UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA.
OIKT OK
Mrs. SARAH P. WALS WORTH.
Received October, 1894.
Accessions No. Ob V 7 ZL. Class No.
HERMENEUTICAL MANUAL:
OR,
Jntrokt&m is % fegcihal
OF THE
SCRIPTURES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
PATRICK FAIRBAIRN, D. D.,
//
PRINCIPAL AND PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE FREE CHURCH COLLEGE, GLASGOW;
AUTHOR OF "TYPOLOGY OF SCRIPTURE," ETC.
PHILADELPHIA:
SMITH, ENGLISH & CO., NO. 40 N. SIXTH ST.
NEW YORK: SHELDON, BLAKE MAN & CO.
BOSTON: GOULD & LINCOLN.
1859.
\VM. S. YOUNG, PR1NTKH.
PKEFACE.
THE alternative title prefixed to this volume has
been assumed, rather than the simple designation of
" Hermeneutics of the New Testament," chiefly for
the purpose of indicating, that a certain latitude may
be expected in it, both in regard to the range of sub
jects discussed, and in regard to the measure and
method of treatment respectively applied to them.
Works, indeed, could readily be named, bearing the
title of Hermeneutics, which have taken nearly as much
license in both respects, as I need to vindicate for my
self in connexion with the present publication. But
the term is strictly applicable only to such works as
unfold the principles of Interpretation, and give to
these a regular, consecutive, and scientific treatment.
Of this sort is the comparatively recent work of Cel-
lerier (Manuel <$ Hermeneutique, 1852,) which, how
ever objectionable in respect to the principles it occa
sionally enunciates, is one of the most systematic and
complete in form, treating, after a pretty long intro
duction, successively of the Psychological elements and
aspects of the subject the Grammatical, the Histo
rical, the Scriptuary (or more peculiarly Biblical,) the
Doctrinal. In this province, however, it is possible to
sacrifice to completeness or perfection of form greatly
more than there is any reasonable prospect of gaining
IV PREFACE.
by it. Higher ends have here to be aimed at than
can always be reached by a rigid adherence to scien
tific method, or a close regard to artistic proportions.
For, in a field so various as that of New Testament
Scripture, so complicated, touching on so many rela
tions, and embracing topics so diverse alike in nature
and in importance, it often depends, not more, perhaps
even less, upon the hermeneutical principles adopted,
than upon the mode of applying these principles to
particular cases, and passages of more peculiar diffi
culty, that solid footing is to be obtained, and satis
factory results accomplished. Accordingly, in those
hermeneutical works, which take the more precise and
scientific form, there is always what appears to me
much needless waste in one direction, and ill-judged
parsimony in another. Not a little space is occupied
in announcing, or illustrating principles, which every
one knows and admits, and which often have no special
bearing on the interpretation of Scripture ; while many
of the points more peculiarly calling for elucidation
are summarily disposed of, and left much as they were
found. Even when the simpler elements of the sub
ject are correctly enough stated, little often in con
nexion with them is properly wrought out ; and unless
the student of Scripture is content to take all on the
authority of his Master, he will often feel as much at
a loss as ever in respect to the things for which he
more especially seeks the help of a qualified instructor.
A work that is really fitted in the present day to
serve the purpose of a proper guide-book, must un
doubtedly so far possess a scientific character, that it
shall exhibit an acquaintance with the several branches
of learning and knowledge, which illustrate the lan
guage and structure, the incidental allusions, and the
PREFACE. V
main theme of the sacred, books, and apply what it
may thence appropriate in an orderly and judicious
manner. If deficient in this, it fails in the fundamen
tals of the subject. But it should be allowed to move
with some freedom in the selection of its topics, and
in the relative care and consideration that it expends
upon some of them, as compared w r ith others. It can
not otherwise occupy, in a serviceable manner, the
intermediate ground, that properly belongs to it, be
tween Lexicons, Grammars, Books of Antiquities, etc.,
on the one hand, and formal commentaries on the
other turning, as it should do, to such account the
materials furnished by the former class of productions,
as may aid and qualify the student for an independent
and discriminating use of the latter. This is the pecu
liar province and object of a Hermeneutical work ori
Scripture, and that will always come practically the
nearest to the mark, which is the best fitted to place
the student of Scripture in the position now indicated.
In works composed with such an aim, there must
ever be room for some diversity of judgment as to the
subjects that should be brought into notice, and the
degree of consideration respectively given to them.
Different persons will naturally form their opinions
from somewhat different points of view; and what will
appear to some the fittest arrangement to be adopted,
arid the points most in need of investigation, may not
always be regarded in exactly the same light by others.
In this respect I have simply to say, that I have en
deavoured to exercise an impartial judgment, influ
enced, no doubt, to some extent, by what my own
experience, coupled with the general tendencies of the
age, may have suggested to me as of importance.
Throughout the volume prominence has been given
1*
Vlil PREFACE.
to be virtually the same with a conditional ground
for the other. The subject of discourse with me, how
ever, was prophecy, simply as it appears in the writ
ten Word, as an objective communication to men. In
handling this, I, no doubt, occasionally spoke of the
Divine purposes ; but of these, as is evident from the
whole tenor and connexion of the discourse, not as
formed in the mind of God, and determining- with in
finite and unerring wisdom the entire system of the
Divine administration. I purposely abstained from
entering upon this higher region, and confined my
attention to the intimations of the Divine will as dis
closed in the prophetic word to these as coming into
contact with men s obligations and responsibilities
and therefore, in a greater or less degree (for they dif
fer widely in the extent to which they admit it,)
tinged with that anthropomorphic colouring, which
is required to adapt the communications of Heaven to
the thoughts and feelings, the ever varying states and
conditions of men. The subject, as presented by me,
might be assigned to that species of accommodation
treated of in Part I. sect. 5 of this volume, according
to which, while the form given to spiritual things
bears the variable type of what is human, there are
not the less realities lying behind, fixed and immuta
ble. And in the very brief and general allusion, which
was made to the Calvinistic writers of a former age,
nothing more was designed than to intimate, in the
shortest manner possible it was implied, indeed,
rather than intimated that the distinction (however
expressed) between the secret and the revealed, or
between the absolute decrees and the conditional an
nouncements of God, did not, to my view, satisfactorily
explicate the matter at issue. I thought so then, and
PREFACE. IX
I think so still, notwithstanding the advantage I have
derived from the instructions of so learned a reviewer.
To divide, as he and his authorities do, between pro
phecy, considered as equivalent to Divine decrees, and
prophecy, as involving matter of commination or pro
mise the former absolute, the latter conditional
does not satisfy my "exegetical conscience/ and I am
afraid never can. It seems to me to introduce an arti
ficial distinction into the prophetic word, which is not
indicated in that word itself, nor admits of being pro
perly drawn; and has the appearance, at least, of at
tempting, by the mere adoption of a particular phrase
ology, or by arbitrarily singling out portions of the
same prophetic message, to tide over difficulties in in
terpretation, which attach to the subject as a concrete
whole, as an objective communication addressed to the
fears or the hopes of mankind.
But this is not the place for minute or lengthened
explanations on the subject. I wished merely, in a
few sentences, to deliver my protest against a style of
criticism which I hold to be essentially unfair, and
which, if similarly applied to the sacred writers, might
readily be made to turn one half of them against an
other. It is not likely that I shall refer to any thing
of the same sort in future. No one, who reads with a
candid and unbiassed spirit what is written in this, or in
previous productions of my pen, can have any doubt
that the great principles of the Reformed churches are
therein maintained and vindicated.
The Third Part of the volume, which is devoted to
the quotations from the Old Testament in the New,
occupies a larger space than I could have wished.
But it relates to a branch of the subject which, in the
present day, is of special importance; and I did not
X PREFACE.
see how my main object could be served without taking
it up in detail, and examining somewhat carefully the
parts which are more peculiarly attended with diffi
culty. For those who would study the subject in its
relation to Typology, and would trace the gradual
evolution of the meaning of Old Testament Scripture,
through the application of particular passages to the
realities of the Gospel, I take leave to refer to .the
first volume of my Typology, and especially to the
Appendix in that volume on this particular subject.
P. F.
GLASGOW, May, 1858.
ERRATA.
In Page 19, line 3G, for ty, read 1%.
" 35, lines 10 and 11, for ti$ and EIJ, read
" 35, for tVa, read L va>.
42, line 29, for at^ua, read cu ( ua.
" 43, line 2, for "W3, read
" 45, line 23, for W3>, read
" 45, line 26, for Drn , read
" 59, line 24, for a* cov, read di
" 222, line 31, for (v. 36,) read (iii. 36.)
326, line 19, for <xS?>, read a
" 407, line 22, for o, read St.
" 411, line 2, for drtofftMw, read a
" 416, line 22, for ar wj, read avrotj.
" 40, line 11, for aStv, read a8r t v.
11 421, line 11, for "U, read !&.
431, line 33, for foii^, read 1*01;
; y jBtfv^i * J
^%f|^F
CONTENTS.
PART FIRST.
DISCUSSION OF FACTS AND PRINCIPLES BEARING ON THE LANGUAGE
AND INTERPRETATION OF NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE.
Page.
SECTION FIRST. The Original Language of the New Testament, 13
SECTION SECOND. The Characteristics of New Testament Greek,. 25
Deviation from classic purity, p. 25-31 ; its basis in the later com
mon dialect, p. 31-37; its Hebraistic impress, p. 37-45; mis
takes made respecting this, p. 45-54; impress derived from
new relations and ideas, p. 54-61.
SECTION THIRD. Collateral Sources for determining the Sense, and
explaining the Peculiarities of New Testament Scripture, 61
Writings of Philo and Josephus, p. 62-66; Jewish Rabbinical
writings, p. 66-70; ancient versions, p. 70-74; early Fathers,
p. 74-78; Books of Antiquities, etc., p. 78, 79.
SECTION FOURTH. General Rules and Principles to be followed in the
Interpretation of Particular Words and Passages, 79
SECTION FIFTH. Of False and True Accommodation ; or the Influence
that should be allowed to Prevailing Modes of Thought in fa
shioning the views and utterances of the Sacred Writers, 106
SECTION SIXTH. The Respect due in the Interpretation of the New
Testament to the Analogy of the Faith, or from one part of
Scripture to another; and the further respect to be had to the
Religions of the Ancient World, the True and the False, 121
SECTION SEVENTH. The Relation of the Old to the New in God s Dis
pensations more exactly denned, with the view of preventing
mistaken or partial Interpretations of such portions of New
Testament Scripture as bear on it, ,. 139
SECTION EIGHTH. On the proper interpretation of the Tropical parts
of the New Testament, 157
SECTION NINTH. The Parables of Christ, their proper Interpretation
and Treatment, 173
SECTION TENTH. On the Subject of Parallelism as bearing on the
Structure and Interpretation of New Testament Scripture, 189
Xll CONTENTS.
PART SECOND.
DISSERTATIONS ON PARTICULAR SUBJECTS CONNECTED WITH THE
EXEGESIS OF NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE.
Page.
SECTION FIRST. The Two Genealogies of Christ, given respectively
by the Evangelists Matthew and Luke, .............................. 205
SECTION SECOND. The designations and doctrine of Angels, with re
ference more especially to the Interpretation of passages in
New Testament Scripture, .............................................. 225
SECTION THIRD. On the Names of Christ in New Testament Scripture,
and, in particular, on the use of Xptoroj and TLOJ tov dvflpwrtov, 257
SECTION FOURTH. On the Import and Use of certain terms, which
express an antagonistic relation to Christ s Person and Autho
rity, ^vSo8i8daxahot , ^cvSorfpcxJ^T ac., 4 vSo#pKjT oj, dj"ri^piOT oj r ... 275
SECTION FIFTH. On |3a7tftw and its cognates, with special reference
to the mode of administering Baptism, .............................. 294
SECTION SIXTH. Import and Use of Hades, #Sjjs, in Scripture, ......... 315
SECTION SEVENTH. On the Import and Use of Siafl^jj in the New Tes
tament, ........ . ............................................................. 338
SECTION EIGHTH. On the Import of certain terms employed in New
Testament Scripture to indicate the nature and extent of the re
novation to be accomplished through the Gospel, juttcM/ota, rta-
352
SECTION NINTH. On the use of Paraskeuc and Pasclia in St. John s
account of our Lord s last sufferings; and the question there
with connected, whether our Lord kept His last Passover on the
same day as the Jews, .................................................. 368
PART THIRD.
THE USE MADE OF OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE IN THE WRITINGS
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
Page.
SECTION FIRST. Quotations from the Old Testament in the New, con
sidered in respect to the manner of citation, 393
SECTION SECOND. Quotations from the Old Testament in the New, con
sidered in respect to the mode of application, 456
APPENDIX. The historical circumstances that led to Christ s birth at
Bethlehem Cyrenius and the taxing, 504
PART FIRST.
