he cannot be trusted to tell the 
 truth. The New Testament may not be " inerrant" ac- 
 cording to the standard of modern historical science, but 
 it is not erroneous. The cup may have flaws, but it holds 
 the pure water of life. Every speaker, as Stephen, de- 
 livers his truth to his willing hearers, and his inaccura- 
 cies, if any, to his laborious critics. It is the prime 
 business of the interpreter to exhibit that truth ; his second- 
 ary duty to examine alleged inaccuracies, estimate their 
 value, and assign them, if proved, to their place in the 
 necessary limitations of the writer. He need not fear 
 them, nor make much ado over them, always remember- 
 ing that we may be mistaken as to matters of fact, and 
 that our most positive conclusions may be set aside by the 
 discoveries and the critical science of the next generation. 
 
HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 37 
 
 30. Primary exegesis avoids all conflict with modern 
 science and philosophy, because it moves on a different 
 plane. Secondary exegesis avoids it, because it conforms 
 to modern conditions. 
 
 31. The quotations from the Old Testament should be 
 received in the spirit in which they are made. E. g. 
 Matthew applies the words, " Out of Egypt did I call my 
 son" (Matt. ii. 15), to the infant Savior. We need not 
 trouble ourselves to prove that the nation of Israel was a 
 type of Christ, or that Matthew was " Rabbinical" in his 
 methods. Filled with an ardor for Christ that would see 
 him everywhere, he saw Christ in those words, and de- 
 clared that the striking and beautiful fulfillment of them 
 was not accidental, but Divinely intended; and we may 
 now say that He who numbers the hairs of our heads, 
 could certainly include these words among his purposes 
 concerning Jesus. 
 
 32. There are two ways of harmonizing seeming dis- 
 crepancies in New Testament narratives: (1) by using 
 the statements as supplements, (2) by accepting them as 
 equivalents. E.g., for Matthew's (xiii. 55) u Is not this 
 the carpenter's son?" and Mark's (vi. 3) " Is not this the 
 carpenter?" Tatian's Diatessaron, the earliest known Har- 
 mony, has " Is not this the carpenter, the son of the 
 carpenter?"* — a very simple example of harmony by sup- 
 plement. Further, when Matthew says "Kingdom of 
 Heaven" and Luke says "Kingdom of God," in reporting 
 
 *"The Earliest Life of Christ" (T. and T. Clark), edited by J. Hamlyn Hills; 
 p. "3. 
 
38 HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 
 
 the very same teachings, we may accept either phrase as 
 true, and equivalent to the other, and can hardly imagine 
 the two Evangelists disputing over which phrase actually 
 passed our Lord's lips. The accounts of the agony in 
 Gethsemane furnish examples of both methods. It is not 
 always easy to determine which method of harmonizing 
 is to be employed ; nor is it always necessary to employ 
 either. Harmony is not identity, and harmonization is 
 not always harmony. The highest harmony is the con- 
 cord of spirit and aim. The exegete is to unfold the 
 thought found in each of all the seemingly parallel ac- 
 counts, and he gains more light from the differences than 
 from the resemblances. 
 
 33. Traditional interpretations of the New Testament 
 derive legitimate value from the sifting of time. They 
 are the wheat; the chaff has disappeared. On the other 
 hand, they may by long habit of association become so 
 identified with the text itself, as to forestall free study. 
 As a rule, the longer the tradition, the greater its value ; 
 but a comparatively modern tradition has the advantage 
 of being based on a more fully developed system of study, 
 while the earliest, as of the Greek Fathers, is based on 
 greater familiarity with the language, and closer affinity 
 with primitive Christian life. Times of great religious 
 activity, as the Reformation, may start traditions of in- 
 terpretation that are worthy of the highest respect. In 
 general, traditional, like the best contemporary, opinions 
 should be respected, even before they are weighed, and 
 adopted, or not, after they are weighed. 
 
HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 39 
 
 § 3. METHODS. 
 
 1. The Golden Rule of exegesis is, Put yourself in 
 his place, i. e., the place of the writer or speaker, and of 
 the original reader or hearer Yet the mind of to-day 
 must still be itself, while it stands in the place of the 
 mind of the first century. The interpreter of the New 
 Testament belongs both to the past and the present, just 
 as an interpreter of a foreign language represents two 
 countries. And as such an interpreter knows best his 
 native tongue, so we must expect that the New Testament 
 scholar will be most familiar with his own times, and 
 will need to make special exertion to maintain his position 
 in the past. He stands in the past to receive; in the pres- 
 ent, to give forth what he has received. Of course there 
 is a vast field of thought and life that is common to past 
 and present, a field broad as human nature itself. This 
 putting one's self in the past refers to the narrower field 
 of the peculiarities of the past. 
 
 2. Make good use of the imagination. This is the 
 simplest, though superficial, method of putting ourselves 
 in another's place. Other things being equal, he will 
 best Interpret the language of our Savior in the Garden 
 of Gethsemane, who has in his mind the fullest and most 
 vivid picture of the scene. The imagination may be 
 helped by reading the best books on the scenery and top- 
 ography of Eastern lands. Even modern pictures are 
 not to be despised. Personal visits will not supersede 
 the imagination, and will fail unless they stimulate that 
 
4-0 HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 
 
 faculty. A view of the present may possibly blur the 
 vision of the past. 
 
 3. More important than the imagination is sympathy. 
 This has been already spoken of (§ 1. 3). It can be culti- 
 vated by biographical study of New Testament charac- 
 ters, so that we can carry a distinct impression of each 
 one, and feel quickly the influence of events and persons 
 upon each one. Even a certain dramatic sympathy is 
 due to the evil characters, whose words form a part of 
 the background of the New Testament — to Judas and 
 Pilate and Simon Magus — as well as to Peter and John 
 and Paul. 
 
 4. Prayer helps us to put ourselves in the place of the 
 makers of the New Testament. I do not mean prayer 
 without study, but prayer with study; not merely prayer 
 for exegetical success in general, but prayer also about 
 particular passages. Bring them into the Divine light. 
 Pray for light on a dark text, somewhat as you pray for 
 light on a dark path of practical duty, or for the success 
 of a special enterprise, or for the welfare of a dear friend. 
 Prayer brings light by communion with The Light in 
 ways that cannot be analyzed. It is peculiarly helpful 
 in gaining insight into spiritual truth, for it is itself 
 within the sphere of that truth. Prayer opens our hearts 
 to the Spirit that inspired the Scriptures. Prayer brings 
 hope and cheerfulness in study, and rest to weariness from 
 study. 
 
 5. Prepare for the study of a difficult passage by a 
 systematic preliminary study of its words. This stud)- 
 
HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 41 
 
 would include etymology, different periods of classical 
 usage, use in the Septuagint, and in the different periods 
 of late Greek, special emphasis being given to contem- 
 porary Greek, use in the New Testament itself, and in 
 writing later than the New Testament and developed 
 from it. All this to be preliminary, because if it be 
 mixed up with the strictly exegetical work, there is dan- 
 ger that no room will be left for natural first impressions. 
 It is when the words are as familiar as possible in them- 
 selves, with their various shades and alternatives of mean- 
 ing, that we may expect them to show their adjustment 
 to the connection, and to tell their own story clearly to 
 the open mind. 
 
 6. In general, make careful study of the great words 
 and phrases of the book; as dydnrj^ tzIgti^^ Tzveuixa^ dtxatoauvT), 
 £ati) aldn>to$- ) also the important dnafyeydfieva, as fteonveuaros. 
 
 7. Study synonyms, as, /fto? Cwjy, d/andto ydiw, and 
 those prepositions that are sometimes interchangeable, 
 remembering always the flexibility of words, the differ- 
 ences of writers, and the variety of usage in the same 
 writer. 
 
 8. Look for decisive words and phrases, it being un- 
 derstood that some words are more adaptable, and depend- 
 ent on connection, than others. 
 
 9. Sometimes use the side-light of another language in 
 word-study. E. g., aldtvio? is illustrated by its Latin 
 analogue aeternus. It does not follow that the words, 
 though analogous in origin, are identical in meaning, or 
 have the same development, but the resemblance is no 
 
42 HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 
 
 accident, and the history of both words is the product of 
 the same mental laws, and of similar circumstances. The 
 usage of both is largely contemporaneous. The objec- 
 tions to the meaning of "everlasting," which have been 
 brought against almvto^ are equally applicable to aeter- 
 nus, but are never seriously entertained. 
 
 10. In regard to the use of commentaries, wait till you 
 feel your need of them. Do not begin the study of a 
 passage by consulting them. Make them a servant rather 
 than master. Do this although you may know that the 
 commentator is wiser and more learned than you. Do it 
 as the necessary means of preserving your power of in- 
 dependent work. Then after studying and investigating 
 as much as you are able, take definite questions, if pos- 
 sible, to the commentary and make your own use of the 
 answers. After your own conclusions are formed, or 
 you have gone as far as you can independently, then test 
 your work by the work of others, and make most of those 
 commentaries that give reasons, and not merely conclu- 
 sions. 
 
 ii. Use lexicons more as repositories than as au- 
 thorities. They are authorities for the reason that they 
 are store-houses of classified usage. They are not mere 
 glossaries. They are made from accepted texts, from 
 concordances, and from commentaries, besides being in 
 the line of long lexical succession. Their classifications, 
 and meanings, and references are materials of study, and 
 not judicial decisions, terminating study. 
 
 12. A thorough use of the Greek Concordance (Bru- 
 
HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 43 
 
 der's, or better, Moulton and Geden's, or The English- 
 man's, with citations in English, or Hastings', with ref- 
 erences only) is fundamental in word-study. Yet this 
 greatest of all outside means of study is worth little, if 
 employed indiscriminately in piling up statistics of usage 
 without regard to author, time, or subject. It is no sub- 
 stitute for separate word-study, but simply insures a view 
 of all the matter to be studied. It is indispensable to 
 original exegetical work. It breaks the yoke of bondage 
 to lexicons, by admitting us to a real, though it may be 
 humble, partnership in their work. 
 
 13. I shall not attempt to make up a book-list for the 
 exegete, or to distinguish between those books that should 
 be in his own library, and those that may require a short, 
 or long, walk to reach them in the great libraries. A 
 long list may be found in Professor Vincent's " Student's 
 New Testament Handbook," and a more select list in Pro- 
 fessor Thayer's "Books and their Use." Such lists are 
 stimulating, unless they are so good and rich and full as 
 to be paralyzing. The books that must lie on the writ- 
 ing table, or at close hand, are not many — Tischendorf's 
 and Westcott and Hort's Texts, Liddell and Scott's and 
 Thayer's Lexicons, a Greek concordance to the New 
 Testament, a Septuagint, i. e., Swete's Old Testament in 
 Greek, a concordance to the Septuagint (Hatch and Red- 
 path's, now complete), a Hebrew Bible and Lexicon, an 
 English Bible, Received and Revised, an English con- 
 cordance, and Smith's Dictionary of the Bible. These, 
 especially the last, will point the way to many others, 
 
44 HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 
 
 14. Passing to more general matters, I suggest the 
 need of taking pains to break up routine and monotony. 
 Read the passage that is under scrutiny in some foreign 
 tongue other than the original. Better read a Choctaw 
 Testament than keep on always in a familiar round of 
 expression. Vary the methods of reading, now going 
 over long passages rapidly, now slowly. Repeat a diffi- 
 cult passage to yourself aloud, as naturally as possible. 
 Have passages read to you in various ways, remembering 
 that the original writers depended mainly on hearers. 
 Read even in various forms and sizes of type and page — 
 anything to keep one out of a rut. 
 
 15. Learn to hold a difficult passage long in suspense, 
 if need be; quietly waiting, at times almost forgetting, 
 yet always keeping it where side-light from other study 
 may fall on it, or new opportunities of direct study may 
 solve the difficulty. 
 
 16. Read and enjoy the clear and easy passages, as 
 stepping-stones to the more obscure ; and not for stepping- 
 stones only. Do not assume that there is nothing new to 
 be seen in familiar texts. 
 
 17. Talk with others about your explanations; not 
 merely with scholars, but with plain people. Either the 
 attempt to unfold orally your thought will betray its 
 weakness, or the excitement of interpretation face to 
 face will give point and clearness. At any rate, one can 
 brush away the dust that settles on too quiet solitary work. 
 
 18. Watch for favorable mental conditions. There are 
 times when the mind is like a field-glass out of focus. 
 
HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 45 
 
 We cannot expect much then. There are moods favorable 
 or unfavorable to clear views. Make account also of 
 physical condition. Do not study any one passage to the 
 point of lassitude. It may be a pleasant theory that 
 "weak body well is changed for mind's redoubled force," 
 but it is a very unpleasant fact that the body knows how 
 to strike back, when the mind has wronged it. 
 
 19. Keep a list of the exegetical problems, e. g. 1 
 Cor. xi. 10, Gal. iii. 16, 20, and others, and look them 
 over occasionally, but not too frequently, and see whether 
 time, which means our use of time and our broadening 
 experience, has undermined any of the difficulties. 
 
 20. Vary the points of view, in approaching a difficult 
 passage, coming to it now as a logician, now as a poet, 
 now as a historian, watching its response to such ques- 
 tions as, Is it cool or passionate? Is it dogmatic, or a 
 meditative soliloquy? Vary the order of words, and see 
 what the difference in meaning would be. Vary the de- 
 gree and points of emphasis. Form exegetical hypotheses, 
 and test them by reading, or listening to, the passage un- 
 der study, and see whether they harmonize or jar. This 
 applies especially, but not exclusively, to long passages, 
 e. g. Christ's words about his second coming. 
 
 21. Use grammar more as a check than as a positive 
 guide, remembering that grammar comes originally from 
 the meaning and not the meaning from grammar. It 
 will not do to infer that because a sentence can be put to- 
 gether in a certain way grammatically, therefore the mean- 
 ing so elicited is respectable, or at least possible. It may 
 not be either. 
 
46 HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 
 
 22. Try to cast off, for the nonce, your familiarity with 
 the New Testament, and read, or hear, it as if for the 
 first time. This is not easy; to do it perfectly is not 
 possible; but something like it may be done by the help 
 of the imagination. The missionary has an advantage 
 here, in watching sympathetically the very entrance of 
 the divine words into the minds of his converts. Every 
 Christian parent has a similar opportunity with his young 
 children. But without the help of social interest a mind 
 of good literary training, in emptying itself of prejudice, 
 in putting itself in the place of the past, can attain some 
 of the joy and exhilaration of a new-found treasure. It 
 can almost forget its knowledge and substitute discovery 
 for memory. 
 
 23. Do not be over-anxious about the usefulness of 
 what seems to be the meaning of a passage. The first 
 thing is to find the ti-ue meaning; then the usefulness will 
 take care of itself. The apparent sermon-producing 
 power of a text is not always its genuine spiritual power. 
 That is the practical aim of all good exegesis, and it comes 
 only from the truth. 
 
 24. It is worth while to fill out by the imagination 
 what is omitted in intentional brevity. E. g., we read in 
 Acts xviii. 1 1 that Paul stayed at Corinth " a year and six 
 months, teaching the word of God." Exegesis proper has 
 nothing to do here, but the exegete who is filled with the 
 spirit of his work, and is not satisfied with perfunctory 
 explication of words, will kindle with enthusiasm at the 
 thought of the daily life of the apostle during those eight- 
 
HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 47 
 
 een months, in the prime of his vigor and at one of the 
 chief centers of ancient civilization. And though the 
 interpreter, as such, is allowed no more than a passing 
 reference to the eloquent silence of the historian, yet 
 the habit of expanding in his own mind compressed out- 
 lines of narrative, as a microscopic picture is expanded 
 by the magic lantern, is a noble help in interpreting all 
 New Testament history. 
 
 25. Practice the exegesis of other authors with some- 
 thing of the carefulness employed on the New Testament. 
 You will find that this is not the only book containing 
 passages " hard to be understood" ; and this fact tends to 
 remove hard feelings, or fretfulness, in encountering ob- 
 scure texts. Such study, also, gives a peculiarly valuable 
 exegetical experience. It affords a much needed variety, 
 breaks the monotony of style and subject, throws off any 
 factitious solemnity, and returns the mental powers to 
 their main task with fresh and broadened energy. Nor 
 need this outside experience be confined to Greek and 
 Latin. The earlier, and some of the later, English authors 
 yield ample room. A month spent in the exegesis of 
 Shakespeare is good preparation for a month on Paul. 
 And if one wishes practice in Higher Criticism, Shake- 
 speare offers a fine and harmless opportunity. 
 
 26. Be willing to accept a part, if you cannot have the 
 whole. There is great virtue in exegetical entering- 
 wedges. Secure every inch gained. Hold fast by every 
 word that is settled. Look steadily in every hopeful di- 
 rection of drift of thought. Work and watch and wait; 
 
4$ HINTS ON NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 
 
 then watch and work again. Also be willing, so far as 
 this is consistent with indomitable perseverance, to leave 
 many things forever unexplained. This humble, but 
 open-eyed, willingness to be left in the dark may be the 
 forerunner of unexpected light. 
 
DISCUSSIONS 
 
 A POINT OF GRAMMAR IN THE "GLORIA IN EXCELSIS" 
 
 J6!-a £v 0^iaroi<s #£tiT xal im yrjs elpijvrj iv dv&pdtxots eudoxeta. 
 
 — Psalter, Cod. A, Hymn xiv. 
 A6£a iv u<pi<JTOi$ &eaT xal krtl y9j<s etpyvr) iv av$pd>7tots eudoxia$. 
 
 — Luke ii. 14. 
 
 It is unfortunate for English-speaking and English- 
 singing people that there is a textual difficulty in the 
 Gloria in Excelsis, It makes very little difference in 
 Greek which of the two forms given above is used. It 
 is a matter of only one letter, and a chorus of singers need 
 not raise a nice question of syntax on that account. But 
 in English it makes a difference, at least in respect to 
 clearness, whether we say and sing, " On earth peace,good- 
 will toward men," or, with the Revised Version, "On 
 earth peace among men in whom he is well pleased." 
 
 There is no escape, however, from the evidence that 
 eudoxia? is the true reading in Luke. A clear and full 
 discussion of the text may be found in Westcott and 
 Hort's New Testament, vol. ii., Appendix, pp. 52-56, 
 Am. Ed. We find there, also, as subsidiary to the settle- 
 ment of the text, certain points of interpretation which 
 will be alluded to in the following discussion. The 
 
 49 
 
50 THE " GLORIA IN EXCELSIS " 
 
 learned editors consider the phrase av&pd)Ttoi$ eudoxtas a 
 Hebraism which would be literally translated " men of 
 good pleasure." This is substantially the rendering of 
 the Revised Version. 
 
 There are some objections to this construction. 
 
 i. There is the very serious objection that the mean- 
 ing is not obvious. If euduxta meant good-will as a 
 moral quality, then "men of good-will," as the Rheims 
 version has it, would be intelligible. But what does 
 " men of good pleasure" mean? The meaning " men who 
 are the objects of some one's good pleasure" certainly is 
 not very natural. 
 
 2. The construction is foreign to Greek, which does 
 not admit a "genitive of characteristic" with a personal 
 noun, except as a predicate. Whether it is a Hebraism 
 or not will be considered presently. It might possibly 
 pass for a Latinism, but it goes even beyond the Latin, 
 which does not allow this genitive without a modifying 
 adjective — a difficulty overcome in the Vulgate by the 
 phrase " hominibus bonae voluntatis." The point is that 
 evdoxias combined with dv&pwxoi? is not genuine Greek. 
 
 3. It is not clear that the construction is a Hebraism, 
 if it carries with it the meaning "men who are the ob- 
 jects of favor, or good pleasure." Cremersays (Lex., p. 
 215, Edin. Ed.) that if ebdoxtas is the correct reading 
 the phrase is to be explained like -vtxva opyrjs, and uld? 
 I3a<rdeta$. But this very striking Hebraism is very differ- 
 ent from the far simpler idiom " man of," which is perhaps 
 as common in English as in Hebrew. We find in the 
 
THE "GLORIA IN EXCELSIS ™ 5 I 
 
 New Testament xptrr)? tt}<s ddixtas — which certainly does 
 not mean "judge who is the object, or victim, of injus- 
 tice" — and a few other similar phrases that signify per- 
 sons possessed of certain qualities expressed by the geni- 
 tive. Neither in the New Testament nor in the Septua- 
 gint, outside of this passage, is eudoxtag found in com- 
 bination with a personal noun that expresses the object 
 of eudoxia. Such a phrase as xaipbs ebdoxia$ in Psalm 
 lxviii. 14 (lxix. 13), "time of favor," is quite different. 
 What is more, the nearest Hebrew equivalent of eudoxia, 
 )ilH, furnishes no parallel. There is no "man of favor," 
 although we have "day of favor" (Isa. lviii. 5), and 
 "year of favor" (Isa. lxi. 2), which latter is quoted in 
 Luke iv. 19, as hiaorov dexrov. The usage with in ap- 
 pears to be the same. )n TVffe (Prov. xi. 16) is trans- 
 lated in the Septuagint yuvr) euxapHrro?. In Daniel x. II, 
 19, we find the original of "man greatly beloved" to be 
 nVipP] tt^tf, translated in the Vulgate vir desideriorum, 
 but probably meaning "a man of charms," literally "man 
 of precious things." Everything seems to show that the 
 Hebraism "son of" stands by itself. To identify this 
 with "man of" seems to be putting a grammatical — we 
 might almost say mechanical — identity for an identity of 
 idiom. The distinction is well illustrated by English 
 usage, for we say "a man of wealth, of influence," etc., 
 but not " a man of kindness (received), of anger (incurred), 
 of caprice (inflicted)." To put the case in terms of gram- 
 mar, the limiting genitive must be equivalent to an ad- 
 
52 THE "GLORIA IN EXCELSIS " 
 
 jective, and not to a passive participle. This distinction 
 between "son of" as meaning often "the object of," "in 
 the condition of," and "man of" as meaning always 
 "possessed of" certain qualities, seems to be accepted by 
 Gesenius in the articles under )3 and ttfNtf. If it is valid, 
 the basis for the interpretation " men of good pleasure" 
 disappears. 
 
 To put the three objections into one, we may say that 
 an over-strained Hebraism displaces a normal Greek con- 
 struction and leads to an obscure meaning. Bishop West- 
 cott, in his separate opinion (Appendix, p. 56), says 
 well ""Avftpcunois ebdoxias is undoubtedly a difficult phrase." 
 
 I wish now to show that eudox(a$ modifies directly 
 etpijvT) instead of avftpcbnois, and is itself modified by the 
 phrase h av#p(bnot$. The literal translation would be 
 " and on earth peace, [the peace] of good-pleasure in men," 
 i. e., the peace that comes from favor, good-will, towards 
 men. 
 
 In support of this I offer: 
 
 1. The &v avfrpwxots eudoxia of the early Greek Psalters. 
 The Biblical Codex Alexandrinus, assigned to the fifth 
 century, contains the Gloria placed at the head of this 
 discussion. The whole hymn — Morning Hymn, Tfivos 
 iw&tvo? — may be found in Swete's "Old Testament in 
 Greek," Vol. III., p. 810. It is mostly the "Gloria in 
 Excelsis" of our modern hymn-books, but this is followed 
 by five lines borrowed by, or at least belonging to, the 
 Te Deum, lines containing the only matter specially ap- 
 propriate to morning : — 
 
THE " GLORIA IN EXCELSIS " 53 
 
 xara^iwaov^ xvpie, xai ttjv y/iipav Taurrjv 
 dva/j.apT7JTous (pula^rjvai 7)[J.a$ y 
 and by thirteen lines from Bible sources. There is 
 some advantage in coming to the Gloria of Luke by 
 way of the Psalter. Here we find — dropping the 
 Egyptian peculiarity of -eia for -ia — ebdoxia. It is 
 granted that this nominative case is not entitled to 
 a place in the text of Luke, but, even if it is a cor- 
 ruption of Luke's text, it is genuine Greek, with a re- 
 spectable history of its own, and a right to a fair inter- 
 pretation. What, then, does iv a\>ftpd>7zoi<s ebdoxia mean in 
 the Psalter? I cannot doubt that it means "good pleasure 
 in men." This meaning is maintained by Cremer, on the 
 supposition of its being the true reading in Luke, but 
 doubted by Westcott and Hort. It is favored — 
 
 (#) By the combination of lv with ebdoxiw in the ac- 
 counts of the baptism: &v <ro\ ebdoxyaa, Mark i. 11, Luke 
 iii. 22; iv <p rjudoxrjffa, Matt. iii. 17; also of the transfig- 
 uration, Matt. xvii. 5. The other similar examples in 
 the New Testament are obx & rolg nXeioaiv abrtov ebdoxrjae; 
 6 ?9eo?, 1 Cor. x. 5, and (of things instead of persons) 
 did ebdoxoj £v d<r$eveiais, £v ufipeviy, x. r. A., 2 Cor. xii. IO. 
 Examples in the Septuagint are on r)bd6x*qaev kv ip.01, 2 
 Kings (2 Sam.) xxii. 20, and obx ebdoxei rj (pugy} fioo iv 
 abr<p, Hab. ii. 4, cited in Heb. x. 38. 
 
 (b) The order of words, which Westcott and Hort con- 
 sider "unaccountable," might certainly be in prose ebdoxia 
 iv avftpunoi? ; but in a lyrical outburst like this would not 
 
 " or THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
54 THE "GLORIA IN EXCELSIS " 
 
 the order with eudoxia last be not only allowable, but more 
 forcible? 
 
 (c) The absence of examples of the substantive eudoxia 
 used with iv and the dative, which seems to us the only 
 weak point in this interpretation, may be met by the gen- 
 eral principle that verbal nouns imitate the construction 
 of their verbs. We have examples enough of their gov- 
 erning the dative even without a preposition. The fol- 
 lowing are instances in the New Testament: et$ diaxoviav 
 to1$ ayioi$) I Cor. xvi. l§\ did tzoXXwv ev%api<jTiwv Tip #eo», 
 2 Cor. ix. 12. 
 
 (d) This interpretation allows a natural division of the 
 song into two clauses. A division into three clauses is 
 hardly admissible, but would result from understanding 
 iv dv&pwTtot? locally, "among men." In the twofold 
 division each part would have three subdivisions. Chang- 
 ing the place of 86ga, to facilitate comparison, we have 
 
 iv b(pi<7Tot<s doga ftew 
 
 xdi km yr t <s elprjvr) iv dvftpa>7roi? eudoxia. 
 
 A verbally exact parallel would give at the end of the 
 second clause simply dv&pa>7r<ns — " On high glory to God, 
 On earth peace to men," — but instead of peace to men we 
 have a larger thought which includes this, namely, the 
 peace that comes from the divine favor towards men, 
 reconciliation with men. No connective is needed before 
 iv dv#p<i)7zoi<s because this phrase is appositive and 
 explanatory of elpjjvi) ; the same thought that we sing, 
 with amplification, in the lines: 
 
THE "GLORIA IN EXCELSIS 
 
 55 
 
 "Peace on earth, and mercy mild, 
 God and sinners reconciled." 
 
 All this in interpretation not of Luke ii. 14, directly, 
 but of a part of Hymn xiv. of the ancient Psalter. Let 
 us now make use of this in explaining Luke. 
 
 2. The phrase iv dvftpwnois ebdoxias in Luke ii. 14 
 should be combined in the same manner as the corre- 
 sponding phrase in the Psalter. Several considerations 
 point to this. 
 
 (a) The genitive case, found here instead of a nomi- 
 native, gives a different grammatical connection for the 
 phrase as a whole, but does not invalidate any of the rea- 
 sons just brought forward in the case of the Psalter in 
 regard to the meaning of the phrase itself. It merely 
 offers us another possible construction, namely, as a geni- 
 tive limiting avftpunois only, the objections to which 
 have been already considered (p. 50). 
 
 (<5) If the ebdoxta of the Psalter arose from a scribe's 
 error in copying Luke, the error would be more likely to 
 take place if the construction with & dv&pa)7roi$ were un- 
 derstood to be the same. Constructions so different as 
 " among men of good pleasure" and " good pleasure in 
 men," would arrest the attention and prevent mistake 
 from carelessness. If the change was intentional, the 
 scribe could have best justified it by claiming that the ac- 
 companying construction was unchanged, while a prob- 
 ably original conformity to the case of elprfvy was 
 restored. Is it not a sound textual principle that in vari- 
 ations the least possible disturbance of context is to be 
 assumed? 
 
56 THE "GLORIA IN EXCELSIS " 
 
 (c) A song like this, short, easily remembered, and of 
 intense interest to the Christian communities, must have 
 been communicated largely by oral tradition. This makes 
 for the same combination, whether the nominative or 
 genitive were used. The phrase-meaning would naturally 
 remain unchanged, while the variation in the last word 
 would simply determine the relation of the phrase to 
 etprjvq. The difference in meaning would pass for nothing 
 in repetition from memory. The thought in both cases 
 would be "peace on earth, good pleasure in men," the 
 second phrase being in the one case an explanatory ap- 
 positive, and in the other an explanatory genitive sug- 
 gesting the origin of the peace. 
 
 This unstudied oral transmission, which leads us back 
 of the scribe bending laboriously, or, as the case may be, 
 carelessly, over his parchment, may be assumed from the 
 very early difference between Luke and the Psalter. In- 
 deed we do not know that Luke was the first to pen the 
 angel-song in Greek. When therefore we find in the 
 Codex Alexandrinus eudoxta$ in Luke, and eudoxta in 
 the Psalter, both from the hand of the same scribe, we 
 may well suppose that both words came down independ- 
 ently from the time of those traditions spoken of by Luke 
 in his Preface. It does not take many generations of 
 manuscripts to reach from the fifth century to the first. 
 
 (d) If the order of words is an objection to combining 
 eudoxia (nom.) with h avftpwnois — though we cannot 
 but think it of small account — the objection is removed 
 by the use of eudox(a$ (gen.); for if ebdoxias, as modified 
 
THE "GLORIA IN EXCELSIS " 57 
 
 by iv dv#^ctf7ro.'9, is combined with eipTJvTj, it would be a 
 natural order even in prose to put h avtipioxois between 
 the two. Without doubt, we should in prose look for 
 the article after dprjvq — i) rrjs kv dv#pd>7tot$ eudoxias — but this 
 burst of song is not prose. No article is found in it, al- 
 though the generosity of Greek might have given us six or 
 seven in prose. Compare Luke xix. 38, iv ovpavw siprjvT] xai 
 d6$a iv v<p{<rrots, where we might have had four articles. 
 
 This exegesis of Luke, reasonable when taken by 
 itself, is thus strongly supported by the Psalter, in 
 which the meaning "good pleasure in men" is, I can- 
 not but think, the only one admissible. The case is 
 not, indeed, the same as if another evangelist had 
 given the reading eudoxta, but if Matthew had recorded 
 the angel's song, and had written eudoxta, one could hardly 
 avoid saying that both he and Luke were substantially 
 at one, and meant "good pleasure in men." 
 
 Our general conclusion, then, is that the meaning of 
 the second clause in Luke ii. 14 is "On earth peace — the 
 peace of good pleasure in men," reconciliation with men, 
 good-will towards men. It is a pleasant result of this 
 discussion to find that what we still sing in the Gloria in 
 Excelsis and what we read in the Greek of Luke are so 
 closely alike. The peace on earth is " the peace of God," 
 and the song of the heavenly host is constantly echoed in 
 the gospel benedictions — "Grace, Mercy, and Peace." 
 
II 
 
 y E7TtOU<TtO$, TRANSLATED IN THE LORD'S PRAYER " DAILY." 
 
 Tov aprov r)[iu>v tov imoufftov db$ ijfiiv arjfxepov. 
 
 — Matt. vi. ii. 
 
 Tov aprov i)[iQ)v rbv £tuougiov didou ijfxtv to xaff rjpipav. 
 
 — Luke xi. 3. 
 
 The word £tzioooio$ seems never to have been fully 
 incorporated into the Greek language. Not found earlier 
 than the New Testament, it has, even in later ecclesiasti- 
 cal Greek, the position of a quoted rather than an adopted 
 word. In the New Testament itself it is found but twice, 
 and practically but once. 
 
 § I. SKETCH OF THE HISTORY OF THE DISCUSSION. 
 
 'Entobaws has undoubtedly received more lexical discus- 
 sion than any other word in the New Testament. The 
 long series goes back more than sixteen centuries, to the 
 Father of Biblical Criticism. Origen in his " Treatise 
 on Prayer," which is largely an exposition of the Lord's 
 Prayer, says: "Since some suppose that we are told to 
 pray for bread for the body, it is worth while, after hav- 
 ing in this way refuted their false notions, to settle the 
 truth in regard to the substantial (kniotxnov) bread. . . . 
 First, this must be understood, that the word tizLobawv is 
 found in none of the Greeks, being used neither by phi- 
 losophers nor in the current speech of ordinary men, but 
 it seems to have been formed by the Evangelists. At 
 
 58 
 
'Eittobaio? in the lord's prayer 59. 
 
 any rate Matthew and Luke agreed about the word, hav- 
 ing brought it out without any difference whatever. The 
 translators of the Hebrew have done the same in the case 
 of other words. For who of the Greeks ever used the 
 expression hcori^oo [in-ear] or axooria^rj-i [make-hear] in- 
 stead of el? rd a>ra d£%at [receive into your ears] and 
 dxooaat rroieT? [cause you to hear]? Quite like &mob<no<s 
 is a word in the writings of Moses, spoken by God, 
 'Ye shall be to me a people xepw6<no$' ; and both words 
 seem to me to have been formed from obaia [substance] ; 
 the former meaning bread converted into our substance, 
 the latter signifying a people employed about substance 
 [what is substantial?] and devoted to it. . . . Just as 
 bodily bread by being brought into union with the body for 
 its nourishment passes into its substance, so the living bread 
 that came down from heaven, being brought into union 
 with the mind and the soul, imparts of its virtue to him 
 who has given himself up to be nourished by it. And 
 so will it be what we ask for as substantial bread."* Many 
 points of remark are suggested by this, but I will speak 
 only of etymology. The derivation given by Origen, 
 which, whether original with him or not, has its earliest 
 record in his writings, has had a long and honorable life, 
 and finds an able advocacy, though with a different mean- 
 ing, in one of the latest New Testament lexicons, the 
 " Biblico-Theological Lexicon" of Prof. Hermann Cre- 
 mer. In regard to the coining of the word by the Evan- 
 gelists, Origen was, no doubt, influenced by his belief 
 
 *Orig. Op. Omn. T. Col. 505-5". (Migne Patr. Gr. XI.) 
 
6o 
 
 that Matthew first wrote in Hebrew, and then translated. 
 A translator is more likely to coin words than an inde- 
 pendent narrator. But if Matthew's Greek is the origi- 
 nal, as most scholars now think, there may have been 
 also a current Lord's Prayer in Greek, which was incor- 
 porated by both Matthew and Luke into their Gospels. 
 Again, the word 7zeptou<nos might deceive even Origen 
 by a false analogy. We know that the philology of the 
 ancients cannot be trusted, though it is not so with their 
 usage. Ludicrous examples of false derivation can be 
 found in Cicero, but perhaps only one case of error in the 
 use of a word ; and that we should hesitate to believe if 
 he had not himself confessed it. It seems to me that the 
 strongest point in favor of Origen's derivation — not ex- 
 planation — of Imovaios is that he makes no account of the 
 retention of the final letter of km in composition with 
 obffia. This was a matter not of reasoning, but of Greek 
 feeling. Was it simple inadvertence? 
 
 We ought next to notice the opinion of "the Latin 
 Origen." Portions of Jerome's comment on Matt. vi. 
 1 1 are often quoted. Entire, it is as follows : — "What we 
 have translated super- sub stantialem is given in Greek 
 intoufftov, which word the Seventy Translators most 
 frequently give as nepioixnov. We have examined 
 therefore the Hebrew, and wherever they have used ne- 
 piooaiov we have found SGOLIA,* which Symmachus has 
 translated igatpeTov, that is, pre-eminent or distinguished, 
 although in a certain passage he has expressed it by 
 
 * riV^P ? Ex. xix. 5; Deut. vii. 6; xiv. 2; xxvi. 18. 
 
'EntOUGlOS IN THE LORD'S PRAYER 6l 
 
 peculiare [private treasure]. When, therefore, we ask 
 of God to bestow upon us that bread which is a peculiar 
 treasure, or pre-eminent, we ask for Him who says, 'I 
 am the living bread, which came down from heaven.' In 
 the Gospel which is called 'according to the Hebrews,' 
 instead of supersubstantial bread I have found M AHAR, 
 which means 'for to-morrow' ; so that the sense is: Our 
 bread for to-morrow, that is, for the future give us to- 
 day. We can understand supersubstantial bread, also, in 
 another way, as that which is above all substances and 
 surpasses the whole world of creatures. Others suppose 
 simply that the saints have a care for present food only, 
 according to the language of the apostle who says, 'Hav- 
 ing food and raiment, let us with these be content.' Ac- 
 cordingly, among the subsequent precepts is this one, 
 'Do not take thought for the morrow.' "* 
 
 Jerome here presents four meanings of l-Kiobato$, his 
 own preference being the first. His identifying nepwuaios 
 and imovaio? is rather surprising from a philological 
 point of view, but he evidently looks at the matter practi- 
 cally, and follows his master Origen in ascribing about 
 the same meaning to both. The fourth meaning, " pres- 
 ent bread," comes from giving to eneiixt. the sense of 
 ndpetfit. But the point of chief interest is the reference 
 to the " Gospel according to the Hebrews," which means 
 not simply a Gospel written in Hebrew, but a Gospel 
 composed, or received, by certain Hebrews. In Book III. 
 
 ♦Hieron. op. omn. vii. Col. 44. (Migne, Patrol. Lat. Vol.26.) In Evan. Matt. 
 Lib. I. Cap. vi. 
 
62 'Eraovatos IN THE LORD'S PRAYER 
 
 Contra Pelagium he describes it as the gospel written in 
 the Chaldaic and Syrian language in Hebrew letters, and 
 used even to his day by the Nazarenes.* He also, on 
 Matt. xii. 13, speaks of "the Gospel which the Nazarenes 
 and Ebionites use, which lately we translated from He- 
 brew into Greek, and which is called by most the origi- 
 nal Gospel of Matthew, "f 
 
 He also states that he has translated it into Latin and 
 that Origen often makes use of it. J 
 
 This reference to the Hebrew, or Aramaic, Gospel is a 
 testimony, whatever it may be worth, to the derivation 
 from kni and tevat. If it were the original of 
 Matthew, it would also settle the meaning of the word. 
 But if it was simply a translation, like its Syriac sisters, 
 or an Ebionitic tractate, then its MAHAR is merely the 
 opinion of an unknown author of an almost unknown 
 version. § This leads to the question, Why did not Jerome, 
 and why also did not Origen follow the rendering of 
 imouffto? found in the Hebrew Gospel? And the only 
 possible answer is that neither of them believed this Gos- 
 pel to be the original of Matthew, or otherwise authori- 
 tative. 
 
 ♦In Evangelio juxta Hebraeos, quod Chaldaico quidem Syroque sermone, sed 
 Hebraicis litteris, scriptum est, quo utuntur usque hodie Nazareni. Migne's 
 edition II 785. 
 
 fin Evangelio, quo utuntur Nazaraeni et Ebionitae (quod nuper in Graecum de 
 Hebraeo sermone transtulimus, et quod vocatur a plerisque Matthaei authenti 
 cum). Migne vii. 77. 
 
 JEvangelium quoque quod appellatur secundum Hebraeos, et a me nuper in 
 Graecum Latinumque sermonem translatum est, quo et Origines saepe utitur. 
 Migne ii. 831. 
 
 §A11 the extant fragments of this Gospel may be found in Hilgenfe,ld's "Novum 
 Testamentum extra Canonem," Fasc. iv. Ed. ii p. 15. They contain but twenty- 
 five Hebrew words, and with all the Greek and Latin interpretations occupy but 
 two and a half pages. There is a thoroughly annotated edition by E. B. Nichol- 
 son, Bodleian Librarian, London, 1879. 
 
'Emovaws in the lord's prayer 63 
 
 It is a long step — in time and in style — from Jerome 
 to Calvin, and to the following pithy lines: "Because 
 the kindness of God flows in a continuous course for our 
 nourishment, the bread that he supplies is called kxwuatos, 
 that is, superveniens [still-coming], for so we may 
 render it; as much as to say: Lord, since daily our life 
 has need of new nourishments, be thou never wearied in 
 constantly bestowing them."* 
 
 If the great theologian had had as much influence in 
 this exegesis as in his theology, a world of subsequent 
 discussion would have been saved. The moaning of " su- 
 perveniens" may be illustrated from Horace, where he 
 says, speaking of the transitoriness of our possessions, — 
 
 Sic quia perpetuus nulli datur usus, et heres 
 Heredem alterius velut unda superve?iit undara. 
 
 Ep. ii. 2, 175-6. 
 
 Calvin's implied etymology shows that the derivation 
 from iitibat, which he does not think it necessary to 
 discuss, was familiar to scholars. 
 
 In passing from Calvin to Tholuck one omits between 
 fifty and sixty of the seventy-five "philologians and theo- 
 logians" mentioned by the latter in his discussion of this 
 word. This discussion is found in the " Exposition of 
 the Sermon on the Mount," pages 341-353 of the edition 
 in English.")* It is marked by great learning and acute- 
 
 *Quia Dei benignitas continuo tenore ad nos pascendos fluit, panis quem min- 
 istrat vocatur llziooGtos, hoc est, superveniens: sic enim interpretari licet. 
 Tantundem ergo volet hoc nomen acsi dictum esset: Domine, quum quotidie 
 novis alimentis opus habeat vita nostra, ne assidue ea largiendo unquam fati- 
 geris. — Ioannis Calvini in Harmoniam ex Matthaeo, Marco et Luca compositam 
 Commentarii. Berolini, 1833. Ed. Tholuck, Vol. i. p. 169. 
 
 fBrown's translation (T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, i860), which is from the fourth 
 German edition, 1856. The first German edition was published in 1833. 
 
64 ^Eiziouaios IN THE LORD'S PRAYER 
 
 ness, and especially by the great number of quoted opin- 
 ions. That the author does not refer to Calvin is the 
 more noticeable because he himself edited the Commen- 
 tary from which I have quoted. 
 
 He opens by saying, " This word has been the subject 
 of numerous learned disquisitions, yet is there room for 
 new investigations. Scultetus calls the interpretation of 
 Utovato? carnificina theologorum et grammaticorum." 
 
 The derivation of the word is fully considered, with this 
 conclusion : " Great as are the difficulties in the way 
 of deriving kitiovaws from elvau, yet, even were they 
 greater, we must still give the preference to that deriva- 
 tion, and for this reason, that it is impossible, on the sup- 
 position of its derivation from kxiovaa, to find in it any 
 meaning in keeping with the context." (P. 346.) "The 
 notion of Ernesti that the prayer was to be offered in the 
 evening, so that then one would literally pray to-day for 
 the bread of to-morrow, looks like jesting." (P. 345.) 
 
 The meaning is given thus: " The Imouawv is some- 
 thing between to £AXn:i$ and the jcspurvdy or the neptoufftov, 
 and denotes that which is just enough. So under- 
 stood, the prayer has many analogies in the Old and 
 New Testaments; compare, for example, Prov. xxx. 8, 
 where Solomon prays, u Keep far from me poverty and 
 riches.'" (P. 348.) 
 
 The discussion closes with a refutation of the mystical 
 view that kitwo<no<; refers to spiritual bread. The whole 
 discussion is a noble exemplification of modern Biblical 
 scholarship. 
 
'Emobato? in the lord's prayer 65 
 
 The next specially noteworthy discussion of 
 &7zwb<Jio<$ is the contribution of philological scholar- 
 ship. Leo Meyer devotes to it twenty-nine pages in the 
 " Zeitschrift fur vergleichende Sprachforschung," Vol. 
 v i i . , pp. 401-430. (Berlin, 1858.) Herodotus, Xenophon, 
 Plato, Demosthenes and the tragedians are brought into 
 the field as well as the Biblical writers, and one page con- 
 tains forty references to Homer on the question of ini 
 with or without its final vowel. The two etymologies — 
 from elvat and iivai— are considered at length, and 
 comparative etymology is not neglected. It is only after 
 more than twenty pages of historical and philological 
 preparation that we reach the announcement, " Wir kom- 
 men nun zu kizioixnos selbst." He derives it from km 
 and OVT-, and gives the principal meaning to the prepo- 
 sition. 'Emouffio? "is being for something," i. e., useful, 
 serviceable. While the linguistic value of this essay is 
 great, the artificial aspect of the proposed word-building 
 makes it seem more like a philological specimen than an 
 actual word. Ancient versions are not discussed, except 
 that a page is given to the Gothic. This is valuable, as 
 would be expected from the author's scholarship in that 
 field. 
 
 This short sketch — mere fragments of an outline — of 
 the lexical history of iiztoumo? began with the greatest 
 of the Fathers, and may fitly end with one of the great- 
 est of modern Patristic scholars. When the revisers 
 were at the beginning of their work, Bishop Lightfoot, 
 certainly their leader, issued (1871) his book " On a Fresh 
 
66 EnwOato? IN the lord's prayer 
 
 Revision of the English New Testament," with an ap- 
 pendix on the words i-totxriu?, 7zeptou<rto$. This is 
 Appendix I. of the third edition (1891), which I use. 
 To iittouffio? forty-three pages are given (217-260). The 
 divisions are (1) The etymology of the word, (2) The 
 requirements of the sense, (3) The tenor of tradition. 
 All but seven pages is devoted to the third division. Of 
 this he says (p. 219) : "It was chiefly the conviction that 
 justice had not been done to its consideration which led 
 me to institute the investigation afresh." Under the 
 third division he discusses the derivation of the word as 
 found (1) in the Greek Fathers, (2) in the Aramaic ver- 
 sions, especially the Curetonian Syriac, and the Gospel 
 according to the Hebrews, (3) in the Egyptian versions, 
 and (4) in the Latin, — especially the Old Latin. The 
 two lines given to the Gothic (p. 258) can be supplemented 
 by the page of Leo Meyer already referred to. Earliest 
 tradition is shown to favor the derivation from intivat. 
 
 § 2. ETYMOLOGY AND MEANING. 
 
 In regard to the etymology, we might make short work 
 of it, so far as Greek is concerned, if we could adopt the 
 desperate conjecture of Dr. Cureton, who thinks that ^7rr- 
 uuatos was formed from the Aramaic by transliteration.* 
 Letting this pass, we have first to choose between the 
 derivation from iiti and eTvat, or oueia, and im and iivai. 
 I assume the latter, referring the reader to Lightfoot 
 and Thayer's Lexicon for the reasons. But the der- 
 
 *See preface to his edition of the Curetonian Syriac Version, "Remains of a 
 very Antient Recension," etc., p. xviii. 
 
'Emoufftos in TH-E lord's prayer 67 
 
 ivation from kiziivat may be on either of two lines: 
 (1) from Iruouaa, with ijpipa supplied, or (2) from the 
 participle £-td>v direct. The former yields a somewhat 
 different meaning from the latter, and is adopted by the 
 best authorities. Winer says (N. T. Grammar, p. 97, 
 Thayer's ed.): u *Eittouato$ has probably direct relation 
 to the fern. (57) iniouaa, sc. ypipa, and accordingly apro$ 
 i-iobaws means 'bread for the following day.'" To 
 this two objections are made which certainly are worth 
 considering. 
 
 1. The first has reference to its form. The adjective 
 formed by -i<>$ from kniooGa, as a substantive, would 
 regularly be ixtuuffalos, like deurepalo? (Acts xxviii. 13), 
 Terapraios (John xi. 39), dexaraios, etc. This objection 
 seems to have originated with Salmasius. Bishop 
 Lightfoot questions the validity of it on two grounds: 
 " The termination -ah>$ in all these adjectives is sug- 
 gested by the long -a or -77 of the primitives from which 
 they are derived, deuripa, rpirrj^ etc. ; and the short end- 
 ing of Imotxra is not a parallel case. Moreover, the 
 meaning is not the same; for the adjectives in -a?o? 
 fix a date, e. g. rerapralo<s rjlftev, 'he came on the fourth 
 day,' whereas the sense which we require here is much 
 more general, implying simply possession or connection."* 
 
 One may be pardoned for expressing some surprise at 
 this paragraph, for (1) What evidence have we that the 
 quantity of the nominative ending was regarded? These 
 adjectives are formed on the original a stem, as their 
 
 *On a Fresh Revision of the English New Testament, Appendix i. 
 
68 *Etzwu<jlo$ in the lord's prayer 
 
 deviation from ■/) shows. The stem-ending was long in 
 all first-declension feminines, and always so appeared in 
 the genitive and dative cases, whatever the quantity of 
 the nominative. I have here and there lighted on the 
 following examples of adjectives in -au>$ from short- 
 ending feminines of this declension: dpoupalos, deXXah>$, 
 a/jLat-dtos, iytovalos, ftaXaaaaTos, fieXcfftTalos, poipouos, Hivaio?, 
 ^aAaCaTo?, yEolic Motffalo?. True, we have adjectives in 
 -:o? from nouns of short endings, as dtipto?, and not dt<palo$, 
 from diipa; but we also have those in -i<>$ from nouns 
 of long endings, as re/iut?, k<r-£pu>s, y/xipcos, and never 
 rtfiaTo^ etc. Without doubt, there are more adjectives 
 in -aws from long-vowel nouns than from short, but I 
 suppose there are a great many more feminine sub- 
 stantives ending in ->? and -a than in -a. Further, 
 while the final stem-vowel is long in the primaries, it 
 is shortened in forming the diphthong at. Otherwise 
 the ending would be -ao<s. How, then, is -ah>$ even 
 "suggested" more by a long nominative ending than 
 by a short one? (2) These numerical adjectives are not 
 confined to the fixing of dates, as the lexicons abundantly 
 show. Their suffix -to$ is general and indefinite. When 
 they agree with the subject of a verb, as commonly, the 
 date-force is inferential. TtrapraTo<s yMsv is literally " a 
 fourth-day man he came." v Apro$ zerapralos would 
 mean " bread of the fourth day," and &pro$ bttooaaTo? "bread 
 of the next day." For the very reason that they all im- 
 ply -fjLiipa in their primaries, they would attract a new- 
 comer, like kTztouffalos, to their form. This objection, then, 
 
'Enwuaios in the lord's prayer 69 
 
 whatever may be its value, seems to be well sustained. 
 2. The second objection has been made to rest on the 
 incongruity introduced, and which can be seen by read- 
 ing the two passages thus: "Give us this day our bread 
 for the morrow," " Give us day by day our bread for the 
 morrow." As I have felt this objection strongly myself, 
 I perhaps have the right now to say that it has been 
 greatly over-rated, for 9 kTzwdaa y/igpa is not pre- 
 cisely equivalent to 9 aupiov. Lightfoot shows plainly 
 enough (p. 226) the difference, and illustrates it by re- 
 ferring to the Ecclesiazusae of Aristophanes, lines 20, 
 105, to which might be added 83-85. A much better il- 
 lustration is furnished by A. H. Wratislaw in his pam- 
 phlet entitled "New evidence as to the origin and mean- 
 ing of httovaws in the Lord's Prayer." Plato's " Crito" 
 opens with the question of Socrates as to why Crito 
 comes so early to the prison. It is early dawn (op&po? 
 {3a$us). He is the bearer of sad news; the ship from 
 Delos will be here to-day (rTJ/iepov), and therefore Soc- 
 rates must die to-morrow (efoauptov). Socrates does 
 not believe that the ship will arrive to-day (rrjfiepov). 
 He promises to give his reason, and then repeats his 
 statement in this form : Ob roivuv rjy? £7tiou<T7)$ ijp.ipa<s ol/xai 
 aurd ijZeiv, dUd T7j$ iripa?. It cannot be doubted that 
 rrjfjLepov and imouffys refer to the same day. Other 
 examples introduced by Mr. Wratislaw do not seem 
 to me correctly explained, but this one is clear 
 and sufficient. It may be paralleled from the Book of 
 Common Prayer, which, in Morning Prayer for families, 
 
70 'Elttouffto? IN THE LORD'S PRAYER 
 
 speaks of being "brought in safety to the beginning of 
 this day " and further on implores "grace and protection 
 for the ensuing day. " 
 
 There is no absurdity, then, in saying, "Give us this 
 day our bread for the coming day ;" but, at the same time, 
 every one must feel the scant need of the addition, " for 
 the coming day." The petition comes unpleasantly near 
 tautology, and that too without emphasis. The same 
 impression is made by the language of Luke, " Give us 
 day by day our bread for the coming day," but with less 
 propriety in the connection. 
 
 If, now, we put this impression of tautology beside 
 the serious objection to the form, already considered, there 
 is reason enough for examining carefully the other der- 
 ivation from intivat, viz., from intm, disconnected 
 from the notion of "day," especially as the Old Syriac 
 version suggests a meaning that could arise in no other 
 way. Such a derivation is countenanced by the words 
 £&iXwv £&eXou<Tios, kxmv ixouato?. This last pair we 
 find in the New Testament (i Cor. ix. 17; Philemon, 
 14). Lightfoot, indeed, remarks (p. 223), "No motive 
 existed for introducing an adjective by the side of kruwv, 
 sufficiently powerful to produce the result in an advanced 
 stage of the language, when the fertility of creating new 
 forms had been greatly impaired." But such a prio?-i 
 decisions must be received with great caution. And do 
 not new forms abound in the later times of a language, 
 when word-making becomes more conscious, as the lan- 
 guage itself is more the object of study, and writers try 
 
'Emouaws in the lord's prayer 71 
 
 to escape the monotony of a fixed vocabulary ? At any 
 rate, the New Testament, though a small volume, contains 
 nearly nine hundred words not found in Greek literature 
 before (and including) Aristotle. Most of these bear ob- 
 vious marks of derivation, showing themselves to be 
 comparatively recent, and not old popular words lifted 
 into literary use. 
 
 The existence of the participle, then, does not forbid 
 the existence of the similar adjective. The adjective 
 turns the single act into a general or habitual state. "E&(Xw\> 
 means " wishing," £#eXouaio$ "voluntary." The ending 
 -to? is like the English -y. Compare "snowing" and 
 "snowy." c kmcbv a^ro?, literally "the on-coming 
 bread," might mean the next loaf that should come on 
 the table, but 6 bctoufftos apro<; would mean, not the next,hut, 
 if we had such a word, " next-y bread," i. e., bread that 
 we expect continuously, continually, the constant supply 
 of bread; in colloquial parlance, "bread right along." 
 If the point be pressed that Ituougios is a very unusual 
 word, and unlikely to arise in the way now supposed, the 
 answer is that it comes from a very common participle 
 by means of a suffix that is very common. The participle 
 is so common that it is even used substantively, yfiipa 
 being understood, for "the next day," iniooaa. To illus- 
 trate again from English, if one should coin the word 
 "Jyeez-yf it might seem strange, and might never be 
 adopted into the language, but it would be perfectly in- 
 telligible, so long as we say "freez-ing." 
 
 In regard to form, the stem imovr- would by regular 
 
72 'EmoLHTtOS IN THE LORD'S PRAYER 
 
 euphonic changes become £mou$-, very nearly as its 
 feminine becomes Itzioogcl. 
 
 One cannot be quite satisfied with any explanation of 
 this word that does not suggest some Hebrew equivalent 
 or Aramaic original. Now, if it contains the notion of 
 a constant supply of need, a continuous bestowment, then 
 we naturally look for some Hebrew expression for con- 
 tinual, perhaps daily, work and service At once we 
 think of the "continual" offerings and the daily services 
 of the sanctuary. The " continual burnt-offering" which 
 was to be offered "day by day" (Ex. xxix. 38, 42) was 
 Tpfi rPJf, "offering of continuance." In the same use 
 of *VOfi we find " men of continuance" (Ezek.xxxix. 14), 
 i. e., men employed in regular, constant work ; " diet of con- 
 tinuance," given to Jehoiachin "every day" (Jer. lii. 34), 
 and even "bread of continuance" (Num. iv. 7), applied 
 to the shew-bread. So much was TJDfi used in associa- 
 tion with the daily burnt-offering that in later usage it 
 stands alone for the offering itself. In Dan. viii. 11, 
 12, 13; xi. 31; xii. 11, it is, literally, the "continuance" 
 that is "taken away." Our common version has it, the 
 " daily sacrifice" ; the Revision more accurately, the " con- 
 tinual burnt-offering." 
 
 "VQn is usually translated in the Septuagint by dtanavTo?, 
 as, ol aprot ol dianavros, Num. iv. 7 ; several times, mostly 
 in later usage, by ZvdeXiyjfffj.6?, as ftoaiav hSzlzyiatiob, 
 Ex. xxix. 42 ; 6Xoxaur6(7et? ivdehyHTfiod, 2 Esdr. iii. 5. 
 The most remarkable translation is in Num. iv. 16, 
 rj $u<Tia ij xa»y rj/iipav, which seems to be the begin- 
 
'ExiOLXTtog IN THE LORD'S PRAYER 73 
 
 ning of that confusion of meanings — continual, daily — 
 amounting to a side-development, that has come down to 
 our day. It is noticeable that no adjective is used in these 
 renderings. Whether kxiov<no$ would have been some- 
 times used, if in existence, we need not inquire. The 
 usual phrase in the Vulgate is juge sacrificium — this 
 adjective being used by Horace to describe a perennial 
 fountain, jugis aqucefons (Sat. ii. 6, 2). 
 
 § 3. THREE EARLY VERSIONS. 
 
 The meaning "constant, continual," which is, to say 
 the least, illustrated by the Hebrew, seems to be confirmed 
 by the three most important ancient versions, Old 
 Syriac, Old Latin, and Gothic. To begin with the 
 latest — about A. D. 350 — in the Gothic version Matt. vi. 
 11 (the corresponding passage in Luke is lost) reads: 
 Hlaif unsarana thana sinteinan gif uns himma daga; 
 which may be Englished, with no regard to the Greek, 
 word for word : " Bread ours the continual give us 
 this day." Sinteinan (nom. sinteins) is given in all the 
 glossaries as "daily." Massman, however, and Bernhardt 
 (1S84) give two meanings," immerwahrend, taglich." Leo 
 Meyer in his " Gothische Sprache" (p. 98 et al.) gives 
 "fortwahrend, taglich." Kluge, under Sundflut, gives 
 " taglich, immerwahrend" and compares the plant-name 
 sinTgrun, the Anglo-Saxon sin-grene and symle, and 
 the Latin semper. The same prefix is seen at least 
 twice in Beowulf — sin-gal, " continual" (154), and sin- 
 niht, "night after night" (161). No one would ques- 
 
74 'EltWOGlOS IN the lord's prayer 
 
 tion its connection with sinteino, a common adverb mean- 
 ing "always." This is found in Mark v. 5 for the origi- 
 nal dianavTo?, in xiv. 7 for navTors, in xv. 8 for dec. 
 The origin of the last part of the word is not perfectly 
 clear. Kluge would take it as an obsolete root meaning 
 " day" (see Ety. Diet, under " Tag"), and gives " tag- 
 lich" as the first meaning. Certainly, the notion of 
 "day" lapsed, and "continual," as the adverb shows, was 
 the regular meaning. Probably the chief reason for mak- 
 ing sinteins mean "daily," is that seiteins, a collateral 
 form, is used in 2 Cor. xi. 28 for 77 xa?>' y/iipav, where Paul 
 speaks of " that which presseth upon me daily, anxiety 
 for all the churches." But here sinteins might have its 
 proper meaning of " continual" without wandering far 
 from the Greek original. Whether, however, "daily" or 
 " continual" is the primary meaning, the difference is not 
 essential as to its representation of &mouaio<$. It does 
 not mean " for the coming day," but" constantly recurring." 
 Let us next consider the Old Latin version, or bundle 
 of versions. Here we find in Matthew " Panem nostrum 
 cotidianum da nobis hodie" ; and in Luke " Panem nos- 
 trum cotidianum da nobis cotidie."* Whence came this 
 " cotidianum" ? Certainly not from a literal translation of 
 imouffios, considered by itself. If the Evangelists had 
 wanted a Greek word to express " daily," there was one 
 ready to hand, found in the writers of that time, and even 
 
 *01d Latin Biblical Texts; No III. The Four Gospels. By Henry J. White. 
 Clarendon Press, 1888. Codex Monacensis (q). Some codices— I do not know 
 how many — have in Luke the error of "hodie" instead of "cotidie." The received 
 Vulgate text has also "hodie" in Luke, but the best text, Codex Amiatinus, has 
 "cotidie." 
 
75 
 
 in the New Testament. James comes very near apra? 
 l<p7J/xepos when he says (ii. 15), " If a brother or sister be 
 naked and in lack of daily food"— r^? Icprjiiipoo Tpo<p7j?. 
 The Latin Vulgate for this is, of course, "victu quoti- 
 diano." In the absence of any such original in the Lord's 
 Prayer, it is possible to account for the " cotidianum" either 
 by the influence of the context — the <Trjpepov of Matthew, 
 and particularly the xaxV ypipav of Luke, serving to at- 
 tract and specialize the general idea of " continual" — or 
 by a larger association with continual worship through 
 daily offerings, or in a more general way by the tendency 
 to speak of the ordinary, constant things of life as " daily." 
 It can hardly be that ''cotidianum" came from iTcwbawv in 
 the sense of " for the morrow" ; for the legitimate develop- 
 ment of crastinus would be to futurus, as Jerome says, 
 on this very passage, " crastinum, id estfuturum" So 
 the Hebrew *)(7D means " in time to come " in Deut. vi. 
 
 T T 
 
 20 and in other passages.* 
 
 ♦This "cotidianum" must be the parent of the "daily" of modern versions— a 
 rendering that will probably hold its own in spite of grammars, dictionaries and 
 commentaries. Jerome's version has "supersubstantialem" in Matthew, and it is 
 hard to believe that he did not put the same word in Luke. If so, then "cotid- 
 ianum" was forced into the text of Luke by the pressure of the Old Latin. West- 
 cott and Hort say (N. T. II. 81) — with no reference to this word — "Scribes accus- 
 tomed to older forms of text corrupted by unwitting reminiscence the Vulgate 
 which they were copying; so that an appreciable part of Jerome's work had been 
 imperceptibly undone when the Vulgate attained its final triumph." The wonder 
 is that Matthew was left unchanged, which was due perhaps to the support of 
 Jerome's Commentary. 
 
 ' Supersubstantialem" has left its long mark on some modern Roman Catholic 
 versions. The Rheims version (1582), which is the basis of the present 
 English Catholic Bible, reads, "Give us this day our supersubstantial bread." 
 The edition that I have — an American edition with archiepiscopal sane 
 tion— has this foot-note: "In St. Luke the same word is rendered 'daily 
 bread.' It is understood of the bread of life which we receive in the Blessed 
 Sacrament." Wyclif, who translated from the Latin Vulgate, gives "ouir other 
 substance." The Dutch version (Antwerp, 1598) has "overweselyck," like the 
 "ofer-wistlic" of the ancient Northumbrian interlinear Gospel (Lindisfarne MS.) 
 On the other hand, in spite of the authority of the Vulgate, all the French ver 
 sions have "notre pain quotidien," the authorized Italian has "II pane nostrn 
 
*]6 "Etziovgios in the lord's prayer 
 
 By far the most important versional testimony to the 
 meaning of kitiouaws comes from the Old Syriac Gospels. 
 The Curetonian fragments, published in 1858, and the 
 Sinai MS., published in 1894, — the latter containing only 
 the first petition of the Prayer in Matthew — agree in 
 having for kmou(jio$\±^}£l\(\n the old characters r^AjtSar^, 
 in Hebrew characters X^DX> * n English, with continental 
 
 T " T 
 
 vowel-sounds, anuria, to be compared with our amen from 
 Hebrew). The meaning of the Syriac word is sufficiently 
 attested by its biblical usage. In the New Testament it 
 is used once, adverbially, to translate dtanavrd^ "always 
 a conscience void of offence" (Acts xxiv. 16); several 
 times for Tzpoaxaprepiu), "continued steadfastly" (Acts ii. 
 46); also for Truzvo?, "thine often infirmities" (1 Tim. v. 
 23); for npoff/xivwy " continueth in supplications" (1 Tim. 
 v. 5) ; for Treves?, " prayer was made without ceasing" 
 [Rev. earnestly], (Acts xii. 5); for (LdidXenzToS) "remem- 
 bering without ceasing-" (1 Thess. i. 3). These examples, 
 being outside of the Gospels, are from the Peshitto ver- 
 sion. 
 
 In the Old Testament, where the word is of frequent 
 occurrence, it regularly represents, often adverbially, the 
 Hebrew TDD* It is found in every part of the Old 
 Testament, except the Psalms. Thus Aaron's breast- 
 
 quotidiano," and the German, "Gib uns heute unser tagliches Brod." This is 
 taken from the translation of Dr. Allioli, "the only authorized German version 
 duly approved by the Apostolic See." To it is appended the following note, 
 which, it will be observed, is not an exposition of the Vulgate, but of the 
 Greek:— "Wbrtlich, unser zur Wesenheit (Nothdurft) gehoriges Brod, diess ist 
 das Tagliche. Darunter ist alles verstanden was zum Unterhalte der Seele und 
 des Leibes nothwendig ist,— das gottliche Wort, der Leib des Herrn, die tagliche 
 nothdiirftige Nahrung. (Chrys. Theophl. Aug. Cypr.)." This last is substantially 
 translated from the Glossa Ordinaria — "panis Corpus Christi est, ut verbum 
 Dei, vel ipse Deus, quo quotidie egemus," cited by Tholuck on Matt. vi. 2. 
 
"ElZiOVGlO? IN THE LORD'S PRAYER 77 
 
 plate is a memorial " continually" (Ex. xxviii. 29). The 
 burnt offering is "continual" (xxix. 42). The fire is to 
 be "ever" on the altar (Lev. vi. 13). The shew-bread is 
 "continual" (Num. iv. 7). Nine times in the twenty- 
 ninth chapter of Numbers the word is applied to the 
 "daily burnt offering. " The eyes of the Lord are " al- 
 zvays" upon the land of promise (Deut. xi. 12). Elisha 
 passeth by " continually" (2 Kings iv. 9). The trumpets 
 sound " continually" before the ark (1 Chron. xvi. 6). 
 And so on in Ezra, Nehemiah, Proverbs, Isaiah ("con- 
 tinually upon the watch tower," xxi. 8), Jeremiah, Eze- 
 kiel ("men of continual employment," xxxix. 14), Daniel 
 (Hebrew portions), and elsewhere. I have verified more 
 than sixty examples in which |l iV)| translates "VpfV 
 The Syriac word, then, according to biblical usage, 
 means continual, constant. The dictionaries, covering a 
 wider than biblical usage, give the meanings, stadilis, 
 constans, assiduus, perpetuus. The meaning, then, of 
 the whole phrase would be, " Our constant supply of 
 bread." 
 
 Now, what is the value of this rendering as to the 
 meaning of liziobaiotf Dr. Chase in his "Lord's 
 Prayer in the Early Church"* says: "It is difficult to 
 see that it represents any probable meaning of lizwbaio?" 
 Carrying out a suggestion of Dr. Cureton, he thinks that 
 the Greek word, not being understood by the translator, 
 was represented " by a classical phrase about bread in the 
 Old Testament, slightly chan ged." Now it is true that 
 
 *Texts and Studies. Vol. I., No. 3, The Lord's Prayer in the Early Church. 
 By Frederic Henry Chase, B. D. Cambridge, 1891, pp. 42-53- 
 
78 *Emoi)<no<$ in the lord's prayer 
 
 among the great variety of actions to which the Syriac 
 word is applied in the Old Testament, it is two or three 
 times applied to eating bread. Mephibosheth is to " eat 
 bread continually at David's table" (2 Sam. ix. 7, 10), and 
 Jehoiachin "did eat bread continually'''' with the king of 
 Babylon (2 Kings xxv. 29; Jer. Hi. 33). These, so far 
 as I can discover, are the only cases of association with 
 ordinary bread. Twice, also adverbially, it is used of 
 the shew-bread (Num. iv. 7; 2 Chron. ii. 4), but I can 
 find no example of its use as a descriptive epithet of bread. 
 Even if we assume, perhaps ungraciously, that the trans- 
 lator was in serious doubt, it is hard to see how his mind 
 would be influenced much by any "classical phrase about 
 bread in the Old Testament." 
 
 Dr. Chase's position is that tmou<nos, coming as it 
 does from 77 Zxtodffa, introduces tautology into the prayer, 
 and is "alien to its simplicity of language." It probably, 
 then, does not belong to the earliest prayer, but is "due 
 to liturgical use." The original clause, "Our bread of 
 the day give to us," was changed to "our bread for the 
 coming day," to adapt the prayer to use at evening. This 
 "working hypothesis" is presented with a modest inge- 
 nuity that almost fascinates one; but it seems to me that 
 if we restore to tntouaws the meaning found in the Old 
 Syriac, the hypothesis is no longer needed. The tautol- 
 ogy complained of arises from deriving kiciobato? directly 
 from i] imouaa. All other tautology is due to transla- 
 tion, the disabilities of which ought not to be charged to 
 the original. "Day by day our daily" is tautological, in 
 
79 
 
 a narrow sense, but " day by day our constant supply" 
 is not, in any sense. Nor does the hypothesis seem to 
 be securely based on liturgical need. If I should venture 
 to mark out a liturgical development of the clause, I 
 should by no means omit from the primary the idea of 
 constant supply contained in imouato^. To this might 
 very naturally be added <rij/j.epov for morning prayer, and 
 the more general to xa#' y/iipav for other occasions. If, 
 however, kmouoio? means "of the coming day," and that 
 means "of the present day," why should arjfiepov ever 
 have been added? Dr. Chase's answer is, "There meets 
 us a double rendering of the original word" (p. 47). But 
 if we give to k-ruouaws the Old Syriac meaning, there is 
 no room for the tautology of a "double rendering," and 
 no need of reconstructing the clause as we now find it, 
 further than to acknowledge the varying traditions of 
 (T-rjfiepov and to xcc#' ijfiipav. Further, the coining of a 
 new word, which kitiobaws is acknowledged to be, seems 
 likely to arise from a more pressing need than liturgical 
 convenience, as, for example, from the demand of a Semitic 
 original. The absence of any word for litiobtrios in a 
 reference to the Prayer by Ephrem Syrus is urged by 
 Dr. Chase (p. 50) in favor of a form of the petition earlier 
 than that of the Gospels ; but an incidental reference in 
 a sermon, and the omission of a seemingly unessential 
 word, is surely small evidence that he was quoting from 
 an earlier and superior authority. Still more inconclu- 
 sive is the evidence from Tatian. The rendering adopted 
 by Chase, "Give us the bread of our day," is not sus- 
 
8o ' 'Entouffio? IN THE LORD'S PRAYER 
 
 tained by Hill's Diatessaron, which reads (p. 79), " Give 
 us the sustenance [lit. power] of to-day." Dr. Charles 
 Taylor in the Guardian (Jan. 6, 1897) renders, "Give us 
 the necessity of the day ;" which is practically the same 
 as Murdock's Peshitto, "Our needful bread." Instead 
 of omitting tniouaio?, Tatian omits "bread," and 
 emphasizes &moutrto$, according to the meaning of the 
 Peshitto. 
 