DISCUSSION OF FACTS AND PRINCIPLES BEARING ON THE LAN
GUAGE AND INTERPRETATION OF NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE.
SECTION FIRST.
THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
IN the more exact and scientific study of the Sacred Scrip
tures, the first object, in the order of nature, that calls for
examination, has respect to the state of the original records.
The possession of a pure text is an indispensable preliminary
to a thoroughly correct and trustworthy exposition. And, as
well from its importance as from the peculiar character of the
investigations belonging to it, this is now fitly assigned to a
distinct branch of Biblical study. Next to it in order, and
certainly not inferior in importance, is a correct and discri
minating acquaintance with the original language of Scripture,
and the principles that should guide our inquiries into its
meaning and purport. All theology that is really sound, and
that will stand the test of time, must have its foundation here.
The reformers, to their credit, clearly perceived this, and were
hence led to doctrinal results, which, in the main, never have
been, and never can be displaced. They proceeded on the
sound maxim of Melancthon, that Scripture cannot be under
stood theologically, unless it has been already understood gram
matically, (Scriptura non potest intelligi theologice, nisi an-
tea sit intellecta grammatice.) In such statements, of course,
the term grammatical must be taken in its wider sense, as
comprehending all that is necessary to a just discernment of
2
14 THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE
the import and spirit of the original. And if such a critical
acquaintance with the mere language of sacred Scripture be
but one element of success, it still is an element of very pe
culiar moment to the -well-furnished theologian ; since it has
respect to the ultimate source of all that is sound and valua
ble in theological attainment.
As regards the Scriptures of the New Testament, with
which alone we have properly to do at present, it is only the
Greek language that comes directly into notice; since the
whole of the writings that compose the New Testament are
found, as to their orfginal form, in no other language than
that of the Greek. If any of them ever existed in a prior
original, it no longer does so. Nor, with the exception of St.
Matthew s Gospel, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, has it ever
been imagined, but by a few dreaming and speculative minds,
that the books of the New Testament appeared originally in
any other language. The Epistle to the Hebrews is now also
held by all men of competent learning to have been originally
composed in Greek. And there only remains the gospel of
St. Matthew about which there may stili be some room for
difference of opinion though, even in regard to it, the con
viction has of late been growing in favour of the proper origi
nality of its present form, which was certainly in current use
before the close of the apostolic age.
Whence, then, did this predilection for the Greek arise?
Were our Lord s discourses, and the writings of the Evange
lists, as well as of the apostles, transmitted to us in Greek,
because that was the current language of the place and time?
Was this really the language in which our Lord and his apostles
usually spoke? So, some have been disposed to maintain ; and
though it is a question rather of antiquarian interest, than of
any vital moment for the interpretation of Scripture, it is en
titled to some consideration at our hands. It has also a certain
bearing on the dispute respecting the original language of St.
Matthew s Gospel. Indeed, it was chiefly in connexion with
this more special question, that the other pressed itself on the
attention of Biblical students. Thus Hug, in his introduction
to the New Testament, went at considerable length into the
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 15
investigation of the subject, for the purpose of vindicating the
proper originality of the Greek gospel of Matthew; and en
deavoured to prove, that the Greek language was in current
use throughout Palestine at the commencement of the Chris
tian era so much so, that the people generally understood
it, that our Lord himself often employed it, nor had His evan
gelists and apostles any proper reason for resorting to another
in those writings, which were intended for circulation in Pa
lestine and the neighbouring regions. But the fullest and,
we believe, also the ablest defence of this view, is to be found
in the treatise of an Italian Ecclesiastic, Dominici Diodati,
entitled De Christo Graece loquente exercitatio, originally
published at Naples in 1767, and re-published in this country
not many years since. In this treatise the subject is discussed,
partly on general grounds, as on its own account interesting
and important to the Biblical student, and partly also with
reference to its bearing on the question of the original lan
guage of Matthew s Gospel. The position which the author
labours to establish, is, that "neither Hebrew, Syriac, nor
Latin, was the vernacular language of the Saviour, but Greek."
It will be readily understood, on the other side, that those who
held the contrary opinion respecting Matthew s Gospel viz.,
that it was originally written in Hebrew for the use of the
Jewish believers in Syria were naturally led to controvert
the position, that Greek was generally spoken and understood
in Palestine : they held, that not Greek, but Aramaic, a sort
of broken Hebrew, was the only language in general use, and
that also commonly employed by our Lord and his apostles in
their public discourses.
Now, on a question of this kind, it is not difficult for an
ingenious theorist, or an eager disputant, to sort and apply
some scattered notices of ancient writers, either directly or
indirectly bearing on the subject, in such a way as to give
them a plausible appearance, and compel them to pay tribute
to the side of the controversy he has espoused. But there
are certain great principles applicable to the case which, with
all sober and impartial minds, must go far to settle it, and
which cannot be overthrown, or materially modified by any
16 THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF
occasional statements or fragmentary notices culled out of
ancient records. It is found, not in the history of one people,
but in the history of nations generally, that there is nothing
which is more tenacious of its grasp, and which more slowly
yields to the force of foreign influences, than the vernacular
language of a people. " Language is after all the most du
rable of human monuments. Conquerors may overthrow em
pires and states; earthquakes may swallow up cities; time
may confound all things besides: but the winged words, in
which man gives utterance to his feelings and thoughts, often
outlast all these ravages, and preserve the memory of nations
long after they have ceased to exist. That which seems the
most fragile, the most variable, the most evanescent of human
attributes or possessions, becomes in reality the most perma
nent, the most indestructible. If no longer able to support
an independent existence, it clings to and coalesces with some
more recent and robust dialect: if lost in one form, it is al
most certain to re-appear in another exhibiting amidst all
changes and disfigurations incontestable traces of its origin.
This law of decay and reproduction, of fluctuation yet perma
nence, is so general, that it is principally from analytical in
quiries into the origin, composition, and affinities of language,
that we derive what knowledge we possess of the early history
and fortunes of nations." 1
In confirmation of this, it is only necessary to point to a
few well-known examples. One of the most striking is fur
nished by the ancient country of the Pharaohs, after the time
that their dynasty came to an end, and a succession of con
quests, followed by the ascendency of a foreign power, swept
over the land. Persian, Macedonian, Roman, and Arabian
conquerors in turn held possession of the throne of Egypt,
each endeavouring to establish as firmly as possible their do
minion over the vanquished, and to render their sway enduring
and complete. Yet after this subduing and fusing process
had been proceeding for twelve or fourteen centuries, we have
the best grounds for believing that the language of the Pha
raohs still survived, and continued, though not, we may well
1 Encyclopedia Britannica, 7th ed., Art. Hieroglyphics, c. 2d.
THE NEW TESTAMENT. 17
conceive, without the introduction of many foreign admixtures,
to form the staple of the vernacular tongue of the people.
What is called the Coptic language is but a correct form of
the old Egyptic, (as the name also, perhaps, is. 1 ) Into this
language the Scriptures were translated in the earlier ages of
Christianity; a liturgy in common use probably about the
fifth or sixth century, is still employed by the few remaining
Copts of the present day though the Coptic tongue in which
it is written is no longer understood by them. They adhere
to it merely as a venerable relic of the better past of their
history ; of which it forms an abiding, though a mournful and
mummy-like witness. But its introduction into the churches
of Egypt a few centuries after the Christian era testifies to
the fact, that the substance of the ancient language had with
stood the influences of foreign conquest and dominion for more
than a thousand years.
We may, however, take an example nearer home. The
Norman conquest took place in the year 1066; and it is well
known to have been the policy of the first Norman kings a
policy, too, that was continued with steady aim by their suc
cessors to get rid of the old Saxon entirely, and have it sup
planted by their own Norman French. In this French the
statutes of the realm were written ; so also were commentaries
upon the laws, and the decisions of the courts of justice. In
many places it was at length introduced into the common
schools; so that an old chronicler (Ralph Higden) complains
of it as a thing " against the usage and manner of all other
nations," that " children in schools are compelled for to leave
their own language, and to construe their lessons and their
things in French." A change in this respect only began to
be introduced about the year 1885 more than three centu
ries after the conquest when the English again resumed its
place in the schools ; and though it was English materially
altered, betraying in many respects the influence of Norman
domination, yet it still retained its old Saxon root and trunk.
The power and policy of the conquerors, though in active ope
ration for more than three centuries, could prevail no further
? Gyptos, Coptos, Coptic.
18 THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF
than to superinduce some partial changes upon the mother
tongue of the people, and introduce some additional terms;
and that, too, while this tongue itself was in a comparatively
crude state, and very far from having reached its matured
form.
Other examples might be referred to such as the Welsh,
the Gaelic, and the Irish-speaking portions of the British Isles,
from which still more powerful and long-continued influences
have not freen sufficient to dislodge the ancient dialects from
their place, as the customary vehicles of intercourse among
the people. But it is needless to enlarge. The cases adduced
are by no means singular; they are but specimens of a multi
tude exemplifications of principles and habits that are inhe
rent in human nature, operating equally among all races and
in all climes. And is it, then, to be conceived, with such facts
presenting themselves in the linguistic history of tribes and
nations, that the effect of a foreign rule in Palestine a rule
that had not for more than two or three centuries possessed
the form of a stringent and pervasive domination the rule,
too, of masters, who themselves spoke different languages,
first Persian, then Greek, then lioman, and who never were
so closely identified with the subjects of their sway as in the
cases already noticed is it yet to be conceived, that the ef
fect here was to be such, as to bring about an entire revolu
tion in the vernacular language of the people? The suppo
sition is in the highest degree improbable we may even say,
morally impossible; the rather so, as the Jews had reasons
connected with their religion, their history, and their pros
pects, for cleaving to their language, which no other people,
either in ancient or in modern times, equally possessed.
Every thing in the past and the future contributed to throw
an air of sacredness and grandeur around the Hebrew lan
guage, which must have doubly endeared it to their minds,
and, on the part of their conquerors, have greatly aggravated
the difficulty of supplanting it by another altogether different.
It is, therefore, against all analogy, .and in opposition to
the strongest tendencies of human nature, to suppose that in
such circumstances the Greek tongue should, in the age of
THE NEW TESTAMENT. 10
our Lord and His apostles, have come into general use in Pa
lestine, and to any considerable extent taken the place of
Aramaic. "With far more probability might it be maintained
that Norman and not Anglo-Saxon was the language of com
mon life among the English in the thirteenth and fourteenth
centuries, or that in the present day English is understood
and spoken by the mass of the population in the Principality
of Wales, or in the Highlands of Scotland. It is true, how
ever, that the ancient language of Palestine had undergone a
certain change; it had in some degree suffered by the misfor
tunes of the people, and had lost its original purity. The
long sojourn in Chaldea, in the first instance, then the in
tercourse kept up with the neighbouring Syrian tribes through
commerce, war, and marriage relationships, naturally brought
into it foreign elements, and imparted to it a Syro-Chaldaic
form. Of this we have undoubted indications, both in the
later books of the Old Testament, and in occasional notices
and expressions that occur in the New. But these successive
changes only affected the accidents of the language ; they in
troduced new dialects, antiquated particular words and phrases,
and obtained currency for others in their stead; but as in
all similar cases they left the bones and sinews of the lan
guage, its structure and essence, substantially what they were.
The historical proofs of this are perfectly sufficient. Jose-
phus, for example, constantly distinguishes between his native
tongue and the Greek. While he speaks of having applied
diligently to domestic and foreign literature, so as even to be
acknowledged by all his countrymen as a person of superior
learning, he yet confesses himself to have been so long accus
tomed to his own tongue (xdrpcoz auvfjdeta) that he could not
attain to an accurate pronunciation of the Greek, (Antiq. xx.
11, 2.) In the introduction, as well to the Antiquities as to
the Wars, he speaks of writing in the Greek language and in
his native tongue, as two distinct things, and says, that what
he originally wrote in the one he afterwards translated into
the other, ( E/j.o.ot ~()M Gay /j-ZTufictAaju, & ro?c fiapfidpotz ?"fi ~u-
roUu (Twrdzaz, Bell. Jud. Pro. 1, Antiq. Pro. 2.) And once
and again he represents the communications sent from Titus
20 THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OP
during the siege of Jerusalem as being interpreted by himself
to the Jews, or by some other person who Hebraised (j8a^av,)
as he terms it, or spake to them in their own tongue (narpiaj
fhoocrfl, Bell., v. 9, 2, vi. 2, 11.) At the same time he shows,
by occasional allusions to Syriac or Babylonian terms, that
the Hebrew current in his day was not altogether identical
with that of earlier times as when, speaking of the high
priest s upper robe or girdle, he tells us the old designation
for it had been dropt (GJ3K, abaneth,) and it was now called by
the Babylonian name Emia, (Antiq. iii..T, 2,) a proof that
the foreign influence had reached even to the terms for sacred
things, and if to these, then assuredly to many others.
When we turn to the New Testament, the evidence is not
less clear on both points both, that the language in common
use in Palestine was of the Hebrew, not of the Greek cha
racter, yet Hebrew of the Aramaic, not of the older and purer
Hebrew stamp. Thus, when our Lord appears in the attitude
of addressing any one very familiarly, of giving or adopting
designations for common use, He is represented as speaking
in Aramaic: as when He said to the daughter of Jairus, Ta-
litha cumi, ^p*p wvSp, Mark v. 41,) and to the blind man,
Ephphatha, (nnanN, Mark vii. 34;) or when He referred to
the terms currently employed among the people-, such as raka,
rabbi, corban; when he applied to His disciples such epithets
as Cephas, Bar-jona, Boanerges, ( &.*? "2? ;) or when on the
cross He exclaimed, Eli, Eli, lama Sabacthani. Similar in
dications are also to be found in the Acts of the Apostles
in the name, for example, reported to have been given by the
Jews to the field purchased by the reward of Judas treachery,
Aceldama, (properly <A*AJ*jw*> ^?^p3, i. 19;) or of tabitha
as the familiar term, the native word for the Greek opxet$,
(ix. 36;) or, finally, in the fact of St. Paul addressing the
Jewish multitude on the occasion of his being apprehended in
the temple, in the Hebrew tongue, and their giving, on that
account, the more attentive heed to him, as addressing them
through a medium which was at once intelligible and congenial
to their minds, (ch. xxii. 1.) The composition also of Targums
among the Eastern Jews, some time about the apostolic age,
THE NEW TESTAMENT. 21
(certainly little if at all later,) can only be explained on the
supposition that the Aramaic language in which they were
written, was that currently employed at the time by the Jews
in Palestine and the adjoining regions. Nor is there any clear
or even probable evidence of the Greek translation of the Old
Testament Scriptures ever having been used in the synagogues
of Palestine and Syria. The eiforts that have been made to
establish this point, have utterly failed ; indeed, it can scarcely
be said, that so much as one of the proofs advanced by Dio-
dati in support of it, has any proper bearing on the subject. 1
On all these grounds it appears to us a matter of historical
certainty, that the Aramaic, or later Syro-Chaldaic form of
the Hebrew, was in the age of our Lord the vernacular lan
guage of the Jewish people, and consequently the medium of
intercourse on all ordinary occasions. At the same time, it
cannot be reasonably doubted, on the other side, that from a
long and varied concatenation of circumstances, the Greek
language must have been very commonly understood by the
higher and more educated classes throughout Syria. It was
the policy both of Alexander and of his successors in that
part of the world, to extend the language and culture, as well
as ascendency of Greece. With this view cities were planted
af convenient distances, which might be considered Grecian
rather than Asiatic in their population and manners. The
Syrian kings, by whom the Macedonian line of rulers was
continued, kept up Greek as the court language, and were
doubtless followed by their official representatives, and the
influential classes generally throughout the country. The
army, too, though not entirely, nor perhaps even in the major
part, yet certainly in very considerable proportions, was com
posed of persons of Grecian origin, who could not fail to make
the Greek language in some sense familiar at the various mili
tary stations in the regions of Syria. Even after the Mace
donian rule had terminated, and all became subject to the
sway of the Romans, it was still usually through the medium
1 The arguments by Diodati are well met by Dr. Pfannkuche, in vol. II.,
of Bib. Cabinet. A fair summary of the arguments on both sides is given by
Dr, Davidson, in his Introduction to the New Testament, I. pp. 38 40.
22 THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF
of the Greek tongue that official intercourse was maintained,
and the decrees of government were made known. It is in
the very nature of things impossible that so many Hellenizing
influences should have continued in operation for two or three
centuries, without leading somewhat generally to a partial
knowledge of Greek among the better classes in all parts of
Syria. There were also circumstances more strictly peculiar
to the Jewish people, which require to be taken into account,
and which could not be without their effect in bringing them
to some extent acquainted with the Greek language. Partly
from special encouragements held out to them at the founding
of Alexandria, a Grecian city, and partly, perhaps, from the
mercantile spirit which began to take possession of them
from the time of the Babylonish exile, Alexandria became
one of their great centres, where, as we are told by Philo,
they formed about two-fifths of the entire population. They
abounded also, as is clear alone from the Acts of the Apostles,
in the Greek-speaking cities of Asia Minor, and in those of
Greece itself. From whatever causes, the dispersion seems,
for some generations previous to the Christian era, to have
taken very much a western, and specially a Grecian di
rection; in every place of importance inhabited by Greeks,
members of the stock of Israel had their homes and syna
gogues. It is only, too, what might have been expected in
the circumstances, that the culture and enterprise which dis
tinguished the communities in those Grecian cities, would act
with stimulating effect upon the Jewish mind, and bring its
powers into more energetic play and freedom of action, than
was likely to be found among the Palestinian Jews, who were
sealed up in their national bigotry and stagnant Pharisaism.
Hence, the only moral and religious productions which are
known to have appeared among the Jews between the closing
of the Old Testament canon and the birth of Christ those
contained in the Apocryphal writings came chiefly if not
entirely from the pen of the Hellenistic Jews, and exist only
most probably never did exist but in the Greek language.
Hence also the Greek translation of the Old Testament, which
was completed several generations before the Christian era,
THE NEW TESTAMENT. 23
and which, there is good reason to believe, was in extensive
use about that era among the Jewish people. So that, look
ing to the numbers, the higher intelligence, and varied resources
of the Hellenistic Jews, and taking into account their frequent
personal visits to Palestine at the ever-recurring festivals, we
cannot doubt that they materially contributed to a partial
knowledge and use of the Greek tongue among their brethren
in Palestine.
As regards the question, then, whether our Lord and his
immediate disciples ever spoke in Greek to their countrymen
in Judea, it may be admitted as perfectly possible, perhaps
even probable, that they sometimes did so but the reverse of
probable, that such should haye been their usual practice, or
that their public addresses should have been originally de
livered in that tongue; the more so, as their intercourse for
the most part lay, not with the more refined and educated,
but with the humbler classes of society. But in respect to
the further question, why in such a case the books of the New
Testament, including those which contain our Lord s personal
discourses, should, with at most one exception if the Gospel
of St. Matthew be indeed an exception have been originally
composed in the Greek, rather than the Aramaic language?
the answer is obvious that at the time those books were
written, and for the individuals and communities whose spiri
tual good they more immediately contemplated, the Greek
language was on every account the fittest medium. It was
comparatively but a small portion of the people resident in
Jerusalem and Judea, who embraced the Christian faith; and
those who did, having in the first instance enjoyed many op
portunities of becoming personally acquainted with the facts
of gospel history, and enjoying afterwards the ministry of
apostles and evangelists, who were perfectly cognisant of the
whole, were in a jnanner independent of any written records.
Besides, the troubles which shortly after befel their native
land, and which were distinctly foreseen by the founders of
the Christian faith, destined, as they were, to scatter the
power of the Jewish nation, and to render its land and people
monuments of judgment, presented an anticipative reason
21 THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
against committing the sacred and permanent records of the
Christian faith to the Hebrew language. That language, it
self already corrupted and broken, was presently to become
to all but the merest fragment of the Jews themselves, anti
quated and obsolete. The real centres of Christianity the
places where it took firmest root, and from which it sent forth
its regenerating power among the nations from the time that
authoritative records of its facts and expositions of its doc
trines became necessary were to be found in Greek-speaking
communities the communities scattered throughout the cities
of Asia Minor, of Greece, at Rome and the West where also
the first converts to the faith consisted chiefly of those whose
native tongue was Greek. Whether, therefore, respect were
had to the immediate wants of the first Christian communities,
or to the quarters in which the gospel was to find its most ac
tive agents and representatives, and the direction it was ap
pointed to take in the world, the Greek was obviously the lan
guage in which its original and authoritative documents be
hooved to be written. Whatever reasons there were for the
adherents of Judaism getting the Scriptures of the Old Tes
tament rendered into Greek; whatever reasons also Josephus
could have for translating into Greek his Jewish histories, and
the authors of the Apocryphal writings for adopting that lan
guage in preference to Aramaic, the same reasons existed,
and in far greater force, for the inspired writings, which were
to form in earlier and later times the fundamental records of
the Christian faith, being composed in the Greek language,
and in that language committed to the faithful keeping of
the church. Had they not been originally composed in Greek,
the course of Providence would presently have required that
they should be translated into Greek ; and considering how
much depended on the correct knowledge of them, and how
many sources we have for illustrating Greek, as compared
with Aramaic productions, it was unspeakably better that,
from the first, they should have appeared in a Greek form.
THE CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 25
SECTION SECOND.
THE CHARACTERISTICS OP NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
I. Being satisfied that the books of the New Testament
were written in Greek, our next inquiry naturally turns on
the precise character of this Greek. Is it fashioned after the
model of classical Greek, or has it laws and properties of its
own? If the latter, wherein consist its distinctive peculiari
ties? This is evidently a subject of no small moment for the
correct interpretation of the New Testament writings, and de
mands a careful examination. In the present day, it can
scarcely be said, that there is any material difference of opi
nion upon the subject. This common agreement, however,
is the result partly of a long controversy, and partly of the
more exact and impartial treatment of Scripture, which is the
general characteristic of present, as compared with earlier,
times. Indeed, the question, in so far as it has been agitated,
has usually turned, not so much upon the fact of a difference
between New Testament and classical Greek, (which no com
petent scholar could fail to perceive,) as upon the extent of
the difference, and the precise light in which it was to be re
garded. So early as the period of the Reformation, we find
distinct notice taken of the difference. Erasmus, for exam
ple, says on Acts x. 38, " The apostles had not learned their
Greek from the speeches of Demosthenes, but from the lan
guage of common discourse ; and I should think it best suited
to the gospel of Christ, that it was communicated in a simple
and unpolished style, and that the discourse of the apostles
resembled their clothing, their manners, and their whole life.
Pious persons should as little take offence at the language of
the apostles, as at their unwashed bodies, and their plebeian
garments." Beza, in a long note on the same chapter, only
so far controverts the sentiments of Erasmus, as the latter had
affirmed the language of the apostles to be relatively imper
fect and obscure, as well as unpolished; but he admits the
3
26 THE CHARACTERISTICS OF
existence of Hebraistic peculiarities, and of occasional sole
cisms. Practically, however, the theological writers of that
period treated the language of the New Testament much as
they would have done any other production in Greek, and as
if it had no very marked peculiarities of its own. The doc
trinal discussions, too, in which they, and their immediate
successors in sacred learning, were so much engaged, tended
not a little to impede the exact philological study of the Greek
Scriptures, and their relation in point of dialect to other Greek
writings, from a too prominent regard to polemical discussions.
Often, indeed, Greek studies were prosecuted for the pur
pose mainly of impugning or defending out of Scripture a par
ticular class of doctrines; and, as a natural consequence, the
New Testament came to be regarded as an ordinary specimen
of Greek, and to be commonly used as a class-book for the
acquirement of the language. Nor, by and by, were there
wanting persons to contend for the absolute purity of its style
including among others the well-known printer, Robert Ste
phens persons who sought to prove, that the seeming pecu
liarities of the New Testament dialect were also to be met
with in the contemporaneous and earlier writings of Greece.
It was the more common opinion, however, among learned
men during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, that
there are certain terms and modes of expression frequently
employed in the New Testament, and derived from the Hebrew,
which characteristically distinguish it from the writings belong
ing to Greece proper; but yet that the introduction of these
to use the language of Pfeiffer, who speaks the general sen
timent of his age 1 " is to be sought, not in any degeneracy
of the Greek language into a distinct Hellenistic dialect, but
in an assimilation of the style of the New Testament to that
of the Old, through an especial direction of the Holy Spirit.
Such Hebraisms are not to be reckoned as solecisms, or barba
risms, but modes of speech, which are peculiar to the Holy
Spirit. If the style of the New Testament (he adds) may be
designated by any name, it should rather be called after the
authors, the sacred Greek style, than either Hellenistic, or
1 Klausen s Hermeneutik, p. 260.
NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 27
half Hebraistic, or Hebrew Greek, or Hebraizing, to say no
thing of disfigured Greek."