 In regard to the value of this testimony I would say : 
 1. The rendering is simple and clear, and betrays no 
 wavering and no effort to solve an etymological difficulty. 
 In this last respect it is in contrast with the Peshitto 
 rendering, which means "bread of our necessity." This 
 seems like an attempt to carry out a certain theory of the 
 etymology of the Greek word, viz., that it is compounded 
 of kni and otWa, the latter meaning essence, that which 
 is essential, then that which is necessary, or obaia 
 meaning existence, as is advocated by Cremer in his Lexi- 
 con, and the compound adjective meaning "for, i. e., nec- 
 essary for, existence." The Jerusalem Syriac rendering 
 seems to have a similar origin — " bread of our abundance," 
 ouffta having the sense of substance, then wealth, abun- 
 dance.* In contrast with all this, the Old Syriac gives 
 a simple, intelligible word that has the appearance of be- 
 
 *I know nothing at first hand of this Jerusalem version, but am indebted for the 
 rendering given above to the' kindness of Dr. Isaac H. Hall. I cannot leave his 
 name on this page without a few words of tribute to his worth, and of sorrow at his 
 too early death. Our acquaintance began over the pages of Xenophon's Anabasis, 
 when he was a boy in Norwalk, Conn. He needed little instruction in his text- 
 book, for the spirit of the independent scholar was in him then. Of his achieve- 
 ments in Syriac scholarship I am not qualified to speak, but I can speak warmly 
 of his generous heart and his willingness to place his learning at the service of 
 others. 
 
'E7tluu<Jl0$ IN THE LORD'S PRAYER 8l 
 
 ing based on known usage, or on. some ground other than 
 philological reasoning. 
 
 2. The Old Syriac rendering connects, indirectly, 
 tmouato? with the Hebrew TpD* If the Septuagint 
 and later Greek versions had translated this Hebrew word 
 by £7Ttov(Tto$, no one would ever have doubted the mean- 
 ing of the latter, and a world of discussion would have 
 been saved. No such translation is found, but we do find 
 that this one Syriac version makes £Tzwu<no$ the equiva- 
 lent of a well known equivalent of "J*prv So far as this 
 goes, it serves to identify the rare Greek word with a very 
 common Hebrew word. 
 
 3. The early date of the Old Syriac version ought to 
 be taken into account. Bishop Westcott places it in the 
 second century. The fact that we hear only of the Gos- 
 pels in this version points to a very early origin. Is it, 
 then, improbable that the version reaches back into the 
 influence of tradition, and that the Syriac rendering gives 
 us a traditional meaning? 
 
 4. We may, I think, go further, if we go carefully. 
 I assume that the speech of the Jews in the time of Christ 
 was bilingual — Aramaic, or early Jewish Syriac, and 
 Greek. This matter is fully discussed by Professor Had- 
 ley in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible.* For our present 
 purpose it is sufficient to take the case of Paul speaking 
 to the Jews in Jerusalem, as described in Acts xxii. He 
 at once gained the attention of his hearers by speaking in 
 Aramaic (" Hebrew tongue"). They had evidently ex- 
 
 *Vol. ii., p. 1590, Am. Ed. 
 
82 "EmobaiOS IN THE LORD'S PRAYER 
 
 pected to hear him speak Greek. It seems that they would 
 have understood him in either language, but the Aramaic 
 pleased them. This may have been because the Aramaic 
 was their national and domestic tongue, and they were 
 more familiar with it. If this was true of the multitude 
 in their chief city, it would be emphatically true of the 
 dwellers in Galilee, and the country districts generally. 
 It must be, therefore, that Jesus largely used the Aramaic 
 in his teachings. The Lord's Prayer certainly was 
 spoken by him in Aramaic, and may also have been 
 spoken in Greek. 
 
 In regard to the bilingual character of this Prayer, two 
 suppositions are possible, (i) Two forms of the Prayer 
 may have existed side by side from the first. Then if 
 imouoios was in the Greek form, |l »Sf>T? or some modi- 
 fication of it, would very likely have been in the other ; 
 so that both words would come down together, and 
 a very early Syriac translator of the Gospel would 
 find his word supplied by tradition. (2) The other 
 supposition is that the Prayer in Aramaic was strictly 
 the original, but that the translation into Greek was 
 made in Palestine, while both languages were familiar. 
 Now a large part of the mystery of £7rtou0-co?,viz., its iso- 
 lation in the language, will vanish, if we think of it as 
 itself a translation. Translators are inclined to coin words, 
 as the Septuagint abundantly testifies, many of the new 
 words of which, but not all, lived to find place in the New 
 Testament. But if the Greek word is a translation, what 
 original is so probable as the one which afterwards, in 
 
'ElttOUfftOS IN THE LORD'S PRAYER 83 
 
 meaning if not in form, appeared in the Old Syriac? 
 It is pleasant to think that the rendering "daily bread" 
 is not far from the meaning of the Greek original, as in- 
 terpreted by the early Syriac. It came to us, no doubt, 
 from the Old Latin cotidianum, but this might come easily 
 from the notion of continual. The affinity of " continual" 
 and " daily" is well illustrated in the parallelism of the 
 Received Version of Psalm lxxii. 15: 
 
 "Prayer also shall be made for him continually, 
 And daily [Rev. all the day long] shall he be praised." 
 
 With this may be fitly joined, from a modern Jewish 
 Prayer-Book, the closing words of The Grace after 
 Meals — " Thanks for the food wherewith thou dost feed 
 and sustain us continually (the original is *V£?fl) every 
 day and hour." 
 
Ill 
 
 DEVIL? 
 'Pixrai ^,aa? and too novrjpoo. Matt. vi. 1 3. 
 
 Is too novrjpoo masculine or neuter ; and does it mean 
 the Evil One, or evil? The question is an exceedingly 
 difficult one — more difficult than important — but the Re- 
 vised Version has forced it upon us by its translation 
 "Deliver us from the Evil One." The difficulty comes 
 from the great mass of indecisive material that enters 
 into the discussion. This may be seen from the debate 
 that arose in England immediately after the publication 
 of the Revised New Testament. The learned, and almost 
 authoritative, defense of the Revision in the letters of 
 Bishop Lightfoot are republished in Appendix II. of the 
 third edition (1891) of his work "On a Fresh Revision 
 of the New Testament." A more elaborate support of 
 the same conclusion is found in " The Lord's Prayer in 
 the Early Church" (Camb. Univ. Press, 1891), by Dr. 
 Frederic H. Chase, who devotes more than half of his 
 treatise to this word. The following points, among those 
 ably argued in these treatises, must be classed, I think, as 
 indecisive, though relevant. 
 
 1. The connection of thought. Probably few inter- 
 preters would go as far as Alford, on the one side, and 
 
 84 
 
DOES THE LORD'S PRAYER MENTION THE DEVIL? 85 
 
 say, " The introduction of the mention of the evil one 
 would here be quite incongruous and even absurd," and 
 if an equally strong statement should be found on the 
 other side we should have to ascribe both to personal bent 
 rather than to definite exegetical principles. The idea of 
 temptation goes well with the mention of the tempter, 
 but equally well with the idea of that evil into which 
 temptation may bring us. The word pu<rai suggests 
 rescue from a person, but is also used of deliverance from 
 death (#9 ix rrjfaxouTou ftavdroo kpixraro y/JLas, 2 Cor. i. 10), 
 from the power of darkness (09 kpvaaro i)pa<s ix r^? ££ouffta$ 
 too (Txotoos, Col. i. 13), and from every evil work [pbfferai 
 pe 6 Kuptos too izavros sp/oo itovrjpoo, 2 Tim. iv. 18). 
 
 2. The distinction between and and ix. While ix 
 might suggest things rather than persons, and dxo the 
 reverse, we find this distinction not sanctioned by 
 usage. See the full and candid discussion of these prep- 
 ositions by Chase (pp. 70-84). 
 
 3. The New Testament use of the concrete instead 
 of the abstract. We may acknowledge, with Meyer, its 
 general tone in this respect, without finding such a pre- 
 ponderance of the concrete as will have decisive weight in 
 interpreting any single word. There are no philosophi- 
 cal abstracts in the New Testament, but moral abstracts 
 are abundant. The term morality (tjVixtj) is wanting, 
 but all the elements of morality, all the moral virtues, are 
 present in their usual phraseology. What is more to the 
 point, we find the abstract used in cases where the con- 
 crete would be expected. Twice in the twelfth chapter 
 
86 DOES THE LORD'S PRAYER MENTION THE DEVIL? 
 
 of Romans we read of good and evil where, if it were not 
 for the unmistakable neuter article, we might think that 
 persons were meant: "AnocTTuyouvTes to 7zovqpov^ xoXkmfisvoi 
 ™ aya&w (ver. 9). Is it not the evil person whom we 
 abhor, and the good person to whom we cleave? But the 
 article silences our wise question. Again, after reading 
 (ver. 20) of the personal enemy who hungers, and thirsts, 
 and feels the coals of fire on his head, we find the thought 
 broadening out into that grand generalization: Mrj vud> 
 vtzo too xaxou, aXka vixa kv rw ayaftw to xaxov (ver. 2l). 
 
 One may say, This is Paul, not Matthew. Let us 
 come back, then, to Matthew, and to the words of our 
 Lord as recorded by him, and to the Sermon on the 
 Mount. Dr. Chase says (p. 95), " The use of abstract 
 terms seems alien to the spirit of the Sermon on the 
 Mount; all there is concrete." But here we read in the 
 same chapter with the Lord's Prayer such unconcrete ex- 
 pressions as these: " If therefore the light that is in thee 
 be darkness, how great is the darkness !" (ver. 23) ; " Ye 
 cannot serve God and mammon" (24) ; " Seek ye first his 
 kingdom and his righteousness" (33). Even the golden 
 rule is a wonderfully broad generalization. Now it is 
 the glory of the- New Testament that it is practical, sim- 
 ple, direct, but surely there is no such slavery to the con- 
 crete as to give even a presumption, in any single passage, 
 in favor of the rendering "evil one" over "evil." 
 
 4. The comparative frequency of the use in the New 
 Testament of the masculine and neuter of Tiovqp6<$. Light- 
 foot says (p. 280) "o 7zovr)p6$ occurs three or four times 
 
DOES THE LORD'S PRAYER MENTION THE DEVIL? 87 
 
 as often as rd novypov." Taking the author's own ex- 
 amples, we find that this generalization, converted into 
 its particulars, is this: The masculine is used seven times, 
 and the neuter twice, and possibly four times more, for 
 there are four examples doubtful (pp. 274, 275). Add to 
 this the fact that the neuter xaxov is used constantly with- 
 out important difference from Tzovrjpov. E. g., Rom. xii. 
 has to novqpov in the ninth verse, and to xaxov in the 
 twenty-first, both in opposition to rd dyaftov. For some 
 reason the masculine xaxos is seldom used in the New 
 Testament. 
 
 5. The antithesis between fiij efoeviyxy? efc izetpaaiiov 
 and dXXd pvaat rj[j£§ and too Tzovrjpov. Lightfoot says (p. 289) : 
 " If the tempter is mentioned in the second clause, then, 
 and then only, has the connection fir) — dXXd — its proper 
 force. If, on the other hand, rod novypoD be taken neuter, 
 the strong opposition implied by these particles is no 
 longer natural, for 'temptation' is not co-extensive with 
 'evil.' We should rather expect in this case 'And de- 
 liver us from evil.' " But is not this making too much of 
 fiij — dXXd — ? It is safe to say that in Greek (though 
 the like would not be quite true of Latin) oux (/ny) — dXXd is 
 used properly whenever "not — but — " could be used in 
 English. And has the English mind ever felt any in- 
 felicity of connection in the common rendering " Lead us 
 not into temptation, but deliver us from evil"? "Bring 
 us not into solicitations to evil, but deliver us from it." 
 Certainly oux — dXXd — does not require the clauses to 
 be very exact counterparts. Examples of a looser antith- 
 
88 DOES THE LORD'S PRAYER MENTION THE DEVIL? 
 
 esis could easily be produced, if it were necessary. Here 
 are two from Matthew: obx e%£i 8e pi^av h iaurui, dXXd 
 npoffxaipo? iffriv (xiii. 21); obx kiziyvujGav auTov, dAX kicofyaav 
 iv aorta oaa iftiXyaav (xvii. 12). In both these xa\ Sid 
 touto might have been used instead of dUd, but 
 surely both are right, as they are. The word "temp- 
 tation" does at once suggest the tempter, but not 
 necessarily the mention of the tempter. That might 
 be dispensed with, as being fully implied, and the thought 
 in the second clause advanced and broadened to deliver- 
 ance from all the forms and power of sin which the temp- 
 ter promotes. 
 
 6. The omission by Luke of the clause beginning with 
 dlla. Whether too Tzovqpou be masculine or neuter, he 
 might omit this clause as practically involved in the pre- 
 ceding. The neuter does not make the second clause an 
 independent petition. Luke's petition is virtually: "De- 
 liver us from temptation to evil," and thus his record in- 
 volves abridgment, but not serious curtailment. Luke 
 gives us "Thy kingdom come," and omits "Thy will be 
 done, as in heaven, so on earth." The petition omitted 
 may be called merely an expansion of the preceding, but 
 it is nearer being an independent petition than " Deliver 
 us from evil." 
 
 7. A possible reference to the temptation of Christ in 
 the wilderness. Dr. Chase says (p. 104): "Every clause 
 of the Prayer, I believe, stands forth with greater sharp- 
 ness and clearness of meaning when seen in the light of 
 the Lord's Temptation." A general criticism of Dr. 
 
DOES THE LORD'S PRAYER MENTION THE DEVIL? 89 
 
 Chase's most thorough and valuable discussion would be 
 that he inclines to connect the phraseology of the Prayer 
 with almost everything that is important in the New 
 Testament. He is not alone, however, in associating 
 rob novrjpod with the temptation. Lightfoot says (p. 290) : 
 " Nor is it an insignificant fact that, only two chapters 
 before, St. Matthew has recorded how the Author of this 
 prayer found himself face to face with temptation (iv. 1, 
 3), arid was delivered from the Evil One." But this same 
 St. Matthew in recording, " only two chapters before," the 
 temptation calls the tempter once 6 neipd^wu (verse 3), four 
 times 6 didfiokos (verses 1, 5, 8, 11), and not once 6 
 izovrjpos, "the evil one." For we must not forget that the 
 question is not merely whether Jesus was thinking of the 
 Tempter in the wilderness, a question too deep for us, 
 but whether Matthew's verbal usage favors the meaning 
 "Evil One." Why should he not use one of the two 
 words employed " only two chapters before" ? 
 
 8. The use of rtovypou instead of some other word for 
 evil. It is claimed that if izovripoo means moral evil, a 
 better word could have been chosen, as dfxapria, novyjpta, 
 dvo/uLia. It is not always possible to show why a 
 writer or speaker does not choose some different word. 
 Nor is it necessary to prove that he chooses the best word. 
 But in this case it is easy to see that dpapzia would fail 
 to carry the suggestion of harm and loss which to 
 izovrjpdv does, and that dvop.ia is more restricted in mean- 
 ing. In regard to -izovrjpia, which Matthew uses but once, 
 or xaxj'a, these also, as abstracts, are less suggestive of 
 
go DOES THE LORD'S PRAYER MENTION THE DEVIL? 
 
 the evil fruits of wickedness than to Tzo\>r]p6\>. The 
 latter would be more likely, I think, to be used by one 
 who felt and feared the curse of sin. Nor should it be 
 forgotten that to Tzovrjpov is broad enough to embrace 
 not only all evil conduct, but all evil influences, and all 
 evil Ones. 
 
 9. The early versions, particularly the Latin and 
 Syriac. In addition to the fact that no version, early or 
 late, is authoritative, we find that the Latin, both Old 
 Latin and Vulgate, simply adopts the ambiguity of the 
 Greek — " Libera nos a malo." It is true that in the First 
 Epistle of John whenever izovrjpos refers to Satan it is 
 translated "malignus," but this cannot be made the rule. 
 Matt. xiii. 19 has " Venit malus et rapit quod seminatum 
 est." At first glance, the Syriac, both Curetonian and 
 Peshitto, seems to decide in favor of " Evil One," for 
 the word is masculine ; but when we remember that the 
 Syriac, like the other Semitic languages, has no neuter 
 gender, and sometimes uses the masculine for abstracts, 
 this evidence is considerably weakened. The late Dr. 
 Isaac H. Hall, a recognized authority in Syriac scholar- 
 ship, wrote to me in 1891 : "As to the Peshitto, perhaps 
 different people would argue differently from the same 
 data. I think, however, that it favors the rendering 
 'evil.' Adjectives used as abstract nouns prefer the femi- 
 nine form, both where the Latin uses the neuter plural 
 and neuter singular, but this is by no means the universal 
 usage. It prevails rather in extra-biblical and later Syriac. 
 The masculine is common enough for abstracts of every 
 
DOES THE LORD'S PRAYER MENTION THE DEVIL? 91 
 
 sort. The Lord's Prayer has the masculine, which is 
 used in very many places in the Peshitto for the neuter, 
 even in rendering other words than Tiov-qpov. So far as I 
 have read Syriac, the writers generally — I refer to allu- 
 sions only — look upon the phrase as 'evil,' not 'the evil 
 one.'" 
 
 10. The opinions and diction of the Greek Fathers. 
 It cannot be disputed that these Fathers interpreted too 
 Tzovqpou as the Evil One, Satan. Says Lightfoot (p. 307) : 
 " Among Greek writers there is, so far as I have observed, 
 absolute unanimity on this point. They do not even be- 
 tray the slightest suspicion that any other interpretation 
 is possible." Again (p. 319): "To sum up; the earliest 
 Latin Father [this is much more effective than to say," The 
 erratic Tertullian"],and the earliest Greek Father of whose 
 opinions we have any knowledge, both take rod novypoo 
 masculine.* The masculine rendering seems to have been 
 adopted universally by the Greek Fathers. At least no 
 authority, even of a late date, has been produced for the 
 neuter. In the Latin Church the earliest distinct testi- 
 mony for the neuter is St. Augustine, at the end of the 
 fourth and the beginning of the fifth century. From that 
 time forward the neuter gained ground in the Western 
 Church till it altogether supplanted the masculine." Again 
 (p. 314): "With Augustine, however, a new era begins. 
 The voice of the original Greek has ceased to be heard, 
 or at least to be heard by an ear familiar with its idiom ; 
 
 *Yet Clemens Romanus prays (Corinthians, 60) poffd-rjvat dlTto 7td(T7]S 
 afiaprias, in language that seems to echo the Lord's Prayer. So Dr. Charles 
 Taylor in the Guardian, Jan. 6, 1897. 
 
92 DOES THE LORD'S PRAYER MENTION THE DEVIL? 
 
 and, notwithstanding his spiritual insight, the loss here, 
 as elsewhere, is very perceptible." It is further claimed, 
 though not, I think, by Lightfoot, that the usage and 
 diction of the Greek Fathers are evidence, independent of 
 their interpretation, in favor of the masculine. In other 
 words, they constantly refer to Satan as " the evil one" in 
 other connections than in the Lord's Prayer,and are there- 
 fore independent witnesses to the linguistic usage. 
 
 In regard to the exegesis of the early Fathers it is need- 
 less to bring proof that in judgment and acumen they 
 are inferior to modern interpreters and to some of the 
 later Fathers. The only points worth considering are 
 whether their nearness to apostolic times, or their inti- 
 mate knowledge of Greek and "an ear familiar with its 
 idiom," makes them reliable guides. On this last point 
 it is enough to say that the gender of rod novypuu is not a 
 question of Greek idiom. Masculine and neuter are both 
 equally good Greek. Also, the logical connection cannot 
 be determined by linguistic evidence. To say that St. 
 Augustine had lost the delicate sense of Greek idiom — 
 but he was familiar with Greek — I cannot think to be 
 important. Indeed, an imperfect acquaintance with Greek 
 would have inclined him to the masculine because of the 
 un-Latin-like idiom of the article with the neuter. The 
 Vulgate has the ambiguous rendering "a malo." A poor 
 Greek scholar would have put it — as Beza, who was not 
 a poor Greek scholar, did, following the Greek Fathers, — 
 M ab illo malo." It simply cannot be that the Fathers 
 favored the masculine on account of Greek idiom. 
 
93 
 
 As to the independent value of the diction of the Fa- 
 thers, it might be said that their usage simply grew out of 
 their exegesis, but I will not insist on this. Let it stand 
 that both in exegesis and in general usage the Greek 
 Fathers unequivocally favor the masculine. Let us re- 
 frain too from thinking that their unanimity was owing 
 to the overwhelming influence of Origen. Admitting all 
 that is claimed in regard to their interpretation, their 
 usage, and their opportunities of traditional light from 
 the primitive Christian years, we have yet to set down 
 two important facts. 
 
 First, the diction of the Fathers in the use of novypo? 
 is different from that of the New Testament. A strik- 
 ing illustration of this is found in the passage quoted by 
 Bishop Lightfoot (p. 307) from the Clementine Homilies. 
 In the dialogue between Simon the Samaritan and St. 
 Peter (Horn. xix. 2) the question is sharply raised 
 whether Satan really exists. I translate, restoring the 
 lines omitted by the Bishop. Peter says : " I acknowl- 
 edge that the Evil One exists, because the Master, who 
 spoke the truth in everything, often said that he existed. 
 At the outset he acknowledges that for forty days he by 
 word of mouth tempted him. And elsewhere I know 
 that he said : 'If Satan cast out Satan he is divided against 
 himself; how, then, can his kingdom stand?' Also he 
 declared that he saw the Evil One as lightning fall from 
 heaven. And in another place he said: 'He that sowed 
 the bad seed is the devil.' And again: 'Give no occa- 
 sion to the Evil One.' Further, by way of counsel he 
 
94 DOES THE LORD'S PRAYER MENTION THE DEVIL? 
 
 said: 'Let your language be Yea, Yea, and Nay, Nay, but 
 what is more than these is from the Evil One.' Further, 
 in the Prayer which he handed down we have it said, 
 'Deliver us from the Evil One.' And in another place 
 he pledged himself to say to the ungodly: 'Depart into 
 the outer darkness, which the Father prepared for the 
 devil and his angels.' And, not to prolong what I have 
 to say, I know that my Master often said that the Evil 
 One exists."* These few lines contain six instances of 
 the masculine novypos applied to Satan. What is more, 
 there are two quotations from the New Testament in 
 which 6 7tovT)p6$ is substituted for the New Testament 
 words. The passage in Luke (x. 18), " I beheld Satan 
 fall as lightning from heaven," appears thus: 'Ewpaxev rdv 
 TTov-qpbv a;? daTpaxijv neaovTa. A passage from Paul (Eph. 
 iv. 27) — we need not blame this Father, whoever he was, 
 for forgetting that Paul said it instead of Jesus — " Neither 
 give place to the devil," is given, almost unrecognizable, 
 it is true, Mi) doze Ttpoyaaiv zip Ttovqpu).^ In two other 
 quotations Zazavas and dtdfioXos remain unchanged. We 
 can imagine what a transformation would have been 
 wrought in Matthew's record of the Temptation and else- 
 where, if this writer had taken the place of the first evan- 
 gelist. It should be added that the neuter to xovypov is 
 found at least twice in the same Homily (chap. 20). 
 
 The second important fact is one of theological opinion, 
 viz., that the Fathers, in their thinking, gave more promi- 
 
 *Ed. Dressel, p. 372. 
 
 tDressel in his note says: "Testimonium forsan Ebionitici evangelii, affine 
 dicto apostolico." 
 
95 
 
 nence to Satan than the New Testament does. This is 
 shown first by the theory of the atonement held by even 
 so early a Father as Irenaeus. Imagine Peter and Paul 
 preaching and writing that the sufferings and death of 
 Christ were a ransom paid to the devil for our release. 
 Says Shedd, speaking of the writings of the first three 
 centuries, " It is very plain that in seizing so rankly, as 
 the theological mind of this age did, upon those few texts 
 in which the connection and relations of Satan with the 
 work of Christ are spoken of, and allowing them to 
 eclipse those far more numerous passages in which the 
 Redeemer's work is exhibited in its reference to the be- 
 ing and attributes of God, it was liable to a one-sided con- 
 struction of the doctrine." Again, "The claims of God 
 and of the attribute of justice were thrown too much into 
 the background by those of Satan."* 
 
 The patristic theory of the atonement is sufficient to 
 prove the deviation of the Fathers from the sobriety and 
 truth of our Lord and his apostles. But we may put be- 
 side this the great importance attached to exorcism. Evil 
 spirits, subjects of " the evil one," must be cast out by 
 rites and ceremonies. Early in the third century exor- 
 cism began to be connected with baptism, and thus vir- 
 tually became a sacrament of the church. 
 
 Now all this subserviency to Satan seemed to the early 
 Fathers genuine Christianity ; but we see it to be exag- 
 geration and perversion. And is it not plain that minds 
 breathing such a theological atmosphere as they did would 
 
 ♦"History of Christian Doctrine," Vol. ii., pp. 315, 266. 
 
96 DOES THE LORD'S PRAYER MENTION THE DEVIL? 
 
 inevitably interpret ambiguous passages of the New Tes- 
 tament so as to magnify the agency of Satan? Why then 
 should we follow their guidance under the notion that 
 somehow " the voice of the original Greek" taught them 
 the true meaning? 
 
 Enough of indecisive considerations. Some will 
 perhaps see in them a cumulative result of slight 
 probabilities in favor of one or the other of the dis- 
 puted renderings, but I am sure that most students of the 
 subject will say that it is hopeless to look for a decision 
 on these indeterminate grounds. It seems to me, how- 
 ever, that there is some hope of a decision, in the answer 
 to this simple question, too much neglected in this dis- 
 cussion, viz., Was 6 Tzov7)p6$ the usual term to designate 
 the devil? If not, then we should not expect to find it in 
 such a formula of devotion as the Lord's Prayer. Now 
 the moment this question is raised, it answers itself in the 
 mind of one who is familiar with the New Testament. 
 Such a one will feel, without resorting to exegetical sta- 
 tistics — often a poor resort — how changed the gospel 
 narrative would be if certain well-remembered passages 
 should read thus : " Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit 
 into the wilderness to be tempted of the evil one;" "And 
 when the evil one came to him, he said, If thou be the 
 Son of God," etc. ; "Then the evil one leaveth him, 
 and behold angels came ;" " The enemy that sowed them 
 [the tares] is the evil one;" " Depart from me, ye cursed, 
 into everlasting fire, prepared for the evil one and his 
 angels ;" " How can the evil one cast out the evil one ? n 
 
DOES THE LORD'S PRAYER MENTION THE DEVIL? 97 
 
 " Then entered the evil one into Judas ;" " Ye are of 
 your father, the evil one;" " The evil one cometh and 
 hath nothing in me" ! In these and in more than a score 
 of other passages in the Gospels, which strike one as con- 
 taining the principal references to the Devil, the original 
 words are didfioAos, ZaravdiS) 6 netpd^wv, ap%wv too x6<t[xoo. 
 Outside of the Gospels the usual words are dtdfioXos and 
 
 It is not denied that sometimes 6 novqpos means the 
 Devil. No one supposes that it always does. An ex- 
 ample both of the masculine, denoting a man, and of the 
 neuter abstract is in Luke vi. 45 : 6 novypos ix too novypou 
 [#r)ff<wpou] Tzpo<pipu to Tzovrjpov. So in I Cor. v. 13, 'Egdpare 
 rbv novrjpdv £g up.wv aurwv, rendered in the Revision, " Put 
 away the wicked man from among yourselves." Also in 
 Matt. v. 39, the Revision reads, " Resist not him that is 
 evil" (tw Tzovrjpw). It would hardly do to translate " Resist 
 not the evil one," with the dvTiar-qre de rw dtafioAw, xai 
 <p£u£eTat dip u[j.ujv of James iv. 7 before us. 
 
 How many are the clear and certain cases of 6 tzov- 
 7)p6$ meaning Satan? If we set aside those passages in 
 which " evil" finds a place in the margin of the Revision 
 (Matt. v. 37; vi. 13; John xvii. 15; 2 Thess. iii. 3), we 
 have, as claimed, the following: Matt. xiii. 19, 38;Eph. 
 vi. 16; 1 John ii. 13, 14; iii. 12; v. 18, 19. Of these, 
 Matt. xiii. 38 is, c de dypo<$ iartv 6 x6(rp.o$' to de xaXov (Txgp/ia, 
 ooroi eifftv ol uUn rrjs fiaffiAsias' rd de CtCdvtd eifftv ol ulol rou ttov- 
 rjpoo. Probably the reason why " evil" was not put in the 
 margin was that the common version had " children of the 
 
98 DOES THE LORD'S PRAYER MENTION THE DEVIL? 
 
 wicked one," there being, therefore, no occasion for mar- 
 ginal concession or conciliation ; but is it not true, as 
 Cremer suggests, that the parallel phrase, uio) rrjs ftaffdeia?, 
 requires the rendering " sons of evil" ? It should be noted 
 that in the words immediately following, the Devil is 
 mentioned by his usual name, and is said to be the sower 
 of the tares and the enemy of him who sowed the good 
 seed. Thus we have two antitheses — the Lord and Satan, 
 good men and evil men ; and the antithesis is sharper and 
 much more natural with a single mention of Satan as the 
 antagonist of Jesus. The Hebraism " sons of evil" would 
 be as natural as "son of hell" (Matt, xxiii. 15); "sons of 
 disobedience" (Eph. v. 6); and the "son of worthless- 
 ness [Belial]" of the Old Testament. 
 
 Another passage in the above list is 1 John v. 19, V 
 x6<tjj.o$ 0X0$ £v riji TcovrjpG) xelrat, rendered in the Revision " the 
 whole world lieth in the evil one," with no "evil" in the 
 alternative margin. But does it not require a strong 
 effort to suppress the sense of incongruity in the render- 
 ing "lieth in the evil one," when "in evil" is not only 
 grammatical, but harmonizes fully with " evil one" men- 
 tioned in the previous verse? Compare the zoo novypou 
 and izovfjpd of iii. 12. Such expressions as "Abide in 
 me;" "them which are in Christ Jesus;" "one body 
 in Christ ;" " fallen asleep in Christ ;" " life hid with 
 Christ in God;" "We are in him that is true" (ver. 20) — 
 expressions so numerous in the New Testament, espe- 
 cially in John, as in the allegory of the vine, imply an all- 
 pervading presence which the Scriptures nowhere ascribe 
 
DOES THE LORD'S PRAYER MENTION THE DEVIL? 99 
 
 to the Devil, leader of all evil agents and agencies though 
 he be. The " in" of such profound phraseology is very 
 different from the iv instrumental of Matt. xii. 24, " This 
 man doth not cast out devils, but in Beelzebub the prince 
 of the devils." 
 
 I will venture, then, to subtract two from the list given 
 above, leaving six in the whole New Testament, and 
 one only in the four Gospels (Matt. xiii. 19). That one 
 is indisputable, because assured by the parallel passages 
 in Mark and Luke. In the parable of the sower, where 
 Matthew says : " Ep^erat 6 novrjpbs xai dpnd^et t6 kaizapfiivov ;" 
 Mark says : v Ep%evai 6 Zaravas (iv. 15) ; Luke says : "Epxerai 
 6 8tdj3oXo$ (viii. 12). If we had a similar parallelism in the 
 Lord's Prayer, there would be no need of discussion. 
 The most that we can say, in comparing the evangelists, 
 is that Mark never uses 6 -Ttovypos at all, and Luke 
 never uses 6 -novypos for Satan, but always dtdfioko? or 
 larava?, and that he once uses the neuter to xovypov, and 
 that too in his Sermon on the Mount. Compare Luke 
 vi. 45 with Matt. vii. 18. But while spending our time 
 in debating whether Satan is called u the evil one" just 
 seven times, or six, or five, we are apt to forget that 
 more than seventy times he is called by other names, 
 almost always Satan or Devil. All the undoubted exam- 
 ples of the term "evil one" except two are in the First 
 Epistle of John. In the Gospels there is but one, viz., Matt, 
 xiii. 19, this being given by only one of the three report- 
 ing evangelists. If we were not in a serious discussion, 
 I should be tempted to call it one-third of an example, 
 
IOO DOES THE LORD'S PRAYER MENTION THE DEVIL? 
 
 because probably, either by varying tradition or by delib- 
 erate choice of the writers, the three words came from 
 the same Aramaic source. Now while it is possible that 
 this rare usage should be incorporated into such a formula 
 as the Lord's Prayer, it seems to me extremely improb- 
 able. The presumption is strongly against it. 
 
 This strong presumption is confirmed, and made almost 
 a certainty, by Old Testament usage. The Septua- 
 gint has frequent use of izovrjpov and xaxov, with, and 
 sometimes without, the article, to denote evil in general. 
 The first reference to evil is in Gen. ii. 9 — to £bkov too 
 eidivat yvuxrrov xakoo xal Tzovrjpoo. In Deut. iv. 25, we read : 
 kav xot7J<Tr)Te to novypov Ivcbmov xup{ou y and this language is so 
 reiterated in the books that follow, that doing "evil in 
 the sight of the Lord" rings like a sad refrain all through 
 the history. The Psalms and prophets continue the 
 same usage. David's lament in the penitential Psalm — go) 
 fxovu) r[p.apT0V) xai to novypov hibiziov aou iTZoir^Ga (li. 4. (1.6)) — 
 and Isaiah's oual ol XtyovT£STo novqpov xaXov (v. 20) are exam- 
 ples. We base no argument on the fact that Satan is 
 never called " the evil one" in the Old Testament. We 
 do not place Old Testament usage on a level with that of 
 the New Testament on this point. Whatever may be the 
 reason, the doctrine of Satan is mostly a New Testament 
 doctrine, but the notion of evil in general is common and 
 impressive in the Old Testament, and is very often ex- 
 pressed in the Septuagint by to novypov. The Old Testa- 
 ment all bears one way on the question before us. We 
 would not limit all the words of our Lord to Old Testa- 
 
( orT 
 
 DOES THE LORD'S PRAYER MENTION THE DEVIL? iOI 
 
 ment meanings, but his hearers were familiar with the 
 idea of evil itself as a dreadful reality. It was a part of 
 their biblical training, and we may well believe that divine 
 wisdom did not overlook this in giving form to that com- 
 prehensive guide to prayer. Indeed, if we do not greatly 
 overestimate the influence of the Old Testament on the 
 minds of serious Jews, we may say that, unless the lan- 
 guage employed by our Lord was decisively limited to an 
 evil person, his hearers would inevitably understand it of 
 evil itself. In all this we do not forget that the Septua- 
 gint is a translation, and that a large part of the Gospels 
 is virtually the same. The argument from the Old Testa- 
 ment is from the idea of evil, and not from any particu- 
 lar word to express it. It may be added, however, that 
 in the Hebrew Old Testament the article is almost always 
 used with y\ (JTVI) to express " evil" substantively — 
 that which is evil. Still further, of all the Evangelists, 
 Matthew — Luke's genuine text does not contain the peti- 
 tion — is most under the influence of Old Testament ideas, 
 as is shown by the great number of his citations. 
 