We have here, no doubt, in substance, the right view of the
matter though with an error in the formal representation of
it, the offspring of a not unnatural, though mistaken dread,
lest, in conceding the strict purity of New Testament Greek,
a kind of slight should be thrown upon the medium of the
Spirit s communication. The strongest representative of this
feeling, perhaps, may be found in Black wall, who, in his Sa
cred Classics, both denied that many of the alleged peculiari
ties of New Testament Greek are Hebraistic or Oriental
idioms, and claimed for such, as he admitted to be of this de
scription, the character of true and proper ornaments. " He
did not consider," as justly remarked by Dr. Campbell, in the
first preliminary dissertation to the gospels, " that when he
admitted any Hebraisms in the New Testament, he in effect
gave up the cause. That only can be called a Hebraism in a
Greek book, which though agreeable to the Hebrew idiom, is
not so to the Greek. Nobody would ever call that a Scotti
cism, which is equally in the manner of both Scotch and Eng
lish. Now, such foreign idioms as Hebraisms in Greek, Gre-
cisms in Hebrew, or Latinisms in either, come all within the
definition of barbarism, and sometimes even of solecism
words which have always something relative in their significa
tion ; that term of expression being a barbarism or a solecism
in one language, which is strictly proper in another, and, I
may add, to one set of hearers, which is not so to another.
It is in vain, then, for any one to debate about the applica
tion of the names barbarism and solecism. To do so, is at
best but to wrangle about words, after admitting all that is
meant by them."
So obvious is this view of the matter, and so readily does
it commend itself to one s practical judgment, that it seems
strange there should ever have been any unwillingness to ad
mit it. The unwillingness, as we have mentioned, simply arose
from a mistaken idea of some necessary connexion subsisting
between purity of diction and inspiration of sentiment; cer
tainly a mistaken idea, for the imagined purity is expressly
28 THE CHARACTERISTICS OP
disclaimed by the most learned of all the apostles, who repre
sents himself as naturally appearing to a Greek audience
"rude in speech;" and of his method of discourse generally,
including doubtless the language in which it was expressed,
he declares that it did not aim at excellency of words. A
strictly classical diction would not have been natural to him
and the other apostles. And as it was the rule of the Spirit
in all His supernatural gifts and operations to proceed on the
basis of what is natural, it would, in the first instance, have
been contrary to the usual method of the Spirit s working, if
they had given utterance to their thoughts in language of fine
polish and unexceptionable purity. It would, in fact, have
required a kind of second inspiration to secure this, and one
so little in accordance with the principle usually acted on in
like cases, that it might well have suggested a doubt as to the
reality of the first. If the apostles had written with the clas
sical taste, which is sometimes claimed for them, thoughtful
minds would have found some difficulty in believing them to
be the authors of their own productions. And we, in this
remoter age, should have wanted one of the most important
evidences of the authenticity and genuineness of New Testa
ment Scripture its being written in the style natural to the
persons by whom, and the age in which, it was produced. The
language is precisely what might have been expected from
Jews at that particular time expressing themselves in Greek.
And this, beyond doubt, is the fundamental reason for the
style being precisely what it is. But the apostle Paul con
nects with it in his own case connects with its very deficien
cies in respect to classical refinement and rhetorical finish
the further and higher reason, that it but served the more
strikingly to exhibit the direct agency of God s Spirit in the
success of the gospel. He spake, in delivering the Divine
message, and of course also wrote, " not with the wisdom of
words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect;"
and " his preaching was not with enticing words of man s wis
dom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that
your faith (the faith of those who listened to his preaching)
might not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of
NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 29
God," (1 Cor. ii. 4, 5.) His meaning evidently is, that in
himself and the other heralds of the gospel, in their personal
attributes and in their whole manner of address, there were ob
vious defects and imperfections, as judged by the standard of
worldly taste and refined culture; and that, not as a matter
of accident, but of Divine choice for the purpose of render
ing more palpable and conspicuous the operation of God s hand
in the results that were accomplished through their instrumen
tality.
Even this is not the whole. Another reason still may be
added for the same thing, and one too commonly overlooked
by those who contended against the purists. There was a ne
cessity in the case for securing the proper ends of a divine
revelation a necessity for a certain departure from the pure
classical style, and calling in the aid of Jewish idioms and
forms of speech, in order to exhibit in the most distinct and
appropriate manner the peculiar truths of the gospel. As
these truths required the preparation of much time and special
providences for their proper growth and development, so also
did the language, in which they were to be finally presented
to the world, require something of H peculiar conformation.
The native language of Greece, though in some respects the
most perfect medium for the communication of thought which
has ever been employed by the tongue of man, yet from being
always conversant with worldly things, adapted to express
every shade of thought and every variety of relationship with
in the human and earthly sphere but still only these it was
not fully adequate to the requirements and purposes of Chris
tian authorship. For this higher end it needed to borrow
something from the sanctuary of God, and be, as it were,
baptized in the modes of thought and utterance which were
familiar to those who had enjoyed the training of the Spirit.
So that the writings of the Old Testament formed a necessary
preparation for the language of the New, as did also the his
tory and institutions of the one for the religious ideas of the
other. Nor is it too much to say, as indeed has been said,
" that a pure Greek gospel, a pure Greek apostolic epistle is
3*
30 THE CHARACTERISTICS OF
inconceivable. The canonical and the Hebrew are most inti
mately connected." 1
It is perfectly consistent with all this, and no less true, that
the writers of the New Testament often show a correct ac
quaintance with the idioms of the Greek language, and knew
how to distinguish between the nicer shades of meaning in
many of its expressions. There are numberless passages in
their writings which are scarcely less remarkable for the lofty
elevation of thought they convey, than for the graceful and
felicitous form in which it is embodied. And if we must say,
on the one hand, that their language, as a whole, exhibits
frequent deviations from the purity of Attic Greek, we must
say also, on the other, that it often makes near approaches
to this differing, if not only, yet most distinctly and chiefly,
when the higher purposes for which they wrote required them
so to do. Their language may thus be said to be of a some
what irregular and oscillatory character. " In many cases it
rises superior to the common dialect of the time, and approaches
marvellously near to the vigour and precision of Attic Greek,
while in other usages it seems to sink below the average stand
ard, and to present to us*the peculiarities of the later Greek,
distorted and exaggerated by Aramaic forms of expression.
This mixed character of the language is very interesting and
suggestive. It shows us how at one time the august nature
of the narrative, from the vital force of the truths it revealed,
wove round itself a garb of clear and vigorous diction of Attic
power, and more than Attic simplicity: and yet how, at other
times, in the enunciation of more peculiarly scriptural senti
ments and doctrines, the nationality of the writer comes into
view, and with it his inaptitude his providential inaptitude
(we may thankfully say) at presenting definite Christian
truths in the smooth, fluent, yet possibly unimpressive [and
spiritually defective] turns of language, which the native
Greek the Greek of the first century would have instinc
tively adopted. Where, however, in a merely literary point
of view, the sacred volume may thus seem weakest, it is, con
sidered from a higher point of view, incomparably strongest.
1 Hengsteuberg on the Revelation of St. John, ii., p. 442.
NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 31
It is this investiture of its doctrines with the majesty of He
braistic imagery [and the peculiar richness and force of He
braistic modes of expression,] rather than with the diffluent
garb of a corrupted and decaded Hellenism that does truly re
veal to us the overruling providence and manifold wisdom of
God/ 1
Whether, therefore, we look to what was in itself natural
and proper at the time, to what was in fittest accordance with
the purposes for which the gospel revelation was given, or,
finally, to what was required by the demands of the revelation
itself, on each account there appears ground for concluding,
that not the earlier and purer Greek of the classics, but the
later Greek of the apostolic age, intermingled with and modi
fied by the Hebraisms, which were natural and familiar to
those whose style of thought and expression had been moulded
by Old Testament Scripture, was the appropriate diction for
the writers of the New Testament. Admitting, however, that
such is and ought to have been its general character, we have
still to inquire into the special characteristics of this dialect
to notice the more marked peculiarities that belong to it,
and which require to be kept in view by those who would suc
ceed in the work of interpretation. 2
II. Undoubtedly the basis of the New Testament dialect is
1 Frazer s Magazine for December, 1855. Substantially, indeed, the cor
rect view was given by Beza, in the note already referred to on Acts x. 46.
After noticing "the fine specimens of powerful and affecting writing to be
found, especially in the epistles of Paul, he adds, < 4 As to the intermixture of
Hebraisms, it arose, not only from their being Hebrews, but because, in dis
coursing of those things which had been transmitted through the Hebrew
tongue, it was necessary to retain much peculiar to it, lest they should seem
to introduce some new doctrine. And certainly I cannot in the least wonder
that so many Hebraisms have been retained by them, since most of these are
of such a description, that by no other idiom could matters have been so hap
pily expressed, nay, sometimes not expressed at all; so that, had those for
mulas not been used, new words and novel modes of expression would have
needed to be sometimes employed, which no one could properly have un
derstood."
2 For a short account of the earlier part of the controversy on the style of
the New Testament, and a notice of some of the leading authors and works it
called forth, see Planck s Sacred Philology, Bib. Cab. vii., pp. 67 76.
32 THE CHARACTERISTICS OF
the xotvi) oedhxTOz, the common, or Hellenic dialect, as it has
been called, of the later Greek. This is the name given to
the form of the Greek language, which came into general use
after the Macedonian conquests. It was called common, and
sometimes also Macedonian, because it originated in a sort of
fusion of the particular dialects which had prevailed in earlier
times; and this again arose, in great measure, from the fusion
of the several states of Greece into one great empire under
kings of the Macedonian dynasty. Indeed, what are known
as the four classical dialects of earlier times the Ionic, .ZEolic,
Doric, and Attic were not so properly the dialects in common
use among the people, circulating in their separate localities,
as the forms appropriated to so many departments of litera
ture, which severally took their rise among the tribes that bore
the distinctive names referred to. There may have been, and
most probably were, other varieties in current use throughout
Greece, but none, except one or other of the four specified,
were allowed to appear in written productions. The Attic,
however, surpassed the others so much, both by its inherent
grace, and by the number of distinguished men who employed
it in their writings, that it came to be generally regarded as
the model form of the Greek language, and was cultivated by
nearly all who were ambitious of writing in the purest style.
Certain changes began to pass upon this dialect after the pe
riod of the Macedonian conquests, arising chiefly from the
Doric peculiarities which predominated in Macedonia, and
which now obtained a more general currency; while, along
with these, occasional peculiarities from the other dialects
were also introduced, probably, in the first instance, from col
loquial usage; the whole combining to form the common
speech of Greece in later times. Salmasius was among the
first to draw the attention of the learned to this subject, and
since his day many others have contributed to the same line
of investigation. Of these Henry Planck may be named as
one of the most careful and accurate, whose treatise on the
subject has been translated into English, and forms part of
Vol. II. of Clark s Biblical Cabinet. The characteristics of
this common dialect were not quite uniform; but there are
NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 33
some general features which distinguish it pretty broadly from
the Greek of the strictly classical times. They fall into two
leading classes lexical and grammatical peculiarities the
one relating to the form and usage of words, the other to their
flexion and government. We shall notice under each head
the more marked and important distinctions, and in each shall
select only such examples as have a place in New Testament
Scripture.
1. Under lexical peculiarities, or such as relate to the form
and usage of words, there are, (1.) Words that received a new
termination: such as fierotxecria, Matt. i. 11, for which //-
Toixyatz or jusToexta was employed in earlier times; xau^rn^
often in St. Paul s writings for the act or object of glorifying,
as previously in the Septuagint, but in Attic writers XWJ-/TJ
or xaoyj]fj.a\ yzveGta, which in the earlier Greek writers was
wont to signify the solemnities offered to the dead, on the pe
riodical return of their birth-day, was latterly used for the
birth-day itself, as in Matt. xiv. 6, instead of fzviQha ; z*x7ia-
lat for xdtar, various words with terminations in //a, as
afnq/jia for ofir^ai^ dvTarrody/jia for dvr7rooo^c 5 dufdiwjfJia
for dcrdevsea, (fisucr/jia for ^eDooc, (though it is found also in
Plato.) We have also ftaGihaaa^ queen, for flo-attzca or /9a-
cr^/c, d~offTa<7la for aTcoG-caai^, and various other alterations
of a like nature. (2.) Words, and forms of words, which were
but rarely used in classical Greek, or found only with the
poets, passed into common use in the later common dialect:
such as audevTztv, to govern; dtexrwp, a cock; dAexrpo-
<po)via, cock-crowing; d^/^roc, that is not, or cannot be
spoken, etc. (3.) Certain words formerly in use came latterly
to acquire new meanings; such as Trapaxate cv, in the sense
of admonishing or beseeching; TzaidBuscv, of chastising; zu%v.-
ptarsw, of giving thanks, (originally, to be thankful ;) d>ayr^jLto\>^
of respectable or noble standing, (originally, graceful, decent,
or becoming;) d<f.>d()ioi;, diminutive, from o^ oy, (from s<po)J)
strictly, boiled meat, then any thing eaten with bread to give
it a relish, seasoning, sauce in particular, at Athens, fish,
which were there reckoned among the chief dainties whence
also the diminutive o^dpcov acquired the sense of fish, as in
34 THE CHARACTERISTICS OF
John vi. 9, in Plutarch too, and Athenoeus. Under the same
class may be ranked verbs with an active meaning, which, in
classical Greek, are used only intransitively; for example,
fjLadqTS jsw, to disciple, instead of being or taking the place
of a disciple; dpeaftftevstv, to cause to triumph, instead of
leading in triumph. Such transitions, however, from the re
ceived intransitive to a transitive sense, should rather perhaps
be ascribed to the Hebraistic impress of the New Testament
diction, than regarded as a peculiarity of the common dialect
of the later Greek the sacred writers very naturally giving,
in certain cases, the force of the Hiphil to the simple mean
ing of the verb. But, undoubtedly, traces of such alterations
are also to be found in other writers. (4.) Words and phrases
entirely new entered, especially compound words ; for exam
ple, dttoTptosTTtffxoTroz, dvOpcoxdpsffxoz, j>jLOv6<pda.l/jioz, etdcolo-
XaTpda, (T7iAaf%vce<Td(u, with many others some peculiar to
the Septuagint and the writings of the New Testament, others
common to these and the productions in later Greek generally.