 The force of all this is not much weakened by the fact 
 that Satan is not often spoken of by any name in the Old 
 Testament, nor by the greater prominence given to the 
 agency of Satan in later times. Lightfoot says (p. 282) : 
 " The Septuagint version of the Old Testament was made 
 two or three centuries before the Gospels were written. 
 This interval was a period of constant and rapid develop- 
 ment. Theological nomenclature moved forward with 
 the movement of the ages. Terms wholly unknown at 
 
102 DOES THE LORD'S PRAYER MENTION THE DEVIL? 
 
 the beginning of this period were in everybody's mouth 
 at the end." But the influence of the Old Testament on 
 the minds of Christ's hearers in regard to "evil" did not 
 depend on the frequency or infrequency of the mention of 
 Satan, or on the diction of the Septuagint, but on the 
 positive and ever-present power of those writings which 
 were u read in the synagogues every Sabbath," and taught 
 in every devout family. No doubt, new terms arose, 
 but they must have arisen slowly, and have supplanted 
 others still more slowly, and if any term ever clearly had 
 the field to express wicked conduct, it was in our Savior's 
 time, "evil," in whatever language it may have been 
 clothed; while "evil one" was, it is true, beginning to 
 be used occasionally as a name of the Devil. 
 
 In this connection I ought, perhaps, to refer to the 
 Talmud, the knowledge of which, it has been said, is 
 mostly disseminated by quoting from quotations. The 
 Talmud might have been put with emphasis in the list 
 of our indecisive sources of evidence; for it contains the 
 petitions " Deliver us from evil" and " Deliver us from 
 Satan," ahd a special search was rewarded by the dis- 
 covery of three passages in which Satan was called the 
 Wicked One. These may be found on pages 285, 286, 
 in Lightfoot's Appendix II. I will make short work of 
 the immense and almost inaccessible Talmud, because I 
 know so little about it, but I have read carefully a little 
 volume, the orthodox Jewish Prayer-book, and perhaps 
 its ancient prayers represent the devotions of the time of 
 Christ as correctly as the Talmud, which in its earliest 
 
DOES THE LORD'S PRAYER MENTION THE DEVIL? I03 
 
 written portions is two centuries after Christ. Among 
 these ancient prayers, none of which make mention of the 
 evil one, we find in the Morning Service the following: 
 " O Lord, have pity on thy people Israel, and deliver us 
 from all evil."* " Lead us not into the power of sin, trans- 
 gressions, iniquity, temptation, or contempt. Suffer not 
 the evil imagination to have dominion over us; and re- 
 move far from us evil men and wicked associates and 
 works." But the Talmud, it seems, adds to such prayers 
 as these the petition: "Deliver us from Satan." Now, 
 if the question were, Did the ancient Jews pray to be 
 delivered from Satan or from evil? then the Talmud 
 would answer, They prayed for deliverance from both. 
 After all, I do not believe that the Talmud has very much 
 to do with the question what the Lord's Prayer means. 
 If it gave us the exact petition " Deliver us from the evil 
 one," how much would its evidence be worth against that 
 derived from the Old Testament? 
 
 Our conclusion, then, is that in the Lord's Prayer we 
 are taught to say, " Deliver us from evil" — a petition that 
 reaches to the lowest depths of weak, sinful human nature. 
 If it could be shown that " evil one" was a common desig- 
 nation of the Devil, even then there would be no prepon- 
 derance in favor of the rendering, " Deliver us from the 
 evil one." The case would be simply evenly balanced so 
 far as the language itself is concerned ; and the weight of 
 
 * jn 73D ^7^2fn , which may be rendered in Greek, puffai r}p.as &no 
 iulvto<$ Tzovrjpoo. Compare Ps. cxxi. (cxx.) 7, K()pio§ <pokdt;ai ffe duzb 
 izavrd<$ xaxoo. 
 
104 DOES THE LORD'S PRAYER MENTION THE DEVIL? 
 
 evidence from the Old Testament would be decisive. But 
 when we think how seldom the name "evil one" was ap- 
 plied to Satan, and that this ought to have considerable 
 weight in every instance of ambiguity, and especial 
 weight in interpreting a prayer remarkable for its sim- 
 plicity and directness,then our conclusion seems well-nigh 
 certain. 
 
IV 
 
 DOES ijXtzfa, IN MATTHEW AND LUKE, MEAN STATURE 
 OR AGE? 
 
 Ti$ 8e £% v[ia)v fj.epifji.vajv duvarat Tzpood-eTvai ferl tyjv fjXuiav 
 abroo tztjxov ha ; Matt. vi. 27. Compare Luke xii. 25. 
 
 In classical usage the meaning " stature" is rare. The 
 best lexicons refer us to only five examples, and two of 
 these are erroneous. In Plutarch, a contemporary of 
 John, there seems to be not a single example, though he 
 uses ijXtxia many times. There is one clear case in 
 Herodotus (Hi., 16). After describing the indignities in- 
 flicted on the dead body of Amasis by Cambyses, he says 
 that the Egyptians asserted that it was not Amasis but a 
 certain Egyptian of the same stature — fycM rrjv aorijv 
 jjXtxtyv 'Afxdffc. Demosthenes furnishes another example in 
 one of the " testimonies" appended to his oration " Ad- 
 versus Bceotum" (1024). In speaking of his daughter the 
 witness says that if you look at her stature — ryv & ijXixiav abTrjs 
 av l'dr)T£ — you would suppose her to be his sister. Again, 
 Lucian in his True History — the ancient Gulliver's Trav- 
 els — speaks of men, though he admits it to be napadoZoTa- 
 toV) of about half-furlong statures — i)[ii<nadiaioo<: Ta$ 
 $Xtx(af. 
 
 The Septuagint, Canon and Apocrypha, has but one 
 example of "stature" (Ezek. xiii. 18), and that one we 
 
 105 
 
106 'HXixia IN MATTHEW AND LUKE 
 
 could not be sure of, if we did not know the original 
 Hebrew. 
 
 Coming to the New Testament, where ijfoxia is used 
 eight times, one of these a mere repetition (John ix. 23), 
 we find but one case that is not disputed — the IjXtxia of 
 Zacchseus — although Eph. iv. 13 seems to me almost as 
 clear. Paul had just been speaking of " the building up 
 of the body of Christy and he adds, "till we all attain 
 . . . unto a full-grown man, of the stature (rjlixias) 
 of the fullness of Christ." Luke ii. 52 may fairly be 
 considered doubtful, especially on account of the verb 
 7rpoixo7tTe\> y which would not go so well with " stature" as 
 with "maturity of age." This leaves two cases of the un- 
 disputed meaning "age," that of the blind man healed, 
 who was "of age" (John ix. 21, 23), and Sarah, who 
 was "past age" (Heb. xi. 11). 
 
 Usage, then, by a majority vote favors the meaning 
 "age," but there are examples enough of the meaning 
 " stature" to allow the passages before us to be settled 
 purely by connection of thought. Which best suits the 
 immediate and surrounding context? There is no doubt 
 that the first impression is in favor of applying " cubit" 
 to stature. The older commentators seem to have fol- 
 lowed this, and I think it is a case where first impressions 
 should rule. Bengel makes short work of the other view — 
 "Hanc [aetatem] nemo cubitis metitur" (note on Luke 
 xii. 25). It must be admitted that the most eminent 
 modern commentators have abandoned this first impres- 
 sion. Tholuck in his " Sermon on the Mount" refers to 
 
'HXlXta IN MATTHEW AND LUKE I07 
 
 Ps. xxxix. 5, Job ix. 25, Acts xiii. 25, 2 Tim. iv. 7, in 
 favor of "age," and, in extra-Biblical Greek, to Dioge- 
 nianus, Alcaeus and Mimnermus. Meyer gives the first 
 and last of these, but Alford gives all except Acts xiii. 
 25, including the misprint in Tholuck for Diogenianus. 
 With all respect for these distinguished names, it must 
 be said that such parallel references are utterly mislead- 
 ing, and tend to throw discredit on all usage-study; for 
 (1) the M hand-breadth" of the Psalm, the " finger-breadth" 
 of Alcaeus, and the "cubit-time" (nyxutov %povov) of 
 Mimnermus are obvious poetic diction, and one of the 
 elementary principles of usage-study is not to mix and 
 confound poetry and prose. (2) Still more unfit is the 
 comparison with Job's saying, "My days are swifter 
 than a post," and the reference to dp6fio$ in the Acts 
 and 2 Tim. ("John was fulfilling his course" " I have 
 finished my course"}. What is the use of studying 
 usage at all, if we must put together such incongruous 
 notions on the general ground, of course indisputable, 
 that words of space are often applied to time? 
 
 If, then, the joining of cubit to age is unsupported by 
 usage, how is it about the context? Meyer and Alford 
 insist that the connection demands " age" ; " for," says the 
 latter, " the object of food and clothing is not to enlarge 
 the body, but to prolong life." Let us look at verses 25- 
 28. " Be not anxious for your life, what ye shall eat, 
 or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye 
 shall put on. Is not the life more than the food, and the 
 body than the raiment? Behold the birds of the heaven 
 
108 'HXuia IN MATTHEW AND LUKE 
 
 . . . your heavenly Father feedeth them. . . . 
 Which of you by being anxious can add one cubit unto 
 his stature? And why are ye anxious concerning raiment? 
 Consider the lilies of the field," etc. Here are mentioned 
 two objects of anxiety, food and clothing — food for the 
 life, and clothing for the body. Life is more than food, 
 and the body than raiment. The Father who gives life 
 will give its needful food, and he who gives the body will 
 give its needed clothing. There are two pairs, life and 
 food, body and raiment. Now the discussion of the first 
 pair closes, I think, with the 26th verse, " Are not ye of 
 much more value than they ?" Next begins (and the di 
 after rfc favors this) the second pair, body and raiment. 
 The 27th verse is a fit opening for this, but is it a fitting 
 close for the preceding? The body is God's gift, and 
 he will provide clothing for it. He gives it as it is, and 
 we cannot change its stature by our anxiety. No more need 
 is there of our being anxious about its clothing. 
 
 In Luke (xii. 22-29) we find the same two pairs, and 
 the verse about the cubit serves equally well for an intro- 
 duction to the second. Instead of Matthew's xai izepl 
 hdufiaros ri fxeptfivdrs ; where xai, according to its New 
 Testament inclusiveness, nearly equals o5v, Luke has 
 si oZv 008k iXd^KTzov duvavde, ri Tzspi rwv Xotizwv fxepi/uLvdre ; 
 Omitting the word for clothing, he implies it in" the rest," 
 and goes on, like Matthew, with the beautiful parable- 
 argument from the lilies. His ei oZv fastens the connec- 
 tion of the "cubit" verse to the following instead of the 
 preceding. Meyer and Alford find an objection to the 
 
'HXtXta IN MATTHEW AND LUKE 
 
 IO9 
 
 meaning "stature" in the word iXdxtarov, the latter say- 
 ing that a cubit would be "a very large increase. " But 
 why emphasize Ttrj%uv after this mechanical fashion? 
 Our Savior's argument would have been the same if he 
 had said "inch" or "hair-breadth." Plainly, "cubit" 
 was used as a common unit of measure. The substance 
 of the thought was that man cannot change the stature 
 that God has given him. Also difference in height of 
 body is a very small matter (kXd%i<jTov) compared with the 
 care of the body, whether short or tall. Further, it may 
 be that oudk iXd^tarov is to be taken adverbially — "you are 
 able not even in the least" to increase the stature. 
 
 Another objection is drawn from the grotesqueness of 
 even suggesting a cubit's increase in stature. Bengel is 
 not disturbed by this; he says, "ut fiat giganti similis." 
 Meyer considers the notion "sehr unpassend." So it 
 might be, if the language implied the possible desirable- 
 ness of adding a cubit to all men's stature. But the ab- 
 surdity vanishes when we think of the differences in 
 men's height, and that while some would not care to be 
 taller, others might. The very form of the question sug- 
 gests individuals : "Which of you?" Our Savior may 
 have had among his hearers a Saul, of whom it is said, 
 " From his shoulders and upward he was taller than any 
 of the people" (1 Sam. ix. 2.), and a Zacchaeus, whom 
 all the world knows to have been " little of stature" (r# 
 ■fjktxiq. fxixpos — Luke xix. 3). We do not know the exact 
 height of either, but there must have been a difference of 
 more than a cubit. One naturally thinks of the pet regi- 
 
IIO 'HXixia IN MATTHEW AND LUKE 
 
 ment of Frederick William I. of Prussia,in which some of 
 the men were seven feet tall, while the statement is made 
 that the requirement for the Japanese army is only 4 feet 
 n. If something more accurate is wanted, it can be 
 found in gymnasium records; but almost any one, with- 
 out going to formal records, can find among his acquaint- 
 ances men who are 6 feet 4, and others under 5 feet. All 
 this would not be worth the while except to answer an ob- 
 jection, for, as has been said already, the cubit was men- 
 tioned as a common unit of measure, — as we use foot and 
 inch — and not for mathematical exactness. 
 
 Let it be added here that the objections are not all on 
 one side. Besides the objection to " age" from the incon- 
 gruity of the connection with "cubit," it may be said 
 that one can by care prolong his life. The suggestion 
 that he cannot, so fixed are the limits of life by God's 
 purpose, gives a prominence to Divine foreordination 
 that is out of harmony with the occasion, with the Ser- 
 mon on the Mount, and with the general teaching of 
 Jesus. 
 
 We may come back, then, with confidence to our 
 first impression in favor of the rendering "stature." A 
 careful examination of the passage confirms the verdict of 
 plain common sense, the judgment of the older commen- 
 tators, and the rendering of the oldest versions, viz., the 
 Old Latin, the Old Syriac, and, if we may trust a trans- 
 lation of a translation, the Gospel-harmony of Tatian. 
 
TO THE SLEEPING DISCIPLES 
 
 Ka&eudere rd lomov xai dvanaueff^e. Mark xiv. 41. 
 Compare Matt. xxvi. 45, 46; Luke xxii. 45, 46. 
 
 It has been much discussed whether Jesus used this 
 language in earnest, or in irony, as if saying, "Sleep on, 
 if you can in such an hour as this." If used in earnest, 
 how could he say immediately, "Arise, let us be going"? 
 Perhaps all that is needed is to read the whole narrative 
 of the Agony in the garden, with the eyes of the imagi- 
 nation wide open. Three times Jesus went a short dis- 
 tance from the three disciples, that he might endure the 
 agony alone, yet not far from sympathy. Twice he re- 
 turned and awoke them from a sleep which he kindly ex- 
 cused. He returns the third time. Does he awake them 
 again? Not at once. Looking with eyes of pity on the 
 forlorn " o'erwatched" friends, he speaks a few tender 
 words to ears that do not hear. It is more a soliloquy. 
 "Sleep henceforth and take rest: it is enough: the hour 
 is come ; behold, the Son of man is betrayed into the hands 
 of sinners." The loving Heart anticipates their relief 
 from the dreadful strain. He speaks, but they do not 
 hear, until with sharp tones of urgent necessity he cries 
 
 in 
 
112 TO THE SLEEPING DISCIPLES 
 
 out, u Arise, let us be going," and, as they rouse them- 
 selves to obey, he repeats in substance what he had 
 already said unheard, " Behold, he that betrayeth me is at 
 hand." 
 
VI 
 
 DEMONS 
 
 Kupte, xai rd datfidvta dnoTdffasTat rjfiiv kv tw 6vo/j.art <rou. 
 
 — Luke x. 17. 
 
 What were demons,or devils,as our versions call them ? 
 Were they real or imaginary? These questions annoy 
 exegesis without being properly in its sphere. Exegesis 
 says: "They were, in the opinion of the times, malig- 
 nant spirits controlling and perverting men's minds, and 
 making them what we now call crazy." Present opinion 
 considers their victims to be simply mentally diseased. 
 But this change of opinion need not trouble any reader 
 of the New Testament when he comes to the accounts of 
 demoniacal possession. The people of that day had their 
 theory and we have ours, and how much will the men of 
 the coming centuries care for either? For how much 
 do we know absolutely of mental disease, or affections 
 of the brain? Suppose some one should extend the germ- 
 theory of disease so as to cover all brain-ailments, and 
 people the head with a legion of living pests, could the 
 nineteenth, or twentieth, century in the West say much in 
 scorn of the first century in the East? Nor in fact have 
 we altogether given up its way of speaking, for we some- 
 times say a man is "possessed." At any rate the notion 
 of devils in a human being is respectable enough to be 
 
 "3 
 
114 DEMONS 
 
 read of without distress or disgust, as an ancient theory 
 of frenzy or madness. Exegesis calmly acknowledges 
 that there was no other way to speak of the matter at that 
 time and in that place. Jesus himself not only assumed 
 human nature, but entered into the mind of the times. 
 There is no need of explaining his words by an "accom- 
 modation theory" of adapting his language to the ignor- 
 ance of his hearers. Is it not utterly idle to set up a du- 
 plex analysis of the intellectual experience of the God- 
 man? The incarnation, of itself, was an all-inclusive " ac- 
 commodation" to our earthly life. 
 
VII 
 
 THE NEW TESTAMENT USE OF dydTzdu) AND <plX(u> 
 
 'Ayana$ fxe ; . . . <ptXG> as. . . . dya-x^s M e J • • 
 <piXcb <T£. . . . piXels jus; iXumj&T) 6 Tlirpo^ on elitsv aurw 
 to rptrov <ptXeTs fie ; xai Xiyet abrip' xupte, izdvra <tu olda$, ah 
 Y&(l)<jx£t<s ore <ptXm <re. John xxi. 15-17. 
 
 It is to be expected that in discussing these two words 
 one will begin by quoting from Trench's " Synonyms of 
 the New Testament." He says (I. 67, Am. Ed.) that 
 <ptXi(o (amo) " is more instinctive, is more of the feel- 
 ings, implies more passion," while dyandaj (diligo) indi- 
 cates esteem, choice, a sense of what is fit and due its 
 object. He dwells on John xxi. 15-17 as illustrating the 
 difference. 'Ayanas on the Lord's lips " sounds too cold" 
 to satisfy Peter, and at last Jesus gratifies him by adopt- 
 ing his own word, <ptXet$. 
 
 President Woolsey, in an article of the greatest 
 value in the Andover Review (Aug., 1885), di ssents 
 from this interpretation of the dialogue, while ac- 
 knowledging the correctness of Trench's view in 
 general. He considers it "more probable that Peter 
 felt his love to Christ to be too human, too much like a 
 friend's love to a friend," to deserve the word dyandw. 
 
 In the Bibliotheca Sacra for July, 1889, President Bal- 
 lantine gives a searching criticism to the views of Trench, 
 
 "5 
 
116 THE NEW TESTAMENT USE OF ayaitdio AND <pd£a> 
 
 Woolsey and others, and comes to the conclusion that in 
 Biblical Greek there is no difference in meaning between 
 ayaTzdu) and <piH<D. I will not undertake to give a sum- 
 mary of this article, but will merely say that future in- 
 vestigators will have to reckon with President Ballantine. 
 
 Possibly the following remarks may throw a little 
 additional light on this obscure matter. 
 
 i. There is a presumption against absolute identity of 
 meaning in the case of almost any two words. This 
 presumption is increased if the words express decided or 
 strong feeling. It is still further increased if, in any par- 
 ticular passage,the words have an antithetical position, or 
 seem to have special attention called to them in any way. 
 
 2. The difference in meaning may be very slight and 
 yet real ; for meaning covers not merely the intellectual 
 analysis of a word, but its association, and various shades 
 of impression. 
 
 3. Many a writer fails to observe those distinctions in 
 words which are sanctioned by the best usage. This 
 may arise from a lack of literary cultivation, from negli- 
 gence, from excited feeling, or purposely for some tem- 
 porary reason. So also a writer may observe the nicest 
 distinctions in some parts of his work and neglect them 
 in others. There is a personal usage, as well as general. 
 
 4. The fact that a word was being superseded by 
 another would not prove that both were used without dis- 
 crimination. Sometimes it might be the antique air itself 
 that recommended it,as in the English" quoth" for "said," 
 and "token" for "sign." 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT USE OF dyandw AND <pdi(i) II 7 
 
 5. When a word after long fluctuation settles down in a 
 narrow corner of its former usage, it is natural to see in 
 its earlier uses a tendency towards the final use. Ac- 
 cording to that, <pdiu>, meaning at last only "to kiss," 
 might during its later previous history express distinct- 
 ively fondness, tenderness, or devotion. 
 
 6. The classical usage of dyandio and <pdiu) is not 
 much disputed. The former is more like the Latin 
 "diligo," the latter "amo," but the line is not sharply 
 drawn except that (pdiio only /means to kiss, this use 
 being as early as Herodotus. Aristotle, after saying (Rhet. 
 I., 11,17) that to be loved is pleasant (to (pdzTaftai ydu), adds 
 that "to be loved is to be held dear for one's own sake," 
 to de <pdei(j&ai dyaitda^ai kaxiv aorov df olvtov. The 
 standard quotation from Dion Cassius (about A. D. 180) 
 has peculiar interest because it is from the speech of An- 
 tony, and must, therefore, be virtually a translation from 
 the Latin. He says of Caesar (44, 48, 1): ^Eyd-qaars: 
 aorov w$ naripa, xat rjyaTzijaars a>? evepygrTjv — "Ye loved him 
 as a father, and held him dear as a benefactor" — where 
 one can plainly see the Latin amabatis, diligebatis. 
 
 7. Much more important is the usage of the Septua- 
 gint. Here the prevailing word is dyandw, being found, 
 including the Apocrypha, about 270 times. It has a wide 
 range. Says Ballantine, speaking of the canonical books, 
 " It is the word in constant use to express (1) God's love to 
 man, (2) God's love for truth and other virtuous and. 
 worthy objects, (3) man's love for God, (4) man's love 
 for salvation and worthy objects, (5) man's conscientious 
 
Il8 THE NEW TESTAMENT USE OF ayaizaii) AND <pdilO 
 
 love for man, (6) ordinary human friendship, (7) paren- 
 tal and filial affection, (8) the love of husband and wife, 
 (9) impure sexual love, (10) man's love for cursing and 
 other vices and sinful objects." (P. 527). Very differ- 
 ent is it with <pdia>. Of the twenty-five times of its oc- 
 currence, fourteen times it means to kiss, translating the 
 Hebrew p£^. Nine times it represents 3f7N, like 
 ayaTtdw^ and expresses once Jacob's love for Joseph, twice 
 the love of wisdom, four times — three times applied to 
 Isaac — love for a certain food. Twice it is joined 
 with ayandu) {kyb rouy ifie <pdoovra<s dyanib^ Prov. viii. 
 17, and Hos. iii. 1). In no case does it exhibit any re- 
 markable difference from dy<nzdu>. But this is very re- 
 markable, that it is so nearly a discarded word, except in 
 the sense of " kiss." In the Psalms, which echo through- 
 out with love, it never appears; in the Proverbs rarely, 
 and in Isaiah but once. Why this blight on <pd(w 
 in the Septuagint? I can think of no reason but this,that 
 the usage of the time had emphasized its meaning of "kiss," 
 and the Seventy having chosen it to represent the He- 
 brew p£0, its unfitness for general use for love was in- 
 creased. There being back of this a pressure from the 
 fact that the original Hebrew mostly used but one word 
 for love, it was inevitable that the one Greek word should 
 be dyaizdw and not <pd£u>\ and if we make the distinc- 
 tion of higher and lower, the former is the higher word. 
 8. In passing to New Testament usage we might ex- 
 pect a still further repression of <pd£w from the influ- 
 ence of the Septuagint, but this is not true of the New 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT USE OF dyontdw AND <pdi<o II9 
 
 Testament as a whole. As its usage is composite, it is 
 best to consider the writers separately. 
 
 Matthew uses dyarzdw eight times, always with a per- 
 sonal object, God, our neighbor, enemies, etc. He uses 
 <piXio) five times, twice in one passage of loving father, 
 mother, son or daughter more than Christ, twice of 
 things, praying standing, and uppermost rooms, and once 
 concerning the kiss of Judas. His usage is like that of 
 the Septuagint. 
 
 Mark uses a verb for love only six times, four times in 
 one passage (xii. 30-33) in regard to the commands to love 
 God and our neighbor. Here dyandu) is found, and the 
 language of the commands follows (as in Matthew and 
 Luke), with some variations, the Septuagint. This 
 leaves the account of the man whom Jesus loved, as he 
 looked upon him (dyandw)) and the language of Judas, 
 "Whomsoever I shall kiss" (ytliw). 
 
 Luke uses the same word for kiss (xxii. 47) and only 
 once besides (xx. 46), of those who " love greetings in the 
 markets." He uses dyaxda) 13 times mostly parallel with 
 Matthew, but also once (xi. 43), very noticeably, of loving 
 chief seats and salutations. In the Acts Luke has no 
 word for love, 'neither verb nor noun. The synoptic 
 writers, then, follow in the main the usage of the Sep- 
 tuagint in discriminating against <pd£(o; its use being 
 sufficient to show that it was a part of their vocabulary, 
 but on a lower plane of meaning than dyonzdaj. 
 
 Before taking up the writings of John let us glance at 
 other writers of the New Testament. Peter uses dyandw 
 
120 THE NEW TESTAMENT USE OF dyaizdio AND <ptllu> 
 
 only; in the first epistle four times (i. 8, 22; ii. 17; iii. 
 10), and in the second once (ii. 15). "Whom not having 
 seen ye love," " Love one another," "Love the brother- 
 hood," "Would love life" — this a quotation from the 
 Septuagint — "Loved the wages of unrighteousness." 
 James has dy<mda> only, and three times, twice in re- 
 peating the thought "promised to them that love him" 
 (i. 12, ii. 5) and once in the command to love our neigh- 
 bor (ii. 8). The writer to the Hebrews uses dyaizdu) only, 
 both times in quotations from the Septuagint (i. 9;xii.6). 
 
 Paul goes even beyond the Septuagint in his prefer- 
 ence — spontaneous, of course — for dyaizda). It is found 
 in all his epistles except Philippians, 1 Timothy, Titus 
 and Philemon, and is most used in Ephesians — ten times. 
 (PtXiaj is found but twice, as against thirty-four, in 
 all, of dyandw. In these two passages — "If any man 
 love not the Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. xvi. 22) and 
 "Greet them that love us in the faith" (Tit. iii. 15) — I 
 cannot see a shade of difference from dyaizdui^ and I imagine 
 that in both cases he was led to depart from his almost 
 universal usage by the word <pttrjfia, which was associ- 
 ated in his mind with Christian greeting, and at the close 
 of 1 Corinthians was used but a line before <pde~i. 
 
 Coming now to the " Apostle of love," we find that in 
 his epistles dyandio only is used, and that thirty-one times 
 uniformly and with enthusiastic iteration it carries its 
 deep, serious meaning. In Revelation <pdiw is found 
 twice; once of loving a lie (xxii. 15), also in the mes- 
 sage to the Laodiceans — "As many as I love I rebuke 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT USE OF dyandw AND <pd(u> 121 
 
 and chasten" (iii. 19). 'Ayandaj is used four times (i. 5, 
 iii. 9, xii. 11, xx. 9). 
 
 Next, let us examine the Gospel, omitting the 21st 
 chapter. Here, although <pdi(o is used much less than 
 ayaKau) — eight to thirty-three — we seem to see a com- 
 plete breaking away from the Septuagint as to the com- 
 parative elevation and dignity of the two words. Not 
 only is there the closest resemblance in meaning, but there 
 are several remarkable parallel uses. Thus, " The Father 
 loveth (ayaTza) the Son" (iii. 35), and "The Father loveth 
 (<pdei) the Son" (v. 20). "He that loveth (dyana) me 
 shall be loved (dyaTZTj&rjrrsTat) of my Father" (xiv. 21), and 
 in the same discourse, further on, "The Father himself 
 loveth (<pdel) you, because ye have loved (7re<pdrjxaTe) 
 me" (xvi. 27). "The disciple standing by whom he 
 loved" (yyaxa) (xix. 26), and in the next chapter, " The 
 other disciple whom Jesus loved" (tyttet) (xx. 2). 
 With these examples before us, can we hesitate to add 
 another as a true parallel, though in the face of Trench's 
 ingenious distinction, " He whom thou lovest (<pttei$) 
 is sick" (xi.3),with "How he loved (tydei) him" (xi.36) 
 and "Jesus loved ^rjyd-Ka) Martha and her sister and Laza- 
 rus." This leaves but two examples of <ptX£w — "He that 
 loveth his life" (xii. 25), and "The world would love its 
 own" (xv. 19). We are not yet through with John's 
 use of these words, but so far, the impression is made on 
 my own mind that he is uncritical in verbal distinctions, 
 and willing to duplicate words in order to avail himself of 
 all the resources of the language in expressing his thought. 
 
122 THE NEW TESTAMENT USE OF ayaizdu) AND (pdiio 
 
 9. We ought now to be prepared to take up the last 
 chapter of the Gospel and the dialogue between our Lord 
 and Peter. A discussion of the style of this chapter, as 
 evincing its substantial genuineness, may be found in the 
 article of President Woolsey already referred to. 
 
 An important question arises at once, viz., whether 
 this dialogue was spoken in Greek or in Aramaic. It is 
 probable that the latter, the Palestinian Syriac, was the 
 language employed; for, (1) being the true vernacular 
 of the country, we should expect it generally in private 
 conversation. Paul used it even in a public speech at 
 Jerusalem (Acts xxi. 40). (2) The mode of address- 
 ing Peter indicates this. While the evangelist, writing 
 in Greek, calls him Simon Peter, Jesus in all three ques- 
 tions calls him Simon (son) of John, i. e., Simon Bar- 
 Jonah, as in Matt. xvi. 17, which is Aramaic. Now if 
 the conversation was in Aramaic,then the word for love, 
 which John varies so strikingly, was probably one and the 
 same in every case. Some evidence of this comes from 
 the Old Syriac version, reinforced by the Peshitto ver- 
 sion. The former is assigned to about A. D. 150 and is 
 therefore a good witness to the Aramaic of our Savior's 
 time. The Curetonian fragments do not contain the last 
 seven chapters of John, but the recently discovered Sinai 
 Codex, fortunately, has the larger part of them, including 
 the twenty-first chapter, with the loss of only a word or 
 two in the 19th verse. In the interview with Peter only 
 one word is used for love (in Hebrew characters OPT))? 
 and that in the face of the almost obtrusive use of two 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT USE OF ayairdct) AND (ptUw I 23 
 
 words in the original Greek. The rendering of the whole, 
 however, is so inexact that it may be well to give it. 
 Mrs. Lewis' translation is: "And when they had eaten, 
 Jesus saith to Simon, Thou [art] Simon, son of Jonah, 
 lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord. He 
 saith unto him, Feed my lambs. Again Jesus saith to 
 him, Thou [art] Simon, son of Jonah, lovest thou me 
 much? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord. He saith unto 
 him, Feed my sheep. Again Jesus saith unto him, 
 Simon, son of Jonah, lovest thou me? Simon was grieved 
 because three times Jesus spoke thus unto him. Simon 
 saith unto him, Thou knowest all things; thou knowest 
 that I love thee. And he said, Feed my flock." Here 
 the word for love is found only four times, instead of 
 the seven of the original, but the fourth time it is the 
 rendering of cpdeT?. Looking through the rest of John's 
 Gospel, we find only four times in which another verb is 
 used for love, ^jltf, just enough to show that the trans- 
 lator used Dm, not because there was absolutely no 
 other, but because it was the regular, accepted word to 
 denote love. Not only does he use it always to render <ptXi(o, 
 except with the meaning to kiss, in all the Gospels, but 
 thirty-six times for dya-nda), as against eight times of 
 DUX* I n eighteen passages containing dya~dw 9 and one 
 containing <pi\£w, the word is missing. 
 
 The Peshitto (perhaps A. D. 300) translates the dia- 
 logue much more literally than the Sinai MS., but gives 
 seven times over the same DPH fr> r love. Through- 
 out the rest of the Gospel it follows the Old Syriac, in 
 
124 THE NEW TESTAMENT USE OF dyandu) AND <fdiw 
 
 the main, for dyanda) and yiXiw; two or three times 
 deviating in favor of 13HN for dyaizdw. In other parts of 
 the New Testament, outside of Old Syriac influence, 3tTN 
 is much more used, and exclusively in the epistles of John. 
 Thus it seems that distinguishing between the two Greek 
 originals was gaining ground, and in the Harklensian 
 Version (A. D. 600), an extremely literal one, 3f7K> 
 according to Bernstein, was uniformly used for dyandw, 
 and DPT) f° r <ptXiw. The later versions, then, show a 
 change under the pressure of the Greek, but leave unim- 
 paired the testimony of Old Syriac to the older Aramaic. 
 This testimony is corroborated by the Peshitto Old Tes- 
 tament, which, receiving no bias from its original, uni- 
 formly translates the Hebrew ^HN D y DfY"V 
 
 But does not the fact that John uses so markedly the 
 two words prove, against all other evidence, that two 
 different words were employed in the conversation? It 
 might possibly, if he were translating from a book, but 
 not as reporting an interview. This brings us back to a 
 characteristic of John's style, already noticed, viz., his 
 duplicating Greek words. John was no master of Greek — 
 he could write even -Kpajros i±outjv (John i. 15, 30) — but he 
 was a master of earnestness, and was willing to seek an 
 elementary, not artistic, emphasis by varying and accumu- 
 lating words whose differences he was not disposed to 
 magnify. How far he was from critical precision in the 
 use of dyandio and <pik(io he himself suggests by say- 
 ing that Peter was grieved because Jesus said to him the 
 third time <pde~i$ fie; whereas in strict literalness he 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT USE OF dyaitdio AND <pd(w I 25 
 
 had said it but once. A good illustration of John's method 
 is found in his use of two other words interwoven in this 
 same passage with the words we are discussing — the three- 
 fold fioffxe . . . not/jLcuve . . . ftoaxe. Here 
 again the Old Syriac has but one word for "feed" 
 — almost identical with the Hebrew njTl — and the 
 Peshitto version the same. John, however, interprets, 
 and skillfully, the one Aramaic by the two Greek. It 
 cannot be that he did not know and feel the difference 
 between (36<rxa) and Tzoqxaivu). We should have looked 
 for but one Greek verb, the higher one, Tcotfiaivto^ as we 
 find it from the lips of Paul in Acts xx. 28, " Feed the 
 church of God," and in 1 Peter v. 2, but John combines 
 the two. So we may say that he combines dyandw and 
 <pdiio to bring out the whole of love. If he had been 
 writing in Latin he would, doubtless, have used both 
 diligo and amo,T\o\. to report a sort of word-play between 
 Peter and his Master, but to say all that the Latin could 
 say in unfolding love. If, however, he had been writ- 
 ing in English he would probably have been satisfied 
 with the one word which, as in Hebrew and Aramaic, 
 covers the whole field, and would hardly have placed 
 in his margin : " The poverty of English prevents me 
 from using two words for love instead of one." 
 
 The outcome of all this discussion is, that the New 
 Testament writers, except John, followed the usage of 
 the Septuagint, but with some religious momentum 
 added to dyaTtdw^ as the word of the Divine Law " Thou 
 shalt love," and of the worship of the Psalms. They 
 
126 THE NEW TESTAMENT USE OF (kyairda) AND <pd£<t) 
 
 recognized the lower plane of <pd£w, but John, in his 
 Gospel, chose to put both words, for the time being, on 
 a level, adding the warmth of one to the dignity of the 
 other, that he might round out the expression of the 
 enthusiasm of his life, the gospel of Divine Love. 
 