Peculiarities of this class are distributed by Planck, not in
aptly, into three kinds: the first comprehending those which
were expressly asserted by the ancient grammarians to have
belonged to the common language of later times; the second,
such as were not explicitly noted in this way, but are only
found in the productions which appeared subsequently to the
Macedonian era; and finally, those which nowhere occur but
in the Septuagint, the Apocrypha, the writings of the New
Testament, and the Greek Fathers. It is quite possible that,
in regard to many of the words comprised in each of these
divisions, the use made of them in the later Greek writings is
not absolutely novel; they may have existed before, most
likely did exist, but only as provincialisms, which had not re
ceived the sanction of any pure writer, or as expressions so
seldom employed, that the earlier writings in which they oc
curred have not been preserved among the remains of anti
quity. (5.) A fifih class consists of words imported into the
Greek tongue from the Latin a natural result of the subju
gation of the Greek-speaking countries by the Romans; of
these it is enough to notice such expressions as aaadpeov,
NEW TESTAMERR GREEK. 35
7, Asf so/v, acxdpcoz, etc.,
(consilium capere,) ^pfaaiav douvat, (operam dare,) etc. 1
2. In regard to the other great class of peculiarities be
longing to the common dialect those relating to flexion and
syntax Grammatical peculiarities they also fall into seve
ral divisions. (1.) We have peculiarities in the flexion of
verbs, such as d jvfi as 2d pers. sing, of indie, pass, for the re
gular d jvaaac, xddy for xddyffae ; second aorists with the ter
minations proper to the first, as e7~a. for eJrrov, tineaa for STTS-
(Tov, even fjfJutpT^ae. for yfjbaprov\ various endings also in v,
instead of aac, such as efucoxav for ifvo) xaae^ stpyxav for etpij-
Verbs occur, too, with double augments, as rj t ueUs,
dyv, Yjouv/jdrjcrav, as sometimes also with Attic writers ;
and again occasionally without the augment, according to the
best readings, for example, in Luke xiii. 13; 2 Tim. i. 16.
Besides, certain Doric forms came into general use such as
Trs^ttv for TTS^VT^V, dc^civ for dn/TQV^ ffr/fiavat for ar^yafvcu.
(2.) Peculiarities also appear in regard to the gender and
flexion of nouns; thus 7soc, which, with all good Greek au
thors, is masculine, is neuter in the New Testament and ec
clesiastical writers but occasionally also masculine; Tr^oDroc
in like manner is used as a neuter; Xep.6^ which was used by
the Greeks generally as a masculine, but was feminine in the
Doric dialect, occurs in this gender also in the New Testa
ment twice, (Luke xv. 14, h/wz iayjjpd; Acts xi. 28, hfibv
fj.z?d):rjV,} according to the best copies. On the other hand,
the sacred writers and the later Greek writers make fldroz,
a bramble, feminine, as the Greeks generally were wont to do,
while the Attics treated it as a masculine. The peculiarities
in flexion are fewer; but %dptra, the later and rarer form, oc
curs occasionally for %dpiv\ and ids of the accus. plural is
always dropt for ?c. (3.) As further distinctions, there may
be added the nearly entire disuse of the dual, and a few pe
culiarities in respect to syntax. These latter consist chiefly
(to take the summary of Winer) "in a negligent use of the
moods and particles. In the New Testament the following
1 For a more complete list, see Klausen, Hermeneutik, pp. 338 343; also
Winer s Idioms, 2.
36 THE CHARACTERISTICS OF
may be noticed as examples: orav used with the indicative
preterite, ee with the subjunctive, r iva with the indicative pre
sent; 1 the dispensing with Tv in forms like $S)M wa, dzcoz
cva, etc.; the coupling of verbs like yz jeadat with the geni
tive, and Trpoffxvvstv with the dative ; the use of the genitive
infinitive, such as TOO xoestv, beyond the original and natural
limit, and of the subjunctive for the optative in the historical
style after preterites; and, above all, the rare use of the opta
tive, which became entirely obselete in the late Greek. Also
a neglect of the declensions begins to be exhibited, as err
xafeeC, (after 1v xa0v,) and even *a0e?c; then also ava e2c,
Trap ?c; so also IJ.ZTGL TOL> ev, and similar instances."
These constitute the leading peculiarities of the later Greek,
appearing in the writings of the New Testament. But no
doubt, as Winer also remarks, this later and more popular
dialect had in some districts peculiarities which were unknown
elsewhere. And in this category some have been disposed to
place the expressions, which Jerome called Cilicisms of the
apostle Paul. But of such peculiarities we know too little to
enable us to form any correct judgment; and examples have
been found in good Greek authors of, at least, some of Jerome s
alleged Cilicisms. Winer, however, is disposed to reckon of
the class in question, the occasional use of wo. in expressions
where the pure Greek writers would have used the infinitive,
and would explain it as a sort of free and colloquial usage ( 45,
9.) It is, certainly, difficult to maintain the strictly telic use
of i va throughout the New Testament, as Meyer, for example,
endeavours to do; nor can it be done without at times leading
to strained and somewhat unnatural explanations. That the
telic force should be retained in the great mass of cases, and, in
particular, in the formula ci<a TrtyptoOf, we have no doubt;
for when so employed there always is the indication of design.
So also is there in various passages, in which it does not at
first sight appear, but discovers itself on a closer inspection ;
as in 1 John v. 3, " This is the love of God, wa rc IKTO/MZ
1 He might have added, what is still more peculiar, the occasional use of
*/va with the future, as at 1 Cor. xiii. 3, llev. vi. 11, if these are, as they ap
pear to be, the correct readings.
NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 37
aurou rrjp(ii)fJV)* not that we do keep, as a fact but in or
der that we may keep the commandments of God, as a scope
or aim; the tendency and striving of Divine love in the heart
is ever in the direction of God s commandments ; or again, in
Matt. v. 29, oupifepzi yap 0ot rW, x.T.L, it is for thj advan
tage, viz., to cut off the right hand, in order that one (one
merely) of thy members may perish, and not thy whole body
be cast into hell-fire; this, at least, is a perfectly admissible
explanation. But there are others such as Rev. vi. 11;
Matt, xviii. 6; Mark vi. 25, ix. 30 in which it is, no doubt,
possible, by copious supplementings, to bring out a design,
yet scarcely to do it in a way that appears consistent with the
simplicity of the sacred writers.
But of the peculiarities generally, which have been noted
as characterizing the dialect of the New Testament, in com
mon with that of the later Greek writers, there is no room for
difference of opinion. They distinguish the Greek of the apos
tolic age from the Greek of classical times. They must, there
fore, be understood, and have due allowance made for them by
all, who would exhibit the precise import of Scripture, and
would even avoid mistakes in interpretation, which have some
times been committed by persons of high attainments in clas
sical learning, from their too exclusive regard to simply clas
sical authorities.
III. But another, and scarcely less important class of pecu
liarities, must be taken into account for the correct knowledge
and appreciation of the original language of the New Testa
ment those, namely, arising from its Hebraistic impress. The
common dialect of later times was, in the case of the sacred
writings, intermingled with the free and frequent use of forms
derived from the Hebrew, which, as already stated, was to some
extent unavoidable in the case of the sacred penmen. Very
commonly the Greek of the apostolic age, with the addition
of this Hebraistic element, is called Hellenistic Greek, from
the name Hellenists, which was usually applied to the Greek-
speaking Jews, and who naturally spoke Greek with an ad
mixture of Hebrew idioms.
4
38 THE CHARACTERISTICS OP
It is to be borne in mind, however, that while all the writers
of the New Testament partook to some extent of the Hebraistic
influence, some did so considerably more than others; and
they are by no means uniform in the admission of Hebraisms
into their style. The Hebraistic element was a very variable
one among them. It differed with the same writers in different
parts of their writings, as in the Apocalypse of St. John, which
is considerably more Hebraistic than either his gospel or epis
tles while these again have more of that element than many
other parts of the New Testament. The gospel of St. Luke
is decidedly less marked with Hebraisms than those of St.
Matthew and St. Mark; and in St. Paul s epistles also there
are diversities in this respect. The epistle to the Hebrews
approaches more nearly to the classical diction than any other
book of the New Testament. Viewing the subject generally,
however, and without reference to the peculiarities of indivi
dual writers, there are three several respects in which the He
braistic influence appears in the style of the New Testament.
1. The first is of a somewhat general kind, and consists of
a sensible approximation to the Hebrew in the usual cast and
complexion of the style, namely, in those things in which the
Hebrew characteristically differed from the Greek. As (1.)
in the more frequent use of the prepositions for marking re
lations, which were wont to be indicated in classical Greek by
means of cases. This characteristic pervades so much the
style of the New Testament, that particular examples are al
most unnecessary. But take one or two: In Ileb. i. 2, ov
efhjxs xtyf>w)/w -ai/rojy, "whom he appointed heir of all,"
is classical Greek ; but Acts xiii. 22, ty sefisv rov Javio si~
fiaffdea, literally " raised up David for king," is Hebraistic.
Again, TIM fan et-zv ~OTS TWV a*fyi)MV, u for to which of the
angels said lie at any time," is pure Greek, but the use of
the preposition in the following expressions is Hebraistic, 777
IxtexTow $oy, Rom. viii. 33; dfavaxroyyrsT
JZi Mark xiv. 4; dOwoz (i~b TO~J aitmro^, Matt.
xxvii. 24, (so Sept. transl. T P *pJ in 2 Sam. iii. 28;) bfJioXoyeiv
Iv WJTW, Matt. x. 32, etc. (2.) It formed another marked
difference between the two languages the paucity of con-
NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 39
junctions which existed in the Hebrew, and their great abun
dance, one might almost say, their superfluity, in the Greek.
But the New Testament writers constantly show an inclina
tion to adhere to the simplicity of the Hebrew in this respect,
rather than to avail themselves of the greater wealth of the
Greek. How often in their productions do we meet with a
xac, where we would rather have expected an dttd, a xalxep,
or a xalTott and a ydo or an obv where we would have looked
for an c/rs/, a ware, or a OTC, if judging from the usage of clas
sical writers? In the narrative portions, more especially, of
the New Testament, it is the remarkable nakedness and sim
plicity of the Hebrew language, as to conjunctions and other
particles, which presents itself to our notice, rather than the
copiousness of the Greek. (3.) A further Hebraistic turn
appears in the frequent use of the genitive pronouns, instead
of the possessives <ro, ^oJ, aurou, fyjtcov, bfjuuu, a jTtov. This
naturally arose from the inspired writers being used to the He
brew suffixes, and was also encouraged by a growing tendency
in the Greek language itself to substitute the genitives of the
personal pronouns for the possessives. The practice, how
ever, is greatly more frequent in the New Testament and
the Septuagint, than in other productions of the same period.
Indeed, we often meet with the personal pronouns generally
in the Greek Scriptures, where simply Greek writers would
have altogether omitted them; as in Gen. xxx. 1, ope /we
rsxva, el os /^, rsXsOT^ffa) iycb\ Ex. ii. 14, p:q dv^A^v /ji* cry
#/cYC> uv Tpbxov dyc?/oC %0s tov Aifbittoi*) (in both cases imi
tating the Hebrew;) so in John iii. 2, ~wj~a rd ar^zta. TTO^V
d crb xoes tz , Rev. v. 4, xal iyco HxAacou ;ro/y; 2 John 1, ouz
*{io dyo-a> s.u dtyOda, etc. (4.) Another pronominal pecu
liarity, arising from assimilation to the Hebrew, is occasion
ally found in the New Testament, arid abounds in the Septua
gint. In Hebrew there is only one relative pronoun, "^^
(sometimes abbreviated into #;) and this without any distinc
tion as to number, gender, or case: on which account the
suffixes of the personal pronouns, or these pronouns themselves
with a preposition, required to be added, in order to give the
necessary point and explicitricss to the reference. Hence
40 THE CHARACTERISTICS OF
such expressions as the following: "the land in which ye
dwell upon it," " the place in which ye sojourn in it," and so
on. As the Greek language possessed a declinable relative
o c, and adverhs derived from it, oy, o#cv, fcoy, there was no
need, when employing it, to resort to this kind of awkward
circumlocution. But those who had been accustomed to the
force and emphasis of the Hebrew usage, appear still occa
sionally to have felt as if they could not give adequate expres
sion to their mind without availing themselves of the Hebrew
form. Hence such passages in the Septuagint as the follow
ing: 37 fy ~9> *]Z ov xaroexsi"^ J/r air^c? Gen. xxviii. 13; TTUZ
ffO(fbz rrj dtavoia, w idody G0(pia xal ixtarr^a lu auTol^, Ex.
xxxvi. 1; also Deut. ix. 28; Ex. xxx. 6; Deut. iv. 5, 14, etc.
In the New Testament the peculiarity occurs more rarely;
but still it is found, as in Mark vi. 55, " They carried about
the sick on couches," onou jjxooov on lxs? I<JTW\ vii. 25, yjc
?/v TO Bufdrptov avrrfi 7rvei)/2a dxdOapTou; Rev. vii. 2, ofc
eoody ayroTc; xii. 6, oxoo eysf Ixse ro~ov fjTOtfJLO0[ivov\ ver.
14, oxoo Tpeysrae lxs? xac[>bv. The usage is found also in
some quotations from the Old Testament, (Acts xv. 17 ; 1 Pet.
ii. 24,) but it is certainly of rare occurrence in the New Tes
tament writings themselves. (5.) A further distinctive im
press arose from a marked difference between the Hebrew arid
the Greek in respect to the tenses of the verb, giving rise to a
peculiarity in the general character of the New Testament
style, and imparting to it something of a Hebraistic air.
Here again the Hebrew was as remarkable for the fewness,
as the Greek for the multiplicity of its forms the one having
its simple past and future tenses, while the other had its pre
sent, imperfect, perfect, pluperfect, first and second aorists,
first and second futures, and paulo-post future certainly a
plentiful variety, if not, in some respects, a needless redun
dancy; and all these, again, subject to variations of mood
indicatives, subjunctives, optatives which are unknown in
Hebrew. There can bo no doubt that the New Testament
writers were well acquainted with the principal tenses of the
Greek verb, and some of its more peculiar modes of construc
tion, such as those with neuter plurals, with wa and av; at
NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 41
the same time, there are occasional anomalies, with a mani
fest preference for the simple past and future of the Hebrew,
and, as in the latter, a tendency to use the future, as expres
sive of necessity and continued action, (must and is wont,)
somewhat more frequently than is usual in ordinary Greek.
(G.) Once more, there are some peculiar case-usages, though
rare in the New Testament, as compared with the Septuagint.
The most noticeable of these is the employment, though in the
New Testament occurring only in the Apocalypse, of a kind
of nominative absolute not such as is to be found in Acts
vii. 40, b yap Mcouarfi oyroc o dvOpcoTro^;, in which, merely for
the purpose of giving prominence to the leading noun, the
sentence begins with it in the nominative, and of which exam
ples are to be met with in ordinary Greek but one in which
the nominative comes after, and stands in apposition with,
other nouns in the oblique cases. This arose from a close
imitation of the Hebrew, prefixing the indication of case, or
the preposition, to the first noun in a sentence, and dropping
it in those that followed. Thus at Num. xx. 5, sic rbv TOTZOV
TOV.TtOVrjpOV TOUTOV TO7TOZ oL 01) ff~ipTf/.t , Deut. IV. 1.1, /.(J.I
TO opo^ exacero xvpi sco^ TOU ovpawu trxoroc, p^o^oc, $yeMa;
also ver. 22; Deut. viii. 8, x. 7. Though an anomalous con
struction, it had the effect, as Tiersch justly remarks, (Pent.
Versione Alexandrina, p. 133,) of giving force and emphasis
to the terms placed thus absolutely in the nominative which
were thereby isolated. This also is very decidedly the effect
of the employment of the nominative in Rev. i. 4, where grace
and peace are sent 0.7:0 b wu xal b vjv xal b Ipy^o^svoz , retain
ing in the nominative the words, which express the Lord s
eternal Being, and so taking them, as it were, out of the com
mon category of declinable nouns, and placing them in an in
dependent position. Other examples occur in Rev. ii. 20, iii.
12. In the same connexion may be mentioned a kind of He
braistic extension of the accusative of place, this accusative
being sometimes coupled with a following genitive, in a way
not usual with the Greeks; of which we have such examples
in the Old Testament as Deut. xi. 30, ovx coob TWJTO. rrep.av
b~i<Tco y bobu dufff^oji fjAioo^ i. 19; Ex. xiii. 17.
4*
42 THE CHARACTERISTICS OF
And in the New Testament, the peculiar expression in Matt.
iv. 14, fy Na<p 6 a^el //, bobv OoJ.dcrcrr^, which has its parallel
in the passages of the Old Testament referred to, and should
not have been regarded in so exceptional a light as it is by
Winer, (Gr. 32, 6.) But such peculiarities exercise compa
ratively little influence on the Greek of the New Testament.
2. Secondly, the Hebraistic cast of the New Testament
style appears in the use of words and phrases, which have
their correspondence only in the Hebrew, but are not found
in profane Greek writers, whether of the earlier or of the later
periods. Among these, certain words might be included, which
are transferred from the Hebrew and other Oriental languages
into the text of the New Testament: such as dp fa, dfaoocbv,
d/r/yy, 7T#/?aocroc, / sevj>, OCLTU.V, etc. Terms of this sort are
merely Oriental words in Greek letters, or with a Greek ter
mination ; and it is by a reference to their Oriental usage that
their meaning is to be determined. It is not these, however,
so much that we have in view under the present division, as
words and phrases which are strictly Greek expressions, but
expressions thrown into a Hebraistic form, and conveying a
sense somewhat different from what would naturally be put
upon them by a simply Greek reader. There is a considera
ble number of this description, among which are sir in the
sense of rr: or xpcoroz, according to the Septuagint rendering
of "inx (e?> fpafjifiaT6U, Matt. viii. 19,
fiiav for npdirqv,) f jyrsev rr/v
t, Odvarov ros^v, nsptTtOTStV Ivconiov r/voc, Ttoc&v
v rrvo ffdc; xal
a!/m, etc.
To refer more particularly to one or two examples, the
phrase Trdffa <raoc, for all men, mankind at large, is quite a
Hebraism, being a literal translation of the Hebrew "^3-72) by
two terms, which in the one language, as well as the other,
signify all flesh while still native Greek writers never used
ados in the sense of men, and such an expression, if employed
by them, would have meant, not all mankind, but the whole
fL sh, (of a man or an animal, as it might happen.) Some
times the Hebraism is further strengthened by the addition of
NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 43
a negative, in a manner different from the practice of good
Greek writers. In Hebrew, "^2-^3 ^ not all flesh, is equi
valent to no flesh, and in this same meaning oi> Traaa adpq is
used in New Testament Scripture ; as when our Lord says,
Matt. xxiv. 22, " If the days should not be shortened, oux av
iucodf] -flcra craps," no flesh should be saved ; or St. Paul, 1
Cor. i. 29, OTZCOZ JJ.T] xaoy^v/jTcu r.dcra crdpz, so that no flesh
might glory. Such phrases are to be explained by coupling
the negative with the verb, and regarding the two together as
predicating the negation or want of something the all com
prehending the entire circle or genus to which such predicate
extends. Thus, in the sentence last quoted, the not being in
a condition to glory is the thing predicated, and the rcaaa
ffdp~, the all flesh, which follows, denotes the sphere of being
to which the predicate applies the entire compass of huma
nity. So that, when rightly viewed, the expression presents
no material difficulty, though it is a form of speech not na
tive to the Greek, but imported into it from the Hebrew.
The Vulgate has not been sufficiently observant of this pe
culiar idiom; hence it renders the passage in Matt, non salva
ficret omnis caro, and that in 1 Cor. ut non glorietur omnis
caro. Our translators, however, in the authorized version
have commonly attended to it, and given the correct render
ing though still in one case they appear to have missed it.
The passage we refer to is 1 John ii. 19, where the apostle is
speaking of those who had once belonged to the true church,
but had since fallen into Gnostic errors, and assumed an an-
tichristian position : " They went out from among us, but
they were not of us ; for if they had been of us, they would
have continued with us; but that (the sentence here is plainly
elliptical, and we must again supply they went out that)
they might be made manifest, ort G JX sew xdwcsz is fyjL&v"
that they were not all of us, our version has it but the apos
tle had already said of them, wholly and absolutely, that they
were not of us; and it would be strange, if now, at the close,
he should have introduced a limitation, and, when speaking
of the evidence of their having assumed an antichristian posi
tion, or being in deadly heresy, should have used terms that
44 THE CHARACTERISTICS OF
were applicable only to a portion of them. The terms, how
ever, become quite plain, if understood in conformity with the
idiom now under consideration ; i. e., if the negative and the
verb (o>jx etffe) are taken together, as constituting the predi
cate, and the jravrsc following as indicating the extent of its
application embracing the totality of the parties spoken of.
Their going out from the company of the faithful, the apostle
then affirms, shows that they are not all of them of us;
i. e., that none of them are of us; the whole went out, that
they might be seen one and all not to be of the true church
of Christ. Such, substantially, is the view adopted, not only
by several foreign commentators, but also in the English An
notations of 1645, by Hammond, Guyse, Whitby, Peilc, and
others.
This, however, is rather a digression, and we return to our
proper subject simply remarking further, in respect to the
second class of Hebraisms, that a considerable portion of the
words and phrases comprised in it, are still to be taken in their
ordinary sense, but, at the same time, with such reference to
the Hebrew use and application of them, that in the sense ne
cessary to be put upon them they must be regarded as He
braisms. For example, in the common expression at/jta $x%st 9
to pour out, or shed blood, what is really meant, is not the
simple shedding of blood, but the pouring out of this unto
death the words being those used in rendering the Hebrew
PJ W? the usual sacrificial formula for taking the life of an
animal victim, when presenting it to God. It hence passed
into a common phrase for taking the life of any one; and in
the lips of a Jew, the phrase naturally became more peculiar
ly and distinctly indicative of death, than it should have done
when uttered by a Greek. In like mariner, in the use of the
word oi/o/jia, in a great variety of expressions, such as " call
ing upon the name," or doing any thing in the name of an
other, "hallowing God s name," "believing on the name of
Christ," " trusting in the name of the Lord," and such like
while the worm precisely corresponds to the Q in Hebrew,
and name in English to both, it is still only through the He
brew usage that we can get at the proper import of the ex-
NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 45
pressions. The Hebrews were wont to regard the name of an
individual, as, what it doubtless originally was, the index to
the nature ; and when the primary name failed properly to
do this, they very commonly superseded it by another, which
yielded a more significant or fitting expression of the indivi
dual properties. Hence, with them, the name was very much
identified with the person, as, on the other side, the person
was very often contemplated in the light of the name. Among
the Greeks the significance of names never assumed the same
place that it did among the Hebrews ; they were regarded
more as arbitrary signs, having their chief use in distinguish
ing one person or one object from another; and consequently
the same identification did not prevail in the ordinary Greek
usage, as in the Hebrew, between the name, and the person
or properties of the individual. In dealing with such expres
sions, therefore, as those specified above, we must have re
course to the Hebrew, in order to arrive at the proper import.
3. There is still a third respect, in which the Hebraistic
cast of the New Testament dialect appears; viz., in the for
mation of derivatives from words belonging, in the sense em
ployed, to the Hebrew, and not to the Greek. For example,
the word tfxaj/oa/ov, the rendering of the Septuagint for ^PP
a stumbling-block, or offence, is the root of a verb found only
in the New Testament, axavdati^to, to stumble, or cause to
stumble, (corresponding to ^^on bab: ;) ff^^y^i^effOaf from
{T-Mf%va (as in Hebrew Ern and O prn ) dyadsfjtaTc^ffOac
from dvddsijia, and so on. In such cases one is thrown en
tirely upon Hebrew ideas and usages; and from these it is
necessary to ascertain and determine the precise meaning to
be attached, if not to the original noun, at least to the verb
derived from it.