VIII 
 
 THE HISTORICAL PRESENT IN THE FOUR GOSPELS 
 
 Professor Burton in his " New Testament Moods 
 and Tenses" gives the following definition of the historical 
 present: "The Present Indicative is used to describe 
 vividly a past event in the presence of which the speaker 
 conceives himself to be." (§ 14.) But as the vividness 
 admits of degrees, and sometimes lowers itself to a mere 
 habit of style, we may say that every present that is 
 used in narration where a past tense would be more 
 exact, is a historical present. The Gospel of Mark, it 
 is well known, contains many examples of this present. 
 A class in New Testament Greek was once asked to 
 compare the usage, in this respect, of the four Gospels 
 by counting the examples in each. The result was as 
 follows: Matthew 93, Mark 143, Luke 16, John 160. 
 This should be modified, of course, by the fact that Mark 
 is the shortest Gospel. If Mark be called 1, then John 
 would be about ii(, Matthew 1^, and Luke 1^. 
 Using this proportion, we correct the figures thus: 
 Matthew 62, Mark 143, Luke 9, John 128. This rep- 
 resents the relative usage, and proves that, while there 
 is a great difference between Mark and Matthew, and 
 while Luke is almost out of consideration, there is prac- 
 tically no difference, in mere numbers, between Mark 
 
 127 
 
128 the historical present in the gospels 
 
 and John. In regard to the verbs that are used in the 
 historical present, we should expect, in such narratives 
 as the Gospels, a large use of "he says" and "he comes." 
 Matthew uses Xiyw 65 times, ep^ofiat 5 times, and 15 
 other verbs together 23 times. Mark uses Xiyw 68 
 times, sp%ofiai 25 times, and 22 other verbs 50 times. 
 Luke uses Xiyio 9 times. John uses Xiyio 117 times 
 — Xiyet 19 times in one chapter, the 21st, which is as- 
 sumed to be genuine — ep^o/iat 15 times, and 17 other 
 verbs 28 times. The large number of different verbs 
 indicates a fixed habit on the part of three of the Evan- 
 gelists. 
 
 This usage forms a very simple, but trustworthy 
 test of style and authorship. The test of vocab- 
 ulary is less certain, because the acquisition of new 
 words is more a matter of conscious purpose, and self- 
 training, and is more dependent on circumstances, read- 
 ing, and associates. A grammatical habit, though less 
 obtrusive, is more fundamental, and a better sign of 
 identity, because it is almost beneath consciousness. To 
 affirm or deny authorship from vocabulary merely, is like 
 judging handwriting by carefully formed capitals, in- 
 stead of by the slope and angles and unintentional, 
 almost unavoidable, peculiarities of the common letters. 
 
 A fine illustration of the historical present as a feature 
 of style is furnished by Xenophon's Anabasis. Not only 
 the breudev igeXauvei) of pleasant recollections, instead 
 of ijXaae (I. 2. 23), reiterates this tense, but the very 
 first verb in the book is an historical present — Aapeioo 
 
THE HISTORICAL PRESENT IN THE GOSPELS 129 
 
 xai IJapuadTtdo? ytyvovrac iraldsS duo — and that too with 
 very little occasion for employing it. This lack of 
 occasion indicates at the outset a habit of style. In the 
 first three sections of Chapter I., containing only 16 
 Indicative tenses, and but little over ioo words (113), 
 there are seven instances of the historical present, and 31 
 in the first two chapters. Thucydides has one (I. xxvi. 
 3) in the first 36 chapters of Book I. ; but a fair compari- 
 son would make account of subject-matter. 
 
 The infrequency of this present in the Gospel of Luke 
 raises the question whether it is found much in the Acts. 
 If it were, one mark of Luke's authorship would be 
 lacking. I have not been able to discover a single ex- 
 ample, although many opportunities for its use occur, not 
 only in general, but in the various riots described, and in 
 the famous voyage and shipwreck. In regard to the dif- 
 ferences between the first three Evangelists, they suggest 
 that neither copied from the other ; but each employed 
 his own style on much common material, derived largely 
 from Aramaic sources, either oral or written. 
 
IX 
 
 TO THE ACTS? 
 
 'ETteidrjizep izoXXol ^ne^etprjaav dvard^aa^ai dirjyrjatv nepl rwv 
 
 TZ£TzXr)po<popr)i±iv(t)v kv i)pXv xpaypdriov, xa#c>9 napidoaav rjp.1v ol 
 
 dri dp%fj<i auronzai xal u-itrjpiTat yevopevot too Xoyou^ edo£e xdpo\ 
 
 7capr}xoXou$7]x6Tt aviod-ev izdaiv dxpiftibs xa&et-rjs aoi ypdtpai, 
 
 xpdxiare OedyiXe, Iva kmyvips nepl &v xarrjxrj&r)? Xdyutv rr)v 
 
 daydXeiav. 
 
 — Luke i. 1-4. 
 
 Toy pew Tipu>TOV Xoyov iitotrjffdprjv nepl 7ravra>v, a> SedcpiXe, wv 
 
 ijp^aro 6 'Itjgous noieiv re xal diddaxeiv, a%pt ^9 r)p(pa^ ivretXd- 
 
 pevos to1$ dnoffToXois did nveuparo? dyiou 089 i^eXi^aro dve- 
 
 Xr}p<p$7). 
 
 — Acts i. 1, 2. 
 
 I assume that Luke wrote both the Gospel that bears 
 his name and the Acts. This, the traditional view, 
 carrying with it the integrity, unity and trustworthiness 
 of the Acts, is vigorously defended in Salmon's Intro- 
 duction to the New Testament (1891), Lecture XVIII. 
 Later, the same is maintained, from the standpoint of 
 history and geography, by Professor Ramsay, against 
 Spitta* and others, throughout his " St. Paul, the 
 Traveller and the Roman Citizen" (1896). A new phase 
 of the discussion was opened by Professor Fr. Blass, 
 
 ♦Die Apostelgeschichte, ihre Quellen und deren geschichtlicher Wert, von 
 Friederich Spitta, 1891. 
 
 130 
 
I3 1 
 
 whose theory, briefly stated in the Prolegomena of his 
 " Acta Apostolorum, sive Lucae ad Theophilum Liber 
 Alter" (1895), PP' 30-32, is that Luke issued two editions 
 of the Acts, the first of which, afterwards revised by him 
 to our present text, is represented by the Codex Bezae. 
 This is supported by Otto Zockler in Greifswalder 
 Studien (1895), pp. 109-145 (Die Apostelgeschichte als 
 Gegenstand hoherer und niederer Kritik), and seems to 
 be endorsed by not a few scholars. 
 
 With these references to recent discussion, I take up 
 the question, " Does the Preface to Luke's Gospel belong 
 also to the Acts?" and remark — 
 
 1. That there is no express limitation confining the 
 coming narrative to the life of Christ. Such a limita- 
 tion would be very natural, if it were intended to write 
 the Gospel only. The very language required may be 
 found in the first verse of the Acts ; and we might ex- 
 pect Luke to write, " It seemed good to me also to relate 
 all that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in 
 which he was taken up." Such is not his statement. 
 Even the name of Jesus is not found. This cannot be 
 due to brevity, for the preface, though but a single sen- 
 tence, is not concise, but somewhat ample in style. It 
 is true that if we take it for granted that it belongs to 
 the Gospel only, it is appropriate enough, but it is much 
 more appropriate if not confined to that. It is hardly 
 necessary to add that on this point no account should be 
 made of the order of the books in the Canon. The matter 
 should be viewed precisely as if the book of the Acts 
 
I32 THE PREFACE TO LUKES GOSPEL 
 
 followed immediately after the Gospel of Luke, with the 
 intervention of no more than a few blank lines and a title. 
 Doubtless Luke himself issued the two together after 
 both had been written. 
 
 2. Some of the expressions in the preface fore- 
 shadow a longer period than is covered by the Gospel. 
 The connected narrative (dirjyrjtns) is to be (like that of 
 "many"), "concerning those matters which have been 
 fulfilled ( Vulgate, completae sunt) among us." Tle-KXrjpo^op-q- 
 fiivwv may mean "fully established" as an institution, or 
 " fully proved." In either case Theophilus is to know the 
 certainty of the instructions he has received; and Luke is 
 to write "in order," because he has made careful inves- 
 tigation of "all things from the beginning (avw#ev)." 
 The promise, then, is to go over all the facts embraced 
 in the Christian faith, and to confirm all the usual in- 
 structions given to converts. Could this promise be ful- 
 filled without saying even a word about the outpouring 
 of the Spirit at Pentecost? Would one writing more 
 than twenty years after that Pentecost promise an ac- 
 count of all essential Christian facts, and yet not mean 
 to say anything of those glorious years which were 
 the crown and fulfillment of Christ's earthly life? Fur- 
 ther, his promise is based on knowing "all things from 
 the beginning." Does not this suggest that he will bring 
 the history down from the beginning to about the time 
 of writing? The moment we cease to take it for granted 
 that this preface applies to the Gospel only, its expres- 
 sions look towards a larger purpose. If there were no 
 
THE PREFACE TO LUKE'S GOSPEL 
 
 *33 
 
 subsequent book by the same writer, we could, indeed, 
 interpret these expressions in a narrower sense, or, with 
 Meyer, in a philosophical sense, as indicating that the 
 gospel-history is the sure foundation of Christianity. 
 But is it not better to say that the writer of these large 
 promises, after fulfilling a part, laid down his pen for a 
 short time, and then took it up again and fulfilled the 
 rest? 
 
 One thing seems, at first view, to oppose what I have 
 now urged. Luke appears to disclaim the character of 
 eye-witness, and to depend for his authority on those 
 who were "eye-witnesses and ministers of the word"; 
 and yet in the latter part of the Acts he writes as an eye- 
 witness of the life of Paul. In regard to this, these 
 points should be noted: (i) The largest part of the 
 Acts is as dependent on the testimony of others as the 
 Gospel. (2) Even the original portions — the nine chap- 
 ters at the close, and a part of the sixteenth — are largely 
 made up of the testimony of Paul, a " minister of the 
 word." (3) It would seem to be pressing the language 
 unduly to insist that nothing whatever should be added 
 from personal observation. (4) If the preface were 
 written beforehand — and it may well have been — the 
 author may not have known precisely at what point his 
 narrative would stop. 
 
 3. The introduction to the Acts harmonizes with the 
 idea that the book is a continuation originally intended, 
 and not an afterthought. There is no proper preface, 
 like that which is prefixed to the Gospel. There is 
 
134 " THE preface to luke's gospel 
 
 simply a statement of the ground already gone over in 
 the Gospel, followed by a re-statement (verses 3-12), with 
 additions, of the account of the parting words and the 
 ascension, found in the closing verses of the Gospel. 
 This is what we should expect if the Acts were Part II. 
 of a continuous history. This impression is confirmed 
 by the opening words, which refer to the Gospel as 
 tov izp&Tov Xdyov. The word Xoyog itself favors this 
 view somewhat, but is not decisive. Those who have 
 not wholly forgotten their " Anabasis" will recall that in 
 the opening sentence of each book after Book I., with 
 a single exception, Xenophon gives a summary of the 
 events gone over h tw izpoa&ev Xoyut. The X6y<>s referred 
 to in the opening of the second book is Book I. In the 
 other cases it means the narrative contained in all the 
 preceding books; but in no case does it designate a 
 work other than the Anabasis. So Herodotus in his 
 second book (38) says of matters afterwards mentioned in 
 Book III., to. £yu> h aXXw Xoyip lp(io\ and in referring (V. 
 36) to certain offerings of Croesus mentioned in Book I. 
 92, he says, w$ dedrjAajrat jjloi £\> rip Tzpuiru) twv Xoywv. Here 
 the usage is just like that of the Latin liber. There 
 seems to be no such usage in the New Testament, unless 
 this in the Acts be a case of it. In Greek of the times, 
 outside of the New Testament, the usage is not unknown, 
 as is shown by Birt in " Das antike Buchwesen" (p. 
 28). In titles, which, though not to be depended on as 
 of the same age as their books, may yet have some value 
 for traditional usage, we find that Josephus has Xfyos 
 
THE PREFACE TO LUKE'S GOSPEL I 35 
 
 in the Jewish War, though §iph»$ in the Antiquities; 
 Dionysius Hal. has A6yo$, also Philo in the Life»of Moses, 
 and Lucian. 
 
 But without making too much of Aoyos, we may 
 say that the phrase rbv npuizov Xoyov seems like the num- 
 bering of distinct portions of a work. Professor Ramsay 
 argues (St. Paul, etc., p. 28) that the phrase " is more rec- 
 oncilable with the plan of three books than of two." 
 In Lucian's True History, however, (perhaps A. D. 
 150) we find, as title, *AAtj&ovs 'Iaroptas A6yo$ npwTos, 
 although there are but two books. The entire impres- 
 sion seems to me to be that this second Aoyos is not an in- 
 dependent dt7jyr]<ns, but Part II. of the diyjyrjGts promised 
 in the preface. 
 
 4. It is generally agreed that Luke did actually write 
 the Acts shortly after the Gospel. It is therefore very 
 improbable that he did not have in mind doing so when 
 he began the Gospel. Is it not, indeed, likely that his 
 familiarity with the later events led him to follow back 
 to its sources (7:apaxoAou&e~ii>) the whole history? Thus 
 the Acts, while yet unwritten, would give rise to the 
 Gospel. Alford thinks (Proleg. Luke, sec. iv.) that at 
 least five years intervened between the publication of the 
 Gospel and the Acts ; and his principal reason is that 
 the account of the ascension is much fuller in the latter, 
 indicating access to additional information. But how 
 long can we assume that it would take a historian to get 
 new information ? It might be five years or five days. 
 A very diligent and careful investigator, like Luke, 
 
 \9RA*p 
 
 Of THE 
 
 NIVERSI1 
 
 or 
 
 IFOR! 
 
I36 THE PREFACE TO LUKE'S GOSPEL 
 
 would be quite as likely to find it soon as late. We can 
 see no good ground for questioning the common opinion 
 that the Gospel was written but a short time before the 
 Acts; say, during the two years of Paul's first imprison- 
 ment. If this is so, the preface can hardly be divorced 
 from the Acts. 
 
 The evidence, then, seems to show that while the pref- 
 ace to the Gospel is not such a one as would be written 
 after both works were completed, yet it was written 
 with both in mind. Whatever may have been the inter- 
 val of publication, the whole work might be entitled, 
 The history of the establishment of the Christian faith. 
 — Parti. The life of Jesus; Part II. The manifestation 
 of the Ho'ly Spirit, and the founding of the church. 
 
X 
 
 Christ's descent into hades 
 
 Ovx kyxaralei(pei<s rfv <P^/V V f 100 £{? ^ 7 ) v * Acts ii. 27 (Ps. 
 xvi. 10). 
 
 ^Avaftas tig u(po<s ^/{j.aX(6r£u<T£v atyfxaAwtriav. Eph. iv. 8. 
 
 " He descended into hell" — so runs the venerable and 
 majestic Creed. But the American Episcopal Prayer- 
 book prefixes its timid rubric as follows : " Any churches 
 may omit the words 'He descended into hell,' or may, in- 
 stead of them, use the words 'He went into the place of 
 departed spirits,' which are considered as words of the 
 same meaning in the Creed." The words which are 
 here made optional have come down to us in an unbroken 
 line of doctrinal succession from the fourth century. 
 They have, indeed, been stigmatized as an interpolation, , 
 but so early an interpolation might perhaps be called a ma- 
 ture addition. Their omission in English was favored 
 by the change of meaning in the word "hell," but there 
 was also the feeling that Christ's visit to Hades was of 
 little importance, and is to us not a doctrine, but a matter 
 of mere curiosity. 
 
 Now, whatever may be true of the "Apostles' 
 Creed," the Descent into Hades has a sufficient New 
 Testament authority. The first recorded address of 
 Peter contains twofold evidence that the Descent was be- 
 
 J 37 
 
138 Christ's descent into hades 
 
 lieved by both speaker and hearers. In the first place, 
 he quotes from a Psalm (xvi.) that had a shaping influ- 
 ence on the belief of the people respecting Hades. Fur- 
 ther, he bases an argument and appeal for the resurrec- 
 tion of Christ on the certainty that he would not stay in 
 Hades. "Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades." 
 
 But what was Hades, and what the significance and 
 importance of Christ's going thither? In a somewhat 
 recent discussion I find these words: " The Savior was in 
 the same state between death and resurrection as we now 
 are after death." This is, it seems to me, precisely what 
 ought not to be said. For this ignores the whole work 
 of Christ in Hades, and leaves them that sleep in Jesus 
 no better off than if he had not risen. Let us put our- 
 selves in the place of the apostles and their fellow dis- 
 ciples, and after we have learned the truth about Hades 
 as it appeared in their thought and forms of statement, 
 then we may, if we can, translate it into our own 
 thoughts and forms of statement. Hades was the region 
 where dwelt the souls that were under the power of 
 death. The souls of the righteous as well as of the 
 wicked were under this awful power. Into this region 
 came the soul of the Crucified, but it did not remain 
 there. Going thither was the lowest point in his humil- 
 iation, and leaving was the beginning of his triumph. 
 What, then, was the effect in Hades of this visit and this 
 departure? But this is the same as to ask, What was the 
 effect, in the spirit- world, of the resurrection? Accord- 
 ing to the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus, or Acts of 
 
Christ's descent into hades 139 
 
 Pilate, — of perhaps the fourth century, — two of the 
 saints that arose at the resurrection of Christ, Charinus 
 and Lenthius, sons of Simeon, wrote out all that they 
 were allowed to reveal of the coming of Jesus into 
 Hades. This Gospel was the basis of the mediaeval mir- 
 acle play " The Harrowing of Hell." The work in Hades, 
 here somewhat grotesquely described, was the deliverance 
 from hell of the ancient saints, and may be summed up in 
 a single one of its own sentences — " And taking hold of 
 Adam by his right hand, he ascended from hell, and all 
 the saints of God followed him."* 
 
 I do not say that the Gospel of Nicodemus is to be 
 trusted, but it may be as near the truth as the statement 
 that " the Savior was in the same state between death and 
 the resurrection as we now are after death" — a statement 
 that would be accepted, probably, by a majority of 
 Christians. A dear friend writes me," I have no preju- 
 dice against Hades, and when I die, I expect to go 
 there" ; but surely he is not thinking of the Hades in the 
 minds of the apostles and primitive disciples. After they 
 had come to understand the resurrection of Christ and 
 feel its power, they were filled with what may be called 
 the resurrection-enthusiasm. In their view the resur- 
 rection-era was already begun. Death and hell [Hades] 
 were vanquished. Wesley's hymn has the true apostolic 
 
 spirit: — 
 
 "Our Lord is risen from the dead, 
 Our Jesus is gone up on high; 
 The powers of hell are captive led, 
 Dragged to the portals of the sky." 
 
 ♦Gospel of Nicodemus, xix. 12 
 
140 Christ's descent into hades 
 
 Just when the resurrection was to take visible effect in 
 themselves, the disciples could not say, and it did not 
 matter. To die was to go and be with him who had 
 risen. And such a dying did not deserve the name of 
 death. It was a sleep ; it was the putting off of this taber- 
 nacle; it was a departure; it was not the death that all 
 past ages had known, for Jesus had said : " He that liveth 
 and believeth in me shall never die." 
 
 To the question why the Descensus is not oftener 
 spoken of in the New Testament, the answer is, that 
 going to Hades is taken for granted as a part of death. 
 It was not necessary to speak of both whenever either 
 was mentioned. In the Revelation, indeed, the two are 
 linked together: " I have the keys of death and of Hades" 
 (i. 18); "His name was death, and Hades followed with 
 him" (vi. 8); "And death and Hades gave up the dead 
 which were in them. . . . And death and Hades 
 were cast into the lake of fire" (xx. 13, 14). The men- 
 tion of either was logically sufficient. "Aidys, both in 
 heathen and Biblical usage, represents death in its rela- 
 tion to the soul. But the Hades of the Bible is not a 
 home for believers, even temporarily. It is Hades tri- 
 umphed over by him who " brought life and incorruption 
 [exemption from death] to light." "When he ascended 
 on high he led captivity captive" (Eph. iv. 8). Death 
 was "swallowed up in victory" (1 Cor. xv. 54). The res- 
 urrection-enthusiasm of the New Testament is the re- 
 sponse of faith to those glorious words, " I go to prepare 
 a place for you," which place was not in Hades. The 
 
Christ's descent into hades 141 
 
 same divine enthusiasm refused to recognize any " inter- 
 mediate state," the old abolished Hades under a new 
 name. Stephen did not say, "Behold, I see the Son of 
 man in Hades." Can we wonder that the early disciples 
 looked for a speedy return of the Lord? Does one say, 
 It was an error? It was not; for it was necessary to the 
 highest truth. The resurrection-spirit refused to see the 
 long interval of waiting. As has been said of the 
 prophets that they looked from one mountain-top of his- 
 tory to another, and could not see the low-lying valleys 
 between, so we may say of the apostles, that they saw the 
 triumph over death and hell as a complete victory, and 
 they would have been false to the power of the truth, if 
 they had not looked upon it as gloriously near. " The 
 reign of Death is over; Hades is abolished; Life and 
 Immortality have come" — this is the key-note of the 
 resurrection-spirit. Christ's resurrection might as well 
 be called a resurrection from Hades as from the grave. 
 
 I will not dwell on the preaching to "the spirits in 
 prison" (1 Pet. iii. 18-20). It cannot be needful that 
 there should be a thousand and one expositions of that 
 passage, instead of simply a thousand ; but the point of 
 view we are taking has to do with it in at least two par 
 ticulars : — 
 
 1. The Descent was necessary without any regard to 
 the preaching. The Descent itself, however, was a proc- 
 lamation of unspeakable meaning. The inhabitants of 
 the spirit-world were not in solitary confinement or un- 
 conscious sleep. They saw the Redeemer at the lowest 
 
142 
 
 point in his work of redemption, and at the beginning of 
 his triumph. 
 
 2. This preaching looks backward to the past. This 
 is in harmony with the idea that Hades was now abol- 
 ished, and the spirit-world revolutionized. We might 
 imagine that the object of the Descent was to plant the 
 Christian church in Hades and ordain for it a succession 
 of Hades-apostles, and so forth, but the view of Peter 
 was that Hades came to an end. The preaching was 
 once for all. Why the antediluvians are referred to may 
 perhaps be explained by the fact that so vast a number, 
 going to their death in an awful catastrophe, made them 
 the representatives and types of the Hades-world. It 
 might have given the name of Antediluvian under- world. 
 If one asks, Why should not those who have since died 
 hear the preaching also? the Scripture gives no answer. 
 A perpetual Hades with perpetual preaching in it is no- 
 where revealed. 
 
 In regard to the whole question of the relation of the 
 wicked to the resurrection, we need not wonder at the 
 infrequent allusions to the risen wicked. The epistles 
 of the New Testament are addressed to Christians. 
 Paul's great argument in 1 Cor. xv. runs into a grand 
 anthem of Christian triumph. We cannot suppose that 
 the enthusiasm of the apostles would rise over the fate of 
 the wicked as over the redemption of the saints. But 
 the resurrection-influence certainly reaches the wicked. 
 One saying of the Master settles that: "They that have 
 done good unto the resurrection of life ; and they that have 
 
H3 
 
 done ill unto the resurrection of judgment" (John v. 29). 
 This did not need for its certainty the echo of Paul : 
 " There shall be a resurrection both of the just and un- 
 just" (Acts xxiv. 15). The judgment scene in Matt, 
 xxv. implies the resurrection of the wicked. The resur- 
 rection period ends with the judgment. The divine fore- 
 shortening places the coming in glory close by the 
 resurrection. But we have the right to follow apostolic 
 example, and avert our eyes from the fate of the wicked, 
 and rejoice in the glory of the redeemed. 
 
 Christ's Descent, or rather Ascent, opened the resur- 
 rection-era in the spirit-world as well as on earth, and 
 began the fulfillment of the promise, " I go to prepare a 
 place for you." Shall we translate the apostolic 
 thoughts and visions into modern thoughts and views? 
 We cannot expect to comprehend fully the results of 
 Christ's death and resurrection in the unseen world. 
 That it was a revolution is the unspoken testimony of our 
 hearts whenever we think of those dear to us who sleep in 
 Jesus, and whenever we look forward to our own death, 
 which Hope names a resurrection-sleep. We are still 
 living in the resurrection-era. When we die we shall 
 not pass beyond the resurrection-influence. How shall 
 we express this hope and faith ? Shall we say, in the 
 words of the shorter Westminster, " The souls of believ- 
 ers are at their death made perfect in holiness, and do im- 
 mediately pass into glory" ? But to show the very heart 
 and substance of the doctrine of Christ's Descent into 
 Hades — its depth of humiliation, its triumph, and its 
 
144 Christ's descent into hades 
 
 glorious fruits — the Te Deum is better than the Cate- 
 chism : — 
 
 "When thou had'st overcome the sharpness of death, 
 Thou did'st open the kingdom of heaven to all believers." 
 
XI 
 
 APPOINTED TO ETERNAL LIFE 
 
 'Entareuffav oaot rjaav rsTay/iivoi erf £a)i)v aicbvtov. Acts 
 xiii. 48. 
 
 Td<T(TU) is a word of order, arrangement. Soldiers in 
 array are Terayiiivoi, each in his place. Those new 
 Gentile converts were not acting at haphazard, when 
 they were so ready to believe, but each in accordance 
 with his history and character, and with the Divine 
 arrangement of his life. This appointing to eternal life 
 is called by our Savior "giving." In words of great 
 tenderness he says, " All that which the Father giveth 
 me shall come unto me, and him that cometh to me I will 
 in no wise cast out" (John vi. 37). It also goes by the 
 names "calling," "choice," "election," but perhaps no 
 word comes so well into line with modern thought as 
 Teraytiivosi which links the present and future to the past 
 and to the throne of God. Such appointment, or election, 
 is not restriction, but rather extension. The tone of the 
 statement is comprehensive, not exclusive. We must not 
 begin it "Only as many as," "The few that," but "All 
 that." This the Greek oaot requires. These Gen- 
 tiles of Antioch were a notable accession to the infant 
 Church. Divine election broadens, not narrows, the 
 field of Christianity. It secures, not obstructs salvation. 
 
 The linking of eternal life to God's purpose and man's 
 
 H5 
 
146 APPOINTED TO ETERNAL LIFE 
 
 faith has a very definite relation to the dogma, or hope, 
 of probation beyond the grave. Those who are ap- 
 pointed to eternal life will not fail of it. This settles the 
 question of future probation by destroying interest in it. 
 Probation is not fundamental, but faith is. The smallest 
 germ of faith secures salvation, with or without proba- 
 tion. Probation, or rather the gospel, develops that germ, 
 fills the believing with a new life, and gives the world a 
 present salvation, but is not needed in order to reveal any 
 man's character to God. The number of the saved in- 
 cludes all in whom God's eye detects faith, whether 
 developed or not. 
 
XII 
 
 AGRIPPA TO PAUL.* ACTS XXVI. 28, IN THE LIGHT OF 
 LATIN IDIOM 
 
 The influence of Latin on the Greek of New Testa- 
 ment times is unquestioned. Not only single Latin 
 words, as xevTupiwv, are found in the New Testament, but 
 translated phrases, as kpycuriav douvai (operant dare). The 
 influence of Latin idiom would naturally be looked for in 
 a report of the language of one brought up at Rome and 
 speaking Greek before a Roman tribunal. Such a re- 
 port we have in these words (according to the best text), 
 'JEV dXiya) fie 7ret'#££? Xpiaxiavov xotyaat. This is translated 
 in the Revised Version : " With but little persuasion thou 
 wouldst fain make me a Christian." This is certainly 
 ingenious, but is it not forced ? Why cannot Xpiaxiavov 
 Tzoir t aai mean " to act the part of a Christian" ? The Latin 
 agere furnishes numerous parallels in writers of the 
 Silver Age. According to Tacitus, Piso says of Otho 
 that his vices ruined the government, etiam cum amicum 
 imperatoris ageret, "even when he was acting the part 
 of a friend of the emperor." Hist. 1.30. Mucianus is said 
 to be socium magi's imperii quam ministrum agens, 
 "acting as an ally rather than a servant of the govern- 
 ment." Hist. 2.83. Thrasea is said agere senator em, "to 
 act the senator." Annals i6.28.Quintilian says of Socrates, 
 Agens imperitum et admiratorem aliorum tanquam 
 
 147 
 
I48 ACTS XXVI. 28, IN THE LIGHT OF LATIN IDIOM 
 
 sapientium, "acting the part of an ignoramus and an 
 admirer of others as if they were wise." Inst. Or. 9. 
 2. 46. Also 11. 3. 91. and 12. 8. 10. The following ex- 
 amples are found in the Letters of Pliny : Sunt qui 
 defunctorum quoque amicos agant, " act the part of 
 friends." 1. 17. 1. Amissoque Jilio matrem adhuc agere, 
 "though the son was lost still to play the mother." in. 
 16. 6. Patretn familiae hactenus ago, "I play the 
 householder." ix.15.3. Pliny's Panegyric has these two: 
 Tunc maxime imperator cum amicum ex imperatore 
 agis, 85. 6, Cum agere tarn bonum consulem posses. 
 56. 3. A tragedy of Seneca, a contemporary of Paul, has 
 the following line (Clytaemnestra to Electra) : Sed agere 
 domita feminam disces malo, " Tamed by misfortune, 
 thou shalt learn to play the woman." Agam. v. 3. 7. 
 Suetonius has several examples: Non principem sed 
 ministrum egit. Claud. 29. Also Tiber. 12. 26. 
 Valerius Maximus, writing in the reign of Tiberius,gives 
 us at least twelve instances of this usage. Speaking of 
 the first Brutus, and of the execution of his sons, he says, 
 Exuit patrem ut consulem ageret. v. 8. 1. Of the 
 famous Scaevola and his recreations he says, Ut enim in 
 rebus seriis Scaevolam, ita et in [scenicis] lusibus hominem 
 agebat. viii. 8. 2. In the same way agere is used with 
 amicum iv. 2. 5., consulem ii. 2. 4., iii. 8. 3., 12. 2. 2., 
 feneratricem viii. 2. 2., virum, imperatorem vii. 2. 5., 
 ynaritum, patrem ix. 13. 4., praetor em, vii. 7. 7., cus- 
 todem vi. 1. 4., reum, accusatorem iv. 2. 6., civem viii. 
 6. 2. Velleius Paterculus, also in the time of Tiberius, 
 
ACTS XXVI. 28, IN THE LIGHT OF LATIN IDIOM 149 
 
 has agebat aemulum, Maroboduus "was playing the 
 rival," 11. 109. 1. He says of Tiberius that he was 
 striving ut potius aequalem civem quam eminentem liceret 
 agere principem. n. 124. 2 .Also 11. 92. 2. The fact 
 that these examples are from the later Latin will 
 not detract from their value. The distinction between 
 agere and facere is not important in the idiom. We may 
 add a single example of facere from Plautus, Ferocem 
 facis, "you put on a bold face, lit, do the bold man." 
 Most. iv. i. 32 (44). 
 
 If this idiom be disallowed, it is still possible to derive 
 a similar meaning by taking Xpianavdv as neuter, though 
 we should expect the plural, as in Herodotus v. 40, 
 notiwv obda.[±ib<$ ZnapTtrjzixd. In either case, the un- 
 usual meaning of noirjaat may possibly explain the early 
 change of the text to yevia&at (from Paul's answer), 
 from which comes our received rendering, "thou per- 
 suadest me to be a Christian." 
 
 The meaning " act the part of" would receive support, 
 independently of the Latin, from one passage in the 
 Septuagint, if the text were undisputed. In 1 Kings (3 
 Reg.) xx. (xxi.) 7, Jezebel says to Ahab, lb riv outu> 
 Ttoiels fiaadla hti 'IffparjX; "Art thou thus acting the king 
 over Israel?" But a variant for (3a<n\£a is Qaadeiav, which 
 indeed our Hebrew text would require. 
 
 Unless XpiGTiavbv izoir^ai be taken to mean " to act the 
 Christian" we seem to be driven to a very awkward con- 
 nection of izoirjaai with fferfee?. IleWio needs a personal sub- 
 ject for a dependent infinitive. " You are persuading me 
 
150 ACTS XXVI. 28, IN THE LIGHT OF LATIN IDIOM 
 
 to do" something, is intelligible and natural, but how about 
 "You are persuading to make me"? It can hardly mean 
 "You are trying by persuasion to make me" or "You 
 are prevailing to make me," i. e., succeeding in making; 
 nor do I see how it can mean " You would fain make 
 me." Besides, the position of fxi in the sentence is 
 against its being the object of Tzoi^aai. Would it not 
 in that case be nearer izotjjeat? The latest eminent com- 
 mentator on Acts, Professor Blass, following Codex 
 Alexandrinus, adopts into his text ffte'tfj, saying in em- 
 phatic Latin, u 7t£t&ei$ . . . izotr^ai ferri nequit." 
 His rendering is : " Brevi tempore tibi persuades te Chris- 
 tianum me reddidisse." 
 
 Is there not also a Latin idiom in h dXiycp ? Readers of 
 Livy find numerous examples of in with the ablative, 
 forming phrases equivalent to adjectives and adverbs; as 
 in propinquo, in promiscuo, in Jacili, in difficili, etc. 
 There may be no literary examples of in parvo, or in 
 paulo, but we have in angusto (==angustus^ Celsus, De 
 Med. 8. 4, twice), and Tacitus, speaking of the dreary 
 monotony of cruelty in his history, says "Nobis in arto 
 et inglorius labor." Ann. 4. 32. 3. So we have in 
 our day the traditional phrases intoto, in extenso. It can 
 hardly be claimed that lv oXtyw is a borrowed phrase, but it 
 may possibly have an adverbial force, determined by 
 Latin idiom. It would then be not the same as iv oXtya) 
 in Eph. iii. 3, "in brief" ("as I wrote afore in few 
 words"), but like okiyuxs in 2 Peter ii. 18- — rob? oXiyw? 
 aiuxpeuyovTaS)" those that are escaping a little." Then the 
 
ACTS XXVI. 28, IN THE LIGHT OF LATIN IDIOM 151 
 
 whole passage would read, somewhat literally : " Agrippa 
 said unto Paul, A little thou art persuading me to act the 
 Christian. And Paul said, I would to God, that both a 
 little and a great deal, not thou only, but also all that 
 hear me this day, might become such as I am, except these 
 bonds." 
 
XIII 
 
 RECONCILIATION BY SELF-REVELATION 
 Aixaiovfievot dajpsdv ttj auzou %dptTL did r^9 dnoXoTpdxreio^ 
 Trjs £v XpiGTij) 'IrjGoo, ov TzpoiftsTo 6 0ed$ UaffTrjptuv dtd Tti<jT£w$ 
 h ra olutou aifiart, er? k'vdetgtv t^9 duaioauvr)$ aurou* Rom. 
 iii. 24, 25. 
 
 The Revised Version of verses 24-26 is as follows: 
 " Being justified freely by his grace through the re- 
 demption that is in Christ Jesus : whom God set forth to 
 be a propitiation, through faith, by his blood, to show his 
 righteousness, because of the passing over of the sins 
 done aforetime, in the forbearance of God ; for the show- 
 ing, I say, of his righteousness at this present season : 
 that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him 
 that hath faith in Jesus." If there is any passage in the 
 New Testament that contains the philosophy of the 
 atonement in its relation to justice, it is this ; but that 
 philosophy is here only incidental, and is discovered not 
 by hair-splitting discussions of dtxauow, d7tuXurp(0(Ti?, and 
 UaarrjptoV) but by observing the antithesis between justice 
 and forgiveness as overcome by God's manifestation of 
 himself; an antithesis not obtruded, but involved in the 
 contrast between law and grace. Throughout the whole 
 passage there is an undertone of unwillingness to forgive 
 without doing something in the interest of righteousness, 
 
 l 5 2 
 
RECONCILIATION BY SELF-REVELATION 153 
 
 something to prevent the lowering of its supremacy; 
 but there is implied no unwillingness to do that some- 
 thing. Much has been said of the dishonor done to God 
 by supposing him unwilling to forgive sin. All theology 
 has echoed with the cry : " Down with the thought that 
 God needs to be made willing to forgive !" But how 
 about the thought that God makes himself willing, or 
 rather is eternally willing to forgive in his own way of 
 attendant self-manifestation? No doubt there has been 
 in common theories a false antithesis between the Divine 
 attributes of justice and love, as if they belonged to 
 different beings. There is indeed a difference in the 
 Divine attitude towards good and towards evil that 
 needs strong emphasis — towards sin the Divine frown and 
 wrath,and zeal for its overwhelming and everlasting over- 
 throw, towards righteousness the Divine smile and joy 
 and infinite zeal for its enthronement. But that zeal that 
 burns with so hot a flame against sin, and glows so 
 brightly for righteousness, — when it meets human life, 
 is so interfused with yearning to save the lost that it 
 seems but another name for love. There has been also 
 a false antithesis between justice and love, as to their at- 
 tracting and transforming power. Righteousness draws, 
 and holiness draws, as well as love and mercy. 
 
 Now God's revelation of himself is a true and per- 
 fect satisfaction of justice, even, if you please, of retribu- 
 tive justice, because it accomplishes abundantly the ends 
 of retribution by enthroning right and dethroning wrong 
 more completely than could punishment, be it ever so 
 
154 RECONCILIATION BY SELF-REVELATION 
 
 severe, be it universal and eternal. Is this a philosophy 
 of the atonement? Not exactly, but a broad and deep 
 foundation for it. " In respect to the propitiatory efficacy 
 of the atonement, pardon is dependent not on penal satis- 
 faction, nor on mere sustained authority, but on the satis- 
 faction of self-revelation, or such a complete exhibition 
 of God's righteous character as forever settles the ques- 
 tion of his essential and eternal justice. The atonement 
 embodies this justice in a living Example, and thus 
 makes it a restoring power in humanity."* 
 
 ♦This quotation is from an article entitled "The^tonement as a Revelation," 
 
 are also an article, "The 
 eca Sacra for January, 
 
 published in the New Englander for April, 1864. Compare also an article, "The 
 Atonement in the Light of Conscience," in the Biblioth 
 
 1867. 
 
XIV 
 
 THE MEANING OF M FOREKNEW" IN ROMANS VIII. 29, AS 
 ILLUSTRATED BY JOHN X. 27 
 
 In English usage we do not speak of foreknowing ^per- 
 son* In fact we use the word seldom even with an imper- 
 sonal object, preferring " foresee" ; as, " He foresaw the 
 result," "He foresaw the man in the child." But our 
 usage is different from that of the New Testament. Not 
 except in a translation should we write such a sentence 
 as this: " God hath not cast away his people which he 
 foreknew" (Rom. xi. 2). The Latin usage resembles 
 the English. The Greek itself is without usage, so far 
 as I can find, outside of the New Testament, in connect- 
 ing the compound npoytyvaxTxa) with a personal object. 
 In the Septuagint the word occurs but three times (in the 
 Apocrypha, Sap. vi. 13; viii. 9; xviii. 6), and with an 
 impersonal object. 
 
 This state of the case plainly directs us to consult the 
 usage of the uncompounded verb. Even here classical 
 Greek gives little help; but we get some light from the 
 Old Testament and the Hebrew yi* (lxx. yivwazw). This 
 word, which, like all the other Hebrew verbs, admits no 
 prepositions in composition, has a very wide meaning; 
 and there are two or three examples that remind one of 
 the passage in Romans. " The Lord . . . knoweth 
 
 J 55 
 
156 MEANING OF " FOREKNEW" IN ROMANS VIII. 29 
 
 them that put their trust in him" (Nah.i . 7) ; " You only 
 have I known of all the families of the earth" (Amos iii. 
 
 2). 
 
 But the clearest light comes from the New Testament 
 itself, and especially from the tenth chapter of John. 
 For comparison let us take Rom. viii. 29, 30, 35, 38, 39: 
 " For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be 
 conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the 
 first-born among many brethren ; and whom he foreor- 
 dained, them he also called ; and whom he called, them 
 he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also 
 glorified. . . . Who shall separate us from the love of 
 Christ? . . . For I am persuaded that neither death, 
 nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things pres- 
 ent, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor 
 depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us 
 from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our 
 Lord." Then John x. 27, 28, 16: "My sheep hear my 
 voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give 
 unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, and 
 no one shall snatch them out of my hand." "And other 
 sheep I have which are not of this fold : them also I 
 must bring, and they shall hear my voice." 
 
 The comparison between these passages should apply 
 not to a single word merely, but to the course of thought. 
 In Romans the order is (1) foreknowing, (2) foreor- 
 daining, (3) calling, (4) a sure and glorious salvation. 
 In John it is (1) the call, (2) the hearing and coming, 
 (3) the recognition and following, (4) a sure eternal life. 
 
MEANING OF " FOREKNEW*' IN ROMANS VIII. 29 157 
 
 My voice they hear, I know them, they follow me, I 
 give them eternal life. In John, also, we have the thought, 
 without the word "/0/^know." The Shepherd's eye is 
 on "other sheep which are not of this fold," future in- 
 stead of present disciples. He foreknows them. He 
 must bring them and they shall hear his voice; i. e., 
 whom he foreknows he also calls. Our Lord says noth- 
 ing here of foreordaining, but the thought is close by 
 (verse 29) : "My Father which hath given them unto me 
 is greater than all, and no man is able to snatch them out 
 of the Father's hand," — quite parallel with those other 
 words (vi. 37) : " All that which the Father giveth 
 me shall come unto me, and him that cometh unto 
 me I will in no wise cast out." 
 
 Such a comparison as I have only outlined, strengthens 
 the first impression, that what "know" means in John, 
 "foreknow" means in Romans, with the addition of "be- 
 forehand." And "I know them," in John means, obvi- 
 ously, " I recognize them as my own." Christ knows 
 his own, as a shepherd knows every one of his sheep, as 
 a mother knows her child, as brother knows brother, and 
 friend friend. 
 
 Is this foreknowing the same as foreordination ? The 
 answer from John is in the negative; for, besides the 
 knowing, there is the giving by the Father. And such 
 is the natural impression of Paul's own words. " Fore- 
 knew" is the first link in the chain that ends with 
 "glorified." 
 
 Is foreknowing the same as election ? That depends on 
 
158 MEANING OF " FOREKNEW" IN ROMANS VIII. 29 
 
 what election is. It is not the same, if election is a part 
 of foreordination. But if election means fixing the eye 
 of recognition and love on each disciple, present or fu- 
 ture, then this knowing, or foreknowing, is election. 
 
 I am not discussing the use of ytvuxTXio in general in 
 the New Testament. I will cite only two other passages : 
 those judgment- words," I never knew you" (Matt. vii. 23), 
 where the meaning seems precisely the same as in John x. 
 27, and " The Lord knoweth them that are his" (2 Tim. 
 ii. 19), — from the Septuagint of Num. xvi. 5 — where the 
 meaning is substantially the same. 
 
 In Romans xi.2 — " God hath not cast away his people 
 which he foreknew" — the prefix "fore" seems to denote 
 not "looking into the future," but simply "before now," 
 the writer looking back into the past. " God hath not 
 cast off his people which in time past, ever of old, he rec- 
 ognized as his own." He is unchangeable, and his past 
 choice and purpose shall stand. 
 
XV 
 
 Paul's anathema 
 
 Hu%6f±j)v yap dvd&efia elvai olutos kyib and too Xptffzov. Rom. 
 ix. 3. 
 
 The right explanation of Rom. ix. 3 illustrates more 
 than one important principle of exegesis. One is this: 
 Theological inferences are of no account against the simple, 
 obvious meaning of a passage. The theological pressure 
 on this passage is well expressed in the Bibliotheca 
 Sacra for July, 1894: " The usual exegesis makes Paul 
 willing to be excluded from all hope of salvation, in- 
 cluding not only endless suffering, but also positive enmity 
 toward Christ forever" (p. 512). This consideration 
 is made to support the rendering, "For I myself did 
 wish to be separated from Christ," the reference being 
 to Paul's life before conversion. 
 
 Now against this pressure from without is the fact 
 that the passage itself, if translated "I wished," etc., is 
 not a natural reference to Paul's past life. He refers to 
 that life more than once with a definiteness and warmth 
 that leave no doubt as to his meaning. He could say, 
 u I verily thought with myself that I ought to do many 
 things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. . . . 
 Being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted 
 them" (Acts xxvi.9,11). "Beyond measure I persecuted 
 
 *59 
 
i6o 
 
 the church of God, and made havoc of it" (Gal. 1. 13). 
 He could humble himself to say " that am not meet to be 
 called an apostle,because I persecuted the church of God" 
 (1 Cor.xv.9). It is incredible that such a bare, uncircum- 
 stantial statement as is proposed, should be Paul's confes- 
 sion as a persecutor. The obvious impression is against it. 
 No one would think of it except under outside doctrinal 
 pressure. And for this obvious impression there are at 
 least two distinct reasons: 1. The expression "anathema 
 from Christ" is appropriate only in the mouth of a 
 Christian, or one who considers himself a Christian. It 
 implies renunciation of Christ and banishment from him. 
 2. The clause contains no adverb of past time which 
 would make it read thus, "I myself once \jzoxf\ 
 wished." "But," one may say, "take heed to your 
 grammar, and obey the imperfect tense, with or without 
 7cori. n Here appears a second rule of exegesis: 
 Avoid what may be called a mechanical use of grammar. 
 A sentence is not a piece of dead mechanism, grinding 
 out its meaning by the levers and wheels of mood and 
 tense; it participates in the life and flexibility and sen- 
 sitiveness of the mind that produces it. Grammar is 
 corrective, not creative; a good servant, but a bad 
 master. Formal grammar is ultimately derived from 
 the meaning, and not the meaning from grammar. 
 
 All that has now been said implies, or half implies, 
 that the theological pressure on this passage is valid and 
 weighty; but it is not. If it were, it would be one's duty 
 to resist it, but there is really nothing to resist. By a 
 
i6i 
 
 cool analysis some of us have found dreadful things in 
 the passage, but cool analysis is here out of place. The 
 words are a hot outburst of devotion and love. " Let 
 Paul go down — down to everlasting destruction, if only 
 Israel may be lifted up to salvation." The apostle did 
 not stop to measure his words, and we shall get his 
 meaning not by picking away at the syllables, but by 
 catching the spirit and feeling. " Was Paul then a Hop- 
 kinsian, 'willing to be damned'? Was he willing to be 
 an enemy of Christ? Willing to sin forever?" No; if 
 you speak of deliberate choice. But he was not express- 
 ing deliberate choice, but the most undeliberate passion 
 of love. The language of logic failed him, and the 
 language of pain and agony took its place. " Did he, 
 then, mean what he said?" Rather he meant what he 
 felt. He did not mean all that we can possibly find in 
 his words. He uncovered his throbbing heart; that was 
 all, that was enough — too much for modern cool-headed 
 analysis. We, then, see illustrated a third rule of ex- 
 egesis, which may, perhaps, be expressed thus : When a 
 writer does not measure his words, the reader should not. 
 
XVI 
 
 WORDS BORROWED FROM THE LATIN 
 
 * Hv yeypajiivov 'EfipaiGTi, ' PiofxaiGTi, 'EXXtjvhtti. John 
 xix. 20. 
 
 The following words are borrowed from the Latin: — 
 "Aaadptov. This was the only Greek word for the 
 Latin as,' the nearest coin-word in genuine Greek 
 being dj3oX6$. It is generally explained as a diminutive, 
 with the suffix -aptov. If the a of its second syllable 
 could be proved short, this origin would be indispu- 
 table. In Smith's Dictionary of Classical Antiquities the 
 word is identified with an old doublet of as, viz., as- 
 sarius. This seems the more probable origin, the neuter 
 being used as in dyvdpiov, because vopurpa takes the place 
 of nummus. Certainly the two sigmas seem borrowed 
 from the Latin, in which the s was regularly doubled, as 
 in the case-forms of as, the verb esse, etc., to prevent 
 the lapse to r. I see no reason in Greek phonology 
 why the word should not have been aadpiov, if it is a 
 hybrid diminutive. But aside from this, the earliest 
 appearance in literature of daadpwv suggests the very op- 
 posite of little as. Dionysius Hal. (B. C. 30) says (Antiq. 
 Rom. 9. 27) that Menenius Agrippa, the Younger, was 
 fined 2,000 daadpta, and adds rjv d" dvcrdptov %dXxeov v6p.i(Tpa y 
 ftdpos Xirpia'tov, i. e., the as libralis, the "pound as." the 
 
 162 
 
WORDS BORROWED FROM THE LATIN 1 63 
 
 earliest and heaviest. Plutarch says (Camillus 13) that 
 Camillus was fined 15,000 aaaapia, which he explains as 
 equal to 1,500 drachmae; and Livy in stating the same 
 fact (v. 32), gives the same amount in aes grave (—as 
 hbralis). Plutarch also uses the word in describing the 
 home life of the elder Cato. Since both these writers 
 were narrating ancient history, the old name assarius 
 might have been found in their Latin authorities. In- 
 deed, though used but little in extant Latin, it occurs in 
 one of the grammatical discussions of Varro (L. L. 8. 
 71), who was almost a contemporary of Dionysius. 
 A century earlier Polybius speaks of the yfiiaaffdpwv as a 
 common price for entertainment at an inn, reminding 
 one of the duo dyvapta of the Good Samaritan. It may be 
 added that no reason is apparent for a diminutive mean- 
 ing. If it had been of silver, like the Roman libella, 
 which was an as in value, but only 1-16 of its size, we 
 should have a reason, but it was undoubtedly a copper 
 coin; and though it had received at different times great 
 reductions, yet, as I have said, daadpiov was the only 
 word used for whatever period. I have been unable to 
 find an example, outside of the New Testament, where it 
 was connected with current events. The as in New Tes- 
 tament times was worth about 8 mills of our money. 
 The English "happeny" would more nearly represent 
 it than the "farthing" with which we now associate the 
 sale of the sparrows. Matt. x. 29. Luke xii. 6. 
 
 Arpdpiov, Latin denarius, classical Greek dpaxfiij. 
 This was equal to ten asses (deni asses), or sixteen cents 
 
164 WORDS BORROWED FROM THE LATIN 
 
 before the as was reduced to its lowest value. In New 
 Testament times it was equal to sixteen asses, or about 
 thirteen cents. Thus the translation " six-pence" would 
 be more nearly correct than "penny." The denarius 
 (from which comes the "d," for pence, of English ster- 
 ling currency) was a silver coin, bearing on one side the 
 image of the emperor. Hence the question of Jesus, 
 "Whose image," etc. The pay of the common Roman 
 soldier was ten asses a day after the as was reduced. At 
 the accession of Tiberius (A. D. 14) the soldiers in Pan- 
 nonia revolted, and, among other complaints, they said 
 that "soul and body were estimated at ten asses a day," 
 and that out of this clothes, arms, tents, etc., had to be 
 purchased. Their demand was, that " their daily wages 
 should be a denarius" (i. e., a sixteen-as denarius), 
 although the praetorian cohorts, or imperial guards, re- 
 ceived two denarii.* This will illustrate the wages in the 
 parable of the vineyard. A penny, or six-pence, a day 
 was enough for a full day's work, and a generous gratuity 
 for the last hour's work. The word is found sixteen 
 times in the New Testament. The unmerciful servant 
 found one " which owed him an hundred pence" Matt, 
 xviii. 28. The householder "agreed with the laborers 
 for a penny a day," Matt. xx. 2, 9, 10, 13. The Hero- 
 
 ♦Enimvero militiam ipsam gravem, infructuosam: denis in diem assibus 
 animam et corpus aestimari: hinc vestem, arma, tentoria, hinc saevitiam cen- 
 turionum et vacationes munerum redimi. At hercule verbera et vulnera, duram 
 hiemem, exercitas aestates, bellum atrox aut sterilem pacem sempiterna. Nee 
 aliud levamentum quam si certis sub legibus militia iniretur, ut singulos denarios 
 mererent, sextus decimus stipendii annus finem afferret, ne ultra sub vexillis 
 tenerentur, sed iisdem in castris praemium pecunia solveretur. An praetorias 
 cohortes, quae binos denarios acciperent, quae post sedecim annos penatibus 
 suis reddantur, plus periculorum suscipere? — Tacitus, Annals, i. 17. Ut denarius 
 diurnum stipendium foret. i. 26. 
 
WORDS BORROWED FROM THE LATIN. 165 
 
 dians "brought unto him a penny '," Matt. xxii. 19; Mark 
 xii. 15; Luke xx. 24. The disciples in the desert-place 
 asked, " Shall we go and buy two hundred pennyworth 
 of bread?" Mark vi. 37; John vi. 7. The ointment of 
 spikenard "might have been sold for more than three 
 hundred pence" Mark xiv. 5; John xii. 5. One of the 
 two debtors "owed five hundred pence-," Luke vii. 41. 
 The good Samaritan "took out two pence ," Luke x. 35. 
 A voice in Revelation said, " A measure of wheat for a 
 penny, and three measures of barley for ape?tny." Rev. 
 vi. 6. Plutarch uses drjvdptov, dpa%fX7J, and dexd%aXxov. 
 
 KevTopicov — Latin centurio, from centuria (centurn-vir), 
 a commander of a hundred men, a captain. The regular 
 Greek word is ixarovrapxr)? or ixarovrap^o^ which 
 latter word is generally used in the New Testament. 
 Mark uses xevruptcov. At the crucifixion we read of 
 "the centurion, which stood over against him," Mark 
 xv. 39 ; also verses 44, 45. The word is found in Polyb- 
 ius. 
 
 Kyvffos — Latin census, originally the property-list of the 
 Roman people,from censere, to rate; <p6po<$ would be the 
 regular Greek word. The examples of its use are, 
 "What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of 
 the earth take custom or tribute?" Matt. xvii. 25. " Is 
 it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?" Matt. 
 xxii. 17. So when Jesus said (verse 19), "Shew me the 
 tribute '-money ," they brought him a denarius; also Mark 
 xii. 14. 
 
 Kodpdvrris — Latin quadrans, from quatuor, four, i. e., 
 
l66 WORDS BORROWED FROM THE LATIN 
 
 the fourth part of an as; analogous to the English 
 word with which it is translated, farthing, i. e., four th- 
 ing. " Thou shalt by no means come out thence till thou 
 hast paid the uttermost farthing" Matt. v. 26. "And 
 she threw in two mites (Ae^ra), which make a far- 
 thing." Mark xii. 42. 
 
 KoXwvta — Latin colonia, from colere, to cultivate, settle, 
 occupy. The governments of the coloniae were mod- 
 eled after that of the parent city Rome. Hence, in a 
 colonia, Paul, as a Roman citizen, had a right to ex- 
 pect fair treatment. Regular Greek word xX-qpooyia. 
 " Philippi, which is the chief city of that part of 
 Macedonia, and a colony." Acts xvi. 12. 
 
 KouffTwdta — Latin custodia, originally a watching, then a 
 guard, from custos, a guard. Regular Greek word (puXaxtj* 
 "Ye have a watch . . . sealing the stone and setting 
 a watch." Matt, xxvii. 65, 66. "Some of the watch 
 came into the city." Matt, xxviii. n. 
 
 Aeyscuv — Latin legio, varying in number from three thou- 
 sand three hundred to six thousand two hundred. Reg- 
 ular Greek word GTparoxsdov. " Shall presently give me 
 more than twelve legions of angels?" Matt. xxvi. 53. 
 "My name is Legion, for we are many." Mark v. 9, 15. 
 Luke viii. 30. The word is used by Plutarch. 
 
 Aivnov — Latin linteum, a linen cloth, from linum, linen, 
 parallel with, or borrowed from, the Greek kivov. Reg- 
 ular Greek word ysipo/iaxrpov. " He riseth from supper 
 and laid aside his garments, and took a towel and girded 
 himself." John xiii. 4, also verse 5. 
 
WORDS BORROWED FROM THE LATIN 167 
 
 Air pa — Evidence is given in. Liddell and Scott's 
 Lexicon that this is borrowed from the Latin libra. 
 The substitution of r for b seems strange, but we may 
 compare the formative endings, Greek and Latin, -rpev, 
 -trum, -brum, -bra. The regular Greek is pvd. "Mary 
 therefore took a pound of ointment," John xii. 3; "about 
 a hundred pound weight," xix. 39. 
 
 MdxsXXov — Latin macellum, a meat-market,* plainly dis- 
 tinguished from forum,', the Greek dyopd. The word 
 supplied a real need in Greek. " Whatsoever is sold in 
 the shambles eat." 1 Cor. x. 25. 
 
 Mefiftpdva — Latin membrana, a membrane, then parch- 
 ment. Regular Greek dupftipa, dressed hide, nspya/xyvrj was 
 also used, whence Latin pergame?ia and our parchment, 
 the skin-paper originally from Pergamum. " And the 
 books, but especially the parchments." 2 Tim. iv. 13. 
 
 MiXwv — Latin mille, for mille passuum, a thousand paces. 
 Polybius, Strabo and Plutarch use the word, and there 
 seems to have been no equivalent native Greek word. 
 "Whosoever shall compel thee to go one mile, go with him 
 twain." Matt. v. 41. 
 
 M6dto$ — Latin modius, a peck-measure; unrepresent- 
 ed in pure Greek, except so far as ixro?, sixth, i. e., 
 sixth part of a medimmus, represents it. "Neither 
 do men light a lamp and put it under the bushel." Matt, 
 v. 15. Parallel, Mark iv. 21; Luke xi. 33. The modius 
 
 ♦"Venio ad macellum, rogito pisces; indicant 
 Caros, agninam caram, caram bubulam, 
 Vitulinam, cetum, porcinam, cara omnia; 
 Atque eo fuerunt cariora; aes non erat." 
 
 Plautus, Aulularia, Act ii., Scene 8, lines 3-6. 
 
l68 WORDS BORROWED FROM THE LATIN 
 
 was like our bushel in being the unit of measure, but 
 with only one-fourth of its capacity. The translation 
 "bushel" was perhaps more needed with "candle" than 
 with "lamp," when we consider the ancient form of the 
 latter. Wyclif (Purvey) speaks of putting a"lanterne 
 under a buschel." 
 
 Sieves, a corruption of the Latin sextarins, the s and 
 X being interchanged, possibly under the influence of 
 £e<rn$?, though £ could represent 9, as in £uv. "Wash- 
 ings of cups and pots and brazen vessels." Mark vii. 4. 
 These pots were pint-measures. The Vulgate and Old 
 Latin translated by urceus. Hill's Tatian has " meas- 
 ures." 
 
 npatrdipiov — Latin praetorium, originally a general's 
 tent, later, the praetorian guard, and a ruler's palace. 
 From praetor. Nearest Greek word, abky. " Then 
 the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the palace" 
 Matt, xxvii. 27. "Within the court which is the Prae- 
 torium." Mark xv. 16. " Into the palace" John xviii. 
 28, 33; xix. 9. "Herod's palace" Acts xxiii. 35. 
 "Throughout the whole Prcetorian guard " Phil. i. 13. 
 
 l Pib-q — Latin rheda, of Gallic origin, a four-wheeled 
 carriage. The enumeration of the merchandise of Baby- 
 lon includes " horses and chariots" Rev. xviii. 13. The 
 rheda was not what we understand by the ancient chariot — 
 currus, and ap t ua — which was small, two-wheeled, and 
 without seats, and used mostly in war. It was a roomy, 
 comfortable carryall. 
 
 2ixdpio<$ — Latin sicarius, from sicct,n. curved dagger. The 
 
WORDS BORROWED FROM THE LATIN 169 
 
 Romans considered the weapon unbecoming a gentleman. 
 It was the badge of an assassin. Perhaps the nearest 
 Greek word was (ryayeu?, butcher, cut-throat, but 
 without the exact associations of sicarius. It was a 
 Roman officer that said to Paul, " Art thou not then the 
 Egyptian, which before these days stirred up to sedition 
 and led out into the wilderness the four thousand men of 
 the Assassins?" Acts xxi. 38. 
 
 Zifxtxivdiov — Latin semicinctinm. The etymology would 
 seem to indicate a narrow skirt reaching half-way 
 round, and thus properly rendered "apron," but there 
 seems to be no other evidence that such a garment was 
 worn. Martial has an epigram entitled " Semicinctium," 
 in which the word is defined by praecingere,* where again 
 etymology implies a fore-cloth, but the usage of the verb 
 does not support the meaning. At Ephesus " unto the 
 sick were carried away from [Paul's] body handker- 
 chiefs or aprons." Acts xix. 12. 
 
 louddptov — Latin sudarium, sweat-cloth, from sudor, 
 sweat. Regular Greek word xaipidpwnov. The su- 
 darium had as various use as our handkerchief, 
 which means, literally, a head-cover carried in the 
 hand. Napkin is early English for handkerchief. 
 The Emperor Nero used to appear in public with a 
 sudarium about his neck (Suetonius 51). "Lord, 
 behold, here is thy pound, which I kept laid up in a 
 napkin." Luke xix. 20. "He that was dead [Lazarus] 
 came forth, bound hand and foot with grave-clothes, and 
 
 * "Det tunicam dives; ego te praecingere possum. 
 
 Essem si lpcuples, munus utrumque darem." — $iv. 153. 
 
170 WORDS BORROWED FROM THE LATIN 
 
 his face was bound about with a napkin." John xi. 44. 
 " Beholdeth the linen cloths lying, and the napkin that 
 was upon his head." John xx. 6, 7. " Handkerchiefs 
 and aprons." Acts xix. 12. 
 
 InexouXdrwp — Latin speculator, from speculari,orig'ma\\y 
 a scout; under the emperors, a member of the body- 
 guard, or adjutant. Regular Greek word au>iiaTo<pulo.t. 
 Herod, "the king, sent forth a soldier of his guard, 
 and commanded to bring his head." Mark vi. 27. 
 
 TirXo<s — Latin titulus, an inscription. Regular Greek 
 lmypa<p7j, which is used both by Mark (xv.26), and 
 Luke (xxiii. 38). John gives a precise and graphic ac- 
 count of the inscription, mentioning its three languages, 
 Pilate's authorship of it, and his curt refusal to change 
 it. The evangelist may have caught his Latin word 
 from the lips of the Roman governor himself. " Pilate 
 wrote a title also, and put it on the cross. . . . This title 
 therefore read many of the Jews." John xix. 19, 20. 
 Suetonius — perhaps no earlier Latin author —uses titulus 
 to denote the charge against a criminal. See two cita- 
 tions (Caligula 32, Domitian 10) in Thayer's Lexicon. 
 
 (PawoXys (<pad6vr}<s, (psXovys) — Latin paenula, a woolen 
 traveling cloak. The fashion of the garment was also 
 borrowed, there being no exact Greek correspond- 
 ence to word or thing. Xlafius is used by Matthew 
 (xxvii. 28, 31) of the "scarlet robe" put in mockery on 
 Jesus, while John (xix. 2) calls it IfxdTtov, a word found 
 much in the Gospels, and used in Plutarch for the 
 Roman toga. Paul in his last epistle writes, " The cloak 
 
WORDS BORROWED FROM THE LATIN I 7 I 
 
 that I left at Troas with Carpus bring when thou comest." 
 2 Tim. iv. 13. It was quite consistent with his need of 
 this warm over-garment that he should say (verse 21), 
 " Do thy diligence to come before winter." 
 
 <PpayiXXwv — Latin jlagellum, diminutive from Jlagrum, 
 a whip. Regular Greek, nd<mf*, which is used Acts 
 xxii. 24 and Heb. xi. 36. "And he made a scourge of 
 cords." John ii. 15. 
 
 QpaysMoa) — Latin Jlagello. Regular Greek fiaffriyow, 
 which is generally used in the New Testament. " But 
 Jesus he scourged and delivered to be crucified." Matt, 
 xxvii. 26; parallel, Mark xv. 15. 
 
 Xwpos — Latin corus, caurus, the northwest wind. Reg- 
 ular Greek dpyiffrrjs. The only occurrence of the 
 word is in the account of the harbor Phoenix, Acts xxvii. 
 12 — Xt/iiva T7j$ KprJT7)$ fiXlizovxa xard Xifia xa\ xard x<bpov. 
 The common version translates "and lieth toward 
 the south-west and north-west." The revised ver- 
 sion has " a haven of Crete looking north-east and south- 
 east.' 1 '' This seems too much like trying to make the text 
 mean what it ought to, according to the topography of 
 the place ; for the modern harbor opens towards the east. 
 The rendering is warmly advocated in Alford's commen- 
 tary. The Revised margin has " Gr. down the south- 
 west wind, and down the north-west wind." Yet how 
 can we believe that looking xard %(bpov means looking 
 with the back to the wind? See examples from the Septua- 
 gint in Thayer's Lexicon at the end of ^Xi-Kio. Ramsay 
 says: "It must be observed that Luke never saw the. 
 
172 WORDS BORROWED FROM THE LATIN 
 
 harbor, and merely speaks on Paul's report of the pro- 
 fessional opinion. It is possible that the sailors de- 
 scribed the entrance as one in which the inward-bound 
 ships looked towards N. W. and S.W., and that in trans- 
 mission from mouth to mouth, the wrong impression 
 was given that the harbor looked N. W. and S. W."* 
 Coneybeare and Howson say : " The difficulty is to be 
 explained simply by remembering that sailors speak of 
 everything from their own point of view, and that such 
 a harbor does 'look' — from the water towards the land 
 which incloses it — in the direction of south-west and 
 north-west. "f Alford replies : " I cannot believe that even 
 sailors could speak of a harbor as 'looking' in the direc- 
 tion in which they would look when entering it." But 
 suppose we let the sailors go, and think only of what 
 Luke, a landsman, might mean by his language. A 
 small harbor is like a fort. A fort faces not its entrance, 
 but in the direction in which its protecting guns point. 
 So a harbor might be said to front the waves and winds 
 which it keeps off. Its entrance might be in the rear or 
 at one side, anywhere except at the front. It is true that 
 a town, or a single house, on the inner shore of a harbor 
 might face the entrance, and the open sea, but whether 
 this is true of the harbor itself would depend on its 
 shape; and in the absence of any settled usage, Luke 
 might naturally refer to its sheltering power, with no 
 thought of its entrance. He would then mean "shel- 
 tering from the S. W. and N. W. winds." 
 
 *"St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen," p. 326. 
 f'Life and Epistles of St. Paul," People's Ed., p. 741. 
 
WORDS BORROWED FROM THE LATIN I 73 
 
 To the foregoing Latin words should be added a half- 
 Latin, ebpaxbXwv (Acts xxvii. 14), from eupo$ and Aquilo, 
 if that is the true reading instead of eupoxXodwv ; also 
 Xipeprtvo? (Acts vi. 9), unless both are to be taken as 
 proper names. Some examples of Latin influence in 
 meaning and phraseology may be found in Thayer's 
 Lexicon, Appendix, p. 693. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 i. The Latin words are twenty-six in number. The 
 total number of words, exclusive of proper names, is 
 about five thousand. When we think of the length of 
 time during which the Greek-speaking world had been 
 under the sway of Rome — from about a century and a 
 half before Christ — we cannot but admire the power of 
 literary resistance in the wonderfully self-sufficient 
 Greek tongue, that Roman influence should force but one 
 word in two hundred into this vocabulary. This im- 
 pression is deepened by the small number of times each 
 word is used. The following thirteen — xoXtuvta, pAxeXXov, 
 fxsrj.fipdva, fxifaov, £ifTT7)s, P^ 7 )) <rixdpio<$, Gifuxivd-tov, aitExoo- 
 Xdriop, rirXog, (pai\>6Xrj<s, <ppay£XXiov, yu)po<$ — are found but 
 once. Of the rest, all but dyvaptov and 7:patr6ptov, are 
 used from two to four times ; but some of these are in 
 parallel passages. 
 
 2. Classified grammatically, these words are all nouns, 
 except one, (ppayeXXou), which, indeed, is next door to a 
 noun, being a denominative verb. This fact indicates 
 that the reception of foreign words into the vocabulary 
 
174 WORDS BORROWED FROM THE LATIN 
 
 was in an early stage. Nouns come in first. The purity 
 of even Xenophon's diction was not sullied by the free 
 admission of such foreign substantives as Tzapaadyyr^^ 
 dapeuo^ napddeiaos, and xd/irjXo$. A new thing from 
 abroad requires a new name, and none can be better 
 than its own. The history of our own language is to 
 the point. Back in the Anglo-Saxon we find nouns (but 
 few verbs) from Latin and Greek, as, sacerde, fund 
 (pound), mynster, mynet (mint) ; by and by comes in the 
 flood of verbs, adjectives, adverbs, as well as nouns, and 
 now and then a preposition and conjunction, until the 
 only grammatical territory we have left without inva- 
 sion is the narrow one of pronouns. One can appreciate 
 the condition of our New Testament vocabulary in this 
 respect by looking on into later Greek, and finding such 
 words as these — npafoevro? (firaesens), £xou~u>os$ (equinus), 
 izpanz6<jtTo$ (flraeflositus). 
 
 3. As to the meanings of these words, only one has 
 reference to personal character, Gixapws', one to a vehicle, 
 flity', one to a place of trade, pdxeXXov; one to the wind, 
 Xwpos; two to writing, pepftpdva, titXos ; four to measures, 
 Xirpa, fxtfoov, fiodios, t-iarr/s; two to punishment, ypaytXXiov, 
 <ppayeXX6(D\ three to coins, daadpiov, dfjvdpwv^ xodpdvTrj$\ 
 three to civil life, x^vo-m?, xoXwvta, Ttpairwpwv] four to 
 military life, xevrupiwv^ xouarwdia^ Xeyecbv, (Tr,exouXdriop\ 
 four to articles of clothing and personal use, Xivnov, atpi- 
 xtvfttov, ffouddpiov, <pavs6Xr t $. It will be seen from this that 
 the remark of Winer, in his Grammar, that the Latin 
 words in the New Testament are " mostly substantives 
 
WORDS BORROWED FROM THE LATIN 1 75 
 
 denoting Roman judicial institutions, coins, or articles of 
 dress,"* needs considerable modification; not one of these 
 words denotes a judicial institution, and those denoting 
 coins and articles of dress are about a quarter of the 
 whole number. Indeed, the absence of several Roman 
 governmental terms is quite noticeable. Pontius Pilate, 
 the procurator of Judasa, is yye/j.cbv, not 7rpoxoupdrwp 
 (Matt, xxvii. 2) ; the judgment-seat is fifj/iaj not Tptftouvd- 
 Xiov (John xix. 13; Acts xxv. 6; Rom. xiv. 10, et al.); 
 the colonial consul is (rrpar-qyos, notxwvtrooX (Acts xvi. 20) ; 
 and his attendant lictor pafidouxos — rod -holder — not Xtxrwp ; 
 Claudius Lysias, the military tribune — modern colonel 
 — is xiXiap%o$) not rpiftouvos. All of these Grecized Latin 
 names are found in later Greek, and three of them in 
 Plutarch, who lived but a half-century after the apostle 
 John. 
 
 4. It may be well to distinguish the different writers 
 of the New Testament in respect to the use of Latin 
 words. KouffTwdia and ptttov are used by Matthew only. 
 Kevzuptwv, giffTYjs, and (nzexouXdriop are used by Mark only. 
 Instead of xevruptwv, Matthew and Luke always use 
 ixarovTdpxTjs,, or ixarovrap^o^. KoXwvta, fftxdpio$, atpuxtv&tov, 
 and x&po? are used by Luke only. A&tiov, Xirpa, pida, 
 titAo$, and cppayiXXtov are used by John only. MdxeXXov, 
 /jLspftpdva, and ycuvoXyg are used by Paul only. K9}v<to$, xod- 
 pdvrrjs, and <ppayeXX6cu are used by Matthew and Mark. 
 "AtTffdptuv is used by Matthew and Luke. looddptov is 
 used by Luke and John. Aeysw and p.6dto$ axe used by 
 
 *P. 103 (Thayer's edition). 
 