IV. It is plain, therefore, from the occurrence of such He
brew or Aramaic peculiarities as we have referred to, that the
Greek of the New Testament adds to the later Greek the
common Hellenic dialect elements derived from the verna
cular language of the sacred writers, on account of which it
may justly be denominated a peculiar idiom. It exhibits sin-
46 THE CHARACTERISTICS, OF
gle Greek words, which are nowhere found in Greek writers
out of Palestine; it exhibits also Hebrew and Chaldaic
phrases, expressed in Greek terms, but conveying a sense dif
ferent from what a simply Greek reader would naturally have
put upon them ; and, finally, it exhibits in the grammatical
construction various features of a Hebraistic kind; all ne
cessarily requiring, in order to attain to a correct interpreta
tion of New Testament Scripture, an acquaintance with the
Hebrew as well as with the Greek languages, and, in particular,
with the usages established by the Septuagint Version of Old
Testament Scripture. But there are two important conside
rations, which ought to be borne in mind in connexion with
those Hebraisms the one having respect to their number,
and the other to the proper mode of dealing with them.
(1.) In the first place, they are not nearly so numerous as
they were at one time represented to be ; nor much more nu
merous than was rendered necessary by the circumstances of
the writers. By far the greater part of them are so essen
tially connected with the position of the writers, as not only
trained under the economy of the Jewish dispensation, but
called also to unfold truths and principles, which were but the
proper growth and development of such as belonged to it, that
they could not justly have been dispensed with. They entered,
by a kind of moral necessity, into the cast of thought and ex
pression adopted by the apostles of the New Testament. And
hence also they occur less frequently in grammatical con
structions than in other respects, and only so as to impart to
the style, in that particular respect, an occasional Aramaic
colouring. The Greek syntax differs in many things from the
Hebrew; the one has its own marked and peculiar characteris
tics, as well as the other; yet in most of these we find the
New Testament writers regularly accommodating themselves
to the foreign idiom as in the distinctive use of imperfects and
aorists, in the coupling of neuter plurals with a verb in the
singular, in the construction of verbs with ay, in the attraction
of the relative, etc. It may not be improper to point to an
example or two, in a single line, of this conformity to the
foreign idiom: in the discriminating use of the aorist and
NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 47
perfect tenses the aorist as denoting the historic past, and
the perfect as denoting the past in its relation to the present,
the past-continuing with its -effects and consequences to the
present. Even St. John, who has often been treated as igno
rant of the commonest Greek idioms, we find, at the very
beginning of his Gospel, carefully observing this distinction,
when he says of the work of the Logos, e^evsro ouos ev o
-fefovsv, nothing whatever that has come to be, and still is in
being, was made without Him. So also in Col. i. 16, point
ing to the act of creation by Christ in the indefinite past, iv
auTw ixTtady ra Trocvra; but when Christ s continued relation
to, and interest in, what was created, is in view, then the apos
tle changes from the aorist to the perfect, ra Travrec ol aurou
xal s;c O:JTOU IxTca-cae. Another striking example of a simi
lar change may be seen in ch. iii. 3 of the same epistle, in tho
dxsOdvsTS used of the old life once and for ever put away, and
the xixpunrat. of the new begun at conversion, but continuing
still on. In connexion with such discriminating employments
of the aorist and perfect tenses, it is justly remarked by the
late Professor Scholefield, that the English translation is often
obscured by failing to mark the distinction as observed in
the original, and consequently inserting or omitting at the
wrong place the auxiliary have. (Hints for Improvements in
the Authorized Version, Preface X.)
In respect, however, to the excessive multiplication of He
braisms, Titmann very justly says, in his Synonyms, ii. p.
163, 4 J Many expressions in the New Testament have been
stamped with the name of Hebraisms, for no other reason
whatever than because it was taken for granted that the wri
ters of the New Testament have imitated the Hebrew mode
of speaking; just as if they could not have derived those forms
from the like usage of the Greek language, which they were
writing. Many Hebraisms have thus been pointed out by
Yorstius, Leusden, and others, which might with equal justice
be called Hellenisms. Because, forsooth, they appear in the
New Testament, in writers ^Eftpaf^QVTtd they are Hebraisms;
while the same things, when found in Demosthenes, Thucy-
dides, Xenophon, or Polybius, are pronounced to be good and
48 THE CHARACTERISTICS OP
elegant Greek. Thus, in the New Testament, the use of the
demonstrative pronoun without apparent necessity after a noun
or relative pronoun, has been regarded as a Hebraism, inas
much as the Hebrews do indeed use this construction, as also
the Arabs, Syrians, Greeks, and Romans, (we might add the
Germans and English.) Still that cannot surely be reckoned
as a Hebrew idiom, which is also employed by the best writers
of other nations." He proceeds to give various examples of
the usage, among which are, from Cicero, Illud quod supra
scripsi, id tibi confirmo ; from Sallust, Sed urbana plebes, ea
vero prseceps ierat; from Thucydides, " the most Attic of all
Greek writers," TW os c IxTioxpaTzt OVTC Trept TO Jyhov, d>c
O.UTW jj-ffeMrj; and concludes by saying, "The construction
in all these usages is evidently the same as in Matt. iv. 16,
viii. 5; John xv. 2, xviii. 11."
Michaelis remarked sharply, but not without cause, on this
tendency to discover Hebraisms in New Testament Scripture,
" It is extraordinary, that those very persons who are least
acquainted with the Hebrew are the most inclined to discover
Hebraisms; and it has been as fashionable, as it is convenient,
to ascribe the difficulty of every passage to an Oriental idiom."
(Intro, iv. 6.) Yet he has not himself altogether escaped the
contagion ; for we find him, in the same chapter, ranking some
things as Hebraisms, and giving them on that ground a false
rendering, which ought to be taken in their strictly Greek
meaning; for example, etz v2*oc, in 1 Cor. xv. 54, which he
designates "a harsh Hebraism" signifying "for ever," while
really the proper import is best given by the literal rendering,
"into victory," i. e., towards this as the end aimed at death
being viewed as the great enemy, with whose swallowing up
the final victory comes. Gerard, (Bib. Criticism, p. 54,) as
usual, follows Michaelis in this; and, along with many others
then and since, he also gives frf/M, in the sense of thing, as a
Hebraism, in such passages as Luke i. 37, ii. 15; Acts v. 32.
But it always b^ars the sense of word or saying, or of things
only in so far as they have become matters of discourse.
Thus, at Luke i. 37, the exact rendering undoubtedly is, "No
word shall be impossible with God;" and hence the verb is
NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 49
in the future, ddvvanjffsc, pointing to the futurity of the ac
complishment, as compared with the period when the word
was spoken.
(2.) Then, while we should thus beware of multiplying He
braisms in the New Testament beyond what really exist, we
should, in the second place, also beware, in handling what
really are such, and the peculiarities generally of the New
Testament dialect, of setting them down as mere extravagan
cies, or barbarous departures from a proper diction. On the
contrary, we should endeavour to ascertain the idea in which
they originated, and get at the precise shade of meaning, or
aspect of a subject, which they set before us. This is the
course, as Winer remarks, which has latterly been taken by
grammarians in their investigations concerning the Greek
language: " The idea which gave rise to each particular form
has been accurately apprehended, and its various uses reduced
to the primary signification. The language thus becomes a
directly reflected image of the Greekthought, as a living idiom.
One does not stop at the mere externals, but there is a refe
rence of each form and inflexion of the language to the think
ing soul, and an effort to apprehend it in its existence in the
mind itself. For a long time Biblical philologists took no no
tice of these elucidations of Greek grammar and lexicography.
They followed Viger and Storr, and separated themselves en
tirely from the profane philologists, under the impression that
the New Testament Greek, being Hebraistic, could not be an
object of such philological investigations. No one believed
that the Hebrew, like every other language, admitted and re
quired a rational mode of treatment. The rational view ia
now gaining ground. It is believed that the ultimate reasons
of the phenomena of the Hebrew must be sought out in the
nation s modes of thought; and, above all, that a plain, sim
ple people could not contravene the laws of all human lan
guage. It is no longer, therefore, considered proper to give
a preposition diverse meanings, according to one s own plea
sure, in a context superficially examined. Nor must it be
supposed that a Hebrew, instead of i this is my brother, could
say pleonastically, i this is of my brother, or l this is in the
5
50 THE CHARACTERISTICS OF
wise man, instead of l this is a wise man; but the origin of
changes so contrary to rule must be sought for in the speaker s
mode of thought, as with every rational being each deviation
has its reason." (Idioms, pp. 19, 20.)
This, it will be understood, is said simply of the manner in
which deviations of the kind here referred to should be con
sidered and explained; and determines nothing as to what
may be called the comparative pureness and elegance of the
diction, or the reverse. In some of them, possibly, the thought
expressed may be cast into a form, which is not justified by
the usage of the most correct writers, nor accordant with the
native idioms of the language ; but possibly also there may
be no real departure from these; and the apparent devia
tion, or peculiarity, may lie in the thought expressed being
somewhat different from what a superficial consideration, or a
common point of view, might be apt to suggest. Such, no
doubt, will be found sometimes to be the case. But the ques
tion at present has respect, not simply, nor indeed so much to
the purity of the diction, as to the proper and rational mode
of explaining its real or apparent peculiarities. These should,
in every case, be considered with reference to the specific cir
cumstances and mental habits of the writer. And had they
been so had due regard been paid to the considerations which
have just been advanced not only would many senseless and
improper laxities have been spared from our grammars, lexi
cons, and commentaries, but the received text also of the New
Testament and our authorized version would have been in a
better state than they at present are. Schleusner s Lexicon
of the New Testament, and Mackriight s Commentary on the
Epistles, may be referred to as specimens, out of the more
learned class, which egregiously err in the respect now men
tioned, more especially in the laxity with which they render
the prepositions and the particles of the New Testament Greek.
For example, in Schleusner, the prepositions ecz and lv have
ascribed to them, the one 24, the other no fewer than 30, dis
tinct uses and meanings; and, though Macknight does not
carry it quite so far, yet, from the diverse and disconnected
senses he puts upon them in his Preliminary Essays, it seems
NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 51
as if, when handled by a Hellenistic Jew, these prepositions
might express almost any relation whatever. Et^, as it hap
pens, may be into or in, concerning or with, against, before,
by, in order to, among, at, towards, or it may stand without
any definite meaning as a mere expletive and had better
been wanted. So also with Jv. 1
Of course, in the writings of the New Testament, as in all
popular productions, there is a considerable freedom in the
use of such parts of speech especially in what are called preg
nant constructions and current phrases yet never without a
respect to the fundamental meaning of the word never with
a total abnegation and disregard of this. Thus, in the New
Testament, as with Greek writers generally, the preposition
eC is not unfrequently coupled with verbs of rest, and hence
comes to be rendered as if it were sv: as Matt. ii. 23, xarw-
% fjazy ecz xohv lefO/uvr}v Na^aped-; Acts viii. 40, 0Utf?r0f
tbpidy etz "A COTOV, John i. 18, 6 &v etc rov xofocov TOL> Ilar-
/>6c But in all such cases there is an implied reference to
the preceding motion towards the place indicated, or some sort
of terminal relation to it. Thus, in the examples noticed, we
must explain, in the first, having gone so far as to the city
called Nazareth, having entered into it, he dwelt there; in
the second, Philip was found as far as Azotus, carried thither,
and so at it; in the third* He that is (viz. set, who has His
proper place of being) into the bosom of the Father, so close,
so deep into the personal indwelling, and union with, the Fa
ther. In none of the cases is there properly an interchange
of one preposition for another; but a complex thought is ut
tered in an abbreviated and elliptical form.
In many cases of this description, however, it is only by a
comment that the full and proper meaning can be brought out,
and in a simple translation it is scarcely possible to keep up
the peculiarity of the original. But there are others, in which
that was perfectly possible, and in which our authorized ver
sion has suffered from the too prevalent notion of Hebraistic
laxity nor has even the received text of the original escaped
1 This looseness has also been countenanced to some extent by Erncsti, and
still more by his foreign and English annotators. See Bib. Cabinet, vol. iv.
153, 154.
52 THE CHARACTERISTICS OP
occasional corruptions. Under those of the latter description
we may point to Rev. ii. 14, \vhere the undoubtedly correct
reading of what is said of Balaam is, oc Ioc3a<rxsi> rco Ba/.ax
ftaJiecu crxdvoaAov luwr^w rwv uiwv IffpcojA. , but which, from
the apparent anomaly of the verb diddaxa) being coupled with
a noun in the dative, for its direct object, (as was supposed,)
the resort was made by grammarians and commentators to
Hebrew usage, according to which it was alleged the dative
was put for the accusative; and certain copyists went a step
further, and, taking the dative for an error, substituted the
accusative in its place, which is the reading of the received
text rbv Da/.ax. It is not a Hebraism, however, to couple
such a verb with the dative ; the Greek and Hebrew usage
here entirely correspond ; and that John was perfectly cogni
sant of the Greek usage is manifest from his coupling the same
verb with an accusative in ver. 20, as in every other instance,
in which he has placed a noun in regimen with it, except the
one before us, (John vii. 35, viii. 2, 28, ix. 34, xiv. 26; 1
Joh n ii. 27, thrice.) This sufficiently shows, that the dative
in Rev. ii. 14 is put, not by oversight or from the usage of a
foreign idiom merely, but on purpose; that it is what gram
marians call the dativus commodi, indicating that what was
done, was done, not upon the individual concerned, but in his
interest not that Balaam taughtBalak, (as in the English
version,) but that he taught for Balak, on his account and in
his behalf, to cast a stumbling-block before the children of
Israel. We are not, in short, told whom he taught, though
we know from the history it was the people of Balak, but/or
whose advantage he did so ; he taught in the service of the
king of Moab, not of the God of Israel.