176 WORDS BORROWED FROM THE LATIN 
 
 Matthew, Mark, and Luke. A-qv&ptov is used by Mat- 
 thew, Mark, Luke, and John. npatrmpwv is used 
 by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul. No Latin 
 words are found in Hebrews, Peter, James, and Jude. 
 The words are so evenly distributed, if we except Paul, 
 that our most important inference is that there is nothing 
 to infer. As to number, Matthew uses ten, Mark ten, 
 Luke ten, John eight, and Paul four. The most marked 
 case of difference between the evangelists is in the word 
 xevTupiwv, which is avoided by Matthew and Luke; by 
 the latter both in his Gospel and the Acts. The subject- 
 matter of Paul's Epistles would naturally make the use 
 of Latin words less frequent. 
 
 5. Let us now, for the sake of a little comparison, 
 take just a glance into the pages of a secular writer 
 of the Roman period. Polybius, born about 200. B. C, 
 was both the first and foremost Greek writer of this 
 period. Notwithstanding his experience of the iron hand 
 of Rome, he became, under the fostering friendship of 
 the younger Scipio, an ardent admirer of Roman institu- 
 tions, and made it the great task of his life to compose 
 the history of Rome. His subject would be likely to 
 bring in all the Latin words which a legitimate vocab- 
 ulary would allow; yet the consul is called ut,o.to<$ (or 
 (TTpaTrjyos, as in the New Testament; in which, also, we 
 find dvftuTraros, for proconsul (Acts xiii. 7, et al.)) ; the lie- 
 tor, paftdouxos ; the military tribune, yiXiap%o<s ; the tribune of 
 the plebs, drj(xapyo$\ the censor, r^-ny'?; the quaestor, ra/i{a$', 
 the legion, GTpoLToxedov ; the senate, (ToyxXrjro? or (ruvidpiov, 
 
WORDS BORROWED FROM THE LATIN 177 
 
 not trsvoro?, as in Plutarch. Two. of the New Testament 
 Latin words, — fiiltov and xsvTuptwv, — and perhaps others 
 of them, are in Polybius; but with xsvrupicov is found also 
 raziapyus ; and other designations of officers are duplicated, 
 as dexdSap%o$ and dexouptiov, oTzap%o<s and 7cpat<pexTos. In- 
 deed, in the case of one word, which must have been 
 very suggestive to Polybius and his Greek compatriots, 
 — Aixrdru)p y — we can almost trace its progress into the 
 vocabulary. In the narrative of the Second Punic 
 War, the author states that the Romans had come to 
 need a general with unlimited powers — auroxpdrwp 
 (TTparyyos. In the next chapter he states that they 
 appointed Quintus Fabius Aixrdrwp, and goes on to ex- 
 plain the powers of this extraordinary officer. The 
 Greek of Polybius, like that of the New Testament, was 
 slow to admit the vocabulary of the Romans. 
 
 6. This discussion points to the genuineness of the Greek 
 of the New Testament. Latin words so few, so unim- 
 portant, and so seldom used — and that too in circum- 
 stances where they would be likely to be used — indicate 
 that the writers of the New Testament could "speak 
 Greek." But there is another conclusion, of a more 
 special character. The Latin element of the New Testa- 
 ment vocabulary indicates the early composition of the 
 books of the New Testament. The Roman period of 
 Greek literature extends from 146 B. C. to 330 A. D. ; 
 but for the New Testament it would be more fair to 
 substitute 60 B. C. for the former date. Our Latin test, 
 then, would place these books early in the period thus 
 
1^8 WORDS BORROWED FROM THE LATIN 
 
 limited. Their Latin is more like that of Polybius than 
 it is like that of Plutarch even. Plutarch uses xwvaooX, 
 Xixriop, rptfiouvos, tfevaro?, yjdtxrov, irarpixws, Xiroov ; besides six 
 of the New Testament words — aaadpwv, dyvapiov, leyed>v, 
 Xirpa, fxdxeXXov, fxiXiov. 
 
 PROPER NAMES. 
 
 The following is a list of proper names, with single 
 references. A few, as ?q),^, first appear in literature 
 in a Greek dress, but must have come from Roman lips. 
 
 ^Aypmizas, Agrippa, Acts xxv. 13; "AfxKXias, Amplia- 
 tus, enlarged, Rom. xvi. 8; 'AxuXa?, Aquila, eagle, 
 Acts xviii. 2 ; 'An-xiou 4>6pov, Appii Forum, Forum of 
 Appius, Acts xxviii. 15; "Aitfpia, Appia, Phil. 2; 
 Aoyouaros, Augustus, reverend, Luke ii. 1 ; FaXXiwv, 
 Gallio, Gallic, Acts xviii. 12; ApobaiXXa, Drusilla, dim- 
 inutive of Drusus, Acts xxiv. 24 ; EupaxuXwv, Euro-aquilo, 
 northeast wind, Acts xxvii. 14; y IouXia, Julia, feminine of 
 Julius, Rom. xvi. 15; louXtos, Julius, Acts xxvii. 1; 
 'Iouvtas, Junia, youthful, Rom. xvi. 7; '/oDaro?, Justus, 
 just, Acts i. 23; 'IraXia, Italia, Acts xviii. 2; KaTaap, 
 Cccsar, long-haired, Matt. xxii. 17; Katvapeta, Ccesarea, 
 Caesar's city, Matt. xvi. 1 3 ; KXaodta, Claudia, limping, 
 2 Tim. iv. 21; KXaudtos, Claudius, limping, Acts xi. 28; 
 KXyiiT)?, Clemens, kind, Phil. iv. 3 ; KopvyXto?, Cornelius, 
 Acts x. 1 ; KouapTos, Ghiartus, fourth, Rom. xvi. 23 ; 
 Kprj<jxr)$, Crescens, growing, 2 Tim. iv. 10; Kpiffizo<s, 
 Crispus, curly-haired, Acts xviii. 8; AtftepTlvot, Libertini, 
 freedmen, Acts vi. 9; Aoozto?, Lucius, day-light man 
 
WORDS BORROWED FROM THE LATIN I 79 
 
 (lux), Acts xiii. i ; Mdpxo$, Marciis, hammer, Acts xii. 
 12; Niysp, Niger, black, Acts xiii. 1 ; Oupftavo?, Urbanus, 
 city-man, Rom. xvi. 9; [JauXo?, Paulus, little, Acts xiii. 
 7, 9; IJiXaro?, Pilatus, javelin-man (pilum), Matt, xxvii. 
 2 ; 77ovT£o?, Pontius, bridge-man, Matt, xxvii. 2 ; IUnXws, 
 Publius, the people's, Acts xxviii. 7; flopxio?, Porcius, 
 swine-man? Acts xxiv. 27; IJorioXot, Puteoli, little wells, 
 Acts xxviii. 13; Uoudrj?, Pudens, modest, 2 Tim. iv. 21 ; 
 Tlpiaxa, Prisca, old, 2 Tim. iv. 19; Ilpiaxilla, Priscilla, 
 diminutive of Prisca, Acts xviii. 2 ; 'PoTxpo?, Rufus, 
 red-haired, Mark xv. 2 1 ; ?ai^, Roma, Acts xviii. 2; 
 ^ezouv^o?, Secundus, second, Acts xx. 4 ; Xlpyw<s, Sergius, 
 Acts xiii. 7 ; 2YAa9, Silas, shortened from the following, 
 Acts xv. 22 ; ZiXouavos, SUvanus, woodsman, 2 Cor. i. 
 19; Snavia, Hispania, Rom. xv. 24; Tiprtos, Tertius, 
 third, Rom. xvi. 23 ; TiprukXos, Tertullus, Acts xxiv. 1 ; 
 Tiftepids, Tiberias, city of Tiberias, John vi. 1 ; Tiftipiog, 
 Tiberius, Tiber-man, Luke iii. 1 ; Tito?, Titus, 2 Cor. 
 ii. 13; TpeT$ Tafiipvat, Tres Tabernae, three shops, Acts 
 xxviii. 15; <P7jXl£, Felix, happy, Acts xxiii. 24; QrjaTos, 
 Festus, feast-day, Acts xxiv. 27 ; (Poprouvdros, Fortunatus, 
 fortunate, 1 Cor. xvi. 17. 
 
 Of this array of names the Christian mind dwells 
 longest on one which, as we have it in English, hardly 
 suggests a Roman origin, but is really a famous name 
 in Roman history — HauAos. From the time of the 
 Christian Fathers to the present, conjecture has done its 
 best to answer the question, Why did Saul assume the 
 name Paulus? and this in spite of the fact that it is no- 
 
l8o WORDS BORROWED FROM THE LATIN 
 
 where affirmed that he did assume it, instead of receiv- 
 ing it from his father when he was "free-born." The 
 Greek text gives us the least possible information on this 
 point. ZauXo$di, 6 xai 77aDAo?(Acts xiii. 9) is all. If he did 
 not get the name from his father,some have thought that 
 he did from the proconsul of Cyprus, Sergius Paulus; 
 others from his being little of stature ; others from his hu- 
 mility, he being, in his own estimation, "the least of all 
 saints." If his father named him IIadXo$ y we can imagine 
 two or three good reasons. 1. It was an honored name. L. 
 ^Emilius Paulus honored it at Cannae, to whom Horace ap- 
 plies the phrase animae ?nagnae prodigus /and the conquer- 
 or of Macedonia, the father of the younger Scipio, sus- 
 tained well the honor of his ancestor. 2. It was a name 
 well known in the East. The Paulus last mentioned 
 bore as his agnomen " Macedonicus," and did more than 
 any other one to make Greece a part of the Roman 
 world. 3. It resembled Saul more than any other 
 Roman surname; and yet we cannot tell which name of 
 the two was first decided upon. But whether any of these 
 reasons are valid or not, the appearance of this name 
 at the beginning of Paul's apostolic life justifies us in re- 
 garding it as his distinctively Christian and missionary 
 name. Ramsay, under the heading " Saul, otherwise 
 Paul," while courteously deriding Weizsacker for re- 
 garding the two names as a sign of double authorship of 
 the Acts, remarks, " Amid the conflict of the two religions 
 before the Roman governor, Paul stepped forward in his 
 character of citizen of the Empire." (St. Paul, etc., p. 
 
WORDS BORROWED FROM THE LATIN l8l 
 
 85.) He illustrates Paul's names by the custom among 
 certain non-Greek races of having two names, one native 
 and the other Greek. " The role he was playing for the 
 time being determined which name he was called by." 
 
 One might expect many Latin names in the greetings 
 of an epistle to the church at Rome ;but of the twenty-six 
 who are greeted in the last chapter of Romans, only 
 seven — Prisca, Aquila, Junias, Amplias (-atus), Urbane 
 (Urbanus), Rufus, and Julia — bear Roman names; while 
 four such join in the greeting — Lucius, Tertius, Caius 
 (Gaius), and Quartus. 
 
XVII 
 
 WORDS BORROWED FROM THE HEBREW AND ARAMAIC 
 
 To keyd[xevov e Ej3pai'<TTt. John v. 2. 
 
 The great number of Old Testament proper names 
 thrust upon New Testament Greek — a large proportion 
 without inflection — give a Hebrew coloring to the text far 
 beyond what comes from the legitimate vocabulary. The 
 first chapter of Matthew, and the third of Luke, and, 
 elsewhere, such unconformable words as 'Aftpadjj. "Iuadx, 
 *Iax(6{3 make one feel that grammatically the Old Testa- 
 ment is going rough-shod over the New. But these 
 names do not correctly represent the case. In studying 
 the borrowed vocabulary we may set aside proper names, 
 and two other classes; (i) those words which are quoted 
 as from a foreign language, and translated, (2) those 
 Semitic w T ords which are found also in the classical 
 period. It may be well, however, to mention the words 
 of these two classes, though they are ruled out. 
 
 Those of the first class are the following : 
 
 "Eliot— Aramaic *»Y?N, for the Hebrew **?$, from ^tf, 
 God, with the suffix *— , my, "My God." Mark xv. 34.' 
 
 'EyyaM — Aram. finSjlN, imperative middle from tlHQ, 
 to open; "Be opened." Mark vii. 34. 
 
 *HXi — See 'EAwi above. "My God." Matt, xxvii. 46. 
 
 Kodfit — Hebrew, ^Dlp, imperative feminine*, from Q?)p, 
 to rise. "Arise.'* Mark v. 41. 
 
 182 
 
^ or th£ 
 
 WORDS FROM THE HEBREW AND ARAMAIC X&*-.. ,?Ien\| 
 
 VNIYERSH 
 or 
 
 As.ud, Aafia — Heb. J7D 1 ?? from the preposition *} ,for, 
 and HO, what. "Why"?" 
 
 Zafiax#av( — Chaldee, *jrip5^> second person singular 
 from p!3^, t° leave, with the verbal personal suffix *J— , 
 w£. With ila ( aa, above, "Why hast thou forsaken me?" 
 Matt, xxvii. 46 ; Mark xv. 34. 
 
 TahM — Aram. KJT^D, "damsel." Mark v. 41. 
 
 The words of Semitic origin which are found also in 
 the classics are the following (the Hebrew word being 
 annexed as the best accessible representative of the Sem- 
 itic original) : 
 
 'Appaftwv — J'D")^? earnest-money, from 3"U^> to fledge. 
 Hence the Latin arhabo, arrha, and rhabo, found as early 
 as Plautus. This word is found three times in the New 
 Testament, used by Paul; " Earnest of the Spirit. "2 Cor. 
 i. 22; v. 5. '-'-Earnest of our inheritance." Eph. i. 14. 
 
 Bug<jo$ — V^ from a root meaning white. "Was 
 clothed in purple oxidifine linen.'*'' Luke xvi. 19. "Mer- 
 chandise of pearls and^Vz^ linen" Rev. xviii. 12. 
 
 KdfirjXos — ^Dil, a camel. Used of the raiment of John 
 the Baptist (Matt. iii. 4; Mark i. 6), and in the sayings 
 about going through the eye of a needle (Matt. xix. 24 ; 
 Mark x. 25; Luke xviii. 25), and swallowing a camel. 
 Matt, xxiii. 24. 
 
 Kivvdfiionov — JiDjp, cinnamon. "No man buyeth.... 
 cinnamon and -odors." Rev. xviii. 13. 
 
 Kufitvov — f?b?> cummin. "Tithe of mint, anise, and 
 cummin." Matt, xxiii. 23. 
 
 Atftavos — fty$) frankincense, from J^, to be white. 
 
 t : ' - T 
 
184 WORDS FROM THE HEBREW AND ARAMAIC 
 
 ''''Frankincense and myrrh." Matt. ii. 11. "No man 
 buy eth. .. .frankincense and wine." Rev. xviii. 13. 
 
 AifiavtoTos — derived from the preceding, is found in 
 Herodotus in the same sense, but is used in the New 
 Testament in a different sense. " Holding a golden cen- 
 ser." Rev. viii. 3, 5. 
 
 Sa.7:<peipo<s — *V3p5 sapphire, from ^QO, to scrape. "The 
 second [foundation was] sapphire" Rev. xxi. 19. 
 
 Iuxd[xivo<$ — nOptp% a sycamore tree. "Ye might say 
 unto this sycamine tree." Luke xvii. 6. 
 
 ff Y(T<T(D7ro$ — Dit^ hyssop. "Put it upon hyssop. 1 '' John 
 xix. 29. "Scarlet wool and hyssop." Heb. ix. 19. 
 
 To these ten should perhaps be added aX<pa, fl^K (Rev. 
 i. 8, 11; xxi. 6; xxii. 13), and iwra, "fj*, "jot" (Matt, 
 v. 18). 
 
 Dismissing now the words thus enumerated, we come 
 to those which are introduced by the writers without an 
 avowed translation, and which are not found in classical 
 Greek. The translations are from the common version. 
 
 'AfiPa — Aramaic frON» corresponding to the Hebrew 
 
 T - 
 
 DN> father. "And he said, Abba, Father, all things 
 are possible unto thee ; take away this cup from me." 
 Mark xiv. 36. "Ye have received the spirit of adop- 
 tion, whereby we cry, Abba, Father." Rom. viii. 15. 
 "God hath sent forth the spirit of his son into 
 your hearts, crying, Abba, Father." Gal. iv. 6. It 
 will be seen that "d^/55, Ttaryp" are always joined to- 
 gether, and one might say at first glance that the latter is 
 simply a translation; but this is quite inconsistent with 
 
WORDS FROM THE HEBREW AND ARAMAIC 185 
 
 the spirit of the second and third passages. Paul would 
 hardly recommend a lesson in translation as a cry of filial 
 love. "Abba, Father" means more than "Father," and 
 why, if not from association with those words in Geth- 
 semane, some of whose very syllables passed from heart 
 to heart, and were preserved for us by the faithful and 
 exact Mark? A Greek-speaking Jew, if he chose to re- 
 tain dflffa, would naturally add Tzarijp^ especially if in the 
 anguish of the hour the aftfta were twice repeated. It 
 would appear, then, that in the account of Mark naTijp 
 is virtually a translation, but that the two words, once 
 joined, represented ever after the tenderest and deepest 
 filial spirit. Luther's " Lieber Vater" was not far from 
 right. 
 
 'AXXrjXob'ia — Hebrew n^l^jlj from l^/iT praise ye, 
 and j"V, a shortened form of Jehovah or Yahveh — Praise 
 ye Jehovah. This word occurs four times, and in the book 
 where we look for the fervor of ancient prophecy and 
 psalm. " I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, 
 saying, Alleluia.'''' Rev. xix. 1 ; also in verses 3, 4 and 6. 
 
 'AjjLijv — Hebrew TO^->J^ rm ' ) from ?0N? to support. Used 
 often by our Savior, as reported by all the evangelists, 
 as an adverb of affirmation, " verily," duplicated by John 
 only, "Verily, verily," — once by Paul in a similar sense, 
 " For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him 
 Amen." 2 Cor. i. 20. Used, according to the textus re- 
 ceptus, many times as an exclamatory prayer, " Amen" ; 
 but in a majority of cases the reading is disputed. 
 
 Baro? — (masculine), Heb. J")3> a hath^ a liquid meas- 
 
l86 WORDS FROM THE HEBREW AND ARAMAIC 
 
 ure of about eight and one-half gallons. Used only once. 
 " How much owest thou unto my lord ? And he said, A 
 hundred measures of oil." Luke xvi. 5, 6. 
 
 riewa — Heb. 0Jjj"7'*JI, valley of Hi?z?iom, from J^^JJ 
 valley, and QJJHi Hinnom, a valley on the south and 
 west of Jerusalem in which was Topheth (2 Kings xxiii. 
 10). This word is found in Matthew, Mark, Luke and 
 James, as follows: "In danger of hell-fire" Matt. v. 
 22. "Whole body should be cast into hell. n v. 29, 
 also verse 30. "Destroy both soul and body in hell." 
 x. 28. "Having two eyes to be cast into hell-Jire." 
 xviii. 9; also Mark ix. 47. "Two-fold more the child 
 of hell than yourselves." xxiii. 15. "How can ye 
 escape the damnation of hell?" xxiii. 33. "Than hav- 
 ing two hands to go into hell." Mark ix. 43. " Than hav- 
 ing two feet to be cast into hell." ix. 45. "Fear him 
 which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell." 
 Luke xii. 5. " It is set on fire of hell." James iii. 6. 
 
 l E$pdiaTi — from £j3pai£w % to speak Hebrew, from "D)?> 
 Eber, Heber; a word used by John only. " Called in the 
 Hebrew tongue, Bethesda." John v. 2; also xix. 13, 17, 
 20; Rev. ix. 11; xvi. 16. The words 'Efipaixo?, 'Efipalos, 
 and 'Efipa'Cs may be classed as proper names. 
 
 y Ioudai£<o — from JTTin% Judah. Used only once. " Why 
 compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews ?" Gal. 
 ii. 14. 
 
 y Iouda'ixvJ$ — from the same through "Iouddixos. Used 
 only once. " Livest after the manner of the Gentiles and 
 not as do the Jews." Gal. ii. 14. 
 
WORDS FROM THE HEBREW AND ARAMAIC 187 
 
 y Iouda'ifff±6$ — from 'Ioudat^w. Used twice. "My con- 
 versation in time past in the yews' 1 religion" Gal. i. 13. 
 "And profited in the Jews' religion" i. 14. 'Iovdau6$ 
 and 'Ioudaio$ may be classed as proper names. 
 
 Kopftav, xopflavas — Heb. f3"}p } an offering ; used over 
 seventy times in Leviticus and Numbers, in our version 
 "offering" or "oblation," Septuagint, dwpov. The in- 
 declinable form xopfiav is translated by Mark, but Mat- 
 thew uses xopftavas without explanation. Each is used only 
 once. " It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury." 
 Matt, xxvii. 6. "But ye say, If a man shall say to his 
 father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift." 
 Mark vii. 11. 
 
 K6po$ — Heb. 13, a cor (translated "measure" in our 
 version, 1 Kings v. 11), a measure equal to ten baths. 
 See ^aro?, above. Used only once. "And how much 
 owest thou? And he said, A hundred measures of 
 wheat." Luke xvi. 7. 
 
 Mafxw\>a<s — Chaldee, fcOiOO* Alford quotes from Augus- 
 tine,"Lucrum Punice mammon dicitur." Used four times. 
 "Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Matt. vi. 24. 
 "Make to yourselves friends of the mammo?t of unright- 
 eousness." "If, therefore, ye have not been faithful in 
 the unrighteous mammon" "Ye cannot serve God and 
 mammon." Luke xvi. 9, 11, 13. 
 
 Mdwa — Heb. ?£, a resinous manna, to which the mi- 
 raculous manna undoubtedly bore some resemblance (Ex. 
 xvi. 15). Used four times. "Our fathers did eat 
 manna in the desert." John vi. 31 ; also 49. "Wherein 
 
l88 WORDS FROM THE HEBREW AND ARAMAIC 
 
 was the golden pot that had manna." Heb. ix. 4. "To 
 him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden 
 manna" Rev. ii. 17. 
 
 Mapdv &M — Aram.JirM to c ome, and HD? or N^0» 
 
 - -: I T r T T T 
 
 Lord. The Lord comes. Used only once. "If any man 
 love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema 
 Mar an- at ha." 1 Cor. xvi. 22. 
 
 Uda^a, Heb. HDBi the passover, from f7D3> to pass over. 
 This word is used in each of the four Gospels, referring 
 to the literal festival, it being always translated in our 
 version "Passover"; also once in Acts xii. 4, where it is 
 mistranslated (to modern ears) "Easter." It is found 
 also in the two following: "For even Christ our Pass- 
 over is sacrificed for us." 1 Cor. v. 7. "Through faith 
 he kept the Passover." Heb. xi. 28. 
 
 npoadpftaToV) from ad^arov. See below. Used once 
 only. "Because it was the preparation, that is, the day 
 before the Sabbath." Mark xv. 42. 
 
 'PaftPt, Heb. *5*% from Jjft, great man, master, and 
 suffix * — , my. Used frequently in the Gospels, not in 
 Luke. "And to be called of men Rabbi, Rabbi." Matt, 
 xxiii. 7. "Then Judas which betrayed him answered 
 and said, Master, is it I?" Matt. xxvi. 25. Nine 
 times it is in our version "Master"; at other times 
 "Rabbi." It is translated " AiddvxaXe" once by John (i.39). 
 
 'Pafiftouvt — perhaps not differing in meaning from 
 Rabbi. Used twice, being translated by John, but used 
 by Mark without explanation. "The blind man said 
 unto him, Lord, that I might receive my sight." Mark 
 
WORDS FROM THE HEBREW AND ARAMAIC 1S9 
 
 x. 51. "She turned herself and saith unto him, Rabboni, 
 which is to say, Master" John xx. 16. 
 
 ( Paxd — Aram. NpH> corresponding to the Heb. pH 
 empty. Used only once. "Whosoever shall say to his 
 brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council." Matt, 
 v. 22. 
 
 2a(3ad>& — Heb. filiOy? of hosts, the genitive plural being 
 transferred to the Greek. Used twice, the first being a 
 translation from the Septuagint of Isa. i. 9. "Except 
 the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed." Rom. ix. 29. 
 " The cries of them which have reaped have entered into 
 the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth." James v. 4. 
 
 ZaftftaTta/ios, from aafifiazi^u), from ad^arov. See the 
 following. Used only once. "There remaineth there- 
 fore a rest to the people of God." Heb. iv. 9. 
 
 Zdfiftarov — Heb. H^fc^ a Sabbath, from rQt£% to rest. 
 Used often in the Gospels and Acts, and in the follow- 
 ing : " Upon the first day of the week let every one of you 
 lay by him in store." 1 Cor. xvi. 2. "Of the new 
 moon or of the Sabbath." Col. ii. 16. 
 
 Sdrov — Aram. NJ1{<D> Heb. M^Dj a seah, a dry measure 
 of about a peck and a half; in our version simply "meas- 
 ure." Gen. xviii. 6. Used twice. "Leaven which a 
 woman took and hid in three measures of meal." Matt, 
 xiii. 33. See Luke xiii. 21. 
 
 Ztxepa — Heb. "OtJJ, intoxicating drink, from *0&^> to be 
 drunken. ("Do not drink wine nor strong drink." Lev. 
 x. 9.) Used only once. "Shall drink neither wine nor 
 strong drink." Luke i. 15. 
 
I90 WORDS FROM THE HEBREW AND ARAMAIC 
 
 Xepoufti'j., Xepouftetv — Heb. 3113, cherub, plural 0*51*13, 
 cherubim. Used only once. "And over it the cherubim 
 of glory." Heb. ix. 5. 
 
 'Qaawd — from Heb. JO nj/^iPN save now, from y\tf* 
 to be safe, and NJ, now, a particle of exhortation. (" Save 
 now, I beseech thee, O Lord." Ps. cxviii. 25.) Used 
 three times by Matthew, twice by Mark, and once by 
 John, all concerning one occasion. "The multitudes that 
 went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna 
 to the Son of David." Matt. xxi. 9. Not used by Luke 
 or other New Testament writers. 
 
 To these should perhaps be added CtCdvtov (Matt, xiii., 
 seven times in the parable of the tares). 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 i. The Hebraistic character of New Testament Greek 
 does not come largely from its Hebrew words. The 
 word which makes the strongest impression upon the 
 cursory reader is 'Afirjv, especially as solemnly reiterated 
 in John's Gospel. But this in the Gospels is given as 
 the utterance of one who spoke in a language foreign to 
 Greek. It is also exclamatory, and on its face bears evi- 
 dence of being but imperfectly incorporated into the vo- 
 cabulary. The same may be said of afifta, 'AXAyXou'ia, 
 xopfidv, [xapav a$d, fiaftftc, fiaftftouvi, paxd, (raftacbd-, %epouftii±, 
 and 'tiffawd. Several are found only once, /Saro?, "Ioudai^w, 
 'Iou8ai'xa>$, xopo?, fiapdv a&d, xpoadfiftaTzov, paxd, Ga^axiGpo^, 
 aixepa, and %£poo{3ifi. 
 
 The only words which occur with any frequency, and 
 
WORDS FROM THE HEBREW AND ARAMAIC I9I 
 
 which have in all respects the treatment of native words, 
 are yievva, and (rdftfiaxov ; but the former is used but once 
 out of the first three Gospels. These borrowed words, 
 then, go but a little way in revealing the presence of 
 Hebrew influence. Yet they are a convenient starting- 
 point for investigation, and their existence makes certain 
 a multitude of Hebraisms, of a less obtrusive character, 
 consisting of changes of meaning in single words, and 
 the adoption of Hebrew constructions and phraseology. 
 
 2. How many of these words are found in the Sep- 
 tuagint, including the Apocrypha? There are sixteen, 
 viz., ^ AXkr^Xobia^ d/j.ijv, /3«to?, ''Ioudat£w, 'Ioudaixw^ ''Iouda'iffp.o^^ 
 xopos, fxdvva, Tzd.G%a, 7tpo(jdftpaTov, ffaftacoft, adfiftarov, ffdrov, 
 aixepa, %epoofili±, an d the proper name Tativva^ used in Josh, 
 xviii. 16, as a strictly geographical designation, for which 
 elsewhere is found <pdpay^'Ewop. (Josh. xv. 8)and ye Bevewdfi 
 (2 Chron. xxviii. 3). The originals of these are pure 
 Hebrew. Of the remainder the following are from the 
 Aramaic : d/3/3a, fiapdl a#«, /5axa,<rarov, and probably 'Qaawd, 
 for the Jewish multitude in employing this word seem not 
 so much to be quoting from the Psalms as using a familiar 
 interjection. 
 
 That no more of these words are found in the Septua- 
 gint is what we ought to expect; for the language of the 
 New Testament is not a book-dialect made up by stu- 
 dents of the Septuagint, but the genuine speech of the 
 people, growing by adopting new forms, as dftfia, or 
 taking a word of narrow meaning and expanding it 
 to reach beyond this world, like yievva. 
 
I92 WORDS FROM THE HEBREW AND ARAMAIC 
 
 3. It should be noticed that but few of these words touch 
 important doctrine. Six are titles of respect or expres- 
 sions of emotion, d/5/5d, 'AAArjXouia, dprjv, pafifii, pafi[iuu<A, 
 paxd, and 'Qffawd. Three are measures, Bdru?, xopos, and 
 ffdrov. Seven are purely historical, 'Eppa'iari, 'Ioudat£w, 
 ''loudal'xaJs, y Iouda't'ffp.6$, npoadfifiaxov, aixepa and %epou[iip. 
 Five are used in the enforcement of duty, xupj3dv 9 papwyds, 
 p.dvva, p.apdv d&d, aaftawfy. ^Aftfid, xd<r%a, Ga$fia-ztGp.6<$, and 
 (Tdftfiarov have doctrinal reference, but not prominently ; 
 thus leaving ylswa as the one doctrinal word, standing 
 out in awful distinctness as the word of doom. 
 
 4. A word in regard to the presence of Hebrew and 
 Aramaic words in other late Greek writers. Josephus 
 uses fidros, 'IoudatZio, 'Iouda'txu>s, xopfidv, xopos, pdvva^ xdaya, 
 ffdfiftarov, ffdrov, and %ep<w{3{/i, besides others not found in 
 the New Testament. The words which have gained cur- 
 rency by association with the life of Jesus we should not 
 expect to find in Josephus. The Greek Christian Fathers 
 took up and bore on most of them in a course that has 
 reached our day, dftftd, "AXXrjkouia^ dprjv, yiewa, xopftav, 
 p.apL(Dvd$ : pdvva^ TtdG%a, ffdfiftarov, yepou/Sip. and 'Qaavvd, 
 
 5. Almost all of the personal names are, of course, 
 found in the Old Testament, the most notable exception 
 being "EXiadfier (Elizabeth). Two precious names, 'lyaous, 
 Map (a 9 do not at first glance show their Hebrew origin. 
 Joshua, or Jehoshua, in its later form is Jeshua, or 
 Yeshua. Remembering that sh must be represented in 
 Greek by <r, and long u by ow, we have 'Irjtroua, which 
 by partial inflection becomes *fy*ou$. The name Mapla^ 
 
WORDS FROM THE HEBREW AND ARAMAIC I93 
 
 Maria, is curiously set off by an unphilological imagina- 
 tion in the Latin Hymns as derived from mare, the sea, 
 — "Ave maris stella." But we must rather identify it, 
 as its other form Mapiap. shows, with the Miriam of the 
 Red Sea song, even if her name does mean "rebellion." 
 The Miriam is lost in the Mary. 
 
XVIII 
 
 WORDS NOT FOUND IN CLASSICAL WRITERS 
 
 That the New Testament,as late Greek, should contain 
 many unborrowed words not used in the classics is a mat- 
 ter of course. A valuable discussion of many of them 
 and of the period is found in Kennedy's "Sources of 
 New Testament Greek." There is a complete list in 
 the Appendix to Thayer's Lexicon, Sections I. and II., 
 Aristotle being included among classical writers. A 
 nearly complete list is in the Bibliotheca Sacra for July 
 and October, 1880, containing also the number of times 
 used, and the words in the common version to translate 
 each. 
 
 The following are some points of interest: 
 1. The number of these words is large, about nine 
 hundred in all, exclusive of proper names — amounting to 
 one-sixth of the whole vocabulary. The interval of time 
 between the classics and the New Testament is not much 
 greater than between the Elizabethan literature and our 
 own. What would a literary critic say of a book, or a 
 series of connected booklets, of to-day, every sixth word 
 of which — repetitions not being counted — could not be 
 found in Bacon or Hooker, or Spenser, or Shakespeare, 
 or the contemporary English Bible, or in any earlier 
 writing? — this book not to be special or technical, but 
 designed for general popular use, and the new words to 
 
 194 
 
WORDS NOT FOUND IN CLASSICAL WRITERS I95 
 
 be not borrowed from any foreign tongue during the last 
 three hundred years. Our literary condition in this re- 
 spect we account for by the printing-press, by the per- 
 manent interest of subject-matter, by creative genius, by 
 the unity of our history, and by the reading-habit and 
 linguistic study of modern civilization. Aside from the 
 absence of modern conditions, both the newness and the 
 nativeness of New Testament Greek can be explained 
 by (1) the genius of the Greek language, growing by 
 self-multiplication, (2) the break of continuity in Greek 
 life, (3) the wide extension of Greek thought under 
 Roman rule, and (4) the influence of Jewish thought cen- 
 tering in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. 
 2. In regard to the etymological character of these 
 words, they are, with very few exceptions, derivatives or 
 compounds, and from roots found in the Greek classics. 
 Nor are many of them at all obscure in origin. The. re- 
 lation of the noun dyd-ny to the verb ayaizau) may be 
 thought doubtful, but the connection of the two is not. The 
 verb is used from Homer down to New Testament times. 
 The first appearance of the noun in literature is in the Sep- 
 tuagint. How came it there ? Deissmann has shown* that 
 the word was in some use in Egypt independently of the 
 Septuagint. As a rule, verbs in -dw imply nouns in -rj in 
 actual use, but it is extremely improbable that dydxr) 
 could have been in general use so long without once ap- 
 pearing in the remains of the classics. It seems to have 
 been latent in the verb. In general, among nouns the 
 
 ♦Bibelstudien, p. 80, Marburg, 1895. 
 
I96 WORDS NOT FOUND IN CLASSICAL WRITERS 
 
 large proportion of the heavier suffixes, as -/ios (29), -jj.a 
 (44), -<rt? (5 1 )' w *^ De not i ce d, just as in English -ness and 
 -ship have now a vigorous life at the expense of the 
 lighter abstract endings; for word-making is a more 
 conscious and obtrusive process as language grows older. 
 The verbs are largely denominatives, but more largely 
 multiplied by composition with prepositions, all of 
 which are represented, except dfi<pi and et$. The adjec- 
 tives arise mostly from composition, the frequency of 
 dv- privative being noticeable, just as the English com- 
 pounds with un- are constantly increasing. Without dis- 
 cussing this subject, we may safely assert that etymolog- 
 ically these words, as a class, are above reproach. The 
 zeal of a Phrynichus may pronounce some of them " shock- 
 ingly un-Attic" — deivais dvdrrixov — (and is not the charge 
 true of his own expression ?) but we must remember that 
 those ancient-modern grammarians decided according to 
 usage, not science. Words which to their ears were as 
 painful as our present vocabulary would have been to 
 Chaucer, may yet be accepted by us as belonging to the 
 regular development of the language. The adverb navTore, 
 for example, was an offense to them, but seems so suit- 
 able and regular that we can hardly believe that we never 
 saw it in classic authors. The reforming grammarians 
 were determined to have the language both alive and dead 
 at the same time. It has been said by later author- 
 ities that many of the compound verbs in the New 
 Testament are nowise different in meaning from the 
 simple verbs. But we should be slow to make a charge 
 
WORDS NOT FOUND IN CLASSICAL WRITERS 197 
 
 against New Testament Greek Which could be perhaps 
 equally well sustained against the Latin of such a master 
 of style as Cicero. A mere increase of volume in a 
 word may be made expressive. Then, too, the very 
 nicest distinctions are next door to no distinction at all. 
 
 3. The rhetorical value of these words varies much. 
 Some of the compound words have been thoroughly 
 endorsed by modern usage, as dyftaXixoduuXeia^ ddpu^o^ and 
 the compounds with dya&o-, dvrt-, irspo-, and (peudo-. 
 Kapdwyv(D<7T7}s, XoyopLa/ca, fiaxpoftu/jLta, and fteodtdaxTo^ are 
 certainly clear and full of meaning, and the list of like 
 words could be greatly extended. What Greek word 
 has rhetorically a better right to exist than o-uv^y^o?? 
 Is it not finer than the corresponding Latin con-cor-s, 
 which may possibly have given rise to it? (Did Paul 
 coin the word? and did he learn Latin at Rome, where 
 the epistle containing this word was written?) But few, 
 we think, can be condemned, as perhaps iJ.o<7%o-(nho, and 
 some other verbs in -£w, while of course a large majority 
 are neither above nor below the ordinary level of expres- 
 sion. 
 
 4. How about the doctrinal and practical importance 
 of the words? It is not to be expected that the founders 
 of a new religion would endanger the communication of 
 their truths by the needless employment of new words. 
 The old words must first bear all the strain that they are 
 capable of. The idea of God required no new word, 
 and even the two words for Godhead, #c«$nj9 and i^eo-ny?, 
 are each found but once. The word &(Xrjfia for povXrj, 
 
198 WORDS NOT FOUND IN CLASSICAL WRITERS 
 
 seems rather a matter of habit than necessity. Yet 
 it is not without significance that we find such words as 
 dnoxakuipLS, ai:oXuTpuj<n§) a;xapTw\6<$, iXavpos, Uaffrrjpto?, 
 naXivyeveffia, d<p#ap<r{a, and the five from dya&6$, as well as 
 $6.TZTi<jp.a., fiaitTi<7{xo<$, /3a7rr«<7riy9, and other words of almost 
 technical import. Perhaps the most remarkable of all 
 are two which stand at the opposite poles of Christian- 
 ity — the words for love and conscience. For love we 
 find, never e/)wj, but always dydn*q ; not amor, but caritas. 
 Thatau\>eid7)(7i$ is not found in earlier Greek is not due to 
 the absence of the idea of conscience, for that idea is 
 expressed by verbal forms of <ruvol8a, but may possibly 
 come from reluctance to form a verbal noun from an 
 irregular preteritive verb, or, more probably, from less 
 call for the use of such a word. One must be careful 
 not to infer too much from the appearance of a new 
 word. E. g. deundai/iovta is late Greek, but its immediate 
 parent deKndaipwv is in Xenophon's Cyropaedia ; and /ia&7}- 
 reuio is late, but fj.a^rjrrj? is common in classical times. In 
 many cases the most that can be inferred is that the word 
 is the result of greater prominence of the idea, or more 
 frequent use; but very often this would be saying too 
 much, there being nothing to it but etymological conven- 
 ience. Each case must be determined on its own merits. 
 5. The large number of these words found in the 
 Septuagint is a matter of course — three hundred and 
 sixty-three in all, of which, however, eight are used only 
 in express citations, viz., al%;xaXwTebiD, dvdftXeipts, iXarroviio, 
 iveuXoyio/iat, xardvu^t?, xa.Ta<ppovrjTrj$, xapaTzixpaffLLO?) ypodaau). 
 
WORDS NOT FOUND IN CLASSICAL WRITERS 1 99 
 
 The proportion, tivo-jifths, will not seem large when 
 we consider the relation of Christianity to Judaism. 
 The New Testament diction is not a servile copy of that 
 of the Septuagint. Even such words as eldwXokarpeia, and 
 {j.a#r)T£U(o, are not found in the latter. A large propor- 
 tion of the most striking compound words of the 
 New Testament are also absent. Sweldyet? occurs but 
 once in the Canonical Old Testament (Eccl. x. 20), and 
 then with a different meaning (" Curse not the king, 
 no, not in thy thought [JTT?]")' What the proportion 
 might have been if the Septuagint had not been re- 
 stricted by being a translation we cannot know. That 
 this translation is of great value in interpreting the 
 New Testament will not be denied by any one. 
 
 6. It would be interesting to compare the different 
 authors and books of the New Testament, in respect to 
 their use of late words. Let us glance at one book, the 
 one that stands first in order among the Epistles in 
 Tischendorf's edition, and which, according to some 
 scholars, is the oldest of New Testament writings — the 
 Epistle of James. As this is the only book that can with 
 confidence be dated at Jerusalem, and as the author, 
 whichever James he was, probably never went beyond the 
 boundaries of Palestine, we should expect the widest 
 divergence from classic Greek. Going through the 
 Epistle in order, we meet with late words as follows : 
 Chap. i. diaanopd (vs. 1), 7T£ipa<7/j.6$ (2), dvefii^w (6), diipu- 
 X°S (8), xaiHTwv (il), 7teipa<T/i6$ (12), aneipaffros (13), dnoxuiu) 
 (15), dr:o<Tx(a<j/j.a. (17)? dnoxu.iio (18), xriap.a (18), xepttreefa 
 
200 WORDS NOT FOUND IN CLASSICAL WRITERS 
 
 (21), Tzpa6zr t s (21), iitdtjfffiovij (25), #p7,<Txo<s (26), %aXtva- 
 yu>yiu> (26), &Xi<pi$ (27), aamXos (27). Chap. ii. Tzpixnoizo- 
 XrjiKpia (1), xf)u<TodaxTuXu>$ (2), UTzoizodur; (3), TcpoawiwfaifXTet&w 
 (9), dv^Aeo? (13), ftuaiaoTTjpiov (21). Chap. iii. yaX'.\>ayu)yiu) 
 (2), andou) (6), xpauTys (13)5 xazaxauydopai (14), dxazaa- 
 zaaia (16), avuTz6xptzo$ (17)* Chap. iv. poiyaXis (4), 
 unozdaau) (7), kyyi^io (twice) (8), xaftapi^w (8), d/xapzwAos 
 (8), diil'0%os (8), hwruov (10), xauyr^i^ (16). Chap. v. 
 (TTjToftpwzos (2), xaztoio (3), d<pu<rzepiw (4), cnzazaXdio (5), 
 paxpoftopiio (twice) (7), also (8), iyyi^w (8), paxpoftupia 
 (io), TZoXixTTzXayyvos (i i), oly.zipp.wv (ii), i^opoXoyiu) (16), 
 dpapzajXog (20). Here are fifty-two instances and forty- 
 two different words. This is much above the general 
 average. Of these forty-two, twenty-nine are found in the 
 Septuagint, very greatly above the average proportion. 
 It is not difficult to see in this preponderance of the Sep- 
 tuagint vocabulary the position of the author as an un- 
 traveled Jew writing to Jews. 
 
 The number of late words grouped together in some 
 passages of the New Testament is noticeable; perhaps 
 in no case more so than in the Lord's Prayer. Both 
 Matthew and Luke have dytd^w, intooffto^ and r,sipa<Tp6^\ 
 Matthew has also MXrjpa. 
 
 7. A practical inference is derivable from the fact that 
 the late words are formed from the words of the classical 
 period. The one sure and solid preparation, then, that 
 the student needs is a mastery of his Greek classics. It is 
 possible for one who is looking forward to the ministry 
 to flatter himself , that he may neglect his college Greek 
 
WORDS NOT FOUND IN CLASSICAL WRITERS 201 
 
 without much harm to his future course, because the 
 New Testament Greek is peculiar. It will, indeed, 
 seem peculiar to one who enters the theological seminary 
 knowing little of any Greek, and his own performances in 
 it still more peculiar; but one who can read at sight the 
 pages of Xenophon's Memorabilia will find that none of 
 his knowledge is wasted when he opens the Memorabilia 
 of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. 
 
INDEXES. 
 
 I. — General Index. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Abba Father, meaning of 185 
 
 Acts, revision of by Luke, 131 ; without Preface, 
 
 133 ; has no word for love 119 
 
 Adjectives in -alos, how formed and their meaning. . 67 
 'Ayardw, meaning of compared with that of <pdio) 1 15-126 
 
 Classical usage 117 
 
 Septuagint usage 117 
 
 New Testament usage 118 
 
 John's usage 120 
 
 Alford on the rendering "Evil One" in the Lord's 
 
 Prayer 85 
 
 Alford on the rendering "age" instead of "stature" 
 
 in Matt. vi. 27 .' 107 
 
 Alford on the interval between the writing of Luke 
 
 and Acts 135 
 
 Alford on the " Haven of Crete" 171 
 
 Ancient life, the exegete's interest in 14 
 
 Apocalypses, extra-canonical, value of 22 
 
 Aramaic, was it used in the dialogue in John xxi. . . 122 
 
 Aramaic, Paul's use of 81 
 
 Aristotle's use of d.ya7zdio and <piUa> 117 
 
 Arnold, Matthew, on the Gospel of John 24 
 
 Article, Greek, absence of in Luke ii. 14 57 
 
204 GENERAL INDEX. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Atonement by self -revelation 152-154 
 
 Augustine, St. rob 7covqpov in the Lord's Prayer 91 
 
 Aurelius, M. Antoninus, his " Thoughts" 18 
 
 Ballantine on hya-naii) and <pd£u> 1 15-1 17 
 
 Barnabas, Epistle of 22 
 
 Bengel on yfoxia . 106, 109 
 
 Beza's rendering of too izovqpob in the Lord's Prayer 92 
 Bezal codex as representing the unrevised Acts .... 131 
 
 Bibliotheca Sacra referred to 8, 115, 154, 159, 194 
 
 Bi-lingual speech of the Jews 81 
 
 Birt on Aoyos, meaning book 134 
 
 Blass on Acts as revised by Luke 131 
 
 Blass on the text of Acts xxvi. 28 150 
 
 Book-list for New Testament students 43 
 
 " Book of the Secrets of Enoch" „ 22 
 
 Burton on the Historical Present 127 
 
 Calvin on tmobfftos 63 
 
 Chase on imobatos 77~79 
 
 Chase on the rendering "Evil One" in the Lord's 
 
 Prayer 84-86, 88 
 
 Clementine Homilies, their use of 6 xovypo? 93 
 
 Commentaries, how to use them 42 
 
 Concordances, value of 42 
 
 Concrete and abstract in the New Testament 85 
 
 Coneybeare and Howson on the " Haven of Crete". . 172 
 
 Consistency, liberal application of in exegesis 33 
 
 Cremer's Lexicon on ebdox(a$ 5°"53 
 
 u " on intooffio? 59 
 
 " " on rob izov-qpob in Matt. xiii. 38.... 98 
 Cureton on the origin of kmobatos 66 
 
GENERAL INDEX. 205 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 " Daily" in the Lord's Prayer 83 
 
 Deissmann on the Egyptian use of dyd-M) 195 
 
 Demons 113 
 
 Demosthenes, r t luia in 105 
 
 Descent into Hades 137-144 
 
 " Didache" 22 
 
 Diodorus Siculus \ 18 
 
 Dion Cassius, his use of ayaTtdu) and <pdiu) 117 
 
 Dionysius, Hal 18 
 
 Election 145 
 
 'Hfoxta, does it mean " stature" or " age" in Matt. 
 
 vi. 27 ? I °5~ I IO 
 
 Ephrem, Syrus, referred to by Chase 79 
 
 Epictetus 18 
 
 'Emouffios in the Lord's Prayer 58-83 
 
 " history of its interpretation 58-66 
 
 u etymology and meaning 66-73 
 
 u renderings of in early versions 73-83 
 
 Ernesti on iTttobaws 64 
 
 Eternal life, appointment to 145 
 
 Evil, or Evil One in the Lord's Prayer 84-104 
 
 Evil One (o xov-qpos) not the usual term for Devil in 
 
 the New Testament 96 
 
 Exegesis, methods of 39-4$ 
 
 " principles of 2 5~38 
 
 u what it is 27-28 
 
 M primary and secondary 28 
 
 has no conflict with science 37 
 
 u golden rule of 39 
 
 of other books than the New Testament.. 47 
 
206 GENERAL INDEX. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Exegesis requires easy sight-reading 19 
 
 Exegete, qualifications of 1 1- 25 
 
 Extra-canonical writings 22 
 
 Familiar passages, exegesis of 44 
 
 Feeling an important element of meaning, 26, 29, 33, 161 
 
 Foreknowledge and foreordination. 155—158 
 
 Gloria in Excelsis discussed 49 _ 57 
 
 Gothic rendering of Inioixnos 73 
 
 Grammar, proper use of 45, 160 
 
 Greek classics, knowledge of necessary 16 
 
 Greek Fathers, value of 22, 92-96 
 
 " " on too icovpov in the Lord's Prayer.. . 91 
 
 Greek, post-classical 1 7 
 
 Greek Psalters, light from them on Luke ii. 14.... 52 
 
 Guardian, The, referred to 80 
 
 Hades in the New Testament 137-144 
 
 Hadley on the speech of the Jews 81 
 
 Hall, Isaac H . . 80 
 
 " on the Syriac masculine used for the abstract 90 
 
 Harmony, two methods of- 37 
 
 Hebraisms 21 
 
 Hebraism, is there one in Luke ii. 14? 50 
 
 Hebrew and Aramaic, words borrowed from. . . . 182-193 
 
 Hebrew as illustrating £niou<rios 72 
 
 Hebrew words in the Septuagint 191 
 
 Herodotus, use of ykuia 105 
 
 Higher Criticism 23 
 
 Hill's Tatian 
 
 Historical Present in the Gospels 127 
 
 " as indicative of authorship 128 
 
 a 
 
GENERAL INDEX. 207 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 History, faculty for in the exegete 14 
 
 Human nature, knowledge of in the exegete 15 
 
 Hypotheses, value of in exegesis 45 
 
 Ideal commands 34 
 
 Identity of words 116 
 
 Imagination in exegesis 39, 46 
 
 Impressions, first, why of value 32 
 
 Inerrancy 36 
 
 Inspiration 13, 27 
 
 James, Epistle of, use of late Greek 199 
 
 Jerome on intoixTio^ 60 
 
 Jerusalem Syriac, rendering of imouaios 80 
 
 Jesus, origin of the name 192 
 
 Jewish Prayer-Book referred to 103 
 
 John, quality of his Greek 1 24 
 
 u duplication of words 121, 124 
 
 u use of the Historical Present 127 
 
 M use of ayaizdno and cpdiw 121 
 
 " Epistles of, use of 6 novypos 99 
 
 u w " d.y<nzdu> and <pdia> 121 
 
 Josephus 19, use of Hebrew words 192 
 
 Kennedy's " Sources of New Testament Greek".. . . 194 
 
 Latin, words borrowed from 162-181 
 
 " number of ' 173 
 
 M classified 1 74 
 
 u use by different New Testament writers .... 175 
 
 a in Polybius 176 
 
 " inferences from 177 
 
 " Proper names , 1 78 
 
 Lexicon, how to use 42 
 
208 GENERAL INDEX. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Lightfoot, Bishop, on £mou<rtos 65,67, 69, 70 
 
 " on too novrjpou 84 86, 89, 91, 101 
 
 Literary features of the New Testament 25 
 
 Literature, knowledge of in the exegete 16 
 
 Logical power of the exegete 15 
 
 Lord's Prayer, Iniouaios in „ 58-83 
 
 ** rod itovyjpou in 84—104 
 
 " in Aramaic and Greek 82 
 
 u abridged by Luke 88 
 
 u late words in 200 
 
 Lucian, use of yXtxia 105 
 
 Luke, does his Preface to the Gospel belong also to 
 
 * the Acts ? 1 30-1 36 
 
 Luke, use of J novypos, 99; of dyaizdu) and (piXiw^ 119; 
 
 rare use of the Historical Present 127 
 
 Mark, use of dyaitdu) and <piX£u> 119 
 
 " free use of the Historical Present 127 
 
 Mary, origin of the name 193 
 
 Matthew, use of dyaTzdio and <pd£at 119 
 
 " use of the Old Testament 37-101 
 
 u use of the Historical Present 127 
 
 Meaning made up of thought and feeling 29 
 
 " not limited to the apprehension of first 
 
 hearers 29 
 
 a expansion of 29 
 
 Meyer on rod novypou in the Lord's Prayer 85 
 
 " on ijXtxid 107, 109 
 
 Meyer, Leo, on £mouffio$ 65 
 
 Moods and physical condition 44 
 
 Murdock's Peshitto Syriac 80 
 
GENERAL INDEX. 209 
 
 PAGB. 
 
 New Testament diction, its relation to the classics 16, 200 
 " not a mere copy of that of the Septua- 
 
 gint 20, 191, 199 
 
 M Kennedy on 194 
 
 Old Testament, its help in New Testament exegesis 21 
 
 " quotations from, how to interpret 37 
 
 Open mind, The, in exegesis 11 
 
 Origen on Imouaios 58 
 
 Parables, how explained 35 
 
 Paul, origin of his name 1 79 
 
 M use of d/anda) and <pd£u> 120 
 
 M speech in Aramaic 81 
 
 Peter's dialogue with Christ in Aramaic 122 
 
 Philo 18 
 
 Pliny, Letters of 13 
 
 Plutarch, value of 18 
 
 u use of ijXuid 105 
 
 u use of Latin words 1 78 
 
 Polybius, 17 ; use of Latin words 176 
 
 Power of a writing . 32 
 
 Prayer and exegesis 40 
 
 Probation and salvation 146 
 
 Problems, exegetical 45 
 
 Ramsay's M St. Paul, the Traveler and the Roman 
 
 Citizen" 1 30 
 
 Ramsay on rbv npwrov Xdyov 135 
 
 " on Phoenix harbor 171 
 
 M on " Saul otherwise Paul" 180 
 
 Resurrection of the wicked 142 
 
 Resurrection-era 143 
 
2IO GENERAL INDEX. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Revised Version referred to, 49, 76, 83, 84, 97, 98, 
 
 I2 5> J 47> l 5 2 > I 7 I 
 
 Rhetoric in the New Testament 33 
 
 Routine and monotony, to break up 44, 47 
 
 Salmasius on Zmouatos 67 
 
 Salmon on the authorship of Acts 130 
 
 Satan seldom mentioned in the Old Testament 101 
 
 Sensitiveness to language 12 
 
 Septuagint, value of 20 
 
 M USe Of TZOVfjpOV 1 00 
 
 u " of ijhxia 105 
 
 a of dyaTtdw and <pik£<o 117 
 
 u of Hebrew and Aramaic words .... 191 
 
 u of words not in the classics 198 
 
 Shedd quoted 95 
 
 Side-light of another language 41 
 
 Silence of New Testament writers 47 
 
 Similes in the New Testament 35 
 
 Sleeping disciples, Christ's words to 1 1 1 
 
 Solitary work in exegesis 44 
 
 Spirits in prison 141 
 
 Spitta's Apostelgeschichte 24, 130 
 
 Sympathy with the writer .. 13, 40 
 
 Syriac, need of 21 
 
 Syriac, Old, Gospels 21 
 
 " on tmouaios 70, 76-83 
 
 M on zoo novrjpou in the Lord's Prayer 90 
 
 M on -fyXtxid 1 10 
 
 " rendering of dyandco and <pdiu) 122 
 
 Syriac, Peshitto, value of 22 
 
GENERAL INDEX. 211 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Syriac, rendering of dyaitdu) and <pdea) 123 
 
 Tacitus referred to 13? J ^4 
 
 Talmud on rod novrjpoo in the Lord's Prayer 102 
 
 Tatian's rendering of kmouaLos 79 
 
 " of rjhxla 1 10 
 
 Taylor, Charles, on Tatian, 80; on rob Tzovqpob 91 
 
 Textual criticism 23, 26 
 
 Thayer's " Books and their Use" 43 
 
 M Lexicon 66> 171, 173, 194 
 
 Theological inferences in exegesis 159 
 
 Tholuck on txiotxTtos 63 
 
 " on ijXuia 106 
 
 Times, The, relation to New Testament language. . 25 
 
 Tischendorf , 23 
 
 Traditional interpretations 38 
 
 Trench on dyandw and <pdi<D 1 15 
 
 Usage, different kinds and value 30, 31 
 
 u distinguish poetic and prose 107 
 
 Vincent's " New Testament Handbook" 43 
 
 Vischer on Revelation 24 
 
 Waiting for light 44, 47 
 
 Wendt's " Teaching of Jesus" 24 
 
 Westcott and Hort 23, 49 
 
 Winer on £mou<jto<$ 67 
 
 Woolsey on dyanda) and <piX(ut 115, 122 
 
 Word-consciousness slight in New Testament 27 
 
 Word-study preliminary 41 
 
 Words, differences in 106 
 
 M relation to general drift 30, 31 
 
 u used but once 31 
 
212 GENERAL INDEX. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Words not in classical writers 194-201 
 
 " number of, 194, etymological character of 195, 
 rhetorical value 197, doctrinal importance 
 197, found in the Septuagint 198, in Epistle 
 
 of James 199, in the Lord's Prayer 200 
 
 Wratislaw on kraobaio? 69 
 
 Xenophon's use of the Historical Present 128 
 
 Zockler on the revised Acts 131 
 
II. — Index of Greek Words. 
 
 213 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 dppa 184 
 
 dyado- 197 
 
 dyandw 1 1 5- 1 26 
 
 dydizr) 20, 195, 198 
 
 ayyeyo? 20 
 
 ayto$ 20 
 
 '^i'<% 140 
 
 —alo$ 67 
 
 al<bvio$ 41 
 
 dXXrjAooia - 185 
 
 a\<pa 184 
 
 dfiapria 89 
 
 d/JLaprtuAos 20, 1 98 
 
 *f*f* 185, 190 
 
 dvdpi^io 20 
 
 dvduTzaros 1 76 
 
 dvofxia 89 
 
 avwOev 1 32 
 
 and 85 
 
 a7wxdku<j)i$. 198 
 
 aTcoxuzpwGis 198 
 
 dfifiaftdtv 1 83 
 
 daadpiov 162 
 
 d<pdapoia 1 98 
 
 {3d7tTt<Tfia -fid? -T179 198 
 
 /?aro? 185 
 
 Pnw o 175 
 
 PouXtJ 197 
 
 Puaad? 1 83 
 
 yievva 186, 191, 192 
 
 Page. 
 
 datfiovtov 113 
 
 deundai/iovia 198 
 
 dyvdpiov 163 
 
 dtdfloAo$ 20, 89, 97 
 
 SiTJyrjvts 132 
 
 dixrdrwp 177 
 
 di<pu%o<; 197 
 
 'E^patari 186 
 
 kOeXovaios 70 
 
 ddwkokarpda 199 
 
 etprjv7) 20 
 
 * 85 
 
 kxxkrjffia 20 
 
 £xoulvo$ 1 74 
 
 £xou<no$ 79 
 
 c EAi<rd{3eT 192 
 
 iv dAiyip 1 50 
 
 £7ztou<ro yfxipa 69 
 
 £itwu<no<$ 58, 83 
 
 £Tziaxoi:o<s 20 
 
 kpyaaiav douvat 147 
 
 epio<s 198 
 
 evdoxiw 53 
 
 eudoxia 49"57 
 
 eupaxoXujv 1 73 
 
 tyyjfiepos 75 
 
 £r)X(DT7J$ 20 
 
 CtZdvtQv 190 
 
 £(JI)7J 20 
 
 yyefj-w 175 
 
214 
 
 INDEX OF GREEK WORDS. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 ijXixia 1 05- no 
 
 SetOTiQS) deary? 197 
 
 OiXrjfia 197 
 
 6eodidaxTO<$ 1 97 
 
 ^Irjaou<$ 192 
 
 tta(T/io$) --T7Jpto$ 198 
 
 ^IoudaiCcu, --£xa>9 1 86 
 
 *Ioudat(j[x6<$ 187 
 
 libra 184 
 
 xaxia 89 
 
 xdfXT)Xo<s 183 
 
 xapdioyvd>(TTT]$ 1 97 
 
 xevropiwv 165 
 
 xr}v<To<; 165 
 
 xtwdficofiov 183 
 
 xodpdvT7j? 165 
 
 xoXiovia 166 
 
 xopftav 187 
 
 xopo? 187 
 
 xog[io$ 27 
 
 xouGTwdia 166 
 
 xufitvov 183 
 
 Kuptog 20 
 
 Xeyewv 1 66 
 
 (ivTtOV l66 
 
 lifiavo? 183 
 
 hfiavwrds 1 84 
 
 lifteprivos 173 
 
 Xirpa 167 
 
 Aoyofia%ia 1 97 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Xoyos 19, 20, 134 
 
 Xurpdw 20 
 
 (xaO-qreuio 198, 199 
 
 fidxeXXov 167 
 
 uaxpoOufxia 197 
 
 fia/uovas 187 
 
 liavva. . ' 187 
 
 fxapdv dda 1 88 
 
 Mapia 192 
 
 (isfiftpdva 167 
 
 rj[x — dXXd 87 
 
 fiiXtov 167 
 
 fi68io<s 167 
 
 fioffyoTzoiiu) 197 
 
 £i<TT7)$ 168 
 
 6Xiyio<s 1 50 
 
 *™ J 55 
 
 6<p0aXiiodouXeia 197 
 
 TtaXivyeaia 1 98 
 
 xdvTOTe 196 
 
 izapaxoXoodiu) 135 
 
 TzaoXo? 1 79 
 
 neipd^tov, 89, 97 
 
 neidetg — noifoat 149 
 
 Ttl(TTl<5 20 
 
 TzXrjpo(pop(u) 132 
 
 Ttovqpia 89 
 
 itovqpoV) rod 84-IO4 
 
 npauz6aiTO<$ 1 74 
 
 npataevTos 1 74 
 
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS. 
 
 3I 5 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 npatt(&ptov 1 68 
 
 Ttpoyiyvdiffxa) 1 55 
 
 izpoadfifiaxov 1 88 
 
 fiaffli 1 88 
 
 paftfiovvi l88 
 
 papdoo%o<$ 175 
 
 paxd 189 
 
 ftdy 168 
 
 pbaat 85 
 
 ffafiawS 189 
 
 ffaPPariopos 189 
 
 ffdPftarov 1 89, 191 
 
 GO.Tt<pSipO$ 184 
 
 Zaravas 97 
 
 ffdrov 1 89 
 
 fftxdpios 168 
 
 ffixepa 1 89 
 
 ffifitxivdiov 169 
 
 aouddptov, 169 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 GTcexovkdriop 1 70 
 
 (TTpaTyyos 175 
 
 avxdptvo<$ 184 
 
 <juveidrj<n<s 27, 198, 1 99 
 
 ovvuu%o$ 197 
 
 xdaaio 145 
 
 titAos . 1 70 
 
 uffffcunos 184 
 
 (patvoXrj^ I.70 
 
 tpdiu) 1 15-126 
 
 (pik-Qpa 120 
 
 (ppayiXXiov -6w 171 
 
 %dpi<s 2o 
 
 Xepoufttp. 190 
 
 X dtapxo$ 175 
 
 %pi(7Ttavov Tzoirjaai 1 47 
 
 X&pos 171 
 
 (psudo—. 197 
 
 waavvd 191 
 
216 III. — Index of New 
 (The citations in Sections xvi 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Matthew. 
 
 ii. ii 184 
 
 15 37 
 
 iii- 4 l8 3 
 
 *7 53 
 
 iv. 1, 3, 5, 8, 11.. 89 
 
 v. 15 167 
 
 22 189 
 
 26 166 
 
 37 97 
 
 4 1 167 
 
 vi. 11 5 8 > 60, 73 
 
 J 3 84,97 
 
 23, 24 86 
 
 25-28 107 
 
 2 7 105 
 
 33 86 
 
 vii. 18 99 
 
 2 3 i5 8 
 
 x. 29 163 
 
 xii. 24 99 
 
 35 30 
 
 xiii. 19 97> 99 
 
 3 8 •••• 97 
 
 xvi. 17 122 
 
 xvii. 5 53 
 
 12 88 
 
 2 5 l6 5 
 
 Testament Texts. 
 and xvii. are not all given.) 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Matthew — Continued. 
 
 xx. 2 164 
 
 xxi. 9 190 
 
 xxiii. 7 188 
 
 15 9 8 
 
 2 3 1S3 
 
 xxiv - 2 7 35 
 
 xxvi. 45, 46 in 
 
 53 166 
 
 xxvii. 26 171 
 
 27.. 168 
 
 46 182 
 
 65 166 
 
 Mark. 
 
 *• XI 53 
 
 ii. 52 106 
 
 iv - J 5 99 
 
 v - 5 74 
 
 41 182 
 
 vi - 3 37 
 
 27 170 
 
 45 99 
 
 vii. 4 168 
 
 11 187 
 
 34 1 82 
 
 ix. 47 186 
 
 x. 51 189 
 
 xii. 3°"33 ll 9 
 
INDEX OF NEW TESTAMENT TEXTS. 
 
 217 
 
 Mark— Continued. 
 
 xiv. 7 
 
 36 
 
 4 1 
 
 xv. 8 
 
 34 
 
 39- 
 
 42... 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 - 74 
 
 . 184 
 
 . in 
 
 • 74 
 
 . 182 
 
 . 165 
 
 , 188 
 
 Luke. 
 
 i. 1-4 13° 
 
 15 l8 9 
 
 ii. 14 2 3> 49> 55 
 
 iii. 22 53 
 
 v. 39 34» 97 
 
 vi. 45 97 
 
 viii. 12 99 
 
 x. 17 113 
 
 18 94 
 
 xi. 3 5 8 
 
 43 Il 9 
 
 xii. 22-29 108 
 
 25 105, 107 
 
 xvi. 5 186 
 
 7i 9 l8 7 
 
 19 l8 3 
 
 xvii. 6 184 
 
 xviii. 6.. . . . 121 
 
 xix. 3 109 
 
 20 168 
 
 Luke — Continud. 
 
 xix. 38 57 
 
 xx. 46 119 
 
 xxii. 45, 46 in 
 
 47 IX 9 
 
 John. 
 
 i. 10 3 2 
 
 i5> 3° I2 4 
 
 ii. 15 I 7 I 
 
 iii. 35 I21 
 
 v. 2 186 
 
 20 .... 121 
 
 29 143 
 
 vi. 37 *45> *57 
 
 31 l8 7 
 
 ix. 21, 23 106 
 
 x. 27 155 
 
 xi. 3, 3 6 I21 
 
 11 34 
 
 39 6 7 
 
 xii. 3 167 
 
 25 I21 
 
 xiii. 4 166 
 
 xiv. 2 34 
 
 21 121 
 
 xv. 19 121 
 
 xvi. 27 121 
 
 xvii. 15 97 
 
 xix. 19 .17° 
 
 26 121 
 
2l8 
 
 INDEX OF NEW TESTAMENT TEXTS. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 John — Continued. 
 
 XX. 2 121 
 
 XXI. I5-I7 122 
 
 Acts. 
 
 i. 1, 2 130 
 
 3 I2 x 34 
 
 ii- 27 137 
 
 46 76 
 
 xii. 5 7 6 
 
 xiii. 9 180 
 
 25 , .. . 107 
 
 48 145 
 
 xvi. 12 166 
 
 xviii. 11 46 
 
 xix. 12 169 
 
 xx. 28 125 
 
 xxi. 38 169 
 
 40 \ 122 
 
 xxii. 2 81 
 
 xxiv. 15 143 
 
 16 76 
 
 xxvi. 9, 11 159 
 
 28 147 
 
 xxvii. 12 171 
 
 xxviii. 13 67 
 
 Romans. 
 
 iii. 24-26 152 
 
 viii. 15 184 
 
 2 9 155 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Romans — Continued. 
 
 ix. 3 29, 33, 160 
 
 29 189 
 
 xi. 2 155, 15S 
 
 xii. 9, 20, 21 ... . 86 
 
 1 Corinthians. 
 
 v. 7 188 
 
 *3 97 
 
 ix. 17 70 
 
 x - 5 53 
 
 25 l6 7 
 
 xi. 10 45 
 
 xiv. 34 29 
 
 xv. 9 160 
 
 35-38 35 
 
 xvi. 2 189 
 
 *5 54 
 
 22. 188 
 
 2 Corinthians. 
 
 i- 10 85 
 
 20 185 
 
 22 183 
 
 ix. 12 54 
 
 xi. 28 74 
 
 xii. 10 53 
 
 Galations. 
 
 i. 13 160, 187 
 
 ii. 14 186 
 
 iii. 16, 20 45 
 
 iv. 6 j 184 
 
INDEX OF NEW TESTAMENT TEXTS. 
 
 219 
 
 Ephesians. 
 
 111. 3 
 iv. 8, 
 
 15° 
 
 137 
 
 13 • 106 
 
 2 7 94 
 
 v. 6... 98 
 
 9 21 
 
 vi. 16 97 
 
 Philippians. 
 
 ii. 6-8 20 
 
 COLOSSIANS. 
 
 i- 13 85 
 
 1 Thessalonians. 
 
 »• 3 76 
 
 2 Thessalonians. 
 
 »"• 3 97 
 
 1 Timothy. 
 
 v - 5> 2 3 76 
 
 2 Timothy. 
 
 »• J 9 15 8 
 
 iv. 7 107 
 
 J 3 167, 171 
 
 18 85 
 
 Titus. 
 
 Philemon 14, 
 Hebrews. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 70 
 
 120 
 
 189 
 
 1 90 
 
 184 
 
 53 
 
 106 
 
 xii. 16. 120 
 
 1. 9, 
 iv. 9, 
 ix. 5 
 
 l 9 
 
 x. 38 
 
 xi. ii, 
 
 James. 
 
 i.--iv 199 
 
 i. 12 120 
 
 17 21 
 
 ii. 5, 8 120 
 
 l 5 75 
 
 iv - 7 97 
 
 H 35 
 
 1 Peter. 
 
 i. 8, 22 120 
 
 ii. 17 120 
 
 iii. 10 120 
 
 18-20 141 
 
 v. 2 125 
 
 2 Peter. 
 
 is. 15, 
 
 120 
 
 ii. 15 
 
 18, 
 
 120 
 l 5° 
 
220 
 
 INDEX OF NEW TESTAMENT TEXTS. 
 
 PAGE, 
 
 i John. 
 
 "• i3i 14 97 
 
 iii. 12 97, 98 
 
 v. 18 97 
 
 l 9 97> 9 8 
 
 20 98 
 
 Revelations. 
 
 i. 5 121 
 
 18 140 
 
 iii. 9, 19 I2i 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Revelations — Contd. 
 
 vi. 8 140 
 
 viii. 3 184 
 
 xii. 11 121 
 
 xviii. 13 168 
 
 xix. 1. 185 
 
 xx. 9 121 
 
 i3> H x 4° 
 
 xxi. 19 184 
 
 xxii. 15 120 
 
TmS BOOK IS D^OKT^AST DATS 
 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 -1 .. e r*x? 05 CENTS 
 AN INITIAL FINE OF * tq rCTURN 
 
 W1LL BE ASSESSED FOR ™ PENALTY 
 
 TH1 S BOOK ON THE DATE D ^ FOURTH 
 
 ^rr; O 0O0 N % SEVENTH DAV 
 OVERDUE. 
 
 FEB 22 1933 
 
 tf» 
 
 & v 1' 
 
 MAR 3 1944 
 
 ,. A ->\H' 
 
 IN STACKS 
 
 VI 2 2 
 
 1956' 
 
 REC'D LD 
 
 LD 21-50m-l,'33 
 

 
 ■RS. 
 
 •pa