We must refer to a few other passages, in which, though
the received text remains correct, the authorized version has
missed the precise shade of meaning by giving way to the idea
of laxity on the part of the original writers. Thus, in the
prayer of the converted malefactor, Luke xxiii. 42, Remember
me when Thou comest v rfi ftturdeia 0ou not into Thy king
dom, which might seem to point to the glory into which the
Lord was presently going to enter but in Thy kingdom, viz.,
NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 53
TV hen the time comes for Thee to take to Thyself Thy great
power and to reign among men ; for this future manifestation
of glory was undoubtedly what the faith of the penitent man
anticipated and sought to share in, not the glory which lay
within the vail, which only the answer of Christ brought within
the ken of his spiritual vision. The same preposition has also
been unhappily translated in another important passage Phil,
ii. 10, r lua iv TOJ oyojj.aTc y Ir^aoit not at, but in the name of
Jesus, every knee should bow; in it as the ground and prin
ciple of the act, not at its mere enunciation. Again in Eph.
iii. 19, "That ye may be filled eiz nu.v TO ittyptopa TOO 0soi>,"
not strictly with, which would imply an infinite recipiency,
but into all the fulness of God lifted, like empty vessels,
into the boundless pleroma of Godhead, that ye may take to
the full satisfaction of your desires, and the measure of your
capacity. So, again, in 2 Pet. i. 3, where God is said to have
given to us all things pertaining to life and godliness, through
the knowledge of Him xaAsffavroz fjplz dta oof^c *o-t d/?snyc>
who called us not, as in our version, to glory and virtue,
which puts a most arbitrary and unauthorized sense upon the
dca, and converts, besides, the means into the end but by or
through glory and virtue namely, the glory and virtue, the
divine energy exhibited in the way and manner, in which we
are called of God, in consequence of which, as is presently
added, there have also been given to us exceeding great and
precious promises; the promises are so great and precious,
because the call conducting to them was so distinguished by
divine power and glory. The very next verse but one of the
same epistle, ver. 5, furnishes another example of unfortunate
laxity in the translation, which in consequence misses the
precise shade of thought expressed in the original : the words,
7.0.1 WJTO To r JTo 3s, rendered, " And besides this," altogether
sinking the adversative particle ok, and mistaking also the
force of the adverbial accusative aJjTo TO JTO. The object of
the clause, is partly to suggest a difference, and partly to
mention an agreement, between what precedes and what fol
lows: "And on this very account indeed," or "but for this
same reason, give all diligence," etc.
5*
54 TUE CHARACTERISTICS OF
These are only a few specimens out of many, that might be
adduced, of the evil that too long and generally prevailed, of
supposing that the sacred writers of the New Testament were
so Hebraistic, or otherwise so peculiar in their use of words
and phrases, that any sort of license might at times be taken
with their language. It is but rarely that the evil discovers
itself in the authorized version, and within narrow limits, com
pared with what has appeared often in later versions and com
mentaries. But it is still occasionally found there; and spe
cial notice has been taken of it, not for the purpose of dispa
raging that version, which, as a whole, is so admirable, but
in order to show, how even there, when the proper line has
been deviated from, and with the best intentions, the effect
has only been to substitute one shade of meaning for another
a meaning that could only at first view have seemed the
natural and proper one, for another more accordant both
with the idioms of the language and with the truth of things.
V. To pass now, however, from the real or alleged Hebra
isms of the New Testament, we may mention as another cha
racteristic feature of its diction, that which it occasionally de
rives from the new ideas and relations introduced by the gos
pel. These of necessity called into existence a class of ex
pressions, not in themselves absolutely new, but still fraught
with an import which could not attach to them as used by any
heathen writer, nor even in the production of any Greek-
speaking Jew prior to the birth of Christ. With the marvel
lous events of the gospel age, a fresh spring-time opened for
the world; old things passed away, all things became new;
and the change which took place in the affairs of the Divine
kingdom could not fail to impress itself on those words and
forms of expression, which bore respect to what had then for
the first time come properly into being. In so far as the terms
employed might embody the distinctive facts or principles of
Christianity, their former and common usage could only in
part exhibit the sense now acquired by them ; for the full
depth and compass of meaning belonging to them in their new
application, we must look to the New Testament itself, com
paring one passage with another, and viewing the language
NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 55
used in the light of the great things which it brings to our
apprehension.
When handling such terms as those now referred to, it is
peculiarly necessary to understand and apply aright the fun
damental principles of language, as to the relation in which
the spoken word stands to the internal thought, of which it
serves as the expression. " Language," it has been justly
said, 1 " is the outward appearance of the intellect of nations:
their language is their intellect, and their intellect their lan
guage; we cannot sufficiently identify the two. . . . Un
derstanding and speaking are only two different effects of the
same power of speech." In confirmation of this statement,
we may point to the twofold meaning of the Greek word /o^oc,
which denotes alike the internal and the external reason
either reason as exercising itself and forming conceptions in
the mind itself, (Ao; oc cvora^sroc,) or reason coming forth into
formal proposition, and embodying itself in the utterance of
human speech, (^o;-oc TipoyoprAoz) comprising, therefore, in
one term, what the Latins, with their more objective and re
alistic tendencies, took two words to express ratio and oratio.
Now, as the external reason, or reason embodied in the form
of spoken or written words, ought to be the exact image of
the internal, a correct representation of the thoughts and con
ceptions of the mind, so, in proportion as these thoughts and
conceptions vary, the language employed to express them
must present a corresponding variation ; and if the same terms
are retained, which may have been previously in use, there
must be infused into them a somewhat new and more specific
import. To some extent this is done, even in comparatively
common circumstances, and as the result of individual thought
and feeling; for speech, as has also been well said by the
writer just referred to, " acquires its last definiteness only
from the individual. No one assigns precisely the same mean
ing to a word that another does, and a shade of meaning, be
it ever so slight, ripples on, like a circle in the water, through
the entirety of language." That is for the sentiment must
be understood with such a limitation it will so perpetuate
1 William Von Hurnboldt, quoted in Donaldson s Cratylus, p. 56.
56 THE CHARACTERISTICS OP
and diffuse itself, if circumstances favour it, and the particu
lar shade of meaning introduced is one not confined to too
narrow a sphere of thought, not merely local or temporary,
but requiring, by the exigencies of human thought, to have
an abiding place in its medium of communication. Whenever
that is the case, it will certainly "ripple on like a wave, widen
ing and enlarging its range, till it has embraced the whole
field.
Such peculiarly has been the case in respect to those terms,
which the great events of gospel history served to bring into
general use, and through which expression is given to some
of the more distinctive ideas and relations of gospel times.
Among the foremost of these is the phrase, jlaathia TOO 6sou,
or riov oupav&v a phrase composed of words perfectly fami
liar to all accustomed to the Greek tongue, but, as applied to
the state of things introduced by Christ, and growing out of
the events of His earthly career, expressive of ideas essentially
novel to heathen minds, and but partially possessed even by
Jewish. We can have no doubt about its origin, and the rea
son of its employment in this connexion. It points back to
those prophecies of the Old Testament, in which promise was
made of a king and kingdom, that should unite heaven and
earth, God and man, in another way than could be done by
a merely human administration; and especially to the prophe
cies of Daniel, in ch. ii. and vii., where, after a succession of
kingdoms, all earthly in their origin, and ungodly in their
spirit and aims, the Divine purpose was announced, of a king
dom that should be set up by the God of heaven, and that
should never be destroyed a kingdom imaged by one like a
Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, and destined to
be possessed by the saints of the Most High. Some notion
might, therefore, be obtained of the import of the expression,
by those who were acquainted with Old Testament Scripture ;
yet only a vague and imperfect one, as the precise nature of
the kingdom, and its distinctive characteristics could only
be correctly understood, when they were brought clearly to
light by the facts and revelations of the gospel. The general
unbelief and apostacy of the Jewish people, after Christ came,
NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 57
showed how little previous intimations had served to bring
them properly acquainted with the nature of the kingdom ;
and both that, and the palpable errors and mistakes regard
ing it, which frequently discovered themselves even among
the followers of Christ, but too clearly proved how difficult it
was for the minds of men to rise to a just apprehension of
the subject. The difficulty, no doubt, chiefly arose from the
imperfect earthly forms under which the prophetic Spirit had
presented it to their view, and from the not unnatural ten
dency in their minds to shape their idea of it too much after
the monarchies and governments of this world, which kept
them from realizing the change in spirit, aim, and administra
tion, involved in the divine character of its Head. But as
soon as the true idea came to be realized, and the kingdom
in its real properties began to take root in the world, as a na
tural result, the phrase paaiAeia TOO 0sou, which gave ex
pression to the idea, became informed, we might say, with a
new meaning, and bore a sense which it were vain to look for
any where but in the writings of the New Testament. Even
there the sense which it bears is not quite uniform; for in a
subject so complex, and branching out into so many interests
and relations, the expression could not fail to be used some
times with more immediate reference to one aspect of the
matter, and sometimes to another. This is clearly the case
in the parables, where a manifold variety is found in the images
employed to represent the kingdom of God, with the view
of presenting under diverse, though perfectly consistent and
harmonious representations, a comprehensive exhibition of
the truth respecting it: some (as in the parable of the mus
tard-seed) pointing more to its growth from small beginnings;
others, (as in the parables of the ten virgins and the husband
man,) to its final issues in evil and good, according to the part
taken on earth by its members; others, again, to its internal
principles of administration, (as the parable of the talents, or
of the labourers in the vineyard;) to its external means and
agencies, with the diversified results springing from them (as
the parables of the sower, the tares and wheat, the fishing-
net;) or to the relation of the members of the kingdom to its
58 THE CHARACTERISTICS OF
Divine Head, and to each other, (as the parable of the unfor
giving servant.) But with all this variety in the use of the
expression, two ideas are never lost sight of, which in truth
form the two most prominent things connected with it, viz.,
those of a Divine king on the one hand, and of human sub
jects on the other the one ordering, providing, directing,
and controlling all; the other, according to the line of con
duct they pursue, receiving at His hand blessing or cursing,
life or death.
If these remarks are kept in view, there will appear no need
for dividing (as Dr. Campbell, for example, does, in his preli
minary Dissertations and Translation of the Gospels) and ren
dering ftaffdsla iCov o ? jpavtov sometimes the reign of heaven,
and sometimes the kingdom of heaven. This is not only un
necessary, but fitted also to mislead; since it gives, whenever
the word reign is used instead of kingdom, only a partial and
imperfect representation of the proper idea. It was one of
the prevailing tendencies of Campbell s mind a mind cer
tainly of great penetration, of remarkable clearness of per
ception, of much philosophical acumen, and singular perspi
cacity in thought and diction partly in consequence of these
very excellencies, it was a tendency in his mind to make pre
cision, rather than fulness of meaning his aim ; and for the
sake of that precision, both in his preliminary Dissertations
and his Notes, he often seizes only a part of the meaning,
couched under a particular phrase or expression, and exhibits
that as the whole. This is, indeed, the most characteristic
and general defect of his work on the Gospels, which, notwith
standing that defect, however, and a few others that might be
named, is well entitled to a perusal. It was the tendency now
referred to which led Dr. Campbell to substitute so often the
word reign for that of the kingdom of heaven, on the ground,
that the expression most commonly relates to that "sort of
dominion," as he terms it, which is understood by the dispen
sation of grace, brought in by the Gospel ; while the phrase,
"kingdom of heaven," he thinks, properly indicates "the state
of perfect felicity to be enjoyed in the world to come." Now,
this is to divide what Scripture seeks to preserve entire, and
NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 59
fixes the mind too exclusively on a part merely of the idea,
which it ought to associate with the expression. It was never
intended that we should think of the Messiah s kingdom as
having to do merely with the inner man, and, for the present,
laying claim only to a sway over the thoughts and affections
of the mind. His kingdom, according to its scriptural idea,
is no more a divided empire, than He is Himself a divided
person. It comprehends the external as well as the internal
although, from having its seat in the latter, it is most fre
quently depicted with special relation to this; but still it com
prehends both, and embraces eternity as well as time though
its condition, now on this side, now on that, may at times be
brought most prominently 
